http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=414 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:52:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=414#comment-82773 That shudder was Texas thinking about really teaching the Bible in public schools « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:32:33 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=414#comment-82773 [...] The bill had fancier, slightly more legal language, but was just about that ambiguous (having drafted my first federal law <cough>34</cough> years ago, and having written many amendments to state, federal and local laws, and having survived the rigorous legislative drafting course at George Washington, I feel qualified to complain about the problems in the law’s language). [...] […] The bill had fancier, slightly more legal language, but was just about that ambiguous (having drafted my first federal law <cough>34</cough> years ago, and having written many amendments to state, federal and local laws, and having survived the rigorous legislative drafting course at George Washington, I feel qualified to complain about the problems in the law’s language). […]

]]> http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=414#comment-21295 Texas Observer Blog » Religious Revival - The Texas Observer Sun, 27 May 2007 01:06:29 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=414#comment-21295 [...] Scott Hochberg (D-Houston) pointed out another change in the Senate version of the bill - more “may” turned “shall” language that would now require schools to allow students to speak at football games and morning [...] […] Scott Hochberg (D-Houston) pointed out another change in the Senate version of the bill - more “may” turned “shall” language that would now require schools to allow students to speak at football games and morning […]

]]> http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=414#comment-20639 Scott Hochberg Fri, 25 May 2007 05:06:30 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=414#comment-20639 Mr. Scurry did not identify his attachment and advocacy for this bill. He is associated with the Bible Literacy Project, a source of Bible curriculum and an associated textbook. Mr. Scurry has been behind much of the push to make this course mandatory, to insist that the SBOE NOT adopt a curriculum, and other provisions of the original bill, all of which he is said to believe will help him sell books. It is amazing to me that in this Legislature, even a bill about the Bible is vendor driven. Mr. Scurry did not identify his attachment and advocacy for this bill. He is associated with the Bible Literacy Project, a source of Bible curriculum and an associated textbook. Mr. Scurry has been behind much of the push to make this course mandatory, to insist that the SBOE NOT adopt a curriculum, and other provisions of the original bill, all of which he is said to believe will help him sell books.
It is amazing to me that in this Legislature, even a bill about the Bible is vendor driven.

]]> http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=414#comment-20270 Richard G. Scurry Thu, 24 May 2007 02:30:08 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=414#comment-20270 The bill also makes no mention of a textbook other than the Bible (i.e. Eissler is wrong.) However, another textbook will probably be provied by TEA, as is usual with enrichment electives, but only after adoption. Curriculum standards are not mentioned either, but IF the Board of Education decides to develop essential skills and knowledge, THEN the attorney general must approve them before use. This bill requires careful reading. The bill also makes no mention of a textbook other than the Bible (i.e. Eissler is wrong.) However, another textbook will probably be provied by TEA, as is usual with enrichment electives, but only after adoption. Curriculum standards are not mentioned either, but IF the Board of Education decides to develop essential skills and knowledge, THEN the attorney general must approve them before use. This bill requires careful reading.

]]> http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=414#comment-20264 Richard G. Scurry Thu, 24 May 2007 02:21:41 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=414#comment-20264 I suggest you read the bill itself. Estes,Hochberg, and Eissler are all wrong in their description of the bill. All enrichment electives (or categories) MUST be offered every year by EVERY district per Section 3. The bill thus mandates that an elective course on Religious Literature be offered (i.e. Hochberg is wrong.) Districts "may" make that required course one on the Bible OR one on World Religions, but they must do one or the other. Thus the "may" is not inconsistent (Estes is wrong.) TEA has confirmed the foregoing. Again, read the bill carefully. I suggest you read the bill itself. Estes,Hochberg, and Eissler are all wrong in their description of the bill. All enrichment electives (or categories) MUST be offered every year by EVERY district per Section 3. The bill thus mandates that an elective course on Religious Literature be offered (i.e. Hochberg is wrong.) Districts “may” make that required course one on the Bible OR one on World Religions, but they must do one or the other. Thus the “may” is not inconsistent (Estes is wrong.) TEA has confirmed the foregoing. Again, read the bill carefully.

]]>