Senate Okays Bible Class Bill
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Rep. Warren Chisum’s Bible class bill passed the Senate today with just two dissenting votes, and without any of the changes advocated by the religious right. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Craig Estes, had offered a floor amendment, but retracted it in the name of time, facing a lengthy debate with Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa.
The amendment would have raised the number of students required for a school to offer an elective Bible class from 15 to 20, at the request of Texas Education Agency, Estes said. Oh and by the way, Estes added that it would have eliminated an inconsistency in the House version of the bill, which says schools “may” offer the course, then adds the course to a list of electives the schools “shall” offer. Estes’ amendment would have simply smoothed out that wrinkle by changing the first “may” to “shall” — in effect, requiring school districts to offer the course if enough students were interested.
Rep. Scott Hochberg – who amended Chisum’s bill in committee to make it more moderate – says there isn’t actually any conflict in the way the bill is written. Hochberg says the list of elective courses has been interpreted as what he calls a “restaurant menu” districts can choose from, not a list of strictly required courses. Because the bill says “school districts may” offer the Bible course, the intent of the law is clear, Hochberg says.
On the Senate floor, Hinojosa said he was uncomfortable with the mandatory nature and the Bible language of the legislation. “The bill singles out one religion over another,” he said. Later he said, “You’re not stating correctly what you’re doing here.”
Estes responded, “This bill has been carefully crafted to not be a religious bill. It’s an academic bill.”
Despite Christian right efforts, the Senate did not remove the safeguards added to the bill by the House Public Education committee, such as teacher training, a textbook other than the Bible, and attorney general-approved curriculum standards.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
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.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
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.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:06 am
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.
May 26th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
[…] 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 […]
August 9th, 2008 at 11:32 am
[…] 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). […]