Latest in the TEA Monkey Trial
August 13th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
The Texas Education Agency and Commissioner Robert Scott have answered the federal lawsuit filed against them by former science curriculum director Chris Comer. (Comer was forced out in December over an email she sent to science teachers announcing a talk by an evolution expert.) In her suit, Comer alleges that she was fired for violating an unconstitutional TEA policy of “neutrality” on evolution.
The fatal flaw in Comer’s argument, according to TEA’s Motion to Dismiss (.pdf), “arises from a fundamental misconception of the relationship between the Texas Education Agency, headed by defendant Scott, and the State Board of Education.” The 15-member elected board of education develops curriculum, including what Texas schoolchildren learn about evolution, the motion states. TEA only administers that curriculum and provides oversight. “TEA staff, in their capacity as state employees, must not take positions, even by implication, on contested curriculum issues the State Board will be called upon to resolve,” the motion states.
TEA’s motion lists a number of other controversial curriculum issues on which TEA staff may not voice an opinion in public:
- Whether schools should teach “whole language” or “phonics” in English Language Arts;
- Whether schools should have grammar as a separate section of the English curriculum or embedded in the overall curriculum;
- How schools should present the treatment of minorities in U.S. or Texas history;
- Whether schools should have required reading lists in English or other subjects (and if so what books should be included on them);
- Whether schools should emphasize scientific processes or content;
- Whether schools should require laboratory instruction in science courses;
- How schools should integrate the Spanish-language grammar or decoding skills into English TEKS for students with limited English proficiency (LEP);
- Whether to include instruction on contraceptives along with abstinence, in the presentation of human sexuality in health education.
TEA stresses in its court filings that the “neutrality” policy only applies to its employees, not classroom teachers, who must follow the direction of the board of education.
The agency may have the upper hand, legally speaking — I haven’t a clue about the law in this area — but what a sad thought that career educators and public servants are effectively muzzled on any issue the conservative majority on the SBOE deems “controversial.” Consider what the far-right members of the board of education has done to textbooks over the years. The L.A. Times summarizes a few choice samples:
In a nod to those who believe God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, a sentence saying the ice age took place “millions of years ago” was changed to “in the distant past.” Descriptions of environmentalism have been attacked as antithetical to free-enterprise ideals; a passage describing the cruelty of slavery was derided as “overkill.”
Still, the teaching of evolution is the official policy of the state. If TEA staffers generally, and the science curriculum director in particular, are tasked with administering the state’s policy on science, how can they reasonably be expected to remain “neutral” on evolution? What does that even mean?
August 14th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The sad part is that the State Board of Education, the Governor and a majority of our Legislators have forgotten that the Constitution of the United States prohibits the government from teaching religion in public shools-Texas will never turn right side up until this fundemental fact is addressed.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Even with your explanation of the split in responsiblities between TEA and SBOE, I am still confused. It sounds like bureaucratic overkill.
It’s time to eliminate the SBOE! And all the mental midgets thereof. Get rid of dentists and insurance salesmen who are living in the dark ages telling us what to teach our children.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The flaw in the TEA’s motion argument is their contention that, in writing “FYI” on the memo, Ms. Comer was taking a position. How does “FYI” imply advocacy one way or another? If you received an e-mail about a possible terrorist threat with the comment “FYI”, would you assume that meant the sender supports terrorism? FYI means just that: FYI.
If the TEA wants to perform a witch hunt on Ms. Comer, they need to come up with some data proving that she forwarded e-mails one-sidedly. They have failed to do so.
We have many documented examples of SBOE and TEA members advocating for blatant non-education related, ideologically-driven positions. In that light, how does an “implication” justify a firing?
August 15th, 2008 at 6:15 am
[…] been a while since she filed her suit, but now, from The Texas Observer we learn: Latest in the TEA Monkey Trial. Excerpt: The Texas Education Agency and Commissioner Robert Scott have answered the federal […]
August 16th, 2008 at 12:10 am
The original post says,
–”The agency may have the upper hand, legally speaking”–
In the law, that is what counts. In the play “A Man for All Seasons,” Thomas More said,
“the world must construe according to its wits — this court must construe according to the law. You may think that the TEA’s “neutrality” policy is wrong (I disagree), but the TEA has the right to have such a policy and expect its employees to abide by it.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
[…] Forrest Wilder raises a good point in saying: Still, the teaching of evolution is the official policy of the state. If TEA staffers generally, and the science curriculum director in particular, are tasked with administering the state’s policy on science, how can they reasonably be expected to remain “neutral” on evolution? What does that even mean? […]