

America as Texas vs. California, Part III - cwan
http://blog.american.com/?p=9120

======
jsm386
Wait, they are holding up Texas schools as an example of great schools? This
post references, along with the quote, this: "Despite this, Texas kids are one
to two years of learning ahead of California kids of the same age. And blacks,
whites, and Hispanics all do better in school in Texas than they do in
California."

So they're two years ahead. Two years ahead of what exactly? _After three all-
day meetings and a blizzard of amendments and counter-amendments, the Texas
Board of Education cast its final vote Friday on state science standards. The
results weren't pretty.

The board majority amended the Earth and Space Sciences standards as well as
the Biology standards (TEKS) with loopholes and language that make it even
easier for creationists to attack science textbooks.

For example, the revised biology standard (7B) reflects two discredited
creationist ideas that "sudden appearance" and "stasis" in the fossil record
somehow disprove evolution. The new standard directs students to "analyze and
evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of
sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil
records." Other new standards include language such as "is thought to" or
"proposed transitional fossils" to make evolutionary concepts seem more
tentative.

The changes will not immediately affect curricula in Texas high schools, but
"the standards will affect standardized tests and textbooks," says Rosenau.
Thanks to such laws as No Child Left Behind, ubiquitous standardized tests are
central to measuring student progress and proficiency. Teachers teach to the
test, notes Rosenau, and textbooks have to reflect this.

"Will publishers cave in to pressure from the Texas board to include junk
science in their textbooks? It has happened before," says Scott. "But
textbooks that please the Texas board will be rejected in other states.
Publishers will have to choose between junk science and real science."

"Let's be clear about this," cautioned Scott. "This is a setback for science
education in Texas, not a draw, not a victory. The revised wording opens the
door to creationism in the classroom and in the textbooks. The decisions will
not only affect Texas students for the next ten years, but could result in
watered-down science textbooks across the U.S. There's a reason creationists
are claiming victory."_

Can't wait until all of our schools are as good as Texas' schools.

Source: [http://ncse.com/news/2009/03/science-setback-texas-
schools-0...](http://ncse.com/news/2009/03/science-setback-texas-
schools-004708)

Edit: Further clarification of the Texas textbook issues for all states:
_Battles over textbooks are nothing new, especially in Texas, where bitter
skirmishes regularly erupt over everything from sex education to phonics and
new math. But never before has the board’s right wing wielded so much power
over the writing of the state’s standards. And when it comes to textbooks,
what happens in Texas rarely stays in Texas. The reasons for this are
economic: Texas is the nation’s second-largest textbook market and one of the
few biggies where the state picks what booksschools can buy rather than
leaving it up to the whims of local districts, which means publishers that get
their books approved can count on millions of dollars in sales. As a result,
the Lone Star State has outsized influence over the reading material used in
classrooms nationwide, since publishers craft their standard textbooks based
on the specs of the biggest buyers. As one senior industry executive told me,
"Publishers will do whatever it takes to get on the Texas list."_
[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.ht...](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html)

~~~
scotch_drinker
Holding up the teaching of evolution as the example of Texas education is
disingenuous at best. Yes, Texas has a history of doing very odd things as it
relates to topics like sex education and evolution but these things are so
tiny in the broad context of a K-12 level education that they are effectively
meaningless.

When it comes down to it, whether a kid is taught evolution or some far-
fetched creationist theory about the creation of the world matters little in
the quality of their education as it relates to their success on leaving high
school. That's what kids should be compared on and if I were guessing, I'd
guess that's the standard here.

It's fun to take easy potshots at Texas based on backwards beliefs in the
origin of the species but in the end, kids ability to read, write and do math
are far more imporant.

~~~
jbooth
It's not disingenuous, it goes to the core of what people believe education
should be.

Most of us believe education should be about imparting knowledge as well as
"how to think".

It should _not_ be about ideological indoctrination. We're not communists.
EDIT: heck, the soviets even did a better job than us of teaching math

~~~
doki_pen
Ideological indoctrination is an important part of the US education system.
But we should be indoctrinating children to the American philosophy and not
some anti-american religious ideas. This builds a stronger society and goes a
long way to destroy tribalism.

------
adzp
Having gone through most of my K-12 schooling in SF Bay Area, I can't say I'm
surprised by this decision. Being an advanced student was not encouraged by
the school district, nor the schools that I attended. Accelerated programs
were canceled right and left to make everything "more fair". Scheduling was
always a nightmare. Talking to my husband who went through his K-12 in the
Dallas-Fort Worth area was very eye-opening as it seems his district made
every effort to push the advanced students forward that much more. At this
point I don't consider myself disadvantaged; I was lucky enough to have
parents who pushed me to excel in spite of a system that holds people back,
but not all are that fortunate.

------
nihilocrat
The quality of schools varies greatly from county to county, city to city.
North Carolina has (apparently) excellent public schools... if you are in one
of the major cities.

I looked at his original article and I'm thinking there's some kind of cost of
living he's not accounting for. California has higher per capita income and
spends more because it's extremely expensive to buy things there, pay teacher
salaries, etc., compared to Texas. Effectively, California might be spending
less. Maybe he's adjusting for that behind the scenes, but it's not obvious,
it sounds like he is using raw figures.

~~~
3pt14159
There is absolutely a cost of living problem in California, but who's fault is
that? Houses in Texas cost 1/2 to 1/4 their California counterparts for a
reason. The point is that Texas has held a pretty fiscally conservative line
in the past decades while allowing a pretty liberal zoning policy, this allows
them to afford proper education because teachers don't need crazy high pay for
houses that are in short supply.

~~~
nihilocrat
That could be very true, but it's not the point he's trying to make. He is
using spending figures as if they were on equal footing:

 _Just look at Texas, which spends 12 percent less per pupil with a similar
kind of population but does significantly better educating its kids._

I see no discussion of cost of living, fiscal policies, or zoning.

~~~
joe_the_user
I don't see the original article providing any evidence for it's assertion.

------
doki_pen
The real question is, why is living in California so much more desirable then
living in Texas? If Texas was as desirable, would they have some of the same
problems? Ultimately a state(in the US) is made up of citizens, not land or
government.

~~~
gyardley
Living in California is more desirable than living in Texas? That might be
true for you, but is it true in general?

If we accept the cost of a one-way U-Haul as a proxy for desirability, as
<http://blog.american.com/?p=9141> does, it suggests that many more people are
moving from California to Texas than vice versa, which (if you believe people
act on their desire) suggests that Texas is currently a more desirable place
to live than California.

Anyone with time to do the work can get data on net inflows and outflows
directly from the IRS, starting here:

<http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=212718,00.html>

~~~
doki_pen
Why do we choose U-Haul and not housing costs? It seems obvious to me that
everything is more expensive in California, including U-Haul. It's cherry
picking.

