David Daniel

Daniel is a member of TAMEST, an association of Nobelists and members of NAS/IOM/NAE. Our statement is irreconcilable with the amendments offered.

Science is awesome, and Texas has a lot to offer, he points out. We're trying to recruit top people. S&W are understood as code-words, which will spook good scientists.

Various discussion of S&W, etc. McLeroy doesn't seem to be reiterating his anti-NAS rhetoric.

He's defending the "analyze and evaluate" language, making clear that it doesn't allow one-sided indoctrination, but neither does it require presenting bogus silliness just to fulfill a requirement of "weaknesses."

Returns to praising Texas science.

McLeroy: I like NAS."I appreciate what you guys say, I just disagree."

More like this

Textbook author Juli Berwald is explaining why evolution rocks. Will she get any questions? The Board just spent 10 minutes questioning a teacher who happened to back S&W, even though she's got far fewer credentials. Yes! Dunbar asks who she writes for. Then wonders if the new "analyze and…
Ecto crash cost me a liveblog. Leo offered BS amendments which don't do much ultimate harm, but do hurt treatment of evolution. Each part of biology 7 gets "analyze and evaluate" at the beginning of the standard. This makes some sections ungrammatical or irrelevant. McLeroy passed an amendment…
I'm currently taping the Texas Board of Education as they consider amendments and motions regarding state science standards. The first big fight related to language in the standards on the books now which refers to "strengths and weaknesses," and to change that to a requirement that students "…
You can listen along with me at: http://at1.tea.state.tx.us/sboeaudio As before, board comments are in blue. Rose Banzhas, speaking for herself but also an environmental educator: Environmental education matters. As an outdoor educator, I know this matters. McLeroy keeps asking people if they're…