From your article, one paragraph that deserves applause:
Let’s be clear that a number of the oft-heard criticisms are over the top and ill-informed. The new framework does not remove historic personages like Benjamin Franklin or Martin Luther King; they were not in the old five-page framework and are not in the new 50-page one (both of which focus more on overarching topics than on naming individuals). And the new standards do not ignore the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
Thank goodness.
However:
The critics make a legitimate case that the framework is ideologically slanted and infused with 21st-century progressivist bias.
It's worth noting here that, given the starting point of US History curriculum, any movement would necessarily be seen as a movement in a leftist direction.
And this bit here is very discrediting:
While identity is declared a major “theme,” and the framework brims with references to ethnic and gender identity, there’s no specific attention to the emergence of a distinct American “identity.” Discussion of race routinely refers to “whites,” washing away real historical complexities in favor of conventional 21st-century racial tropes. The import of anti-Catholic sentiment is absent. Special attention is paid to Mexican immigrants in the 1930s and 1940s (a relatively tiny population), yet the crucial Irish-Italian tensions of the early 20th century are absent.
Irish-Italian conflict was a provincial matter, barely spilling out past NYC and Boston, and having very little overall effect on the country. Anti-Catholic sentiment barely affected the country as well, with it only ever being noteworthy when JFK's election overcame it.
Basically, he's saying he wants his history whiter.
