Idea on the New Sat Framework of Us Ap History

College Board introduced a new framework for its AP U.S History exam to the public in 2007. Since then, the applicability of this new framework has been controversially and hotly debated. The College Board is convinced that this new AP U.S History exam would not only internationalize the teaching of US history by considering multiple perspectives on a historical issues but also augment teachers’ flexibility by offering them a seven-page “Learning objective”. On the other hand, some historians and critics have accused College Board of being biased with the contents of this new AP U.S History exam framework.

Stanley Kurtz - a senior fellow at the Ethics and Publics Policy Center - articulated his ideas on the new College Board’s framework in his article “How the College Board politicized U.S History” in The National Review. He believed that the new framework is no more than an endeavor to take over the teaching of U.S History and putting it under the influence of left-wings politicians and democrats. In his paper, Kurtz traced the root of this new framework, the profiles of historians who are responsible for writing the new AP U.S History and then present his argument on why the new test must not be available. Kurtz meticulously tracked the profiles of people who are most responsible for creating the format and content of the new framework. They are Thomas Bender - the “leading spokesman for the movement to internationalize the U.S History curriculum at every educational level”, Ted Dickson and Suzanne Sinke, “who served as Co-Chair of the AP U.S History Curriculum Development and Assessment Committee.” (Kurtz, 2, 5). Lawrence Charap, who is “the College Board’s AP Curriculum and Content Development Director”, is in “overall charge of the AP U.S History redesign process” (Kurtz, 7). Bender is the author of the La Pietra Report, which was written in a meeting of many historians who wanted to internationalize American history and view it with a less national perspective. Ted Dickson is reported to be one of 78 historians who joined and advanced the goals of the La Pietra Report. Suzanne Sinke emphasizes “to think beyond national histories and the terms that are caught up in them” (Kurtz, 6). Kurtz, through citing previous actions and statements of three people who are the most important in constructing the new AP U.S History, insisted that they are dedicatedly engaged in transforming the learning and teaching of US history, following the guidelines and principles written in the La Pietra report. Knowing the leftish origin of all people who are responsible for the new framework led Kurtz to question its credibility: “How can American conservative, moderates, and even traditional liberals trust an AP U.S History redesign effort led by figures who were so deeply enmeshed in a leftish attempt to reshape the American history curriculum?” (Stanley Kurtz, “How the college board politicized U.S History”)

As summarized above, Stanley Kurtz opposed to the new framework since he thought it had been affected by the perspectives of left-wingers. Kurtz is a conservative commentator, and the publisher of Kurt’s article “How the College Board politicized U.S. History”, the National Review, is a long-standing conservative outlet. So was the paper of Kurtz an objective source or was it only a biased report aimed to depreciate the new AP U.S History and the perspective of the leftish? Kurtz paper, in my opinion, was affected by the biased views from its own author and publisher. However, I still find his and some other conservative historians and critics’ arguments to be persuasive and alluring. But still, personally, I see the argument that Kurtz and some other conservative historians and critics made, is persuasive and alluring.  Ron Radosh, who is a left-winger and a historian, admitted that the new AP U.S History contained some biased content in his article “The Left’s Attempt to institutionalize the rewriting of US history” in PJ Media. When even a long-standing left-winger like Radosh has to point out the drawback of the new framework, there must have been something wrong with it.