And the cycle repeats

Today is the last day of class for the Spring semester, which kind of means it’s the end of the first regular academic year at UTRGV. Okay, sure, there is summer session, but really, most of us faculty have a nine month salary, so our pay stubs say this is the end.

Where are we with UTRGV? Ugh. It’s still in beta testing. There are still many weird, unsettled (and unsettling) things going down for my liking. There’s an obsession with instant growth, and a lot of parachute candidates for administrative positions. Could it have been better? Sure. I suppose it could have been worse, though.

Meanwhile, speaking of education, Texas is set to review its science standards again. Slate has the story. Notably, author Zack Kopplin writes:

Via public records request, Slate obtained the full list of 545 applicants. Many seem up for the task, including the employees of the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas, scientists from Houston’s energy industry, the president of the Micropaleontology Press, science-assessment specialists from the textbook publisher Pearson, and hundreds of K-12 science teachers or college professors.

I was one of those hundreds of educators who applied, by the way. I’ll let you know if I get picked, but I think the odds are long. As the article says:

Members of the Texas State Board have full discretion over whom they want to appoint to the review panels—and history shows they often pick creationists.

In other words, here we go again. At least because this is happening in summer, I should have time to blog about it.

And it’s also Star Wars day! I won this glass at the pub last night during trivia.Thanks, Grain to Glass! They made both Light Side and Dark side glasses. Only Dark Side glasses were left, but I would have picked that one anyway. I’m definitely a Sith.

I won it knowing what “AT-AT” stands for. (Gloss for the non-Star Wars fans: The AT-ATs were these things, introduced so memorably in The Empire Strikes Back.)

“AT-AT” stands for “All Terrain Armored Transport.”

External links

Scientist vs. Creationist: Who will get to update Texas’ science standards?

Get charter

January has been a crazy month, what with the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology meeting, manuscripts due, the start of classes, a public talk at the World Birding Center this past weekend, and much more.

Just a quick post to note that I have seen, and am not surprised by, a recent story that charter schools are teaching creationism.

Another Responsive Ed section claims that evolution cannot be tested, something biologists have been doing for decades. It misinforms students by claiming, “How can scientists do experiments on something that takes millions of years to accomplish? It’s impossible.”

The curriculum tells students that a “lack of transitional fossils” is a “problem for evolutionists who hold a view of uninterrupted evolution over long periods of time.”

I suspect it will take someone to launch a legal challenge to get these schools to knock that off. And the school will lose in court, as creationists always have.

Additional: Texas Freedom Network reports on the response from the Responsive Ed charter school, which mostly boils down to, “Yes, that’s right.”

Cook begins his defense by arguing that Responsive Ed’s instructional materials on evolution are simply conforming to the Texas curriculum standards by “examining all sides of scientific evidence” of scientific explanations.

This was a concern about the phrase “all sides of scientific evidence” when the standards were drafted, and I was hoping that the addition of the word “scientific” would squash such attempts. But then, creationists have a very unusual perspective of scientific evidence.

The Texas Education Agency is investigating.

Additional: And this story is starting to gain traction ntionally, as an LA Times article shows:

One way to react to a school system that places “supernatural intervention” on the same scientific plane as a natural process, however dopily described, is with relief that these 17,000 children won’t be equipped to compete in the real world with our kids. Life in modern America is hard enough, so there’s something Darwinian indeed about saddling all those kids with the burden of a 16th-century education.

Indeed, I think Richard Dawkins noted that those who oppose teaching selection in the classroom as wasteful and unlikely to produce anything often want to apply it with tremendous zeal in the social arena.

And this is why Texas struggles to become a tech leader. This is the image the state has: as anti-intellectual and regressive on the teaching of science.

External links

Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism
Texas’ possibly unconstitutional biology lessons now happen in charter schools
Texas Creationists Demonstrate the Real Reason Behind the Support For Charter Schools
Texas Charter School Operator Defends Misleading Its Students with Junk Science, Political Propaganda
Texas Education Agency Looking at Troubling Charter School Curriculum

Texas politicians backing illegal education

The Texas Tribune reports that every candidate for the Lieutenant Governor position in Texas wants to teach creationism in public schools. Never mind that it’s repeatedly been found illegal.

(Jerry) Patterson did not mention creationism in his response directly but said he thought schools had focused too much on political correctness out of what he called a mistaken belief that the U.S. Constitution mandated the separation of church and state.

“Show me where that’s in the Constitution, because it’s not in the Constitution,” he said.

Apparently, Mr. Patterson is unfamiliar with the Establishment Clause.

External links

Texas Lt. Gov. Hopefuls Voice Support for Creationism

Texas may be nearing the end of textbook battles over evolution

The Dallas Observer has an excellent, lengthy feature about the ongoing tussle about the teaching of evolution (and a few other subjects besides) in Texas. There are useful profiles of several players that I hadn’t seen before, such Ray Bohlin. Bohlin, a creationist, has published proper scientific papers on biology, but stopped.

Faith in a theory for which there is no experiment turned out to be a dead end.

And therein lies the problem with all efforts to tie evolutionary biology to creationism.

Recommended reading.

External links

Creationists' Last Stand at the State Board of Education

More real scientists reviewing Texas science textbooks, please

TFN Insider reports that half a dozen creationists are among the reviewers of potential Texas science textbooks. There is a distinct lack of working scientists. Jerry Coyne put it well:

Could they not find professors of biology at, say, the University of Texas at Austin, Rice, Texas A&M, or any of the schools in Texas that have good biology programs? Of course they could, and I am absolutely certain those people would be willing to be on this committee. It almost seems as if Texas wants to get evolution out of the schools, doesn’t it?  Is this the best that the populous state of Texas can do?

I will say that I would not want only academic biologists reviewing K-12 textbooks. It is good to have a mix of representatives from all the scientific disciplines, people with experienced teaching K-12, and so on. But this looks like stacking the deck to accomplish one thing: get the presentation of evolution in Texas K-12 textbooks weakened as much as possible.

According to TFN Insider, six of the reviewers are selected by the State Board of Education, which I have blogged about many times before. The State Board of Education has long had a very strong and effective group of fundamentalist conservative Christians who oppose teaching of evolution.

If you live in Texas, consider signing this petition.

External links

Alarm Bells Are Ringing: Creationists Get Influential Positions in Texas Science Textbook Review
Creationism once again threatens Texas schools

“All sides of scientific information” is not “Anything goes”

Ars Technica reports that Barbara Cargill, chair of the Texas State Board of Education, is unhappy with proposed materials for the K-12 schools on biology.

Cargill’s complaint is that the material overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution, which was clearly not what she intended when she voted for the “all sides” language in the standards. Of course, evolution would have never reached the status of theory if it weren’t overwhelmingly supported, so it’s not clear what Cargill was expecting.

The testimony suggests that the confused language of the recently approved science standards was intentionally chosen to allow the board to exert pressure on publishers to undercut accurate science education. Which is precisely what many people warned at the time (the title of the Texas Freedom Network’s announcement for the video starts with “Told You So”).

When the standards were approved, I wrote:

The good news, such as it is, is that the wording specifically says “scientific explanations,” which should cut out the worst possible offenders.

The Revisionaries to air nationally in U.S.

One of the things that got me “born again hard” about blogging was following the development of the Texas K-12 science standards, mostly back in around 2009. One of the unexpected outcomes of that process was that a documentary film got made. Originally titled Standing up to the Experts, it was partially funded by a Kickstarter campaign. I was one of the backers.

The final film, retitled The Revisionaries, will start showing next week across the U.S. on public television stations, according to the National Center for Science Education. On my local station, it will be airing three times, but two of those are in the dead of night.

I’m looking forward to seeing the result at long last.

Additional, 25 January 2013: The Panda’s Thumb is reporting that PBS is screening a substantially shortened version of the movie. Their post also has a mini-review:

McLeroy could be an excellent, even inspiring teacher, if only he were not so badly misinformed.

Additional, 28 January 2012: The creators have an “Ask Me Anything” thread on Reddit.

Related posts

“The war on science is officially back on in Texas”
Standing Up to the Experts documentary funded
Standing Up to the Experts becomes The Revisionaries
Reviews for The Revisionaries movie

Bible classes; vouchers, creationism

The National Center for Science Education reports that creationism is being taught in some Texas K-12 schools in Bible classes.

I am not sure I can get as upset about this as if this were being taught in other courses. It’s a Bible class. What’s on the label is what’s in the tin, so to speak.

Phil Plait also reports on voucher program sused to support sending students to private schools with public money. Texas does not have a voucher program, but is apparently considering it.

The new Texas State Board of Education: slightly less radical?

The Austin American Statesman reports:

After Tuesday's elections, the board is made up of five Democrats and 10 Republicans. Of those Republicans, three are social conservative Republican incumbents — Ken Mercer for District 5, David Bradley for District 7 and Barbara Cargill, who currently chairs the board, for District 8.

A few of the right-leaning Republicans have indicated they likely would align at times with the social conservatives, but it will remain to be seen if they will consistently vote with that bloc or not.

I hope this will mean Texas will be less likely to end up in the national news because of the Board’s continual, ideological efforts to rewrite the K-12 school standards.

Changing the Texas State Board of Education

In the last few months, the documentary The Revisionairies has been playing at festivals and art house theatres and showing the events around the last set of revisions of the Texas K-12 education standards.

Well, the contentious Texas State Board of Education shown in that film could be getting a complete scrub. All fifteen seats are up for re-election, and seven incumbents are not running again, meaning almost half the faces on the board will be new.

The Dallas News has an overview.

Who could be against critical thinking?

Who could be against critical thinking? It has been the greatest tool for progress, both intellectual and economic, the world has ever known. It’s like being against motherhood. Who could be against that?

The Republican Party of Texas.

Seriously, really, it’s part of their party platform. Look on page 12.

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

What makes this all the more jaw-dropping is this plank in their platform, just two points down:

Funding of Education – We urge the Legislature to direct expenditures to academics as the first priority.

“We want education! We just want it to be very bad education that can ensure our children are servile drones.”

My jaw is on the floor.

Additional, 29 June 2012: The Texas Freedom Network is reporting that that the Texas Republican Party is saying the plank was an “oversight.” SuuuUUUuuuuure.

They’re still worried, though, about education that “serves the purpose of challenging students beliefs and undermine parental authority.” I think any decent education challenges beliefs and undermines authority. It is kind of the entire point of education to make people into autonomous individuals who are able to navigate the world around them independently.

Spotted at I’m Not Really Here.

Reviews for The Revisionaries movie

This is mostly going to be a link round-up for reviews and news related to The Revisionaries movie. I’ll update it I find more review.

23 April 2012

• IndieWire blog: “Director Scott Thurman always seems to let the right bit of footage speak for itself in these situations: opposition to the teaching of the Enlightenment and Thomas Jefferson’s placement in the textbook are explained by a representative who prefaces her opinions by saying, ‘I love Jefferson, I'm a huge fan.’ The Apostle Of Democracy, reduced to mascot.”
• The Wrap blog: “Thurman never turns his film into an advocacy doc the way the way he easily could have done, but he has produced a frightening look at the politicalization of education, and at an arena too often dominated by what one SMU scientist calls ‘a flammable mixture of ignorance and arrogance.’”
• PoliTex blog: “(Cynthia) Dunbar (former Texas State Board of Education member - ZF) said even though “experts” oppose discussing other views as science, “that’s what they talked about in pre-Holocaust Germany as well.’ ... Thurman, 31, wept when he talked about McLeroy, calling him a ‘warm and kind’ man who cooperated completely.”

Don McLeroy (also former State Board of Education member) is going to be a guest on The Colbert Report tonight, ostensibly to talk about the film. I’m willing to bet there won’t be so much about the film as McLeroy’s religious beliefs.

Additional: Here’s a link to McLeroy on The Colbert Report. As usual, Colbert gets in a good quips: “I believe science can be a personal choice,” and “I have always been a fan of reality by majority vote.”

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Don McLeroy
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Additional, 26 April: The Revisionaries received a special jury mention at the Tri-Beca film festival.

Additional, 30 April: Comments from Louisiana State University newspaper and a local Texas television channel. Both are more on the political controversy than the artistic merits of the documentary.

Variety, the movie industry’s publication of record, writes:

"The Revisionaries" doesn’t preach, but it doesn’t need to in order to make its major point.

Thurman bends over backward to maintain something resembling objectivity, and religious belief is never ridiculed. ...

Production values are tops, particularly the lensing by Thurman and Zac Sprague, capturing not only the colorful debate on the board but the often bewildered reactions elsewhere. Jawad Metni's editing is also tops.

7 May 2012: PoliticalOlogy gives The Revisionaries an A+.

Thurman... manages to turn this prolonged policy battle into an suspenseful, engaging and infuriating eighty-three minutes.

18 May 2012: A lengthy discussion in The Guardian focuses on the battles over history rather than science.

Defenders of biological sciences can also fall back on court rulings such as Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District and Edwards v Aguillard, which prohibit teaching of creationism. They also have a wealth of popular treatments of scientific issues to draw upon, such as explanations of evolutionary theory by Richard Dawkins and other scientists.

History, however, is often left to fend for itself.

21 June 2012: Public radio station WBUR has an interview with the producer of The Revisionaries, Vijay Dewan, and Don McLeroy. I always appreciate McLeroy’s honesty in admitting the harm those standards do to teaching evolution (my emphasis):

The science magazine, you know, the American Association for the Advancement of Science reported after we passed the standards that new science standards for Texas schools strike a major blow to the teaching of evolution. And really, they're right because what they do is, when they highlight these weaknesses, now the textbooks have to explain these weaknesses.

26 June 2012: On Open Salon, Steve Klingaman bemoans that the film’s promoters have given Don McLeroy more opportunities to spread his views.

Of course he’s a nut case. ... But here’s the deal: when interviewed on Talk of the Nation, his host, Neal Conan, didn’t challenge any of the fundamentals of his presentation. Nor did the documentary’s executive producer, Vijay Dewan, who is, for promotional purposes, temporarily joined at the hip to McLeroy.

4 October 2012: The Dallas Observer, um, observed:

To a point, Thurman does an admirable job portraying McLeroy with some objectivity. The director’s stated goal is to allow us to appreciate the “compassion and complexities of Don’s character,” but by the end of the film, the tenor of Thurman’s coverage shifts perceptibly into the unsympathetic. Granted, there isn’t an easy way to portray certain statements of McLeroy’s in a favorable light. Example: “Somebody's got to stand up to the experts.”

8 October 2012: The Kansas City Star calls the film “compelling.”

Though it’s obvious that Thurman allies with traditional science, he just lets the two sides speak for themselves and chronicles the board’s crucial votes with no narration.

13 October 2012: The Houston Chronicle blog Texas Politics has an interview with filmmaker Scott Thurman, as the film is howing in Houston for a week.

The documentary is more nuanced than Thurman expected before he plunged into the project, which has taken nearly 5 years and $120,000.

His views of McLeroy have evolved.

“I was torn in how to portray someone who’s done so much damage to education and yet is such a sweet person with good intentions,” the filmmaker said.

25 October 2012: A review in Salon:

One of the great things about Scott Thurman’s film — a low-budget but thoroughly watchable documentary, largely funded on Kickstarter – is that it helped me see the world from McLeroy’s point of view, which I might previously have considered impossible.

I think this is my favourite review of the movie to date; it’s very well-written.

29 October 2012: New York Times review:

Interviewing a wide range of concerned parties, Mr. Thurman’s presentation is admirably evenhanded; though he clearly supports the scientists, for example, he avoids the temptation to ridicule the commissioners. Instead, they open up and explain their perspectives.

And the Houston Chronicle reports on a screening and mentions the Times review.

The film director sees his work as a mixture “of medicine and sugar.” Thurman reminded his audience that making a documentary film about the board of education is inherently difficult. It’s important (the medicine part of the story) but sometimes weighty and dry

Additional, 27 January 2013: Reviews are starting up again in anticipation of the showing of The Revisionaries on PBS next week. This one is at Ars Technica:

Enough people describe the whole process as a mess that it’s no surprise The Revisionaries struggles to lay it out in a narrative. The challenge is made larger by the filmmakers' decision to provide little framing for the footage, other than sporadic notes scratched on a blackboard to give some sense of the timing and location of the clips. As a result, the movie really doesn't work if you go into it hoping to get a history of the Texas school board. In fact, it would probably be better if you went in to things with a rough outline of the events (the one in this review would be enough).

But if you've got that, the film is a fascinating glimpse into the sorts of thinking that drive the public controversies that have happened in Texas and elsewhere.

Standing Up To The Experts becomes The Revisionaries

Over a year ago, I noted that there was a Kickstarter campaign to fund a documentary about the contentious revision to the Texas K-12 science standards. The project more than met its funding goals.

The Houston Chronicle blog “Believe It or Not” is now reporting that the film is set to debut today at the Tribeca Film Festival, with the new title, The Revisionaries.

Here’s the preview:



Additional: Here’s an interview about the movie on The Critical Wit podcast.

Related posts

“The war on science is officially back on in Texas”
“Standing Up To The Experts” documentary funded

Texas passes the science test

The Austin American Statesman is reporting that Texas gets a passing grade for its K-12 science standards. It’s a C, to be exact. But who’s doing the grading? The Fordham Institute, which the article describes as a conservative think tank. The American Statesman article says:

“The high school biology course is exemplary in its choice and presentation of topics, including its thorough consideration of biological evolution,” according to the report being released today.

But the evaluation also found that evolution is largely absent from middle school and elementary grades, which means that “students are not prepared to learn what they need to learn at the high school level,” said Kathleen Porter-Magee, senior director of the High Quality Standards Project at the Fordham Institute.

The report for Texas is a short, readable four pages. And while the phrase “conservative think tank” conjures bad images of other institutions, this one does not sympathize with creationism or intelligent design. Here’s a clip (my emphasis):

(T)he seventh-grade standards mention the Galapagos finches, giving the impression that the Darwinian paradigm is being presented. Unfortunately, it is not. Instead, the example of the finch Geospiza fortis apparently refers to studies by Peter and Rosemary Grant on beak size in this species, made widely known by Jonathan Weiner’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Beak of the Finch. Creationists often distort these important findings to argue that Darwinian macroevolution does not occur—instead, microevolution does.

The Austin American Statesman article continues:

Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science and a longtime critic of the board’s conservatives, said the Fordham analysis overlooked some glaring problems with Texas' standards.

He pointed to a separate examination from the National Center for Science Education that found Texas’ standards contain “creationist jargon” and “reflect political and religious agendas, rather than good pedagogy and strong science.”

There are reports for every state, here.

Texas governor does not know the law of his own state

This is weird. Texas governor and American presidential candidate is reported on NBC news as saying:

(I)n Texas we teach both creationism and evolution.

Not in the K-12 public schools, you don’t. I don’t doubt that it’s something Perry wants to be true about public schools, but it is not true.

Indeed, Ken Mercer of the Texas State Board of Education recently offered $500 to anyone who can show there is creationism in the Texas science standards.



I’ve looked at those standards, and Mercer is right. There is no creationism in the Texas science standards. It’s the law to teach evolution, and nothing else.

Maybe Perry is talking about home schooling or something else. But that’s me being charitable.


Additional: A reporter chases this down, and gets surprising replies:

I called the Texas Education Agency for confirmation. And I got an even bigger surprise.

First, spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson sent me a wordy statement: “Our science standards require students to analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations, so it is likely that other theories, such as creationism, would be discussed in class. Our schools can also offer an elective course on Biblical history and it is likely that creationism is discussed as part of that class too.”

I called Culbertson to get a direct answer to my question: “Does the state of Texas teach creationism as scientific fact?”

Culbertson wouldn't say yes or no: “It could be part of the discussion,” she said. “If it comes up, then it's in the classroom.”

There you have it, science teachers of Texas. On the subject of teaching creationism in class, the education department won't say it's wrong, and the governor thinks you're already doing it.

There's nothing to stop you now but the law.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/article/Texas-teaching-of-scienceapparently-has-evolved-2122863.php#ixzz1VTepr6R8

More additional: Politifact backs me up.

Post-mortem on Texas science supplements hearings

Just a couple more retrospectives on the latest Texas State Board of Education hearings, which ended with the most decisive win for teaching evolution seen for Texas K-12 in quite some time.

Thoughts from Kansas details how a single creationist in a review panel gave a list of “errors” to one publisher, Holt McDougal, that weren’t (mentioned before). Josh also talks about the importance of personal connections:

The really fun and effective parts of these hearings are the parts I can't talk about, the behind the scenes negotiations, the quiet conversations, the preparatory outreach and research that makes it possible for friendly board members to ask the right questions at the right time, to resist bad deals and to forge good ones.

A Dallas Observer blog, Edumication News, also has details on the creationist “errors” here.

But when it came to a biology panel making its recommendations, an evolutionary skeptic named Dr. David Shormann – who happens to run a Christian math and science education software company and authored the book “The Exchange of Truth: Liberating the World From the Lie of Evolution” – appears to have had a lot of input.

The Dallas Observer has another article bemoaning the lack of transparency.

Normally the board would be undergoing a lengthy public process to adopt new textbooks, but the state blew all that book money on tasers for Rick Perry’s security detail. You could have seen some of the proposed supplemental materials if you'd bothered to file a public records request. You did that, right? No? So much for “let there be light.”

Additional: Supportive editorials from the Corpus Christi Caller Times, Beaumont Enterprise, and Austin American-Statesman, and San Antonio Express-News.

The new Texas State Board of Education

It seems that the change of several Texas State Board of Education members in the last election is having an effect.

Yesterday, the Board adopted the supplemental K-12 science materials recommended by the Texas Education Agency. The proposal that included intelligent design materials got nowhere. The charge that one publisher’s material contained “errors” related to evolution (apparently merging from one reviewer, a Creationist, not a consensus of reviewers) was worked out. It is being sent back to the Texas Education Agency for review and revision, and won’t be subject (as far as I can make out) to the Board’s penchant for last-minute copy-editing.

It is being declared a complete victory for correct scientific information. This is a big change from the last time the board talked biology.

But while it seems the tide has turned, this is, of course, not the end. This article details the various strategies that fundamentalist Christians have taken to attack teaching of best available science in public schools.

As always, Steve Schafersman and Texas Freedom Network have summaries, live-blogged from the event.

Supplemental debates in Texas: Good news

Yesterday, the Texas State Board of Education reviewed some of the proposed supplemental materials for the sciences in K-12 classrooms in Texas.

The supplemental material from International Databases, which was explicitly teaching intelligent design (see previous posts: first, second, third), was voted down. Unanimously. That is good news.

Slightly worrying, however, are reports of one publisher getting a list of last minute “errors.” One of the “errors” was telling, as Thoughts From Kansas reports:

(T)he reviewer objected to the passage: “Darwin observed anatomical features of organisms and hypothesized that organisms that appear similar have a more recent common ancestor than do organisms that do not appear similar. Modern biology proves on the molecular level what Darwin noticed on the anatomical level. The number of amino acid differences in homologous proteins of different species is proportional to the length of time that has passed since the two species shared a common ancestor. Thus, the more similar the homologous proteins are in different species, the more closely related the species are thought to be.”

Instead, they wanted the second sentence and after replaced with: “Yet modern biochemical phylogenies often contradict Darwin's anatomical phylogenies.” (There may have been more after that, but if so, it was cut off in reproduction.) This is rather dramatically different. The first is true and justifiable scientifically, while the latter means essentially the opposite, and is not true.

The problem is the weasel word “often.” I can find plenty of cases where morphology and molecules generate different suggested relationships. I will probably be blogging about some in crustacean taxonomy at some point. But there are a lot of trees out there, and morphology and molecules agree far more often than not.

Yesterday, the board voted against a representative from the publisher to address the board regarding the alleged “errors.”

What will happen with this publisher will be determined today. This may be where the sparks fly.

Reviews of yesterday’s events can be found at Texas Freedom Network, Thoughts From Kansas, and Steve Schafersman.

Texas intelligent design bill is dead

Bill Zedler’s bill to protect university professors doing intelligent design research went nowhere, according to the National Center for Science Education.

Update, 15 April 2013: If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

Texas State Board of Education looking for a new chair

The Texas State Board of Education will need a new chair, according to the Dallas News. The current one, Gail Lowe, wasn’t approved by the Texas senate. This appears to be continuing fallout from the last few years of the Board’s K-12 education standards, which attracted national attention for their unabashed conservative nature and the often unusual processes used to pass them.

Lowe was less vocal than previous chair (and sound bite master) Don McLeroy, but was solidly voting along the same lines on issues before the Board.