The latest education controversy in our state involves the AP History course that was revised recently by the College Board. Critics say it’s biased and doesn’t adequately explore the principles upon which our country was founded and/or the historical documents that reveal those principles. This week the controversy came to two consequential bodies: the state Board of Education and a state legislative committee. JLF’s Terry Stoops gives us a thoughtful look at the debate over the AP History course in his weekly newsletter.
Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute provides an overview of those concerns in a thoughtful blog post titled “10 Thoughts on the New AP U.S. History Framework.” Hess reviewed the new course framework and discussed its development and content with a representative of the College Board. He dismisses unfounded conspiracies and rumors about the revision process, but that is not to say that he was pleased with the current product.
Hess observed that the new AP U.S. History curriculum pays “remarkably little attention to America’s motivating ideals or to the resulting governing institutions.” In addition, he finds that “the [ideological] coloration is especially evident when things get partisan, as in the treatment of prominent Democratic and Republican presidents.” In other words, the course miscasts conservative leaders and shortchanges conservative ideas. Opponents of the redesigned course share Hess’ concern. Whether it is by design or coincidence, the course veers left, sometimes radically so.
That is not to say that the authors of the revised course offer an invalid interpretation of American history. Professional historians and educators widely acknowledge the legitimacy of the authors’ identity politics-based and internationalized interpretive frameworks.
The problem is that high school students often do not appreciate the nuances of historical interpretation. Except in those rare instances when the instructor highlights those differences explicitly, students are likely to mistake historical interpretation for historical consensus. As a result, those who ask different questions about the past are considered outside of the “mainstream” and, in the eyes of students, should not be taken seriously. At this point, the process of inculcating our nation’s highest-performing students with a liberal worldview is well underway.
This controversy brings up a larger point. Those who believe in founding principles must realize that the vacuum created when they fail to choose teaching as a career is/has been filled by others. We’re now experiencing the results.
