Fiction and Facts about the AP US History Curriculum Framework
Background information:
Both the critique in The Report Card and in Heartland are from the same individual, Larry Krieger. The
Heartland article by Robbins gives an introduction but then simply reprints Krieger’s article from The
Report Card. Krieger is a former AP teacher who has authored a number of test prep books for AP
history and the SAT (see information on his background below).
False claim: Key figures in American history have been sidelined in the new AP US History Curriculum
Framework
Fact: Focus on the work of key figures in American history – and the Founding Fathers in particular – has
been expanded, rather than reduced, within the new AP US History Curriculum Framework. Before the
redesign, not even the Declaration of Independence was required reading in AP US History, because the
topic outline was so broad and vague that other than mentioning “Washington and Hamilton” once,
there was no in-depth study required of the Founding Documents. Here is a table showing the complete
list of required American documents in the AP course before and after the redesign, showing a
significant increase in focus on key American leaders and their work:
Required Documents: AP US History
“Old” Framework
“New” Framework
Articles of Confederation
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense
The Declaration of Independence
Constitution
Bill of Rights
George Washington’s “Farewell Address”
Kansas-Nebraska Act
The Emancipation Proclamation
13th Amendment
14th Amendment
15th Amendment
Plessy v Ferguson
Treaty of Versailles
Brown v Board of Education
Civil Rights Act of 1964
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Krieger claims that Benjamin Franklin has been sidelined, but that claim is false, as Benjamin Franklin has
never been singled out as a required figure whom every single AP teacher and student must study – he
was not even mentioned in the prior AP US History topic outline. Instead, Franklin, like so many great
American leaders and thinkers, has always been and continues to be an option for close examination
with an AP course, and the sample materials the AP Program provides for teachers offer a Benjamin
Franklin text as a sample for close study. That is the key point: the hallmark of the AP Program is, and
always will be, deep respect for the rights and role of the individual teacher to select which figures to
focus on in-depth.
In a nutshell, Krieger’s attacks on the AP US History Curriculum Framework reflect a misunderstanding of
the purpose and nature of the document. The Curriculum Framework is just that – a framework to help
guide teachers’ instruction, rather than a detailed curriculum or course plan. Most of the dozens of
topics or individuals that Krieger finds “missing” from the Framework, such as Sinclair Lewis, Dorothea
Dix, or the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, have never been called out or specified in any document released
by the College Board. The College Board’s role is not to provide teachers with a prescriptive, detailed
replacement for a textbook that contains every conceivable fact, individual, or development in American
history; such a document would amount to the mandated curriculum that the author purports to
oppose. Instead, the Curriculum Framework focuses teachers on key topics and skills for close
examination in their classroom, leaving it to teachers to determine which specific examples of each topic
to teach in-depth.
Krieger also seems upset that AP US History framework omits requiring all teachers/students to study
the same battles. Specific battles have never been mandated in the AP U.S. History course or exam, let
alone in the new one. Instead, the AP US History Framework gives strong and detailed emphasis to the
causes, courses, and outcomes of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II. For example,
the framework calls out the Confederate leadership’s “initiative and daring” during the war as well as
the Union’s strategies and “key victories,” allowing the teacher to select specific examples to study indepth, rather than trying to cover rapidly and superficially all possible battles in every US war. Krieger is
evidently troubled that the framework does not spell out every battle of these wars in a textbook-like
fashion; instead, the AP US History redesign provides teachers with the flexibility to select key battles
and events to study in depth and that may be meaningful to local teachers and students.
False claim: Inclusion of topics prior to 1607 is a “highly unusual” and “extravagant” innovation
Fact: Krieger declares that dedicating 5% of the course (one week of class time) to the period 1491 to
1607 is a “highly unusual” and “extravagant” innovation designed to turn this into a course on “Western
Hemispheric History.” Yet Krieger is no doubt well aware that the previous Course Description for AP
U.S. History also began with Native American societies prior to Columbus, and that AP Exams have long
included questions on this period and topic. In this way the Curriculum Framework reflects the fact that
virtually every high school and college American history textbook begins with Native Americans and
their settlements in America, and then devotes many pages to European efforts at exploration and
settlement in the New World. In surveying college history departments nationwide, the data
overwhelmingly show that dedicating 5% of the course to the period of 1491-1607 is an essential
foundation for further history studies.
False claim: Krieger claims that the AP US History framework contains a negative depiction of
American history
Fact: Krieger singles out some details while suppressing others, ignoring parts of the Curriculum
Framework that he finds inconvenient for his argument. He asserts that the Framework “completely
ignore[s] both Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy” in the period 1800-1848, missing the bold
heading of Key Concept 4.1: “The United States developed the world’s first modern mass democracy” –
hardly a statement that fails to address (in Krieger’s words) the “origins, development, and extension of
America’s commitment to democratic rights.” Unlike the prior AP US History course, the new one
actually requires students to study the documents that show America’s “origins, development, and
extension of democratic rights”: the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Emancipation
Proclamation, the Civil War Amendments, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to name a few.
Krieger is troubled by the effort of the Curriculum Framework to provide nuance and depth to the
treatment of various American history topics. For example, he singles out the mentions of the Japanese
internment camps during World War II. This is a topic that is covered in every U.S. History college and
high school textbook today, and one would not think that its mention would arouse controversy. But
Krieger is concerned that this account reveals “little interest in positive achievements and the theme of
unity and cooperation” during the war. Yet the very next sentence of the AP US History Framework
stresses the “technological and scientific advancements” and “popular commitment to advancing
democratic ideals” that allowed for U.S. victory. In this and many other places, Krieger disparages the
type of nuanced language used by historians in assessing complex historical events. The AP Program has
found that college professors endorse the curriculum framework’s careful and balanced treatment of
American history.
Criticism: The AP USH CF is part of a CB “takeover” of history education (Robbins and Krieger article in
Heartland.org):
Fact: AP Curriculum Frameworks are developed by committees comprised of higher ed faculty members
and experienced AP teachers and are then validated by college department chairs. This is the same
process that has been followed for 60 years for keeping the AP Curriculum Frameworks up-to-date as
history continues to unfold.
Robbins and Krieger seek to portray the AP US History Curriculum Framework as the beginning of a
national takeover of American history education. The framework actually accomplishes the opposite.
While specifying a limited number of required topics and practices that will enable students to meet the
expectations they will face in college-level history courses, the framework leaves much to the discretion
of teachers and districts to select the specific subject matter for productive exploration of these topics
with their students, and the flexibility to meet existing state and local requirements for American history
courses.
The allegation that the Framework is part of a “Common Core Clique” [mentioned in the intro to
Krieger’s piece at The Report Card] headed by David Coleman is belied by the fact that the AP US History
Framework was published prior to Coleman’s becoming president of the College Board, and without his
involvement.
On Krieger’s own background:
Krieger is a prolific author of “Crash Course” guides to a number of AP courses, the SAT, and the SAT-II.
As someone deeply invested in the test preparation industry, Krieger cannot be expected to welcome
the way that AP courses and exams are being revised to eliminate test questions that only measure
factual recall. His consternation makes sense once one recalls that Krieger’s publications emphasize a
test-prep mentality that will not enable a student to demonstrate mastery of the historical analysis skills
and deep content knowledge that are the heart of the revised AP US History Exam.