• Texas' Elected SBOE Enforces General Textbook Content Standards
• LIBERATE Environmental "Science" Textbooks From Political Correctness 
• Break extremists' grip on Environmental "Science" courses 
• 2002 Textbook Ratings – Grades 6-7 Science 

Texas' elected State Board of Educa­tion (SBOE) has again con­firm­ed the education es­tablish­ment's dread of democra­cy, by nixing viewpoint discrimi­nation and special-interest advo­ca­cy. Last November, all ten SBOE Repub­licans reject­ed a politically-correct high school Environ­mental "Science" textbook, that the Board's five Demo­crats liked. But the real ques­tion here was, Can the SBOE, under Texas law, en­force general text­book content standards? Despite misrep­resen­ta­tions of the law and a media out­cry, the SBOE correctly voted yes.

General textbook content standards differ from rules for individual courses. They tell what all textbooks must do, and prohibit things they must NOT include – such as no blatantly offensive language or illustrations, no sensa­tional violence, no group stereo­typing, and no presenting theories as facts. Also, if submitted text­books miss one individual course require­ment, they go onto Texas' "non-conforming" list. But if they violate a single general textbook content standard, the SBOE can reject them – the fate that publishers most fear.

Actually, three high school Environ­mental "Science" books were under fire in Texas last November. One was withdrawn. An­oth­er was revised. Only the third was rejected, whose pub­lish­er balked at suf­fi­cient changes. The rejected text censored pro-free enterprise coun­ter­argu­ments against envi­ronment­alist extrem­ism on "over­population," dwindling natural resources ("un­sus­tain­ability"), and anti-private property rights. That violated a Texas rule requiring discussion of scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories in this particular course.

Yet that would only have put this book on the "non­con­forming" list. So why did Texas' elected SBOE reject it instead? Because it breached a general textbook content standard, which says: "Theories shall be clearly disting­uished from fact and pre­sent­ed in an objective edu­cational man­ner." Such reasser­tion of SBOE power to en­force general textbook content standards is es­pe­cial­ly timely now. Last year it was texts in one elective En­viron­mental "Science" course. This year Texas evaluates books for all required K-12 Social Studies subjects.

Enforcement of Texas' general textbook content stan­dards means real textbook reform, because rather than tell both sides of an issue, liberals will drop the subject (or minimize its coverage). The more they believe their own propa­ganda on a topic, the truer this is. Requiring equal empha­sis on be­ne­fits of free enterprise is the death knell of radical environment­alism. Rather than having to com­pete with pro-capitalist per­spec­tives in Environmental "Science" textbooks, the left will grudg­ing­ly drop its pantheistic, socialistic, anti-develop­mental agenda there.

Already Texas' elected SBOE is on bureau­crats' hit list, for questioning Goals 2000 "reforms." Already it is under siege by state legislators, for fighting their bids to drain the Permanent School Fund for general reve­nue. (The Board controls this Fund, which pays for textbooks.) Now comes flak for en­forcing general textbook content stan­dards. These are pretexts for replacing Texas' elected SBOE with an appointed Board – a Board more trusting of the edu­ca­tion estab­lish­ment, a Board more pliable by politicians, a Board less re­spon­sive to citizens.

population

Population growth: expands markets; improves trans­por­ta­tion and com­muni­ca­tion among them, reducing famines; en­cour­ages econ­omies of scale; diver­si­fies pro­duc­tion; enlarg­es the pool of human in­gen­uity; pro­vides more workers to support retirees; and raises per capita in­come when "baby boomers" reach maturity.

Low taxes spur invest­ment, increase em­ploy­ment, reward produc­tive con­sump­tion, boost real wages, and expand the tax base. This plus legal equality, open oppor­tunity, and private property rights in capitalist economies most efficiently lifts the working poor into the middle class.

Quality of life depends on eco­nom­ic pro­duc­tiv­ity, not pop­ula­tion density. Dense pop­u­la­tions have rising living stan­dards where free market policies foster economic growth. Under­pro­ductive socialist systems are "over-populated," with too few workers and too many mouths to feed.