As Oklahoma legislators mull what action to take — if any — on revised academic standards for social studies approved by the State Board of Education in February, a quiet change from the initial version of the standards put forward for public comment now directs teachers and students toward widely debunked theories of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Specifically, the new version of USH.9.3 says high school students should:
Identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information, including the sudden halting of ballot-counting in select cities in key battleground states, the security risks of mail-in balloting, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contradiction of “bellwether county” trends.
Revised following a December and January public comment period, the changes to the new social studies standards received no acknowledgement or discussion at the Feb. 27 State Board of Education meeting where they were approved for submission to the Legislature. The revisions do not appear to have been posted online for public review, and a packet of documents shared with State Board of Education members ahead of the meeting also contained no reference to the new changes.
“In the spirit of full transparency, I question why this was done in the 11th hour and why no mention of this was made during the presentation at the board meeting,” new State Board of Education member Ryan Deatherage told NonDoc on Wednesday.
The changes and the new transparency questions appear to have pushed some legislators already on the fence about the standards’ increased references to Christianity and the Bible toward open disapproval.
House Common Education Committee Chairman Dick Lowe (R-Amber) said the standards were already “on the edge” because of their insertion of teachings from the Bible, but he said the new Trump-related standards are too much.
“I’m not gonna say [the standards’ references to Christianity are] horrible, I’m just saying, ‘Why? Why?’ I know the answer why, you know the answer why, but, you know, I just thought that those were on the edge then,” Lowe said. “But you put stuff like this in, and it’s quite obvious what this was for them.”
Lowe, who is in his first session as chairman of the House Common Education Committee, said he wanted to explore using the legislative approval process to disapprove parts of the standards and recommend changes.
“We have to do a little bit more digging on that for sure,” Lowe said.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters has said the proposed standards are intended to promote American exceptionalism and to teach Oklahoma public school students “the full and true context of our nation’s founding and the principles that made America great.”
Most legislators asked about the situation at the Capitol on Monday seemed to think the Legislature does not typically approve, disapprove or amend new academic standards, even though it has the statutory power to do so.
The Legislature’s authority to approve, disapprove or modify the standards is outlined in Title 70, Section 11-103.6a-1:
All subject matter standards and revisions to the standards adopted by the State Board of Education (…) shall be subject to legislative review as set forth in this section. The standards shall not be implemented by the State Board of Education until the legislative review process is completed as provided for in this section.
(…) By adoption of a joint resolution, the Legislature shall approve the standards, disapprove the standards in whole or in part, amend the standards in whole or in part or disapprove the standards in whole or in part with instructions to the State Board of Education, provided that such joint resolution becomes law in accordance with Section 11 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution. If the joint resolution is vetoed by the governor in accordance with Section 11 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution and the veto has not been overridden, the standards shall be deemed approved. If the Legislature fails to adopt a joint resolution within 30 legislative days following submission of the standards, the standards shall be deemed approved.
Rep. Ronny Johns, a former educator and member of the House Common Education Committee, said the new standards pose challenges for teachers. In addition to the standard about election “discrepancies,” he also took issue with a revision that definitively claims to know the source of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“I think the standards got too specific concerning COVID-19 and the election of 2020,” said Johns (R-Ada). “Teachers have to remain neutral while teaching and presenting lessons that go along with the standards. When dealing in this case with these two things, you’re opening up an opportunity for teachers to insert their biases one way or another. The same thing can be said concerning the standards connected with Bible stories and scriptures. I’ve heard from numerous pastors, ministers, deacons, elders, parents and teachers that are very concerned on how those things will be presented and taught.”
Although some in the House, such as Lowe and Johns, were ready to use their power to tackle the new social studies standards, Republican senators seemed less sure.
Through a spokesman, Senate Education Committee Chairman Adam Pugh (R-Edmond)Â declined to comment on the standards changes and the insertion of debunked election denialism theories.
Approached in the halls of the Capitol Monday, Senate Education Committee Vice Chairwoman Ally Seifried (R-Claremore) and Education Committee member Kristen Thompson (R-Edmond) also declined to answer questions about the social studies standards.
But Sen. Mark Mann, who also sits on the Senate Education Committee, said the standards dealing with the first Trump Administration were “politicized.”
“This is a mess,” said Mann (D-OKC).
Mann, a former Oklahoma City Public Schools board member and former OSDE employee, continued with his opinion on what the standards should be.
“Teach the facts. The facts are the facts. You don’t have to like the facts, but the facts are the facts, and then let students form their own opinion,” Mann said. “When we get to this level of social studies — which is going to be the high school level — these kids are capable of coming up with their own ideas, and they have their own ideas. So don’t do the election denial. Don’t do all this other stuff. Just give kids facts about what our history actually is and let them form their own conclusions.”
Mann pointed out that standards which deviate too far from established facts can make it hard for textbook companies to write textbooks for the state.
“When you start deviating from what is the norm and the truth and start coming up with your own truths and throwing in the Bible and election denying and all that, there’s going to come a point where Oklahoma won’t have a textbook publisher willing to align to our standards and sell a book in Oklahoma because it’s very expensive to align,” Mann said. “But when you’ve got Oklahoma, Texas — other states — and they’re redoing their standards, it’s not a huge alignment if you’re sticking to facts.”
One day after the publication of this article, a spokeswoman for Walters emailed a statement from the superintendent:
Our social studies standards are not set up to either support or negate a specific outcome in the 2020 Presidential Election.
Our standards are designed to teach students how to investigate and calculate the specific details surrounding that (or any) election. In order to oppose or support the outcome, a well rounded student should be able to make their own conclusions using publicly available data and details.
In teaching our standards, we believe the opposition is in giving the next generation the ability to think for themselves rather than accepting any election outcome (at face value) as it is reported by the media.
One day after the publication of this article, a spokeswoman for Walters emailed a statement from the superintendent to NonDoc:
Our social studies standards are not set up to either support or negate a specific outcome in the 2020 Presidential Election.
Our standards are designed to teach students how to investigate and calculate the specific details surrounding that (or any) election. In order to oppose or support the outcome, a well rounded student should be able to make their own conclusions using publicly available data and details.
In teaching our standards, we believe the opposition is in giving the next generation the ability to think for themselves rather than accepting any election outcome (at face value) as it is reported by the media.
‘Who reviews that public comment?’
Under state law, Oklahoma’s science and social studies standards come up for review by the State Board of Education every six years. Committees assigned to propose revisions began meeting in September. Initially published Dec. 19 and open for public comment through Jan. 21, the initial version of standard USH.9.3 asked students to examine the first Trump administration by:
- Identifying “major policy issues, including tax cuts, immigration and border security, and the expanding influence of social media;”
- Describing “developments and changes in foreign policy (e.g., USMCA, NATO, Abraham Accords);”
- Explaining “the responses to and impact of the death of George Floyd, including the Black Lives Matter movement;”
- Evaluating “federal and private response to the COVID epidemic, as well as its lasting impact on global health and American society;” and
- Examining “issues related to the election of 2020 and its outcome.”
On Feb. 27, the board approved the following social studies standards with significant changes to rule USH.9.3:
- “Explain the effects of the Trump tax cuts, child tax credit, border enforcement efforts including Title 42 and Remain in Mexico policy, consumer and business confidence, interest rates, and inflation rates prior to the COVID-19 pandemic;”
- “Describe the effects of the replacement of NAFTA with USMCA, expanded European contributions to NATO spending, the signing of the Abraham Accords, and the successful avoidance of new wars;”
- “Identify the source of the COVID-19 pandemic from a Chinese lab and the economic and social effects of state and local lockdowns;”
- “Identify discrepancies in 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information, including the sudden halting of ballot-counting in select cities in key battleground states, the security risks of mail-in balloting, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contradiction of ‘bellwether county’ trends;” and
- “Analyze the impact of appointments to the U.S. judicial system and the Supreme Court (e.g., Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the overturning of Roe v. Wade).”
The final version of the standards approved by the State Board of Education also removed references to some of former President Joe Biden’s accomplishments. In the initial version of the standards, students would have been directed to:
- “Assess economic recovery in the post-COVID era, based on data and the impact of federal policies;”
- “Describe bi-partisan efforts to address the nation’s infrastructural needs;”
- “Describe the United States-Mexico border crisis and issues surrounding executive decisions and legislative response;” and
- “Describe President Biden’s foreign policies exemplified by America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, responses to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Gaza-Israel conflict.”
The final version of the standards removed the first two points.
At their Feb. 27 meeting, State Board of Education members received a presentation about the final version of the standards, but the revisions related to the Trump administration received no mention. Board members also did not discuss the increased references to Christianity, which has been a frequent criticism of the new standards.
According to the powerpoint slides presented by Brenda Beymer-Chapman, OSDE’s project manager for social studies and personal financial literacy, the new standards concentrate on strengthening civics and constitutional studies to explain local, state, national and tribal levels of government; principles of limited government; individual rights, liberties and the role of the citizen in the selection of government officials; and the relationship between Oklahoma and the 39 tribal governments headquartered within state boundaries.
Neither the Powerpoint nor its presentation included the changes to the USH.9 section of the proposed social studies standards.
Board members’ discussion of the standards largely centered on the shortened timeframe the new members had to review the rules before voting on them.
Appointed Feb. 11 owing to Gov. Kevin Stitt’s dissatisfaction with recently approved OSDE administrative rules dealing with the immigration status of students, Deatherage and two other new State Board of Education members — Michael Tinney and Chris VanDenhende — pushed back on Walters multiple times during their first meeting Feb. 27. Their initial disagreement with the superintendent involved the immigration rule when they tried to bring the topic up for a new vote despite it not being on the agenda.
They clashed again over the academic standards and the process by which they were reviewed.
“I have one process question,” VanDenhende said. “You mention public comment, so that allows the public to comment? Is the public comment visible to the public? Who reviews that public comment?”
Beymer-Chapman said she and other OSDE leaders “review that.”
“We can’t do everything because I can’t add 800 people into the standards, but we did read through every one of them and take them into account, and some of those comments will be in the frameworks — as the superintendent was talking about — because it’s more of a curriculum issue. So some of the comments we got were more of a curriculum issue which should go in the framework.”
Most of the new board members’ questions about the social studies standards also involved the review process. Deatherage motioned to table the vote until a later date to allow new members time to review the new standards. He also suggested a possible special meeting to conduct the vote. His fellow newcomers on the board echoed the sentiment.
“Understanding time is of the essence, is it possible with some give and take here?” Vandenhende said. “And I would put this in a motion that we either — I would like to table this, but understanding that the sensitivity of it, possibly do a special meeting sometime in between there, so that we could possibly get more educated on this, so that we have a better understanding of that.”
Board members discussed the issue for 15 minutes.
“My question was never the quality of work that’s gone into [the academic standards],” Deatherage said before the vote. “It was for me to understand. It was more of an understanding process. Let me be clear on that. I was not challenging what is in here. It was challenging the time frame that it takes to get from this binder into my hand. That’s what I was challenging.”
But Walters urged board members to approve the proposed standards, saying they had to meet an upcoming deadline for legislative approval.
“I would really like these to be voted and approved today,” Walters said. “We’ve been working on these for over a year. They’ve been available to the public for months. The Legislature will start a review process. We are getting close to a deadline that, if we delay very long, we could be hindering that. So my recommendation is that we approve these today. The process has been followed. There’s been a lot of feedback here, and we can move these on to the Legislature and take any of their inputs.”
While Walters said the board was “getting close” to its deadline for submitting the social studies standards to the Legislature, statute says the standards only have to be sent to lawmakers “prior to the last 30 days of the legislative session.” With legislative deadlines ensuring that session will last at least a week or two into May, the State Board of Education seemingly had plenty of cushion to review the standards further and approve them at its scheduled March 27 meeting.
Deatherage expressed frustration with the statutory timeline not being as urgent as Walters implied.
“I am highly disappointed that I was misled in that meeting,” he said.
After learning this week of the major revisions made to the standards following the public comment period, Deatherage expressed further frustration about what he described as “shenanigans.”
“Issues like this are the whole reason I asked for the vote to be postponed so we knew what was in there versus not having a full understanding of it,” Deatherage said Wednesday.
NonDoc reached to State Board of Education members Zach Archer and Sarah Lepak but did not receive a response prior to the publication of this article. Tinney and Vandenhende declined to comment on the situation.
Following the Feb. 27 heated exchanges between Walters, the new board members and attorneys at the meeting, the board ultimately rejected Deatherage’s tabling motion 1-6 and approved the science and social studies standards 6-1. Deatherage cast the only dissenting vote.
Tinney and VanDenhende both declined to comment when asked about the changes to the standards Tuesday. Deatherage offered a brief comment.
“I think it’s something that we should put on the agenda to discuss,” Deatherage said, making a subtle reference to the brewing dispute with Walters over control of meeting agendas.
Lowe said he understood Deatherage’s frustrations, given the last-minute major changes that appear not to have been disclosed.
“Now I kind of even more understand where the new board members had some (reservations), because I’m not sure they had a chance to see all this,” Lowe said.
Lowe also questioned the certainty of the revised standard regarding the origins of COVID-19. While federal agencies in the United States have assessed with “low” and “moderate” confidence that gain-of-function testing at the Wuhan Institute of Virology likely led to the COVID-19 pandemic, investigators have neither identified a “patient zero” nor discovered conclusive evidence to that effect. (This week, a German spy agency released a similar assessment of the Wuhan origin theory.)
“They’re disturbing to me personally, that those pieces are in there,” Lowe said of the new Trump standards and the reference to COVID-19’s origin. “There’s not even agreement on the (novel coronavirus) source nationally, and you’re putting this in there as a standard for a teacher to try to describe it. That’s a little bit disturbing. I would think what we’re going to talk about in our standards would be acceptable and known issues.”
Mann shared a more pointed assessment of how the final version of the social studies standards appears to have been shrouded from board member and public awareness.
“Anytime you put nonsense like this out, it does two things: One, it makes teachers worried (…) So they just leave something out and don’t teach it, and then kids aren’t understanding and grasping the concept,” Mann said. “Or, they do what a lot of teachers have done, and they just decide, ‘You know what, I can go make more at Paycom. I’m not putting up with this stuff anymore.'”
The latter option, Mann said, drives Oklahoma’s critical teacher shortage.
“Ryan Walters, clearly, outside of being a total disaster, has done nothing to help solve the teacher shortage,” Mann said. “He’s added to it because teachers don’t want to work under him.”
(Update: This article was updated at 5:45 p.m. on Thursday, March 13, to include a statement from Walters)
Read the approved Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies
