Texas State Board of Education approves Bible course for high schools

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Texas State Board of Education approves Bible course for high schools | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Latest News

Texas State Board of Education approves Bible course for high schools

AUSTIN – The State Board of Education on Friday gave final approval to a rule establishing an elective Bible course for high schools, but the panel rejected the arguments of some members and key lawmakers – and left it up to local school districts to design the classes.

Board members approved the new class to be offered in high schools beginning this fall although state officials are still awaiting an opinion from the attorney general on whether the state law authorizing the course requires all school districts to make it available to students.

Among those who urged the board to issue specific guidelines for the class was Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, who helped write the 2007 law. Mr. Hochberg warned that without specific guidance from the state, some schools would run afoul of the First Amendment requirement of religious neutrality for such classes.

"Let's go forward and do this right and not let the lawyers tell us what we have to do," Mr. Hochberg asked the board, citing the possibility of lawsuits if all school districts design their own courses.

"My interest is keeping the focus on teaching kids and spending less money on lawsuits."

His position was backed by other members of the House Public Education Committee, which drafted the law.

But a majority of board members, including all seven aligned with social conservatives, said they preferred to adopt a general rule now and not get into the specifics of what will be taught in the classes.

"It's better for us to go ahead and do something now," said board member Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond. "We have met the requirements of the legislation. We don't want to stifle what they (school districts) are doing in classrooms."

The rule was adopted on a 10-5 vote, which allows the course to be put in place in high schools for the 2008-09 school year. If there had been less than a two-thirds vote, the course would have been delayed until the fall of 2009.

Attorney General Greg Abbott has told the board that while the state standards for the Bible class appear to be in compliance with the First Amendment, his office can't guarantee that the courses taught in high schools will be constitutional because they haven't been reviewed.

Critics contend that the board standards for the course are so vague and general that many schools might unknowingly create unconstitutional Bible classes that either promote the religious views of teachers or disparage the religious beliefs of some students.

Earlier this year, the Ector County school board agreed to quit using a Bible course curriculum at two high schools in Odessa that the American Civil Liberties Union said promoted Protestant religious beliefs not shared by Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and many Protestants.

Continued...

I think the ACLU is right about this one. I have no problem with religion being taught in public schools in a historical context, but to single out a specific belief is just asking for abuse by the teachers. They should cover many holy books, not just teach their view of protestantism. To single out one specific religious belief seems too much like it has the possibility of indoctrination, no matter how noble their intentions are at the outset. The class should be completely agnostic on the subject and teach children only what is in these books, not if it is true or not; I really don't have a problem with religion taught in classes if it keeps this in mind and teaches all of the major religions.

I can't help but sense an ulterior motive in Texas when they are so bothered by Evolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us...ml?ref=opinion
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

Texas State Board of Education approves Bible course for high schools | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Latest News



I think the ACLU is right about this one. I have no problem with religion being taught in public schools in a historical context, but to single out a specific belief is just asking for abuse by the teachers. They should cover many holy books, not just teach their view of protestantism. To single out one specific religious belief seems too much like it has the possibility of indoctrination, no matter how noble their intentions are at the outset. The class should be completely agnostic on the subject and teach children only what is in these books, not if it is true or not; I really don't have a problem with religion taught in classes if it keeps this in mind and teaches all of the major religions.

I can't help but sense an ulterior motive in Texas when they are so bothered by Evolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us...ml?ref=opinion
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html

I don't see anything wrong with them just teaching the bible. If there is interest let them have classes on the other religions major books. I don't know how it would be taught though,as literary, fiction or non fiction,or by its judical, psychcological, historical,and moral impact on western civilization.

[up|dn]

Call me cynical, but this will never be an objective course on the Bible and there's just too much potential for abuse. Religious people are going to be offended by a secular look at religion, and secular people are going to be offended by a religious perspective.

This stuff should be saved for universities, where people choose which courses they take.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by up|dn

Call me cynical, but this will never be an objective course on the Bible and there's just too much potential for abuse. Religious people are going to be offended by a secular look at religion, and secular people are going to be offended by a religious perspective.

This stuff should be saved for universities, where people choose which courses they take.

I tend to agree. The best way and only way to objectively do it in the High School would be a look at all world religions from a historical perspective. The "Bible Class" idea just seems like a backlash from the religious right against their losses in the science curriculum (creationism, intelligent design debates), pushing their agenda in a different way. Like what is outlined in the article, the school board left out specifics to be taught, which I think is recipe for subjective religious instruction down the road. I don't see why religion is so important when our children are already doing poorly in subjects that actually matter, like English, math, science, geography and history.

[7960]

Originally Posted by up|dn

Call me cynical, but this will never be an objective course on the Bible and there's just too much potential for abuse. Religious people are going to be offended by a secular look at religion, and secular people are going to be offended by a religious perspective.

This stuff should be saved for universities, where people choose which courses they take.

exactly. well said.

[WickedLou9]

Good things: It's an elective that kids have to choose to take. It's not being forced on them.

Bad Things: It's the only religion course? They should offer a course on world religions too.

[JaJae]

I have no problem with this as long as it is an elective. They should expand the program and include more religions as Lou had said.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

More TX school board news:
The Austin Chronicle: News: Texas Fiction Science: The State Board of Education does its part to fantasize biology

Texas Fiction Science

The State Board of Education does its part to fantasize biology

BY ANDREA GRIMES

There's nothing the evil overlords of the fictional future like more than a nice, healthy round of brainwashing. Whether it's George Orwell's totalitarian government of Oceania thwarting rebellious citizens in 1984, the "conditioning" of children in Brave New World, or the large-scale human reprogramming in The Matrix, mind control is all the rage for governments looking to cultivate a herd of submissive subjects. And it's so simple, too! All that's necessary are a few moldable minds and a strict party line.


But here's a bit of nonfiction: The Texas State Board of Education has just those two things. Moldable minds, in the form of Texas schoolchildren, and a party line that favors teaching the "weaknesses" of biological evolutionary theory and, by implication, the strengths of the latest pseudo-scholarly variation on creationism: "intelligent design." Last fall, in the latest episode of that eternal Texas struggle, the Texas Education Agency, which is regulated by the SBOE, fired its science director for distributing information about a pro-evolution seminar. And now, the SBOE is beginning hearings on updated science curricula that teaches the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theory.


It's the latest in an ever-evolving effort by religious conservatives to discredit evolution after efforts to explicitly incorporate intelligent design have repeatedly failed. Lessons in Weak Evolution could be coming to a Texas public school near you by March 2009.

McLeroy vs. Biology

The first of several hearings on the science curricula updates occurred July 17 and 18, with this first meeting dedicated only to the delicate bureaucratic process of planning on how to plan those updates. According to SBOE chair and College Station dentist Dr. Don McLeroy, this year's "battle is to bring in some of the weaknesses of evolution," to ninth- and 10th-grade biology classrooms, retaining language requiring that teachers instruct students in the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. But according to the Texas Freedom Network, a statewide organization that works to mitigate the influence of fundamentalism on state policy, it's really just one singular theory that gets the critical treatment.


"The only theory they attack is evolution," said Dan Quinn, Texas Freedom Network's communications director. Heliocentricity, gravitational theory, and atomic structure all get the SBOE thumbs-up. Indeed, despite clearly worded endorsements of evolution's validity as scientific fact from the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Science Teachers Association of Texas, and countless other scientific groups, McLeroy and six other conservative members of the 15-member SBOE remain unconvinced.


"I don't think the evidence supports [evolution]," said McLeroy, a self-described creationist who believes that because "science is always trying to find problems with stuff," evolution should not be presented as absolute fact. In McLeroy's opinion, there are three major weaknesses of evolutionary theory that schoolchildren should be made aware of. He arrived at these conclusions by "reading everything [he] could get [his] hands on" and listening to podcasts.


First weakness: the fossil record. "There are gaps," said McLeroy, that do not include enough transitional forms of life to support evolution. Second, McLeroy says there has simply not been enough time on Earth for the minute changes required by evolution to have taken place. Thirdly, McLeroy says the incredible complexity of cells proves divine design. Information contained in the genetic code is just too mind-blowing to have come from anywhere but an intelligent creator. "Where did this information come from?" McLeroy mused. McLeroy would like to see these assertions and more taught in Texas biology classrooms.


I asked University of Texas integrative biology professor David Hillis, a member of the National Academy of
Sciences, about McLeroy's list of "weaknesses." In an e-mail exchange, Hillis said McLeroy was simply denying facts. "There is indeed a vast record of transitional fossils," wrote Hillis, saying McLeroy's fossil record claims are "completely at odds with the experts in the entire field of paleontology."


As for McLeroy's second assertion regarding length of time required for evolution to have taken place, Hillis wrote that the position "demonstrates an extraordinary ignorance of biology," since rates of evolution observed in laboratory tests have been "more than sufficient" to prove natural rates of genetic change that coincide with the fossil record.


Finally, McLeroy's cell-complexity argument does not even belong in a scientific discussion, wrote Hillis: "The argument that 'It is too complicated, so God must have done it' is not a scientific argument."


And yet it appears that, all evidence to the contrary, evolution may still soon be taught in Texas as a weak theory. Since the SBOE has a near majority of anti-evolution members, the small problem of evolution actually being demonstrable scientific knowledge is only a political challenge to those who want schoolchildren taught otherwise.


Continued: The Austin Chronicle: News: Texas Fiction Science: The State Board of Education does its part to fantasize biology

The Texas SBOE has members that are completely ignorant of science, as evidence by McLeroy's statements, and are determined to try to push their own agenda into the curriculum. Does anyone seriously think the Bible class won't be used religiously while the science classroom is used to debunk established scientific theories because of the religious views of the board? They're just trying to make it look more benign so there isn't another repeat of Kitzmiller v. Dover.

[WickedLou9]

Part of the problem with our education system is that local boards of education have too much power. These are people who often have no background in education, they have no knowledge on the subjects that they make decisions on. They won some local popularity contest and they start making decisions that effect the education of 1000's of students. Thier power should be limited to budget issues and that's it. Leave curriculum decisions to the people with "PhD in education" after thier names please.

[WickedLou9]

This sort of anti-academic religous movement is pretty scary IMO. It's also regional it seems. The north east hasn't really fallen into that sort of mindset as much as the south and mid-west has. That's going to create two seperate cultures in the US. You will have the "ivory tower liberals" in the north east and the redneck religous nuts in the south and midwest. CA is just crazy, I don't know where they fit in.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Part of the problem with our education system is that local boards of education have too much power. These are people who often have no background in education, they have no knowledge on the subjects that they make decisions on. They won some local popularity contest and they start making decisions that effect the education of 1000's of students. Thier power should be limited to budget issues and that's it. Leave curriculum decisions to the people with "PhD in education" after thier names please.

some of the biggest idiots I met in education had PhD after their name.

"local boards have too much power"..........so you want the feds controlling curriculum?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

some of the biggest idiots I met in education had PhD after their name.

"local boards have too much power"..........so you want the feds controlling curriculum?

. Why do you always assume I want the federal government to control everything? I swear that is how you respond to everything I post, and every time I have to correct you.
No, I want people who are qualified, local people, to have control over the curriculum.

I'm sure there are a few "idiots" with PhD's, but as the saying goes, the race goes not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong... but that's the way to bet. I would rather that we had a group of well qualified individuals who are experts in thier field creating the curriculum. Even if there might be a few idiots here and there. Better than a group of people with no idea what they are doing, idiots included.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Part of the problem with our education system is that local boards of education have too much power. These are people who often have no background in education, they have no knowledge on the subjects that they make decisions on.

That is especially the case with the science classrooms. You had the Kansas school board try to redefine "science" back in 2005 to try to fit religion into it, but such a redefining would also add alchemy and astrology to science classrooms (news link). Most of those people, for instance in the Dover, PA school board back in 2005, are in need of an education in science themselves. So how can they actually choose what an appropriate curriculum for the students would be?

What Happens When a School Board of Religious Zealots Will 'Lie for Jesus'? | Media and Technology | AlterNet

Leave curriculum decisions to the people with "PhD in education" after thier names please.

I've known quite world-renown professors to go before local school boards and testify for or against changes. Steven Weinberg and Laurence Krauss are two examples that I know off the top of my head, given that I follow them closely because they are physicists.

[WickedLou9]

The way I see it, the Board of Ed should be like the accounting department in corporation. You have various groups of people who are close to many different areas of the company. These people submit requests to accounting for various items. New equipment, additional hiring, etc. The accounting reviews and approves or denies these requests based on budgetary contraints. That's it. The board of ed should get requests for new teachers, new administrators, books, computers, etc. They should approve or deny these requests based on the availability of funds. They should negotiate with the teachers unions about contracts and benefits. They should have very little direct involvement with the actual courses that are being taught, the specific books that are used, etc. They simply don't have the expertise ( in general ) to make those decisions. It would be like hiring an engineer to run a marketing campaign. It makes no sense. The accountants don't tell the marketing people what color to make the ads.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

. Why do you always assume I want the federal government to control everything? I swear that is how you respond to everything I post, and every time I have to correct you.
No, I want people who are qualified, local people, to have control over the curriculum.

when you say local people have too much power in a thread about local and state controlled education boards fucking up, the next logical step is to assume you want to go one higher...that's the feds.

I'm sure there are a few "idiots" with PhD's, but as the saying goes, the race goes not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong... but that's the way to bet. I would rather that we had a group of well qualified individuals who are experts in thier field creating the curriculum. Even if there might be a few idiots here and there. Better than a group of people with no idea what they are doing, idiots included.

when I taught I created all my curriculum. The town wasn't involved, the state was barely involved...I did it all. Like someone pointed out above, it seems the south (bible belt) is where this shit mostly happens. But then again it happened in Merrimack NH when creationists got elected to teh school board and tried to push their ideology on teachers. Of course teachers ignored them and taught what they were teaching all along. In places other than the bible belt, do these boards of education actually do anything?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

when you say local people have too much power in a thread about local and state controlled education boards fucking up, the next logical step is to assume you want to go one higher...that's the feds.

when I taught I created all my curriculum. The town wasn't involved, the state was barely involved...I did it all. Like someone pointed out above, it seems the south (bible belt) is where this shit mostly happens. But then again it happened in Merrimack NH when creationists got elected to teh school board and tried to push their ideology on teachers. Of course teachers ignored them and taught what they were teaching all along. In places other than the bible belt, do these boards of education actually do anything?

I said that the local BOARD OF ED has too much power. You just like to think that I am a socialist.

And I am glad to hear that atleast some places have it right, or atleast mostly right.

Honestly I'd like to see us totally eliminate local boards of education all together. They seem like just one more layer of government beurocracy to me. Why do they need to exist? The town has a budget and a controllers office and such. It seems unnecesary.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I said that the local BOARD OF ED has too much power. You just like to think that I am a socialist.

oh, I know you're a socialist. i wasn't thinking that because of anything in this thread though.

Honestly I'd like to see us totally eliminate local boards of education all together. ...... It seems unnecesary.

I agree.

but then again I'm probably running for the local BoE vacancy at the next election