Anyone following the confrontation in Colorado (IP?) over the proposed AP US History curriculum changes to a program more focused on developing "patriotism and ... the benefits of the free-enterprise system" as well as downplaying civil disorder issues? As one who teaches three AP US History courses myself, this debate is of great personal interest. It's also not a new one, either, as Lynne Cheney tried to implement the same ideas when she was the head of the NEH. As one might imagine, the idea that history should be wielded as a tool to encourage patriotism and focus on the positive aspects of this country's history while downplaying any negative aspects is utterly abhorrent to me, for many reasons. For one, it cheapens any sort of intellectual analysis of the topic and renders it mere propaganda. Second, if it becomes necessary to force feed pride in one's country, then it reflects negatively upon that country. Any history class that eschews dialogue for dogmatism is a shitty class, anyway. I'm also familiar with the new AP program and to say it's "unpatriotic" is pretty ridiculous. It's based more upon concepts than details and facts, as the old one was (which is why I prefer the new framework). The former teacher in the article complaining about the lack of the "Founders" is looking at something I must have missed because I don't know how you teach the concepts required by the College Board without covering the Founding Fathers. The worst in all of this is the possibility of the students in that district losing the potential for college credit because pursuing a political agenda is more important than maintaining accreditation for their schools' AP programs. The only pause I have here is the effectiveness or necessity of a teacher and student walk out on the topic. Perhaps it's the right line in the sand, though.
The AP thing is bullshit anyway. But this specifically is due to poor voter turnout in local elections causing extremely conservative people to get control of the school board. The majority strongly disagree with this change.
Here is the key point of contention in the proposed changes: Review criteria shall include the following: instructional materials should present the most current factual information accurately and objectively. Theories should be distinguished from fact. Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage. Content pertaining to political and social movements in history should present balanced and factual treatment of the positions. I'm wondering if this means that the American Revolution should be removed from the curriculum. I mean, "not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law". Civil Rights Movement? Also gone. How should I go about teaching the Civil War? "Positive aspects of the United States and its heritage"? Do I just never mention Native Americans, at all? Forget slavery, too, and Japanese internment camps. I guess I have to scrape my annual classroom debate on the merits of dropping the atomic bombs, as well. It was a good thing, no thinking allowed.
Think about what is being excluded, droski: civil rights, war protests, strikes, etc. It is rewriting history and leaving out all the parts that question authority. By the way, they misused the word "theory." What a bunch of clowns.
it's not excluding it it's saying "should not encourage or condone civil disorder." I think it's dumb, but perhaps something needs to be done to counterbalance all the liberal teachers pushing their own agenda.
I don't think they all do it consciously. I think a lot of teachers are so provincial that they think everyone thinks that way and they are simply stating things as they are.
So, have you read the actual changes to the AP program or are you going to fall back on your usual line of everything in the subject being anti-white and telling me how much of a disservice I am to my students?
In a world where the cops are on TV wearing full body armor and driving tanks down main street, I'm cool with not increasing the pressure on young people to "respect authority".
I don't have to read it to know you teach your students from your bias. you've made it crystal clear. hell. jay, who is a right wing wackjob compared to you, said he teaches his students that income inequality was a cause of the great depression.
I'm not surprised that's what you got out of it. If you bothered to understand what you read, then what is considered "accurate and objective" is pretty clear, even if it contradicts what it just stated.
sweet jesus. context matters you know. this is the most free society in world history by a WIDE margin.
The only thing that's been made crystal clear is that you don't have a ****ing clue about what I do, even if I explicitly tell you. You're too busy recreating me from the caricature you've assembled from your Ethnic Studies classes at Berkeley to bother to pay attention.
you mean your interpretation. the same "interpretation" that I'm sure leads to balanced opinions being given to your students.
btw you wonder why people feel the need to do this. it's statements like this. that's the sort of "balanced" garbage coming from most teachers.
Teaching freedom of the individual and respect of authority is conflicting. Authority should only be followed when its just and not blindly. Both parties are authoritarian on their issues.
