The College Board’s 2014 curriculum framework for Advanced Placement US History, the gold standard for high school history, provoked a well-deserved firestorm, as the original, neutral five-page course outline had been replaced by an ideological 90-page script.
Criticism of the framework was raised on blogs and, as political opposition swelled, state legislatures across the country considered legislative action. The College Board, though initially defensive, promised to review the 2014 framework extensively and release a more balanced one for 2015. In The Mend of History: A Study of the Revisions to the AP US History Standards, we review and analyze the changes that were made.
Shutterstock.
Folks here at AEI were among the strongest critics of the 2014 framework. Rick Hess, Michael McShane, Jenn Hatfield, and I all wrote op-eds or blog posts criticizing various elements of the framework’s strong bias. But when we saw the 2015 framework, we were pleasantly surprised. As Rick Hess and I wrote in National Review Online, the standards weren’t just scrupulously fair – they were also “flat out good.” Daniel Henniger wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal titled “Hey, Conservatives, You Won,” calling the revisions “an important political event.”
But the conservative “victory” didn’t result in any liberal defeat. Indeed, the executive director of the American Historical Association, who took to the NY Times to pan the critics of the 2014 standards, opined that the new framework was clearer than the last and that “one of the great strengths of this framework is that it enables teachers and students to explore issues and ideas that have united and divided Americans.” As Rick Hess and I wrote elsewhere, the division at hand wasn’t between liberals and conservatives, but between those in academia who believe that the sins of America’s past are uniquely worthy of emphasis, and most Americans who believe that our virtues should be taught alongside them.
Given that, and given the opportunity for this revision to serve as a heartening example of what happens when Americans of various perspectives engage in a good-faith effort to tell the story of our remarkable, common history, it seemed worthwhile to examine some of the changes made— and how and why they improved the document. Our new report juxtaposes the textual differences between the 2014 and the 2015 frameworks and considers their import — less to further an argument than to establish a record of what was done.
Here are some examples of “Before” and “After” that give flavor for the differences:
- Early Colonial History
Then: European attempts to change American Indian beliefs and worldviews on basic social issues such as religion, gender roles and the family, and the relationship of people with the natural environment led to American Indian resistance and conflict.
Now: As European encroachments on Native Americans’ lands and demands on their labor increased, native peoples sought to defend and maintain their political sovereignty, economic prosperity, religious beliefs, and concepts of gender relations through diplomatic negotiations and military resistance.
- The Constitution
Then: Calls during the ratification process for greater guarantees of rights resulted in the addition of a Bill of Rights shortly after the Constitution was adopted.
Now: In the debate over ratifying the Constitution, Anti-Federalists opposing ratification battled with Federalists, whose principles were articulated in the Federalist Papers (primarily written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison). Federalists ensured the ratification of the Constitution by promising the addition of a Bill of Rights that enumerated individual rights and explicitly restricted the powers of the federal government.
- Immigration
Then: International and internal migrations increased both urban and rural populations, but gender, racial, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic inequalities abounded, inspiring some reformers to attempt to address these inequities.
Now: As cities became areas of economic growth featuring new factories and businesses, they attracted immigrants from Asia and from southern and eastern Europe, as well as African American migrants within and out of the South. Many migrants moved to escape poverty, religious persecution, and limited opportunities for social mobility in their home countries or regions.
- The Free Market
Then: As cities grew substantially in both size and in number, some segments of American society enjoyed lives of extravagant “conspicuous consumption,” while many others lived in relative poverty.
Now: As the price of many goods decreased, workers’ real wages increased, providing new access to a variety of goods and services; many Americans’ standards of living improved, while the gap between rich and poor grew.
- The End of History
Then: Demographic changes intensified debates about gender roles, family structures, and racial and national identity.
Now: Despite economic and foreign policy challenges, the United States continued as the world’s leading superpower in the 21st century.
These last two don’t compare like to like clauses, but rather the final clause in each respective framework. The 2014 framework ended with a frayed consensus on what it means to be an American, and the document as a whole evinced a belief that the proper result of teaching American history is to produce a citizenry more disaffected with America. The 2015 framework ends by declaring that, despite our challenges, the United States continues to be the leading superpower in the 21st century.
The Mend of History does not purport to be exhaustive, but it is representative. By and large, it is likely that careful readers will be pleasantly surprised by what they will find: surprised at what would have been the gold standard in teaching high school US history if it had not become a point of national controversy and pleased by what our students are now learning about their country.
Access the report here.
from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1KTY156
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment