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/

Some famous words come to mind as our State Board of Education works through “first and second readings” of our Science Curriculum:

“If I have been able to see farther than others, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants…truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis best suited to open the way to the next better one.”

The TEKS Revision Committee of science teachers has expressed gratitude for such an effective and efficient process to review the Science TEKS. For more than a year the committee carefully reviewed the science standards, expert reviews, public feedback, College Readiness Standards, Achieve Report, SBOE directives and other pertinent documents. The new TEKS reflect quality science education: an integrated science with a more focused approach at each grade level, including science teacher preparation and professional development specialists. They streamlined the courses to ensure the ability for students to learn important science recommended by the research. They urge our full support!

For example: The curriculum framework at Elementary, Middle and High School Science begins with the definition of Science from the National Academy of Sciences…Nature of science: “the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.” This vast body of changing and increasing knowledge is described by physical, mathematical and conceptual models. Students should know that some questions are outside the realm of science because they deal with phenomena that are not scientifically testable.

Scientific inquiry is the planned and deliberate investigation of the natural world. Scientific methods of investigation can be experimental, descriptive or comparative. The method chosen should be appropriate to the question being asked: “the student learns the difference between scientific hypotheses and scientific theories. The student uses critical thinking, scientific reasoning, and problem solving to make informed decisions within and outside the classroom. The student is expected to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing…”

Dr. Ron Weatherington, Professor of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University responding to the issue of “strengths and weaknesses” said:

“It is indeed a sign of health when a theory, such as evolution can be expanded to envelope new discoveries in biology and paleontology without any fundamental challenge…it must be conveyed to all students that prevailing theories are never allowed to settle complacently, but are always subject to challenge, and the recent history of evolution demonstrates this. The proposed recommendations are solidly based on sound scientific principles. They foster critical thinking. They encourage thoughtful questions. They provide an excellent guide to exploration and discovery.”

The new updated Science TEKS supports students asking about all aspects of the theory of evolution…the pros and cons. In fact, discovery of DNA and genetic code, life-saving treatments, such as gene therapy, drug design, and the diagnosis of hereditary illnesses are based directly on the application of the Theory of Evolution.

In regard to Intelligent Design and Creationism

Intelligent Design and Creationism belong in Bible Curriculum Classes, Philosophy, and Anthropology classes. There is no conflict between faith and science. People of faith can also fully believe in science. Faith is a wonderful and important element in the lives of many of us. It is a powerful, uplifting force in the way we relate to other people and to the world around us. It should not, however, be confused with science. My Science Teacher taught me the basic meaning of evolution means “change”…and no one can deny change!

I personally believe God created this incredible world and everything in it…and through His omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, God could have easily created evolution as His mechanism for change. Therefore, in my opinion, evolution supports faith and my vote for the new Science TEKS reflects this.

Respectfully,

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, SBOE, Dist. 12

Member since 1984, Chair from 2003-07

“Mathematical knowledge adds vigor to the mind, frees it from prejudice, credulity, and superstition.” – John Arbuthnot, 1667-1735

Let’s set the record straight about the 3rd Grade Math Book! Elementary math books were approved in November by the SBOE, with the exception of a 3rd Grade Math Book in an elementary series called Everyday Math. Seven board members voted (one member absent) to reject the book saying, “I do not have to give a reason.” (see attachment)

•    At least thirteen schools in my district are using Everyday Math with success.

•    Dallas ISD piloted the books in 1996, and fully implemented the series in 2002.

•    Their results: From 2003-07, Grade 3 improved 11.1 percent, Grade 4 improved 31.7 percent, and Grade 5 improved 41.9 percent.

•    Another school found that Saxon Math books were not showing the results they wanted. Everyday Math books were piloted and are currently being implemented.

•    Everyday Math Grade 3 and its series were recommended by the State Math review panel because it met 100 percent of the TEKS curriculum, accuracy and binding requirements.

•    The Commissioner of Education recommended all the math books in his letter to the Board (including Everyday Math books).

•    Several outstanding private schools in my area use the books with success.

•    Teachers and students report that calculators are not used (only introduced).

•    Multiplication tables go up as high as 1,000.

•    Approximately 60 school districts in Texas use the books.

Because there was no reason given for rejecting the book, the six members voting for the book requested a minority report to be put into the minutes of the November 2007 meeting. Regretfully, at the January meeting, this majority voting block of members decided to expunge the report from our public minutes. Many felt this was an unusual action and a form of “censorship.” Therefore, the following is the minority report from our November meeting:

“The Board on November 16 voted on the Everyday Math, Grade 3 textbook with one member absent, one abstaining – 7-6. The six members that voted for the book requested a minority report to be put in the minutes. These members believe Everyday Math, Grade 3 meets all requirements to be eligible for the conforming list of math books. The publisher agreed to add and correct all concerns the board had requested. The six also believe this action and failure to follow the law was unprecedented. The Everyday Math, Grade 3 book should have been on the conforming list because it meets 100 percent of the curriculum standards. Regretfully, the prevailing side refused to give a reason for their vote to reject, saying: “I don’t need to give an explanation.” The members had received messages from school districts that were using Everyday Math requesting the board to adopt the book. The six members urged the Board to support the book, especially since the publisher was willing to add and correct and work with the Board to meet their concerns. The result was to reject with no reason by 7-6.”

Traditionally, the SBOE knows the importance of allowing maximum choice in providing districts and teachers with tools to reach all kinds of children, while also providing information about whether a textbook covers the curriculum. Therefore, school boards are encouraged to ask the Commissioner of Education to use his waiver authority for the 3rd Grade Everyday Math book.

Email: TEAINFO@tea.state.tx.us or (512) 463-8985.

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions…I remain,

Respectfully yours,

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, SBOE, Dist. 12

Member since 1984, Chair from 2003-07

Attachment:

The Board has seldom rejected a book.

Example: In 2001, the SBOE rejected an environmental science book. The publisher would not add and correct concerns of the Board, such as blaming the Industrial Age and Christianity for the problems with the environment. When the Board asked them to give balance to this claim with another opinion, they refused. This was the reason the Board voted to reject. A lawsuit was brought against the Board that later failed.

As a member of the State Board of Education since 1984 and currently chair of the SBOE, (appointed and re-appointed by Governor Perry in 2003 and 2005), I felt compelled to resurrect my newsletter communication to my constituents and friends in education. At the end of this year’s legislative session plus two special sessions, with no bills passed on education, I felt so frustrated that it reminded me of the famous line from the movie, Network, when Peter Finch said: “I am mad as hell, and I’m not going to take in anymore.” Most of us went into the regular session with high hopes of developing good legislation for our public schools in Texas. But over half way through the regular session, the focus changed…high paid lobbyists from the giants of the technology industry began putting pressure on the members of the legislature to buy laptops for the school children of Texas instead of funding the kid’s textbooks. Regretfully, the handwriting was on the wall…somehow these high paid lobbyists from the technology industry nurtured the “myth” that laptops were books and that textbooks with traditional print were “dinosaurs” and needed to go away, and by misrepresenting testimony to the House of Representatives Public Education Committee that the State Board of Education, along with the textbook publishers, was against technology.

Apparently, not one of the nine members of the Public Education Committee challenged that statement. For the record:

•    Fact: State Board of Education authored the first Long Range Goals on Technology in 1988 with a goal to implement technology into our textbook-based system by 2010.

•    Fact: Texas was the first state in the nation to adopt an “electronic textbook” in elementary science (1990).

•    Fact: The role of the SBOE is to implement the laws that are passed by the legislature…one of which is the technology issue.

•    Fact: Our textbook adoption process is considered the best in the United States, with its error-free, content-rich materials, whether in a printed or electronic format. Many states follow our lead!

Somehow, the Legislature failed to follow the Board’s work on this issue…because they appeared to buy into this falsehood by lobbyists from the technology industry giants that Texas was lagging in advancing technology in the schools. Needless to say, by the time our Board realized that was happening, the SBOE (in a bipartisan effort) communicated with the legislators and the leaders by sending letters expressing the need to fund the textbooks and supported the Senate Education bill by Senator Shapiro. We called and emailed our representatives to inform them of our progress with integrating technology into our textbook-based system. Regretfully, our Board and the publishers were being painted as “dinosaurs” with our heads in the sand in regard to technology. It soon became apparent that many of the legislators bought into this “myth” and chose not to honor our traditional and moral obligation to fund the textbooks from the ’03 Session and this current ’05 Session.

Bills emerged with a revised definition for textbooks

Using the term “instructional materials,’ including technology verbiage to include laptops. Most people know that a laptop/computer device is not a book. A laptop is to “instructional materials” what a desk is to a “classroom.” These are devices that are not instructional in nature but are “furniture” that we use to facilitate the instructional materials. As with the student occupying the desks, the disc/software that goes inside and/or occupies the laptop/computer is the actual “instructional material” that creates an electronic format. Why would our representatives buy into this “myth?” Peel away the layers and we find it is always about money!

The technology industry giants would profit greatly in selling laptops to 1200 Texas school districts with more than 4 million school children, with half in Middle and High School…do the math. Apparently they decided the solution to pay for laptops would come from The Permanent School Fund (PSF) normally referred to as the “Children’s Textbook Fund.” How? By calling a laptop device “instructional material,” it would qualify for the money from the Permanent School Fund. If our elected officials continue to buy into this “myth”…ignoring the intent of the Texas Constitution…The Permanent School Fund will be drained with little money left over for “real” instructional materials, such as: traditional printed textbooks and electronic software. By defining a piece of furniture, such as a laptop, as instructional materials, then chairs, desks, lamps, fax machines, etc., can qualify! The question becomes…why don’t the wealthy technology giants donate the laptops to our school districts? Some may call it GREED!

Now, a little Texas history lesson

When our pioneers wrote the Texas Constitution around 1854, they created a “School Fund.” By 1876, the money from this 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 in government). They dedicated the revenue from oil and gas into the corpus starting with two million dollars. Under the prudent stewardship of the State Board of Education, the fund has grown to $20+ billion, generating about $800 million a year.

•    Fact: PSF ranks in the top 10 percent of all education endowments in the nation.

•    Fact: PSF is not tax dollars.

•    Fact: PSF guarantees school bonds saving local taxpayers millions of dollars.

Our pioneers dedicated the revenue of the fund for free textbooks to the school children of Texas. By naming it the PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND the intent was for perpetuity (forever) for generations of school children enabling them to always have a free textbook (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 each year enough money to pay for the kid’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 text books for the use of children attending the public schools of this State.”

However, each year the legislature tried to wiggle out of fully funding the books. The books usually cost approximately $300+ million a year. Do the math…there is plenty of money left over for the legislature to spend on other educational issues. So, why the unusual behavior? In 1975, the legislature received an Attorney General’s opinion “watering down” the original intent of the PSF by allowing the legislature at their discretion to limit the amount appropriated. This is the “loop hole” the legislature uses to NOT fully fund the books each year.

Fast forward to 2003 and 2005

Due to the enormous deficit we inherited from the 2001 Session, the funding for the ’03 textbooks was deferred to ’05. By 2005, approximately $700 million were owed on the textbooks. Sitting in warehouses (reviewed and ordered) the books were ready to be delivered to the school districts in August. The State Board of Education raised plenty of money through prudent and careful investing to pay for both the ’03 and ’05 textbooks (as mandated by the constitution). What happened and why? The technology industry giants, with their high paid lobbyists wanted the money to sell laptops to Texas schools. The cost is estimated in the billions and the source of the money would come from the PSF. Once the layers are peeled back…again, it is about money. When the regular and special sessions ended this summer with no bills passed on education, our wise Governor Perry stepped in using his authority of budget execution and demanded that the books be funded.

No one is against laptops for school children, but the Permanent School Fund needs to be protected from this type of “back door” raid by the technology giants. They can easily donate the laptop devices…The kid’s textbook fund needs to remain dedicated to “real instructional materials,” such as technology software that goes “inside” the laptop computers, as well as, traditional print. Texas school children and teachers deserve no less! This coming election year, as constituents and voters, we need to ask for and expect accountability from our elected officials. Why would the House vote on a bill three times that had not been read? (1) a bill that only funded the laptops and not the kid’s textbooks; (2) by-passed the outstanding SBOE quality review process by teacher experts; (3) removed the adoption cycle that aligns to the Texas curriculum, (4) allowing publishers and technology vendors to by-pass the quality state review process, go straight to the local school districts, and compete with a new form of “state allotment dollars” which co-mingles both technology laptop dollars and “real instructional materials,” such as traditional textbooks and electronic software; and, (5) possible outcome? “Instructional materials” filled with errors, opinions written as fact, and an environment conducive to fraud and abuse.

The real “heroes and champions” were the few elected officials who stood up for what was right, our school children, by following the intent of the Texas Constitution to “fund the books first.” Paraphrasing the famous line from the movie, Network: “We are not going to take it anymore!” In this election year, we have every right as citizens to ask and demand from the candidates running for elected offices, as well as those up for re-election, to do what is right: Protect the PSF (the kid’s textbook fund) in perpetuity for “real and actual” instructional materials…not for hardware devices, such as laptops.

Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, Chair, State Board of Education

Masters in Reading, specializing in Dyslexia