Dear Fellow Friends and Educators,

The State Board of Education met last week for the first time this school year. Topics of discussion included textbook funding and a controversial resolution to keep a pro-Islamic bias out of future textbooks. However, the biggest triumph was the passage of an updated version to the Dyslexia Handbook, a goal I wanted to accomplish before I step down from the Board.

I created the Dyslexia Handbook shortly after joining the Board to give teachers an easy-to-use tool for teaching and understanding children with dyslexia. After dealing with the affects of my son’s dysgraphia (a form of dyslexia), I knew how easy it was for these children to fall through the cracks in school and never recover from it. Thereafter, I made it my primary aim to be an advocate for dyslexic children. I have worked with the top experts in the field to produce a resource that has the most up-to-date research on this issue. The Dyslexia Handbook has proven invaluable, giving teachers the information they need to observe success in these students.

We have updated the Dyslexia Handbook many times since it was created. While a more thorough revision of the Handbook will be made after the 82nd Legislature, these most recent updates were all based on changes to existing – or the creation of new – laws.

The proposed changes also incorporate new information related to recent scientific studies and best practices for diagnosing students with dyslexia. The recommendations were unanimously accepted by the Board. These proposed changes bring us one step closer to a time when all of Texas’ dyslexic students have a chance at educational achievement. To get a copy of the updated Handbook, which should be available soon, go to the TEA Web site at: http://www.tea.state.tx.us.

Perhaps the most complicated issue we faced last week was textbook funding because of the circumstances of the economy today. The State is forecasting an $18 billion shortfall, and the Governor, Lt. Governor and Speaker have asked that every state agency to cut their budgets by five percent for this biennium and cute their base for the next biennium by five percent while also bringing in 10 percent options. Consequently, the Education Commissioner, Robert Scott, announced that he is cutting Reading and Science textbooks out of the TEA’s budget.

The State Board of Education is given the task of overseeing the Permanent School Fund, and thus votes on the payout percentage, which is critical for funding textbooks. If they vote on a percentage that is too high, they risk depleting the Fund for future generations to come. Therefore, we must always be conservative in what we decide. The Committee on the Permanent School Fund voted on a 3.5 percent payout percentage for this year. So, with the cuts being made by the Commissioner, we had to make some tough decisions.

While we could not come up with a perfect solution, we settled on ordering supplemental science materials for the high school students. The high school students will be taking end-of-course exams for the first time this spring, and therefore need updated materials to prepare for their tests. While the 3rd through 8th graders will also be taking a new TEKS exam, their current materials do a better job of covering the necessary information for the test. This leaves it up to the local school districts to pay for any textbooks or materials not covered by the State. Commissioner Robert Scott assured the Board that students would not be tested on any subject for which they don’t have materials, opening the possibility that the new tests will be postponed until next year. Finally, the Board also voted to change the timeline for publishers to submit bids for textbooks and to open the bidding process in order to encourage competition and drive down the future cost of textbooks.

Perhaps the topic that received the most attention was a resolution that instructs publishers to reject textbooks with a pro-Islamic bias. The resolution narrowly passed by Board on a 7-6 vote (two members were absent).

The resolution was first presented to our Board in July by the man who lost his primary race against one of our incumbent board members from Lubbock. Apparently, his information came from old textbooks published in 1999 (prior to 9/11), along with an Advanced Placement college-level book that is not reviewed by the SBOE.

Some of us were surprised to see the resolution on our September agenda. When I realized the Chairman and/or the TEA had not checked the resolution for inaccuracies before placing it on our agenda, some of us tried to postpone and amend the resolution to make sure all books would reflect our new History TEKS for fairness, balance and accuracy. (A resolution is not binding and has no authority over future State Boards of Education.) No one on our board wants the World History books to be pro-Islamic bias and anti Christian…in fact, some of the publishers looked over the resolution at the meeting and found several errors.
Emotions led the final vote rather than thoughtful and rational reason. As a proud Reagan Christian Conservative, I could not vote for a resolution that had not been properly reviewed and checked for accuracy.

If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me via my Web site at http://www.tincymiller.com.

Wishing you a blessed and joyful new school year.

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller
State Board of Education, District 12
Member since 1984
Chair, 2003-2007

Dear Fellow Educators and Friends,
While most folks were taking holidays in July, the State Board of Education (SBOE) met to discuss investment opportunities for the Children’s Textbook Fund and Proclamation 2011.

The debate about the Children’s Textbook Fund (also known as the Permanent School Fund or PSF) involved a decision whether or not the Board was going to go forward with a proposal to purchase/leaseback facilities to charter schools. While the idea, in theory, has merit – investing in the success of our schools is certainly a primary purpose of the Board’s – six of 13 members (including myself) argued that this was not the means by which to do it.

We all support charter schools. In fact, we vote regularly to approve charter applications for schools that we believe will be excellent alternatives for children in the state. That said, every expert on the matter warned the Board that this was not only a risky investment, but it could also violate the constitution since the Fund was never intended for investments of this nature.

Article VII, section 3 of the Texas Constitution states: “it shall be the duty of the SBOE to set aside a sufficient amount of available funds to provide free textbooks for the use of children attending the public free schools of the state”. Therefore, if using the Children’s Textbook Funds in this way proves to be unconstitutional, the Board could face litigation. The Constitution also states in Article VII, section 5(f): “the State Board of Education may acquire, exchange, sell, supervise, manage, or retain, through procedures and subject to restrictions it establishes and in amounts it considers appropriate, any kind of investment…considering the probable income as well as the probable safety of their capital.” In other words, the investments must be sound.

In response to our disappointment with the Board’s vote to approve the proposal, my husband, Vance (President and CEO of Henry S. Miller Companies), and I wrote an opinion editorial that was published in the Austin American-Statesman on Wednesday, July 28th. I have included it here to give you a more thorough view of this issue.

Last week, a slim majority of the State Board of Education passed a proposal to use the Children’s Textbook Fund to purchase/leaseback real estate facilities to charter schools – an unorthodox plan that could affect the future viability of the Fund.

In spite of discouragement from the Board’s fiduciary counsel, its investment managers and the Texas Education Agency’s Fund staff, some members of the Board were determined to use the Fund as a way to boost charter schools in Texas, which typically have difficulty securing adequate facilities from which to operate. While certainly an admirable goal, putting the Children’s Textbook Fund at risk is not the means by which to do it.

The Children’s Textbook Fund was established in 1894 to provide free textbooks to Texas public school children. The initial revenue was $2 million from oil and gas interests; now it generates from $700-$800 million a year, which the Texas Constitution says must be used to pay for “instructional materials” for school children in the state. Over the years, the Board has struggled to protect the Fund from raids from the Legislature, which has wanted to use the money to pay for items other than content, such as laptops and Kindles.

The financial strength of the Children’s Textbook Fund is also used to back the bonds issued to pay for the construction of publicly owned school buildings through the Bond Guarantee Program. This backing gives the school bonds the equivalent of the highest rating available in the bond market, and consequently the Fund has the full faith and credit, as well as the School District’s taxing authority as security. Some members believe that since the Children’s Textbook Fund is used for this purpose, it opens the door for investing in facilities for privately owned charter schools. Not so.

Purchase/leaseback real estate investments of school facilities are specialized developments in residential neighborhoods rented to typically not well-capitalized users. Additionally, funding of usually non-profit charter schools is normally by volunteer and student contributions, making this type of investment highly illiquid and unsuitable for the Children’s Textbook Fund. For this reason, using the Fund to invest in charter schools could hamper its profitability, potentially leading to a situation where it cannot cover the costs for its initial purpose. Already, the legislature voted last session to allow schools to use the Funds they receive from the Children’s Textbook Fund to purchase Kindles and laptops, which rapidly become outdated. Therefore, it is more important than ever that we make well-informed investing decisions to ensure that future public school children have the materials they need to learn.

One of the primary roles of the State Board of Education is to maintain the success of the Children’s Textbook Fund. The decision to invest Fund money into Charter Schools is a blatant disregard for our fiduciary responsibility to the children of this state. This is the second time in the past year that the Board has asked for counsel on Fund investment decisions and a slim majority has voted to oppose their suggestions (the first vote occurred in 2009 with the selection of fund managers – the Committee on the Children’s Textbook Fund chose the firm that ranked worst in all categories by TEA staff professionals.)

While being in favor of school choice and having long supported charter schools, this is an inappropriate use of the Children’s Textbook Fund that could lead to litigation that would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. The Board’s fiduciary counsel strongly urged the Board to seek an opinion from Attorney General Greg Abbott before proceeding with this plan. Let’s hope the Board can stick with that decision before committing any money to this risky proposal.
Time will tell what the effects of this decision may mean for the future of the Children’s Textbook Fund. I sincerely hope I am wrong about the possible deterioration of the Fund, but I do not foresee a promising outcome.

Proclamation 2011 was also a topic of concern. The Board had previously voted to push up the process by one year, foregoing a complete science textbook update for the creation of supplemental materials to the old textbooks. Further review of this decision proves to be inefficient and expensive. The money will not be available to pay for supplemental materials in 2011. If we wait a year to take the time to do a complete textbook update, the Legislature would have met and the possibility of the funds being available is more secure. This decision is far from being approved, but I plan to raise it at the Board meeting in September.

I hope that you and your family have had a safe and relaxing summer vacation.
Good luck as you embark upon the coming year.

Sincerely,

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller
State Board of Education Member for District 12

Dear Fellow Educators and Friends,

In May, the State Board of Education (SBOE) held the meeting to finally adopt the new Social Studies Curriculum Standards, which are now a part of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). As you know, this has been a widely publicized process, and a large portion of what has been printed in the media has been untrue. There were efforts made to halt the adoption process, but thankfully, we were able to push through and pass a well-balanced set of standards that we all can be proud of.

In my March newsletter, I mentioned that there were a couple amendments I voted for that were taken to mean something other than they were, and I vowed to look into my votes and to change them at the May meeting if I found that my understanding of them was incorrect. The first eliminated a reference to Thomas Jefferson from World History. Through a discussion with Dr. Edward Countryman, a history professor at Southern Methodist University, I was able to clarify that, in fact, he was an Enlightenment thinker, and I worked with a number of my colleagues on the Board to place Thomas Jefferson back into World History. He is also referenced more than 25 times in the K-12 Social Studies standards, and he is part of the 5th and 8th grade curriculum, and US Government. A second amendment involved religious freedom. Contrary to what some of the media have said, Religious Freedom is a part of US Government, using language from the First Amendment and the Constitution.

In addition to the two issues above, there were a number of claims that I would like to clarify regarding the new standards, as I have received letters and telephone calls from constituents who have read the media reports and are concerned. First, Capitalism is referenced in every social studies class starting in the 2nd grade. It is an important part of why so many people want to live in America, and therefore it has been given significant mention. The Moral Majority, the National Rifle Association and the Contract with America are all listed as being a part of the “conservative resurgence” in the parts of the high school curriculum. They are not given any more emphasis than any other groups referenced in the TEKS. The term “slavery” was not removed from the standards. In fact, it is covered numerous times throughout K-12. And finally, concerns were raised by various groups that not enough minorities, and minority groups and cases were mentioned in the TEKS. I have included a list at the bottom of this newsletter, and I believe you will see that claim is bogus. We worked very hard to come up with a set of standards that are well rounded and balanced. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply untrue.

The SBOE has spent more than a year working to perfect these standards. We held five public hearings and heard days of testimony from professors, teachers, parents and students. We used the collective expertise of the Board, the appointed review panel (made up of a select group of teachers), and the suggestions made in public testimony to come up with an impressive set of standards. Ronald Reagan said it very aptly when he said: “An informed patriotism is what we want…” I believe that without a doubt, that is what we have with these new Social Studies TEKS.

I hope you all have a blessed and safe summer. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns, and you may visit my Web site for news and updates at www.tincymiller.com.

Sincerely,

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller
State Board of Education Member for District 12

Minorities, groups and cases:
Ann Richards
Barack H. Obama
Barbara Jordan
Booker T. Washington
Brown v. Bd of Education
Carlos Espalier.
Carmen Loma Garza
Cesar Chavez
Dolores Huerta
Edgewood I.S.D. v. Kirby,
Ellen Ochoa
George Washington Carver
Harriet Tubman
Hector P. Garcia
Henry B. Gonzalez
Hernandez v. Texas
Hillary Clinton
Irma Rangel
John”Danny” Olivas
Jose Antonio Navarro
Jose Francisco Ruiz
Juan Antonio Badillo
Juan N. Seguin
Lorenzo de Zavala
LULAC
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Mendez v. Westminster
NAACP
Oprah Winfrey
Plácido Benavides
Raul A. Gonzalez, Jr.
Roe v. Wade
Roy Benavides
Sandra Day O’Connor
Sonia Sotomayor
Susan B. Anthony
Sweat v. Painter
Thurgood Marshall
Vernon J. Baker
W.E. B. Dubois
Wallace Jefferson

Dear Fellow Educators and Friends,

On March 12th, the State Board of Education met for our March meeting of the full board. The major topic of discussion was the passage (on second reading) of changes to the social studies curriculum, which we do about every 10 years. These revisions are used by the textbook publishers to bring their books up to date.

Because Texas is such a large state, it is one of the leading textbook buyers in the country, and therefore, the standards we set will influence the revisions of textbooks nationwide. As a result, there was a flurry of media coverage – more media than I have ever seen in my time on the Board. Much of what the media reported was incorrect, which has unfortunately resulted in unnecessary criticism of the Board’s actions. I will explain these further along in my newsletter.

As you know from my previous newsletters, it was brought to our attention about a year ago that some of the recommendations made by the writing team took out significant historical references and added a number of little known individuals, politicizing the entire process. It became my goal to ensure the social studies standards were historically accurate and not a re-written account of our history.

I have always said that education is not a Republican or a Democrat issue. It is about giving our children the best possible resources to succeed. When we begin to re-write history to favor one side or the other, those it affects most are the children.

I voted to maintain traditional Judeo-Christian values by reinserting Christmas into the standards as opposed to substituting it for lesser-known religions. I also voted to stick with references to capitalism, the free-market enterprise system, and other principles our Founding Fathers had in mind when they established our government.

It has come to my attention since the SBOE Meeting, though, that there were a couple amendments I voted for with which some people are unhappy and that the media have taken to mean something other than was intended. So, I want to explain my votes and set the record straight.

The first eliminated a reference to Thomas Jefferson from World History. The media incorrectly reported that we he was completely taken out of the curriculum framework. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was stricken in an 8-6 vote in reference to his influence of Enlightenment thinkers that included John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu and Jean Jacques Rousseau. I am obviously pro-Thomas Jefferson. However, I voted in favor of the elimination because I felt like his name did not belong there as he was not an Enlightenment philosopher, and I thought he was more relevant in other history classes. He remains a part of grade 5, grade 8 and US Government.

A second amendment was presented that would have had students “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” A dissenting position was given by one of the lawyers on the Board whose explanation of the Founding Fathers’ intent of this legal and political principle led me to vote against the amendment. That said, I believe separation of church and state is a valuable principle, and I certainly didn’t intend for students not to be taught about its significance.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:  ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, Thomas Jefferson said: “(Religion) is a matter which lies solely between man & his God…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The votes taken this week were only on second reading, and thus, if my constituents believe they need to change, I will certainly reintroduce these two items so we can vote again. Please do not hesitate to contact me to let me know your opinion on these and other issues coming before the Board in May. I will keep you apprised as to the final vote on the social studies standards following that meeting.

Finally, the Board passed four amendments clarifying the open-source issue. The first requires each textbook to be fully accessible on the Texas Education Agency’s Web site for public review at least 60 days before a vote is taken, and a public hearing must be held. The second requires the group that produces open-source materials to comply with all regulations that the textbooks publishers follow. The third calls for Board approval of certification presented by the producers of the open-source materials. The certification provides information regarding its textbooks already on the list and the numbers of students not being prepared as a result of using the textbooks. And the fourth amendment states in the TEC that open-source textbooks will not fulfill the requirement of a classroom set. By further defining the open-source issue and placing more stringent parameters on the materials, the Board as a whole is much more comfortable.

I want to thank you for your support over all these years that I have been on the Board. It has been such an honor working with you and doing my part to help improve education in Texas. I am very proud of all we have accomplished together. I will continue to send out my newsletters providing you with a summary of the Board meetings until the end of my term in December of this year. Please contact me with questions or concerns by going to my Web site at:

www.tincymiller.com.

Respectfully,

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, SBOE, Dist. 12

Member since 1984, Chair from 2003-2007

@font-face { font-family: “Arial”; }@font-face { font-family: “Courier New”; }@font-face { font-family: “Wingdings”; }@font-face { font-family: “ＭＳ 明朝”; }@font-face { font-family: “Calibri”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }ol { margin-bottom: 0in; }ul { margin-bottom: 0in; }

Dear Fellow Educators & Friends,

Last week, the State Board of Education (SBOE) met for the first time in 2010.  It was an exciting meeting with a very packed agenda, and consequently we were not able to complete everything.  We had groups and individuals testify from every corner of the state.  We had an excellent discussion on the TEKS, and we made a final ruling on the graduation requirements.

Prior to the meeting, the state had planned to eliminate Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC) from the High School graduation requirements.  However, after hearing testimony from a number of teachers, the Board decided to allow IPC to be taken as a fourth credit, once Chemistry and Physics have been taken and passed. Additionally, the Board voted to allow students to take up to four Physical Education requirements. The most passionate and lengthy discussions involved the Social Studies TEKS.

We had a day-and-a-half of testimony, followed by another half day of debate among the members.  I am always so pleased to get the kind of feedback we do on such an important issue.  It helps us to make the curriculum the very best it can be.

We were not able to get through it all, so we will be taking up the TEKS again at the March meeting of the full board.

The Board had also planned to consider a tighter set of rules to help the Texas Education Agency monitor the “Open Source” Textbook issue, but due to the constraints on time, we elected to wait until the next meeting to discuss it.  I am proposing two rules to consider.

The first calls for districts that purchase online classroom materials to have a set of SBOE-approved textbooks as well.

The second requires universities designing open source classroom materials to present them at a public hearing called by the SBOE to allow input from parents, teachers and stakeholders.

My favorite moment of the meeting occurred when the Highland Park Strolling Strings gave a stunning performance and were honored by the Board.  The Strolling Strings are made up of two dancers and an orchestra of musicians from Highland Park High School.

Peggy Tucker, orchestra director for the Strolling Strings, Dr. Dawson Orr, superintendent for Highland Park ISD, Gina Gardiner, assistant superintendent for Highland Park ISD, Linda Raya, Coordinator of Fine Arts for Highland Park High School, and Patrick Cates, Highland Park High School Principal were also in attendance to receive the honor.

The Strolling Strings gave one of the most unique presentations we have seen in a long time.  One attendee even called it “Real Art History”.

Finally, I am up for re-election this year, and I have a primary opponent, So, I hope you will get out and vote for me on March 2nd.

I have been a member of the SBOE since 1984, and in that time I have led the way for Texas children.  For instance, I have … with your help, been able to:

• Help pass the first Dyslexia Law in Texas, and established the first Dyslexia Handbook for parents and teachers to help students learn to read.

• Play a crucial & instrumental role in the early assessment for children at-risk for dyslexia and related disorders, and facilitated the first dyslexia reading academics.

• Improve the Textbook Review & Adoption Process in Texas by having teachers review the books in their subject specialty.

• I was instrumental in developing the first phonics-based curriculum in Texas that has proved successful.

• Firmly defend the Permanent School Fund (PSF), guaranteeing that all students will have equal access to textbooks.

I know how to affect positive change in Austin, because I’ve done it.  I am running for re-election because there is much more to do.

I will continually strive to raise the standards and insure that Texas public schools are the best they can be.

I am looking forward to continuing a very spirited discussion about the Social Studies TEKS and open source textbooks in March.  Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller State Board of Education Member for District 12

www.TincyMiller.com

@font-face { font-family: “Arial”; }@font-face { font-family: “Courier New”; }@font-face { font-family: “Wingdings”; }@font-face { font-family: “ＭＳ 明朝”; }@font-face { font-family: “Calibri”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }ol { margin-bottom: 0in; }ul { margin-bottom: 0in; }

Dear Fellow Educators and Friends,

The week before Thanksgiving, the State Board of Education (SBOE) met for its November meeting and a number of issues were covered that were of great importance. 
The Board voted: 1) to allow students to take two more P.E. credits or substitutes to count toward graduation requirements; 2) to eliminate the requirement that students take a health and technology applications class; 3) to reduce the number of physical education credits required from 1.5 to one credit; 4) to approve the Reading Language Arts textbooks that will be in schools next year; 5) to revise its ethics policy, requiring its members to disclose an existing or prior relationship with businesses in which the Permanent School Fund is invested or that may provide future investment advice to the Board; and, 6) to allow board members an opportunity to dispute any written disclosure from a vendor.

Of all the items we addressed, however, one stands out as an issue that could dramatically affect the quality of materials your students receive in school, while weakening the duties of the Board, and, that is, open source textbooks. Last session, Representative Scott Hochberg authored a bill that allows the Commissioner of Education to approve textbooks for schools without any public input or oversight by an elected body. House Bill 2488 – the open source textbook bill – is a watershed piece of legislation that unfortunately passed and went under the radar of most Board members. Now that it is taking form, and accelerating at a rapid pace, there is reason for grave concern.

The SBOE has developed a textbook adoption process that is a model for other states. It implements the highest quality curriculum standards for the state through a process where the Texas Education Agency, educators, parents and students work closely with the Board in a transparent and open process.

House Bill 2488 ignores a process that has been in place for years and has resulted in great success. It offers no chance for review or public participation. No one – including the SBOE – will be able to evaluate the materials before they are sold to schools in March 2010. The effects of this bill run deep. It will eliminate materials that are aligned with state standards and will allow questionable resources into the system that will be there for years to come.

The SBOE has a responsibility – as written in the constitution – to manage and protect Texas students’ instructional materials, ensuring they are aligned with state standards. It is a mistake to take this power from the Board and handle our textbook adoption process in this way. Something needs to be done to slow this train down before it is too late!

In recent years, certain members of the Texas Legislature have tried to pass legislation to neuter the SBOE of its duties in favor of a system that hands the decision over to one person with no public oversight. Fortunately, this faction of individuals has not been strong enough to affect such an outcome, but as you can see from this legislation it is growing.

Though the bill has already passed, there are certain things we can do to mitigate its effects:

• First, we need as many people as possible to write Governor Rick Perry and ask him to request that Commissioner Robert Scott hold a public hearing to allow input on this issue. We don’t want a textbook adoption system that is accountable to only one person.
• Second, we need to elect state representatives and senators who support the SBOE and allow it to perform the tasks required by the Texas Constitution. As you meet with candidates, please make sure they are aware of this issue and find out where they stand on it.
• And finally, tell your friends and colleagues about the open source textbook issue so that we can get a public dialogue going about the detrimental affects of this legislation.

This bill passed because not enough people knew what it did. I firmly believe most parents and educators would be appalled to know the truth about this bill and will do whatever they can to stop it from going any further!

Thank you, in advance, for helping me to educate folks about this issue. I will continue to follow up with you on any developments. As always the quickest way to find out new information on the SBOE is to go to the “Newsletters” page on my Website.

Have a blessed and joyous Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Respectfully,

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, SBOE, Dist. 12

Member since 1984, Chair from 2003-2007

P.S. The board will hold a public hearing to complete the proposed Social Studies TEKS in January, at which point I will follow up with you to let you know the outcome of that hearing.

Dear Fellow Educators and Friends,

Throughout my 25 years on the State Board of Education (SBOE), I have watched high paid lobbyists of the technology industry pressure the legislature into buying laptops for school children rather than funding student’s textbooks. Unfortunately, they finally succeeded.

This session, Representative Dan Branch (R – Dallas) passed a bill that allows school districts to use the Permanent School Fund (PSF), normally referred to as the Children’s Textbook Fund, to pay for laptops. While there is little value in arguing the merits of using technology to improve the way we teach our students, we must mindfully plan how to implement this law to avoid the inclination to throw out our current content-based system in favor of the latest fad.

The role of the SBOE is to put laws into practice that are passed by the legislature, one of which is technology, and it has gone a long way in doing this. In 1988, it authored the first Long Range Goals on Technology to apply technology to the textbook-based system by 2010. In 1990, Texas adopted the first electronic textbook in elementary science. Moreover, every year publishers have responded to the SBOE’s Proclamation for Textbooks by integrating technology into their own textbooks.

Texas’s textbook adoption process is considered to be the best in the nation, with its error-free, content-rich material. Many states follow our lead. However, the legislature has failed to follow the Board’s work on this issue because they continuously buy into the falsehood that Texas lags behind other states when it comes to advancing technology in schools.

Most people know that a laptop or desktop computer is not a book. A laptop is to instructional materials what a desk is to a classroom. These machines are not instructional in nature. They are furniture used to facilitate the instructional materials. As with students occupying desks, the software that goes inside the computer is the actual “instructional material” that creates an electronic format. By defining a piece of furniture, such as a laptop, as instructional materials, then chairs, desks, lamps or fax machines can qualify as well.

When the first Texans wrote the state’s constitution in 1854, they created a “School Fund.” By 1876, the money from the fund was almost depleted. So, our forefathers separated the school fund from the legislature and created a Permanent School Fund and a State Board of Education to be the sole managers of this fund (in other words, separation of power, a check and balance system in government). They dedicated the revenue from oil and gas into the corpus starting with $2 million. Under the prudent stewardship of the State Board of Education, the fund has grown to more than $20 billion, generating about $800 million per year. The PSF ranks in the top 10 percent of all education endowments in the nation. It is not tax dollars, and it guarantees school bonds, saving local taxpayers millions of dollars.

Those Texas pioneers dedicated the revenue from the fund for free textbooks for the schoolchildren of Texas. By naming it the Permanent School Fund, the intent was that it last in perpetuity (forever) for future generations of schoolchildren enabling them to always have free textbooks (whether in the form of traditional print or the new technology software instructional materials). Every student in Texas receives free textbooks because of the constitutional mandate from 1876. The Constitution clearly states that the SBOE is to set aside every year enough money to pay for the student’s textbooks. Article VII, Section 3 (b) states: It shall be the duty of the State Board of Education to set aside a sufficient amount of available funds to provide free textbooks for the use of children attending public free schools of this State.

No one is opposed to laptops for Texas schoolchildren. However, the PSF needs to be protected from being completely depleted by using it to purchase expensive computer devices that will go out of date in a matter of a few short years. Computers can be donated if necessary. The Children’s Textbook Fund needs to remain dedicated to instructional materials, such as technology software that goes inside computers, as well as traditional print. Texas schoolchildren and teachers deserve no less!

Many questions remain about how to implement this new legislation into the current Long Range Plan for Technology. As the State Board of Education has successfully moved Texas forward with its complex review process, so it should continue this practice with the laptop legislation. Students should not be short-changed on content. We must assure equity in instruction. As more instructional products become available in digital formats, revisions occur and electronic updates should be readily available as well.

As Texas public schools enter the digital age, the Board remains committed to improving the delivery of instructional materials. Let’s make sure we are mindful of how we bring technology to our schools, while safeguarding one of our most important financial resources, the Permanent School Fund.

Thank you,

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller

State Board of Education member for District 12

Dear Fellow Educators and Friends,

Update from September SBOE Meeting

Last week the State Board of Education met to discuss a host of issues, including high school graduation requirements, the Social Studies TEKS, the Permanent School Fund, and funding for textbooks. The majority of items we discussed were tabled for the next SBOE meeting in November.

One topic that received a lot of interest was brought to our attention by concerned parents who noticed that Christmas and Rosh Hashanah had been removed from the draft of the 6th Grade Social Studies TEKS. I am pleased to pass on that this was an oversight on the part of the writing experts, and it will be corrected by adding them back into the curriculum.

I will be sending out a newsletter following the November meeting when more concrete decisions have been made on the other items up for debate. Please continue to visit my Web site for regular updates.

Thank you,

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller
State Board of Education member for District 12

Dear Fellow Educators and Friends,

At the July State Board of Education (SBOE) meeting, a number of events took place that have further alerted the public and the media that things are not as they should be in the decision-making processes exercised by the Board.  The Board voted 1) to select an under-qualified investment counsel advisor for the Permanent School Fund (PSF); 2) ignored the SBOE Charter School process; 3) killed a new Career and Technology Math course without good cause.

The obvious question is: “Why have these votes taken place?”

Since the last election in 2006, there has been a voting bloc of eight members of the Board that controls the agenda and makes decisions based more on wielding its power than considering what is best for Texas public schools.  After the actions of the July meeting, it was clear to anyone watching that the traditional process of collegiality that has characterized the SBOE for years, is no longer present and that this bloc of members is ignoring the committee process of discussing and investigating issues before bringing them to the full Board for a vote.  This has left the rest of the Board frustrated and discouraged by the railroading of agendas on such important issues.

Already, the legislature has expressed its disappointment with the Board when the SBOE narrowly escaped the passage of a number of bills that would have significantly diminished its power, if not eradicated it altogether.  One legislator said:

“We need to take all the power away, leaving the board with nothing to do except meet for coffee.”

Thankfully, these bills failed to pass, but legislators continue to voice their concerns and have promised to monitor the Board’s behavior in the interim.  In fact, the July actions of the eight member voting bloc may only serve to validate the concerns of the legislature and education community to revert back to a Governor appointed board. Now, the public and the media are coming forward with concerns of a possible violation of the open meetings law, and with questions about ethical transparency.

As we entered into the July meeting, the Board was set to select a new investment team to manage the Permanent School Fund.  The PSF is a nearly $19 billion endowment used to provide free books for Texas school children, and thus it was imperative that the firm we chose be able to maintain and grow the Fund to meet the needs of our students.  A few months ago, it came to the attention of the Board that at least one of the members on the Committee of School Finance and Permanent School Fund had previously worked with one of the three firms being considered, and that communication between that member and one of the firm’s employees took place during the procurement period.

When the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) professional staff ranked the firms under consideration, that firm was ranked third – out of three – in every area evaluated.  Nevertheless, this company was chosen by the bloc of eight, in spite of the fact that other members had serious concerns with its ability to do the job.  When the vote came before the Board, those apprehensions were raised again.  However, the voting bloc of eight members were able to cut off debate and vote in the least qualified investment team under consideration.

Similarly, the very deliberate Charter School selection process was compromised when the Committee on School Initiatives voted unanimously to delay a decision in awarding a public charter school the single open slot in the state.  However, when the discussion came up at the full Board meeting, a member (one of the eight) made a motion to ignore the Committee’s decision and vote on a school.  The charter was awarded to Koinonia Community Learning Academy in Houston, and while I have nothing against this school, the Board members could not make a well-informed decision because they did not have enough information on the schools being considered.

Finally, the Board voted to adopt a new math course into the Career and Technology TEKS.  This course was more useful for the 21st Century, as it applied math principles to current events.  However, in a rare move, a motion was made to reconsider the vote in the final minutes of the meeting because of concerns that the course was not conventional enough (specifically for the voting bloc of eight members).  Advocates for the course had already gone home, confident that they had allayed all concerns raised by the Board by making changes to the course to the apparent satisfaction of these Board members.  They were livid when they heard the news that their course had, in fact, been rejected.

Someone once told me that there is no Democrat or Republican way to educate kids, just the right way.  It has been my experience over the past 25 years that when the Board focuses on the children, then both sides generally come together and find common ground.  We were able to do that with the changes to the Science curriculum.

Now, with the consideration of the Social Studies curriculum update, we must be careful to avoid the temptation to rewrite history.  For example, in the last adoption of history textbooks, some of the publishers attempted to revise the World War II invasion of Normandy by calling it a failed effort.  Fortunately, we were able to correct that error, but similar issues will come before us in the meeting ahead, and we must be prepared to handle them.

As we look forward, I sincerely hope we can re-evaluate where we are and get back on track in order to regain the confidence of the legislature and our constituents.  The school children of Texas deserve no less!

Respectfully,

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, SBOE, Dist. 12

Member since 1984, Chair from 2003-2007

Dear Fellow Educators and Friends,

The debate over the Science TEKS, especially over Biology (creation vs. evolution) brought to mind President Ronald Reagan’s famous “11th Commandment…thou shall not speak ill of fellow Republicans.”

Since January, an atmosphere of bigotry and hypocrisy surfaced and surrounded this issue. The three Reagan Republicans on the board: myself, Bob Craig and Pat Hardy became targets of a particularly false smear campaign from a group of anti-science Republican fundamentalists sending threatening calls and emails. These ultra-religious extremists used an automatic dialing system to place pre-recorded calls to registered voters at our homes with a deliberately deceptive message distorting the issue and claiming we were liberals voting with the ACLU against true scientific debate. In a clever and misleading “sound bite” argument, the Intelligent Design/Creationists were determined to insert religious school children by forcing educators to teach “weaknesses of Evolution”…which deliberately confuses “hypothesis” with scientific theory. The theory of evolution is universally accepted by all legitimate pre-reviewed scientists as the foundation of biology. As one scientist stated: “using broad, imprecise terms dilutes and misdirects the debate away from this central issue: religion in the biology classroom.”

In the arena of politics, good people can agree to disagree…Christians can agree to disagree…Republicans can agree to disagree…and Democrats can agree to disagree. However, they usually find a way to ultimately come together and agree. Craig, Hardy and I brokered a compromise agreement on Friday, March 19 assuring academic freedom and encouraging critical thinking with the following key amendments.

Section 112.34, Biology, 7G

“Analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.”

Section 112.34, Biology, 7B

“Analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearances, stasis, and the sequential nature of groups of the fossil record.”

In closing, I am a Christian and a student of the Bible. I have studied and taught the Bible, and I can see that both faith and science can co-exist and illuminate each other.

In the words of Dr. Francis Collins, genetic biologist, from his book The Language of God:

“God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants and animals of all sorts.”

Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately choose to disobey the Moral Law. This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world…the theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith…this perspective makes it possible for the scientist-believer to be intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshipping God and using the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.

Respectfully,

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, SBOE Dist. 12

Member since 1984, Chair from 2003-07

Science TEKS available at: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/