Subverting Climate Science in the Classroom

In a drab hearing room in Austin, Texas, members of the State Board of Education sat at small desks and debated whether eighth grade science students should be required to write about climate change. The board member argued in favor of the requirement. An in-house attorney argued to kill it.

The lawyer won. The board decided that eighth grade science students should write down the carbon cycle.

Over the past two years school board meetings have erupted into shout fests over face masks, reading lists and whether to ban education about structural racism in classrooms. During the process of setting science education standards in Texas, there was a quiet political agenda playing out. The state board was considering requiring students to learn something about climate change. There was a dispute between industry representatives who wanted to encourage goodwill about fossil fuels and education advocates who wanted students to learn the science behind the climate crisis.

The results of standards adoptions have a lot of power over what is taught in the classroom. They are consulted when they write textbooks. They are used as the basis of standardized tests. They are called on by school districts to shape curricula. They're referred to as lesson plans by teachers. Texas adoptions have had an influence far beyond the borders of the state.

The National Center for Science Education and the Texas Freedom Network hired experts to grade the science standards in all 50 states based on how they covered the climate crisis. Thirty states and the District of C. make As or Bs. The State Board of Education in Texas has a history of applying a conservative political lens to the textbooks it uses. When I was a science textbook editor, I never heard anyone say that environmentalism couldn't be discussed. We were all aware of it. People kind of know. Millions of children nationwide are taught what the proceedings in an Austin board room mean.

The climate crisis is something most Americans like to teach their children. More than four in five people think that schools should teach about climate change, according to a survey by NPR. One in four science teachers asked for climate change or alternative energy to be added to the standards when the Texas Education Agency surveyed them. There was no request for more information on fossil fuels.

When I watched 40 hours of live and archived board hearings, reviewed scores of public records and interviewed 15 people involved in the standard-setting process, I realized that members of the fossil-fuel industry were involved in each stage of the Texas science standards adoption process. Texas education officials convened teams of volunteers to rewrite the existing standards, and industry members volunteered for those writing teams to shape the language around energy and climate Each time a public hearing was held, industry members testified. When the board considered the rewritten standards for final approval, the industry appealed to members to advance their favored amendments, so that the seemingly local drama in Austin will have larger consequences.

The fossil-fuel industry has been trying to improve its public image. The Texas proceedings show that its actions don't always reflect that image. Efforts to provide clear science about the crisis to a young generation whose world will be defined by it are impeded by the industry's continued downplayment.

Don McLeroy, a dentist from east-central Texas, chaired the board when it reformed the Texas essential knowledge and skills for science in 2009. At one meeting, McLeroy made his views on science education clear when he said that someone needs to stand up to experts. High school environmental science students had to debate whether global warming is happening after the board spent a lot of time clashing over evolution. McLeroy told the reporter that he was happy because he thought the evidence was a lot of hooey.

McLeroy was no longer with us at the end of the year. The Texas Education Agency recruited 85 volunteers to draft the new standards, and the board made it clear to them that they should not fight over evolution again. The group would fight about climate science, rather than the other way around.

The first, high school core sciences, the second, high school elective sciences, and the third, grades K–8 sciences were carved out by the board members. The board would give each team a certain amount of money. The board would get feedback from professional content advisers.

The high school core subjects were biology, chemistry, physics, and an integrated chemistry and physics class. There were two reasons for the importance of the core science standards. Almost half a million students took biology alone in the class. What happened with these classes would set the tone for the high school classes. The writing groups' results were posted on the Texas Education Agency's website in July 2020 but there was no mention of climate change. There was still time to fix it. The standards would be presented by the state board.

In September 2020, the first major hearing was held in person and online because of the COVID PAIN. The climate crisis has biological, chemical and physical aspects that make it relevant to all the core classes, as testified by more than 30 teachers, parents and other education advocates. A man with a different message appeared on the screen during the three and a half hour meeting. He had some suggestions for the council.

More than 5,000 people are members of the Texas Energy Council, which is made up of 35 industry organizations. The council began to recruit volunteers to participate in standards adoption. According to a page on the council's website, the oil/gas industry and the earth sciences have suffered degradation over time. The council enlisted 17 people, includinggeoscientists, petroleum engineers, professors, attorneys and other fossil-fuel careerists, who shared its vision of ensuring that oil/gas is portrayed in a balanced fashion as a critical contribution to the Texas. The volunteers were organized by Unger. The members of the organization did not want to be interviewed for this story. In an e-mail exchange, Michael Cooper, president of the council, took issue with some of the findings but said he wouldn't be able to provide a comprehensive response.

The board was asked to remove a line in the introductory material for each of the high school core classes that discussed social justice and ethics. The concept of cost-benefit analysis should be included in the standards.

Many people testified in favor of climate education, but most board members didn't pay much attention to it. Longtime Republican member Barbara Cargill, a former biology teacher from north of Houston, asked how cost-benefit analysis could be included into the science TEKS. The main benefit of fossil fuels is the energy they produce, and the costs are already regulated by the industry. Oil and gas are not the only fuels with a price. He said that the benefits are wonderful, but the costs are the mining of rare minerals. Wind benefits and costs the same. He said that a science teacher could weigh these things with his students. The proposal was to be considered by the company.

Costs are one of the sources of energy. Climate scientist Michael Mann has called inactivism a tactic that doesn't deny human-caused climate change but downplays it, and thatseeks to delay action. This brand of thinking believes that fossil fuels have bad things to say. What type of energy does not exist? The environmental and health costs of rare earth minerals for certain renewable energy sources are not as high as those of fossil fuels.

The board met the next day to consider the changes. She wanted to remove social justice from the standards. Pat Hardy is a retired history teacher and curriculum developer who is a Republican. The person captured on a video of the meeting said that people talk about electric cars saving the universe. They are not. The board accepted the changes. The Texas Energy Council had never won a major victory.

On the last day of the hearings, the climate education advocates won. The youngest Latina to ever be elected to any state's education board had heard their pleas. She wants to add the words "and global climate change" to the end of a standard that asks students to examine a variety of human impacts on the environment. The board voted on the motion. The wording applied to just one standard for the integrated physics and chemistry course, which is taken by a fifth of the students. It was a positive sign for the advocates.

The Texas Energy Council volunteers showed up at meeting after meeting as the board considered the next two levels of standards. The climate education advocates found some of the changes they pursued to be reasonable. They continued to add cost-benefit analysis to the standards. They wanted to remove the terms "renewable" and "nonrenewable" from the descriptions of energy sources. They brought up the issue of energy poverty. The director of an energy initiative for a conservative think tank testified about the dangers of energy poverty at a meeting. The key to ending global energy poverty lies in Texas, he said.

Some of these battles were expected to be lost by the climate education advocates. They were hoping that the Texas Energy Council volunteers wouldn't include information about the science of the climate crisis in their reports. The next set of deliberations showed that it wouldn't be the case.

Environmental science, aquatic science, earth science and astronomy were the first high school classes to have hearings. The earth science and environmental science course standards are the only ones that mention climate change.

The 23 people on the writing teams met every two weeks to draft the new standards. Students were asked to analyze the relationship between the emissions of carbon dioxide, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and the average global temperature trends over the past 150 years, a reference to the period since industrialization. The language didn't sit well with William J. Encouraged by the Texas Energy Council, he and other industry representatives applied to the Texas Education Agency for a seat on a writing group. The earth science and astronomy courses were revised.

Climate change should be mentioned in a way that students will be aware of it. Students shouldn't be led to believe the science is settled. The phrase "the past 150 years" should no longer be used. The group agreed to a number of changes. Four Texas Energy Council volunteers recommended amendments to the standards when they came before the board. The standards should focus on the dangers of rare earth minerals, according to one person. The whaling for blubber that could be turned into fuel was stopped when the fossil-fuel industry began, according to one person. She claimed that oil and gas saved the whales.

Will Hickman was elected to the board in November of 2020 for a district outside of Houston. He taught Sunday school and served on parent groups at his kids' schools. Since 2004, he's been senior legal counsel at Shell oil.

He asked where in the proposed standards he could find the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of energy. He said that Germany adopted renewable power on a large scale because everyone thought it was a good idea. It raised their power prices by 2.5 times their power prices.

The standard for the environmental science course had a second mention in the writing committees' reference to cost-benefit analysis. In April, he pressed for more. Rebecca Bell-Metereau, a professor of English and film at Texas State University who had just been elected to represent Austin, pressed back: "The very phrase 'costs and benefits' places the primary emphasis on money." The board added another mention of costs and benefits to aquatic sciences.

At the board hearings, he showed up with more proposed changes. His colleagues on the writing group accepted some of his suggestions, but not all of them, so he wanted the board to consider amending them. The board member asked if he had heard the "newest stuff that's been coming out on climate," which she said was that the crisis was not unfolding as predicted. It was suggested that the consensus about warming had been overstated.

A word amendment was proposed for word from the suggestions. Bell-Metereau was displeased with this. She wanted to know if someone's area of work was in fossil fuels. I think it's possible that I have a bias for the fossil- fuel industry.

The board threatened to delay the adoption if the changes were not moved forward. The proposals were dropped by the man. The new standards had multiple references to cost benefit analysis. There were changes to the terms "renewable energy" and "nonrenewable energy" The only mention of the effects of burning fossil fuels in the old standards was gone.

The climate education advocates had failed to install a robust presentation of the science surrounding the climate crisis in any of the high school core or elective classes as they had watched the Texas Energy Council volunteers achieve one goal after another They were still hopeful about the K–8 standards. Nearly every middle schooler takes the same sciences, and the classes cover weather and climate systems, an obvious and effective place to discuss the crisis for a generation of students that would have to live with it.

The board held a public hearing on the K–8 standards on a hot day. Climate change was added to the drafts by the writing groups. The draft states that eighth graders would be expected to use scientific evidence to explain how human activities can influence climate. One writing group, which included the executive director of a natural gas foundation, appended a note stating it had not been able to agree on a proposal to add another line.

Two professional content advisers gave vastly different opinions to the board at the hearing. The climate standards needed to be strengthened according to Ron Wetherington, who was nominated by Pérez-Daz. He wanted the word "can" removed from the phrase "describe how human activities can influence climate." An abundance of evidence shows that the influence is already taking place, even though "Can" suggests that something is a possibility. He asked the board to add an expectation that students try to find a solution. He said that students should know what people are doing to fix the problem.

The CEO of Simple Science Solutions, a consulting firm, stood in opposition to the nominees. She praised the Texas Energy Council's work in improving the standards. Climate change should be treated lightly in middle school, if at all, according to her. Children who love science are our goal. She said that they were challenging them to solve some of the exciting problems but not turn them into the climate activist known as "Greedys" The council had suggested that the board should expect students to research and describe the role of energy in improving the quality of life. It needs to go in. It's crucial that we address it.

The board considered the language for a few days. Each middle school class was added to have cost-effectiveness. The board majority changed references to renewable and nonrenewable energy to "natural resources" in the standards.

Two unexpected victories were achieved by climate education advocates. The climate standard should be changed to state how human activities over the past 150 years, including the release of greenhouse gases, affect climate. She wanted to add a separate line about efforts to mitigate climate change. Both of the amendments carried on. The board deleted the reference to the past 150 years and added the word "can" back in. The details of recent climate change would be difficult for eighth graders to comprehend.

Aicha Davis is a board member from Dallas and she spoke up. She said that her colleague hadn't taught eighth grade science. We can't allow the oil and gas industry to dictate what our kids need to know about science. It should not be about the Texas energy council. What is best for our students should be the focus. She noted that neither scientists nor teachers were concerned about teaching about climate change. This is what it is. We are only voting on what oil and gas wants us to do.

The attorney turned on his mic. He mentioned a few thoughts and reactions. A major source of education funding is maintained in part by proceeds from fossil fuels reaped from public lands. All of us are going to use oil and gas. What do we do if all of this is true? We should stop using gasoline-powered cars. Is diesel banned for trucks? What do we do to get our purchases? The final round of hearings will take place in November 2021.

The Texas Freedom Network organized as they waited for the last round. They recruited 67 Texan climate scientists to sign a letter asking that the word "can" be dropped from the climate passage and that the mitigation language stay put.

The deliberations in November were a slaughter. The conservative majority supported adding climate change to the standards. The motion to strike the word "can" was turned down. The motion to remove cost-benefit analysis was blocked. New language was approved about the role of energy resources. A reference was made to rare earth elements. The idea of global energy poverty was introduced.

He argued that the subject was more appropriate for social studies than for science and that it just seemed above and beyond for an eighth grade student. The Democrats were outnumbered by the other board members. The board replaced the standard with a new one.

The State Board of Education was praised in a press release by the Texas Energy Council and two other organizations. The Texas Freedom Network's year-end report was not as positive as it could have been. The State Board of education should have done better. New science standards for Texas public school students make clear that climate change is real and that human activity is the cause, thanks to our campaign.

For decades, the fossil-fuel industry has been trying to get its message across. I have seen examples of teacher trainings funded by the oil companies. Energy lesson plans have been produced and distributed millions of times. An employee of the oil and gas industry gave a presentation to a class of seventh graders that downplayed the impact of climate change.

Nine percent of high school science teachers say they never use a textbook. The nation's most popular science textbooks convey doubt about climate change subtly or otherwise. Some scientists propose that global warming is due to natural climate cycles in one of the nation's middle school textbooks. There are no climate scientists who support that idea.

Texas is not the only major purchaser of books. The science of climate change has led to a divide among large states such as California. Textbook publishers create two sets of products to sell in different states, one in Texas and one in California. The education a child gets on an issue central to the modern world depends on where they live.

The Texas Education Agency called for textbooks based on the new standards. The agency requires publishers to submit materials by a certain date. The review panels will rate how closely the books follow the standards. The state board has to approve or reject the materials. Texas school districts can establish their own textbook adoption process, but they still have to choose books that comply with the standards. The board's choices are what most people defer to. The new science books will be on the shelves in the fall of 2024.

The Texas Energy Council's Moulton told me he would like to stay involved. He will head back to the board once he gets the chance to review the new books.