More States Reject College Board’s Politicized Dual-Credit Classes

Under the leadership of Common Core czar David Coleman, the College Board has been creating or rewriting Advanced Placement (AP) courses to reflect a leftist worldview. AP courses such as U.S. History and European History now push a decidedly left-of-center narrative that conflicts with traditional scholarship and introduces a de facto national curriculum for the advanced students who populate AP classes.

But some states are beginning to challenge the woke-ification of AP.

The latest AP controversy centers on the radical new AP African-American Studies (APAAS) course, recently piloted nationally and now rolled out in its final form. But some state education officials are taking seriously their responsibility to guide public education and are refusing to adopt APAAS as a state-approved course. The days of states simply rubber-stamping whatever comes out of the College Board may be numbered.

Recognizing that APAAS is in many ways more propaganda than education, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was the first to draw the line at having taxpayers fund its indoctrination of Florida students. Arkansas Department of Education officials followed suit. Officials in South Carolina have hoisted warning flags about whether the course will carry full credit toward graduation. 

Most recently, the Georgia superintendent of education cited concerns about the CRT-infused content of APAAS as a reason for denying full approval of the course in Georgia public schools. The Democrat members of the Georgia legislature’s House and Senate Education Committees are holding a hearing on the issue on Aug. 8.

Clear and Persistent Marxist Influence

Government officials in these vigilant states have deep and valid concerns about APAAS. The original course framework made little attempt to conceal its focus on Marxist, critical race theory (CRT)-inspired instruction. After withering commentary from critics such as Stanley Kurtz, the College Board revised the framework to remove the most blatant examples of propaganda and to conceal the remaining bias. But the deeper problem remains.

Kurtz delved into the influences on and structure of the revised APAAS framework and concluded much of the course is still infused with radical ideology. The framework relies heavily on the racist, anti-capitalist, and anti-Western theories of radical historians; it emphasizes international anti-colonialism when the focus should be on America; it spotlights, almost always without criticism, the actions of Marxists such as the Black Panthers and yet largely ignores the thought of black conservatives in any realm of public life; it includes (also without criticism) substantial material on the CRT concepts of “intersectionality” and oppression.

As Kurtz observes, the course ends with a week of “Further Explorations” of incendiary topics such as reparations and abolition of prisons and police. These explorations “make it clear that there is only one right answer”: policies offered by the radical left. “In effect,” Kurtz writes, “this final unit is a prescription for leftist political activism.”

Erasure of Black Conservatives

A consistent problem with even the revised APAAS framework is its almost total lack of balance. Worse than providing one-sided treatment of various perspectives, in most cases it doesn’t even acknowledge that there are various perspectives.

With the exception of one speech by Gen. Colin Powell (inserted in response to the initial Florida backlash), there is little to no representation of conservative, or even moderate, black thought. As far as APAAS is concerned, all black thinkers and leaders in American history have ranged on the spectrum from left to radical left. Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, John McWhorter, and many other black scholars who reject the radical paradigm are simply not worth mentioning.

In discussing community activism on controversial issues, APAAS could have balanced the violent Black Panthers with black leaders such as Robert Woodson, a civil rights activist who in his decades of service has advocated community-based and values-based solutions to problems that the government has failed to alleviate (or even has created). But Woodson doesn’t fit the narrative, so APAAS simply ignores him too.

In other words, like too many other “studies” courses that focus on particular racial, ethnic, or sexual identity groups, the apparent goal of APAAS is to marinate students in the only worldview approved by those who control allegedly “elite” institutions.

No Taxpayer Funding for Leftist Indoctrination

Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina each have some version of an anti-CRT statute prohibiting the teaching of toxic “divisive concepts” in public schools. Governors and education officials there have warned that some APAAS content could violate those statutes. Depending on the wording of the statute, that could certainly be the case.

But as Kurtz argues, even in the absence of such a law, state officials are absolutely right—indeed, obligated—to scrutinize this AP course and all others issued by the College Board to make sure they provide thorough, balanced coverage of their subject.

This examination should be conducted with the perspective of parents and other taxpayers in mind. What doesn’t faze Californians may alarm Arkansans, and they shouldn’t be silenced with condescending assurances that the really smart people at the College Board know best.

It’s Not Racist to Support Quality Curriculum

When rejecting APAAS, of course, state officials meet drearily predictable cries of racism. The superintendent of an APAAS pilot district in Georgia claimed that “[w]ithholding state approval for this AP course sends the message that the contributions and experiences of African Americans are not worthy of academic study at the same level as other approved AP courses.”

That’s nonsense, of course. Inserting the words “African American” into a title shouldn’t shield any curriculum from appropriate examination. Lazy propaganda has no educational value. Students of any race don’t benefit from course content that’s warped by the political biases of its creators, and state officials should be commended for demanding something better.

APAAS could be improved. It could add material on non-leftist black thinkers and leaders. It could convert its current “debates” about controversial issues into true debates, with pros and cons fairly represented.

But the College Board apparently isn’t interested in pushing APAAS into the realm of genuine education rather than woke propaganda. Instead, it’s relying on wimpy state officials to just accept radicalized mediocrity rather than face the inevitable attacks from leftist politicians and media.

But in some states there are new sheriffs in town, and they’re not afraid of a fight. The dictatorship of the College Board can, and must, be dismantled.

Jane Robbins is an attorney and a retired senior fellow with the American Principles Project in Washington DC. In that position she crafted federal and state legislation designed to restore the constitutional autonomy of states and parents in education policy, and to protect the rights of religious freedom and conscience. She is a graduate of Clemson University and the Harvard Law School.