I’m not in Texas anymore, but do HS students in Texas know that their state board of education is thinking of requiring their APUSH teachers to teach a “different” version of American History? They vote on Friday.</p>
<p>I’m glad the students in that district are learning about civil protest, despite the majority of the school board’s intention to make sure they don’t learn about it. </p>
<p>As long as they also learn about our founding protests against overbearing government resulting in our revolution and bearing fruit to our laissez faire economic ideal.</p>
<p>It’s not right the way the school board is handling this but neither is the way APUSH is changing. They’re removing the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War, portraying the colonists and your ancestors as bigots, focusing way more on racial minorities, focusing on why more government is good, and putting way less emphasis on our rights in the constitution. They’re focusing more on what FDR did good, taking out much of world war 2, having questions where you form an opinion but there are 4 “wrong” opinions, teaching that the Reagan tax cuts favored the wealthy even though that’s controversial, teaching that more power to the state governments is a bad thing. People should try to take a look at what the new APUSH is also trying to hide from its test takers. </p>
<p>Have you read the framework? And realize it is a FRAMEWORK, teachers have flexibility in what examples they use and how they approach subjects.</p>
<p>Page 44, item 1-A references the Declaration of Independence
Several other items reference the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
OK, I’ll give you that the term “Revolutionary War” is not in the framework, but there are MANY references to the colonial war for independence, as well as an item about the repercussions of the revolution in other countries. Pretty sure that’s the Revolution they’re talking about
If you think discussion of how Native Americans were treated, and the repercussions of slavery, mean colonists are portrayed as “bigots” I’ll grant you that, but slavery and events such as the Trail of Tears are important to study even if not our most shining moment (neither were internment camps - but important to know we’re not perfect)
Teaching what FDR did that was good is a bad thing? Yeah, his last term wasn’t his best, but he was a very important President - do you suggest he should be ignored? I fail to see the focus on FDR, unless the fact that he was used as a sample essay is the issue? If Reagan had been the example would that have been OK?
Page 79, item 2 does mention conservative tax cuts and Reagan, but I fail to see where it says they favored the wealthy? They’re just mentioned as an example teachers can use.</p>
<p>I’ve read the framework, and there is a LOT of room in there for interpretation. It asks people to think and evaluate - it doesn’t say “Liberal good, conservative bad” as many seem to think. I haven’t sat down and compared it item by item against the old framework, but I also haven’t seen huge differences in what is being taught to S under the new framework as opposed to what D learned under the old one.</p>
<p>I took the test last year and reagan tax cuts only favored the wealthy as a test question. Sure the framework is flexible but apush is all about teaching to the test. Teachers get paid based on how many 3-5s they produce. I’m not a liberal but when I had trouble on practice tests, I improved simply by thinking what a stereotypical liberal would think and got a 5. Of course FDR and his record 4 terms were important in US history but they shouldn’t be taught as good or bad. Let the student figure it out. I personally think the test screws things up because that’s all the courses teach to. The framework alone is fine but when it comes to teaching your students how to get a 5, there isn’t a lot of flexibility. Usually in my classes, there’s a clear liberal bias with teachers. Only if education was non partisan and not all about the test.</p>
<p>I agree that there should be no political bias, but I think that it is irresponsible to scrub issues such as colonists’ war with natives or other unfortunate aspects of American history. You cannot really be a good history student, a good citizen, a good patriot, or a knowledgeable adult if you do not know about both good and bad things in your nation’s history.</p>
<p>I am skeptical of the original wording of the bill which talked about using the curriculum to promote “respect for authority” and discourage protests. So much of American history, from the American Revolution and Boston Tea Party, to protests by suffragettes, to the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King, bus boycotts, etc. to even the modern day with the conservative Tea Party movement and the liberal Occupy Wall Street movement are about protests. </p>
<p>Downplaying social protests and discord from US history would be bizarre – what would you replace these things with? Just a string of non-sequiturs (“All of a sudden, for no reason, Congress decided to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965” or “People just sort of decided that British rule had to end”)?</p>
<p>I agree with all of that. History is history. History may not repeat itself but it does rhyme. I’m just worried about how this education system is becoming so test oriented so quickly.</p>