Education

No, conservatives aren’t rewriting history

Educators who worked on the new AP US History course framework discuss what it actually contains.

George Rizer / The Boston Globe

By Lloyd Mallison @thatbritishgent

August 11, 2015

5 minutes to read

Last year, conservatives were up in arms about American history.

The non-profit education company the College Board, which creates the SAT test and plans for various Advanced Placement courses, released an updated U.S. History framework for its AP course. Oklahoma and Georgia threatened to pull funding from the program, and conservatives deemed the revised course description as “un-American’’ and likely to get kids “ready to sign up for ISIS.’’

Last month, the College Board released a revised framework for the history course. According to the company , the alterations came after consultations with a wide range of teachers, historians, parents and students, as well as other concerned citizens and public officials from across the country.

This time, liberals complained.

Some objected that under the new system the youth of tomorrow will be corrupted by excessive nationalism, blind patriotism, and American exceptionalism.

Who’s right?

According to people who actually worked on the document, the answer is that history will be presented as it should be: as a little unclear, and entirely subjective.

“I think because the criticism tended to come from the hard right and went extremely overboard, people on the left assume that any revision is caving to the extreme right, returning to rah rah flag waving,’’ said Jeremy Stern, an outside consultant for the revision of the 2014 edition.

The revision was about placing history into its context – not satisfying a political agenda, Stern said.

“One of the right’s claims was that there was too much emphasis on the suffering of minority groups. I don’t think there was too much emphasis, but there wasn’t enough counterbalancing,’’ he said.

While he does not identify as a conservative himself, he was brought on by the conservative, Washington-based Thomas Fordham Institute. (Stern wasn’t paid by the Fordham Institute and only received compensation from the College Board at the very end of the revision process.)

Georgia and Oklahoma so objected to the framework that they considered rejecting it. The College Board invited Oklahoma history teacher David Burton to review the framework after he criticized the Sooner State’s criticisms.

Burton said the backlash against the 2014 framework came from people who did not actually read the revisions before making public comments.

“The people making all the noise were claiming American Exceptionalism was left out of the framework in 2014. It wasn’t there in words, but if you read the framework, the idea popped up again and again and again,’’ he said.

People on both sides have complained that those on the other side have not necessarily read the framework before objecting to it.

But others read the framework very closely, finding specific words objectionable.

“One of the issues with the 2014 framework was the description of [President Ronald] Reagan,’’ said John Butler, a retired Yale history professor who helped revise the framework. “The framework referred to Reagan’s rhetoric as ‘bellicose,’ but didn’t quote it from anywhere.’’ The lack of a citation suggested a bias, he said.

Burton said he’s happy about both revisions being brought to the classroom. “2014’s framework was a running long jump in a positive direction to what we had before,’’ Burton said. “2015 is another positive step. It takes everything that was good and makes it better.’’

Georgia history teacher Chad Hoge agrees that both new revisions are an improvement. The new document was a framework, yet some critics confused it with a rigid curriculum.

“There were a lot of exclusions of names when I read the framework, but I understood I’d still have to teach MLK and the founding fathers, as there’s no way to teach the course without them,’’ Hoge said.

In response to the 2014 “revisionist’’ framework, the State of Georgia attempted to pass a resolution to pull funding for the course. Last year Hoge testified in front of a joint committee of the state House and Senate in defense of the course.

“The resolution made a lot of kids and parents nervous about the course. And made me look like I was some part of a grand liberal conspiracy to undermine America,’’ said Hoge.

While testifying, he said there were some legitimate concerns expressed about the 2014 framework, but also some gross exaggerations and outright lies.

“The resolution accused the framework of downplaying the role of religion,’’ he said. “The framework actually discussed the topic 31 times.’’

Jane Robbins of the conservative education group American Principles Project was a vocal critic of last year’s rewrite.

“The [2014] framework was written very much in a leftist, revisionist mode,’’ she said. “It required all of American history to be taught through the lens of race, gender, and class. It was so far from a true presentation and a balanced view of American history.’’

She accused the College Board of a slant. “The College Board is going into a progressive mode, which is less of a focus on actual learning, and more on historical thinking,’’ she said. “If students don’t know the facts they can opine and debate as much as you want to, but they need to learn American history.’’

Much of the liberal outcry over the supposed concessions made was aired on social media.

“I read through the criticisms I was seeing on my Facebook and one was ‘College Board Caves to Conservatives,’’’ said Hoge. “I don’t think the College Board has ‘caved.’ What the College Board has done is go line-by-line and strike away much of the tone.’’

All who worked on the document say the result is a new, neutral framework for teachers to use in educating students.

“I think we can all calm down,’’ said Hoge. “We can all realise it’s a better framework for everybody and now the focus needs to be on teaching the course.’’

“The people who made all the noise last year, it’ll depend on whether or not they read the new framework with an open mind,’’ said Burton.

What are your thoughts on the new course description? Tell us below — after you read it first.