Friday Interview: New AP U.S. History Course Questioned | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: This article was created by the CJ Staff of the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.

Parents, school boards raise concerns over redesigned class

    RALEIGH     A new advanced placement course in U.S. history has generated serious debate over exactly what information students should be taught in North Carolina public schools about our country's founding. Dr. Terry Stoops, John Locke Foundation director of research and education studies, discussed the issue with Donna Martinez for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)

    Martinez: Tell us what this course actually is.

    Stoops: AP U.S. History is a course that is administered by The College Board and taught by teachers in North Carolina. That is a college-level United States History course. And there are several AP courses that fit this description, in English and mathematics, and science. This one is different because of the controversy, but the AP program is pretty broad, is pretty vast, and really has thousands of students participating in many different areas.

    Martinez: Sounds as if it's influential in terms of whether or not a student might be accepted into a particular university.

    Stoops: That's exactly right. And you have advanced students trying to take as many AP courses as they can because they can get college credit, No. 1. But No. 2, it does influence admission decisions. So the number of AP courses that we offer has been expanding, and the number of students that are not only taking the course but taking the AP exam has also been on the rise.

    Martinez: What is the concern? This is a new course, right?

    Stoops: We have an existing AP U.S. History course, but this is a redesign. And the redesigned course is really where the controversy is, because we've had U.S. history, an AP course in U.S. history, for a long time. But this is a reinterpretation of U.S. history through a different lens, admittedly.

    The old system tended to look at U.S. history as exceptionalism, as "We are a unique nation that brings unique things to the world." This reinterpretation of the U.S. history course doesn't quite share that idea. It, instead, looks at U.S. history through the eyes of those who've been oppressed, of those who have been ill-served by the American system. It's a real change to the way that U.S. history, through the AP program, is taught.

    Martinez: Based on your description, Terry, I would say our listeners might be thinking, "Well, we should be exposing students to all perspectives on our country." Are you saying it is an inclusive look at history, or is it biased?

    Stoops: Well, I think it's biased. And this is really where the debate comes in, because all history has interpretations. You cannot look at history without some sort of lens that helps you understand the events of the past. What that lens is, is really the source of the controversy — how you look at the past, how you interpret the past, the events of the past, and what things you emphasize.

    Because this is the key, that you emphasize certain events when you look through certain lenses. And the problem with this course is it doesn't quite address some of those events around the founding that we have a law that dictates that we need to. And this is really the source of the controversy in North Carolina — that the lens doesn't give a whole lot of attention to those founding-era documents, individuals, and events.

    Martinez: You mentioned the law. We're talking about the 2011 Founding Principles Act, and this does require — I believe it's a semester of American history looking at founding principles and documents. If that's the case then, what is it that is not included in this AP History course that would not fulfill this state law?

    Stoops: That's the source of the controversy, because if you ask the Department of Public Instruction, they believe that there's 100 percent alignment between the U.S. history course and the requirements in the law. And the way that they reason is that students take civics and economics in 10th grade, and these are AP students that would take this course.

    And what they're arguing is that the content the students need to meet the requirements of the law is included in the civics and economics course. And so they meet the requirement and go on and take a U.S. history course for the AP in 10th, 11th, or 12th grade, depending on how advanced the student is and how advanced they are in their coursework.

    Martinez: There is enough concern over this whole issue that the State Board of Education, and also a state legislative committee, is looking into it. What do we know so far about the issues they are discussing to try to figure out whether or not this is a legitimate course?

    Stoops: The ideological difference between looking at history in different ways is only part of the story. Really, the central issue here is the Founding Principles Act, the law that was passed, and whether the new U.S. history course for the Advanced Placement students meets that requirement. Because we can talk about whether it's desirable to teach history in one way or another, but in the end, there's really not much we can do about it because the AP test is the only Advanced Placement test that students have, and have access to.

    So we don't have a whole lot of options as a state. So the question is, do we offer another course for students to meet the requirements of the Founding Principles Act, or do some other type of shifting in the existing coursework that's required of students so that they can meet the requirements of the law and take AP U.S. History as well?

    Martinez: Terry, is this a debate really among policy wonks and policymakers? Or is there concern about this among parents or boards of education around the state?

    Stoops: Parents are definitely concerned, and this all has a Common Core tie, because interestingly enough, the individual that spearheaded the writing of the Common Core is now president of The College Board. And The College Board is the company that administers the Advanced Placement test. So you have a lot of parents that are concerned that this new president, who's behind Common Core, will actually have some sort of influence on the AP exams. That's one part.

    But more than anything, I think parents want their child to be taught U.S. history in a way that aids them when they're in college, that gives them the foundation that they need to be a good student, to be a good citizen. And this is really part of the concern, that this new course doesn't necessarily have that focus in mind. Instead, I've heard a lot of parents talk about [how] this just leaves kids feeling guilty, rather than teaching them fundamentals of America, American exceptionalism, and the events that shaped our past.

    Martinez: What would you change about the course in order to present what you believe is an appropriate view of the founding, and also to meet the 2011 law?

    Stoops: The Advanced Placement tests are the only test of their kind, and if I had a magic wand and was able to change something, I would have a competitor to the AP. This is a problem of a monopoly being able to do what they want because they have no competitors.

    As long as we don't have any alternative test, we're going to be stuck here. And that is really one of the big problems here — that we don't want to deprive kids of AP because it helps them get college credit, it helps them get a head start on their college career. But we have no alternatives. So an alternative would be the best way to solve this problem.

    Allow the students to choose a course that they can agree with, that best meets their needs, and still meets the requirements of Advanced Placement tests. But unfortunately, at this point, we don't have any competitors, and so we're going to have to deal with the AP as it exists today.