By Steven Witkin ’16

An updated AP US History (APUSH) curriculum framework has triggered debate in several school systems. The framework, developed over four years by the College Board, was implemented for the first time this school year. Instead of focusing on content such as events, figures and the details of laws, the new framework focuses on documents and encourages interpretation of historical trends to view America’s role in a larger world context. It requests that teachers cover the provided themes and trends through a variety of historical examples.

APUSH teacher Beth Shevitz finds that the focus on documents “allows students to interpret history for themselves,” although the move away from definitive events compels classes “to gloss over [interesting events] to meet the demands of the new curriculum,” she said.

The framework has come under fire in the last few months. Organizations have claimed that it concentrates on negative aspects of history while marginalizing positive aspects, overlooks influential and heroic historical figures, focuses on the more liberal goals of progressivism throughout history and challenges the concept of American exceptionalism. The Republican National Committee alliteratively asserted that the framework “reflects a radically revisionist view of American history.” Several complaints have been made about the blunt yet true generalizations typical of the framework, especially the statement that Manifest Destiny, the belief that the West was America’s for the taking, “was built on a belief in white racial superiority and a sense of American cultural superiority.”

The Texas Board of Education showed its objection in September when it voted to prohibit teaching of the new framework because it is based on Common Core standards, which are banned in Texas. South Carolina and Tennessee have considered similar moves.

The controversy was brought to the nation’s attention in September when the Jefferson County School Board in Colorado passed a resolution to review the framework to ensure that it “promotes citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system.” In response, thousands of Jefferson County students organized walkouts and protests in support of their AP education, holding signs with slogans such as “there is nothing more patriotic than protest” and “leave our curriculum to the experts.” Teachers organized strikes by taking unnecessary sick days, resulting in two high schools closing temporarily for lack of teachers. The county PTA is also in opposition to the resolution.

The College Board published an open letter in response to their critics, correcting “uninformed criticisms” and noting that the new framework intends to correct the previously rushed, content-packed and memorization-based curriculum, giving teachers and students a chance to “go into depth about the most significant concepts of the course.” Criticisms that the new framework did not appreciate influential events and people were countered by the Board’s addition of suggested content and figures to teach with each general concept, along with the Board’s emphasis that the framework is simply a framework, and “each individual school must develop its own curriculum for courses labeled AP.”

Shevitz speculates that the overzealous response to the framework partially comes from the circumstance that it emphasizes the effects of history on others, such as slaves and Native Americans, over the achievements of a nation, which might be uncomfortable to some. She accredits the new framework with its enhanced priority on “how did it happen, why did it happen, and is it happening again because it is important to know why society is the way it is at the point that you’re living in it.”