Here is something a bit close to the truth about the Fordham evaluation, also from the Austin Statesman:

‘C’ in science not enough for our kids

[…]

In rating Texas’ science curriculum, Thomas B. Fordham Institute researchers gave it a “C.” Incredibly, that bit of mediocre news was considered good. At least the science curriculum didn’t suffer the blistering that the social science standards got when Fordham researchers evaluated them last year or repeat the “F” science standards got in 2005.

Fordham is a Washington, D.C., think tank dedicated to raising the country’s educational standards. The think tank leans conservative but prides itself on its independence. Their reports are well-written, well-regarded and recommended reading for business recruiters and policy wonks alike.

Reading through the evaluation of Texas science curriculum standards is a mini-education all its own.

Institute evaluators opened with a compliment: “Texas has produced a set of science standards with areas of strength — including a particularly well-done sequence for earth and space science … “

That was the molasses. Then came the medicine: ” … but also with weaknesses that cannot be overlooked. These include a tendency across nearly all disciplines to pay lip service to critical content with vague statements, and, somewhat less often, the presence of material that’s well below grade level.”

On the other hand, Fordham evaluators heaped praised on the state’s approach to climate change. “To its credit, Texas also dispassionately and unapologetically introduces students to global warming, a political hot potato in many places.”

On the equally polarizing question of evolution, the raters were troubled that Texas students from kindergarten through fifth grade get minimal exposure to evolution. “The middle school standards are marginally better but still problematic. For example, seventh-graders should learn that:

“ ‘Populations and species demonstrate variation and inherit many of their unique traits through gradual processes over many generations.’ Unfortunately, this is simply wrong. Traits are inherited directly at each generation; there’s nothing gradual about it. Students are then asked to explain variation within a population or species by examining external features that enhance survival. Such examinations will yield no explanation of variation.”

You might recall that the science standards were the subject of intense debate in 2009 as members of the State Board of Education made the topic a landing zone in the culture wars.

Don McLeroy, then chairman of the 15-member panel, and the ultra-conservatives he led pushed standards that critics said were tantamount to teaching creationism.

“Somebody’s got to stand up to experts,” McLeroy said then. Revisions were handled hurriedly. They were often hand-written and shoved under board members’ doors with little time for reflection. Academic experts in the subject areas appointed by the board were all too often ignored.

After all the sound and the fury, not much changed in the curriculum standards. The disputed language was not adopted. [IOW, McLeroy failed to accomplish what he wanted, though as seen in the previous post he claims credit for doing something.]

“The state’s current high school biology standards handle the subject straightforwardly,” the institute evaluators wrote. “There are no concessions to ‘controversies’ or ‘alternative theories.’ In fact, the high school biology course is exemplary in its choice and presentation of topics, including its thorough consideration of biological evolution.” Nonetheless, the lack of preparation before high school makes it “hard to see how Texas students will be able to handle this course,” the evaluators wrote. […]