Oklahoma board members say they had ‘no idea’ of changes to social studies standards before vote

OKLAHOMA CITY — Three members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education said they weren’t aware of last-minute rewrites before they voted on proposed academic standards for social studies classes in public schools.

Board members Chris Vandenhende, Mike Tinney and Ryan Deatherage said during a meeting Thursday that state Superintendent Ryan Walters, who leads the board, had not informed them of significant changes made to the social studies standards before the board approved them Feb. 27. The approval vote sent the changed draft to the state Legislature for review.

Walters said he is responsible for new language added to the standards, some of which suggest there were “discrepancies” in 2020 presidential election results, but he rejected allegations that the board members weren’t provided the updated version in advance. If approved, the standards will dictate what topics public schools must teach to students in social studies courses.

Gov. Kevin Stitt on Wednesday encouraged state lawmakers to take action on the proposed social studies standards while raising doubts about the integrity of the approval process. Deatherage has said he wants another chance to review and vote on the standards.

Vandenhende, Tinney and Deatherage, whom Stitt appointed in February, said they felt deceived and described the last-minute changes as a “bait and switch.” They complained they didn’t receive a copy of public comments on the standards nor were they given a red-lined draft showing what had changed in the text.

“It would have never dawned on me somebody would have changed them without telling the board whose duty it is to adopt them,” Tinney said during Thursday’s meeting.

Walters denied allegations the governor made Wednesday that the Oklahoma State Department of Education emailed the board members a different version of the standards from what the board ultimately passed. He called the matter a “fake controversy.”

“This was created by board members saying things outwardly, publicly that are simply not true,” Walters told the board, setting off a back-and-forth argument with the three new members.

Records the state Education Department provided indicate the board members were emailed the final version of the standards at 4 p.m. the day before their Feb. 27 meeting, which started at 9:30 a.m. 

Deatherage was the only board member to vote against the standards, saying during the February meeting he didn’t have enough time to review the lengthy document. He suggested delaying the vote by a week, but other board members disagreed.

“I really had no idea what’s in there,” Deatherage said Thursday. “I was not given time to go through those standards at that board meeting. I’m not a speed reader by any means.”

Walters said his administration provided the updated version in advance but he couldn’t make the board members read it. Delaying the February vote, he said, would have limited the time the state Legislature would have to review the standards.

Tinney said he read the original draft of the standards that the state agency posted in December for the public comment period. He said he didn’t know until after the Feb. 27 vote that the final draft was considerably different from the original version. 

Vandenhende said if he were aware of what he knows now, he would have voted against the standards. 

“The process is not a good process,” Vandenhende said.

The proposal would have failed to pass from the six-member board if Tinney and Vandenhende had joined Deatherage in voting against it in February.

Although public comments routinely inspire adjustments to agency proposals, the Education Department didn’t acknowledge any changes had been made to the standards after the public comment period nor did it publicly post the final draft until weeks after the board meeting. 

The updated version suggests there were “discrepancies” in election results in 2020, including the “sudden halting of ballot-counting in select cities in key battleground states, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters and the unprecedented contradiction of ‘bellwether county’ trends.”

Walters said the language isn’t intended to support or deny the outcome of the 2020 presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, but rather to encourage students to come to their own conclusions.

The original version of the standards made headlines by introducing Bible stories and teachings of Jesus that “influenced the American founders and culture.” The state’s current standards, enacted in 2019, make no mention of the Bible or Jesus.

Academic standards are reviewed and updated on a six-year cycle. They impact the topics taught in Oklahoma classrooms and the textbooks the state approves.

GOP majority in state Legislature unlikely to reject the standards

Despite the controversy, the standards appear to be on track to pass as written through the state Legislature. Leaders of the state House and Senate said their Republican majorities are unlikely to reject them.

Lawmakers have the option to approve, deny or amend the standards. If they take no action by May 1, the standards pass as written.

It “doesn’t look likely” that lawmakers will take a vote on the standards, House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said Thursday.

“We’ve certainly had members digging into it and looking at it, but ultimately when you look at the standards themselves, we didn’t have consensus on items that we would want to revise or send back, at least not not at this point,” Hilbert said.

Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, said the GOP majority in his chamber also is unlikely to reject the proposal.

Democrats in both chambers have filed resolutions to deny the standards in full.

Hilbert said he spoke with Walters on Wednesday night for an explanation of whether the board members received the final draft of the standards before approving them. He said Walters gave proof they received the updated version before voting.

“We vetted it pretty heavily, and we cannot find distinction between what the board received and what was ultimately voted on,” Hilbert said.

While raising questions about the inner workings of the standards approval process, Stitt alleged the Education Department emailed board members a different version from what their physical board packets contained.

“I think ultimately, I’m not saying those (standards) are good or bad,” Stitt said during a news conference Wednesday. “The Legislature’s going to have to make a decision on that, but the mechanics of how it came about really just feels — it feels like somebody needs to look into it, and we’re trying.”

Reporter Emma Murphy contributed to this report.