0061_Compare the Frameworks of The 2010, 2014 and 2015 AP US History (Type #2 Education is destroying education)

by Donna Jack–published February 15, 2016

Introduction – Unions didn’t want Type #2 education revealed to the public.

This blog post was begun in July 2015, put away, partly re-written, and published now. I decided this background needed to be recorded, so that people can understand what imaginary excuse the unions concocted. They used this made-up excuse of censorship to recall 3 conservative (non-union supported) people who were the majority board members on the Colorado Jefferson County School board at the time. These three school board members were John Newkirk, Julie Williams and Ken Witt.  The unions were mad that they had lost control that they had held over the school district for decades!

This article briefly explains the APUSH ( Advanced Placement U.S. History) Frameworks from 2010, 2014 and 2015, the later two of which are totally prescribed censored US history curriculum. They are Type #2 education. At the possible threat of their Type #2 curriculum  being revealed to the public, the unions falsely accused the majority on the school board of censorship (while they themselves were the censors of US History). The people making these false accusations were the Jeffco unions, paid agitators, the two democrat women on the school board (Lesley Dahlkemper and Jill Fellman) and misinformed parents and students, who had been told lies, and then parroted those lies, reacting with hatred toward the majority on the board.

Type #1 and Type #2 Education – Common Core is Type #2 Education

The Home Page article of this website, and this link, explain Type #1 and Type #2 Education which will simply be referred to as Type #1 and Type #2 in most of this post. Note: Common Core is Type #2 education.

Two comparisons of Type #1 and Type #2:

Description

Type #1

Traditional

Classical Learning

Type #2

CSCOPE and

Common Core Standards

 

Progressive,

Radical Social Justice Agenda

Curriculum Academic, fact-based, skills, research Social concerns, project-based, constructivism, subjective, uses unproven fads and theories

Whether or not you are familiar with these two types of education, the article on the Home Page gives many more categories of comparison, and will help you better understand this post that addresses:

1)  the 2010 APUSH Framework/Course Description (33 pages)

2)  the 2014 APUSH Framework/Course Description  (124 pages) and

3)  the 2015_APUSH Framework/Course Description (146 pages)

It is worth your time to see for yourself the two types of education.

Type #2 is the main cause of the decline in education in this country.

Advanced Placement will simply be called AP.  Advanced Placement US History will be referred to as APUSH.

Uproar about the 2014 APUSH Framework

The College Board (which decides the content of AP US History) lied and said they changed the framework in 2015 by re-writing the objectionable 2014 Framework.

A review is linked of the 2015 revision of the 2014 APUSH Framework. AP said they corrected everything of concern, and at the same time, no textbooks would be affected by the changes. WHAT!! How can that be if they changed it?

But read the article published July 30, 2015 by Stanley Kurtz in National Review. In it, he reports that the 2015 revision of the 2014 AP US History really didn’t change the type of teaching. It is still Type #2.

Look again at a comparison of Type #1 and Type #2 on the Home Page of this website.  

Who and what is the College Board (they control content of the AP, SAT and GED)?

The College Board is a privately-owned group that owns and controls the content of the Advanced Placement (AP) including its “frameworks” and tests. The College Board not only owns the Advanced Placement (AP), but they also own the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), and the General Educational Development tests (GED). All of these are aligned with Common Core, as is the American College Testing (ACT).

Some colleges and universities don’t accept the above test scores/credits.

There are other ways to get college or university credit or demonstrate college readiness besides the SAT, ACT, AP, GED, and International Baccalaureate (IB).

Some colleges and universities will not accept AP or IB credits (AP and IB are Type #2 Education). I hear some parents and school employees say these colleges and universities are just greedy and want the money for the students to take the classes after high school.

But that is not the case.  The colleges and universities that don’t accept AP and IB credits (which are Type #2), teach Type #1 education, and reject the AP and IB, because those students in AP and IB don’t have the high academic level (knowledge) required to pass those classes in their colleges and universities.  To give them credit would cheat them of the background necessary to go on to higher levels of learning.

Type #2 colleges and universities are glad to give the credit.  It doesn’t matter at their schools which have lower academic standards.

History professors against 2014 APUSH.

You can read a June 2, 2015 letter listing history professors against the 2014 APUSH.

Both the 2014 and 2015 re-write of APUSH are much longer than the 2010 APUSH. They moved from “frameworks” without changing their names – to prescriptive detailed curriculum.

Even before studying the 2010 AP US History Framework and the 2014 AP US History Framework, it is revealing to notice how many more pages are in the 2014 APUSH “framework” compared to the number of pages in the 2010 APUSH framework.

Some people who support the updated 2015 APUSH version say that it is just an outline and it is similar to the 2010 version, but the truth is, it is not an outline, and it is not the same. It is much more than an outline. It prescribes what is to be taught and how to teach it. It is a pre-made lesson plan for the teacher and includes what to say. A lot of teachers are happy it does their prep for them. They are simply to regurgitate without agreement or understanding.

Many teachers leaving teaching because not allowed to teach or take time to help students individually.

But many teachers are leaving the teaching profession because they are no longer allowed to teach what they know, or are allowed to take time to individually help students. The ones that remain, must follow the directives in the APUSH framework and in other classes.

2015 “framework” has sample test questions and answers – they are Type #2

In the back of the 2015 “framework” are sample test questions and answers that focus on the “content” in the “prescribed” “framework” (Type #2). Type #1 is absent.

The person or persons who designed this “framework” are coming from a Type #2 viewpoint. It appears to me that they are either not aware of our history, or that they are deceptively censoring and rewriting it. Either way they are presenting a damaging distorted dislike and disapproval of this country’s history.

Students must pass AP US History for college credit for the class.

They must give Type #2 answers (or fail).

An important fact:  students have to pass the tests in AP US History to get college credit for the class. To get the “right” answers to pass the test(s), they must answer questions in the way “prescribed” in the APUSH Framework (Type #2 – see Home Page). If they don’t pass the class they don’t get the inexpensive college credits. If they don’t get the inexpensive college credits, their parents will be furious (not realizing that in order for their children to pass the class, they must see the world from the viewpoint of Type #2 education, or at least pretend to see it that way).

The “framework” is not a framework, but is lesson plan and content. Students must pass or teachers fail.

Let me say it another way. The “framework” is the lesson plan and the content. There is no place for teachers (good or bad) to teach anything else. Teacher salaries, status and employment have become dependent on the test/assessment results of their students. They must “teach to the test” in order to keep their job!

It is a mistake to decide if a teacher is competent, based on tests, and even worse to base them on tests that are Type #2.

In recent years, many people with the best of intentions have decided to “measure the competency” of teachers through test results. They assumed they could “get rid of the bad teachers” that way. They had no idea what a mistake they were making when they put a value on a teacher which is based on the grades their students make on tests and assessments. What a horrible pressure on students and teachers. No matter which type of education is being tested, this is not the right thing to do.

At the same time, the criteria for right answers on tests were never addressed. Who would decide the test and assessment content? What would be the goals of those choosing the test content? Which type of education would they promote?

How could people have agreed to a “blank check” that would decide the fate of students, teachers, principals, and others in the school district?  They were told it was the right thing to do.

It is the job of the board of education to choose curriculum.

One of the main responsibilities of the Jeffco BOE is to choose curriculum for the school district. Some serious changes have to be made for them to do this most important job.
The federal government and other entities outside the individual states should not be telling the states how and what to teach students. The truth is, people living in local school districts should be able to report to the school board members what they know. That information from the public should be passed on to school board members so they can have more information to help guide as they learn more, in order to make more educated decisions when choosing which curriculum to put into the school district schools.

Type #2 education caused the sick-outs and walk-outs – It was lack of Type #1 education.

The natural result of teaching Type #2 education (2015 APUSH and previous APUSH curriculum) was demonstrated at a school board meeting this past school year, in which a student was testifying at a board of education meeting. His testimony was in response to a proposal made by Julie Williams who is on the Colorado Jefferson County Board of Education (Jeffco BOE).

He testified at a school board meeting. Not understanding the proposal by Julie, he repeated the lie by the unions and said: “This is censorship!” Then he said exactly what he had been taught in school: “If you take everything bad out of American history, you will have nothing left. It would be boring.” He didn’t realize that Julie was simply proposing the creation of a review committee to report to the Jeffco BOE — a committee that would be able to see what was being taught, report it, and hopefully help move curriculum to Type #1, so that students would be able to learn the great things about America and its founding principles that have enriched all of us, and given us so much freedom and excellence in the past.

Julie Williams had proposed the creation of a citizen curriculum review committee comprised of people other than Jeffco School District officials and employees and school organizations. These citizens would be free to read the 2015 APUSH framework and report what they found to the Jeffco BOE, without the fear of the threat of job loss or pay loss.

People in the audience who were from the school unions exploded and screamed “censorship” even before the discussion of the proposed committee could begin. They didn’t want people to know what was being taught in the classrooms, and had to stop the possibility of a committee, before it had a chance.

Those on the Jefferson County school board who let the 2014 APUSH be placed in the schools, either didn’t learn enough about its content, or they understood and knowingly supported it. A simple report from a citizen review committee might have persuaded some of those three Jeffco Board members to keep the 2010 APUSH and wait for an APUSH that they could inspect to see if it would be an improvement, or choose to find better US History curriculum.

If we want to improve the education in this school district, we need to address and change the content of the curriculum.

Hopefully some day independent citizen review committees will form in this school district, and will present thorough evidence to the public and to the board members – evidence of the content of curriculum. These citizens will need to understand the difference between Type #1 and Type #2 education, and will need to support Type #1.

This would be necessary to begin to improve education in this school district.

Then if we ever had a school board that wanted to change the curriculum from Type #2 to Type #1, improvements would begin. Unfortunately, the present board (in 2016) is union-supported, and is made up entirely of Type #2 supporters at present.

The public needs to learn the difference, see what is in the classrooms, and demand changes toward Type #1 Education.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *