Critics of AP exam don’t know much about history
Conservative activists have long had a bone to pick with the education establishment. They were among the first to take on No Child Left Behind, the Bushera law designed to improve underperforming schools. And they spearheaded opposition to Common Core, a sensible set of English and math standards developed by states and private groups.
Their efforts gained traction in part because they allied with others who shared their suspicions of bureaucratic mandates and dictates from afar.
But the activists’ latest campaign — an attack on the new Advanced Placement U.S. history test and its 125-page “framework” of suggested classroom topics — smacks of the same heavy-handed approach they like to criticize. That’s because the activists are now the ones trying to issue dictates, in this case on how AP history should be taught.
Just last week, they convinced the Texas Board of Education to ignore the AP’s new framework and continue teaching students as if they were taking the old test.
Groups such as Concerned Women for America and the American Principles Project want teachers to cheerlead for American history. They want “American exceptionalism” — a belief that the United States is different from, and superior to, other na- tions — woven into history syllabus. And they are convinced that the new AP test and framework go in the opposite direction, encouraging a more negative view of U.S. history.
Whether the test and framework are more negative is highly debatable. The main changes on the exam involve more essay questions, contact with primary sources and post-1980 material. The framework is more structured around concepts — such as democracy, slavery, immigration and industrialization — and less around names and dates.
None of these changes suggests a big ideological shift. But conservatives see in them a disrespect for great individuals such as George Washington, Ben Franklin and John Winthrop, a Puritan leader who preached about a shining “city upon the hill,” a favorite term of President Reagan.
In truth, only a selective reading would lead to that conclusion. But even if the new material does lead to a more critical view, that might not be such a bad thing. History is not meant to be studied with the purpose of everyone coming to the same conclusions.
One student might look at the 19th century and be amazed by how a semiliterate society of Old World castoffs could invent the world’s first mass democracy. Another might look at the same era and conclude that the stain of racial subjugation meant that real democracy was not attained until well into the 20th century.
What places the case against the AP history test even more out in right field is that the critics are not going up against Big Government but the College Board, a private company that produces the AP tests, the SAT and other standardized exams.
The company’s objective is to produce AP tests that reflect how well students grasp college-level history. It is not trying to impose its views of history on others. Nor should the critics.