Before I go off on my trademark character assassination and sarcastic diatribes regarding pending legislation in the hallowed halls of the Oklahoma legislature, I thought it might be helpful to bring the non-history teacher-types up to speed on just what the fuss is about.
Unlike the easy accessibility of Sally Kern’s “Use Shock Therapy on Gay Teens” bill or our state guidelines for which angry white men we’ll send to the new Constitutional Convention to rewrite that sorry remnant of darker times (because our current leaders are SO much smarter than the Framers and besides what could possibly go wrong?), contention over something as specific as an AP curriculum can be a bit bewildering for those not walking daily in that world.
What exactly IS the kerfuffle with the ‘new’ College Board Advanced Placement U.S. History (APUSH) course and exam?
The short version is that the College Board decided a few years ago to move away from a ‘Know Way Way Lots of Stuff and be Able to Apply that Knowledge Effectively’ model to a ‘Know Lots of Stuff and Learn to Think About it from Different Perspectives AND Apply that Knowledge Effectively’ model in APUSH. They wanted to give AP teachers and students the opportunity to ‘go deep’ and practice analytical thinking without being limited by the overarching need to memorize every fact ever.
The shift was not without detractors; history teachers (especially those AP-types) love to argue and hand-wring and bluster about what’s truly important and what should be assessed and how and OMG I’ll have to revise a few of my lesson plans.
I work and socialize with quite a few AP-types, most of whom are smarter and cooler than me. After a drink or seven, many would admit that if it were up to them, they’d tweak this part or refocus on that other thing or whatever. I feel the same way about pretty much every PLC data-goal or family vacation plan I’ve ever been a part of shaping. That’s the nature of anything designed for such a variety of teachers in such a wide range of circumstances – you won’t entirely please everyone.
But none of the ones I’ve spoken with HATE IT. None of them find it un-American or insufficiently rigorous. Yes, some of my friends and colleagues are – for all practical purposes – godless Socialists, but others are surprisingly conservative. They teach the course, they labor over their students’ successes and failures in class and on the exams, and many travel the country training and listening to other APUSH teachers’ opinions and concerns as well.
Even if they DID hate it, it would perfectly appropriate for them to say so, because they have what we in the education world like to call “some f*cking clue what’s going on.” They have a right to whatever opinions they choose because they have credibility. Legitimacy. They’re involved in the process and impacted by the results. They’re the ones actually doing the ‘do’.
Texas, a few months ago, decided the new framework was insufficiently patriotic. The idea that there might be other interpretations or other points of view when it comes to Manifest Destiny, interventions in other nations, internal social or political movements, or whatever, seemed blatantly un-American to some. More flag-waving and less thinking was demanded. Or else.
[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”465″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]
And to be fair, we do have a tendency when running from one extreme to embrace the opposite error. There’s no need to teach American history as a series of travesties and genocides based on hypocritical ideals just to offset a little red, white, and blue truthiness. Surely there’s a balance, yes?
But that’s the rub, isn’t it? It’s impossible to teach entirely neutral history. The range of facts and information is too broad to include EVERYTHING ever, and even if we could, a string of people and events completely free of narrative is both pointless and impossible to remember. Every teacher in every subject makes choices about what to cover and how to cover it, while trying to be as balanced and aware of our own biases as possible.
It’s amusing to think there’s a genuine fear that the same kid I can’t CONVINCE to keep an agenda or that there’s value in learning to paraphrase might become unwittingly locked into a lifetime of twisted socio-political dogma based on which Jefferson quotes I selected for a quiz.
But I digress.
The point is that no matter what the curriculum includes, there will be MORE it does NOT.
History teachers deal with this all the time, at every level. One of the science teachers in my building REVELS in asking his kids where Geronimo is buried, or about the Pioneer Woman statue, or Reba McEntire, or that one time in 1973 the governor did that one crazy thing. They have no idea, and he accosts me a few times a week about what we’re teaching in Oklahoma History if we’re not including Geronimo & Co.
History is the story of everything that’s ever happened anywhere ever, and why, and how it all fits together in every possible direction and combination. So, yeah – we make judgment calls. We’re usually wrong.
How many books do you currently own and fully intend to read because you absolutely must and really want to? How often are you casually quizzed regarding a movie or TV show only to be assailed by some form of “OMG! I can’t believe you haven’t SEEN ______________!?! I thought EVERYONE-how-could-you-not-do-this-one-drop-everything-now-why-do-you-hate-America?!?
And you already know how to read books and watch TV. What if you had to be helped to read or watch each one meaningfully along the way? It might take a while. Some might not get covered. Hopefully, however, you’d end up with the tools and background knowledge to eventually watch or read most anything without my still being there explaining as we go. You may even choose different books and shows to watch, or interpret them in ways other than I do.
THAT’s what we call “hating America”. That’s what Texas, and now Oklahoma, want to protect you from. Senator Brecheen and Representative Fisher want to legislate a list of documents which must be covered above all else because they’re the MOST American documents. The BEST American documents, presumably.
And there’s a butt-load of them.
The problem isn’t anything ON the lists; it’s the pre-printing press focus on rote regurgitation of sacred texts, as if we’re not in this to awaken students or create informed citizens, but to indoctrinate followers. The punishments for straying – for violating the tenets of the sacred texts – are the same punishments as always. They’ll pull even more of our funding. Being a teacher in Oklahoma is like being the girlfriend of a low level mobster – you get slapped around and their answer to everything is to cut your meager allowance, then you’re always in trouble for not looking prettier and happier.
I’ll carry on about the specifics of the bills and the credibility of those involved soon. Let me leave you with just a tiny little preview of how much fun it could be:
[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”464″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]
RELATED POST: We’ve Found A Witch – May We Burn Her?
RELATED POST: Oklahoma Turns Against APUSH?
RELATED POST: I’d Rather Be Aquaman
RELATED POST: Meet Senator Josh Brecheen, Part I – Fire From Heaven
RELATED POST: Meet Senator Josh Brecheen, Part II – Books on the Bonfire
There’s a kerfuffle going on in Texas (again) and Colorado (huh?) regarding the level of flag-waving patriotism in history textbooks and curriculums, including APUSH. The short version is this:
The Modern Liberal Academics are upset that these flag-waving right-wing extremists want to whitewash American history to feed their predetermined paradigm of American Exceptionalism. There’s something Orwellian (or at least Valdimir Putinian) about euphemizing (or simply ignoring) travesties like slavery, genocide, and Woodrow Wilson. The Academics would like more emphasis on effective questioning and understanding multiple points of view. American schools should be shaping good world citizens ready to confront things of which we cannot yet conceive, not drones painted red, white, and blue.
This is about choosing 
I liked Aquaman.
Why can we not allow Thomas Jefferson the same intellectual and moral complexity we accept in Mystique? Why accommodate a Batman who does dark twisted things so soccer moms feel safe but insist on ‘hero’ or ‘villain’ labels for Andrew Jackson or Malcolm X? Can we not accept that real people – who lived monumental lives and did big stuff – might be at least as unpredictable as Magneto or Malcolm Reynolds?
In the same way that the people around you are so much more meaningful, useful, interesting, when they allow you to see something beyond the façade… in the same way heroes are far more heroic when you know what a mess they are, but they keep trying to do the right thing anyway… our history, our icons, our story resonates far more – not less – when we do our best to lay it all out there as whatever it is.