A few months ago, I wrote a blog regarding Texas' proposition to make it legal to carry weapons on campus (and within that an aside regarding the Governor's comment to secede from the US). Well, Texas is back in the news again! Anyone surprised?

This time, the southern state's Board of Education has decided that Thurgood Marshall and César Chávez don't belong in history books, essentially erasing them from history. Before I begin verbally attacking the board, let's review the history behind these two names for those who don't recall:

Thurgood Marshall - First African American to serve on the Supreme Court. Prior to becoming a judge, he was a lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court and for the victory in Brown v. Board of Education.
Without Him: Segregation could have been an issue for several years after and could have prolonged not only the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court, but the first African American to become president - President Obama.

César Chávez - Texan Mexican American farm worker, labor leader, and civil rights activist who, with Dolores Huerta, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers. Supporters say his work led to numerous improvements for union laborers.
Without Him: The UFW and the advancement of workers' rights would have almost certainly been prolonged.

Important, no? Mind you, this is from the same state who decided to weaken science standards on evolution and asked what a character was reading in a comic on a graduation qualifying exam (a newspaper)... and gave us W, but we won't get into that.

Now... let's take a look at the members of the Texas Board of Education's Committee on Instruction and their backgrounds:

(T/C Issue = Thurgood/Chávez Issue)
Republicans
Barbara Cargill, CHAIR - Founder/Director of Wonders of the Woodlands Science Camp, part of the United Methodist Church.
On the T/C Issue: Appointed "expert" Peter Marshall, who believes Amelia Earhart, Thurgood Marshall, and César Chávez should be removed from the Texas curriculum.
Belief on Evolution: Creationist
"...when evidence for universal common ancestry in the fossil record is taught (i.e. scientific strength), then the contradictory evidence showing the huge gaps of missing transitional fossils in the record must also be presented (i.e. scientific weakness). We must educate our students -- not indoctrinate them by letting them hear only one side of an issue."
(Only problem is, gaps in the fossil record isn't a weakness, it just warrants further research.)

Ken Mercer, VICE CHAIR - Master's in Business Administration.
On the T/C Issue: "Quiinn and his allies are attempting to steal the textbook process away from our 24 million Texans and indoctrinate students with their politically revised version of American history."
Belief on Evolution: Intelligent Design
"History is not kind to Darwinian evolutionists who push their theory as truth; no weaknesses and no questions allowed. In this 21st Century, scientific research that opposes academic freedom will never pass any “smell test.”"

Terri Leo - Master's in Educational Administration. Certified teacher for the visually impaired.
On the T/C Issue: "[The] reviewers have properly refocused the studies back to a mastery of the core essential elements of history, government, and geography,” Leo said. “TFN is apparently disappointed by the emphasis on actual knowledge and the de-emphasis on indoctrination."
Belief on Evolution: Creationist
"For the past twenty years, students in Texas have been required “to analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to the strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.” This standard has been applied to all scientific theories. Pro-Evolution Advocates, however, want evolution to be singled out and taught differently from the other theories. They want evolution to be taught without including the weaknesses of this theory."
(Though she was a member of the board who rejected textbooks for not including weaknesses of evolution; however allowed textbooks that did not include weaknesses of other scientific theories.)

Geraldine Miller - MS in Reading, Real Estate Broker, Certified Academic Language Therapist
On the T/C Issue: Nothing found.
Belief on Evolution: Evolutionist
"There is nothing to stop a teacher from talking about other theories on how the world began, but those should not be the basis for a science class."

Democrats
Lawrence A. Allen, Jr. - Former Middle and High school principal, assistant principal, and teacher. Two Master's Degrees and a Bachelor's degree (areas not listed)
On the T/C Issue: Nothing found.
Belief on Evolution: Evolutionist
Voted against including the "strengths and weaknesses" clause in the 2009 standards.

Does anyone else see a clear bias against the proper teaching of evolution in this mess of officials? Of the five on the Committee on Instruction, 3 are Creationists/Proponents of Intelligent Design. In addition, 1 of those 3 works in a religious science camp, and another is unaffiliated with Education - other than being named to this committee.

How can Texas even assume that work can get done if religion is clouding the minds of their committee persons? Oh wait, their minds are clouded as well - perhaps this wouldn't have happened if Texas' Board of Education had actually done their job earlier and actually taught Science rather than covering up the parts that didn't fit their personal beliefs. Hmm... covering up history that doesn't fit - anyone else finding it odd that the "most American" of the US is turning out to be more like the most "North Korean"?

Just one more reason why Texas is on my "States Not to Teach In Even if I was Paid $1 Million"-List, I suppose.

(Look at that! A post that doesn't come with a new category!)

Equity and equality. No, I'm not talking about your recent home loans. In the realm of education, these two words mean very different things, yet the outside world tends to either view them as interchangeable or only refer to it as equality. Why is this wrong? Let's look at their simple definitions, in the educator's realm:

Equity: All students are given the same opportunity.
Equality: All students are treated equally.

At first glance, this may seem redundant. If all students are treated equally, the end result should be that they come out with the same opportunities, right? Unfortunately, it's wrong.

Through the lens of socio-economic status, equality is easily seen as unfair. Students from a higher socio-economic status already have an advantage over their peers from a lower background. Many, in fact, will have had pre-kindergarten prior to entering school. In an equitable system, those from a lower socio-economic background will be given that opportunity for a lower cost. Equality would say that society has spoken: they cannot afford it, so they don't deserve it.

Schools working towards an equitable system are working toward the goal that all students, regardless of their background, have an equal opportunity after leaving the school system. Though it does take far more effort (and a much higher cost), the results are incredible. I should know. I'm a product of the equitable system.

My mom is a single parent who is deaf. While I was growing up, she had roughly $8-9000 per year to spend on the necessities for a family of 3 (and a dog). There were times when the electric was going to go out, when we didn't get basic cable, and when the generic brand seemed too expensive to buy. If all things were equal, I wouldn't be in college preparing myself to educate the future. (Maybe the future would've been better off? )

Link: Duncan: Schools must improve to get stimulus money

*I can't guarantee that the above link will work forever, but for those who get the chance to see it, you will understand this article better than others. Sorry.

In an era of standardized testing and accountability, schools have been increasingly motivated to reach a bar that gets higher every year, based on the results of the previous year's students. Then, the government rewards those schools who reach those bars and continue to grow. Sounds like a good plan, right?

Wrong. (I will defer my thoughts on standardized testing for a later post, as the issue at hand is the article.) It seems that the government is focused on treating every school as if it were an identical clone of the same dog, expecting that once they say "Sit, Fido", every dog in the room will sit and they'll all get a treat. It doesn't work that way. There are dogs who are too feeble to move and those who have been trained and pampered in such a way that they'll sit before the command is called. (Sorry for the dog analogy, it was the first in my head).

However, it seems there is some form of mask, preventing anyone in charge of the money from seeing that each dog is different and requires something else. The healthy ones in the pack should not continue to get a larger reward, as they are still being fed and will only result in overweight dogs. The weak and feeble ones are currently being neglected and continue to be, as this article shows. We should be showing love and care to these dogs, helping them to become healthier, so they can maintain a better status among the pack.

As unfortunate as it would be to reduce funding from one school, it is even more unfortunate to neglect schools who are in dire need of it. As an example, let's compare two nameless teachers in two separate school corporations: Teacher A and Teacher B.

Teacher A works in a four-star school system with adequate funding. Her school has SmartBoards in most every classroom and have enough laptop carts for a few classrooms to check out. The school is located in a middle/upper class community with moderate to above average parent involvement. This school has also met AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) for the past several years.

Teacher B works among impoverished students in a Title 1 school. More than 70% of the students have Free/Reduced Lunch. The school, due to inadequate funding, has reduced the number of copies teachers may make to 500 copies per year (do the math - that's less than 17 sets of single-page worksheets for a class of 30 students). Because the school has not met AYP for the past few years, the school is in danger of being restructured under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Both of these are situations that occur in the real-world, though may be slightly exaggerated in some places (Teacher A's scenario). It should be clear that Teacher B's school should get the additional funding, considering the fact that Teacher A's school seems to have more than enough to continue meeting AYP as opposed to Teacher B who can't even provide enough worksheets or packets for the students over the course of a year. It should be clear, but it isn't. Schools that continue to meet AYP continue to get rewarded while schools who fail to do so get penalized.

I realize that not all schools fall under this category, there are schools with Teacher A's scenario that fail to meet AYP and the same with Teacher B; however, the vast majority of funds go to schools where AYP is being met that, frankly, don't deserve the funding.