The tragedy of Common Core
Standards is that after teaching revisionist propaganda, they want to control
the questions and answers on the SAT with Marxist propaganda.
Common Core is the creature of the
U.N. and global Marxist GNOs being pushed by Obama and his cronies. Larry Kieger sets the record straight in his
3 Part analysis - Norb Leahy
New College Board US History Takeover: American
Exceptionalism Out, Flaws In. Part 1
by Larry Kieger, Historian, Author
(Editor: Larry Krieger, a
respected historian and author presents for the first time what the Common Core
US history standard will resemble, and it will be worse than you think. The
Common Core has not published specific standards around history, or civics
leaving critics to speculate about history content based upon Common Core
suppliers like Pearson. Pearson and their subsidiaries have published textbooks
that have been criticized for under-representing American achievement while
focusing on her faults. It was assumed than when the Common Core Clique got
around to history standards, they would resemble textbooks that only America’s
enemies would applaud. Well, those assumptions have been proven true. The
College Board is issued a 98 page document entitled “AP United States History
Curriculum Framework.” The President of the College Board is non other than
David Coleman, author of The Common Core Standard. We can assume therefore,
that the College Board History Framework will ipso facto become the Common Core
Standard. The Report Card will publish a 9-part expose covering each of the
nine historical periods in the CB Framework of this monstrous 98 piece of
garbage in the hopes that a little sunshine will awaken the public. Make no
mistake, this AP History Framework is a dagger at the heart of the spirit and
exceptionalism of America. It use in the classroom will guaranty future
generations will be taught to despise America and all she stands for).
How
would you describe the American experience? Generations of Americans have looked
to America as a land of liberty, opportunity, and democracy. President Reagan
gave enduring expression to this vision when he used the image of a “shining
city” to express his ideal of an America “God-blessed and teaming with people
of all kinds living in harmony and peace.”
This
idealistic vision of America did not inspire the College Board’s new AP US
History Framework. In the Fall of 2014 almost half a million American high
school sophomores and juniors will be taught a curriculum that presents a very
different version of American history than the one currently in place. The new
Curriculum Framework for AP US History is best described as a curricular coup
that will override state-approved curriculum guidelines and indoctrinate
students in a flawed radical interpretation of American history.
Report
Card will devote a special series of articles that will carefully analyze the
new College Board AP US History Framework. We will examine what the Framework
emphasizes, deemphasizes, and omits. As you read this vital series of articles
we urge you to answer the following three questions:
1. Does
the new Framework leave you with a feeling of pride in America and its ideals
and historic achievements?
2. Do
you feel that your local school board would approve of this new Framework?
3. Would
you want your children to attend an AP US History course based upon the College
Board curriculum?
The
Report Card believes that your answers to these three questions will all be an
unequivocal NO! Fortunately the new AP US History Framework is not an
accomplished fact. There is still time for you to carefully scrutinize the
Framework and then contact your local and state officials to demand that they
call upon the College Board to write a new Framework that does not circumvent
state guidelines and ignore time-honored American principles.
Period
1: 1491 – 1607
The
College Board Framework begins its 9 unit chronological coverage of American
history by requiring teachers to devote 5 percent of their classroom time or 9
lessons to the period from 1491 to 1607. On first glance this seems to be a
highly unusual and even extravagant use of valuable calls time. After all, high
school state-approved frameworks typically begin with the founding of the
Southern, Middle Atlantic, and New England colonies. It is also important to
keep in mind that the Framework devotes the same amount of time to the period
from 1491 to 1607 as it does to the period from 1980 to the present.
The
College Board’s decision to devote 5 percent of the AP US History course to the
period from 1491 to 1607 did not happen by accident. The College Board
curriculum writers use this time period to establish a global picture that
introduces Native Americans, West Africans, and Spaniards. Once contact is
established among these three groups the Spanish use their superior weapons to
conquer the Aztecs and Incas and transport West African slaves to newly
established sugar plantations in the West Indies.
AP
US History students may be forgiven if they are wondering why so many valuable
lessons are being devoted to topics that actually precede the traditional
starting point of colonial American history. A glance at their schedule will
tell them that they enrolled in AP American History and not AP Western
Hemispheric History.
The
Framework’s global approach actually has a very important purpose. It enables
the curriculum writers to establish their key theme that European exploitation
led to native decline and black bondage. The Framework explains that, “Many
Europeans developed a belief in white superiority to justify their subjugation
of Africans and American Indians using several different rationales.” Once
established, this negative view of American history becomes the dominant theme
in the Framework. As we will document, the new College Board Framework is far
more interested in the concepts of superiority and conflict than it is in the
concept of cooperation and unity..
Period
2: 1607 – 1754
The
College Board justifies the need for a revised AP US History Framework by proudly
boasting that their new course of study will “help teachers to prioritize among
the possible topics to cover across the scope of U.S. history.”
The
Framework’s focus on “key concepts” will “relieve the pressure for teachers to
cover all possible events and details of U.S. history at a superficial level.”
The concepts discussed in the Framework thus form “the required knowledge for
each period.” It is important to carefully note the phrase “the required
knowledge.” The College Board has in effect supplanted local and state
curriculums by unilaterally assuming the authority “to prioritize” historical
topics. This inevitably means that some topics will be magnified in importance
while others are minimized.
The
period between 1607 and 1754 provides a particularly glaring example of the
Framework’s biased approach to U.S. history. Known as the Colonial period, this
era witnessed the development of a distinctive American identity. What
fundamental characteristics will the Framework identity as being essential parts
of the American character?
The
Framework authors begin their presentation of the Colonial period by asking
teachers to compare and contrast the different social and economic goals of the
17th century Spanish, French, Dutch, and British colonizers. We are
then told that unlike other European colonizers the British-American colonies
were characterized by the development of “a rigid racial hierarchy” (page 27).
This rigid social structure is in turn derived from “a strong belief in British
racial and cultural superiority” (page 28). This sense of “cultural
superiority” inevitably leads “the British colonies into violent confrontations
with native peoples” (page 28).
The
Framework’s emphasis upon British cultural superiority, slavery, and conflict
with native peoples forms the core content of a three-week unit that comprises
10 percent of the course. At this point many irate and perplexed readers may
wonder whatever happened to traditional subjects such as meetings of the
Virginia House of Burgesses, the Puritans mission to build “a city upon a
hill,” and the contributions of leaders such as Roger Williams and Benjamin
Franklin. The alarming answer is that the Framework either minimizes or simply
omits these fundamental topics.
The
Framework’s unbalanced and biased coverage of the Colonial era represents a
radical departure from its existing topical outline and from state and local
curriculum guides. While students will learn a great deal about the Beaver
Wars, the Chickasaw Wars, the Pueblo Revolt, and King Philip’s War, they will
learn little or nothing about the rise of religious toleration, the development
of democratic institutions, and the emergence of a society that included a rich
mix of ethnic groups and the absence of a hereditary aristocracy. The Framework
blatantly ignores such pivotal historic figures as Roger Williams and Benjamin
Franklin and such key developments as the emergence of New England town
meetings and the Virginia House of Burgesses as cradles of democracy.
The
absence of coverage on the development of religious toleration is a
particularly egregious flaw. Freedom of religion is one of America’s greatest
contributions to world civilization. Yet, inexplicably the Framework omits the
Pilgrims, mentions the Quakers just once, and fails to discuss the importance
of religious dissenters such as Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams and the
consequences of the First Great Awakening.
Thomas
Jefferson described New England town meetings as “the best school of political
liberty the world ever saw.” Jefferson was right. We encourage parents,
teachers, and students to attend local meetings and ask school and political
officials if the new College Board AP US History Framework is aligned with
their locally mandated courses of study. If it is not, then the public has a
right and a responsibility to demand that the College Board rescind the new
Framework and adopt a more appropriate course of study.
(Larry
Krieger was born and raised in North Carolina. He earned a BA in history and an
MAT in social studies education from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. He also earned an MA in sociology at Wake Forest University. Larry has
taught urban, rural, and suburban students in a teaching career that began in
1970. During that time, Larry prepared students for both the AP US History exam
and the SAT II US History test. In 2004 and 2005 the College Board recognized
Larry as one of America’s most successful AP teachers).
Source:
thereportcard.org, by Larry Krieger exclusive to the www.thereportcard.org.
Posted on 28 January 2014. Tags: American exceptionalism, College Board AP History, david coleman, educational standards, failure of common core standard, Larry Krieger, political correctness
(Editor:
Larry Krieger’s second installment for The Report Card discusses how the
College Board AP Framework minimizes America’s Founding Fathers, and The
Declaration of Independence, while emphasizing Indian battles and Indian chiefs
like Little Turtle. The Framework totally fails to make mention of any
Revolutionary War Battles like Valley Forge. The Framework is of a piece with
historical revisionism that seeks to “blame America first.” We note that the
College Board is run by David Coleman, the author of The Common Core, so expect
the long awaited Common Core History Standard to resemble the College Board AP
Framework. The College Board plans to implement the Framework for the
2015 school year).
Period
3: 1754-1800
At
the present time, a five-page outline provides AP US History teachers with a
clear chronological list of topics that they should cover in their courses.
This traditional outline conforms to the sequence of topics approved by state
and local boards of education. In contrast, the new redesigned Framework
provides a detailed 98-page document that defines, discusses, and interprets
“the required knowledge of each period.” The College Board has thus unilaterally
assumed the authority to replace local and state guidelines with its own biased
curriculum guide. These biases can be clearly seen in how the Framework
emphasizes, deemphasizes, and omits selected topics in the period from 1754 to
1800.
The
Framework begins this critical period of American history with a full page
devoted to how “various American Indian groups repeatedly evaluated and
adjusted their alliances, with Europeans, other tribes, and the new United
States government” (page 32). The Framework then generously grants teachers the
flexibility to discuss Pontiac’s Rebellion and Chief Little Turtle (page 32).
While
the Framework emphasizes “new white-Indian conflicts along the western borders
(page 36) and “the seizure of Indian lands” (page 37), it all but ignores
George Washington’s life and indispensible contributions to American history.
Although Washington was “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts
of his countrymen,” he merits only one random Framework reference: “Although George
Washington’s Farewell Address warned about the dangers of divisive political
parties and permanent foreign alliances, European conflict and tensions with
Britain and France fueled increasingly bitter partisan debates throughout the
1790s” (page 34).To put this glaring omission into perspective, imagine how
South Africans would respond if an unelected agency issued a history of their
country that contained just one reference to Nelson Mandela.
The
Framework’s decision to all but omit George Washington extends to his command
of the Continental Army. Most state and local curriculum guides require
teachers to discuss the significance of Valley Forge and the battles of
Sarasota and Yorktown. Instead, the College Board Framework completely ignores
all Revolutionary War battles and commanders. Veterans and their families will
by dismayed to discover that this is not an oversight. In fact, the College
Board ignores military history from the Revolutionary War to the present
day. Students will thus not learn about the valor and sacrifices of the
Army of Northern Virginia, the Army of the Potomac, the Rough Riders, the
doughboys, the GI’s, and the servicemen and women who fought in Vietnam, Iraq,
and Afghanistan.
The
Framework’s superficial coverage of the Revolutionary War is typical of this
poorly organized unit. For example, the Framework devotes just one sentence to
the Declaration of Independence (page 34). John Adams later wrote that “the
Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the
minds and hearts of the people.” While the College Board Framework invites
teachers to discuss “the architecture of Spanish missions” (page 34), it does
not invite teachers to fully explore the republican ideals that motivated
America’s founders. Confused students may wonder what cause motivated the
signers of the Declaration of Independence, the soldiers at Valley Forge, and
the framers at Independence Hall to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, and
their “sacred honor.” For example, Richard Morris risked his life and
sacrificed his fortune to promote the cause of freedom.
New College Board History Coup: “Government of the
People, By the People Out” White Racial Superiority In. Part 3 by Larry Krieger, Historian, Author, Larry Krieger Part 3 exclusive to
www.thereportcard.org
(Editor: Larry Krieger, a respected historian and author presents
for the first time what the Common Core US history standard will resemble. In
part 3 of the series, Mr. Krieger reviews the College Board Framework periods
1800-1848 and 1844-1877. In these sections the College Board Framework advances
the notion that “manifest destiny” was an expression of white racial
superiority. Its omissions are numerous and include only one scant mention of
Lincoln. The Common Core has not published specific standards around
history, or civic leaving critics to speculate about history content based upon
Common Core suppliers like Pearson. Pearson and their subsidiaries have
published textbooks that have been criticized for under-representing American
achievement while focusing on her faults. It was assumed than when the Common
Core Clique got around to history standards, they would resemble textbooks that
only America’s enemies would applaud. Well, those assumptions have been proven
true. The College Board is issued a 98 page document entitled “AP United States
History Curriculum Framework.” The President of the College Board is non other
than David Coleman, author of The Common Core Standard. We can assume
therefore, that the College Board History Framework will ipso facto become the
Common Core Standard. The Report Card will publish a 9-part expose covering
each of the nine historical periods in the CB Framework of this monstrous 98
piece of garbage in the hopes that a little sunshine will awaken the public.
Make no mistake, this AP History Framework is a dagger at the heart of the
spirit and exceptionalism of America. It use in the classroom will guaranty
future generations will be taught to despise America and all she stands for).
Period
4: 1800 – 1848
On
first glance the new AP US History Framework appears to be an impressive course
of study. The 98-page document includes 9 coded skills, 8 coded themes, and 27
key concepts. But looks are deceiving. In reality, the redesigned College Board
Framework is a biased, poorly organized document that often neglects important
traditional topics. It provides a dry and uninspiring course of study that
ignores the California Social Science Framework’s famous exhortation to
emphasize “the importance of history as a story well told.” These weaknesses
can all be clearly seen in the College Board Framework’s treatment of the
period from 1800 to 1848.
The
origins, development, and extension of America’s commitment to democratic
rights and values should occupy a prominent place in any U.S. history course.
Unfortunately, the College Board Framework consistently fails to address this
crucial theme. As we have pointed out in our earlier articles, the Framework
ignored both the House of Burgesses and New England town meetings as vital
cradles of democracy. Unit 4 continues this shameful neglect by completely
ignoring both Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy. The Framework fails to
note that Jefferson’s electoral victory marked a historic peaceful transfer of
power and that Jackson’s presidency marked the rise of the common man and a
significant expansion of the suffrage.
Although
Jacksonian democracy did not attract the interest of the Framework authors, it
did attract the interest of the famous French political philosopher and
historian Alexis de Tocqueville. In 1831, de Tocqueville travelled to America
seeking to understand what he described as “the image of democracy itself.” In
his classic book Democracy in America de Tocqueville wrote that the most
striking characteristic of American democracy was “the general equality of
condition of the people.” As the first great analysis of American
exceptionalism, excerpts from Democracy in American should be a required
part of the AP US History curriculum. Instead, the College Board Framework
chooses to omit de Tocqueville and instead emphasize that “resistance to
initiatives for democracy and inclusion included proslavery arguments, rising
xenophobia, antiblack sentiments in political and popular culture, and
restrictive anti-Indian policies” (page 39).
The
Framework’s biased view of American history is not limited to domestic events.
Issued in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine became the cornerstone of American foreign
policy in the Western Hemisphere. It is important to remember that Monroe’s
famous doctrine made a distinction between republican government in American
and monarchical government in Europe. Monroe warned the European powers that
the Western Hemisphere was no longer open to colonization. Issued at a time
when American military power was relatively weak, the Monroe Doctrine was
nonetheless a bold statement of America’s intent to defend and support
democracy in the Western Hemisphere. This is not, however, how the College
Board Framework interprets the Monroe Doctrine. According to the Framework,
“The U.S. sought dominance over the North American continent through a variety
of means, including military actions, judicial decisions, and diplomatic efforts”
(page 42). The phrase “diplomatic efforts” apparently refers to the Monroe
Doctrine since the Framework then grants teachers the flexibility to use the
Monroe Doctrine as an example of their point about America’s intent to assert
its “dominance over the North American continent.”
American
history contains numerous examples of men and women whose struggles and
achievements have enriched our history. The period between 1800 and 1848
includes a particularly fascinating group of forceful personalities. For example,
Dorothea Dix launched a crusade to create special hospitals for the mentally
ill, William Lloyd Garrison galvanized a movement to abolish slavery, and Henry
Clay crafted compromises to reduce sectional tensions. Although all three of
these leaders have generated questions on previous AP US History exams, they
now join Jefferson, Jackson and de Tocqueville in being relegated to the
sidelines of AP US History.
The
College Board’s list of omissions does not end with key political leaders and
social reformers. Unit 4 either omits or fails to adequately discuss the
Louisiana Purchase, the opening of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, the impact
of the Erie Canal and the rise of Transcendentalism. It is important to note
that all of these topics have traditionally been tested on many AP US History
exams. Their omission raises troubling questions about the Framework’s biased
agenda and its inability to provide an authentic portrait of the American
story.
Unit
4 begins in 1800 and then deliberately chooses 1848 “as an ending point because
of the Seneca Falls Convention” (page 20). The Seneca Falls Convention is a
watershed event that marked the beginning of the women’s rights movement in the
United States. Despite their decision to end Unit 4 in 1848, the Framework
authors actually begin the unit with a brief indirect reference to the
convention as a voluntary organization that promoted women’s rights. As a
result, the Framework neglects leaders such as Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady
Stanton and their seminal Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments. The Framework
authors then provide yet another example of the document’s poor organization by
concluding Unit 4 with the Missouri Compromise of 1820!
Period 5: 1844-1877
The
fifth unit in the College Board’s AP US History Framework covers the period
from 1844 to 1877. The Framework recommends that teachers devote 13 percent or
about 23 days to this era. The Framework’s badly flawed unit provides vivid and
disturbing examples of the document’s biased political agenda and unexplained
omissions that ignore state and local guidelines. Taken together these flaws
will leave students with a distorted and incomplete picture of how American
history unfolded.
All
state U.S. history curriculum guides include a unit on Westward expansion and
the concept of Manifest Destiny. Textbooks have traditionally defined Manifest
Destiny as a belief that America was destined to extend its democratic
institutions, agricultural advances and technological innovations across the
continent. In contrast, here is how the College Board Framework defines
Manifest Destiny: “The idea of Manifest Destiny, which asserted U.S. power in
the Western Hemisphere and supported U.S. expansion westward, was built on a
belief in white racial superiority and a sense of American cultural
superiority, and helped to shape the era’s political debates” (page 44).
This
is not an isolated or careless definition. As we have documented, the Framework
uses the theme of “a belief in white superiority” (page 25) to serve as a foundation
for its biased and objectionable portrayal of American society and culture.
The
Texas Revolution and the Mexican-American War are key parts in story of
America’s westward expansion. Despite their obvious historic significance, the
Framework completely omits events in Texas and reduces the Mexican-American War
to a mere sentence fragment. Since the Framework ignores the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo confused students are presumably left to find out for
themselves how the United States acquired over 500,000 square miles of
new territory that included present day Arizona, Nevada, Utah and parts of
Colorado.
The
Mexican-American War transformed the United States into a continental nation
and ignited a bitter dispute about the extension of slavery into the new
western territories. Instead of continuing this compelling story, the Framework
directs student attention to the fact that “substantial numbers of new
international migrants…entered the country prior to the Civil War” (page 45).
These unnamed “international migrants” were predominately immigrants from
Ireland and Germany. The Framework ignores the fact that these immigrants came
to American to escape famine and political persecution in their homelands.
Instead of emphasizing America’s historic role as a refuge for “huddled masses
yearning to breathe free,” the Framework emphasizes that the newcomers
encountered a “violent nativist movement that was strongly anti-Catholic and
aimed at limiting immigrants’ cultural influence and political and economic power.”
Responsible
curriculum guides should acknowledge that Irish immigrants did experience
prejudice and discrimination. However, in its zeal to emphasize the negative,
the Framework fails to provide a balanced presentation. For example, the
Framework should note the key role that Irish immigrants played in the growth
of the Catholic Church in the United States and the formation of powerful big
city political machines.
After
its digress about immigration, the Framework returns to the sequence of events
that led to the Civil War. Although the Framework identifies historical
causation as one of nine featured “historical thinking skills” it inexplicably
omits key events that form an essential part of the momentous chain of actions
and decisions that led to the firing on Fort Sumter. The Framework’s list of
causal events is limited to just the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska
Act, and the Dred Scott decision (page 46). While these events are very important,
the Framework inexcusably omits the role played by the contentious debates over
the Wilmot Proviso, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, popular sovereignty, Bleeding
Kansas, and John Brown’s raid. Taken together these events form essential parts
of what the renowned Civil War historian Bruce Catton called “the coming fury.”
In
its comprehensive analysis of state curriculum standards, the Fordham Institute
concludes that good standards identify and dramatize the achievements of
exemplary leaders. Based upon this criteria, the College Board Framework is a
dismal failure. As we have documented, the Framework systematically ignores key
leaders such as Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson. Unit 5 continues this shameful pattern of
omission by reducing Abraham Lincoln’s career to two brief fragments. The
Framework apparently believes that the only things students need to know about
Lincoln is that he was elected president in 1860 and issued the Emancipation
Proclamation three years later. For reasons that are not explained, the College
Board Framework omits the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Gettysburg Address,
Lincoln’s Second Inaugural and his Reconstruction Plan.
Unit
5 concludes with a section that includes both the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Incredibly, these two topics are scheduled to generate a combined total of
eight 45-minute lessons. The Framework actually devotes as much attention and
classroom time to pre-Columbian native populations (see page 23) as it does to
the Civil War (see page 47). The Framework’s superficial and uninspired
coverage of the Civil War is an affront to the over 600,000 Americans who died
in an epic struggle that historian Eric Foner calls “the central moment in
American history.”
Posted on 30
January 2014. Tags: america's heritage, College Board AP History, curriculum reform, educational standards, Larry Krieger, political correctness
Larry
Krieger was born and raised in North Carolina. He earned a BA in history and an
MAT in social studies education from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. He also earned an MA in sociology at Wake Forest University. Larry has
taught urban, rural, and suburban students in a teaching career that began in
1970. During that time, Larry prepared students for both the AP US History exam
and the SAT II US History test. In 2004 and 2005 the College Board recognized
Larry as one of America’s most successful AP teachers.
