1:15 Dunbar just moved to amend the TEKS to restore the bogus S&W language rather than the language preferred by scientific and science education experts.
She's saying it will somehow stave off litigation. NO! It will bring litigation. Now she's saying other board members are disingenuous.
Insists that the language has been on the books for 20 years, which is bull. It goes back no further than 1996 in the TEKS, and 1991 in other Board documents.
Knight opposes the amendment. "Longevity is no indication of the quality of something." "S&W phrase has taken on a different meaning than it might have had 20 years ago, or 10 years ago." Wonders why evolution gets singled out, and why people want these bogus alternatives offered. Mavis asked some odd questions yesterday, but she's rocking it today.
Craig speaks against the amendment. Listen to the experts. Don't do what happened with language arts earlier this year when the Board rewrote expert recommendations at the last minute. Experts wrote the new 3A, listen to them. Claiming this blocks academic freedom is bogus. Teachers want this language. "S&W has taken on a new connotation." If we keep overruling experts, good people won't want to serve on these committees. (Genie sez: Good point.)
Hardy: Never sez what theories are to be referenced. There are a lot of theories, but we always focus on evolution. Doesn't know what it's meant to be applied to, and thinks the new language is better.
Cargill: Publishers would be foolish to include creationism. Leave in S&W because random people in yesterday's public hearings disagree. We can't tell teachers how to teach. Teaching weaknesses will take two days of class time. Quotes Disco. blog. "I would love to take" this nonsense "into classrooms."
This vote will basically be a test. Agosto is likely to be decisive. He may choose to abstain, forcing a tie vote, in which case the matter will be taken up again tomorrow.