Google Find us on Google+

Sorry, College Board’s AP U. S. History Still Leftist

Aug 27, 2015 by

american history

“Sorry, College Board’s AP U. S. History Still Leftist”

By Donna Garner

8.27.15

I wish the “feel good” statements made by Daniel Henninger in today’s Wall Street Journal article were true; but unfortunately, they are not totally accurate.  I wish the College Board had really changed its leftist content in the AP U. S. History Framework (APUSH), but it has not.  The College Board is trying to “pull the wool over the eyes” of the American public.  

Fortunately for us, Stanley Kurtz, Emmett McGroarty, and Jane Robbins have tracked carefully the “supposed” changes made by the College Board.

Here is what has really happened.  David Coleman is the architect of the Common Core Standards.  When he finished doing his damage there, he became the president of the College Board.  Upon taking on that position, he announced publicly that all College Board products (e.g., all AP tests, SAT, Pre-SAT) would be aligned to the Common Core Standards.  True to his word, the College Board came out with its leftist version of AP U. S. History (APUSH) in the summer of 2014. 

Because of the hue and cry that went up from across the country (including from the Texas State Board of Education) and because the College Board feared a loss of profit, they recently came out with a supposed “revision” to the original 2014 APUSH.  

As usual, the leftists always think the American public is stupid and that they can be fooled.  Thankfully three experts who have tracked the APUSH issue from its inception (Stanley Kurtz, Emmett McGroarty, and Jane Robbins) have clearly pointed out the ruse perpetrated by the College Board:

Quotes from Stanley Kurtz:

Virtually none of the coverage so far has explored the revised framework [College Board’s reworked 2014 APUSH] to see if the supposed new emphasis on American exceptionalism actually corresponds to added content.  It does not.

 

While the College Board has thrown in a mention of American exceptionalism to placate critics, the framework itself continues to focus on globalism, culture-mixing, gender identity, migration, environmentalism, and such. America’s sense of principled mission, its unique blending of religious and democratic commitment, its characteristic emphasis on local government, the high cultural esteem in which economic enterprise is held, and America’s distinctive respect for individual liberty, are neither stressed nor contrasted with other countries to highlight the American difference…

 

The new iteration [recently released by the College Board] has some tip of the hat to a free economy, yet it (like everything else here) is entirely focused on ‘forces’ and ‘trends’ while completely ignoring the role of individual entrepreneurs and inventors. It only gets worse when the AP group gets to military history, where apparently wars ‘are fought’ without soldiers, battles, heroes, or generals. There is not a single military leader, not a single Civil War or WWII battle mentioned (save D-Day)…

 

But in actual content…The focus remains on globalism, gender, migration, environmentalism, and various group identities…Religion is not entirely absent from the framework, but it certainly doesn’t get the constant emphasis that fashionable topics like migration and group identity receive….

 

So what will change as a result of the new framework? Essentially, nothing. All that’s really happened is the excision of the most controversial language. The basic approach is still the same. So there really is virtually nothing for the textbooks to revise. In short, the changes to the College Board’s APUSH framework are largely cosmetic.

========

Quotes from Emmett McGroarty and Jane Robbins:

The updated Framework, though certainly less problematic than the original, continues to emphasize global perspectives, cultural blending and conflict, and other themes dear to the hearts of leftist college professors. But the worst problem is not what it contains, but what it doesn’t…Yes, the concept of American exceptionalism is mentioned, but there’s no explanation of what that means or why it’s important…

 

The only solution to this problem is competition. If other companies enter the lucrative advanced-placement market, states and schools will be able to choose the products they prefer. They may choose the College Board’s AP if they like it. But they should have a choice. The saga of APUSH should remove all doubt about that.

 

RESOURCE ARTICLES:

 

8.26.15 – “Hey, Conservatives, You Won” – by Daniel Henninger – Wall Street Journalhttp://www.wsj.com/articles/hey-conservatives-you-won-1440628311

 

 

8.3.15 – “Sorry, Still No American Exceptionalism in APUSH” — By Stanley Kurtz – National Review

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421952/sorry-still-no-american-exceptionalism-apush-stanley-kurtz

 

 

8.20.15 – “Competition for the College Board, Now More Than Ever” – By Emmett McGroarty, Jane Robbins – American Principles Project – The Daily Signalhttp://dailycaller.com/2015/08/20/competition-for-the-college-board-now-more-than-ever/#ixzz3jjX46dhg

 

 

4.26.15 – “The ‘Fix’ Is in for AP Courses” – by Emmett McGroarty, Jane Robbins – Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/26/emmett-mcgroarty-jane-robbins-the-fix-is-in-for-ap/

 

 

6.2.15 – “College Board’s Reckless Spin on U. S. History: 55 Distinguished Scholars Sign Protest Letter” – by Peter Berkowitz – Real Clear Politicshttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/02/college_boards_reckless_spin_on_us_history.html

 

 

6.24.15 — “David Coleman Attacks Students’ Love of America” — By Donna Garner – EdViews.org —

http://www.educationviews.org/david-coleman-attacks-students-love-america/

 

 

 

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponPrint this pageEmail this to someone

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

UA-24036587-1