Mr. J B Fact Finder


The A-Z Guide to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Addiction



Do you know someone who may have trouble with depression, anxiety, panic disorder or maybe an addiction? These are symptoms that effect thousands of people every day making it very difficult to carry on with their daily lives, including young students trying to prepare for their future lives after graduation. It can be a helpless feeling for the parent who wants to help their young son or daughter, but they are usually at a total loss as to what or how to help them. The people of Cassiobury Court, have shared a link with us from their website that addresses the causes and effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Addiction. I believe this will also help you to understand why these symptoms tend to appear.

whether you know someone with these symptoms or not, I would encourage you to read this article and gain a better understanding.

[The A-Z Guide to Addiction and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy : This guide explains in depth how CBT is utilised to treat a range of addiction.]

Home Schooling


Interview on the radio show “Sandy Rios in the Morning” 7/15/16

Interview with Mrs. Sam Sorbo, author of the book “They’re Your Kids” an inspirational journey from self-doubter to home school advocate. 


On 7/15/16, Sandy Rios and Mrs. Sam Sorbo set down to talk about the benefits of home schooling and the pitfalls of Common Core. Mrs. Srobo points out that an education system that was ranked number one in the world and able to produce the people who were able to find a way to send a man to the moon, is now a schools system that is lagging behind the rest of the world ranking 36 in the world.

At the time of its introduction, Common Core became the 9th education reform program in 29 years. Since then every test that exposed Common Core shows that the schools are failing in educating our kids. No testing has been able to show that Common Core is working. The result of “outcome base education” seems to be working in reverse. Instead of providing a stronger education, we are seeing some of what was considered the basics of education, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and cursive writing, to be dropped off of the curriculum.  Common Core only teaches the student to regurgitate what they are fed. This result leads to many not being prepared for the day when they do go out into the world. Sam Sorbo stated that now you can be denied to see the test that your child is having to take, and that many of the test are computerized were you will not be able to see the test. Instead of the parent having authority over the child, the school authority is supreme. You can go on line to see what Common Core has to say about their program on their own website, but you will not be able to see everything on the Common Core website that they are hiding from you.


In reference to home schooling, Sorbo stated that she understands why many don’t feel that they would be able to do home schooling themselves. The school system will tell you that you are inadequate to teach your own child. Considering that it was your education system that we graduated from, this statement would be a bit self-discrediting of itself. If we are unable to teach our own kids then why would we want to put our kids through the same public school system that taught us? Sam Sorbo was not always an advocate for home schooling but the turning point for Sam came when after having been working very closely with her sons 2nd grade school teacher as a volunteer; she never heard anything about the book reports that her son had been turning in. One day when she asked about his grades on the book reports, the teacher said that they were not good. Sam’s question then was why the teacher didn’t let her know that her son was doing so badly and why did she have to ask to find out? Home schooling is a viable option in many ways. One is the teaching and raising of your child in learning manners and how to act in public. Many of the bad habits that kids often pick up come from others in their class room. Sometimes a wedge can be formed between the child and the parents. Today with political correctness and the progressive movement infiltrating the education system, the schools can sometimes stand between the parents and the child causing the parent authority to be undermined.  Sandy recalled a moment when her son was in high school; she went to withdraw her son from class and was told that she could not see him. At times she would learn from her son things that the students were not supposed to tell the parents.

Home schooling is teaching in a more classical way and you are not only covering all the courses you feel are important, you are teaching the student to teach themselves. Once they have learned to teach themselves, then they can do whatever they set their minds to. Many parents say that they don’t have the time to home school. If you add up all of the time spent in-between classes’, reses, and in other areas, you will see that public schools waist a lot of time. With one child you can cover in 3hrs what takes the public schools 7 hrs. to do. Mrs. Sorbo states that there are other options available to us besides public schooling, but that she feels the home schooling is the best of those options.

The Basics of Education


I watched a video that took place on the campus of one of our major universities. The question being asked to the students of the university was "who won the American Civil War?" The answers were shocking. The answer given by most of the students was "I have no idea." A few answered "the Confederates, or the South." One student when asked the question jumped back in surprise and said "What Civil War, you mean the Civil War of 1965?"

My thoughts were how could one complete 12 full years of schooling and be so unaware about the basic knowledge of our nation's history? Now a new generation has started looking in other directions and looking for answers in areas that are foreign to our system and background. Who would have ever thought that a Socialist could run for the office of President of the United States and have a chance to win? A lack of knowledge leads to a lack of understanding and appreciation. When the goals of education to teach and educate is replaced with a political agenda, the student is the first to suffer, and the second is society.

Abraham Lincoln:  The philosophies of one generation, becomes the laws of the next.

Western Civilization


Is it any wonder why our younger generation is favoring socialism today? If nobody is teaching Western Civilization, it is no mystery at all. In the 1980’s, our universities decided upon themselves to stop teaching Western Civilization as a required course for graduation. Not only did they stop making it a required course, they slowly stopped teaching the subject all together. We are today starting to see the results of this terrible decision. Today many of the younger generation has no understanding of the bases of our culture, nor can they even define what the American culture is. Although this decision to not teach Western Civilization has not prevented the universities from teaching their students how to hate and despise Western Civ, and capitalism, they have also succeeded in preventing them from learning about how the Western Civilization has advanced the world more than any other society, brought more prosperity, better living conditions, and lead the way in areas such as stopping slavery.

Currently some concerned students at Stanford University have addressed their concerns about the failure of the universities in seeing the importance of teaching Western Civilization. The University has agreed to allow a campus election for the student to vote in or out the future of teaching Western Civilization on the campus of Stanford University.

What's the Goal of Common Core


From the radio show “understanding the times” with Jan Markell

Interview between Jan Markell and Author David Fiorazo on 1/9/16


Jan Markell, host of radio show Understanding the Times, interviewed David Fiorazo, author of the book “The Coast of Silence.” Both dove right into what is behind the dark curtain of Common Core, why all the secrecy, what is its main goal, and why are teachers so upset about it.

Just like the Presidents Health Care program that was forced onto the American citizens without the opportunity to see the details of the program, Common Core was forced into action with even less transparency and even more secrecy. Common Core has now been implemented in our schools for six years now and still today, people still do not understand Common Core, but surveys are showing that the more people learn about Common Core, the more they do not like it.

When the creator of Common Core, David Coleman created this educational program, Mr. Colman never felt the need to consult with anyone involved in education as to what would help, not help, improve, or not improve the education of our young people. This is just part of what has teachers so upset in the Common Core program.  The teachers were not consulted by anyone associated in the implementation of the Common Core program. Currently the NEA, New York Teachers Union, and several other Teacher Unions across the country have voiced their disapproval in Common Core. The individual states were not given any information on what Common Core contained. So why do the states continue to use the Common Core program. This is where the federal government has each state over a barrel. If the state refuses to use the Common Core program, then the Federal Government will withhold the states federal funding and the state loses millions of dollars.

Of course Common Core is aiming to control all areas of education. The public school, private school, charter, home school. If Common Core is able to infiltrate and control the teaching of a Christian school, then a Christion school that is being told what to teach and what not to teach is not necessarily a Christion school anymore. If that is the case then what is the point of going to a Christion school? The testing for the GED has just recently been adjusted to align with the Common Core program, and colleges are also doing some adjusting as well.

One of the most damaging effects of Common Core is that Common Core is not looking for students to excel in their studies. Common Core is not educating the students but instead training them in problem solving. According to Common Core, Problem solving is more important than knowledge. What to think instead of how to think. The results of this approach are that students who were excelling in math and enjoying and excited about math are now not only not excelling as well in math, they are not even enjoying or even interested in math. They are confused as to why they now have to draw pictures in a math class. Because of the Common Core approach to teaching math, parents today are no longer able to help their children who are struggling in math. Parents who have a background in math are unable to make heads nor tails out of what it is that Common Core is asking for in its problems.

The bottom line is that this is a continued spiraling downward of our countries education. Today’s students will not be receiving the truth or the knowledge that our school system should be providing.

The Continues stream of government programs has shown us time and time again that on size does not fit all, and never fits into a free society. It only seems to fit into a socialist funded government.

Vladimir Lennon stated “Give me four years to teach the children and the seeds I have sown will never be uprooted.”

Inside the Trojan Horse Called Common Core



David Colman is the creator of Common core, and is now the president of the AP College Board.

Where Common Core is about English and math. All other subjects are covered by the AP College Board which creates all the AP college placement exams.

The AP board use to hand out a 5 page handout stating as long as you cover the Jacksonian period, the Nixon period and a few other areas, the teacher could teach the class any why they would like. Now the board has sent out a very directive of 70 to 80 pages set of guidelines that cause teachers to teach in a leftist revisionist way. Colman and the AP board is doing this with every AP course, and when completed, they will have fully taken over the national educational system, giving Common Core control of the English and math, and the AP board control of all other classes. All by avoiding the democratic process, Colman and his gang will have nationalized our entire national school curriculum.  

In today’s progressive education of today, the story of our countries exceptionalism is lost and replaced with Tran’s nationalism, stating that focusing too much on America’s patriotism and accomplishments could lead us into war. So they want to place our focus on the globe or internationalism. The traditional American story gets lost and replaced with nationalism. In the 1990’s George Bush thought it would be a good idea to set national educational standard for our schools. Len Cheney head of the National Endowment for Humanities created the National History Standards which seemed like a good idea at the time. As things got underway, many progressive college professors got involved and what we ended up with is a politically correct, hyper revisionist version of American History. When Lynne Chania saw the results of the final outcome of the program, she decided to fight this. She was quite successful in getting the AP Board to revise the lesson, but even though the program was revised, the under lining message managed to remain. Now with the colleges leaning to the progressive gender, race, class equality approach to teaching history, (Which undercuts the traditional story of American history and down plays it) are using the AP Board to impose their way of thinking on all High Schools teachers, so that they cannot escape the progressive way of teaching the American story of the progressive left. Later Lynne Cheney stated in the Wall Street Journal that what she learned from this experience was that using national standard in education will come back to bight us in the end, because the teaching is going to be controlled by one or the other political side.

American Principles Project "Disappointed" with Passage of Every Student Succeeds Acxt (ESSA


Emmett McGroarty: “Republicans should have listened to the pro-Constitution,  anti-Common Core grassroots groups.” 

Washington, D.C.– The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorizes the failed No Child Left Behind statute, was quickly passed through Congress and signed into law by President Obama just a few moments ago. Emmett McGroarty, Director of Education at American Principles Project, released the following statement on the passage of ESSA:

“American Principles Project is disappointed that Congress has passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to reauthorize the failed No Child Left Behind statute. The claims of Republican leadership that the bill will transfer power back to the states are largely illusory. 

“It is particularly noteworthy and even shocking that so many Republicans voted in favor of this bill. Apparently they did not consider it a red flag that every Democrat in Congress supported it, that Barack Obama supported it, that Arne Duncan supported it, that Nancy Pelosi supported it, and that the owners of the Common Core national standards – National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers – supported it. The suggestion that these rabidly pro-Common Core individuals and organizations would support a bill that truly restores state autonomy in education and unravels all they’ve worked for is nothing short of delusional.

“Republicans should have listened to the more than 200 pro-Constitution, anti-Common Core grassroots groups that laid out in detail their objections to this bill and practically begged their “conservative” elected officials to pay attention. Instead, all but 64 members of the House and 12 senators ignored their knowledgeable constituents and did the bidding of the White House and the Republican leadership. 

“Perhaps the most galling aspect of ESSA’s progression is the secretive, underhanded manner in which the bill was advanced. ESSA was written by unknown parties, working behind closed doors with no notice to the public, and was released only two days before the House vote. Representatives and concerned citizens could not possibly read and analyze over 1,000 pages of text before the vote was taken. Then the Senate rushed through a vote only a week later. This process was obviously designed by Senate leadership and new Speaker Paul Ryan – in brazen violation of his recent promises of transparency – to ram the bill through before opposition could mobilize.

“American parents are not fooled by this charade — nor will they forget who was responsible.”

Swain's World


Universities are supposed to be a place to exchange ideas -- not silence them. Tell that to Vanderbilt, where a hypersensitive student body is demanding the head of a conservative black professor for daring to challenge their opinion on politics. For Dr. Carol Swain, this institutionalized prejudice is nothing new. As an African-American woman, she's been threatened, protested, and verbally abused for exposing students to other views in one of academia's elite laboratories of radicalism.

And what are these offensive views? That radical Islam -- the same extremism that toppled the World Trade Centers -- is a grave threat to the American way of life. Apparently, this offended students' delicate sensibilities and resulted in a campus-wide firestorm. Now, for suggesting that the country do a better job of monitoring terrorists, the pitchforks are out. The "controversy" has gotten so out of control that a petition to fire Swain has more than 1,500 signatures.

Among other things, students accuse Carol of expressing hatred toward minorities -- which is ridiculous because she is a minority! And not just any minority, but a high school dropout and teenage mother who beat the odds to become a highly accomplished professor and public intellectual. Liberals, of course, can't stand stories like Swain's or Dr. Ben Carson's because it pushes back on their narrative that people can't help themselves -- only the government can. "Although Ms. Swain is free to speak openly and have her own views," the undersigned agree, "no matter how disagreeable they may be, it is generally unprofessional to attach your job title to a channel promoting your personally held beliefs." (Unless, of course, those beliefs are exceedingly liberal.)

In addition to ousting Swain, Vanderbilt's students are insisting that the faculty undergo diversity training -- which is almost comical, since they're clearly so diversity-averse.

"I think they're sad and pathetic," Carol said, "in the sense that they're college students, and they should be open to hearing more than one viewpoint." If Chancellor Nicholas Zeppos's statement was meant to reassure Swain, it didn't. After explaining that the opinions of students didn't necessarily reflect those of the school, he went on to say that speech whose "sole purpose or effect is to discriminate, stigmatize, retaliate, offend, foment hatred or violence, or cause harm has no place in this university."

Interestingly, the conflict comes at a time when even far-Left institutions are starting to question the course of rabid liberalism. In a fascinating article from The Atlantic this fall called "The Coddling of the American Mind," authors talk about the "strange thing" happening on college campuses. "In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don't like... A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense."

Unfortunately, this is all the result of modern child-centric parenting, whose everybody-gets-a-trophy philosophy is giving us a generation of thin-skinned, self-entitled whines. At one time, academic freedom meant something. These days, even "progressive" professors are taking pseudonyms to pen articles like, "I'm a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me." Like us, he wonders, what's the point of spoon-feeding them more intolerance? So they become more deeply entrenched in their hostility toward other views?

As Peter Kiersanow wrote in his "Campus Lunacy Spreads" piece in NRO, "Heaven (are we allowed to say that?) forbid any precious dears be exposed to viewpoints different from inspected, tested, and approved progressive orthodoxy. They might have to suffer the inconvenience and indignity of thinking." Here's the scary thing: these students, the same ones calling for censorship, are the so-called future leaders of America.

Courageous men and women like Carol Swain are all that's standing between the complete takeover of higher education as we know it. Support her by contacting the Vanderbilt Board of Trustees and encouraging them to take immediate steps to create a welcoming environment for orthodox Christians and Jews, political and social conservatives, and anyone else who holds traditional views.

College Board Bows to Critics, Revises AP U.S History Course



From the Washington Post

By Valerie Strauss

July 31, 2015

After a year of defending its 2014 framework for the AP U.S. History course against conservative criticism that it was presenting a negatively biased view of American history, the College Board just released a new “clearer and more balanced” course guide and framework that includes many of the subjects the critics had complained were missing from the previous one.

The College Board, which owns the Advanced Placement program, said in statement published on its Web site that “feedback gathered over the last year” has guided the changes. The statement, published a day after College Board President David Coleman met with a chief framework critic, said in part:

Every statement in the 2015 edition has been examined with great care based on the historical record and the principled feedback the College Board received. The result is a clearer and more balanced approach to the teaching of American history that remains faithful to the requirements that colleges and universities set for academic credit. The new edition has been embraced by educators, including AP U.S. History teachers who reviewed it at the recent AP Annual Conference.

The 2014 framework was created after AP U.S. History teachers complained that the old version forced them to race through topics without time to immerse students in major ideas.  The 2014 document took a view of U.S. History as a series of conflicts over power, and did not mention important American historical figures by name, including Benjamin Franklin and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Just as soon as it was released, it was savaged by conservatives, including the Republican National Committee, which passed a resolution last summer saying that the framework “emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.” They called for a congressional investigation. Ben Carson, a pediatric neurosurgeon who is a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, said that “most people” who complete the course would then be “ready to sign up for ISIS.” (Yes, he really said that.)

And last month, a group of historians from a wide range of schools, including Harvard, Stanford, Yale and Princeton universities, as well Lynne Cheney, former chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the wife of former vice president Dick Cheney, issued an open letter to the College Board opposing the 2014 framework. The letter said that the framework posed “a grave new risk” to the study of America’s past, in part because it ignored American “exceptionalism,” an idea that broadly views the United States as a country unlike any other, with a special democratic and freedom-loving character. It said in part that the framework granted “extensive attention to ‘how various identities, cultures, and values have been preserved or changed in different contexts of U.S. history with special attention given to the formation of gender, class, racial and ethnic identities.’”

The new framework makes a shift from “identity” to “identities.” Indeed, the new [2014] framework is so populated with examples of American history as the conflict between social groups, and so inattentive to the sources of national unity and cohesion, that it is hard to see how students will gain any coherent idea of what those sources might be. This does them, and us, an immense disservice.

For the last year, College Board officials defended the controversial course document, saying that it was not a complete curriculum but merely guidelines to help teachers write their own lessons. The authors of the 2014 framework — history teachers and professors — issued an open letter last year, saying that critics misunderstood the document. It said in part:

Many of the comments we have heard about the framework reflect either a misunderstanding of U.S. history or a very limited faith in history teachers’ command of their subject matter. The Curriculum Framework was written by and for AP teachers — individuals who were already experts in U.S. history and its teaching. Based on feedback from other AP teachers outside the Curriculum Development and Assessment Committee, we did not think it necessary to specifically identify Martin Luther King, Jr., among the post-war “civil rights activists” mentioned in the framework. Any United States history course would of course include King as well as other major figures such as Benjamin Franklin and Dwight Eisenhower. These and many other figures of U.S. history did not appear in the previous AP framework, either, yet teachers have always understood the need to teach them. Critics who believe we have omitted them from the course are misunderstanding our document, and we request that they examine the AP Practice Exam as evidence of our determination that AP students must be exposed to a rich and inclusive body of historical knowledge.

Protests by students, parents and teachers erupted last fall when some members of the Board of Education in Jefferson County, Colo., decided to form a committee to review the framework to see if it promoted citizenship and patriotism. And some historians defended it, including Pulitzer Prize winner James McPherson, who said it was “a sound framework that will help teachers improve the teaching of AP History,” and he said that the criticism seemed “motivated mainly by right-wing politics.”

If that is indeed what motivated the criticism, the College Board decided it had better take it into account in the 2015 course guide and framework. Its statement said:

We heard from and engaged with a wide range of stakeholders over the past year as part of our public review process. Teachers and historians, parents and students, and other concerned citizens and public officials from across the country all provided feedback.

In the new guide, American exceptionalism is now specifically mentioned as a topic to be discussed in the AP History class, though it doesn’t say how teachers should present it. Under the theme, “American and national identity, the course guide now says:

This theme focuses on how and why definitions of American and national identity and values have developed, as well as on related topics such as citizenship, constitutionalism, foreign policy, assimilation, and American exceptionalism.

Here’s what else is new in the 2015 course guide, framework and exam description, according to the College Board’s release:

Every section in the new framework has been reviewed and improved. The following areas received the greatest public comment, and reflect the most significant changes:

  • American national identity and unity
  • American ideals of liberty, citizenship, and self-governance, and how those ideals play out in U.S. history
  • American founding political leaders, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin
  • Founding Documents — including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers — as reflected in a new recommended focus section
  • Productive role of free enterprise, entrepreneurship, and innovation in shaping U.S. history
  • U.S. role in the victories of World War I and World War II, particularly the contributions and sacrifices of American servicemen and women in those wars
  • U.S. leadership in ending the Cold War

Some former critics are pleased with the changes. For example, this story by my Post colleague Lyndsey Layton quoted Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, a group of academics created to challenge what it calls “the rise of campus political correctness,” as saying:

“It’s definitely better than 2014 in a number of ways,” said Wood, who met Wednesday with Coleman. “When we started raising criticisms about this in July last year, the push­back from the College Board was arrogant and dismissive. And they stayed in that tone before they began to see that maybe a better way to handle this is to look at the content of the criticism. I think the College Board is taking the position that it has something to learn from its critics.”

Other critics, however, said the changes didn’t amount to much. Layton quoted Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, as saying, “The College Board continues to be under the influence of leftist historians.”



by Stanley Kurtz August 25, 2014

The College Board, the private company that produces the SAT test and the various Advanced Placement (AP) exams, has kicked off a national controversy by issuing a new and unprecedentedly detailed “Framework” for its AP U.S. History exam. This Framework will effectively force American high schools to teach U.S. history from a leftist perspective. The College Board disclaims political intent, insisting that the new Framework provides a “balanced” guide that merely helps to streamline the AP U.S. History course while enhancing teacher flexibility. Not only the Framework itself, but the history of its development suggests that a balanced presentation of the American story was not the College Board’s goal. The origins of the new AP U.S. History framework are closely tied to a movement of left-leaning historians that aims to “internationalize” the teaching of American history. The goal is to “end American history as we have known it” by substituting a more “transnational” narrative for the traditional account. This movement’s goals are clearly political, and include the promotion of an American foreign policy that eschews the unilateral use of force. The movement to “internationalize” the U.S. History curriculum also seeks to produce a generation of Americans more amendable to working through the United Nations and various left-leaning “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs) on issues like the environment and nuclear proliferation. A willingness to use foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution is likewise encouraged. The College Board formed a close alliance with this movement to internationalize the teaching of American history just prior to initiating its redesign of the AP U.S. History exam. Key figures in that alliance are now in charge of the AP U.S. History redesign process, including the committee charged with writing the new AP U.S. History exam. The new AP U.S. History Framework clearly shows the imprint of the movement to de-nationalize American history. Before I trace the rise of this movement and its ties to the College Board, let’s have a closer look at its goals. NYU historian Thomas Bender is the leading spokesman for the movement to internationalize the U.S. History curriculum at every educational level. The fullest and clearest statement of Bender’s views can be found in his 2006 book, A Nation Among Nations: America’s Place in World History. Bender is a thoroughgoing critic of American exceptionalism, the notion that America is freer and more democratic than any other nation, and for that reason, a model, vindicator, and at times the chief defender of ordered liberty and self-government in the world. In opposition to this, Bender wants to subordinate American identity to a cosmopolitan, “transnational” sensibility. Bender urges us to see each nation, our own included, as but “a province among the provinces that make up the world.” Whereas the old U.S. history forged a shared national identity by emphasizing America’s distinctiveness, Bender hopes to encourage cosmopolitanism by “internationalizing” the American story. Bender laments that history as taught in our schools has bred an “acceptance of the nation as the dominant form of human solidarity.” The growing focus on gender, race, and ethnicity is welcome, says Bender, but does little to transform an underlying historical narrative built around the nation. Even the rise of world history in the schools has backfired, Bender maintains, by making it appear as though American history and world history are somehow different topics. Bender understands that his transnational twist on American history has profound political implications. He complains that while working on his book (during George W. Bush’s presidency), “a discourse of exceptionalism and policies based on it became omnipresent in American public life.” Bender promises that his transnational framing of American history “will give little comfort” to the proponents of policies based on American exceptionalism. He worries, however, that his globalizing approach to American history might be used to defend precisely the sort of “hegemonic” American foreign-policy he abhors. To prevent this, Bender urges that American history be taught, not only from an American point of view, but from the perspective of those who are subject to American power. “Americans have always found it difficult to imagine themselves as an enemy, as a problem for other people,” says Bender. By showing us ourselves through our enemies’ eyes, Bender hopes to promote humbler and more collaborative forms of American foreign-policy. Bender complains about George W. Bush era foreign policy, not only in respect to war, but also in the matters of, “environment, trade, nuclear, and other policies.” Clearly, he hopes that his anti-exceptionalist vision of American-history will encourage a different approach to foreign affairs. Bender also openly hopes that students exposed to a less “national” version of American history will sympathize with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s willingness to use foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution, rather than with Justice Antonin Scalia’s rejection of foreign law as an arbiter of American jurisprudence. In 2006, A Nation Among Nations provoked a sharp exchange between Bender and Brooklyn College professor of history, Robert David Johnson in the journal Historically Speaking. Going on the attack, Johnson calls Bender’s “transnational” version of American history, “little more than an attempt to ensure that students think a certain way about contemporary events.” Johnson warns Bender that “establishing as an outcome for high school history classes the judicial philosophy of Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer . . . will undermine support for public education among citizens who disagree with the preferred ideology.” Bender parries Johnson’s charges of politicization with a non-denial denial. I offer no “rules for specific actions in the world,” says Bender, nor is my book about “any specific foreign policy.” But Bender doesn’t have to write a policy brief. To achieve his preferred policy results, he merely needs to inculcate a cosmopolitan sensibility and an abiding hostility to American exceptionalism. Bender also denies Johnson’s claim that he wants to “merge” high school U.S. history with World history, yet Bender clearly wants to integrate them in a way that subordinates the American national story to the transnational, globalist perspective. To understand the deep entanglement of the College Board in Bender’s political and intellectual project, we need to return to 2000, when a group of 78 historians under the auspices of the Organization of American Historians (OAH) issued the flagship document of the movement to “internationalize” American history, “The La Pietra Report.” Bender authored that report, and it prefigures all the themes he develops in his later writings. The report takes its name from the Italian villa where the meetings took place, from 1997 to 2000. The La Pietra Report makes much of the fact that those meetings were held outside the United States, and that nearly a third of the scholars working to forge a new U.S. History curriculum were non-Americans. One such scholar, in fact, was Cuban. Francesca Lopez Civeira, of the University of Havana, participated in absentia, sending a paper on American power as “an object of fear” in Cuban historiography. That fit squarely into a central theme of the La Pietra Report, which urges that American students be exposed to evidence of the “controversial power and presence” of the United States beyond our borders, to the point where “one’s native land seems foreign.” In common with Bender’s later work, an interim report on the 1998 La Pietra conference warns that a newly internationalized American history could inadvertently create a new “…American global city on a hill, the new model for a global culture and economy. There is a danger of a triumphalism that this history could fall into, thus becoming the ideological justification for the latest phase of capitalism.” Again, the La Pietra scholars try to prevent an internationalized history from justifying America’s global economic and military reach by focusing on how America’s alleged victims and enemies feel about the use of our power. A conclave of historians with a left-wing foreign policy agenda, a third of them from foreign countries, seems an odd inspiration for the ostensibly non-partisan College Board’s redesign of the AP U.S. History Exam. Yet that is exactly what the La Pietra conference and its report became. In 2002, two years after the appearance of the La Pietra Report, Rethinking American History in a Global Age, a collection of representative papers from the La Pietra conference was published, with Bender as its editor. At the same moment, the Organization of American Historians, which had sponsored the La Pietra Report, moved to strengthen its collaborative relationship with the College Board’s AP U.S. History program. This led to the formation in 2003 of a Joint OAH/AP Advisory Board on Teaching the U.S. History Survey Course. This Advisory Board focused its efforts on fulfilling the goals of the La Pietra Report. So by forging an alliance with the College Board, Bender and his allies discovered a way to transform the teaching of U.S. history. Ted Dickson, who served as Co-Chair of the AP U.S. History Curriculum Development and Assessment Committee (the body that wrote the new AP U.S. History Framework), was an original member of the joint panel seeking to advance the goals of the La Pietra Report. In June of 2004, just as the Joint OAH/AP Advisory Board was searching for ways to reshape the teaching of U.S. history along “transnational” lines, Thomas Bender was invited to address hundreds of readers gathered to grade the essay portion of that year’s AP U.S. History Exam. Bender’s talk, still available at the AP Central website, reflects his political agenda. Speaking in the wake of the American invasion of Iraq, Bender argues that historians who offer narratives of American exceptionalism “bear some responsibility” for reinforcing “a unilateralist understanding of the United States in the world.” That attitude, says Bender, must be fought. Offering an alternative, transnational history designed to combat American “unilateralism,” Bender says that Columbus and his successors didn’t discover America so much as they discovered “the ocean world,” a new global community united by the oceans. The oceans, in turn, made possible the slave trade and the birth of modern capitalism, which improved the lives of European, but brought exploitation and tragic injustice to the rest of the world. Bender concludes that early American history is only partially about “utopian dreams of opportunity or escape”. The beginnings of the American story, says Bender, are also deeply rooted in the birth of capitalism, and the “capture, constraint, and exploitation” this implies. In other words, Bender wants early American history to be less about the Pilgrims, Plymouth Colony, and John Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” speech, and more about the role of the plantation economy and the slave trade in the rise of an intrinsically exploitative international capitalism. If the College Board didn’t fully understand the political agenda behind Bender’s La Pietra Report before his talk to the AP Exam readers, they had to understand it after. Yet instead of distancing themselves from this highly politicized and left-leaning approach to American history, the College Board redoubled its efforts on Bender’s behalf. The OAH-AP Joint Advisory Board decided to publish a collection of essays that would serve as a how-to manual for adopting the recommendations of Bender’s La Pietra Report. So, for example, a scholarly essay on American “cultural imperialism” would be paired with a piece by a high school teacher explaining how the topic of American cultural imperialism could be adapted to the AP U.S. History course. Ted Dickson, future co-chair of the committee that actually wrote the new Framework, was chosen to co-edit this book, which was published in 2008 as America on the World Stage: A Global Approach to U.S. History. Thomas Bender wrote an introduction to the book explaining the philosophy behind the La Pietra Report. A bit of the material in America on the World Stage—an essay on international responses to the Declaration of Independence, for example—could backfire on Bender by reinforcing an American exceptionalist narrative. Most of the essays in America on the World Stage, however, read like deconstructions of the American story, or catalogues of (alleged) American shame. Consider the treatment of immigration, which was written by Florida State University historian, Suzanne Sinke, who co-chaired (with Ted Dickson) the committee that wrote the new AP U.S. History Framework. Sinke tells the tale of an early 20th Century ethnically Dutch woman who immigrated to America, merely to leave and go elsewhere. Traditional historians would not treat this woman as an American “immigrant” at all. And that’s the point. Sinke emphasizes that her goal in telling the story of a woman who merely passed through America without deciding to stay and become a citizen is to teach us “to think beyond national histories and the terms that are caught up in them.” Ted Dickson’s companion piece on how to teach Sinke’s essay (co-authored with Louisa Bond Moffitt), suggests asking students why the term “migration” might be preferable to “immigration.” The answer is that “immigration” implies a specific and permanent national destination, whereas “migration” is simply about the movement of people across borders, without any reference to adopting a national identity. The political subtext is clear: national interest and national identity take second place to the interests of individual “migrants,” whose loyalties are ultimately “transnational.” So just before they became co-chairs of the committee that redesigned the AP U.S. History Framework, Suzanne Sinke and Ted Dickson worked closely together on a project whose goal was to reshape the U.S. History Survey Course along the lines recommended by Thomas Bender and the La Pietra Report. Lawrence Charap, the College Board’s AP Curriculum and Content Development Director, is in overall charge of the AP U.S. History redesign process. Presumably, Sinke and Dickson answer to him. So it is of interest that Charap wrote the companion piece in America on the World Stage to the scholarly article on American cultural imperialism. This scholarly treatment of American cultural imperialism, penned by left-leaning University of Michigan historian Penny Von Eschen, is relentlessly critical of America’s economic and military presence in the world. Eschen, for example, touts the Marxist tract, How to Read Donald Duck, by Ariel Dorfman and Armand Mattelhart, as the classic treatment of American cultural imperialism. How to Read Donald Duck explores the subtle and sinister ways in which Disney cartoons advocate “adherence to the U.S. economic system and capitalist values and work ethic,” as if this was a very bad thing. Charap’s essay highlights America’s commercial advertisements and anti-Soviet propaganda efforts in the Middle East during the Cold War. Charap seeks out off-putting examples of American propaganda and then suggests that students to put themselves in the places of people in the Soviet block or developing world as they respond to the American presence. This, indeed, is teaching students to see their country through the eyes of its alleged “victims” and enemies. So the three people most immediately responsible for the writing of the new AP U.S. History Framework were intimately involved in the College Board’s effort to transform the teaching of American history along the lines of Bender’s La Pietra Report. What’s more, the AP U.S. History redesign process began in August of 2006, just about the time America on the World Stage was taking shape. Dickson, a co-editor of that book, was on the original redesign committee as well as the later one that actually wrote the new AP U.S. History Framework. Dickson himself notes that his work with the OAH (which largely focused on advancing the goals of the La Pietra Report) was a key factor in the College Board’s decision to appoint him to the AP U.S. History Redesign Commission. How can American conservatives, moderates, and even traditional liberals trust an AP U.S. History redesign effort led by figures who were so deeply enmeshed in a leftist attempt to reshape the American history curriculum? A detailed analysis of the new AP U.S. History Framework is for another time. Suffice it to say that in its downplaying of America’s traditional national story and emphasis instead on material causation and exploitation within the context of a transnational Atlantic World, the new AP U.S. History Framework is a huge step in the direction of precisely the sort of de-nationalized American history advocated by Thomas Bender and the La Pietra Report. It is also important to emphasize that the concept of American exceptionalism, which is systematically excised from, and contradicted by, the redesigned Framework, is an integral part of several state curriculum guides, including the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). That raises serious legal questions about the compatibility of the redesigned Framework with state standards. This is not to say that Bender, the La Pietra Report, and the attack on American exceptionalism are the only important ideological influences on the redesigned AP U.S. History Framework. Several other important streams of political and intellectual influence have shaped the new Framework, and I will be detailing these in future reports. It is true, of course, that as on much else, Americans are divided about how best to teach and understand U.S. history. This is precisely why the new, lengthy, and detailed AP U.S. History Framework is such a bad idea. The brief five-page conceptual guideline the Framework replaced allowed sufficient flexibility for teachers to approach U.S. History from a wide variety of perspectives. Liberals, conservatives, and anyone in-between could teach U.S. history their way, and still see their students do well on the AP Test. The College Board’s new and vastly more detailed guidelines can only be interpreted as an attempt to hijack the teaching of U.S. history on behalf of a leftist political and ideological perspective. The College Board has drastically eroded the freedom of states, school districts, teachers, and parents to choose the history they teach their children. That is why this change must not stand. — Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and can be reached at /*

What's Behind the AP Collebe Board Change


From Sandy Rios in the Morning

Interview with Stan Kurtz W/ ethics and public policies Center

July 20, 2015


In the past few years, there has been quite an uproar in the teaching and private community over the new standards set in place by the AP College Board for the teaching of history education in our public schools. Many are claiming that the boar is trying to re-write history. The infuses seems to be centered mainly on the mistakes of our past while leaving out all mention of anything positive about America. As one professor from the University of Texas stated, “We are now teaching cynicism about American history”. When we look deeper into what is driving our friends of the AP Board, we soon learn that there is a lot more at stake than just re-writing history. What we find is a grand movement and push towards globalization.

This movement towards history revisionism started in the 1920’s. Today the AP Boards main spokesman is a gentleman named Thomas Bender.  Bender held a series of conferences in Italy on the subject of how to better teach history in schools. They wanted to get out of the U.S. in order to get a better view on how to teach American history. In 2000, when a group of 78 historians under the auspices of the Organization of American Historians (OAH) issued the flagship document of the movement to “internationalize” American history, “The La Pietra Report.” The report authored by Bender takes its name from the Italian villa where the meetings took place, from 1997 to 2000. The La Pietra Report makes much of the fact that those meetings were held outside the United States, and that nearly a third of the scholars working to forge a new U.S. History curriculum were non-Americans. One such scholar, in fact, was Cuban. Francesca Lopez Civeira, of the University of Havana, participated in absentia, sending a paper on American power as “an object of fear” in Cuban historiography. That fit squarely into a central theme of the La Pietra Report, which urges that American students be exposed to evidence of the “controversial power and presence” of the United States beyond our borders, to the point where “one’s native land seems foreign.” In common with Bender’s later work, an interim report on the 1998 La Pietra conference warns that a newly internationalized American history could inadvertently create a new “…American global city on a hill, the new model for a global culture and economy. Bender’s approach to the College Board is to advise on how to teach in a more globalized way, and to denationalize American history. Focus on how intimidating it was dealing with American imperialism, and being focused on American superiority and never on how America has defended the world. This is all taught in subtle way.

. Benders academics are simply questioning the importance and legitimacy of centering on a nation, or America as a nation. The thinking is that nations cause wars, and if we do away with nations, we will have no more wars. (Today’s European Union is a form of globalization.) When Bender talks about Columbus discovering America, He doesn’t state that Columbus discovered America, he states that Columbus discovered the Atlantic world.

With the old methods of learning and teaching history, we relied on document like the settling of New England, Mayflower Compact (democratic process), Constitution, diaries of founding fathers and other.  

With the new AP College approach, they are less focus on documentation and more of a focus on resent history work on the international slave trade as well as focusing on race gender and class instead of democracy & principles of constitution. New method is all centered around slavery and what went on around Barbados and the sugar trade, which they want to tie to the evils about capitalism and Imperialist issues. They don’t talk about the differences of the countries. (England was democratic, and Spain was Autocratic and not as concerned w/ the evils of slavery and were very involved in the slavery around Barbados and the Ceridian). What are left out are American exceptionalisms, the colonies and the building of a nation, it is all treated as an international issue and capitalism, so democracy and religion go’s out the window.

With the new AP standards, teachers no longer have any freedom to teach the way they feel best for their class.  If they stray from the AP curriculum, then the student runs the risk of not being prepared for the college exam and missing the opportunity to attend the college of their choice. If the teacher stick to the AP curriculum, then the student loses the opportunity to learn about other arias of history outside of what the AP is stating must be taught. Either way, the student comes out as the loser in the end.  

The AP approach will end up training students to be hostel to American. As long as the American people believe in the constitution, they cannot win.

The College Board's sabotage of American history


Story originated From Michell Malkin website, dated June 30, 2015:

The College Board’s sabotage of American history

American historians and academics released an open letter yesterday in protest of deleterious changes to the advanced placement U.S. history (APUSH) exam. The signatories are bold intellectual bulwarks (defense, protection) against increasing progressive attacks in the classroom on America's unique ideals and institutions.

Moms and dads in Colorado have been mocked and demonized for helping to lead the fight against the anti-American changes to APUSH. But if there's any hope at all in salvaging local control over our kids' curriculum, it lies in the willingness of a broad coalition of educators and parents to join in the front lines for battles exactly like this one.

As the 55 distinguished members of the National Association of Scholars explained this week, the teaching of American history faces "a grave new risk." So-called "reforms" by the College Board, which holds a virtual monopoly on A.P. testing across the country, "abandon a rigorous insistence on content" in favor of downplaying "American citizenship and American world leadership in favor of a more global and transnational perspective."

The top-down APUSH framework eschews vivid, content-rich history lessons on the Constitution for "such abstractions as 'identity,' 'peopling,' 'work, exchange and technology,' and 'human geography' while downplaying essential subjects, such as the sources, meaning and development of America's ideals and political institutions." The scholars, who hail from institutions ranging from Notre Dame and Stanford to the University of Virginia, Baylor, CUNY, Georgetown and Ohio State, decried the aggressive centralization of power over how teachers will be able to teach the story of America.

These so-called APUSH reforms by the College Board, after all, are part and parcel of a radical upheaval in testing, textbooks and educational technology. It is no coincidence that the College Board's president, David Coleman, supervised the Beltway operation that drafted, disseminated and profits from the federal Common Core standards racket.

The social justice warriors of government education have long sought, as the NAS signatories correctly diagnosed it, "to de-center American history and subordinate it to a global and heavily social-scientific perspective." Their mission is not to impart knowledge, but to instigate racial, social and class divisions. Their mission is not to assimilate new generations of students into the American way of life, but to turn them against capitalism, individualism and American exceptionalism in favor of left-wing activism and poisonous identity politics.

The Topics of the AP History College Board


Casper, who also edits the "Textbooks and Teaching" section of the Journal of American History, said the College Board’s new framework reflects a shift that's occurred over the past few decades in American history education. He said that colleges and high schools have been placing more emphasis on "historical thinking skills" and primary source documents and have moved away from memorization.

And there's also been a shift in topics covered by U.S. history classes. Casper said historians and schools are now incorporating the stories of women, African-Americans and immigrants to a greater extent.

In August, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution slamming the College Board for pushing a “consistently negative view of American history” and calling on the company to delay the implementation of its revised framework. Also last year, Dr. Ben Carson warned during a speech at the conservative Center for Security Policy: “I think most people, when they finish that course, they’d be ready to go sign up for Isis.”

College AP Board Revised Framework


With the College Board released of their October 2012 revised framework for the AP history courses,  a backlash, mainly among conservatives , have labeled it unpatriotic and "revisionist."  Critics believe the test is left-leaning and presents a biased view of history. One leader in this fight against the College Board is retired New Jersey high school history teacher Larry Krieger. Krieger has been at the forefront of the fight against the College Board's new framework for over a year.  After Krieger criticizing the framework, the College Board has tried to clarify the instructions for teachers in hopes to calm the critics but Krieger is still not satisfied. In 2014, Krieger, by video, testified before the Colorado state board of education that there is no material mentioning events such as D-Day or key historical characters. “The founders are not discussed, He says, Ben Franklin, not there. James Madison not there”. Larry Krieger is concerned that "the concept of American exceptionalism has been deliberately scrubbed out of this document." He states "People who call themselves liberals haven't really understood what ... American exceptionalism means, and why it is so extremely important that it be taught to our kids," he said. "Because what unites us as a people — we're not united by ethnic differences, religious differences, we're united by our core values." Last year, Dr. Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, warned during a speech at the conservative Center for Security Policy: “I think most people, when they finish that course, they’d be ready to go sign up for Isis.”

College Board President David Colemand and APL program head Trevor Packer have both rejected the criticism stating that the AP courses are not a full curriculum but an outline for teachers to design their own lesson plans. That may sound well and good but what is not elaborated on is that the AP board is cramming the framework with so much information that the student must know in order to pass the AP test to help them get into college, there is no room, or time, to look into any topic outside of the AP program. Colemand may call the course an outline, but the outline is the size of a full curriculum. The previous AP framework was also criticized for this same issue and had to be updated after teachers complained that there was too much required teaching to satisfy the AP board, and it did not allow time to look into any particular subject outside of the written framework. The AP board will tell us that you can teach anything we want to teach in your classroom, just as long as we teach all of the required topics listed in the current framework. But, they have made that impossible.

The teachers are now caught in the middle of a catch 22. They can teach strictly along the guide of the AP framework, preparing the student for one test for the sole purpose of getting into college, or they can step a little outside of the framework, look into other topics, and provide a larger and more rounded understanding of our history, thus leaving the student not fully prepared for the AP exam and hurting the students chances of getting into the college of their choice.  Either way, the student comes out as the looser on this deal.

RSS feed