The College Board has recently unveiled an A.P. course in African American Studies. Notably absent, according to a wide number of reviewers, are certain truths that in essence highlight the many facts that shaped and continue to shape the lives of African Americans. At its unveiling at the Smithsonian African-American Museum, the executive of the College Board essentially defended what content was missing. My question: where was the board who effectively signed-off on this new "product"? But of course it is valid, should a board at all sign-off on new products that to some degree change the course of a nonprofit while presumably fulfilling mission?
But again, where is the College Board's board in all this? Why isn't the board chair or some other board member standing beside the exec in "defending" the Board's move? Were I the exec, I would insist on the board's accompaniment. After all, the work of the College Board and every nonprofit is the work of the board - the surrogate owner. And is it not in the end the board who is responsible?
Here's what I believe to be a good description of the challenges facing this new course and the challenges facing the College Board over all. Strikes me that it's time for the College Board board to take some time out to re-examine its Theory of Change, Core Values and logic model. I would pose that the organization's future depends on a series of conversations like this. I would further pose that it's time for boards to reconcile when it is best to leave their public presence up to their exec or actually be a part of it. Certainly owners of any other enterprise would want to be present. From CNN here's a piece of the story.
PS from CNN on 2/16/2023
Sub-notes about the College Board from an article about the College Board's "fight" with DeSantis/Florida. The Sub-notes describe "who" is the College Board - more or less and details a good question that highlights the nature of nonprofits which is that nonprofits are indeed "private" and, not included in the article, represent one of the three legs of a stool that includes government and business. That nonprofits are private imposes on them a right and privilege to ensure that the gaps not filled by government and business be filled. For DeSantis who espouses the concept that government has THE voice in what is taught in schools, nonprofits, like the College Board, become nothing more than a nuisance.
But they both feed into the large role the College Board – which advertises itself as a nonprofit but in some years generates more than $1 billion in revenue and pays top executives seven-figure salaries – plays in American education.
The College Board has frequently been accused of a lack of transparency, but it does explain on its website that representatives from its 6,000-plus member organizations – including colleges, universities, secondary schools and school districts – appoint delegates to serve on its three national assemblies.
The College Board did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
The College Board acts like a business
Jon Boeckenstedt is the vice provost for enrollment management at Oregon State University. He recently wrote for Slate that we should not forget that the College Board, while a nonprofit, acts very much like a business – something he learned when he sat on College Board advisory boards more than a decade ago.
In a phone conversation, he said it is both a feature and flaw of the US educational system that there is no national curriculum.
“The good thing is that states and even local entities are allowed to sort of mold and create the curriculum that is most relevant to their citizens and their population,” Boeckenstedt said.
“On the other hand, it makes it extraordinarily difficult for us as a nation to figure out whether students are learning the things we think they should be learning, and we have no real way to assess or even compare learning for school districts, across different schools and across different populations,” he said.
Monopolistic tendencies
As a result, the College Board has filled the vacuum and, according to Boeckenstedt, “is sort of entrenched in circular business processes that feed off each other and help it generate more of its monopoly status.”
He said states should take some power back from the College Board. For instance, he’d like to see states gather and share the information of their prospective college students with universities rather than allowing the College Board to license that information to schools and generate revenue with it.
Boeckenstedt also argued that teachers are so focused on preparing students for the AP tests that they feel constricted from veering off the curriculum.
John Moscatiello, founder of the AP test prep company Marco Learning, told me a lot of teachers are frustrated by aspects of the AP program, but also respect it for the breadth of input and knowledge that are put into the course outlines.
He said the College Board has responded to criticism, restoring some years of history to its world history classes and adding a math course to address the problem of students not being ready for college-level math.
Who should write the curriculum?
“Does Ron DeSantis get to tell the College Board what the national curriculum should be? That doesn’t seem right,” Moscatiello told me in a phone interview. “But does the College Board, an unelected body and a not-for-profit, get to tell the people of Florida what goes into a course? That’s the contradiction that everyone’s struggling with.”
The great danger he fears is that the entire program falls victim to the culture wars.
He pointed out that governors in states like Illinois, California and New Jersey have declared that they are pro AP African American studies and will expand the course. What’s currently offered nationwide could grow in blue states and be excised from some red states.
“The College Board may find itself in a situation that the AP program is perceived of as a blue state product or set of services, not for everyone – and this is a nightmare.”