0 members (),
86
guests, and
12
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 599
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 599 |
But I was looking at one of our state major university's course catalog and they have two classes for American history at the freshman level (1000)...before 1877 and one for 1877 to present.....AP could make more money if they offered two AP tests.
I actually took the APUSH in 1983 and got college credit for my score at this same university...I wonder which class I got credit for...before 1877 or after 1877 or if at the time they broke it into two classes or just had one.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 683
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 683 |
Bostonian, I appreciate your posting the RNC position. It helps me understand that this is part of a larger debate and not just our school board going out into the hinterlands on their own.
I've been doing a little more reading about our board's position. The board's charge to the curriculum review committee includes the following: "Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights," as well as "positive aspects of the United States and its heritage." Our local paper cited this passage as the justification for the review of APUSH. I find the use of "promote" instead of "teach" the the focus on "positive aspects" to be telling. This sounds more like propaganda than teaching.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 272
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 272 |
Hello Everyone,
I appreciate everyone not allowing the mentioning of political parties to throw off the conversation, however this is a friendly reminder that politics are against board rules.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
I've been doing a little more reading about our board's position. The board's charge to the curriculum review committee includes the following: "Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights," as well as "positive aspects of the United States and its heritage." Our local paper cited this passage as the justification for the review of APUSH. I find the use of "promote" instead of "teach" the the focus on "positive aspects" to be telling. This sounds more like propaganda than teaching. Yep. That's the point at which "education" becomes "indoctrination." And really, it comes down to a fundamental belief about what role in society you expect social studies education to play. If the role is education, then when it comes to belief outcomes, the results are unpredictable, because reaction to the information will be very individual. However, benefits of this approach are that students will be more likely to learn from the mistakes of the past, and be more critical consumers of information regarding current events/policies. On the other hand, indoctrinating students yields a greater level of uniformity of beliefs, and greater conformity to authority, resulting in improved social cohesion. This is counter-balanced by reduced critical ability, and an increased chance of repeating the mistakes of the past.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
Hey, I've got an idea. How about teaching critical thinking.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 948
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 948 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Hey, I've got an idea. How about teaching critical thinking. I'm pleased to note that DD9's GT ELA class is doing just that. Last night I assisted her as she evaluated an informational website for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. Yes, her homework was CRAAP.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2 |
Here is an essay explaining the objections of conservatives to the revised APUSH framework. Getting Our History Right By Frederick M. Hess & Chester E. Finn Jr. National Review Online SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 4:00 AM That said, the [APUSH] framework has a full measure of shortcomings, starting with its inattention to America’s motivating ideals. The only acknowledgment that the American Revolution had any historical significance is a clause mentioning that it had “reverberations in France, Haiti, and Latin America.” There is no discussion of the intermediary institutions or civic organizations so central to our culture, society, and government.
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.
There’s little about economics that doesn’t feel caricatured or framed in terms of government efforts to combat injustice. Students are introduced to decade after decade of American racism and depravity, with little positive context for the nation’s foreign engagements or its success creating shared prosperity for tens of millions. Little is said of “Manifest Destiny” other than that it was justified by beliefs in “white racial superiority” and “American cultural superiority.” The old framework paid attention to World War II–era “fascism and militarism in Japan, Italy, and Germany.” Featured instead in the new one is the suggestion that sundry U.S. actions during World War II, such as the internment of Japanese Americans, debates over segregation, and dropping the atomic bomb, “raised questions about American values.”
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Having looked at the document that's the source of all this controversy, I have to say that anyone who is getting upset about specific items being left out is arguing a straw man, given that we're talking about a 50-page outline for a 180-hour course. http://media.collegeboard.com/digit...-history-course-and-exam-description.pdfLooking through, I see several items that refer explicitly to the emergence of a distinct national identity and the benefits of the free market, so I have to wonder what document the critics are reading.
Last edited by Dude; 09/23/14 07:41 AM. Reason: I fail math
|
|
|
|
|