21st Century Science Coalition: Contact the State Board of Education
Katherine Kelly
Dear CSPS:
Latest news about the Evolution controversy, this time from the 21st Century Science Coalition. This long email can be speed read; look for the action steps in first few paragraphs.
Kate for CSPS Board
*********************
The
Texas State Board of Education is considering several changes to the
state science curriculum that will undermine effective coverage of
evolution in high school biology classes. Proposed anti-evolution
language will also put pressure on textbook publishers to incorporate
creationist criticisms of evolution or else risk being excluded from
the monolithic Texas textbook market.
Education board members
are receiving thousands of emails from creationists supporting the
current curriculum draft. To keep scientifically unfounded arguments
out of our schools' biology classes, we need help from each and every
one of you. Please email the 15 members of the State Board and urge
them to
(1) adopt the scientifically sound curriculum standards drafted by a working group of teachers and scientists in December, and
(2) reject amendments to these standards that have been proposed by anti-evolution members of the State Board of Education.
Below,
we provide instructions on how to contact State Board of Education
members. Although we include a form letter, we encourage you to
personalize your email. To provide some context, we have also provided
a succinct explanation of the current status of curriculum revision in
Texas at the end of this email.
Sincerely,
The 21st Century Science Coalition (www.texasscientists.org)
Dr. D.I. Bolnick, University of Texas at Austin
Dr. R.E. Duhrkopf, Baylor University
Dr. D. Hillis, University of Texas at Austin
Dr. B. Pierce, Southwestern University
Dr. S. Sarkar, University of Texas at Austin
PS
If you know of colleagues who have not yet signed the 21st Century
Science Coalition statement, please forward them this e-mail or direct
them to www.texasscientists.org.
What you can do to help
Please
email members of the State Board of Education, encouraging them to
adopt the original draft of the standards proposed by working groups in
December.
You can email the entire SBOE directly at sboe...@tea.state.tx.us.
Here is a template for an email to the SBOE (we encourage you to personalize this):
To the Texas State Board of Education,
As
a scientist and active researcher and educator, I am writing to urge
you to support sound science education in Texas. In particular, I
request that you adopt the Biology and Earth Sciences TEKS draft as
originally proposed by the Working Groups. These working groups are
composed of educators and scientists with deep expertise in science,
and their proposed TEKS drafts should be given unreserved support
without amendment.
In particular, I object to the recent changes
made to the high school TEKS (subchapter C) section 112.34 (c) 7.B:
"analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common
ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential
nature of groups in the fossil record;" This language inaccurately
insinuates that the fossil record supports long-standing creationist
arguments that existing species were created as they exist today. The
present wording is misleading. I also object to changes to section
112.36 (c) 8.A, which now read: "evaluate a variety of fossil types,
proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil
deposits and assess the arguments for and against universal common
descent in light of this fossil evidence" ; Transitional fossils are
not "proposed" - they are clearly documented based on detailed
anatomical measurements. Also, the phrase "arguments for and against
universal common descent" is a common creationist phrase that
inaccurately suggests that there is credible scientific data arguing
against common ancestry.
In conclusion, please revert to the
original working group version of the science TEKS, and resist
additional changes that are not approved by the working groups of
scientists and educators.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
YOUR QUALIFICATIONS
YOUR AFFILIATION/POSITION
____________________________________________________
Some suggestions for emailing the SBOE
1. You can specify in your email to sboe...@tea.state.tx.us
that you wish your message to reach particular SBOE members. It may
help if you take advantage of this and vary your tone depending on
which members you are writing to. For instance, the science supporters
on the board [Bob Craig; Mary Helen Berlanga; Pat Hardy; Rene Nunez;
Mavis Knight] cast difficult votes to support evolution in the TEKS,
and are being hammered by angry emails from creationists. When emailing
these members, please be sure to thank these five for their consistent
support of the science standards AS WRITTEN BY THE WORKING GROUPS, and
urge them to continue to oppose amendments to the standards or efforts
to revert to problematic language that would weaken science education
in Texas. Be supportive rather than critical. This also holds for the
swing voters Rick Agosto; Lawrence Allen; Geraldine Miller - who voted
for good evolution standards in the first round of voting. We don't
want to antagonize them. However, the swing voters may require more
detailed explanations to convince them.
2. If you personalize
your email, keep in mind that the strongest message is that sound
science standards are needed to ensure that Texas schoolchildren get a
21st century science education, not an education based on ideology and
the personal beliefs of some board members. The board members should
stick to the draft proposed by the working groups.
3. The
seven-member pro-creationist bloc: Barbara Cargill, Cynthia Dunbar, Don
McLeroy , Gail Lowe, Ken Mercer, Terri Leo, David Bradley. These 7 are
unlikely to listen to reason. If you want to write them anyway, you
might want to look at the creationist website for the Explore Evolution
textbook, or visit the pro-science website http://www.teachthemscience.org/ee
to see some examples of common creationist claims and
counter-arguments. Claims made in "Explore Evolution" are routinely
cited by these creationist board members. If you feel really motivated,
maybe pick one favorite creationist argument (e.g., the lack of
transitional fossils, the Cambrian Explosion, fabrication of Haekel's
embryological drawings, Piltdown Man, separation of micro- versus
macro-evolution, etc.) and show why it does not disprove evolution.
Specific citations to peer-reviewed research (or better yet, pdfs of
research papers, or figures presenting data illustrating evolution)
might make an impression.
____________________________________________________
What else can you do to help out?
1. Forward this email to friends and colleagues, in Texas and beyond.
2.
Sign up to testify at the March 25 SBOE hearing in Austin, which will
begin at noon. For more information about signing up to testify, please
visit: www.teachthemscience.org/texas or www.tfn.org. These sites will post information once it is clear what you need to do sign up.
3. If you are a scientist within the state of Texas:
a)
Join the list of scientists supporting good evolution education, by
signing the petition at the 21st Century Science Coalition (www.texasscientists.org). If you signed previously and do not see your name, please email danbo...@mail.utexas.edu.
b) Remember to vote in SBOE elections and encourage friends to do likewise.
c) Write Op-Ed essays for your local newspapers.
4. Join the National Center for Science Education, or the Texas Freedom Network.
For more information, visit:
Teach Them Science
21st Century Science Coalition
Texas Freedom Network
Texas Citizens for Science
____________________________________________________
History and current status of the curriculum revisions
The
State Board of Education (SBOE) is currently revising the Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards. These standards
dictate what students are supposed to be taught in K-12 science
classrooms, what can be on standardized state tests, and what textbooks
will have to include to be considered for adoption.
A proposed
draft of the new TEKS standards was produced in late fall 2008 by a
working group of highly qualified teachers and scientists. The draft
was rigorous and effectively reflected the views of scientists and
educators. Of particular note, the draft changed standard 3(A) from its
previous 20-year-old version:
(3) The student uses critical thinking and scientific problem solving to make informed decisions. The student is expected to:
(A) analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including
hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using
scientific evidence and information;
to a new wording:
(3)
The student uses critical thinking, scientific reasoning and problem
solving to make informed decisions within and outside the classroom.
The student is expected to:
(A) analyze and evaluate scientific
explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and
experimental and observational testing;
We prefer the new
wording because it more closely reflects the process of evaluating
scientific data. Furthermore, the term 'weaknesses' is often used by
anti-evolutionists to refer to repeatedly refuted claims about the
incomplete fossil record, sudden appearance of species, irreducible
complexity, which are meant to imply that evolution has not happened at
all. In particular, there was concern that the 'weaknesses' language
would be used by the SBOE to approve a creationist biology textbook
aimed at high school students, "Explore Evolution: The Arguments for
and Against Neo-Darwinism."
On January 22, 2009, the SBOE heard
testimony about the revised standards. Many local creationists attended
and testified that the 'weaknesses' language should be reintroduced. To
our relief, the SBOE ultimately voted 8-7 in favor of the working
group's draft, rejecting an amendment to reintroduce language about
"weaknesses" of evolution.
Unfortunately, after the testimony
was over, creationists – including board chairman Don McLeroy --
proposed additional amendments. Because the SBOE heard no testimony,
the normally pro-science board members did not have enough information
to judge whether the amendments were sound and voted for them.
Therefore, the current draft of the TEKS contains objectionable and
creationist-inspired wording (Chairman McLeroy essentially plagiarized
from a creationist website when he introduced his new amendment; see An Evolving Creation for details).
For much more detailed description and analysis of the history of the curriculum revisions, please visit Texas Citizens for Science.
Problems with the language in the current TEKS drafts
Two
amendments are particularly troubling. One creationist amendment
changed this standard for the Earth and Space Science course:
(8)(A)
evaluate a variety of fossil types, transitional fossils, fossil
lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their
appearance, completeness, and rate and diversity of evolution;
The
amended draft now reads (underlined text represents words added by the
amendment, strike-through text indicates words deleted)
(8)(A) evaluate a variety of fossil types, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and rate and diversity of evolution and assess the arguments for and against universal common descent in light of this fossil evidence;
To
explain what is objectionable about these changes, I will quote
selections from a response written by the Earth and Space Science TEKS
Working Group that produced the original draft (complete text can be
found at Texas Citizens for Science):
First,
the phrase “with regard to their appearance, completeness, and rate of
diversity of evolution” should not have been removed since it is
essential to the purpose of the standard, which is to evaluate fossils
and their evolution.
Second, the phrase about "arguments for
and against universal common descent" substituted for the struck phase
is totally unscientific. There are no good arguments in modern science
“against universal common descent,” which has been accepted by
biologists for over 130 years, so the phrase is asking for something
that authors and publishers cannot honestly supply.
Finally,
transitional fossils are not “proposed.” There is no doubt of their
existence. They exist in the fossil record and are well-known by
paleontologists, so insertion of the word “proposed” makes this phrase
unscientific, since it suggests a false uncertainty.
In
conclusion, Student Expectation 8A should be returned to its original
language. Otherwise, the ESS standards will be permanently weakened and
damaged.
Just as troubling was an amendment McLeroy succeeded in adding to the standards for biology:
Science
concepts. The student knows evolutionary theory is a scientific
explanation for the unity and diversity of life. The student is
expected to:
(B) analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or
insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance,
stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;
This
wording implies that taxonomic groups appear suddenly in the fossil
record. While there are certainly many groups with incomplete fossil
records, the wording insinuates that groups may have been created
suddenly. The wording is also problematic in that it implies that
common ancestry is invoked to "explain" stasis, or the incompleteness
of the fossil record.
|
Austin, TX 78712