Its funny that the Fox news article is horribly butchered to present only one view point. Talk about "fair and balanced."
Here is the full article
http://www.examiner.com/a-1429570~Co...d=temp-popular
Well from what I read in the article it seems that what they will be learning is the history of islam and some of its teachings, not modern-day islam.
Islam at its inception never had Jihad attached to any form of military struggle, it was only until the 12th Century that it ever gained any connotation of a "holy war" and its only been recently that its has been accepted by several small militant groups as a holy struggle.
Reza Aslan defines it pretty well in the article.
As far as what is exactly said in the book, I can't comment since I haven't read it. However, a lot of student's textbooks gloss over aspects of history and just cover the "basics." It doesn't suprise me if they avoid all the specific violent acts of islam and instead focus on the basic teachings. I think people are just upset about this particular book because there are so many modern implications. However, it doesn't suprise most people that when they talk about Roman history in the 6th Grade, the bloody sacrifices and orgies are left out. Or when they talk about the noble "greek democracy" and the city-state of Sparta, they conveniently leave out the fact that male members of the society routinely had homosexual relationships with young boys and had thousands of slaves. But its a big game of hypocrisy and people only want their children to learn what they think their children should know.