![]() My bare-bones summary:Ī) high school teachers are overwhelmed by the relentless pace of revisions to the course & exam one year is just not enough time to adapt to changes of any magnitude teachers feel disrespected by the CB.ī) College faculty with a commitment to the intellectual underpinnings of the course feel strongly about the importance of a long time frame for the class.Ĭ) CB staff are defending the Board's prerogative to initiate changes, regardless of feedback from stake-holders CB cites a range of data to substantiate the decision to change the WH course, but has not provided public access to the statistics they are citing in support of the proposed changes. ![]() The lunch session for high school teachers, with lunch provided by the College Board, was originally on the WHA program, but took on a new valence in light of the changes. organized days before the meeting) session for college faculty members to learn more about APWH and what the changes could mean for their institution's credit policies. There were also two sessions about the proposed changes, one "late-breaking" (i.e. There was general conversation about the proposed changes at last week's WHA meeting-references in Merry Wiesner-Hanks' opening remarks, the keynote by Greg Cushman, in the plenary session honoring William McNeil, and in a well-attended session on "The Manthropocene." The move to change the scope of the field by a powerful but non-expert, ultimately non-academic voice does not appear to sit well with many members of the world history community. I also recognize that the conversation has moved on since then. ![]() I'm very interested to hear from those who were at the Reading about any noteworthy conversations or observations that happened outside of the Open Forum, which seems to have generated more heat than light. I wasn't at the reading, but I saw the video (LOL). I'm going to interpret Eric's invitation to discuss the APWH controversy broadly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |