-------------------------------------------------------
Since its
2014 release, there has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the
revised AP U.S. History "framework." At their
summer meeting in August, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution, branding the
curriculum “a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes
negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive
aspects.” Similar complaints and attempts to prevent its implementation at the
state level have arisen in Texas, Georgia, Colorado (that generated significant
student and parent pushback in Jefferson County), North and South
Carolina.
I’m guessing
you have heard about the latest AP U.S. History brouhaha (Rod Dreher provides a fair overview), this time in Oklahoma.
Representative Dan Fisher proposed defunding AP U.S. History because it fails to teach “American exceptionalism.” But this
complaint is a misreading of the AP history “framework,” and as in Colorado,
students, parents and teachers are pushing back, at least because they
earned a million dollars’ worth of college credits last year via AP history
classes. This has led Fisher to shelve a committee-approved defunding bill for
now. Too many detractors like Fisher mischaracterize the new AP approach to
history. It is not a curriculum, it does not mandate any list of groups,
individuals, dates, documents or historical details, and it does not “teach”
any particular political position or interpretation of U.S. history. It is
each AP history teacher’s responsibility to select the relevant historical
artifacts that explore the key concepts and develop historical thinking skills.
But,
relevant to American Creation, Mr. Fisher is a “pastor” and member of an organization called, the Black
Robe Regiment, whose website states
that, “although we are not affiliated with David Barton or the Wall
Builders organization, David serves as an inspiration and Wall Builders is a
great resource of historical knowledge.” They claim, “the
church and God himself has been under assault, marginalized, and diminished by
the progressives and secularists,” and attack the “false wall of separation of
church and state” resulting from a “growing tide of special interest groups
indoctrinating our youth at the exclusion of the Christian perspective.”
But
the inclusion of more or alternate viewpoints does not necessarily exclude
other perspectives, Christian or otherwise. Should claims about “a divinely inspired US Constitution” be accepted at face
value? Any
study of U.S. history that utilizes the “historical thinking” skills the AP
U.S. history framework seeks to develop, will
result in divergent
conclusions, which strikes me as a very positive learning outcome. Mr. Fisher
reminds me of some students who complain that there was no single “right”
answer, but that is precisely the point. It does not mean that “everything is
relative,” or that “history is just an unending argument. Historical reasoning
does not lead to a simple True/False dichotomy, but prompts weighing claims and
lining up arguments based on all of the available evidence (i.e., not
“cherry-picking”). If conflicting interpretations result in creative tension,
so much the better, or at least better than history
shaped to fit an ideological agenda.
As noted
by the American Historical Association, “Historians and history teachers know that the
honest, nonpartisan study of history will turn up episodes that are
inspirational and episodes that are deeply troubling. Studying history
challenges anyone’s beliefs, whatever their political commitments may be. This
makes it even more important that history teachers know they are free to
emphasize independent thinking, cooperative inquiry, evidence, and open
discussion. The AP U.S. History Framework is a positive step in this direction
for all teachers of history.”
I’m sure there is room for improvement in the new 142-page AP
U.S. History “framework.” In fact they have created a U.S.
History Curriculum Framework Public Comment Form. But
all of the critics I’ve encountered (except Professor Joseph Kett) are guilty of exactly what AP History is trying to
forestall: selective use of evidence to support pre-conceived notions and
ignoring evidence that does not support their particular cause or partisan bias.
And, in case
anyone wants to tar me with the broad brush of being a “liberal academic,”
please note that I abhor Obama’s “Race to the Top” as much as Bush’s “No Child
Left Behind.” They promote a “test and punish” agenda (of students and
teachers) that is inimical to the type of education AP History strives for: to
“draw out or unfold the powers of the mind.” The emphasis
of history teaching should be inculcating habits of historical thinking so
students become lifelong learners and engaged citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment