No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying he says he rejected it not because there was a topic in it he found objectionable, but because of the way the topic was handled. He says it was advocating reparations. Is that so? I don't know. But if it is so, I agree with that objection and offered an example of how another publisher, Proco…
No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying he says he rejected it not because there was a topic in it he found objectionable, but because of the way the topic was handled. He says it was advocating reparations. Is that so? I don't know. But if it is so, I agree with that objection and offered an example of how another publisher, Procon.org, handled it without advocating for the pro side.
I myself do not find the topic objectionable. It's controversial, and I lean toward the pro side, but he objections on the con side should be considered. I'm an educator and that's my pedagogy for current events.
Further, it's a proposed course. The College Board who writes the new course submits it for review to officials, educators and content experts. It gets reviewed, they get feedback, they revise the course.
No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying he says he rejected it not because there was a topic in it he found objectionable, but because of the way the topic was handled. He says it was advocating reparations. Is that so? I don't know. But if it is so, I agree with that objection and offered an example of how another publisher, Procon.org, handled it without advocating for the pro side.
I myself do not find the topic objectionable. It's controversial, and I lean toward the pro side, but he objections on the con side should be considered. I'm an educator and that's my pedagogy for current events.
Further, it's a proposed course. The College Board who writes the new course submits it for review to officials, educators and content experts. It gets reviewed, they get feedback, they revise the course.