DENVER (AP) — A fight in Colorado over how United States' history is taught has pitted the new conservative majority on a suburban Denver school board against students and teachers who accuse the board of censorship.
The students and teachers are protesting possible changes to the new Advanced Placement history course. Hundreds have turned out to demonstrate, holding signs saying "There is nothing more patriotic than protest" and "Teach us the truth."
School board members say they want to make sure the history course, accused of having an anti-American bias by some conservatives, is balanced. They say students are being used as pawns by teachers, who are upset about a new merit pay system.
Here's a look at the issue that has galvanized Colorado's second-largest school district:
WHAT SPARKED THE CHANGES TO THE CLASSES IN THE FIRST PLACE?
For years, high school teachers have complained that Advanced Placement history classes — electives which are meant to help high school students prepare for college— were not challenging enough. They said they were covering so many topics superficially and were more focused on helping students memorize facts and pass the test to earn college credit than actually preparing them to go to college.
A group of college professors and high school teachers were appointed in 2006 by the College Board, which administers AP exams, to redesign the course. The course plan was made public in 2012 and this is the first year it is being used in schools across the country.
HOW WERE HISTORY CLASSES CHANGED?
The focus of the course has shifted from cramming in as many facts as possible to emphasizing examination of historical documents and discussion about the nation's history organized around themes such as "politics and power" and "identity."
For example, the course gives more attention to the period before Christopher Columbus' arrival — a period rushed through before as just a "prelude" to colonization — as well as to slavery and women to incorporate new research, said University of Colorado history professor Fred Anderson, who helped in the first round of the redesign. He said teachers have more time to cover these topics because they no longer have to cover as much minutiae, like making students memorize dates of minor historical events.
WHAT DO CRITICS SAY?
Some conservatives like the National Review's Stanley Kurtz say the course was influenced by a movement in academia to de-emphasize the United States' uniqueness and treat it as one nation among many, with an eye toward promoting a less aggressive foreign policy.
The Colorado school board member who proposed reviewing the course, Julie Williams, says the course has an emphasis on "American-bashing" and says the framework omits important historical figures like Benjamin Franklin and Martin Luther King, Jr. and events like the Boston Tea Party. But others she says are omitted are mentioned as possible choices for student essays on the test, including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
The College Board says the framework isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of events and people to be covered because teachers generally know which figures to include and because curriculum standards vary among states. For example, the Black Panthers are suggested for a discussion about "attacks on postwar liberalism," but the instructions state that their specific mention doesn't mean that they are more important than King or Rosa Parks, who isn't mentioned.
WHAT STARTED THE COLORADO PROTESTS?
On Sept. 18, the Jefferson County Board of Education met and proposed setting up a committee to ensure that the courses "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law."
Williams is one of three conservatives elected to the school board last year. They are now the majority, and they've pushed out the district's veteran superintendent and clashed with the teachers union and parent-teacher association.
At the same meeting, they also backed a plan to base teacher raises on an evaluation system which teachers say is flawed. Teachers at two schools staged sick outs with some students joining them in protest the next day. When classes resumed the following week, waves of students walked out of class to protest.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN OTHER STATES?
In Texas, the state board of education has ordered teachers to adhere to curriculum standards and not teach to the AP history standards, even though students will still take the same test as students elsewhere. In South Carolina, conservatives have called on an education oversight committee to ask the College Board to rewrite the framework to remove ideological bias.
WHAT'S NEXT?
The school board will meet Thursday and may vote on the proposal. Students, parents and teachers plan to attend the meeting, as well as protest before it starts.
There's no sign conservatives want to back off creating a review committee, but the latest proposal omits the language about ensuring that the course promotes patriotism and downplays social disorder. Superintendent Dan McMinimee has said he'll ask the board to appoint students to the committee.
And they voted, apparently, now:
GOLDEN, Colo. (AP) — Students, parents and teachers in suburban Denver vow to continue demonstrating against a school board's new conservative majority after it refused to back off plans to review Advanced Placement U.S. history courses for what some see as anti-American content.
The Jefferson County Board of Education voted Thursday night to lay the groundwork for a review of curriculum, with the AP history course likely the first to get a deeper look. Board member Julie Williams, who proposed the history review, said she wants to make sure the class is balanced.
The elective course has been criticized by the Republican National Committee and the Texas State Board of Education, which has told teachers not to teach according to the course's new framework. Being taught for the first time this year, it gives greater attention to the history of North America and its native people before colonization and their clashes with Europeans, but critics say it downplays the settlers' success in establishing a new nation.
The Colorado board didn't vote on its original proposal to review the history course with an eye toward promoting patriotism and downplaying social disorder — language students have blasted in school-time protests across the district. However, students and other activists say the board's new approach to include students on existing curriculum review committees doesn't satisfy them because they believe board members will ultimately try to change the history course to suit their views.
"This isn't over," said Ashlyn Maher, 18, a Chatfield High School senior who has been helping organize protests over the past two weeks. "We are going to fight until we see some results."
Students and parents — along with Jefferson County teachers who are in their own fight with the board over evaluations and merit pay — demonstrated along a busy boulevard during Friday's afternoon rush hour as passing cars honked their horns.
Toni Johnson Boschee held a sign calling for a recall against the conservative board members as she carried her youngest child on her back, a Starbucks cup in one hand and fliers in the other. She said she's frustrated that the board did not listen to or engage in conversation with those who turned out against the history proposal.
"This is tyranny in slow motion. This is how it happens. We all need to stand up and raise our voices," she said.
The College Board administers the course and other AP classes, which are meant to prepare students for college and give them a chance at earning college credit. It says the framework — an outline of the course built around themes like "politics and power" and "environment and geography" — isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of everything to be studied, and teachers are always free to add material required by their states.
For example, Martin Luther King Jr. isn't mentioned in the framework, but the Black Panthers are. The College Board's instructions about the new framework say teachers know to include King but asked for help with less obvious examples of people and events to discuss around some of the themes.
But besides who is mentioned and who isn't, veteran history teacher Larry Krieger, of Montgomery, New Jersey, faults the framework for having a global, revisionist view. He said it depicts the U.S. as going from conquering Native Americans to becoming an imperial power, while downplaying examples of cooperation and unity.
"Native Americans were defeated, wrongs were done, African-Americans were enslaved. However, at the same time this was going on, democratic institutions were being established, there was religious toleration and a new society was being created," he said.
The College Board says students need to be familiar with concepts taught in college classes but the exam for college credit will often give students a chance to demonstrate multiple points of view.
Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, which opposed the Colorado proposal, said it's likely the issue could come up before school boards elsewhere at a time when some are also upset about Common Core, a new set of educational standards for reading and math adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia.
"People who are not in any ideological camp are going to say: 'Wait a minute. We just want our kids to get a good education. We don't want them to be indoctrinated into anything,'" she said.
On Sept. 18, the Jefferson County Board of Education met and proposed setting up a committee to ensure that the courses "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law."
Are they also going to teach the drawbacks of the free-market system, or is that un-American?
I appreciate that, on the whole, Americans take patriotism a lot more seriously than the English, but is it really wrong to have a course of education that considers a nation's history from a fair perspective, even if that means admitting that mistakes were made in the past? I'm not suggesting that there should be any revisionism or apologism, as I see no real place for that in history, but regardless of what achievements were made by a nation, it seems wrong to me to not consider the mistakes and errors in the past. There should, to ensure balance in teaching, be equal consideration of, for example, slavery and the development of democracy in the USA.
The courses taught should not be thought about in terms of whether they are pro- or anti- American, but in terms of whether they a) prepare the students with the skills needed to study at a higher level, b) present them with a guideline to study the periods in question, and most importantly, c), allow the students to form their own opinion on the subjects in question. The teaching should be objective, and the opinions on it should be left to the students, no matter what those opinions might be. The purpose of studying history is to determine your own thoughts on a period and what that means to you, not to be taught patriotism/anti-patriotism.
TheMeanDM wrote:Interesting....two articles that tie together.
Spoiler:
DENVER (AP) — A fight in Colorado over how United States' history is taught has pitted the new conservative majority on a suburban Denver school board against students and teachers who accuse the board of censorship.
The students and teachers are protesting possible changes to the new Advanced Placement history course. Hundreds have turned out to demonstrate, holding signs saying "There is nothing more patriotic than protest" and "Teach us the truth."
School board members say they want to make sure the history course, accused of having an anti-American bias by some conservatives, is balanced. They say students are being used as pawns by teachers, who are upset about a new merit pay system.
Here's a look at the issue that has galvanized Colorado's second-largest school district:
WHAT SPARKED THE CHANGES TO THE CLASSES IN THE FIRST PLACE?
For years, high school teachers have complained that Advanced Placement history classes — electives which are meant to help high school students prepare for college— were not challenging enough. They said they were covering so many topics superficially and were more focused on helping students memorize facts and pass the test to earn college credit than actually preparing them to go to college.
A group of college professors and high school teachers were appointed in 2006 by the College Board, which administers AP exams, to redesign the course. The course plan was made public in 2012 and this is the first year it is being used in schools across the country.
HOW WERE HISTORY CLASSES CHANGED?
The focus of the course has shifted from cramming in as many facts as possible to emphasizing examination of historical documents and discussion about the nation's history organized around themes such as "politics and power" and "identity."
For example, the course gives more attention to the period before Christopher Columbus' arrival — a period rushed through before as just a "prelude" to colonization — as well as to slavery and women to incorporate new research, said University of Colorado history professor Fred Anderson, who helped in the first round of the redesign. He said teachers have more time to cover these topics because they no longer have to cover as much minutiae, like making students memorize dates of minor historical events.
WHAT DO CRITICS SAY?
Some conservatives like the National Review's Stanley Kurtz say the course was influenced by a movement in academia to de-emphasize the United States' uniqueness and treat it as one nation among many, with an eye toward promoting a less aggressive foreign policy.
The Colorado school board member who proposed reviewing the course, Julie Williams, says the course has an emphasis on "American-bashing" and says the framework omits important historical figures like Benjamin Franklin and Martin Luther King, Jr. and events like the Boston Tea Party. But others she says are omitted are mentioned as possible choices for student essays on the test, including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
The College Board says the framework isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of events and people to be covered because teachers generally know which figures to include and because curriculum standards vary among states. For example, the Black Panthers are suggested for a discussion about "attacks on postwar liberalism," but the instructions state that their specific mention doesn't mean that they are more important than King or Rosa Parks, who isn't mentioned.
WHAT STARTED THE COLORADO PROTESTS?
On Sept. 18, the Jefferson County Board of Education met and proposed setting up a committee to ensure that the courses "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law."
Williams is one of three conservatives elected to the school board last year. They are now the majority, and they've pushed out the district's veteran superintendent and clashed with the teachers union and parent-teacher association.
At the same meeting, they also backed a plan to base teacher raises on an evaluation system which teachers say is flawed. Teachers at two schools staged sick outs with some students joining them in protest the next day. When classes resumed the following week, waves of students walked out of class to protest.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN OTHER STATES?
In Texas, the state board of education has ordered teachers to adhere to curriculum standards and not teach to the AP history standards, even though students will still take the same test as students elsewhere. In South Carolina, conservatives have called on an education oversight committee to ask the College Board to rewrite the framework to remove ideological bias.
WHAT'S NEXT?
The school board will meet Thursday and may vote on the proposal. Students, parents and teachers plan to attend the meeting, as well as protest before it starts.
There's no sign conservatives want to back off creating a review committee, but the latest proposal omits the language about ensuring that the course promotes patriotism and downplays social disorder. Superintendent Dan McMinimee has said he'll ask the board to appoint students to the committee.
And they voted, apparently, now:
GOLDEN, Colo. (AP) — Students, parents and teachers in suburban Denver vow to continue demonstrating against a school board's new conservative majority after it refused to back off plans to review Advanced Placement U.S. history courses for what some see as anti-American content.
The Jefferson County Board of Education voted Thursday night to lay the groundwork for a review of curriculum, with the AP history course likely the first to get a deeper look. Board member Julie Williams, who proposed the history review, said she wants to make sure the class is balanced.
The elective course has been criticized by the Republican National Committee and the Texas State Board of Education, which has told teachers not to teach according to the course's new framework. Being taught for the first time this year, it gives greater attention to the history of North America and its native people before colonization and their clashes with Europeans, but critics say it downplays the settlers' success in establishing a new nation.
The Colorado board didn't vote on its original proposal to review the history course with an eye toward promoting patriotism and downplaying social disorder — language students have blasted in school-time protests across the district. However, students and other activists say the board's new approach to include students on existing curriculum review committees doesn't satisfy them because they believe board members will ultimately try to change the history course to suit their views.
"This isn't over," said Ashlyn Maher, 18, a Chatfield High School senior who has been helping organize protests over the past two weeks. "We are going to fight until we see some results."
Students and parents — along with Jefferson County teachers who are in their own fight with the board over evaluations and merit pay — demonstrated along a busy boulevard during Friday's afternoon rush hour as passing cars honked their horns.
Toni Johnson Boschee held a sign calling for a recall against the conservative board members as she carried her youngest child on her back, a Starbucks cup in one hand and fliers in the other. She said she's frustrated that the board did not listen to or engage in conversation with those who turned out against the history proposal.
"This is tyranny in slow motion. This is how it happens. We all need to stand up and raise our voices," she said.
The College Board administers the course and other AP classes, which are meant to prepare students for college and give them a chance at earning college credit. It says the framework — an outline of the course built around themes like "politics and power" and "environment and geography" — isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of everything to be studied, and teachers are always free to add material required by their states.
For example, Martin Luther King Jr. isn't mentioned in the framework, but the Black Panthers are. The College Board's instructions about the new framework say teachers know to include King but asked for help with less obvious examples of people and events to discuss around some of the themes.
But besides who is mentioned and who isn't, veteran history teacher Larry Krieger, of Montgomery, New Jersey, faults the framework for having a global, revisionist view. He said it depicts the U.S. as going from conquering Native Americans to becoming an imperial power, while downplaying examples of cooperation and unity.
"Native Americans were defeated, wrongs were done, African-Americans were enslaved. However, at the same time this was going on, democratic institutions were being established, there was religious toleration and a new society was being created," he said.
The College Board says students need to be familiar with concepts taught in college classes but the exam for college credit will often give students a chance to demonstrate multiple points of view.
Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, which opposed the Colorado proposal, said it's likely the issue could come up before school boards elsewhere at a time when some are also upset about Common Core, a new set of educational standards for reading and math adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia.
"People who are not in any ideological camp are going to say: 'Wait a minute. We just want our kids to get a good education. We don't want them to be indoctrinated into anything,'" she said.
On Sept. 18, the Jefferson County Board of Education met and proposed setting up a committee to ensure that the courses "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law."
Are they also going to teach the drawbacks of the free-market system, or is that un-American?
To be fair, it is quite rare for the education to tell about the negative sides of the current system.
I took an AP US History class back in high school which suffered from the same misdirected focus as the conservatives are complaining about in the article. We spent nearly a quarter of an entire semester - this is several weeks, mind you - discussing pre-Colombian North America. Now I'm not going to say that the history of pre-Colombian societies is worthless and irrelevant, but it really has very little to do at all with the history of the United States. In my junior year of high school I took an AP World History class and we covered pre-Colombian societies there too, and I feel this is a far more appropriate venue for that curriculum.
I also recall absolutely superfluous anecdotes about racial minorities and women in every single chapter, often on every other page in our textbook, and while I appreciate the notion that these people were also involved to some extent in shaping our history, again there was far too much time invested into these relatively insignificant topics while major ones like the 7 Years War and the American Revolution itself went virtually without mention.
Just as an example to show you some of the ludicrous activities we did in this class: to simulate the harsh conditions of the slave ships, we were instructed to lie on the ground, and curl up into balls for the majority of the class period. It's positively looney.
Even at the principled, normative level, I take major issue with primarily focusing on the "politics of power and identity," instead of citizenship and our shared national history. It's absurdly divisive and exclusive, and really quite repulsive in and of itself. We ask that students not remember that they are chiefly Americans who can look to struggles in the past and realize we came away together, and instead ask them to trace the activities of their particular minority group and remind them that it's important to honor the sacrifices of their ancestors and identify as members of that group. In general the majority was demonized throughout both the text and the class, and if you happen to be a white male then you're basically told how terrible you should feel for the actions of people who died decades or centuries ago, whose only relation to you specifically is race and sex.
I think we had another thread on this thing a few weeks ago, and the conclusion was basically "complain about a framework while not understanding how a framework works."
On Sept. 18, the Jefferson County Board of Education met and proposed setting up a committee to ensure that the courses "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law."
Are they also going to teach the drawbacks of the free-market system, or is that un-American?
To be fair, it is quite rare for the education to tell about the negative sides of the current system.
The books generally don't, our economics book didn't, our teacher just taught it to us anyway.
Wait.....I know there are some teachers on here
Are not the text books the guide lines and the teachers are there to fill in the pertinent subject matter relating to the points in the text books.....
TL,DR: conservatives are outraged that history classes teach actual history instead of "AMERICA IS AWESOME" propaganda. These are often the same people who riot every time a textbook mentions evolution and fight to get (fundamentalist) Christian myths into science textbooks as a replacement. And their outrage in this case is about as reasonable.
Jihadin wrote: Are not the text books the guide lines and the teachers are there to fill in the pertinent subject matter relating to the points in the text books.....
The article mentions that this is the case. The guidelines provide some structure to the class and help teachers fill in the gaps in areas they might not be familiar with, but the individual teachers are able to add their own material. So not mentioning X specifically does not mean that X can not be taught, it may just be an assumption that any remotely qualified teacher is already aware of X and it doesn't need to be explicitly added to the outline.
Peregrine wrote: TL,DR: conservatives are outraged that history classes teach actual history instead of "AMERICA IS AWESOME" propaganda.
That's simply unfair. Look at my previous post - what this sort of philosophy means in practice is spending inordinate amounts of time on fairly insignificant topics for almost purely political reasons.
Peregrine wrote: TL,DR: conservatives are outraged that history classes teach actual history instead of "AMERICA IS AWESOME" propaganda.
That's simply unfair.
It is totally unfair. There's enough "America is Awesome" is history as is, we hardly need more
Look at my previous post - what this sort of philosophy means in practice is spending inordinate amounts of time on fairly insignificant topics for almost purely political reasons.
Someone in an AP history course should already be well grounded in the 7 Years War and the American Revolution. Otherwise they have no business in an AP course, the purpose of which is supposed to be to prepare you for college work.
College history courses cover things like Pre-Columbian America and how it effected the Colonial New World, which does effect the United States (it's actually a really big deal, historically speaking). They cover things like the history of slavery in very fine detail (which is a huge issue in US history general education almost always overlooks outside of it's role in certain compromises and the Civil War). Environmental History has also become quite hip in college and you're likely to see courses offered covering it.
"politics of power and identity,"
Except that that's history. Straight out of Van Ranke (literal father of modern historical study).
citizenship and our shared national history.
This is not history. This is propaganda and the only reason to teach it is for purely political reasons.
Peregrine wrote: TL,DR: conservatives are outraged that history classes teach actual history instead of "AMERICA IS AWESOME" propaganda.
That's simply unfair. Look at my previous post - what this sort of philosophy means in practice is spending inordinate amounts of time on fairly insignificant topics for almost purely political reasons.
The fact that you don't understand that you cannot teach "a history of country X" without understanding the people that were here before country X and how societies interacted with them makes it pretty clear that you are not exactly knowledgable on how history works or how teaching works. So I'm just going to take your posts with a grain of salt here.
Kali wrote: That's simply unfair. Look at my previous post - what this sort of philosophy means in practice is spending inordinate amounts of time on fairly insignificant topics for almost purely political reasons.
Alternatively, you could argue that students already learn about "conventional" history (IOW, history involving important white men) and therefore it's worth spending extra effort on covering those "political" topics that would otherwise be ignored. Or you could ask the people pushing for these changes why they're doing it:
Some conservatives like the National Review's Stanley Kurtz say the course was influenced by a movement in academia to de-emphasize the United States' uniqueness and treat it as one nation among many, with an eye toward promoting a less aggressive foreign policy.
...
On Sept. 18, the Jefferson County Board of Education met and proposed setting up a committee to ensure that the courses "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law."
So yeah, there's a pretty explicit statement that the issue isn't students getting the most important facts they'll need later in life, it's that the history standards aren't sufficiently "patriotic" and don't align well enough with conservative ideology.
I don't know about you guys, but I took the class that they are wanting to teach: it was called US Government.
And if you want to teach a class about our politics, what makes our political system different, national symbols, laws, etc it would seem that a class on our Government would be the perfect venue.
Jihadin wrote: Wait.....I know there are some teachers on here
Are not the text books the guide lines and the teachers are there to fill in the pertinent subject matter relating to the points in the text books.....
Teachers are very rarely given any scope on a unit scale anymore. The push for standardization and equity for all students has led to curriculum maps, which lay out what will be taught in each month, with timelines we must hit. If a teacher manages to get ahead of schedule, they are welcome to supplement the textbooks- but removing any lesson without county approval is frowned upon- as in find another county to work in frowned upon. Then too, with the sheer volume of students and testing requirements teachers face these days, it takes a tremendous investment of time to vary from a set curriculum.
I've had the pleasure of teaching from the textbook, and using a more or less scripted curriculum- Springboard. Both have their pros and cons. My personal prejudices played a huge role in shaking my curriculum- but the unit I did with Frankenstein that tied in to my pregnant students themed around the responsibility of a creator to his creation was incredible. Springboard is growing better with each addition, and the verall style works well for teaching basic English skills and reading comprehension. a teacher tweaking the lessons results in powerful units as well.
So I suppose the answer to your question, Jihadin, is that a teacher will fill in any blanks they really are passionate about to the extent they can without getting in trouble with the county.
Jihadin wrote: Wait.....I know there are some teachers on here
Are not the text books the guide lines and the teachers are there to fill in the pertinent subject matter relating to the points in the text books.....
Teachers are very rarely given any scope on a unit scale anymore. The push for standardization and equity for all students has led to curriculum maps, which lay out what will be taught in each month, with timelines we must hit. If a teacher manages to get ahead of schedule, they are welcome to supplement the textbooks- but removing any lesson without county approval is frowned upon- as in find another county to work in frowned upon. Then too, with the sheer volume of students and testing requirements teachers face these days, it takes a tremendous investment of time to vary from a set curriculum.
I've had the pleasure of teaching from the textbook, and using a more or less scripted curriculum- Springboard. Both have their pros and cons. My personal prejudices played a huge role in shaking my curriculum- but the unit I did with Frankenstein that tied in to my pregnant students themed around the responsibility of a creator to his creation was incredible. Springboard is growing better with each addition, and the verall style works well for teaching basic English skills and reading comprehension. a teacher tweaking the lessons results in powerful units as well.
So I suppose the answer to your question, Jihadin, is that a teacher will fill in any blanks they really are passionate about to the extent they can without getting in trouble with the county.
Jihadin wrote: Wait.....I know there are some teachers on here
Are not the text books the guide lines and the teachers are there to fill in the pertinent subject matter relating to the points in the text books.....
Teachers are very rarely given any scope on a unit scale anymore. The push for standardization and equity for all students has led to curriculum maps, which lay out what will be taught in each month, with timelines we must hit. If a teacher manages to get ahead of schedule, they are welcome to supplement the textbooks- but removing any lesson without county approval is frowned upon- as in find another county to work in frowned upon. Then too, with the sheer volume of students and testing requirements teachers face these days, it takes a tremendous investment of time to vary from a set curriculum.
I've had the pleasure of teaching from the textbook, and using a more or less scripted curriculum- Springboard. Both have their pros and cons. My personal prejudices played a huge role in shaking my curriculum- but the unit I did with Frankenstein that tied in to my pregnant students themed around the responsibility of a creator to his creation was incredible. Springboard is growing better with each addition, and the verall style works well for teaching basic English skills and reading comprehension. a teacher tweaking the lessons results in powerful units as well.
So I suppose the answer to your question, Jihadin, is that a teacher will fill in any blanks they really are passionate about to the extent they can without getting in trouble with the county.
I have to say that sounds pretty ridiculous that the courses are planned down to the lesson by the county! I've had more than my share of problems with teachers going to slow and not getting stuff done, and just as many with teachers going too fast and glossing over stuff, but is prefer that to knowing that it's all planned out with so little scope for taking extra time over stuff that's complicated and not wasting it on stuff that is simple enough.
For perspective, the way it works in UK at what I assume is an equivalent level, is that the course will specify a period of years, a subject area (could be a nation or a topic) and a series of 'themes' within that (akin to the "politics of power and identity" mentioned above. So I hardly see the issue people have with that.
On another note, as others have said, there really is no place for political motives in education at this level. The purpose of teaching history/politics is not to say 'communism/liberalism/conservatism/whatever is right/wrong/whatever', it is to inform people about such things and let them decide for themselves their opinions.
Ah, sorry- I'm middle school now, 8th grade. The same curriculum is used for HS though. Yeah, we're given what to read and what to do with it. They even included Harrison Bergeron and Fahrenheit 451 this year. That's only slightly less ironic than teaching 1984.
The pendulum will swing though, and the standards will change as they always do.And our students will worry about the new generation, who will somehow turn out just fine.
Some conservatives like the National Review's Stanley Kurtz say the course was influenced by a movement in academia to de-emphasize the United States' uniqueness and treat it as one nation among many, with an eye toward promoting a less aggressive foreign policy.
I've seen this pop up a few times before; why is this so bad? Last time I looked, the US IS one country among many. To me, it seems it'd be arrogant in the extreme to pretend otherwise.
Peregrine wrote: TL,DR: conservatives are outraged that history classes teach actual history instead of "AMERICA IS AWESOME" propaganda.
That's simply unfair. Look at my previous post - what this sort of philosophy means in practice is spending inordinate amounts of time on fairly insignificant topics for almost purely political reasons.
What is the purely political reason for studying pre-Columbian history?
On another note, as others have said, there really is no place for political motives in education at this level. The purpose of teaching history/politics is not to say 'communism/liberalism/conservatism/whatever is right/wrong/whatever', it is to inform people about such things and let them decide for themselves their opinions.
An incredible amount of political manipulation goes into the basic history syllabus. Is World War 1 a pointless war that should never have been fought, with lions led by sheep and copious amounts of Blackadder? Or is it a complex series of events that led to an inevitable conflict? Or was it a standard geopolitical struggle of the time, differing only in the scale? Or was it a war that HAD to be fought, to preserve British security?
Was Churchill a legendary leader of men? Was he an interfering fool? Was he a mix of the two? Was appeasement up until WW2 a wise decision or not? Was the American Army initially an effective fighting force, or a force of inept amateurs? Did the Marxist movement in Russia have an initial legitimate grievance or not? Was the collapse of communism predetermined, or could it potentially succeed in the future?
However you are taught history at the earlier stages of your life affects your reasoning and political beliefs for the rest of it, in most cases. It doesn't predetermine you completely, but it does set the mold for your train of thought. Most people never even realise that their minds sit in a conceptual cage constructed for them by their society, and how/what they are taught in history plays a large part of that construction.
Valid points, but hence why I said 'at this level'. By the time you reach this level (I'm assuming they're taking about A-level/pre-Uni equivalent) you should be able to and allowed to consider and research a subject area and form your own opinions on it.
Taking, for example, your references to WW1; to my mind the syllabus should not be teaching the Blackadder view or that it was typical/right, it should encourage students to decide for themselves.
You are right though that at a younger age, there does need to be some politicising/moralising of history simply to teach that there are things that are right and wrong, but one the students have reached the age where they're going to study at university/college, they should be mature enough that they don't need their education politicised.
Paradigm wrote: Valid points, but hence why I said 'at this level'. By the time you reach this level (I'm assuming they're taking about A-level/pre-Uni equivalent) you should be able to and allowed to consider and research a subject area and form your own opinions on it.
Taking, for example, your references to WW1; to my mind the syllabus should not be teaching the Blackadder view or that it was typical/right, it should encourage students to decide for themselves.
But in order to do so, it would need to tell the students 'why' each and every one of those four possibilities I just outlined could be 'right'. And there are more viewpoints/potential analysis than just the four I've put up above. I could easily fill a class for a year on various historiographical squabbles, debates, and perspectives of WW1, without actually covering WW1 itself.
At some point, for time efficiency if nothing else, you have to say be able to say to the students 'this is what happened'. But in doing so, you implicitly prioritise whichever aspects of the conflict you regard as the important ones, and in doing so, promulgate whichever line of historical thought you subscribe to.
The sad fact of the matter is that unless you are prepared to devote the better part of your life to investigating these things, you will never know what actually happened. And even if you do, you only catch the faintest shadow of it. However you choose to teach World War 1, it's going to be tainted by politicisation.
Sadly, WW1 is not alone there. If I want to teach students about communism, I simply don't have the time to dive headfirst into Marx and Lenin, and the whole plethora of Marxist/Soviet philosophers/scholars. And even if I did, the average 17 year old (and often, the average adult) is quite simply not smart enough to even comprehend what they're talking about, and it would take many years to even try.
So instead, you feed them a boiled down view of what somebody believes are the more salient features. But whatever that person believes to be the more salient features is entirely determined by their own political orthodoxy or motivations. If they're an unashamed Marxist, what they teach will be entirely different to what a Trotskyite, or a Keynesian economist might teach. Whether they gauge a policy to be a success, what their perception of 'success' is, and so on.
So the question is, which version do you teach? Because you have a year, maybe two. Who picks which version gets set down as the orthodoxy for the majority of people to learn as 'truth' or 'what happened'? The answer is, the examinations board. And whatever their personal beliefs are will dictate which one they pick. But their personal beliefs will have been heavily influenced by what they were taught. Which would have been dictated by either another exam board, their own teachers choice, or their parents.
What actually happened is ultimately of less importance in your history class than what morals/world view you wish to inculcate in your youth. Most people will not see it that way, but they will still naturally conflate the two together without realising it.
Fair enough, I do see and appreciate what you're getting at. It's more the complaints about the course treating America as 'one nation among many' when they is, in fact, what it is that bugs me. The complainers are basically assuming that the teaching of History should be primarily used to instil national pride and patriotism, which it patantly isn't.
Don't even get me on the subject as to why my teachers in high school taught me Kant the Ethicist was reduced to a moron and that all communisum beliefs are evil and that only conservative ideas work. And that a working man can get anything in the world if they work hard enough they will succeed. It is a very american idea, but our fine arts department was quite liberal.
I wrote a piece called the death of the american dream, where I made mockery of the american dream in general. It was not well received criticizing me for being a pessimist and hate mongering socialist. To put it into better terms. I was not well liked for the things I said when I proved people wrong and pointed out multiple perspectives on all matters really help to flesh it out.
Regarding history, I always like to make the argument of "What did the carthagians think." Those that say huh? Who? Only prove my point. If I say second punic war, people from my school had no idea what a punic or who the greatest general of all time Hannibal is and what he did. Only what they've heard.
We are never taught the crusades in high school, not in any place. We were taught a very biased look and the teachers blaming christianity for the crusades. When I researched the topic, I found out it was more or less because of politically reasons, the christians were just the sword and the hammer used to strike. Not the reason behind it.
We are taught in schools to listen to our teachers because they are always right.
Yet I believe I proved a few history teachers wrong. Just by using a few sources of mine. (i.e. Library and the internet using only trusted databases .edu and or magazines)
One of the most common histories we are taught is only American History, we are taught alot about the great wars, touch briefly the korean war, american revolution, vietnam conflict, and then we are reminded of 9/11.
Everyday at school we would do the pledge of allegiance. We are then asked to have a moment of silence. The more I look back, the more I see of a deeply regulated and not encouraging time. Where I was only used to exploit a demographic percentage or success rates. It is a very sad moment when you realize that your education at high school could of been better used. I had a few good classes. But college was around the time when I got dropped on the ground and punted and shown what the world is really like.
Having been a student for a few years, I have seen this progressive move to cover childrens ears because parents are afraid of them becoming un-american.
I remember in grade school, where each year we are only taught us history classes, only from one perspective.
If I had my way I would want kids to learn about ancient history to modern history, and mythologies.
Does the AP History course teach to the test enough?
Totally!
I was a bit surprised when I learned that for the past few years, our school system has been "failing" at meeting the No Child Left Behind parameters.
But then I was completely floored to learn over the past few years just how much the school system "teaches to the test".
And I was even more shocked (yes, I had shock left in me to be shocked) to learn that this year, my kids in 5th grade (twins) are *allowed* to re-do homework and certain class activities in order to avoid the C/D/F grade.
LordofHats wrote: It is totally unfair. There's enough "America is Awesome" is history as is, we hardly need more
My experience was quite the opposite of "America is Awesome" until I got to college, where the classes I took abstained from making such silly normative claims and focused on the significant facts of the past.
Someone in an AP history course should already be well grounded in the 7 Years War and the American Revolution. Otherwise they have no business in an AP course, the purpose of which is supposed to be to prepare you for college work.
Again, my experience in college was that history was taught according to key events and changes, not focused on minority groups and their actions in the background of these events.
College history courses cover things like Pre-Columbian America and how it effected the Colonial New World, which does effect the United States (it's actually a really big deal, historically speaking).
I agree that pre-Colombian history matters, but it doesn't matter to the United States. The formation of the US was completely uninformed by pre-Colombian events. British colonial endeavors took place long after the Portugese and Spanish had modified the political and cultural landscape of the Americas, let alone the collapse of civilizations like Cahokia which predate the arrival of Europeans altogether.
They cover things like the history of slavery in very fine detail (which is a huge issue in US history general education almost always overlooks outside of it's role in certain compromises and the Civil War).
Environmental History has also become quite hip in college and you're likely to see courses offered covering it.
If you're an environmental studies major or a history major who is specializing in that field, sure, but the core curriculum is not at all influenced by this. Additionally, the AP US History course I took in high school more or less ignored environmental issues until well after the beginning of the industrial revolution, where they're significant enough to merit designation as "conventional history".
Except that that's history. Straight out of Van Ranke (literal father of modern historical study).
There's quite a bit of difference between the connotation of that statement according to traditional historians and the connotation of it today in education. As it's taught today, thanks to people like James Loewen, "politics power and identity" reflects the politics of the 1970s, where minority groups were encouraged to maintain their minority identity chiefly.
This is not history. This is propaganda and the only reason to teach it is for purely political reasons.
All education is propaganda. We have to decide what propaganda is socially valuable, and personally I'd rather see students being taught that it's through their collaboration as citizens that we overcome challenges and not through shouting down other identity cliques in a race for power and status.
All education is propaganda. We have to decide what propaganda is socially valuable, and personally I'd rather see students being taught that it's through their collaboration as citizens that we overcome challenges and not through shouting down other identity cliques in a race for power and status.
So your only complaint is that their propaganda doesn't agree with yours?
We should be taught both sides of everything, the reasoning, ect. You can even teach the side of the Nazis (because I know someone is going to bring that up), because they do have a side to teach, and it is a great example of a frustrated population scapegoating people. You should teach things that are often not covered (stuff like the fact we stuck the Japanese in concentration camps).
In fact, I think that all students of history should read Lies My Teacher Told Me, as it does show many things that textbooks do not teach (and it does not have a political slant, as it is a critique on American textbooks, not what history should be taught).
Jihadin wrote: Wonder how the War on Terror is going to be taught
I have $10 on the War on Terror becoming the 21st Century version of the Barbary Wars. A conflict with a huge impact that hardly anyone bothers remembering after twenty years (or maybe a better comparison would be the Boxer Rebellion)
Mostly because I'm expecting something big to happen in the next twenty years that will cause everyone to forget about it
Jihadin wrote: Wonder how the War on Terror is going to be taught
I have $10 on the War on Terror becoming the 21st Century version of the Barbary Wars. A conflict with a huge impact that hardly anyone bothers remembering after twenty years (or maybe a better comparison would be the Boxer Rebellion)
Mostly because I'm expecting something big to happen in the next twenty years that will cause everyone to forget about it
Can you imagine if insurgents cells coming up through the Southern border to have "fun" on some good old small country towns
I'm expecting WWIII actually, or at least a huge war between India and China that distracts everyone. All this stuff with Russia of late aside, I'm still hedging my bets on WWIII starting in Asia
Wouldn't go that far I say "Cold War II" with Putin becoming a major influence in Eastern Europe that are not in NATO. I see another North Korea fight possible. The other being a war on Followers of Islam who are militants wanting to take the fight to the US....
I don't see North Korea lasting much longer. China is tired of dealing with them, only supporting them insofar as they don't want to lose their 'ally' in the region, but I think China is going to go the route of trying to woo South/United Korea away from the US through escalating tensions with Japan. I just don't think North Korea can last anymore. They're in the death throws.
Russia is took weak to constitute a threat to Europe and honestly I don't think Putin is going to last. His time is eclipsing, part of the reason he's pushing in the Ukraine is to stabilize his domestic position and he's kind of sabotaged it in the process. Granted. Eastern Europe might get screwed in all that. Not sure.
I think the conflict with radical Islam is ultimately going to be kind of a footnote for us. It's not new and it's not going away. It'll always be there, but it'll cease being the concern it is now. A very specific set of circumstances led to our being attacked directly by it, and I foresee it falling out of our interest as time goes. Bin Laden had a personal interest in attacking us at home. He's dead. Others might not like us, but their concern isn't attacking us in 9/11 style attacks.
LordofHats wrote: I don't see North Korea lasting much longer. China is tired of dealing with them, only supporting them insofar as they don't want to lose their 'ally' in the region, but I think China is going to go the route of trying to woo South/United Korea away from the US through escalating tensions with Japan. I just don't think North Korea can last anymore. They're in the death throws.
Russia is took weak to constitute a threat to Europe and honestly I don't think Putin is going to last. His time is eclipsing, part of the reason he's pushing in the Ukraine is to stabilize his domestic position and he's kind of sabotaged it in the process. Granted. Eastern Europe might get screwed in all that. Not sure.
I think the conflict with radical Islam is ultimately going to be kind of a footnote for us. It's not new and it's not going away. It'll always be there, but it'll cease being the concern it is now. A very specific set of circumstances led to our being attacked directly by it, and I foresee it falling out of our interest as time goes. Bin Laden had a personal interest in attacking us at home. He's dead. Others might not like us, but their concern isn't attacking us in 9/11 style attacks.
China likes that buffer on the Korean Peninsula and (eventually) NK does that freaking nose dive to doom and Kim Im Anut tries to unleash war on South Korea I can see Chinese Peace Keepers moving with quickness and China striking the likely location on where NK has their nukes(?). Though the UN will have to commit to the aggression.
Russia military strength is not on par with the US but NATO currently is not a solid block of "buddies". Germany made it known they cannot commit to NATO long term goals (something like that) and EU is a bit slow on sanctions on Russia antics in Eastern Europe. I can see Putin making a play and having a big pay off using natural resource discounts to former eastern bloc nations. Those former eastern bloc countries are going to have the best of Western and Eastern influence (as long as they do not join NATO)
I do not think the ME conflict going to be a foot note being like you said. Its not going away but the question is how far are the Militants going to expand it. Big ? is when Iran gets an operational missile nuke is what the Hell they are going to do with it (Israel)
Jihadin wrote: China likes that buffer on the Korean Peninsula and (eventually) NK does that freaking nose dive to doom and Kim Im Anut tries to unleash war on South Korea I can see Chinese Peace Keepers moving with quickness and China striking the likely location on where NK has their nukes(?). Though the UN will have to commit to the aggression.
Yeah, but NK isn't really in China's pocket and never has been. Recent overtures suggest that a unified Korea might happen in the coming future. This would not necessarily disadvantage China, as there are means by which to easily turn a unified Korea into that buffer.
Russia military strength is not on par with the US but NATO currently is not a solid block of "buddies". Germany made it known they cannot commit to NATO long term goals (something like that) and EU is a bit slow on sanctions on Russia antics in Eastern Europe. I can see Putin making a play and having a big pay off using natural resource discounts to former eastern bloc nations. Those former eastern bloc countries are going to have the best of Western and Eastern influence (as long as they do not join NATO)
Chechnya and Afghanistan. That is all.
Russia might be able to beat down a poor little country like the Ukraine with the cream of its crop, but the rest of their military is a bloody mess. Russia might have the hardware but they don't have the infrastructure or the logistics. They can't maintain the the needs of a long war effort and their economy is glass.
Ignore all the scare mongering. Russia is not Nazi Germany 2.0 that people keep proclaiming.
I do not think the ME conflict going to be a foot note being like you said.
The stuff in the ME today is the stuff that's been in the ME forever. We're just paying more attention to it at the moment on a public scale.
Big ? is when Iran gets an operational missile nuke is what the Hell they are going to do with it (Israel)
Iran is a state, not radical Islam. Israel itself is as much a problem as Iran. We just ignore how big a problem they are because we like them more.
Jihadin wrote: China likes that buffer on the Korean Peninsula and (eventually) NK does that freaking nose dive to doom and Kim Im Anut tries to unleash war on South Korea I can see Chinese Peace Keepers moving with quickness and China striking the likely location on where NK has their nukes(?). Though the UN will have to commit to the aggression.
Yeah, but NK isn't really in China's pocket and never has been. Recent overtures suggest that a unified Korea might happen in the coming future. This would not necessarily disadvantage China, as there are means by which to easily turn a unified Korea into that buffer.
Russia military strength is not on par with the US but NATO currently is not a solid block of "buddies". Germany made it known they cannot commit to NATO long term goals (something like that) and EU is a bit slow on sanctions on Russia antics in Eastern Europe. I can see Putin making a play and having a big pay off using natural resource discounts to former eastern bloc nations. Those former eastern bloc countries are going to have the best of Western and Eastern influence (as long as they do not join NATO)
Chechnya and Afghanistan. That is all.
Russia might be able to beat down a poor little country like the Ukraine with the cream of its crop, but the rest of their military is a bloody mess. Russia might have the hardware but they don't have the infrastructure or the logistics. They can't maintain the the needs of a long war effort and their economy is glass.
Ignore all the scare mongering. Russia is not Nazi Germany 2.0 that people keep proclaiming.
I do not think the ME conflict going to be a foot note being like you said.
The stuff in the ME today is the stuff that's been in the ME forever. We're just paying more attention to it at the moment on a public scale.
Big ? is when Iran gets an operational missile nuke is what the Hell they are going to do with it (Israel)
Iran is a state, not radical Islam. Israel itself is as much a problem as Iran. We just ignore how big a problem they are because we like them more.
And I was even more shocked (yes, I had shock left in me to be shocked) to learn that this year, my kids in 5th grade (twins) are *allowed* to re-do homework and certain class activities in order to avoid the C/D/F grade.
What's wrong with that? Grades in 5th grade don't really mean anything anyway, unless the student is in danger of getting held back.
d-usa wrote: Getting a chance to see "why" your answer was wrong and getting to spend another day learning "how" to do it right is nothing bad IMO.
I completely agree, which is why I was asking.
If the goal is actual learning and mastery of the subject, there is no reason not to be allowed to redo the assignment if you jacked it up the first time. If the reason isn't actually learning, but just to get a grade, well, that's the only reason I can see for getting upset with being allowed to redo an assignment.
What's wrong with getting it "right" the first time? Seems like one can hip shoot a homework assignment to get that extra time on Xbox/PS3/WoW that night knowing they can get a 2nd....3rd.......4th chance at getting it right. That setting a precedent (notional) that screwing it up is acceptable being you can get additional chances to get it right.
Jihadin wrote: What's wrong with getting it "right" the first time? Seems like one can hip shoot a homework assignment to get that extra time on Xbox/PS3/WoW that night knowing they can get a 2nd....3rd.......4th chance at getting it right. That setting a precedent (notional) that screwing it up is acceptable being you can get additional chances to get it right.
Nothing is wrong with getting right the first time. What's wrong with teaching a kid it's okay to make an honest mistake? And I don't think anyone said anything about 3rd and 4th chances.
Getting things wrong and making mistakes is part of the learning process, and shouldn't be discouraged. Requiring everyone to get it right the first time or be sunk stifles creativity and critical thinking, and promotes overcautious, toe-the-line type answers to problems.
Someone somewhere will abuse every policy ever. That doesn't excuse educators from their duty to educate and do the right thing. I think it's much more abusive to neuter good teaching methodology and make the students who are actually trying to learn suffer out of a fear another student will abuse it. Newsflash, there are going to be students that abuse it. This isn't the worst thing that can happen.
Jihadin wrote: What's wrong with getting it "right" the first time? Seems like one can hip shoot a homework assignment to get that extra time on Xbox/PS3/WoW that night knowing they can get a 2nd....3rd.......4th chance at getting it right. That setting a precedent (notional) that screwing it up is acceptable being you can get additional chances to get it right.
This is why parents exist. And remember, we're talking about young kids here, not mature adults who are expected to make good decisions. Yeah, you can argue for an opportunity to teach a lesson about doing it right the first time, but is it really worth the risk of teaching the lesson that school sucks, failure is inevitable, and you might as well screw around and play video games? Besides, having to do a rush job AND do it right later costs more video game time, as long as the teacher doesn't let them get away with "fixing" it with another rush job.
I go over my kid school homework and correct him where needed. Then I show him where he derailed at and get him back on track. I got History and stuff. Wife got college math bit. I'm getting the feel my kid is getting a bit more education then the other students and at times the teacher
Jihadin wrote: I go over my kid school homework and correct him where needed. Then I show him where he derailed at and get him back on track. I got History and stuff. Wife got college math bit. I'm getting the feel my kid is getting a bit more education then the other students and at times the teacher
That's excellent. You should continue to do that. Unfortunately there are parents who do literally nothing to help educate their children, but teachers still have a responsibility to help those children learn as well.
DENVER (AP) — A fight in Colorado over how United States' history is taught has pitted the new conservative majority on a suburban Denver school board against students and teachers who accuse the board of censorship.
The students and teachers are protesting possible changes to the new Advanced Placement history course. Hundreds have turned out to demonstrate, holding signs saying "There is nothing more patriotic than protest" and "Teach us the truth."
School board members say they want to make sure the history course, accused of having an anti-American bias by some conservatives, is balanced. They say students are being used as pawns by teachers, who are upset about a new merit pay system.
Here's a look at the issue that has galvanized Colorado's second-largest school district:
WHAT SPARKED THE CHANGES TO THE CLASSES IN THE FIRST PLACE?
For years, high school teachers have complained that Advanced Placement history classes — electives which are meant to help high school students prepare for college— were not challenging enough. They said they were covering so many topics superficially and were more focused on helping students memorize facts and pass the test to earn college credit than actually preparing them to go to college.
A group of college professors and high school teachers were appointed in 2006 by the College Board, which administers AP exams, to redesign the course. The course plan was made public in 2012 and this is the first year it is being used in schools across the country.
HOW WERE HISTORY CLASSES CHANGED?
The focus of the course has shifted from cramming in as many facts as possible to emphasizing examination of historical documents and discussion about the nation's history organized around themes such as "politics and power" and "identity."
For example, the course gives more attention to the period before Christopher Columbus' arrival — a period rushed through before as just a "prelude" to colonization — as well as to slavery and women to incorporate new research, said University of Colorado history professor Fred Anderson, who helped in the first round of the redesign. He said teachers have more time to cover these topics because they no longer have to cover as much minutiae, like making students memorize dates of minor historical events.
WHAT DO CRITICS SAY?
Some conservatives like the National Review's Stanley Kurtz say the course was influenced by a movement in academia to de-emphasize the United States' uniqueness and treat it as one nation among many, with an eye toward promoting a less aggressive foreign policy.
The Colorado school board member who proposed reviewing the course, Julie Williams, says the course has an emphasis on "American-bashing" and says the framework omits important historical figures like Benjamin Franklin and Martin Luther King, Jr. and events like the Boston Tea Party. But others she says are omitted are mentioned as possible choices for student essays on the test, including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
The College Board says the framework isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of events and people to be covered because teachers generally know which figures to include and because curriculum standards vary among states. For example, the Black Panthers are suggested for a discussion about "attacks on postwar liberalism," but the instructions state that their specific mention doesn't mean that they are more important than King or Rosa Parks, who isn't mentioned.
WHAT STARTED THE COLORADO PROTESTS?
On Sept. 18, the Jefferson County Board of Education met and proposed setting up a committee to ensure that the courses "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights" and don't "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law."
Williams is one of three conservatives elected to the school board last year. They are now the majority, and they've pushed out the district's veteran superintendent and clashed with the teachers union and parent-teacher association.
At the same meeting, they also backed a plan to base teacher raises on an evaluation system which teachers say is flawed. Teachers at two schools staged sick outs with some students joining them in protest the next day. When classes resumed the following week, waves of students walked out of class to protest.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN OTHER STATES?
In Texas, the state board of education has ordered teachers to adhere to curriculum standards and not teach to the AP history standards, even though students will still take the same test as students elsewhere. In South Carolina, conservatives have called on an education oversight committee to ask the College Board to rewrite the framework to remove ideological bias.
WHAT'S NEXT?
The school board will meet Thursday and may vote on the proposal. Students, parents and teachers plan to attend the meeting, as well as protest before it starts.
There's no sign conservatives want to back off creating a review committee, but the latest proposal omits the language about ensuring that the course promotes patriotism and downplays social disorder. Superintendent Dan McMinimee has said he'll ask the board to appoint students to the committee.
And they voted, apparently, now:
GOLDEN, Colo. (AP) — Students, parents and teachers in suburban Denver vow to continue demonstrating against a school board's new conservative majority after it refused to back off plans to review Advanced Placement U.S. history courses for what some see as anti-American content.
The Jefferson County Board of Education voted Thursday night to lay the groundwork for a review of curriculum, with the AP history course likely the first to get a deeper look. Board member Julie Williams, who proposed the history review, said she wants to make sure the class is balanced.
The elective course has been criticized by the Republican National Committee and the Texas State Board of Education, which has told teachers not to teach according to the course's new framework. Being taught for the first time this year, it gives greater attention to the history of North America and its native people before colonization and their clashes with Europeans, but critics say it downplays the settlers' success in establishing a new nation.
The Colorado board didn't vote on its original proposal to review the history course with an eye toward promoting patriotism and downplaying social disorder — language students have blasted in school-time protests across the district. However, students and other activists say the board's new approach to include students on existing curriculum review committees doesn't satisfy them because they believe board members will ultimately try to change the history course to suit their views.
"This isn't over," said Ashlyn Maher, 18, a Chatfield High School senior who has been helping organize protests over the past two weeks. "We are going to fight until we see some results."
Students and parents — along with Jefferson County teachers who are in their own fight with the board over evaluations and merit pay — demonstrated along a busy boulevard during Friday's afternoon rush hour as passing cars honked their horns.
Toni Johnson Boschee held a sign calling for a recall against the conservative board members as she carried her youngest child on her back, a Starbucks cup in one hand and fliers in the other. She said she's frustrated that the board did not listen to or engage in conversation with those who turned out against the history proposal.
"This is tyranny in slow motion. This is how it happens. We all need to stand up and raise our voices," she said.
The College Board administers the course and other AP classes, which are meant to prepare students for college and give them a chance at earning college credit. It says the framework — an outline of the course built around themes like "politics and power" and "environment and geography" — isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of everything to be studied, and teachers are always free to add material required by their states.
For example, Martin Luther King Jr. isn't mentioned in the framework, but the Black Panthers are. The College Board's instructions about the new framework say teachers know to include King but asked for help with less obvious examples of people and events to discuss around some of the themes.
But besides who is mentioned and who isn't, veteran history teacher Larry Krieger, of Montgomery, New Jersey, faults the framework for having a global, revisionist view. He said it depicts the U.S. as going from conquering Native Americans to becoming an imperial power, while downplaying examples of cooperation and unity.
"Native Americans were defeated, wrongs were done, African-Americans were enslaved. However, at the same time this was going on, democratic institutions were being established, there was religious toleration and a new society was being created," he said.
The College Board says students need to be familiar with concepts taught in college classes but the exam for college credit will often give students a chance to demonstrate multiple points of view.
Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, which opposed the Colorado proposal, said it's likely the issue could come up before school boards elsewhere at a time when some are also upset about Common Core, a new set of educational standards for reading and math adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia.
"People who are not in any ideological camp are going to say: 'Wait a minute. We just want our kids to get a good education. We don't want them to be indoctrinated into anything,'" she said.
Nah, its because academia is largely run by people with an ideological imperative towards "deconstruction and decolonization"....the more left leaning the institution, the more prevalent these imperatives become. These value laden imperatives are transmitted through the college experience to the new generation of educators.
I say that as someone who is a social sciences student at a major liberal university.
Part of the traditional role of education is to build a cohesive identity within individuals so that they can properly integrate into society, find a niche to occupy, and contribute in whatever way they find most appropriate. Part of the shifting role of education is to deconstruct identity within the individual so that they can properly grasp the ideas of social justice and recognize how privilege marginalizes certain demographics.
Frankly, I don't see those two trajectories as being compatible in any way.
Jihadin wrote: I go over my kid school homework and correct him where needed. Then I show him where he derailed at and get him back on track. I got History and stuff. Wife got college math bit. I'm getting the feel my kid is getting a bit more education then the other students and at times the teacher
That's excellent. You should continue to do that. Unfortunately there are parents who do literally nothing to help educate their children, but teachers still have a responsibility to help those children learn as well.
I know right. The big one was on the American Civil War. Pretty much gloss over but the homework questions were a bit in-depth. I actually had to sit down and go over the questions and the book.
Civil War did not start solely over Slavery
I stop there being we have had numerous threads on this matter.
Another was "What was the goal of Japan by attacking Pearl Harbor?"
Btw the teacher framed the question Pearl Harbor in the State of Hawaii
Expansion of Imperial Japanese Territory was part of an answer but quite a few of us know there's more to it.
Did not know we invaded North Vietnam....
Did you know being a member of a Communist Party group is illegal?
Civil War did not start solely over Slavery
I stop there being we have had numerous threads on this matter.
You know better dam nit
One of my favorite Quiz's ever was a quiz on day one of my Recent US History class. I just loved it, because all the questions were extremely basic. "Why did the US enter WWI?" "Who named the Americas?*" "What legislation ended Slavery in the United States." All things people should have been taught in High School (but consistently aren't). He handed back the tests the next day and told everyone "assume everything you've been taught is wrong." The class averaged a 33 on the quiz
*This one was fun, cause I had no idea and said so and I got the question right just because I didn't put down Christopher Columbus
Civil War did not start solely over Slavery
I stop there being we have had numerous threads on this matter.
You know better dam nit
One of my favorite Quiz's ever was a quiz on day one of my Recent US History class. I just loved it, because all the questions were extremely basic. "Why did the US enter WWI?" "Who named the Americas?*" "What legislation ended Slavery in the United States." All things people should have been taught in High School (but consistently aren't). He handed back the tests the next day and told everyone "assume everything you've been taught is wrong." The class averaged a 33 on the quiz
*This one was fun, cause I had no idea and said so and I got the question right just because I didn't put down Christopher Columbus
Those are all things that are taught in school, but that doesn't mean that they are all things that are remembered by the students.
I've been to 4 different high schools (and all 4 history classes were the same) and they all gave wrong answers to those questions or presented information in a way that led to an incorrect answer. You can almost predict even with 100% accuracy how those questions will be typically answered.
In my text books, the Lusitania got more coverage than unrestricted submarine warfare (which is baffling really) or the Zimmerman Telegram, and though I've never seen a text state it outright, I've seen several text books that fumble the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment's roles in ending slavery.
They're supposed to be taught in high school, but I've seen them taught incorrectly myself on 4 different occasions
I remember a ton of history facts that were plain wrong.
Like how everyone list the allies and says the allies from world war 2 were.... US, Russia, Britain, and France. I remember I got yelled at when i mentioned that Canada and Australia were also apart of it, as well as many other countries.
There are tons of things that history teachers should teach.
And see, you don't even remember China. How do you think they got on the UN security council? (though that's a bit more understandable, because even Academics tend to gloss over the Second Sino-Japanese War).
The one that everyone forgets that Japan tried to do the we "declare war" bit but the crypto back then was long and tedious and also a delay in receiving a message
Teacher asked one homework question about the German Enigma Code. Ole boy gave the school book answer but I had him do a pyramid of circles and to explain how the Enigma code worked with lettered cylinders when they are geared in synch
Jihadin wrote: Actually.someone with a last name Americiorsometing
My guess (from clouded recollection) is that I don't remember who named it, but that it was named for Americo Vespuchi (no idea if the spelling is close) who was the first person to navigate around North and South America....
Now I'm going to Google it
Edit: Amerigo Vespucci appears to be the correct spelling!
By monitoring their code traffic and mentioning the potable water plant on Midway was broking. The letter indicating Midway was used in a Japanese code broadcast afterwards thereby providing a key into breaking their code. hence the US Navy prepared for battle with the IJN which became the turning point of war for the US was when we sank four IJN carriers.
Jihadin wrote: Actually.someone with a last name Americiorsometing
My guess (from clouded recollection) is that I don't remember who named it, but that it was named for Americo Vespuchi (no idea if the spelling is close) who was the first person to navigate around North and South America....
Now I'm going to Google it
Edit: Amerigo Vespucci appears to be the correct spelling!
Also... far more disturbing than even the Colorado students protests, are some of the articles I've seen regarding new textbooks going up for approval in Texas.... One of them said (and I quote): "Moses contributed greatly to the writing of the US Constitution"
It went on from there basically saying (but I can only paraphrase at this point) that the Founding Fathers saw the value of the written law that Moses provided.
Say wut?? Nothing about Hammurabi's Code? A document that is inarguably hundreds/thousands of years older than the Ten Commandments.... But ohh wait, Hammurabi wasn't a "Christian" the way Moses was, so it's cool
LordofHats wrote: And see, you don't even remember China. How do you think they got on the UN security council? (though that's a bit more understandable, because even Academics tend to gloss over the Second Sino-Japanese War).
Thats more of me forgetting the chinese were a force, as I remember clearly that most of history is glossed over especially the pacific war. The most amount of time we ever spent in my history classes if it ever includeded a war was civil war and ww2. But most times we only focused on either the northern perspective or the European theater.
I tried to explain to them (they're 10, nearly 11) that this is "golden"...to have the ability to get straight A's (even in 5th grade) is a HUGE thing.
Call me old school....but I'm of the opinion that if I get it wrong...I shouldn't have the opportunity to correct it and turn it back in for full points...especially not once, but twice....*especially* so that the school can "pad" their student scores when it comes to trying to meet No Child Left Behind (thanks Bush).
TheMeanDM wrote: Our kids get to re-do their assignments up to 2x.
And I would imagine that this is not as nice/easy as it first sounds. Do they get homework every day?
So while it's nice to redo your assignment, you end up doing the last assignment AND the current assignment on the same day. So they still have a very good motivation to get it right the first time.
Typically, just correcting the missed answers only takes like 5 minutes (usually).
It is *not* a source of stress or consternation for my kids, even if they have 3 or 4 homework assignments (which may be a front, or front & back page).
TheMeanDM wrote: Our kids get to re-do their assignments up to 2x.
I tried to explain to them (they're 10, nearly 11) that this is "golden"...to have the ability to get straight A's (even in 5th grade) is a HUGE thing.
Call me old school....but I'm of the opinion that if I get it wrong...I shouldn't have the opportunity to correct it and turn it back in for full points...especially not once, but twice....*especially* so that the school can "pad" their student scores when it comes to trying to meet No Child Left Behind (thanks Bush).
Why not? Is education about actually learning the material, or just getting a grade? If you get it wrong, do you just say feth it, since you'll never get a chance to revisit it? Should grades be a reflection of whether you've actually learned and mastered the material, or simply a reflection that you were able to get it right the first time and subsequently forget about it?
TheMeanDM wrote: Our kids get to re-do their assignments up to 2x.
I tried to explain to them (they're 10, nearly 11) that this is "golden"...to have the ability to get straight A's (even in 5th grade) is a HUGE thing.
Call me old school....but I'm of the opinion that if I get it wrong...I shouldn't have the opportunity to correct it and turn it back in for full points...especially not once, but twice....*especially* so that the school can "pad" their student scores when it comes to trying to meet No Child Left Behind (thanks Bush).
Why not? Is education about actually learning the material, or just getting a grade? If you get it wrong, do you just say feth it, since you'll never get a chance to revisit it? Should grades be a reflection of whether you've actually learned and mastered the material, or simply a reflection that you were able to get it right the first time and subsequently forget about it?
Because education isn't just teaching the material, it's about preparing someone for life. Most jobs don't give you a 'do-over' if you totally F something up. If you go into adulthood with the idea that you can screw up as much as you want - so long as you gave it an earnest effort - and other people will be okay with that and give you as many more chances as you need, you are setting yourself up for a terrible life.
Because education isn't just teaching the material, it's about preparing someone for life. Most jobs don't give you a 'do-over' if you totally F something up. If you go into adulthood with the idea that you can screw up as much as you want - so long as you gave it an earnest effort - and other people will be okay with that and give you as many more chances as you need, you are setting yourself up for a terrible life.
I think learning to fail is something all students should learn. Because it means you tried. There is trying in this world. You can fail you can screw up. That way you can learn. You must learn how to fail before you can do anything.
But we are only encouraged to succeed which is fine, but sometimes kids will keep failing over and over and never learn from it. They are just forced to succeed and to fit a standard.
If you struggle, learn, try new things, and try your best you probably got a better education than your peers. Because you learned something from your experiences and from what you were doing.
Education to me looked to have evolve to "check the box" on teaching points.
I just want my kid who is being taught a subject that pertains to significant events over time to know the entire spectrum on how it happen, why it happen, series of events leading to an action, and what results came out of it.
I just do not want my kid to know just one aspect of a event. I rather have him and her (daughter with ex) know as much as they can.
TheMeanDM wrote: Our kids get to re-do their assignments up to 2x.
I tried to explain to them (they're 10, nearly 11) that this is "golden"...to have the ability to get straight A's (even in 5th grade) is a HUGE thing.
Call me old school....but I'm of the opinion that if I get it wrong...I shouldn't have the opportunity to correct it and turn it back in for full points...especially not once, but twice....*especially* so that the school can "pad" their student scores when it comes to trying to meet No Child Left Behind (thanks Bush).
Why not? Is education about actually learning the material, or just getting a grade? If you get it wrong, do you just say feth it, since you'll never get a chance to revisit it? Should grades be a reflection of whether you've actually learned and mastered the material, or simply a reflection that you were able to get it right the first time and subsequently forget about it?
Because education isn't just teaching the material, it's about preparing someone for life. Most jobs don't give you a 'do-over' if you totally F something up. If you go into adulthood with the idea that you can screw up as much as you want - so long as you gave it an earnest effort - and other people will be okay with that and give you as many more chances as you need, you are setting yourself up for a terrible life.
Getting to redo a homework assignment isn't exactly teaching someone you can screw up as much as you want and other people will be okay with it. Continuously failing a student doesn't do anything beneficial for their life preparation either.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be honest, homework is something you should be able to redo. Homework, more than anything, is supposed to be about learning the material.
Even if you can redo the homework a thousand times, you still have to prove you actually know it on the tests, which are almost always worth more. So students are still learning to perform, and still learning that it's possible to fail.
mitch_rifle wrote: I've watched a great series on the history of racism,slavery and colonialism from the 16th century onwards
It's scope in brutality and horror is almost incomprehensible, and purposely looked over and erased from the history books.
Europe has a lot to answer for
To be fair, most of human history before say the 1700s is just mind bogglingly terrible from a modern standpoint. Acting like Europe is especially terrible is silly.
Europe is a concept which nobody alive bears any responsibility for. Blaming the crimes of the centuries-dead on people today because they happen to have been born somewhere is ludicrous.
Jihadin wrote: Jebus....if these kids went to school in my time frame where you fail a grade you get held back a grade....
Wussy. Back in my day if you failed Pointy Sticks and Rocks 101 you were eaten by the hyenadons. If you failed Pointy Sticks and R0cks 201 you were eaten by Frazzled's relatives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The article mentions that this is the case. The guidelines provide some structure to the class and help teachers fill in the gaps in areas they might not be familiar with, but the individual teachers are able to add their own material. So not mentioning X specifically does not mean that X can not be taught, it may just be an assumption that any remotely qualified teacher is already aware of X and it doesn't need to be explicitly added to the outline.
Some conservatives like the National Review's Stanley Kurtz say the course was influenced by a movement in academia to de-emphasize the United States' uniqueness and treat it as one nation among many, with an eye toward promoting a less aggressive foreign policy.
I've seen this pop up a few times before; why is this so bad? Last time I looked, the US IS one country among many. To me, it seems it'd be arrogant in the extreme to pretend otherwise.
You're just jealous because all the voices talk to us!
Insert obligatory if it weren't for us you'd be speaking German or Russian comment here.
I'm glad to see an educational crisis in America (not because I'm anti-American) but because it shows that the politicisation of history is not unique to the UK.
You think you've got it tough in America, well in my day it was worse.
History education in the UK pretty much amounts to kids having to apologise for the crimes of the British empire. It matters not that it happened 150 years ago, we've still to got to apologise for the crimes of the ancestors. Ok, I exaggerate a bit, but that's the modern trend in the UK.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're just jealous because all the voices talk to us!
Insert obligatory if it weren't for us you'd be speaking German or Russian comment here.
And if North Vietnam had a decent sized navy, you'd be speaking Vietnamese
mitch_rifle wrote:I've watched a great series on the history of racism,slavery and colonialism from the 16th century onwards
It's scope in brutuatily and horror is almost incomprehesible, and purposely looked over and erased from the history books.
Europe has alot to answer for
Really? I find articles/documentaries/museums about the slave trade all over the place in Britain. They can't get enough of it. In school, you don't learn anything about the British Empire, but you do learn about the slave trade, and how naughty we were for taking part in it.
Not really 'looked over', and as a historian, I can tell you 100% it hasn't been 'erased from the history books'. Indeed, the regular amount of literature produced on the topic is somewhat stultifying.
LordofHats wrote: I'm expecting WWIII actually, or at least a huge war between India and China that distracts everyone. All this stuff with Russia of late aside, I'm still hedging my bets on WWIII starting in Asia
I'm just waiting for there to be a war the USA is not involved in again.
By monitoring their code traffic and mentioning the potable water plant on Midway was broking. The letter indicating Midway was used in a Japanese code broadcast afterwards thereby providing a key into breaking their code. hence the US Navy prepared for battle with the IJN which became the turning point of war for the US was when we sank four IJN carriers.
Er, we'd already broken several (but not all) of their codes by then. But codes are only the language. The fresh water distiller trick was a ruse to confirm AF was Midway, not how we actually broke the code.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if North Vietnam had a decent sized navy, you'd be speaking Vietnamese
Actually, thats an interesting topic. If NV had a decent navy, could CHina be pushing it around?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm glad to see an educational crisis in America (not because I'm anti-American) but because it shows that the politicisation of history is not unique to the UK.
Unique to the UK?
Hardly, I think that the politicisation of history is something that is done by every political regime in the world! Just last week there was a huge "controversy" over here, because an exhibit was inaugurated on our parliament building showing statues of all our presidents since the implantation of the Republic and our left leaning parties all threw hissie fits because amongst those statues there were also present those of the presidents that served during our dictatorial regime...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm glad to see an educational crisis in America (not because I'm anti-American) but because it shows that the politicisation of history is not unique to the UK.
Unique to the UK?
Hardly, I think that the politicisation of history is something that is done by every political regime in the world! Just last week there was a huge "controversy" over here, because an exhibit was inaugurated on our parliament building showing statues of all our presidents since the implantation of the Republic and our left leaning parties all threw hissie fits because amongst those statues there were also present those of the presidents that served during our dictatorial regime...
LordofHats wrote: I'm expecting WWIII actually, or at least a huge war between India and China that distracts everyone. All this stuff with Russia of late aside, I'm still hedging my bets on WWIII starting in Asia
I'm just waiting for there to be a war the USA is not involved in again.
Then too, with the sheer volume of students and testing requirements teachers face these days, it takes a tremendous investment of time to vary from a set curriculum.
