Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Get some information, if you don't know. And you obviously don't know - you just said so.
"I wonder what they teach?"......and then you go on to make suppositions. But no facts.
"Undoubtedly part of....." - but you don't know that, do you?
"Rednecks"..............Feeling superior, are you?
Did you even bother to find out who the members of the Oklahoma House Common Education Committee are? Well, no you didn't. You found an article about a legislative body consisting of individuals who were elected by citizens in a state you don't live in, found that they had not bought into the current blizzard of nonsense coming from Washington and lashed out.
I wish the citizens of Oklahoma God Speed as they distance themselves farther and farther from the control freaks of the Democratic Party.
One can only imagine the nonsense coming out of Mississippi, though.
It is worth noting that AP History is an upper level course typically only available to students who have excelled in regular history/social studies courses throughout their schooling. Kids normally take it during junior year of high school.
That is to say that a student in AP history has already taken years of "regular" history and therefore already knows all the "facts"' people are concerned are missing from the curriculum.
The whole point is to learn history like a beginning history major would learn it in college, which involves delving deeper into how events of the past are interpreted and written about. That's all the course does. It picks a few rich subjects to "go deep" about. It encourages students to consider possible contexts and come up with an interpretation of what happened, then to write about it while supporting thier point of view.
If someone wants to do a pro-America, patriotic interpretation of whatever events the class is delving into they could. They would have to support their argument like everyone else. All the guide did was have examples which some deemed too liberal and anti-American, so the College Board wrote up a more neutral sounding guide. Problem solved, except for those who are caught up in the commies-who-hate-America hype.
APUSH can be taken instead of traditional U.S. History to fulfill the credit requirement for a diploma. There is no prerequisite, though you may have to have a certain GPA or teacher permission to take the course. In Middle School, students take U.S. History covering the earliest explorers through the Civil War. The traditional high school course runs from the Reconstruction through recent history (Reagan administration).
Bottom line: if you take APUSH in high school to fulfill graduation requirements, the content of that course, if it contains any post-Reconstruction material, is your only instruction in that material. Furthermore, once you get to college, credit for that AP course may allow you to place out of any requirement the college may have. In the end, you can have a college diploma and no real understanding of the timeline or existence of events in US History after the Civil War.
As to your suggestion that a student can write a pro-America interpretation, no, they can't, not if if that is not what is asked for in the prompt. Whether it's the daily assignments or what is on the standardized exam, you are being trained to write a five-paragraph essay in favor of whatever point of view they put forth. If it tells you to analyze a painting and cite and discuss three things you see in it that support a given interpretation of that time period, that is what you do. The AP exam is worth 30% of your final grade in the course. You are writing it for an exam grader whom you've never met that is going to spend maybe two minutes on each of your essays and you also need a 3 or better on that exam if you want any college credit. This is not the time for creativity or a fresh look according to your own interpretation. They don't care what your opinion is, no matter how well you can support it. They care that your three points are on a list of acceptable possibilities and that you supported it with enough material to fill a paragraph for each.
Implicit in most of the posts that bash Oklahoma is the assumption that all cultures have equal merit, and therefore a course of study that is "diverse" is better than one that focuses on the best. People who hold to this seem to think that the cultures of, say, Norway and North Korea have equal value. They don't.
It would seem to be the purpose of education to look at the best cultures rather than the worst, in order that students might see values and virtues that -- if adopted -- will lead to better lives (the ancient Greek idea of eudaimonia as discussed by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics more than 2000 years ago). More specifically, it's better for the student to study the historical values and virtues of traditional American culture than to study -- for example -- the obviously dysfunctional values of today's inner-city Black culture or life on the Reservation or the affairs of Lesbians, because the traditional American virtues and values lead to a better life. Other books that illustrate these virtues include the autobiographies of Benjamin Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt.
People who get a kick from bashing traditional American values, virtues, history, and accomplishments are often the victims of mediocre higher education, which leads to the following problem: They completed "college," but didn't finish first in the pursuit of a good life. They seem to believe that since they didn't finish first, the "system" is somehow rotten, and more or less beneath contempt. "It's all biased" and "those elites are there only because of cheating and privilege" and other pouty attitudes prevail.
Implicit in most of the posts that bash Oklahoma is the assumption that all cultures have equal merit, and therefore a course of study that is "diverse" is better than one that focuses on the best. People who hold to this seem to think that the cultures of, say, Norway and North Korea have equal value. They don't.
It would seem to be the purpose of education to look at the best cultures rather than the worst, in order that students might see values and virtues that -- if adopted -- will lead to better lives (the ancient Greek idea of eudaimonia as discussed by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics more than 2000 years ago). More specifically, it's better for the student to study the historical values and virtues of traditional American culture than to study -- for example -- the obviously dysfunctional values of today's inner-city Black culture or life on the Reservation or the affairs of Lesbians, because the traditional American virtues and values lead to a better life. Other books that illustrate these virtues include the autobiographies of Benjamin Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt.
People who get a kick from bashing traditional American values, virtues, history, and accomplishments are often the victims of mediocre higher education, which leads to the following problem: They completed "college," but didn't finish first in the pursuit of a good life. They seem to believe that since they didn't finish first, the "system" is somehow rotten, and more or less beneath contempt. "It's all biased" and "those elites are there only because of cheating and privilege" and other pouty attitudes prevail.
This is pure rationalization.
There is no assumption that all cultures have equal merit. There is an assumption that every culture has its advantages/disadvantages, good points/bad points.
There is an assumption that no culture is perfect. That the history of every culture, of every country, will have its high points and it's low points.
The purpose of education is learning. People learn not just from their successes, but from their failures. And a fair examination of when a culture has failed, and why, will most certainly yield education.
No one is bashing traditional American values, virtues, history or accomplishments.
Implicit in most of the posts that bash Oklahoma is the assumption that all cultures have equal merit, and therefore a course of study that is "diverse" is better than one that focuses on the best. People who hold to this seem to think that the cultures of, say, Norway and North Korea have equal value. They don't.
It would seem to be the purpose of education to look at the best cultures rather than the worst, in order that students might see values and virtues that -- if adopted -- will lead to better lives (the ancient Greek idea of eudaimonia as discussed by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics more than 2000 years ago). More specifically, it's better for the student to study the historical values and virtues of traditional American culture than to study -- for example -- the obviously dysfunctional values of today's inner-city Black culture or life on the Reservation or the affairs of Lesbians, because the traditional American virtues and values lead to a better life. Other books that illustrate these virtues include the autobiographies of Benjamin Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt.
People who get a kick from bashing traditional American values, virtues, history, and accomplishments are often the victims of mediocre higher education, which leads to the following problem: They completed "college," but didn't finish first in the pursuit of a good life. They seem to believe that since they didn't finish first, the "system" is somehow rotten, and more or less beneath contempt. "It's all biased" and "those elites are there only because of cheating and privilege" and other pouty attitudes prevail.
I've heard this line of argumentation before, and I do believe that it holds some merit. For instance, life in the United States, and the freedoms we have here, make our culture far superior than to what exists in say, a place like Saudi Arabia, where freedoms are limited and certain people are treated as second-class citizens. I don't think there will be much debate here about that.
Now that being said, when people make arguments like you did above, it almost always comes with a level of certainty about current cultural issues in this country. The idea that many aspects of inner-city black culture are destructive? I'll buy that, I see it every day. Life on the reservation? Is that a reference to alcoholism in Native American populations? Okay, I guess, though now you're starting to lose me a bit. I'm not sure reservations existed or alcoholism was an issue before my ancestors came to this continent. The affairs of lesbians? Now I'm completely baffled with where you're going with this, but I have a hard time seeing how an argument can be made that a culture that restricts the rights of minorities is superior to one that doesn't.
Another problem is that when people try to shut down debate, like you do in your last paragraph, about some very real issues and shortcomings of modern American society, that is something that actively prevents us from making life better in this country for everyone, as we have had to fix numerous inequalities in the past. As previously mentioned, we have it better here than in most countries, but that's not to say that things are perfect or that improvements can't be made.
Incidentally, all of the above is something that intellectually mature, intelligent students in an APUSH class may be discussing and debating. Unlike other courses, this is one course where students are encouraged to think for themselves, rather then simply memorizing lists of facts that may not even be entirely accurate.
Implicit in most of the posts that bash Oklahoma is the assumption that all cultures have equal merit, and therefore a course of study that is "diverse" is better than one that focuses on the best. People who hold to this seem to think that the cultures of, say, Norway and North Korea have equal value. They don't.
It would seem to be the purpose of education to look at the best cultures rather than the worst, in order that students might see values and virtues that -- if adopted -- will lead to better lives (the ancient Greek idea of eudaimonia as discussed by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics more than 2000 years ago). More specifically, it's better for the student to study the historical values and virtues of traditional American culture than to study -- for example -- the obviously dysfunctional values of today's inner-city Black culture or life on the Reservation or the affairs of Lesbians, because the traditional American virtues and values lead to a better life. Other books that illustrate these virtues include the autobiographies of Benjamin Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt.
People who get a kick from bashing traditional American values, virtues, history, and accomplishments are often the victims of mediocre higher education, which leads to the following problem: They completed "college," but didn't finish first in the pursuit of a good life. They seem to believe that since they didn't finish first, the "system" is somehow rotten, and more or less beneath contempt. "It's all biased" and "those elites are there only because of cheating and privilege" and other pouty attitudes prevail.
Its quite clear to me that you live in a very black and white world. The world is not at all subtle to you. Things are either good or bad.
I happen to be someone who has risen relatively far in this country. I have my own law office and I regularly earn a six figure income. I say these things not to "toot my own horn", but simply to show I am enjoying by any standards what is thought of as the good life in America. My good life includes two homes and plenty of domestic and foreign travel. It includes the ability to pay for my children's college education. America, to me, is a great country and probably the best in the world. Yet, it is far from perfect and my sense of patriotism and duty makes me want to identify the problems and fix them.
What I disdain the most are those who think of history in terms of either "supporting or bashing" a country. History, to me, is an honest rendition of what occurred in the past. It should be told in a manner that gives others the opportunity to question what occurred, so that we can learn lessons from the past and avoid similar calamities in the future. For example, the story of the unjust arrest and incarceration of Japanese Americans in relocation camps in World War II needs to be told, so that people today don't get ideas into their head that all Muslims in this country need to be treated in a similar fashion because of our ongoing struggle against extremist Muslim groups involved in terrorism.
What many people cannot seem to do is to acknowledge that something/anything is wrong with America. If that were true, we wouldn't have had slavery, the Great Depression, World War II, the McCarthy Era, and a host of other events which cost many people in this country dearly.
I don't want young people getting a sanitized view of American history. They don't need stories about chopping down a cherry tree or throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River. They don't need to hear that slavery wasn't a serious problem and that all the black slaves happily served their masters.
What some simple minds do, is underestimate the ability of young people to realize that life is often gray rather than black and white. Much of what we do as a society is make tough choices that have all kinds of consequences. Training young people in those skills is the real function of a good history teacher.
Let the young people (especially those that will lead this nation) have a history curriculum that challenges them to think instead of reinforcing sugar-coated notions that have little basis in fact.
Wow, so much bigotry from supposedly educated open minded individuals. One person posted a link from an AP history teacher that detailed the problems with the course and none of you bigots have bothered to address the points the teacher laid out. If what the teacher laid out is correct, this course is just another version of "hate whitey" and "hate USA" courses. There should be a balanced approach to US History. The wrongs of the past should be held in the light of the morals and beliefs of people of the time in which they occurred. This isn't to say that such events were right for the time they occurred, it's an explanation of their reasons for the actions they took which involves more than merely racism. It's so sad that so many "educated" individuals show such hatred towards an entire region of the nation. I'm just surprised the term "fly-over country" hasn't been brought out among the many other bigoted terms used by the people here.
This is something many people of many points of view don't seem to underdstand. What happens is everything is made into something simple and easily summarized. We know in our own life things aren't that way but somehow the past was 'simpler'. We can judge 'right' by our standards but how far back do we lose that privilidge? We can call Hitlers doings evil since it was against the rules of the time. But go back to ancient times when plundering and pillaging and the extinction of some tribe was fairly normal. Was that evil? And everything comes from something. How it got to its final form does matter as a warning. An excellent example would be slavery. It began with the shipping of British and Scots and Irish poor under indentures with a high rate of death. The basics of how slavery worked existed from the start. But race wasn't even a factor until the government of Maryland was nearly overthrown by a popular uprising of ex indentured numbering both black and white. The race card began to keep the poor divided and let the privilidged run things as they chose. Race became important and racism evolved. And while slavery is over, racism and the race card still reign.
And we really need to look at the world in which people lived, and the things accepted and considered normal before we decide that they were 'wrong'. Eventually someone will question our own time and we may be found very wanting about things we've never had reason to question.
I moved from California to Oklahoma. I have no desire to move back. I find it rather sad when people take the whole middle of the country and dismiss it as boring and stupid and poor as if the coasts were the only place desirable to live.
APUSH can be taken instead of traditional U.S. History to fulfill the credit requirement for a diploma. There is no prerequisite, though you may have to have a certain GPA or teacher permission to take the course. In Middle School, students take U.S. History covering the earliest explorers through the Civil War. The traditional high school course runs from the Reconstruction through recent history (Reagan administration).
Bottom line: if you take APUSH in high school to fulfill graduation requirements, the content of that course, if it contains any post-Reconstruction material, is your only instruction in that material. Furthermore, once you get to college, credit for that AP course may allow you to place out of any requirement the college may have. In the end, you can have a college diploma and no real understanding of the timeline or existence of events in US History after the Civil War.
You CAN, but for most kids it is not the only history/social studies course taken in high school. It is at least the second and for many, the third. And once more, a hypothetical kid who is so great a humanities student that they get recommended into AP US History so early that it's the only history course they take, then scores a 4 or 5 in the exam, also usually excels at history/social studies a lot and takes more of it in college.
You CAN, but for most kids it is not the only history/social studies course taken in high school. It is at least the second and for many, the third. And once more, a hypothetical kid who is so great a humanities student that they get recommended into AP US History so early that it's the only history course they take, then scores a 4 or 5 in the exam, also usually excels at history/social studies a lot and takes more of it in college.
That scenario you are posting is pretty rare.
It's not rare in my experience. The kids at my high schools who took AP U.S. History did not take another U.S. History course in high school, so it was their only class in the subject.
I've taken a U.S. History class that was decidedly anti-white and anti-American. The text (only book) for the class is well known as being terrible, revisionist, anti-white, and anti-American propaganda. People who know history can probably figure out what book it was. Suffice it to say, taking such a class is terrible. I'm lucky that I'm a history nerd and already knew what went on in the time periods. Had I just taken that class without much previous knowledge, it would have been bad. That was in college, though, and it would be even worse to happen to kids in high school.
Implicit in most of the posts that bash Oklahoma is the assumption that all cultures have equal merit, and therefore a course of study that is "diverse" is better than one that focuses on the best. People who hold to this seem to think that the cultures of, say, Norway and North Korea have equal value. They don't.
It would seem to be the purpose of education to look at the best cultures rather than the worst, in order that students might see values and virtues that -- if adopted -- will lead to better lives (the ancient Greek idea of eudaimonia as discussed by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics more than 2000 years ago). More specifically, it's better for the student to study the historical values and virtues of traditional American culture than to study -- for example -- the obviously dysfunctional values of today's inner-city Black culture or life on the Reservation or the affairs of Lesbians, because the traditional American virtues and values lead to a better life. Other books that illustrate these virtues include the autobiographies of Benjamin Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt.
People who get a kick from bashing traditional American values, virtues, history, and accomplishments are often the victims of mediocre higher education, which leads to the following problem: They completed "college," but didn't finish first in the pursuit of a good life. They seem to believe that since they didn't finish first, the "system" is somehow rotten, and more or less beneath contempt. "It's all biased" and "those elites are there only because of cheating and privilege" and other pouty attitudes prevail.
I can't remember if I agree or disagree with the majority of your posts....but this one, you are spot on.
SS
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
