An alternative proposal to include the language “including discussing what is not fully understood so as to encourage critical thinking by the student” was also rejected 7-7. The rejection of this alternative is noteworthy because the creationists on the board and the current culture war strategy of the Discovery Institute have argued that students should learn “more” about evolution to develop critical thinking skills. The alternative language fit directly in that rationalization, but in a scientifically rigorous way.
And that was the problem. During the debate over the alternative several creationist board members directly opposed it because it did not include teaching “weaknesses” to the students, which they have now confirmed is a code word for the lies creationists invent about science and the natural world.
The process is not over. There are still more proposals being floated and voted on, many of them still anti-science and anti-education.
Success was short-lived. Several amendments that encourage bad teachers to include pseudo-science and lies in the classroom made it into the final standards. See the comments for links.