THE EDUCATION FRONT

After getting ripped in an unusual press release from the Texas Education Agency, Fox News acknowledged Thursday that some of its reports on the current social studies curriculum debate in Texas needed clarification. While not apologizing for the reports, Steve Doocy of Fox said that it was "trying to make it simpler" for viewers to understand the process by reporting that the State Board of Education was reviewing new textbooks. In fact, as the TEA noted in its new release, the board won't consider history and other social studies textbooks until 2011. Board members now are voting on the curriculum standards that will be reflected in those books.

Fox also was taken to task for comments in their broadcast that U.S. history in Texas will be taught only from 1877 on. The TEA noted that eighth graders study early U.S. history up to Reconstruction, while high school students pick up the remainder of U.S. history from 1877 to the present. Doocy said such an approach to U.S. history - only 1877 onward - was adopted in North Carolina and Fox News thought a similar recommendation was pending in Texas. "We thought we were clear that they were simply suggestions, so we want to make sure you understand, they were just suggestions, and that is our clarification," Doocy said on the Fox Network's morning news program.

Doocy did not address other complaints raised by the TEA, that Fox incorrectly reported that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Christmas, Independence Day and Veterans Day had been deleted from the U.S. history "textbooks." TEA officials pointed out that both presidents and the three holidays are in fact now required under the standards for U.S. history. They also criticized Fox for repeatedly broadcasting "highly inaccurate" information. Fox has been giving extensive coverage to the adoption of the social studies standards, with two news trucks and news crews in Austin for the State Board of Education meetings.

The Texas Education Agency issued an unusual press release Wednesday taking the Fox Network to task for what the agency said were "highly inaccurate" news reports about the State Board of Education and its current work on new curriculum standards for social studies. The TEA release came as Fox sent two news trucks and reporting teams to Austin to cover the three-day meeting of the education board, highlighted by its scheduled vote on the new standards Friday.

"The Fox Network in recent days has repeatedly broadcast highly inaccurate information about the State Board of Education's efforts to adopt the new social studies curriculum standards," the TEA said in the news release. "Here are the facts," the state agency said, citing a half dozen errors in a March 10 Fox broadcast. One of the most glaring inaccuracies was that Texas was only going to teach U.S. history from 1877 to the present. In fact, earlier U.S. history is taught in the eighth grade, while the period 1877 to the present is typically presented in the 11th grade.

Fox was also chided for reporting that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Christmas, Independence Day and Veterans Day have been removed from textbooks by the board. In fact, the board will not adopt textbooks for U.S. history for a couple of years. Currently, the board is adopting the standards and subject matter that will have to be reflected in textbooks and classroom instruction in the future. And all of the subjects in question - Washington, Lincoln, Christmas, etc. - have been included in the standards by the board, contrary to what Fox News reported.

Here's an update from an earlier post this week about the second most important race in Texas, the one involving State Board of Education incumbent Don McLeroy and his Republican challenger Thomas Ratliff.

Ratliff, as you may have seen, won that race. As a result, his triumph creates the potential for a tectonic shift in the board's politics. That will be a good thing for Texas students.

McLeroy, a Bryan dentist, was a ringleader of the socially conservative faction that questioned the study of evolution, went to war over reading comprehension standards, argued for students to learn more about conservatives than liberals in social studies and generally saw the board as a place to extend fights about the culture. The McLeroy faction also made some questionable calls in hiring firms to invest the state's school money.

McLeroy's exit means the dynamics of the board should shift. Instead of eight social conservatives battling the board's seven other members, some of whom are Republicans and some of whom are Democrats, the less ideological members should have the upper hand.

I say "should" because no one really knows how Republican George Clayton will shake out. He upset fellow Dallas Republican Tincy Miller, a longtime incumbent who was part of the moderate wing.

Clayton prides himself on being a voice for teachers, who he believes are underrepresented on the panel. The North Dallas High School academic coordinator also said in our questionnaire that he believes "public education is one of the great levelers in our society. It is administered without prejudice to all who seek it."

That's good, so now take that belief and apply it for the wellbeing of Texas students. For example, he told our editorial board that SBOE members should be a voice for fighting Texas' dropout problem. Fine, now push for policies that will help curb the problem, which doesn't mean lowering standards.

In fact, the worst thing this board could do is use its power to dumb down Texas' education standards. The board sets student benchmarks, and is doing so now on social studies. Most of the heavy-lifting on standards will be done by the time that Ratliff and Clayton are likely to join the board in January (they only have nominal opposition from Libertarian candidates in November). But they will have plenty of time during their tenure to weigh in on rigor in the classroom, including in the textbooks they select for students.

Ratliff also has the skills to build broader coalitions on this board. He brings the experience of a practical parent who has served on committees at his children's schools. And he wants to steer the board away from distracting debates about creation and evolution. He also doesn't subscribe to the view that "cultural war" fights are inevitable on this board.

All in all, this panel could use some stability. And Ratliff's quiet leadership should help create it.

Most of us in Texas are concentrated on the governor's race, which certainly is the most crucial contest in the primary both parties are holding tomorrow. But not far behind in importance is a race for the State Board of Education seat, Place 9. Incumbent board member Don McLeroy, a Bryan Republican, is being challenged by Thomas Ratliff, a Mount Pleasant Republican.

As readers of this blog know, the board is very crucial. Among other responsibilities, it shapes the standards the state uses to assess students, determines what goes in our textbooks and oversees the state fund that finances public schools. All three areas also have been in the papers lately.

The board's debates over standards for reading, social studies and science have been hotly contested. Its decisions about what goes in textbooks, like the teaching of evolution, have drawn plenty of attention. And its calls about what outside companies land contracts to manage the school fund have sparked controversy. Morning News reporter and Education Front blogger Terry Stutz did a good job describing those controversies in this piece.

The board's actions also have gotten attention nationally. Most recently, the New York Times Magazine wrote about McLeroy and the board. He's been a leader of the eight or so social and cultural conservatives, whose doubts about evolution, approaches to reading comprehension, inclusion of conservatives in textbooks and exclusion of liberals have been part of the brouhaha surrounding the 15-member panel.

For the record, I had no problem with the McLeroy faction wanting more conservatives included in the social studies standards. Nor did I think they were out of bounds in asking that students have a better idea about the religious influences on the country's evolution.

But the board's socially conservative wing has deserved most of the critique and attention it has received. Their questioning of what teachers suggested about reading comprehension, their skepticism of evolution, their exclusion of liberals in social studies standards and their decisions surrounding the hiring of school fund managers has caused even Republican members of the board to say enough.

Ratliff hopes to join the enough-is-enough faction, which includes Republicans TIncy Miller, Pat Hardy and Bob Craig. This race involves North Texas, by the way. Parts of Collin County are in the district that McLeroy holds.

I'd suggest paying attention to the contest tomorrow night because a McLeroy victory would continue business as usual. A Ratliff upset would mean that more pragmatic members gain the upper hand. Whichever way it goes, the outcome sure will affect a lot of Texans.

State Board of Education members Friday narrowly approved a change in proposed U.S. history standards that calls on students to be taught about leading conservative groups from the 1980s and 1990s - with no similar requirement for liberal groups. Pushed by board member Don McLeroy, R-College Station, the provision says students should learn about "key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s" including Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly.

The amendment was approved on a 7-6 vote, with the social conservative bloc on the board providing all but one of the affirmative voters. McLeroy explained that the history standards already were "rife with leftist political periods and events - the populists, the progressives, the New Deal and the Great Society. Including material about the conservative resurgence...provides some political balance to the document." Among the conservative groups that will be covered in history are the National Rifle Association, Moral Majority, Heritage Foundation and Contract with America.

Board members, who began consideration of social studies standards on Wednesday, continued their deliberations on Thursday, adopting scores of amendments - with McLeroy offering the bulk of the changes. Among the proposals that divided board members was one to add the late Sen. Edward Kennedy to a list of important historical figures that students should learn about. Republicans voted down the board's five Democrats on that amendment and also rejected a second proposal to include the Kennedy family in the standards.

State Board of Education members were urged by dozens of witnesses to rewrite various sections of proposed curriculum standards for social studies Wednesday as the board prepared to vote for the first time on new requirements for U.S. history, government and other social studies courses. Among the diverse recommendations from witnesses were calls for more coverage of Sikhism - the world's fifth largest religion - and inclusion of material on Texas naval history.

There also was testimony from groups and individuals who supported the standards written last year by writing teams - made up of teachers and academics - appointed by the education board. Dallas members of the National Council of Jewish Women, for example, said the proposed standards avoid promotion of any existing religions - a tenet they want to see preserved by the board. The "culture wars" over religion and other controversial topics "are distracting the State Board of Education and our schools from making sure our children get a sound education," said Joani Cohan of Dallas, representing the group.

There were signs Wednesday that the board will be divided over how much to emphasize religion in U.S. history classes. Board member Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, noted there is no mention of the principle of separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution and he pointed out that the constitutions of all 50 states refer to God. Mercer and other social conservatives on the board believe religion has not been given enough coverage in the proposed standards and are expected to push several amendments on Thursday. The public hearing on Wednesday was expected to run several hours with the first board votes on the standards scheduled for Thursday.

What's wrong with the State Board of Education?

Last week, board members were in the news for the way in which they prematurely ended a contract with an investment firm. They went for a firm that one board member had been trying to do business with as a private investment marketer.

This week, two board members were in the news for accepting thousands of dollars of gifts from a company seeking a contract with the board. The pair didn't declare the gifts, which became known after the company filed a report showing it had given them 53 gifts that totaled more than $5,000 in dinners, football tickets, rounds of golf and other niceties.

I shudder to think what' s coming next week.

Really. I'm not being snarky. What is going on?

Some board members I've interviewed the last couple of weeks are very concerned. They think conflicts of interest run deep into the panel's culture.

Others don't see it that way. Rick Agosto, the only board member mentioned in last week's story and this week's report, repeatedly told me over the phone last week that he has done nothing wrong.

And, technically, accepting some gifts wasn't wrong. State ethics rules requires disclosures of gifts over $250. On the other hand, neither Agosto nor fellow board member Rick Nunez reported gifts over $250. Incredibly, Nunez told freelance reporter Jeff Horwitz that he thought the gifts were given to him as a private marketing consultant and not as a state board member.

The House and Senate members should look into these patterns over their interim work session. I'm not suggesting Haldeman/Ehrlichman-type corruption, but something's going on.

Enough so that Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus should put House Public Education Committee Chairman Rob Eissler and Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Florence Shapiro in charge of either separate or combined investigations into the ethical practices and culture of this board.

One reform that would really help is giving either the Legislature, the Texas Education Agency or the Texas Ethics Commission the power to enforce penalties if a state board member violates state code. According to the story, there is no way for the chair of the state board or any other figure to enforce ethics rules.

Talk about crazy.

Let me be clear here: There are some really capable State Board of Education members. But this panel has a habit of landing in the front pages, including way before these stories hit. We need some changes.