State Board of Education Approves Science Standards Supporting Evolution

Overturning a controversial standard enacted twenty years ago, the Texas State Board of Education on Thursday dealt a huge blow to creationists by striking down requirements in the science curriculum standards to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. The board apparently was persuaded by a panel of science educators who argued that the existing standard misrepresents the debate over the mechanisms of evolution to falsely imply that scientific consensus on the theory does not exist.

The "strengths and weaknesses" argument was added to the Texas science curriculum in the eighties due to pressure from religious conservatives. Today's tie vote of 7-7 narrowly repudiates the anti-science wing of the state board, led by home-schooler and Republican ringleader David Bradley.

The Texas Freedom Network's live blog has a rundown of the day's votes. On a key amendment, the following members, all Republicans, voted in favor of teaching the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution: Barbara Cargill, Ken Mercer, Cynthia Dunbar, Don McLeroy, Gail Lowe, Terri Leo and David Bradley.

Voting against the amendment were Mary Berlanga, Mavis Knight, Rick Agosto, and Lawrence Allen, all Democrats. In addition, Republicans Bob Craig, Pat Hardy and Geraldine Miller had the fortitude to buck the Republican leadership by also voting against the amendment. Rene Nunez (D- El Paso) was absent for the first vote but voted against a second, similar amendment introduced later in the proceedings.

Gail Lowe, representing Denton's own district 14, is quoted in the proceedings as saying, “There is no one opinion from science teachers or from science experts.” Actually, within the scientific community there is universal consensus on the validity of evolution. Read this statement from the National Academy of Sciences:

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science [...] Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. [...]

No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course [...] Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modern life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.

The news was not all good. Two amendments pushed by the religious conservatives on the board managed to squeak through. One calls into question the "common descent" theory of evolution, and the second opens the door to the "young earth" fanatics by encouraging challenges to theories regarding “the structure, scale, composition, origin and history of the universe.”

The fight is not over. A second vote is scheduled for Friday, and the final vote on science standards is scheduled for March.

Will the Texas State Board of Education Oppose Teaching ID?

Lightseeker at Texas Kaos takes heart in a Houston Chronicle article assessing the views of the Texas State Board of Education members on the teaching of evolution versus intelligent design in the schools. The board is scheduled to revise the science curriculum in the 2007-2008 calendar, and many expect proponents of intelligent design to launch an aggressive campaign to include the teaching of ID in the classroom.

First the good news:

In Interviews with The Dallas Morning News, 10 of the board's 15 members said they wouldn't support requiring the teaching of intelligent design. One board member said she was open to the idea. Four board members didn't respond to the newspaper's phone calls.....

Other board members who said they believe the curriculum should continue to include evolution and not be changed to accommodate intelligent design were: Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, R-Dallas; Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands; Gail Lowe, R-Lampasas; Bob Craig, R-Lubbock; Mavis Knight, D-Dallas; Rick Agosto, D-San Antonio; Lawrence Allen, D-Houston; and Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi.

Note that Gail Lowe, who calls herself a creationist, represents District 14, including Denton County.

And then there is this reassuring quote.

"Creationism and intelligent design don't belong in our science classes," said Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, who described himself as a creationist. "Anything taught in science has to have consensus in the science community and intelligent design does not."

It's reassuring, because McElroy's appointment last month by Governor Rick Perry kicked up a firestorm of protest over concerns that he was an anti-science, religious ideologue. We should take McElroy's quote to mean that evolution will be taught in our public schools according to scientific consensus, right?

Maybe not. Here's another quote from the Houston Chron article by McLeroy.

McLeroy, R-College Station, said he doesn't want to change the existing requirement that evolution be taught in high school biology classes. But he joined several of his colleagues in arguing that biology textbooks should cover the weaknesses of the theory of evolution [emphasis added].

The Texas Freedom Network highlighted a speech McLeroy delivered to the Grace Bible Church in 2005.

McLeroy recounted the controversy over teaching evolution during the State Board of Education’s adoption of new biology textbooks in 2003. McLeroy was one of only four members on the 15-member panel who voted to reject the textbooks. Those four members argued that the textbooks failed to discuss what they called the “weaknesses” of evolutionary theory. They were backed by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization that opposes evolution and promotes “intelligent design” as an alternative. McLeroy said:

“It was only the four really conservative, orthodox Christians on the board [who] were willing to stand up to the textbooks and say they don’t present the weaknesses of evolution. Amazing."

So don't think for one minute that Perry appointed McLeroy to be chairman of the board with the concession that he not advocate his views on creationism. The "weaknesses" argument is code for ID, which in turn is creationism wrapped up in enough jargon to make a claim that it passes scientific muster. It doesn't, but that's for another post.

TFN leaves us with this warning.

In the 2006 elections, religious conservatives increased their numbers on the state board to eight – a majority. The board is currently overhauling all public school curriculum standards. The board is scheduled to take up revisions to science standards – including standards dealing with evolution – in 2007-08.

Even Lightseeker warns us to "pay attention, even while celebrating this , apparent, step forward."

Covenant marriage bill introduced by Arlington legislator

An op-ed in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram begins with this commentary about a proposed bill, introduced by state Rep. Bill Zedler, R-Arlington, to allow couples to opt into a covenant marriage.

From the party of less goverment comes the latest initiative emblematic of a nanny state: covenant marriage.

The Texas Republican Party adopted as part of its platform the establishment of a covenant marriage option in the Lone Star State.

Arlington state Rep. Bill Zedler stepped forward as the point man on the issue when he filed a bill this week that would allow couples to opt into such a marriage by attending state-paid premarital counseling. Should the union turn sour — as defined by adultery, physical or sexual abuse, felony conviction, or living separately for at least three years — couples would have to attend counseling and go through a two-year separation before a judge could hear the divorce case.

Zedler and the proponents of covenant marriage have worthy goals: strengthening families and stemming the divorce rate in Texas, which is 4.1 per 1,000 population. Premarital and pre-divorce counseling in a nation in which 40 percent of all unions end in a split is a capital idea.

But is it an idea that every Texas taxpayer should be underwriting?

Well, no. And that was the conclusion the legislature came to the last time this concept was introduced. The FWST editorial gives several good reasons why the legislature should not be wasting their time again on such a bill, including the extremely low rate of participation in states where covenant marriages are already law. The Texas Freedom Network highlights some others, including the fact that covenant marriage is dangerous to victims of domestic violence.

Ironically, the representative who prevented its introduction to the floor was another Arlington legislator, out-going vice chair of the House Committee on Juvenile Justice & Family Issues, Rep. Toby Goodman, who was defeated in November by Democrat Paul Hightower Pierson. Said Goodman, a divorce attorney, of his reasons for quashing the bill:

"I think they were misguided. I think they were filed for political reasons,"Goodman said.

"You cannot legislate marital bliss."

Leininger's Edgewood Myth

Dr. James Leininger has been getting some bad press lately, what with the brouhaha over the primaries and all, so he decided to come clean. In the June issue of Texas Monthly, Evan Smith interviews the elusive "sugar daddy" of the Republican party. Turns out he's just a kindly old grandpa with some money and a deep love of children. And the first line of the article reveals that this reclusive man initiated the interview:

It's rare for you to talk to the press, yet your office approached TEXAS MONTHLY about doing this interview. Why now?

The issue at hand, which is school choice for poor children in the inner cities of Texas, is much more important than my personal preference.

The primary races were a mixed blessing for Dr. Leininger. Now he's taking his message directly to the public. That would be the same public that repeatedly has refused to support public funding of private school vouchers. Maybe they just don't realize what an effective tool vouchers are.

The critics of voucher programs insist that they're an incentive for kids to flee public schools. That's not a fair criticism?

No, it's not.We offered a scholarship to every child in Edgewood. It was among the poorest-performing school districts. More than 90 percent of its students were classified as economically disadvantaged. Its dropout rate exceeded 40 percent. And it had a high teen pregnancy rate. Any way you look at it, it was the worst school district around, and still, only 12.5 percent of the student chose to leave. And the ones who stayed benefited greatly, because the public schools so dramatically improved. Let me tell you what happened in Edgewood. In 1996 they had two schools that were ranked "low performing" [the lowest classification by the Texas Education Agency], and the district had the next-to-lowest
classification, which is "academically acceptable." Two years after our program started, they had no failing schools, and they were a "recognized" district for the first time in history.

Wow, pretty impressive. Except not everyone agrees with that assessment. Kathy Miller, of the Texas Freedom Network has this analysis of the Edgewood turn-around.

Of course, Leininger has spent millions of dollars over the past decade trying to buy a Legislature that will pass a voucher scheme. In 1998 he even began funding a pilot voucher program in San Antonio's Edgewood Independent School District. Schools in Edgewood, one of the state's poorest districts, have improved over the past decade. But that progress began long before the voucher program was in place. In 1993, the Legislature moved to equalize funding between poor and wealthy school districts. According to Texas Education Agency records, Edgewood had nine "low-performing" schools that year. By 1997, Edgewood no longer had any "low-performing" schools. Two schools had even managed a to earn a "recognized" rating. That was a year before the Leininger-funded voucher program was created.

You have to wonder if Leininger ever really understood the challenges faced by Edgewood's students. If he cared, he would ask the teachers and parents of students who attended schools there. He would learn about the crumbling buildings, overcrowded classrooms, poorly paid teachers and the lack of library and technology resources before school funding was equalized. Challenges remain, to be sure, but they are not so steep as before 1993. Leininger, however, arrogantly declares the solution to such challenges is to take millions of dollars from neighborhood public schools to subsidize private and religious schools. To most Texans, that's nonsense, which is why the Legislature has refused year after year to pass a voucher program.

And some parents at Edgewood have also weighed in:

Last week [Feb. 2003] , a couple of hundred parents from Edgewood ISD in San Antonio visited the Capitol to lobby legislators on behalf of public schools....

The Edgewood folks have more reason than most Texans to be suspicious of vouchers, since they were the initial target of the anti-public-education lobby working to establish a statewide voucher program. Beginning in 1998, the private Children's Education Opportunity Foundation's Horizon program (underwritten primarily by fundamentalist tycoon James Leininger, though he's put in only half as much as initially promised) has been offering private school "scholarships" to students who agree to leave the Edgewood schools. Since Texas school funding is based on the number of students enrolled, every student who leaves costs the district money -- while leaving its fixed costs largely unaltered. The district is 95% Hispanic and 97% "economically disadvantaged" -- i.e., underpaid working people. Thanks to Leininger's targeted "philanthropy," the district estimates it lost $4 million in the first year, and possibly as much as $7 million this year.

But the parents weren't here to talk only about money. They made it clear they believe strongly in public schools, and some had rejoined the fold after being burned by Leininger's vouchers. A mother of four, Gloria Zapata, said she discovered that the private school she tried didn't have the standard programs -- tutoring, after-school care -- taken for granted and free at Edgewood, and that her children were not being fully prepared for high school. Ritabel Garza learned that the private school would not accept her child with special needs ("It's not our choice, it's the school's choice") and that the teachers in the "nondenominational" school were in fact teaching fundamentalist doctrine. "I made a big mistake," Zapata said.

Edgewood ISD Supt. Luis Gonzalez ...asked simply, "If we can't fund public schools, how can we fund private ones?"

Dr. Leininger wisely decided not to make school vouchers an issue during the special session. The primaries may not have been an unqualified success, but with every election, his influence within the legislature grows. We're happy to see him stop hiding behind the shell game of PACs and finally speak his mind.

Politics and Religion in the Lone Star State - a Texas Freedom Network Report

Vince at Capitol Annex highlights the first of what promises to be an annual report from the Texas Freedom Network: The State of the Religious Right: 2006. The sixty page report is fascinating, and worth a careful read, but what caught my eye was Chapter Two, "James Leininger: Sugar Daddy of the Religious Right."

The religious right's takeover of the Republican Party of Texas in the 1990s succeeded largely through the efforts of legions of grassroots foot soldiers who began their campaign at the precinct level. Yet it has taken money - a lot of it - to solidify that control and push a hard-right political agenda in the halls of Texas government. No other political donor on the religious right has been more important to that effort than Dr. James Leininger.....

Since the 1990's, for example, tens of thousands of dollars have flowed from Dr. Leininger and political action committees he has funded into the campaigns of social conservatives seeking seats on the State Board of Education (SBOE)....

As a result, pitched battles over controversial social issues now overshadow the board's primary responsibility to ensure that text books confirm to basic curriculum standards. Indeed, social conservatives on the board continue to use debates over textbook adoptions - in courses such as health, literature, history and science - to press campaigns against homosexuality, sex education, the theory of evolution and other demons of the religious right.

A list of PACs founded or backed by Leininger include: Texans for Justice, Texans for Judicial Integrity, the Committee for Governmental Integrity, Entertainment PAC, Texans for Governmental Integrity, and one that played an important part in the Republican primary and run-off elections for State Representative District Seat 63, The Future of Texas Alliance.

During the March 2006 primary election campaign, Dr. Leininger poured more than $2.3 million into just two new political action committees, the Texas Republican Legislation Campaign Committee and the Future of Texas Alliance. His contributions accounted for all but a tiny fraction of each PAC's receipt. Those PAC's then spent that money to support challenges to five anti-voucher Republican incumbent House members as well as pro-voucher incumbents who were trying to fight off challenges from advocates for public schools.

Dr. Leininger succeeded in knocking off just two anti-voucher Republicans in the primary.

Many pro-education groups interpreted the weak showing of Leininger-backed candidates as a sign that the tide is turning in favor of moderates in the education debate. Unfortunately for Denton County, one of Leininger's targets was Anne Lakusta, who lost to Tan Parker in an incredibly close run-off election, losing by just 48 votes. According to the news reports, Lakusta's name recognition and school board experience fell to Parker's superior fund-raising. The majority of Parker's contributions came from donors outside the county, including Leininger, whose Future of Texas Alliance gave a $8,025 in-kind contribution used for research.

For the six degrees of separation of James Leininger, check out the TFN's web of influence chart. Other chapters in the report cover God's Own Party, the Texas Restoration Project and David Barton.