Update on Texas Board of Education

Our elected school board chairperson responds to email query on Neil Armstrong with suggestion to take it up with the teachers. Considering that certain members from the Houston area on the board consider public education an abomination to God and ironically are on the board to only support only home schooling and the majority would be more comfortable in a private school where truth is let us say, more malleable, I find it incredible the current chair person - who succeeds the guy who uttered the phrase Someone needs to stand up to these experts! in the context of the science in the classroom debate vs. creationism in the classroom can suggest without a giggle to take it up with the teachers that bring ideas to the board by way of the TEA? I wonder if I were to ask any given teacher about who sets content of the textbooks and curriculum? You cannot have it both ways. Leadership is sometimes about leading. People in responsible positions need to behave responsibly. Period. Not sneaking your craptastic agenda into the public domain. You see no one should have to debate this nor should we need to have a discussion on this type of topic. We still have a Constitution?

Meanwhile, my follow-up response went answered. I expect nothing less from such cowards who try to indoctrinate with dogma incessantly. If one path fails, find a proxy to seek another to method to succeed with a thinly veiled agenda. It's a sad day for Texans and liberty.

Hi Gail,

We have not met in person. However, I have had the opportunity to speak to you on a few occasions regarding the science in the class room vs. faith is a private issue best left out of a science class room. As the board did have basic confusion over the essential meaning of the word 'theory' in that specific case, the board has demonstrated that it has lack of understanding of the basics of science. If we do have teachers in our system making such Orwellian suggestions on revising historical context, well - that is truly terrible. If you do not know, the central character in the novel, 1984 had a job. This job was to take historical figures and turn them into 'unpersons' by removing them from any documents or literature because they conflicted with the 'party' agenda. The board should be objective and balanced. It should also have the scruples to discern between nonsense and legitimacy. For that very reason, instead of entertaining such nonsense, the person(s) who suggested it should have been challenged on whom else fails to meet 'these standards' and by what exactly are these? Then apply them universally. Followed up by a review of their own credentials. There has to be some merit. There has to be some standard. I believe the Texas public education received when I exited the system is far stronger than one being offered today and I am in my mid 40s. That should not be the case. We have better tools, better information available, yet our system is falling down. You do have a leadership position on the board? We were taught critical thinking skills. If our teachers and board lack this basic skill - what hope do we have? I expect more. Our kids deserve more. We cannot be forever importing talent into the state while our recently educated students best hope is to get jobs at Wal*Mart because they were ill prepared and non-competitive, beyond being overly prepped on TAKs because our system failed them due to our board being busy with obscure nonsense right out of a fictional book. But it does make sense if your proposing teacher is teaching to the test. Remove info and facts and have a smaller test.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:42 AM,
SBOESUPPORT <sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us>
wrote:

Mr. Best:

I'm not sure we've met before, although you seem quick to blame me for the removal of Neil Armstrong from the social studies curriculum standards. A panel of classroom teachers that was named by the Texas Education Agency to review our standards has recommended the removal of Neil Armstrong, apparently because he is not a "scientist." The State Board of Education has instructed the review panel that we believe Armstrong should remain in our history standards, as his walk on the moon marked a significant contribution to American space exploration. The issue will come back to us for further discussion in November. You might have to ask the teachers of Texas to stop making such embarrassing recommendations to the elected board.

Gail Lowe State Board of Education

Texas Bored of Edukation - Houston Problem? Duh?

These religious nut cases are at it again. Apparently not ever satisfied until everyone subscribes to their ideas of what makes a good society are once again blurring the lines with confusion over whom should be in a 5th grade social studies book regarding the topic of science and scientists. Yes, these are the same mindful people who wanted to be the deciders on what should be in a science book and tackled [once] again the issue of evolution vs. creationism. Never really paying attention to one was science and the other one, well was a belief system and not a science. So now, they want to remove Neil Armstrong from mention because he technically was not a scientist. Well, by that measure neither was Thomas Edison, depending how you define scientist. Are these people to be taken serious? How can we tolerate that our elected officials allow Texas to be the source of ridicule to the rest of the nation and the world? It is just embarrassing. Below is an excerpt from SciGuy Eric Berger.

As part of the process a Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills review team composed of parents and teachers has suggested removing Neil Armstrong from a "science strand" in a 5th grade social studies book. Effectively this would remove the mention of Armstrong has a figure of historical significance from 5th grade textbooks. I asked board spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe why this change was made and she explained: The team said they made this proposal because he was not a scientist. The State Board of Education has not voted for or against that proposal yet. It won't vote on the social studies proposal until January.

I did write a letter to to Gail Lowe. Whom I have spoken to many times. I requested them to stop this nonsense. I suggested they really need to read [or re-read] 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. I also enquired if these two books are still available or if they have banned them? Perhaps, too few members of the board are smarter than a fifth grader? For those of you in Rio Linda, in the book 1984, the government strives to reduce the amount of words available to be used in an effort to force everyone to be politically correct. We would not want these fresh young minds to get dangerous ideas at tender young ages, would we? Freedom is Slavery after all. Plus, just as in 1984, our Board of Education is acting as the Winston Smith character who's job was defined to rewrite actual events to fit the [interpreted] historical narrative to serve the party.

I really laugh at these so-called family values social conservatives. The only difference between them and [social] conservatives in the middle east seems to be attire and geography. The ideology is strikingly similar. Both would be perfectly happy doing a reset of the clock by about 5000 years.

By the way, George Washington said, In no way is the is the United States founded upon the Christian doctrine. Besides, I do not recall Christianity ever proposing or endorsing willful ignorance. That is an invention of foolish men with less than selfless agendas. Get over it.

Darwin, Wallace, Twain and the BoE

In regards to decision to change the big seat at the Texas BoE, I am reminded of Alfred Russel Wallace and a written response by Mark Twain that opinions vary and people do it get wrong. People, even reasonable people, even if they fundamentally agree on core issues can separate company on some core beliefs. Take Wallace and Darwin for example: Wallace approached the theory of evolution in the same era of Charles Darwin and independently proposed his own theory for natural selection. However, even reasonable people have their belief systems and are products of their time, which creates a bias they cannot help but succumb to and which they cannot escape. Such as germ theory vs. vaccines or the Earth being the center of the universe. However, Wallace was a complex person and despite his motives, he sought natural explanation and social justice. Saying this - our collective BoE lacks the fundamental understanding of nature these three enjoyed in the 19th century.

The following is from Mark Twain in response to Alfred Russel Wallace’s revival of the theory that this earth is at the center of the stellar universe, and that the earth, and the universe were made for mankind’s benefit. Twain could not reconcile Wallace's capacity to comprehend the natural order of the Earth, but limiting that order to the Earth.

This is Twain’s written response, in which he begins with a pair of relevant quotes:
“Alfred Russel Wallace’s revival of the theory that this earth is at the center of the stellar universe, and is the only habitable globe, has aroused great interest in the world.” — Literary Digest

“For ourselves we do thoroughly believe that man, as he lives just here on this tiny earth, is in essence and possibilities the most sublime existence in all the range of non-divine being — the chief love and delight of God.” — Chicago “Interior” (Presb.)

I seem to be the only scientist and theologian still remaining to be heard from on this important matter of whether the world was made for man or not. I feel that it is time for me to speak. I stand almost with the others. They believe the world was made for man, I believe it likely that it was made for man; they think there is proof, astronomical mainly, that it was made for man, I think there is evidence only, not proof, that it was made for him. It is too early, yet, to arrange the verdict, the returns are not all in. When they are all in, I think they will show that the world was made for man; but we must not hurry, we must patiently wait till they are all in. Now as far as we have got, astronomy is on our side. Mr. Wallace has clearly shown this. He has clearly shown two things: that the world was made for man, and that the universe was made for the world — to steady it, you know. The astronomy part is settled, and cannot be challenged. We come now to the geological part. This is the one where the evidence is not all in, yet. It is coming in, hourly, daily, coming in all the time, but naturally it comes with geological carefulness and deliberation, and we must not be impatient, we must not get excited, we must be calm, and wait. To lose our tranquility will not hurry geology; nothing hurries geology. It takes a long time to prepare a world for man, such a thing is not done in a day. Some of the great scientists, carefully deciphering the evidences furnished by geology, have arrived at the conviction that our world is prodigiously old, and they may be right, but Lord Kelvin is not of their opinion. He takes a cautious, conservative view, in order to be on the safe side, and feels sure it is not so old as they think. As Lord Kelvin is the highest authority in science now living, I think we must yield to him and accept his view. He does not concede that the world is more than a hundred million years old. He believes it is that old, but not older. Lyell believed that our race was introduced into the world 31,000 years ago, Herbert Spencer makes it 32,000. Lord Kelvin agrees with Spencer. Very well. According to Kelvin’s figures it took 99,968,000 years to prepare the world for man, impatient as the Creator doubtless was to see him and admire him. But a large enterprise like this has to be conducted warily, painstakingly, logically. It was foreseen that man would have to have the oyster. Therefore the first preparation was made for the oyster. Very well, you cannot make an oyster out of whole cloth, you must make the oyster’s ancestor first. This is not done in a day. You must make a vast variety of invertebrates, to start with belemnites, trilobites, jebusites, amalekites, and that sort of fry, and put them to soak in a primary sea, and wait and see what will happen. Some will be a disappointments – the belemnites, the ammonites and such; they will be failures, they will die out and become extinct, in the course of the 19,000,000 years covered by the experiment, but all is not lost, for the amalekites will fetch the home-stake; they will develop gradually into encrinites, and stalactites, and blatherskites, and one thing and another as the mighty ages creep on and the Archaean and the Cambrian Periods pile their lofty crags in the primordial seas, and at last the first grand stage in the preparation of the world for man stands completed, the Oyster is done. An oyster has hardly any more reasoning power than a scientist has; and so it is reasonably certain that this one jumped to the conclusion that the nineteen-million years was a preparation for him; but that would be just like an oyster, which is the most conceited animal there is, except man. And anyway, this one could not know, at that early date, that he was only an incident in a scheme, and that there was some more to the scheme, yet. The oyster being achieved, the next thing to be arranged for in the preparation of the world for man, was fish. Fish, and coal to fry it with. So the Old Silurian seas were opened up to breed the fish in, and at the same time the great work of building Old Red Sandstone mountains 80,000 feet high to cold-storage their fossils in was begun. This latter was quite indispensable, for there would be no end of failures again, no end of extinctions — millions of them — and it would be cheaper and less trouble to can them in the rocks than keep tally of them in a book. One does not build the coal beds and 80,000 feet of perpendicular Old Red Sandstone in a brief time — no, it took twenty million years. In the first place, a coal bed is a slow and troublesome and tiresome thing to construct. You have to grow prodigious forests of tree-ferns and reeds and calamites and such things in a marshy region; then you have, to sink them under out of sight and let them rot; then you have to turn the streams on them, so as to bury them under several feet of sediment, and the sediment must have time to harden and turn to rock; next you must grow another forest on top, then sink it and put on another layer of sediment and harden it; then more forest and more rock, layer upon layer, three miles deep — ah, indeed it is a sickening slow job to build a coal-measure and do it right! So the millions of years drag on; and meantime the fish-culture is lazying along and frazzling out in a way to make a person tired. You have developed ten thousand kinds of fishes from the oyster; and come to look, you have raised nothing but fossils, nothing but extinctions. There is nothing left alive and progressive but a ganoid or two and perhaps half a dozen asteroids. Even the cat wouldn’t eat such. Still, it is no great matter; there is plenty of time, yet, and they will develop into something tasty before man is ready for them. Even a ganoid can be depended on for that, when he is not going to be called on for sixty million years. The Palaeozoic time-limit having now been reached, it was necessary to begin the next stage in the preparation of the world for man, by opening up the Mesozoic Age and instituting some reptiles. For man would need reptiles. Not to eat, but to develop himself from. This being the most important detail of the scheme, a spacious liberality of time was set apart for it — thirty million years. What wonders followed! From the remaining ganoids and asteroids and alkaloids were developed by slow and steady and pains-taking culture those stupendous saurians that used to prowl about the steamy world in those remote ages, with their snaky heads reared forty feet in the air and sixty feet of body and tail racing and thrashing after. All gone, now, alas — all extinct, except the little handful of Arkansawrians left stranded and lonely with us here upon this far-flung verge and fringe of time.

Yes, it took thirty million years and twenty million reptiles to get one that would stick long enough to develop into something else and let the scheme proceed to the next step.Then the Pterodactyl burst upon the world in all his impressive solemnity and grandeur, and all Nature recognized that the Cainozoic threshold was crossed and a new Period open for business, a new stage begun in the preparation of the globe for man. It may be that the Pterodactyl thought the thirty million years had been intended as a preparation for himself, for there was nothing too foolish for a Pterodactyl to imagine, but he was in error, the preparation was for man, Without doubt the Pterodactyl attracted great attention, for even the least observant could see that there was the making of a bird in him. And so it turned out. Also the makings of a mammal, in time. One thing we have to say to his credit, that in the matter of picturesqueness he was the triumph of his Period; he wore wings and had teeth, and was a starchy and wonderful mixture altogether, a kind of long-distance premonitory symptom of Kipling’s marine:

‘E isn’t one O’the reg’lar Line,nor ‘e isn’t one of the crew,‘E’s a kind of a giddy harumfrodite [hermaphrodite] –soldier an’ sailor too!

From this time onward for nearly another thirty million years the preparation moved briskly. From the Pterodactyl was developed the bird; from the bird the kangaroo, from the kangaroo the other marsupials; from these the mastodon, the megatherium, the giant sloth, the Irish elk, and all that crowd that you make useful and instructive fossils out of — then came the first great Ice Sheet, and they all retreated before it and crossed over the bridge at Behring’s strait and wandered around over Europe and Asia and died. All except a few, to carry on the preparation with. Six Glacial Periods with two million years between Periods chased these poor orphans up and down and about the earth, from weather to weather — from tropic swelter at the poles to Arctic frost at the equator and back again and to and fro, they never knowing what kind of weather was going to turn up next; and if ever they settled down anywhere the whole continent suddenly sank under them without the least notice and they had to trade places with the fishes and scramble off to where the seas had been, and scarcely a dry rag on them; and when there was nothing else doing a volcano would let go and fire them out from wherever they had located. They led this unsettled and irritating life for twenty-five million years, half the time afloat, half the time aground, and always wondering what it was all for, they never suspecting, of course, that it was a preparation for man and had to be done just so or it wouldn’t be any proper and harmonious place for him when he arrived. And at last came the monkey, and anybody could see that man wasn’t far off, now. And in truth that was so. The monkey went on developing for close upon 5,000,000 years, and then turned into a man – to all appearances. Such is the history of it. Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world’s age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man’s share of that age; and anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would, I dunno.