Oklahoma legislative commitee votes to defund APUSH

Does anyone happen to know if APUSH has changed substantially before? I ask because the new course/test seems much more like how I was taught APUSH in the 70s than the current version.

If I were an APUSH teacher, for an exercise I’d have students write all six possible essays for the question in #59.

They pulled the bill in the face of fierce opposition and are going to “rewrite” it:

http://newsok.com/okla.-lawmaker-reworking-advanced-placement-bill-says-he-supports-ap-program/article/5394536

If only this were true. History is always about which facts you choose to martial an argument. I’ll never taking a medieval history class my freshman year in high school and learning that not all historians say that the Roman Empire fell in 476 when the last Roman Emperor was deposed, Pirenne, in particular argued that the real end of the Empire came in the 7th and 8th centuries when Arabic expansion destroyed economic ties to Europe. Those facts were always there - history is figuring out which ones to pay attention to.

My kids (in APUSH) were asked to read non-American websites that described Pearl Harbor. It was a real eye opener to discover that many people don’t see that attack as totally unjustified, which is what they’d learned in middle school.

“Just the facts” presupposes there is a set of agreed-upon facts. There is no such set of facts, and how could there be? There are an almost infinite number of things that are true about American history. Picking which facts to teach is exactly what’s at issue here.

Students develop critical thinking skills by doing critical thinking. Instead of spouting facts, the APUSH students are now expected to marshall facts in support of arguments, which is what historians do.

“I think there can be good reasons for dropping an AP course. A desire to replace it with propaganda isn’t one of them.”

@Hunt ends the thread. That’s the entire story – the rest is commentary.

Yeah, obviously all historical facts can’t be taught; I didn’t think that point needed to be made.

I was under the impression that the objection to OKs curriculum was not over facts, but over theories and interpretations of what the facts mean. Isn’t American Exceptionalism a theory or an idea, not a “fact.”

Students don’t learn critical thinking skills by being told what the facts mean. They need to be asked to decide that themselves and argue it cogently.

Bay, the proponents of American Exceptionalism very much want to tell high school students what the facts mean: specifically, that America is No. 1. The more critical approach of the AP curriculum doesn’t do that enough to suit them. That’s what this is all about–not presenting an alternative theory, but actually crafting the history course as pro-America propaganda.

Yes, I understand the objection to it Hunt.

My son’s taking APUSH, and there is a LOT about how much Americans, and specifically certain glorified leaders, were at best human and at worst criminals.

I’m not sure you can argue that the course teaches American Exceptionalism. As for arguing about what other countries thought about any particular war or action by the US, that is included in my son’s class. For example, what were France’s and Great Britain’s views on the “French-Indian War”, as well as what were the views of the French and American colonies. They do these DBQ things where they get a bunch of documents from many sources, and they are supposed to substantiate their views based on multiple sources (at least three) provided and their knowledge.

As for facts, I’ll disagree that something presented as a fact is always true, so you need to consider the source. History is all about lying by omission, and how bad those lies are, because we never can get a full picture of what really happened. Heck, we don’t have any idea what is really happening in Libya, the Ukraine, etc. right now with all of our modern technology and communication.

The OK opponents of the new course don’t want to retain the old course. They want a different America heck yeah course, which they outlined in the now-pulled legislation.

If you look at the actual language of the bill, it sounds more benign (to me, but I’m not sure because I am not a US history expert), than is suggested on this thread. It includes several pages of documents and sources that must be included in the US history curriculum, like this:

emphasis added by me

…and continues on for several pages with specific documents and sources.

I’m not as smart as everyone else - I just read the entire bill and there are six pages of what should be covered with the only mention of American exceptionalism being the one mentioned above.

The bill doesn’t even say you have to teach anything about American excceptionalism, just “Founding documents of the United States that contributed to…American exceptionalism.”

The way I read the bill, you can teach the entire course and never use the words “American exceptionalism” and cover the topic by just teaching about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution .

I don’t get what the problem is.

Those are “trigger” words, apparently.

"I don’t get what the problem is. "

You might not, but apparently those who teach APUSH in Oklahoma do, along with many other Oklahomans - or there wouldn’t have been as much fierce opposition to the bill, which has culminated in the legislature pulling it.

Because the rewriting of history is expressly partisan. The bill specifies many important documents but omits modern Democratic speeches, lectures by civil rights leaders from outside a specified time period, arguments against the Gospel of Wealth, and documents in favor of governmental regulations. Of course teachers are allowed to assign other readings, but how many of them will?

There’s also the concern that such courses won’t be recognized as valid for college credit either in our out of the state. I know that many history professors at OU oppose the curricular change.

As a student currently taking APUSH, I was quite interested when I first saw this in the news. It does seem like a controversial topic for CC, but since it’s here, I suppose I’ll add my two cents.

APUSH at my school is possibly the best history class offered. It is engaging, intellectual, and it has taught me so much more than just American History. It has taught me an unparalleled work ethic, writing skills I will use forever, and to stay strong and persevere through adversity. Everybody has their own opinion on American History and what should be taught to kids in the classroom. I understand that not all of American History is sunshine and daisies, but we can’t just hide the bad things that have happened in the past. History should be taught in an unbiased way. We have no reason to glorify the unfortunate actions taken by past Americans, and we have no reason to undermine the heroic feats of Americans as well.

The goal of the College Board APUSH curriculum is to teach kids history. You can’t change the past, but you can help kids learn from it. I understand that Oklahoma legislators want to ban the class, but I don’t see why as kids growing up in this country, we are not allowed to have a say in what we learn and what we don’t. Maybe it’s time to take the people actually being affected by this bill into consideration.

dancegirl98, indeed the students in Oklahoma have been making their views felt, you’ll be glad to hear.
http://kfor.com/2015/02/18/oklahoma-student-starts-petition-to-keep-ap-u-s-history-courses/

The students at my daughter’s Oklahoma high school have sent copious emails to Legislators, along with a phone campaign. Parents and other voters are doing the same. This bill does not speak for any Oklahoman I know.