Colorado School Board Vote Doesn't Appease Critics

Colorado School Board Vote Doesn’t Appease Critics

Associated Press COLLEEN SLEVIN

US News • October 2014 • Views: 2,158

Students, parents and teachers in suburban Denver are vowing 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.

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.

More: Colorado School Board Vote Doesn’t Appease Critics

Recent Pages by Thanos (Randall Gross):
Nevada Republicans' Caucus Adds Chaos and Confusion to the State's Presidential Primary Why Are Builders Putting Gas Stoves in New Homes? Could It Be Fossil Fuel Subsidies? Was the Climate 'Better' During the Age of the Dinosaurs? (More Climate "Facts" Bite the dust.) 2023 Golden Crocoduck Award Ceremony and WINNER!! Where Environmentalists Get It Wrong (ALL OPINION)

Jump to bottom

23 comments

Dark_Falcon Oct 4, 2014 8:39:34am

The school board is correct: The new AP History standards were created by Transnational Progressives (hereafter Tranzis). As such, they are tainted by anti-patriotism.

Disclaimer: Not all Progressives are transnational. While ‘Progressive’ is a label that fits the president well, Barack Obama is not a transnationalist.

wrenchwench Oct 4, 2014 10:41:03am

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

The school board is correct: The new AP History standards were created by Transnational Progressives (hereafter Tranzis). As such, they are tainted by anti-patriotism.

Disclaimer: Not all Progressives are transnational. While ‘Progressive’ is a label that fits the president well, Barack Obama is not a transnationalist.

1.) Downding for linking directly to NRO.

2.) Your shorthand for transnational progressives will not result in clarity, even with your ‘hereafter’ notation.

3.) This is a question. I don’t expect an answer because I usually get crickets from you. Do you think American History and World History should not be taught as one subject?

Dark_Falcon Oct 4, 2014 11:05:40am

re: #2 wrenchwench

1.) Downding for linking directly to NRO.

2.) Your shorthand for transnational progressives will not result in clarity, even with your ‘hereafter’ notation.

3.) This is a question. I don’t expect an answer because I usually get crickets from you. Do you think American History and World History should not be taught as one subject?

To answer your question: No. American history and world history should remain separate classes. The critical points of world history bearing on the US should be topics in US history, but American students need to learn about America as its own topic.

wrenchwench Oct 4, 2014 11:14:13am

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

To answer your question: No. American history and world history should remain separate classes. The critical points of world history bearing on the US should be topics in US history, but American students need to learn about America as its own topic.

Thanks for answering.

I disagree.

EiMitch Oct 4, 2014 12:04:05pm

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.

So the only way to truly appreciate American history is to be ignorant of what happened before. What racism? /sarc

calochortus Oct 4, 2014 12:15:00pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

The school board is correct: The new AP History standards were created by Transnational Progressives (hereafter Tranzis). As such, they are tainted by anti-patriotism.

Disclaimer: Not all Progressives are transnational. While ‘Progressive’ is a label that fits the president well, Barack Obama is not a transnationalist.

I’m not going to downding you, but the school board is nuts. Teaching history (and for that matter, being truly patriotic) involves taking an honest look at ‘how we got here.’ There are no perfect countries. The US has done reprehensible things. It doesn’t make us evil. We need to understand the causes and background leading to these things to avoid repeating them.

The more we study US History, warts and all, as it relates to the rest of the world, the better off we will be. Intellectual dishonesty will not help us.

William Barnett-Lewis Oct 4, 2014 12:25:26pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

I’m sorry DF but that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard you say in a long time. In addition, National Racists Online has lost all credibility with me. I will not not take anything published by them as having anymore weight than if Dim Jim or Stormfront published it.

jamesfirecat Oct 4, 2014 12:57:12pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

The school board is correct: The new AP History standards were created by Transnational Progressives (hereafter Tranzis). As such, they are tainted by anti-patriotism.

Disclaimer: Not all Progressives are transnational. While ‘Progressive’ is a label that fits the president well, Barack Obama is not a transnationalist.

You realize that calling them “tranzis” is offensive both to people a transgendered nature and those who suffered under the actual nazis don’t you?

Backwoods_Sleuth Oct 4, 2014 12:59:26pm

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

To answer your question: No. American history and world history should remain separate classes. The critical points of world history bearing on the US should be topics in US history, but American students need to learn about America as its own topic.

but critical points of world history shouldn’t include American history.
How enlightened…

palomino Oct 4, 2014 2:04:42pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

The school board is correct: The new AP History standards were created by Transnational Progressives (hereafter Tranzis). As such, they are tainted by anti-patriotism.

Disclaimer: Not all Progressives are transnational. While ‘Progressive’ is a label that fits the president well, Barack Obama is not a transnationalist.

I agree with your disclaimer. It makes sense in terms of both Obama’s actions and his words, starting with his first inaugural speech, where he said, “We as Americans will not apologize to the rest of the world for our way of life.” And he clearly meant that in terms of our economy, military, culture, etc.

So why is it that so many conservative Repubicans/tea partiers believe that Obama is the exact opposite of how you describe him? Why do they get this so wrong?

LoonRadio Oct 4, 2014 5:09:35pm

Both Conservative and Progressive sides could be accused of censoring history, AND THEY WOULD BOTH BE RIGHT. There is no way to teach history comprehensively; some things must be left out and we can debate the merits of those omissions.
My opinion (as the son of two teachers) is that the jingoistic, US-can-do-no-wrong version of history is best taught at younger ages, when the students are less likely to grasp the greater context. Greater complexity is added throughout middle- and early high school, then when college preparatory classes are available, the students are ready for the warts-and-all version.
Having that knowledge won’t make them bad citizens, it will make them less likely to repeat the same mistakes.

Dark_Falcon Oct 4, 2014 8:23:14pm

re: #7 William Barnett-Lewis

I’m sorry DF but that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard you say in a long time. In addition, National Racists Online has lost all credibility with me. I will not not take anything published by them as having anymore weight than if Dim Jim or Stormfront published it.

You should take Stanley Kurtz seriously. He documents his conclusions well and he stays away from the crazy stuff to focus on making his point. His work is worthy of examination.

Dark_Falcon Oct 4, 2014 8:32:56pm

re: #10 palomino

I agree with your disclaimer. It makes sense in terms of both Obama’s actions and his words, starting with his first inaugural speech, where he said, “We as Americans will not apologize to the rest of the world for our way of life.” And he clearly meant that in terms of our economy, military, culture, etc.

So why is it that so many conservative Repubicans/tea partiers believe that Obama is the exact opposite of how you describe him? Why do they get this so wrong?

Because just as many progressives lump all who call themselves ‘Conservative’ together, so do many conservatives lump all who call themselves ‘Progressive’ together. Many on the right also confuse Obama’s internationalism with transnationalism. While there are some similarities, internationalism is more about the interaction between willing nations for the common good, whereas transnationalism tries to erase the idea of nations.

Unlike a transnational progressive, a Progressive Internationalist will try to forge ties with other countries while accepting that America will always have differences from those other nations.

Dark_Falcon Oct 4, 2014 8:34:52pm

One other thing: It’s possible to find right-of-center transnationalists as well. Mostly these are types of Fundamentalists, who seek to use their religion to erase differences between nations, placing all under the heel of their conception of God.

majii Oct 4, 2014 8:56:07pm

What pisses me off a lot is that many who are criticizing the new APUSH curriculum and exam are those who are least qualified to do so. They have never set foot in a classroom, have no experience or training in any field of education, yet, they feel their opinion carries as much weight as those of us who are qualified to speak about these issues. I possess several degrees in education, taught high school social studies for 33 years, including U.S. History, and I’ve never seen so many unqualified individuals feeling they have the right to tell the real experts how they should do their jobs. They don’t do this to doctors, lawyers, accountants and other professionals, but because they are parents, grand-parents, aunts, uncles, etc., they think they have the right to make very important decisions about education and teaching. What they’re doing is harming our APUSH students by trying to force them to learn a form of U.S. history which reflects not real history, warts and all, but their form of U.S. history which omits information these kids should know and learn. After completing a year-long APUSH class, these kids want to be able to earn college credit for their efforts. Revising the APUSH course to reflect the beliefs of some of its members won’t allow these kids to pass the exam with a high enough score ( a three) to earn college credit, meaning they’ve worked their butts off for an entire year for nothing.

For example, slavery as it existed in the U.S. was a real bitch, and it’s aftereffects have lasted until this very day and will continue to play a role in the nation’s future. Having any group of school board members rewriting our nation’s history of slavery and pretend that “it wasn’t so bad” will, imo, deprive our students of the understanding they need as our successors to work to eventually, and hopefully, one day help the U.S. to fulfill the founders goal of making this nation “a more perfect union,” and a nation in which there are no second class citizens, only American citizens who are seen as true equals.

wheat-dogghazi Oct 5, 2014 8:06:48am

re: #12 Dark_Falcon

You should take Stanley Kurtz seriously. He documents his conclusions well and he stays away from the crazy stuff to focus on making his point. His work is worthy of examination.

I read Kurtz’s article closely. He attempts to connect the dots, a la Glenn Beck, between the redesigned APUSH framework and a liberal historian named Bender, who worked with one member of the committee, and edited a book to which two other committee members contributed essays. I am not convinced Bender’s indirect influence was as important as Kurtz alleges, as there were 17 other high school and college instructors on the committee.

Also, I would call your attention to the possibility that Kurtz had not bothered to read the framework before writing his Beckish column. First, he says he’s going to analyze the framework in more detail later. His allegations of liberal bias are also not supported by the evidence — the framework document in question. It proposes concepts and proposes questions. It does not prescribe answers or interpretations, as he alleges.

You can read it here (PDF)

I’d be interested if you can find the liberal bias Kurtz does in it. I can’t.

Dark_Falcon Oct 5, 2014 9:20:29am

re: #16 wheat-dogghazi

While its true that Kurtz does use a connect-the-dots format, unlike Glenn Beck he sticks to the facts when doing it as a rule.

As for the document, I’ll read it if I have time. At 142 pages, it will take a while.

jamesfirecat Oct 5, 2014 9:33:49am

re: #16 wheat-dogghazi

I read Kurtz’s article closely. He attempts to connect the dots, a la Glenn Beck, between the redesigned APUSH framework and a liberal historian named Bender, who worked with one member of the committee, and edited a book to which two other committee members contributed essays. I am not convinced Bender’s indirect influence was as important as Kurtz alleges, as there were 17 other high school and college instructors on the committee.

Also, I would call your attention to the possibility that Kurtz had not bothered to read the framework before writing his Beckish column. First, he says he’s going to analyze the framework in more detail later. His allegations of liberal bias are also not supported by the evidence — the framework document in question. It proposes concepts and proposes questions. It does not prescribe answers or interpretations, as he alleges.

You can read it here (PDF) [Embedded content]

I’d be interested if you can find the liberal bias Kurtz does in it. I can’t.

I believe his response can be summed up thusly…

m.imgur.com

(His referring to Krutz not DF if he would put forward that a document is biased before bothering to actually read it…)

Dr. Matt Oct 5, 2014 9:38:05am

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

To answer your question: No. American history and world history should remain separate classes. The critical points of world history bearing on the US should be topics in US history, but American students need to learn about America as its own topic.

According to whom? What is this based on? Why do believe you are an expert on just about every fucking topic here at LGF?

Dark_Falcon Oct 5, 2014 9:43:57am

re: #19 Dr. Matt

Wrenchwench asked me what I thought about a topic and I explained my views. Had I not done so, then she would have regarded me with contempt for dodging. All I did was give my opinion. So I’ll answer your downding with one of my own.

palomino Oct 5, 2014 2:31:39pm

re: #13 Dark_Falcon

Because just as many progressives lump all who call themselves ‘Conservative’ together, so do many conservatives lump all who call themselves ‘Progressive’ together. Many on the right also confuse Obama’s internationalism with transnationalism. While there are some similarities, internationalism is more about the interaction between willing nations for the common good, whereas transnationalism tries to erase the idea of nations.

Unlike a transnational progressive, a Progressive Internationalist will try to forge ties with other countries while accepting that America will always have differences from those other nations.

Really? Equivalency? That’s the only answer you could come up with for the wildly mistaken, hysterical views on the right concerning Obama. You’re like the resident groundhog here at LGF. You seem to learn something every day about the sickness among today’s right wing, especially the TP, and then you forget it all the next day.

wheat-dogghazi Oct 5, 2014 5:41:00pm

re: #17 Dark_Falcon

While its true that Kurtz does use a connect-the-dots format, unlike Glenn Beck he sticks to the facts when doing it as a rule.

As for the document, I’ll read it if I have time. At 142 pages, it will take a while.

If you have time read Kurtz and comment on the APUSH framework without actually reading it, then you’re committing the same crime as Kurtz did. Read the primary source document, not just the documents criticizing the source.

Many of those pages are devoted to sample exam questions and responses, specific concepts and overall questions, and don’t need to be read in detail. There is no hidden agenda here, despite what Kurtz says. The only agenda is for AP students to grapple with historical analysis and interpretation in the same way professional historians do. They are not expected to agree with Bender or any other specific historian.

wheat-dogghazi Oct 5, 2014 5:55:03pm

re: #17 Dark_Falcon

Also, Kurtz’s “connect the dots” methodology is no better than Beck’s ranting — Kurtz just leaves out the ranting. Bender may indeed have a axe to grind. That’s not uncommon in academia, and historians are no exception. Kurtz is using the old ploy of “guilt by association.” Bender worked with Dickson, so Dickson fell under Bender’s spell. Then they collaborated with others (Sinke and Charap) on a volume of historical essays, so now Sinke and Charap also fell under Bender’s Svengali-like spell. Then, Dickson, Sinke and Charap entranced the other 17 members of the APUSH reformulation committees somehow to recreate Bender’s agenda in the APUSH curriculum.

Sorry, it makes no damn sense, either logically or in practice.

Finally, I need to reiterate that the framework is not a prescriptive curriculum. Individual teachers decide the exact material covered in the course, choose the books and primary sources, and set the syllabus. The College Board is not micromanaging content, despite Kurtz’s irrational fears.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!