TEXAS TEXTBOOK ADOPTION
An Historical Analysis

by Steven Schafersman
President, Texas Citizens for Science
www.txscience.org
Austin, Texas • July 9, 2003

Every person with an interest in public school education knows how Texas chooses its textbooks. In a state that prides itself on an ethos of rugged individualism, Texas has one of the most highly centralized and authoritarian methods of school textbook selection in the country. The State Board of Education ultimately approves each textbook adopted throughout the state, and these books are provided free to the state's many school districts. Until recently, schools could choose only from among the approved textbooks, but today they can choose any title and the state will partially pay for the books. But even this reform is unhelpful, since with massive budget shortfalls, school districts choose to receive the free books. Thus, the Board members still essentially decide what books all Texas students use.

But they decide much more than that. The Board reviews each textbook's content, and if they don't like it, they can hold the book hostage until the publisher agrees to change the content. Most publishers comply with this extortion and censorship, since with an annual budget for textbooks of $570 million, Texas "is clearly one of the most dominant states in setting textbook adoption standards," says Stephen Driesler, executive director of the American Association of Publishers' school division. Publishers will often have their books written to appeal to the Texas market, because it is so enormous, and thus "Texas-vetted" textbooks will appear in the public schools of most other states.

A publisher that refuses to oblige the Board will find its book rejected. This is what happened to Jones and Bartlett, whose environmental science book was attacked by some of Texas's extreme conservatives, who objected to a passage which said that "too many people reproducing too quickly" could be harmful to the environment. The Board rejected this textbook and a dozen others whose publishers refused to modify statements about excessive human population growth, global warming, and air and water pollution caused by industry that is harmful to the environment. Others capitulated, however; one publisher removed a reference to carbon dioxide as a "pollutant" responsible for global warming.

Social studies books were recently censored for an "anti-settler" tone that favorably compared the lifestyles of Native Americans with European settlers; some Board members pushed publishers to depict slavery in a more positive light; an American history text was withdrawn by the publisher after Board members objected to references of rampant prostitution in the American West in the 1800s; members criticized pictures of women with briefcases, asking where were the pictures of women as homemakers. In years past, health books were almost rejected or censored for being too explicit about sexual hygiene and contraception until pressure from the Texas Department of Health--who publicized the fact that Texas has among the highest rates of both teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases in the nation--forced the Board to adopt the books. I remember once when the Board tried to censor the dictionary; when the publisher refused to remove a few sexually-explicit words from the new edition, the Board refused to adopt it and Texas students had to use the old edition for another six years, despite the fact that most copies were already falling apart.

The saddest thing about this spectacle is that textbook publishers know to expect it, and they engage in massive self-censorship prior to the adoption process to mitigate problems with the super-conservative State Board before they even arrive in Austin. Professional textbook reviewers are well aware of this self-censorship: it has made many textbooks as treacly as cotton candy, as fulfilling as Pablum, as much fun to read as the phone book. Textbooks routinely avoid all potentially controversial topics; dangerous passages are watered down and insightful passages are dumbed down. No wonder kids want to read Harry Potter rather than their school books--all the magic has been sucked out of the latter.

The State Board of Education has traditionally been overwhelmed with conflicting views regarding science textbook content from both scientists and creationist, non-scientist citizens. Most State Board members, who are ordinary citizens elected to their offices by a political process, have little or no knowledge of science, but this has not prevented them from exercising their power to edit (i.e., censor) science textbooks on the basis of their own ideological, political, and religious beliefs. Historically, the result has been the adoption of scientifically-inferior textbooks in Texas and poor science education in the state's public schools, with the result that Texas students historically scored among the lowest of all the states on standardized science exams. It may seem odd that Texas, a state that one might expect would epitomize rugged individualism and respect for accomplishment, nevertheless has a system of highly-centralized political control of the scientific content of public school textbooks, and historically has used this power to dumb-down and censor perfectly valid science textbooks by holding the books' adoption hostage to force publishers to make changes consistent with fundamentalist Christian and extreme right-wing political beliefs. This process has consistently repeated itself over the years, as recently as last year in 2002 with the social studies books.

As one might expect, this long-time process has had consequences: Texas businessmen have long complained about the poor thinking, communication, reading, and writing skills of Texas students, and the Texas Legislature has attempted to correct the problem by a number of greatly-needed reforms: (1) instituting a state school curriculum (TEKS) that requires, among many other things, proper science instruction and critical thinking skills, (2) mandatory state proficiency exams that must be passed for grade promotion and graduation (TAKS), (3) limiting the power of the SBOE to edit textbooks by allowing only correction of "factual errors," and (4) allowing schools to purchase reliable textbooks if the State Board process doesn't produce them. Still, it is less expensive for the state's school districts to use the textbooks adopted by the politically- and ideologically-charged process, and most do this.

In 1995, the Legislature stripped the State Board of its power to force wide-ranging modifications of textbooks to suit their ideological and religious whims, and only allow changes to correct for "factual errors." But even this small allowance was enough for some of the State Board members to try to force their views upon the state's student population, because they have the power to decide what is or isn't a "factual error," irrespective of informed, legitimate scientific and scholarly testimony or objection. Thus, the State Board has the power to compel publishers (by refusing to adopt their textbook unless changes in content are made) to make changes in the scientific content of their books, and publishers have historically complied (since the Texas textbook market is approximately $570 million each year!). The only thing that has prevented the SBOE from achieving even worse ends, from a scientific point of view, is the effort of hundreds of concerned citizens who keep public, press, education, and business attention focused on the Board. Such attention has undoubtedly been the primary brake on the Board's ideological self-indulgence, but even this has not prevented many abuses that occurred just in the past year. This recent record is available in the press clippings posted on this site.

And the worst is yet to come: biology textbooks are up for adoption this year, and the primary focus will be on them, as it always is when this topic cycles in. Six Biology books have been submitted for adoption, and five Advanced Placement Biology books submitted. The latter books are ones used in colleges and universities all over the country, and are uniformly excellent and non-objectionable. In the early 1980's, 10th grade Biology books had controversial topics (evolution, origin of life, sex, etc.) so watered-down, dumbed-down, and even omitted completely, that the books were almost always a disaster. The biology textbooks that did not self-censor themselves in this way, such as the BSCS books, were never adopted in Texas. Two decades of effort by a few individuals helped to correct this tragedy, but the real impetus for change came when the Texas Legislature instituted the TEKS curriculum and stripped the SBOE of much of its power to censor and remove textbooks. The six biology books submitted now for Biology are far better than those of two decades ago: they are not self-censored and contain adequate coverage of the controversial scientific topics (controversial, of course, only in the minds of religious and political extremists). Because their coverage of evolution is at least adequate (some are superior), the six books will be criticized by citizen creationists in the hearing and by creationists on the State Board of Education.

I have participated in almost all biology adoptions since 1982, when biology textbooks had their coverage of evolution and the origin of life minimized or removed after decades of pressure by creationists on the State Board. Over the next 13 years, efforts by a few citizens led to the removal of the anti-evolution textbook disclaimer, to the addition of evolution in the state's science curriculum, and finally to the adoption of biology textbooks that discussed evolution in a forthright and scientifically-accurate manner. The most important reform was the 1995 law to strip the State Board of its power to censor textbooks for any reason it wanted. Now, Board members are limited to requiring changes only for "factual errors," although even here they are often able to stipulate what is a fact and what is an error. Former Lt. Governor Bill Ratliff, an author of this law, said "the . . . law was not intended to allow these groups to police opinions. The law refers to factual errors--and that is meant in the true sense of the word," but the Board still manages to censor and reject quite a number of excellent textbooks on just "factual" criteria. This reform proved so effective in attenuating the Board's power, that Republican friends in the Texas House tried to pass legislation to return the Board's former privileges by giving it the right to reject (and thus to censor) any textbook based on "viewpoint discrimination or special interest advocacy on major issues, as determined by the State Board of Education." This law only escaped passage by the Democrat walkout to prevent redistricting, thus depriving many pieces of pending legislation from passing. As with redistricting, this abhorrent bill will ultimately be back.

This year, Texans have been obligated to form a coalition of scientists and citizens, just as was necessary in Kansas and Ohio, to protect science education in the state. The new organization is the Texas Citizens for Science. The problem in Texas is not, as in Kansas, that the State Board has mandated a science curriculum that omits the topic of evolution, although I am sure some of the members have thought about doing that (the Texas science curriculum was mandated by the Legislature and contains adequate requirements for evolution). Or, as in Ohio, where there was a legislative and state education board effort to politically insert a form of creationism (intelligent design) into the science curriculum. In Texas, the problem is that the SBOE will evaluate biology textbooks for the first time in eight years, checking them for "factual errors," and as it has in the past, attempting to censor the topic of evolution.

But one thing will be similar to Kansas and Ohio: this year the Texas Board is getting input from the creationists at the Discovery Institute, a Christian think-tank in Seattle, Washington, whose mandate is to produce the intellectual goods necessary to overthrow the "materialism" so prevalent in our culture, including science. Financially supported by wealthy religious fundamentalist sugar daddies, the Discovery Institute has produced a "Wedge Strategy" to quickly force intelligent design creationism into public discourse and "public school science curricula." Among the spawn of this "strategy" is the book Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, a work that has been thoroughly examined by legitimate scientists and reviewed in dozens of science journals. The scientists found the book to be a paragon of pseudoscientific misrepresentation, specious arguments, flawed reasoning, and misunderstood scientific concepts. Wells' book is marketed at individuals who are largely ignorant of evolutionary science and thus easily misled by superficial arguments, so its content was the perfect choice to create a Discovery Institute document: "A Preliminary Analysis of the Treatment of Evolution in Biology Textbooks" being considered for adoption by the Texas SBOE.

The 55-page document purports to examine the eleven biology textbooks being considered for adoption by examining four specific evolutionary topics, and then it fails all but one, which receives a C-. The analysis is based entirely on Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute, and deals with four subjects covered by most of the biology books: (1) The Miller-Urey abiogenesis experiment, (2) The Cambrian explosion, (3) Haeckel's drawings of vertebrate embryos, and (4) The Peppered Moths and industrial melanism. The DI analysis exactly follows Icons of Evolution, a book that has been rigorously examined, harshly criticized, and thoroughly refuted by scientists in dozens of reviews in scientific journals. Scientists criticized the book for misuse of scientific data, misrepresentation of the relevant facts and arguments under consideration, use of sophistic arguments that mislead scientifically ill-informed readers, omission of significant information that negates the intended conclusion, and a harsh, anti-scientific attitude that attempts to use popularization, illogical reasoning, and political intimidation to achieve public acceptance of anti-evolutionary conclusions, rather than rely on traditional scientific methods and practice--such as performing actual scientific investigations and experiments that invalidate evolution or support intelligent design creationism--to legitimately make their case.

Unfortunately for the Discovery Institute, the spurious evidence and specious arguments in this "Analysis" are no better than those in Icons of Evolution from whence they came. Interested readers will have to visit the TCS website for a complete description and access to linked documents. Five of these "failed" biology textbooks are used in colleges and universities throughout the United States; they are uniformly excellent when judged by proper scientific standards. The other six are high school biology texts that are in wide use; they contain an adequate to superior treatment of evolution and the origin of life. As I indicated above, the Discovery Institute analysis is scientifically faulty and fraudulent; it consistently misrepresents the four evolutionary topics that it uses as examples and misguidedly finds fault with in the textbooks. Therefore, it is important for citizens interested in science education in Texas to defend the six biology books for their coverage of evolution. Ultimately, the Discovery Institute will fail in its efforts to censor and degrade these biology textbooks in Texas, just as they failed to meet their objectives in Kansas and Ohio. If by chance they succeed in winning the hearts and minds of the State Board members, then Texas students will be the losers.

Please visit the Texas Citizens for Science website at www.txscience.org for the details about how the Discovery Institute's "Analysis" is scientifically inaccurate and deceptive. A special Texas Texbook Hearing Resources webpage contains several papers and links to many others that reviews Icons of Evolution in great detail and specifically answers the many claims contained in the DI's "Analysis of the Treatment of Evolution in Biology Textbooks." My own paper will be there soon with a detailed response in the context of the specific submitted textbooks.

Steven Schafersman is an evolutionary scientist who has taught biology, geology, paleontology, and environmental science at the University of Houston, Houston Community College, Miami University of Ohio, and the University of Texas of the Permian Basin. He was the president of the Texas Council for Science Education during 1983-1994, an organization similar to the Texas Citizens for Science.