Education Week - March 4, 2015 - 6

Rewrite of Framework
For AP U.S. History
Raises More Hackles
Policymakers push back in four states
By Liana Heitin
Concerns about an overhaul to
the Advanced Placement U.S. History
curriculum framework have
been spreading through a growing
number of states over the last few
months, with critics saying it emphasizes
negative aspects of the nation's
history and downplays "American
exceptionalism."
Policymakers in Colorado, Georgia,
Oklahoma, and Texas have pushed
back on the new framework, which
outlines the concepts and skills students
need for a college-level history
course. The Republican National
Committee also condemned the
guidelines last summer, calling them
"radically revisionist."
In response, the College Board, the
nonprofit New York City-based organization
that administers the Advanced
Placement program, says that
the framework was written by history
educators and historians, and that ap
teachers widely support it. The group
also emphasizes that it's only a framework-not
a detailed curriculum-
and that teachers should populate
the course with more specific content.
Ap courses and exams are voluntary
for both schools and students
and are considered as rigorous as
college-level courses. Many universities
will award college credit to incoming
students who scored at the
highest levels on ap exams.
The critics of the framework have
tended to be right-leaning legislators
and state board of education members
who also oppose the Common
Core State Standards, the set of expectations
for student learning that
are now being implemented in 43
states and the District of Columbia.
The ap framework and the common
core are not expressly connected, but
the College Board has said that the
history framework "dovetails" with
the common standards for English/
language arts. College Board President
David Coleman, who took over
the job in October 2012, was previously
a lead writer for the common
standards.
However, there's little evidence so
far that the criticism of the ap U.S.
History framework will result in significant
changes. About 500,000 students
are expected take the history
test aligned to the updated framework
this spring, and supporters of
ap have come out in full force against
policies proposing to derail the course.
'Not a Curriculum'
The College Board released the
revised framework for ap U.S. History
in 2012. That framework was
developed over about five years; it
was written by a core group of nine
history professors and high school
teachers, with input from other educators.
Ap teachers began using the
new framework at the beginning of
the 2014-15 school year.
The new framework isn't just a series
of tweaks to the old one-in fact,
it's a re-envisioned document. The old
framework was just five pages long;
the new one is close to 80 pages.
While the previous framework was
essentially a list of topics broken into
28 time periods, the new framework
describes key concepts within nine
time periods, and is focused more on
analysis than memorization.
As the framework notes, it "is not
a curriculum and thus does not consist
of a list of the historical content
REVISITING 'MANIFEST DESTINY'
Some critics of the new framework for teaching AP U.S.
History point to its treatment of Manifest Destiny as evidence
of a negative slant on the nation's history. The revised version
notes that the idea "was built on a belief in white racial
superiority and a sense of American cultural superiority."
Previous Framework on Manifest Destiny:
Territorial Expansion and Manifest Destiny
* Forced removal of American Indians to the
trans-Mississippi West
Marchers in Golden, Colo., top,
protest a proposal last fall from
the Jefferson County school
board to ensure that AP U.S.
history courses emphasize
patriotism and downplay civil
unrest. Members of the public,
below, attend a school board
hearing on the issue.
teachers will feel compelled to teach
only what's on the list, and critics
on every side will battle against
and critique the list," she said. "We
want to leave teachers some latitude
to decide what parts of specific content
they will use to knit together a
larger story."
In addition, she noted that the
previous five-page framework didn't
include specific historical references
either-including to Dr. King.
(names, events, dates, etc.) that teachers
will choose for classroom focus."
(The College Board declined Education
Week's requests for comments
for this article. A spokeswoman did,
however, send links to public documents
regarding the group's stance
on the history framework.)
Some critics have pointed to the
lack of specific content as a problem
with the framework. "There are serious
omissions of very important historical
characters that have played
very important parts in American
history," said William Ligon, a Republican
state senator in Georgia.
"Dr. [Martin Luther] King [Jr.] is
omitted from the framework."
Emma Jones Lapsansky-Werner,
a professor emeritus of history at
Haverford College in Haverford,
Pa., who served on the committee
that wrote the framework,
explained that it's understood
teachers will include Dr. King in
a discussion of the 1950s and 60s.
"The fear is that if we make a list,
6 | EDUCATION WEEK | March 4, 2015 | www.edweek.org
Too Negative?
Some of the earliest criticism of
the new framework can be traced to
retired ap U.S. History teacher Larry
S. Krieger, who published several articles
last spring attacking the guidelines.
A piece he co-wrote last March
for the Heartland Institute, a conservative
think tank in Chicago, states
that the framework "inculcates a
consistently negative view of the nation's
past." Mr. Krieger points to the
framework's treatment of Manifest
Destiny as evidence of that negative
slant: "Instead of a belief that America
has a mission to spread democracy
and new technologies across the
continent," he writes, "the framework
teaches the nation 'was built on a belief
in white racial superiority and a
sense of American cultural superiority.'
" (Mr. Krieger declined to be interviewed
for this article.)
In August 2014, the Republican
National Committee adopted a resolution
stating that the framework
* Western migration and cultural interactions
* Territorial acquisitions
* Early U.S. imperialism: the Mexican War
New Framework on Manifest Destiny:
As the nation expanded and its population grew,
regional tensions, especially over slavery, led to a civil
war-the course and aftermath of which transformed
American society.
Key Concept 5.1: The United States became more connected
with the world as it pursued an expansionist foreign policy in
the Western Hemisphere and emerged as the destination for
many migrants from other countries.
I. Enthusiasm for U.S. territorial expansion, fueled by
economic and national security interests and supported by
claims of U.S. racial and cultural superiority, resulted in
war, the opening of new markets, acquisition of new territory,
and increased ideological conflicts.
A. The idea of the Manifest Destiny, which asserted
U.S. power in the Western Hemisphere and
supported U.S. expansion westward, was built on
a belief in white racial superiority and a sense of
American cultural superiority, and helped to shape
the era's political debates.
SOURCE: College Board
Photos by Brennan Linsley/AP-File
http://www.edweek.org
Education Week - March 4, 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - March 4, 2015
