APUSH Back – Compendium

February 17, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 5 Comments

*Updated 2/24/15 08:00*

Things have been moving rather briskly lately, and I’ve had a mite o’ difficulty keeping up. Holy wow – it’s like no one even TAKES those ‘Which 1970’s TV Commerical ARE You?’ quizzes on Facebook anymore – they just post about AP in OK and shake their collective cyber-heads.

My Current Favorites:

A Student Defends AP (I posted this on my blog, but this isn’t more me – this is actually good)

Top 10 Reasons America Is Exceptional (Also on my blog, but not mostly me – Christine Custred talks about REAL American Exceptionalism)

VIDEO: Oklahoma Bans AP History Because Facts Suck (**Language Warning**)

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”561″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

Local Edu-Blogs & Related Insights I Find Useful

The Legislative APUSH Push-Back: An Educator’s Perspective – OkEdTruths is the definitive source for all things legislative in #oklaed, and this post is no exception. Most of this one, however, is a guest-blog from one of the state’s most successful and reputable classroom educators, Mr. David Burton.

Save AP – OkEdTruths highlights the very real danger that we’re on our way towards eliminating one of the few things actually promoting higher education in our public schools right now.

We Must #SaveAP From Our Politicians – Claudia Swisher knows her politicians, but it still hurts watching the sausage being made… welcome to The Jungle.

APUSH: What You Can Still Do – OkEdTruths with his usual clarity and precision.

An Educated Person (The Problem With “Lists” as Curriculum) – This post is not only not specifically intended to be about pending legislation in Oklahoma, it’s from an English teacher in a whole other state. But the argument is entirely applicable here – lists of stuff we think “everyone” should know aren’t the same as learning or thinking.

AP U.S. History Course Description and other info – This is from the College Board website, so it’s not as completely unbiased and objective as, say, the Black Robes for Patriotic God Juice guy in our legislature. Nevertheless, in the same way I try to go to the actual legislation before ranting about the law, it might be helpful to go to the actual course description before damning its progressive contents to hell.

Bringing Back the Black Robe Regiment – Dan Fisher, our Man in Black. This is not parody; this is HIS site.

And of course my invaluable insights and throwing of furniture:

I’d Rather Be Aquaman (This one is from several months back when Texas was doing the whole ‘More Red in Red, White and Blue’ thing over the same issue. Plus, this is one amuses me to no end. Turns out I’m narcissistic and vain.)

Oklahoma Turns Against APUSH? (full text of SB 650 as introduced, w/ minor personal commentary)

We’ve Found A Witch… May We Burn Her? (full text of HB1380 as introduced, w/ minimal commentary)

Noooobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition! (my overview of just what the fuss is all about – a beginner’s guide, as it were)

Meet Senator Josh Brecheen, Part I – Fire From Heaven (you know us history types – thinking we can learn something about the present by analyzing the past)

Meet Senator Josh Brecheen, Part II – Books on the Bonfire (the Senator is proud of his war on Common Core – surely he won’t mind us taking a look?)

OK Senate Bill 650 – Brecheen the Ice (a look at SB 650 and its implications)

HB 1380 – Something Seems Fisher About This (a look at HB1380 and the man proposing it)

Dan Fisher is SHOCKED at What’s In His Bill (NPR came to visit, and spoke to two people. A very coherent teacher with a healthy clue, and a man hurt and breathy-offended that people would suggest he means anything he clearly says)

Other News / Commentary:

Meet the Man Behind the Right’s AP History Freak Out – (TalkingPointsMemo.com, 10/9/14)

Oklahoma Legislative Committee Questions Legality of Advanced Placement Courses in Public Schools (The Tulsa World, 2/17/15)

Oklahoma Lawmakers Vote Overwhelmingly to Ban Advanced Placement U.S. History (ThinkProgress.com, 2/17/15)

Oklahoma, Ranked 48th in Education, Votes to Ban AP History Classes (BlueNationReview.com, 2/17/15)

Great, Now Lawmakers Want to Get Rid of AP Classes… (TheLostOgle.com, 2/17/15)

Oklahoma Republicans May Have Outlawed Advanced Placement Classes (TheDailyKos.com, 2/17/15)

Sorry, Oklahoma. You Don’t Get To Ban History You Don’t Like. (TheGuardian.com, 2/18/15)

News9.com Full Interview With David Burton (News9.com, 2/18/15 – video)

Oklahoma May Scrap AP History for Focusing on America’s ‘Bad Parts’ (NPR “All Things Considered” segment, 2/18/15 – audio)

State Rep. Dan Fisher Introduces a Bill Introduces a Bill that is “Mythology, and Just Not True” (Red Dirt Report, 2/18/15)

Oklahoma Bill Would Make AP U.S. History… History (KFOR.com, 2/18/15 – article w/ video)

Oklahoma Bill Banning AP U.S. History Would Make Students Study Ten Commandments, 3 Speeches by Reagan (ThinkProgress.com, 2/18/15)

The Bizarre War Against AP U.S. History Courses (The Washington Post, 2/19/15)

Oklahoma Teachers Not Too Pleased About Bill to Ban AP U.S. History (Newsweek.com, 2/19/15)

Oklahoma Lawmaker Says He’ll Pull Back Controversial AP History Bill for a Rewrite (The Tulsa World, 2/20/15)

Oklahoma Votes to Ban AP U.S. History (TheOnion.com, 2/20/15 – satire, sort of I wish)

Lawmaker Who Targeted AP History Looks to Bring Back the Black Robe Regiment (The Tulsa World, 2/20/15)

The ‘Black Robe Regiment’: History, law professors counter Oklahoma lawmaker who targeted AP history (The Tulsa World, 2/21/15)

Editorial: Threat to AP U.S. history part of general assault on public education (The Tulsa World, 2/21/15)

Letter to the Editor: Don’t Whitewash U.S. History (The Tulsa World, 2/22/15 – written by AP High School Student)

Things To Ask Your Legislator or Others Supporting the Move to Kill AP:

I’m told I am not always the most dispassionate or rational voice on these subjects. That my ‘tone’ might be counterproductive in some situations.

I don’t know… I think the image of me kicking and crying as I shriek: “WHY DO YOU HATE OUR CHILDREN?!? WHY ARE YOU AFRAID THEY MIGHT THINK OR GROW BEYOND THIS?!? WHAT ENTITY DO YOU SERVE THAT FEARS TRUTH OR LIGHT?!?” and they drag me away, never to be seen by family or friends again – well, it has a certain poignancy, don’t you think?

Still, I live to serve. Here’s my humble effort to prioritize and organize the existing issues regarding this effort to crush whatever minimal signs of higher level thinking may remain in our students.

Feel free to make comments / corrections / suggestions below. It’s not personal – my ego will manage. It usually does.

I’m conflating the House and Senate versions for efficiency. Feel free to link to this page when you email your Representatives and Senators over these bills.

Logistics / Finances:
Q1: What is your reasoning for thinking a multi-national organization like the College Board will submit to the whims of Oklahoma and ‘revert’ to the previous course outline based on our demands? Are you aware Texas – a state which, whatever our opinions of them, has a much larger population and budget than ours – tried something similar recently with almost no impact? Is this a serious expectation written into the bill, or merely cynical grandstanding?
Q2: Will the state be reimbursing students who under the current system would be receiving college credit for their APUSH scores in amounts equal to whatever additional tuition they’ll be paying as a result of this legislation?
Q3: How many years and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars do you plan on devoting to this new, improved AP course and test you wish to design to replace the College Board course and exam? Who, exactly, will write it? How will you pilot it, analyze its effectiveness, seek feedback from universities and public school history teachers around the world – or at least the state?
Q4: Given current budget restraints, where is all of this new money coming from to create this ‘new, improved’ AP course? Or do you merely plan on adding your list of documents onto the existing framework, despite your lack of faith in the current design?
Q5: How many additional school hours are you willing to finance for students to be adequately submerged in the many hundreds – possibly thousands – of required documents you propose? Will these hours replace current hours spent in math, science, or ELA, or will they be added to the current requirements?
Purpose / Assumptions:
Q6: What is it about other points of view or critical thinking that troubles you in the new APUSH course? Would you be willing to offer examples of APUSH courses currently being taught in Oklahoma which marginalize or ignore foundational documents or ‘American exceptionalism’ as at least one way to consider our history?
Q7: We hear repeatedly that we’re supposed to help students become “college, career, and citizenship ready” (or sometimes just “college & career ready”). Understanding and appreciating multiple points of view or other nation’s or culture’s paradigms and perspectives is an essential part of any of these three. If this is NOT the primary purpose of public education in Oklahoma, what do you believe that primary purpose SHOULD be?
Q8: Should students who do not come from an Anglo-Saxon background, or share an evangelical Protestant worldview, or conform to whatever else you consider to be the ‘real American’ standards and beliefs, be denied entrance to advanced coursework? If admitted, can they only pass if sufficiently willing to conform to a single lifestyle and value system, or are other interpretations and questions acceptable if supported with proper evidence?
Q9: Do you believe the values and ideals on which America was founded are so fragile as to be in danger from questions or challenges made in an academic setting? Could you help us understand what it is you believe your faith and your state have to fear from a generation taught to question both their own assumptions and those of others?
Q10: What do you believe is the primary purpose of Social Studies and History in public education?
Q11: Is it more important for students to be able to recite from a list of sacred texts, or be able to recognize, analyze, evaluate, and otherwise explain a variety of texts which they may encounter along the way?
Credibility:
Q12: Could you explain why you chose to include ___________ in your list of required documents, and what parts of this document or this collection of documents you believe is being currently marginilized by the APUSH framework?

I suggest a theme song for efforts to eliminate this whitewashing, flag-waving nonsense:

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”531″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

Finally, HERE’S HOW YOU REACH YOUR REPRESENTATIVES.

I know we’re not all equally political, but please consider a short email or phone call expressing your thoughts.

If someone wanted to draft a sample and share it, that might be helpful. Mine will be in the comments below, but I’m sure there are better.

What Was Your Question?

February 12, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 2 Comments

Take a look at this painting:

It probably looks familiar. It’s titled “Washington Crossing the Delaware”, and shows up in any number of history textbooks.

It’s also pretty easy to criticize. First and foremost, why the heck is the General standing up in such a flimsy boat? If it’s the middle of the night, why is the sun coming up (or going down)? Why don’t the people in the boat look like they’re soldiers or at least colleagues? What’s up with the chunks of ice? And did they really put wild horses into tiny rowboats to get them across rivers?

Fair enough, except that those are the wrong questions – or at least… they’re inadequate, if the painting is to be understood.

For example, wondering why the General is standing sets aside the rather glaring reality that this isn’t a photograph or a historical film, it’s a painting. A better question might be why the artist chose to paint the future Father of our Country standing up, and in such a dramatic posture.

Why would the artist incorporate a sunrise (I assure you there are no sundowns where the American Revolution was concerned) in this scene? What statements might he be trying to make through the types of people he’s placed in the boat and their attire?

What message or point was the artist trying to make? It must have taken a long time to paint – surely he had some goal in mind.

Suddenly we have something pretty useful – entry points to understanding the message and value system behind this painting and the circumstances in which it was created. Our paradigm shifts from the frustrating analysis of bad history to the unfolding possibilities of good art. Instead of merely explaining away misinformation, we now have a dozen different directions we could take to learn more or speculate more deeply.

As a bonus, many of those questions lead to some pretty good history. (In case you were worried.)

We just needed to ask different questions.

It happens with stuff that looks far more concrete as well:

Who knew bicycling was so dangerous? How do you get hurt playing golf? What changed between 1991 and 1998 to make volleyball so much safer?

Nothing wrong with any of those questions, but I respectfully suggest a little effort might produce even more helpful queries:

What were the total numbers of people in the stipulated age range participating in these activities during these years? Why 1991 and 1998 specifically? If this is ‘Figure 1’, what’s in ‘Figure 2’? What were the severities of the most common injuries associated with each sport?

And always always always…

What message or point were the creators of this graphic trying to make?

That’s the thing about statistics, or paintings, or analogies, or talking points, or document excerpts, or laws – even when they’re ‘true’ (and they’re not always), they almost always reflect a point-of-view or purpose.

They exist. Therefore, someone brought them into existence. Often that someone made a plethora of choices along the way to do so – what to include, what to ignore, what to highlight, what to dismiss, how to frame or phrase or color or express, for clarity or obscurity.

What truth to tell.

A little healthy skepticism in the form of asking the right questions can also act as a filter for the loaded language and passionate diatribes of others, whether legislators or cult leaders. Nothing circumvents clear thinking like a sense of urgency or emergency.

While Captain Kirk was known for his emotional leadership and a daring, follow-your-gut style, a generation later Captain Picard managed to be a bad-ass without often taking the bait when drama was being flung about.

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”524″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

As it turns out, Captain Maxwell had some valid concerns – those Cardassians were up to something. Stay tuned for Kim & Chloe Take the Gamma Quadrant.

But his solutions were flawed, largely because he wasn’t asking the right questions. His course of action was both self-destructive and counterproductive because he didn’t pause to analyze his assumptions.

Much of our current efforts to ‘reform education’ are based on a similar lack of analysis. Some are simply malicious, but I wonder if often they’re just not asking the right questions.

I respectfully suggest a few things we should be asking before we break Starfleet Protocol, sell our bicycle, or criticize art:

When we speak of ‘reform’, what do we mean? Do we mean to literally ‘re-create’ the entire system, or is it more like reformatting a hard drive? Is it trying to make things better for individuals, like the ‘reform movements’ of the past, or crack down on them, like when ‘bad kids’ were sent to ‘reform school’?

Do we mean ‘raise certain test scores’? ‘Produce happier children?’ ‘Graduate students better prepared for college or to hold real jobs?’

What are our goals, exactly?

In California and elsewhere, teacher tenure laws are being attacked and overturned because tenure protects ‘bad teachers’ and kids deserve ‘good teachers.’ Fair enough.

Why did teacher tenure exist in the first place? Is being ineffective in the classroom the most common reason teachers are punished or fired? Are kids not doing well primarily because they’re ‘trapped’ with these inadequate teachers? Where are the better teachers who we’d prefer take these jobs? Does knowing they can be fired at will make them better? If so, better at what?

What exactly are these students not doing well? Is it test scores, or one of those other things asked above?

In Oklahoma and many other states, legislators are tying teacher evaluations to student performance on standardized tests. OK, let’s run with that.

What will we do with the ‘bad’ teachers? Are they going to be ‘reprogrammed’? Re-educated? By who? Why didn’t we have the people with the good ideas train them the first time?

Are these teachers stupid, or just not trying hard enough?

Given the number of unfilled positions and the state’s determination to continue cutting taxes, what’s the plan when we’ve fired all of the ‘bad teachers’?

If teachers are accountable for how their students perform, should the same be true of building principals? District superintendents?

What about state legislators?

If these tests are so important, why aren’t more adult professionals taking them? Did they have an inadequate public school education, and that’s why they’re trying so hard to fix it now? If so, should we should make sure they get a better one before letting them do more damage? Isn’t that the whole premise of accountability?

If they DID get a good education, why won’t they take these same tests to demonstrate what a reasonable expectation it is? How important those things are to know, even years later?

No, seriously – why? Are they worried there’s not actually much correlation between their scores and their current credibility? Are they worried maybe there is?

What questions are THEY asking about public education? What’s their goal or purpose in what they say and do?

Obviously I have some ideas regarding possible answers to some of these, but others I really don’t. I’m also sure I’m not asking all the right questions myself – that’s the problem with being limited to our own paradigms. That’s why we should always be open to re-examining our assumptions – and to better questions.

What else should we be asking? I welcome your contributions below.

Unintended Consequences

February 9, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 2 Comments

In 1850, as part of a collection of legislation intended to once again defer civil war, the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA) was passed. It had always been technically true that escape by a slave to a ‘free state’ did not mean they were legally free, but in practice, reaching Ohio or New York dramatically reduced the chance they’d ever be forced back into bondage.

The FSA mandated some pretty serious fines for anyone in law enforcement who didn’t demonstrate sufficient commitment to capturing and returning this peculiar contraband. It even required private citizens to respond when called upon to act as a sort of ‘posse’ in these efforts. The goal was to force northerners to be a bit more cooperative when southern ‘property’ was at large.

If asked, most northerners would have condemned the system of slavery, and there were of course some rather vocal abolitionists. But most folks were simply leading their daily lives, uninvolved one way or the other. Much like today, there was a substantial gap between popular opinion and overt action. People have things to do – it’s not personal.

Hey, Swamp People is on!

The FSA had a result quite different than intended. When forced to partake one way or the other, most Northerners chose to assist runaways, directly or indirectly. Whether this was Christian charity or a collective middle finger to the South was irrelevant to the couple sleeping in their barn and accepting that leftover ham. The FSA ended up galvanizing into action the formerly uninvolved – but not in the way intended.

This is what we in the history business call “unintended consequences.” Examples are plentiful.

Several years ago, my district implemented a policy against giving extra credit for ‘stuff’ – no points for tissues, colored pencils, novels used in class, etc. They argued it was wrong to reward some students with points inaccessible to those with fewer resources.

Fair enough.

The new policy led to several unanticipated consequences. Many of us simply quit reading as many novels or doing as many artsy-fartsy projects. There are other ways to acquire resources, but few have the patience or wherewithal to perpetually write grants and fill out RQs for stuff they might not get anyway.

Besides, hours of tedious paperwork and bureaucratic hoop-jumping without assured benefit to students? That’s what VAM and TLE are for.

Most teachers were already maxed out on what they could buy themselves, so some instituted modest but uniform ‘supply lists’ required of all students. Those unable to comply were dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

These were the same kids who didn’t have to worry before about coming up with colored pencils or poster board because we always had a stash in the back which had been donated for extra credit. That was, in fact, why we’d done it that way.

This is what my friends in ELA would call ‘ironic’ – and not in a fun way.

‘Extra credit,’ properly dispersed, rarely makes a dramatic difference in a kid’s total grade. It may nudge, but the overall impact is negligible in an ocean of numerization which is largely subjective to begin with. The effort to eliminate it, however well-intentioned, had negative impact on those it claimed to protect.

The introduction of the horse to Plains Amerindians. Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s, or of drugs today. Pretty much anything involving the internet. There are exceptions, but it often seems the greater the good we’re trying to mandate, the more ‘unintended consequences’ prove quite the spoilers.

One last example…

In the early 1970’s, employers began running into trouble with the ‘aptitude tests’ they used to assess applicants’ qualifications – or at least their potential – for available positions. As the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related legislation grew in scope and impact, these tests became suspect – minorities didn’t always score as high as whites.

The disparity had nothing to do with IQ or potential and everything to do with socio-economic realities only one short century after the Civil War. The head of racism had perhaps been crushed, but its fangs remained firmly clamped into our collective heel.

Business owners had no desire to end up on the wrong end of socio-legal revolution. Their solution was simple – no more aptitude tests. Instead, applicants now needed a college degree – in some cases, pretty much ANY college degree. Let the universities deal with any disparities – and hey, look at our over-qualified workforce!

Demand for post-secondary degrees swelled, and the cost of college rose commensurately. Many minorities who would have done just fine on the various aptitude tests – or could have, given some basic training – were effectively washed out of the job pool by a financial and academic bar they weren’t prepared to clear.

Many good jobs in the 1970’s didn’t really require that level of education in order to be successful. For many, a college degree was complete overkill. Nevertheless, those from families who’d shared the benefits of preferential status for generations could often make the necessary adjustments fiscally and academically, while those still fighting for their place at the table often could not.

Frightened employers trying to cover their pale behinds sought refuge in ‘higher standards’. They couldn’t be held accountable for racial or economic fallout as long as they clung to requirements both lofty and universal. That it centered around ‘education’ made it even easier to blame the victim.

So… bonus.

You see where I’m going with this now, don’t you?

When we try to mass-mandate solutions in ways that ignore or deny the underlying sources of the problems, there will be unintended consequences. In the 1970’s the primary issue was race, and its impact on access to education or employment. That hasn’t gone away, but we’ve expanded the problem by insisting that every new life must be immediately assimilated into our ‘college and career’ ideals. We intone ‘all children can learn’ as we practice ‘all your identity are belong to us’.

We want so badly for ‘higher standards’ and ‘college ready’ to become unilateral solutions to complex problems, and to provide us with moral and legal cover as we marginalize and blame those not born into pre-existing privilege. We choose not just the height of the expectation, but its very nature. We rarely stop to ask if our concept of ‘mastery’ reflects anyone’s worldview but our own.

In practice, ‘high expectations’ has become a new poll tax or grandfather clause – fair and reasonable on the surface, but inequitable and perhaps even malicious just below the gilding. It’s a job description tailored to the person on the inside they’ve already decided to hire, labeling all others ‘unqualified’.

It doesn’t have to be purposeful to be destructive (hence ‘unintended’), but I’m not always certain it’s not. Our conflation of ‘high standards’, ‘success’, and ‘compliance with my old white guy paradigm’ is simply too persistent to dismiss intent altogether. Real learning and its ‘measurement’ must vary with circumstances and goals. It must accommodate real students and teachers working through their messy, non-standardized worlds.

That this is cloyingly unsatisfying makes it no less true. Until we grasp that, we’ll just keep trying to pound the wonderful variety of pegs entrusted to us into the same damn little round holes. Not only will we keep failing to make them all fit, but we’ll break far too many along the way.

Their destruction will be an unintentional consequence of our most noble rhetoric. The grades will go on their report cards, but the failure? That’s ours.

RELATED POST: #EdReform is NOT that Difficult

RELATED POST: If I Were A Conspiracy Guy

OK House Bill 1380 – Something Seems Fisher About This

February 4, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 3 Comments

I’m going to try to cover the House version of the ‘Smother APUSH With Documents’ bill without the oppressive word count of my post on the Senate version.

I am not optimistic.

The full text of this bill is available here and here.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
1st Session of the 55th Legislature (2015)
HOUSE BILL 1380
By: Fisher

I don’t actually know much about Mr. Fisher, but this bit from what appears to be his website is, well… terrifying:

Dan has a Passion for communicating God’s truth to this culture of “political correctness” and with America’s increasing “drift” from its founding principles and its Christian roots, he has become even more committed to helping return America to its faith. He is on the boards of Bott Christian Radio Network, Reclaiming America for Christ, and Vision America, a ministry of evangelist Rick Scarborough based in Houston, TX. Dan is also on the leadership team of the OKC Tea Party and is frequent speaker at tea party rallies around the state. He is a published author and has a national speaking ministry.
Bringing Back the Black Robed Regiment:
In the past few years, Dan has traveled the country presenting the messages “Seven Lies We’re Being Told About America” and “Bringing Back the Black Robed Regiment”. “Seven Lies” is a presentation that addresses the attacks being launched against America’s Christian heritage by the “politically correct” progressives. It proves beyond a “shadow of a doubt” that Christians founded America – not atheists and deists, and that the Founders wanted a country where Christianity would have a strong impact – not a country where faith and government would be divided by a “strict separation of church and state”.

So that can’t possibly go badly.

I am not against challenging our current interpretations of history, any more than I’m against challenging our current understanding of evolution or climate change. Live it up, ‘Merica.

I am against legislating out of dogmatic conviction or rewriting the past to fit our current evangelical or political agenda. There is no Biblical scenario in which obscuring or avoiding the truth sets us free.

I am against crusades to reclaim the metaphorical Holy Land via hacking away at public education.

I am against imprisoning Galileo for claiming the sun does not revolve around the earth as per contemporaneous interpretations of the sacred texts.

I am against starting with your desired outcome and mutilating reality as necessary to get there. I am against using state tax dollars and our legislative branch to act as a sort of Spanish Inquisition against inquiry and other points of view.

I told you I was going to blow it on the word count.

Back to 1380:

An Act relating to schools; directing the State Board of Education to adopt a certain United States History program and assessment; requiring United States History courses to include the study of certain documents; listing the documents; amending 70 O.S. 2011, Section 1210.703, which relates to financial incentives awarded to schools under the Oklahoma Advanced Placement Incentive Program; prohibiting the awarding of grants or expenditure of money for any Advanced Placement United States History course until certain conditions are met; providing for codification; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.

Positives so far: only one use of the word ‘certain’ instead of just saying what you mean.

Negatives so far: we’re still declaring an ‘emergency’. Are all state legislators former meteorologists?

A. By the 2015 – 2016 school year, the State Board of Education shall identify and adopt a United States History program and corresponding test which school districts shall offer in lieu of the Advanced Placement United States History course and test. The program and test shall not contradict or conflict with the subject matter standards for United States History adopted by the Board.

I discussed the improbability of this last time. I’m still amazed this can be proposed with a straight face – it’s either that delusional or that cynically deceptive.

B. Any United States History course offered in schools in the state, including Honors and Advanced Placement courses shall include as part of the primary instruction the appropriate grade-level study of the following foundational and historical documents:

At least they used the same source for their list of America’s Best 1000 Documents. I’ll skip most of these.

4. Founding documents of the United States that contributed to the foundation or maintenance of the representative form of limited government, the free-market economic system and American exceptionalism;

Don’t forget “states’ rights.”

7. Acts of the United States Congress, including the published text of the Congressional Record;

How did I miss this in the other version? I was apparently distracted by the inclusion of everything every President ever has ever written, said, or done. If there’s a way to top that, it has to be requiring the entirety of Congressional Records for the same time period.

I’m going to need to ask my principal for more copies on the big machine downstairs.

It’s ironic, really, given that members of Congress don’t even read the stuff they pass, that we’d require it of 16-year olds. Then again, if they’re busy reading the Congressional Record, they won’t have time to question why we have a Legislature made up of members who don’t even read the stuff they pass.

h. portions of the book titled “The Grapes of Wrath” written by John Steinbeck,

Socialists and boobies, my friends – required by law. You read it here first.

Just wait until Sally Kern finds out!

qq. the letter known as the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” written by Martin Luther King, Jr.,
rr. the I Have a Dream speech made by Martin Luther King, Jr.,

Hey, a second MLK document in this one! Representative Fisher can claim with mathematical accuracy to have pushed for 25% MORE documents by famous Black Americans than the Senator. And he included the one promoting minorities stirring up trouble when injustice prevails!

Obviously he hasn’t read his own list any more than the Senator read his. Oh well…

SECTION 2. AMENDATORY 70 O.S. 2011, Section 1210.703, is amended to read as follows:
Section 1210.703
A. Contingent upon the provision of appropriated funds designated for the Oklahoma Advanced Placement Incentive Program, the State Board of Education is hereby authorized to award schools:
1. A one-time equipment and/or instructional materials grant for the purpose of providing an advanced placement course, based on criteria established by the Department. Schools which receive the grants shall:
a. offer the advanced placement courses beginning the school year following receipt of the grant,
b. provide the College Board training within one (1) year of the grant award, including at least a one-week summer institute. Teachers shall be encouraged to attend annual follow-up training, and
c. make available advanced placement examinations to all students taking the course for which a grant has been awarded;
2. Additional grants to school sites demonstrating successful implementation, as defined by the State Board of Education, of the courses for which the first grants were awarded. Schools may qualify for additional grants a minimum of four (4) years after receiving a grant award;
3. Subsidized training for advanced placement courses, preadvanced placement courses, or International Baccalaureate courses in a form, manner and time prescribed by the Department;
4. One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for each score of three or better on an advanced placement test or four or better on an International Baccalaureate examination; provided, these funds shall be used for the purpose of Advanced Placement Program development;
5. For those students who demonstrate financial need as defined by the College Board or the International Baccalaureate Organization, a share of the advanced placement or International Baccalaureate test fee;
6. For those students who take more than one advanced placement or International Baccalaureate test in one (1) year, a share of the advanced placement test or International Baccalaureate fee in a manner prescribed by the Board; and
7. Grants for the purpose of developing an advanced placement vertical team based on criteria established by the Board.
B. Upon completion of the test, the State Department of Education shall obtain from the College Board and the International Baccalaureate Organization a list of students in Oklahoma who scored a three or higher on the advanced placement test or a four or higher on the International Baccalaureate test. Financial incentives for schools provided in this section shall be awarded at the beginning of the next school year following the school year in which the test was taken.
C. Any new expenditure authorized pursuant to Section 1210.701et seq. of this title shall be contingent upon the availability of funds.

Well, that certainly sounds supportive, doesn’t it? Except that’s what the law ALREADY says. This token bit of support for AP and IB has been around for several year. Here’s the NEW part Rep. Fisher wants to add:

D. Beginning with the 2015-2016 school year, the Board shall not award any grants to school districts or make any expenditure of state funds as authorized pursuant to this section for equipment, instructional materials, course development, professional development or training, examination awards or examination scholarships for the Advanced Placement United States History course until the College Board changes the framework for the course and reverts back to the course framework and examination that were used prior to the 2014-2015 school year.

In other words, if the College Board doesn’t meet our demands, we’re taking our already deflated money bags and refusing to play anymore. Just as with the other version of the bill, there is no spin or interpretation – however full of goodwill towards men – which can render this both reasonable and well-intentioned.

This either demonstrates of level of unfamiliarity with how the education world – or any world, really – works (unforgiveable if we’re so presumptuous as to legislate about it), or a brazen manipulation of the legislative process to deceive the ignorant and the agitated for self-aggrandizement and gain.

If you can possibly spin this more positively, please do so in the Comments below. I’d love to find another option – seriously.

SECTION 4. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

This Section, as with the comparable section in the Senate version, is what we in the idealist world of public education call “blatantly untrue” – what the commoners call “a lie”, or more colloquially, “bullsh*t.”

The preservation of public peace, health, and safety? Really? An EMERGENCY?

Now, now, Blue – these are just things legislators have to say to get things passed. They don’t actually mean what they sound like they mean. It’s something you have to say to play the game and navigate the rules – you can’t read it literally. You have to read past what it says and understand what they really mean.

Exactly.

RELATED POST: OK Senate Bill 650 – Brecheen the Ice

RELATED POST: We’ve Found A Witch… May We Burn Her?

RELATED POST: Oklahoma Turns Against APUSH?

OK Senate Bill 650 – Brecheen the Ice

February 1, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

I confess to some uncertainty regarding how things ‘work’ in the Oklahoma legislature, but if I’m reading the shorthand correctly, both of the bills regarding APUSH I’ve recently discussed – one in the House, one in the Senate – were officially presented tomorrow, February 2^nd, 2015.

So, time travel?

Let’s see if we can decipher any of this, shall we? I’m only citing excerpts – the full text is available here or here.

SENATE BILL 650 By:Brecheen AS INTRODUCED
An Act relating to schools; prohibiting state funds from being used to support –

Well, that already pretty much sums up MOST of what our legislature does in regards to public ed, isn’t it? “prohibit state funds from being used to support”?

An Act relating to schools; prohibiting state funds from being used to support certain U.S. history courses; prohibiting the State Board of Education from awarding certain grants until certain course framework reverts to framework in place at certain time; directing the State Board of Education by certain date to adopt certain history program; establishing criteria for program; allowing display of certain grade-level documents; providing for codification; providing an effective date; and declaring an EMERGENCY.

I assume this is just standard legal speak, but how convoluted is that? It’s like certain legislators want to take certain steps to make certain that certain average constituents are unable to decipher certain things about what they’re certainly talking about because of certain potential reactions to what certain bullsh*it it is.

Pardon me – what certain EMERGENCY bullsh*t it is.

This would be a good time to revisit Orwell’s thoughts on political-speak. I’ll wait.

Ready to continue? OK.

A. No state funds shall be used to support advanced placement U.S. history courses in Oklahoma schools as the courses are designed as of the effective date of this act.
B. Beginning with the 2015-2016 school year, the State Board of Education shall not award any grants to school districts or make any expenditure of state funds, as authorized by Section 1210.703 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes, for equipment, instructional materials, course development, professional development or training, examination awards or examination scholarships for advanced placement U.S. history courses until the framework for the course is changed and reverts back to the course framework and examination that were used prior to the 2014-2015 school year.

When all you have is an ideological hammer, every issue is a conspiratorial nail. I don’t know how many nickels we’re throwing into APUSH currently, but it can’t be substantial. Maybe someone can officially look that up for us and post it in the Comments below.

In plain English, they want to kill AP U.S. History across the state until the College Board reverts back to the prior course outline. We’re counting on national reverence for Oklahoma’s leadership in intellectual development and our fiscal commitment to public education to do what Texas could not – blackmail and extort a multi-national organization for whom Oklahomans make up approximately .0043% of users.

Okla-who-ma?

This is delusional to the point of pathetic. Once again the question is begged – are they that ignorant, or do they assume we are? Are they incompetent, or merely exploiting the fact that those who elect them are easily manipulated?

There is no scenario in which this bill is both reasonable AND well-intentioned. Its author is either knowingly pushing nonsense legislation (what we in the old country call ‘lying’), or so out of touch with reality that for his own safety he should not be left unattended.

I can’t find another way to interpret this, whether one agrees with its goals or not.

This isn’t a political ideology thing, like should we adjust food stamps or the minimum wage. This is like proposing legislation that unless Egypt becomes a full-fledged Christian democracy speaking only English, Oklahoma will refuse to let little children study the pyramids in school.

C. Prior to the 2015-2016 school year, the State Board of Education shall identify and adopt an advanced placement U.S. history program and corresponding assessment that:
1. Are not in contradiction with the subject matter standards for U.S. history adopted by the State Board of Education; and
2. Include the following foundational and historical documents as part of the primary instruction in any U.S. history, honors U.S. history, and advanced placement U.S. history course offered in Oklahoma public schools:

…and then a list of 4837 essential American documents.

This is getting to be a running joke in Oklahoma – the “We’ll make our OWN test! It’ll be gooder and bigger and purdier!” theme.

How many sets of standards has Oklahoma written or planned to write just in the last decade or two? Which of them turned out so well we’re ready to flaunt them?

That silly lil’ College Board – love them or hate them – has been doing this for about 60 years now, and spends ungodly amounts of time and money and research and field testing and data analysis and pretty much lives for this stuff because it’s WHAT THEY DO with a staff of hundreds and a budget of zillions.

The APUSH rewrite alone took more man hours than going to the moon the first time. (I just made that up to support my point; I think it’s important to speak the language of those with whom you disagree.)

But we need an issue, so we’ll plan on gathering up a few locals from the districts we like, maybe Stan from bowling league, a few reps from the major corporations, and book the Holiday Inn conference room for a day and a half – that oughta knock out something comparable. Heck, to show we’re serious we may allocate for a few two-liters of store-brand soda if the committee members want to take up a collection to order Subway for lunch.

You can like APUSH or hate it. You can lean as far left or right as you wish. But this bill makes no sense. It’s worth questioning why it’s being pushed, if what it proposes is neither sincere nor plausible.

Now, those documents…

a. organic documents from the pre-Colonial, Colonial, Revolutionary, Federalist, and post-Federalist eras of the United States,

I dare anyone involved in this legislation to tell me what this means. I’d LOVE 3-4 examples of WHICH documents this would include, and why they’re not listed by name.

b. major principles in the Federalist Papers,

This is a semester’s worth of study all by itself. If you’re not familiar with the Federalist Papers, Google them for some good times. Great stuff, but I make the same dare to those pushing this law. What ARE the major principles of the Federalist Papers, according to you? No checking Wikipedia – if you feel strongly enough to legislate them, you should know what they say.

c. the writings, speeches, documents, and proclamations of the founders and presidents of the United States,

Marinate in that for a moment. Every speech, letter, diary, order, or other word or action of every significant founder and every President ever. That’s better than the pre-Colonial and post-Federalist thing. I can’t believe they left out blood and urine samples – you know, just to bring history to life.

I suppose he might only mean that he’d like to see more documents used in the study of history – that we learn to navigate primary sources, analyze them, question them, evaluate them, and synthesize them into meaningful interpretations and arguments. If so, that’s unfortunate because (a) that’s not what this bill actually says, and the point of written laws is that they’re written, and (b) that’s what the new APUSH course framework is trying to do so that teachers and students don’t have to be tied to long lists of specifics in order to learn how to ‘do’ history.

Hey Senator, I heard the point dropped by – sorry you missed it.

d. America’s founding documents that contributed to the foundation or maintenance of America’s representative form of limited government, free-market economic system, and American exceptionalism,

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”487″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

Look at those magic words – “limited government”, “free-market economic system”, and “American exceptionalism.” And only three letters and thousands of vaguely defined documents into the list!

All three of these are defensible elements of America’s founding ideals. All three are relevant and important, although surely even the Senator recognizes the negative connotations permanently latched onto the third.

But they are elements, not delineators. And – like “States’ Rights”, “Don’t Tread on Me”, or “But He Was Resisting Arrest” – they are currently all buzzwords for the furthest right wing of the Republican Party.

That’s fine – believe what you believe. But let’s not dance around the linguistics – we want a more pro-American, less nuanced version of U.S. History. We want overt indoctrination, not critical thinking or multiple viewpointed education.

e. objects of historical significance that have formed and influenced the United States’ legal or governmental system and that exemplify the development of the rule of law, including but not limited to the Magna Carta, the Mecklenburg Declaration, the Ten Commandments, and the Justinian Code,

I must confess I regret a life devoid of the Mecklenburg Declaration and the Justinian Code. It’s left my classroom a sad and intellectually desolate place. All that time spent wasted trying to help them read or understand common themes running throughout our brief democracy. Oh, what could have been… *sigh*

f. U.S. Supreme Court decisions,

All of them? Ever? Could we at least narrow it down to your Top 100? I’ve labored annually to narrow my list of must-cover cases and still have a list that’s both too long and woefully inadequate. It just can’t be done in the current structure.

Plus, who cares? How many Supreme Court cases can you name and explain? How are YOU doing in the so-called ‘real world’?

Before considering this bill, could we at least identify which specific districts and teachers are teaching U.S. History – especially AP – without any founding documents, presidential speeches, Federalist Papers, or Supreme Court decisions? Is that happening anywhere in the state by anyone?

Thank god the Senator hates books so much or the next law would be for English class mandating students read every great book ever written (well, at least the ones without any dirty parts) or we’ll yank AP Literature, too.

Let’s skip down the list and see what awaits us. Are you scared? Me too!

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”492″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

(18) at least a complete overview of the book entitled “Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville,

Hey, Senator – or anyone educated in favor of this bill – what’s THIS book about? It’s on your list. None of you have read this – come on, admit it!

And what exactly is a ‘complete overview’? Do you mean ‘watch the movie’?

(19) the document known as “Declaration of Sentiments” by Elizabeth Cady Stanton,

To his credit, the Senator has included a document calling for the equality of women. Now I KNOW he hasn’t read his own list.

(34) portions of the book entitled “The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck,

Ha! “Portions.” What do you bet other “portions” will be specifically banned?

(45) “I Have a Dream” speech by Martin Luther King, Jr.,
(46) “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech by Malcolm X,

Interesting choices out of all of the options for these two, but I’ll let that go for now. Besides, I’m genuinely surprised and impressed Brother Malcolm made this list at all.

School districts shall permit teachers to display grade-level appropriate excerpts from or copies of the documents, writings, speeches, proclamations or records listed in this subsection in school classrooms and school building common areas as appropriate.

Shall permit? There’s currently a ban on this? Or are we writing legislation to solve problems which don’t exist? Oh, right…

SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

Let’s assume for a moment you disagree with everything else I’ve said. You think the College Board is out to eat our young and that the only worthwhile function of public schools is to indoctrinate kids in good old fashioned Old Testament and ‘Merican values.

Can you honestly say with a straight face that long-announced and relatively minor adjustments in an AP course outline create an immediate threat to public peace, health, and safety? That there is, in fact, an EMERGENCY along those lines?

Here’s a different definition of ‘emergency’ I’d suggest instead: Oklahoma begins undermining Advanced Placement across the state, making it harder for our students to get into college or to be prepared for college when they do. On the outside chance we create some sort of off-brand faux-AP course, no one not required by state law to do so would acknowledge it as legit. Believe what you like about the College Board – they get kids ready for college and help get them in, whether through test scores or by simply having taken the courses.

Oklahoma is at the bottom of every educational scale – funding, outcomes, reputation. I get that no one in political leadership gives the tiniest fake damn about me or my kids or what any of us are trying to accomplish. I long ago gave up asking for improvement or support. But are we really going to try so very hard to find bizarre new ways to make it even worse?

The House version of the bill is even longer and weirder. I’ll get to it soon, I hope.

OkEd, get well soon – this is too much for me to ‘shoulder.’

RELATED POST: We’ve Found A Witch… May We Burn Her?

RELATED POST: Oklahoma Turns Against APUSH?