There is nothing wrong for a science director to criticize the teaching of ID. ID isn't science, it is philosophy. It should be taught in a philosophy class along with the cosmological argument and the ontological argument. It should not be taught in a science class where people actually require something called evidence.
The State of Texas is going to lose big time if this goes to court. The federal courts have already ruled that ID isn't science (for example, in the Dover case). There is no justification for the State of Texas to require somebody to be impartial on the teaching of something that isn't science. Else they would be firing a lot more teachers for criticizing astrology.
A wrongful termination suit should be in order as well.
Of course, this is just the Wedge Strategy at work:
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Someday he's going to find out there's more reality to Santa Claus than to Natural Selection ~ which is not to say Creationism has any validity ~ just that when you deal with demigods they sometimes have feet of clay ~ and Santa Claus is readily identified with Little Red Man and the history of the normal activities of Sa'ami shamen.
Natural Selection has not yet been demonstrated to exist ~ it's just a concept for an as yet inexplicable process, but we'll get there someday. Gonna' require a lot more research into how DNA and RNA works.