I'm really surprised nobody has taken a shot at this. I am obviously, not an American historian. That said, most of the Americanists in my department really do not like the new AP US history class. Frankly, I think if you are going to be awarded college credit for taking a class, the curriculum that is taught in many college classes should be reflected in the high school class. And based on the information found in this article, http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/08/05/429361628/the-new-new-framework-for-ap-u-s-history, as well as others, the 2014 curriculum that this new update attempts to "fix" is actually what is taught in university coursework. Yes, the United States has done some great stuff in its short (speaking as a historian of the premodern period) history. That said, the nation, its citizens, and its politicians have done some stuff that students should be taught to critique, that's what being in college is about. We (Americans, racism is everywhere, but I'm not going to talk about that right now) live in a world of institutionalized racism, a critical history of our nation is a way of approaching that problem and a first step in alleviating some of its consequences. This isn't the only issue on which that a critical history of the US can have an impact, but the citizens of any nation need to be critical of its past.

For convenience, here is the new framework so that our US experts can review it if they want: https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-us-history-course-and-exam-description.pdf

Not a professional historian here, but a longtime student of history. This is a very interesting topic not just for historians but academia as a whole. And even more interestingly, not too long ago I took a class discussing this very subject: the various interpretations of history and why different interpretations exist. (The class focused mainly on WWII, but nonetheless discussed the variety of opinions in high school curriculum textbooks.) I'll speak more about the context behind this event and how it'll affect history in school and students.

Generally, history is argued. History books are arguments formed by a collection of facts and the conclusions are peer-reviewed or a combination of primary and secondary sources in order to be credible. I haven't read too much on College Board's new revisions (I've read two articles about it on NPR and one commentary by Frederick Hess in the National Review), but I think I know where this is going. The revisions, described by the average media ("most media is liberal," keep that saying in mind), are filled with American exceptionalism. The term "American exceptionalism" is already a fairly loaded description. Logically, political bias doesn't necessarily make certain facts wrong. The historical argument is in the rhetoric and because I don't know the details of the new framework, I can't be certain of how much of it contains "American exceptionalism." But based on the descriptions I read in the articles, the new framework does seem like it favors very much to the conservatives. For example, the terms "slavery" and "racism" are now being removed and are replaced with euphemisms like "involuntary labor." It sounds an awful lot like doublespeak. The people who lived during the existence of slavery called slavery, "slavery." Without a doubt, the institution known as "slavery" is indeed slavery. So it's rather disturbing to see the conservatives being so proud of this new framework and praising it for its objectivity and exclusion of political bias. In truth, they are removing the very details that accurately portray the time period. Why, one might ask? Most likely because they don't like the sound of it. They don't like white Americans being called "racist" or "white supremacists" despite the fact that these are accurate descriptions of a specific group of people. They want to remove the negative connotations, but why do so upon ethical basis. Do they not want children to grow up and understand that owning people as property is unethical? Are they doing it for historical accuracy? Are they even doing it for patriotism? No, it's about an image they want to keep--an ego, one might say--and they're doing it in the name of historical accuracy, so it's not without political bias. A less racial version of American history is often taught in the South because of this very reason. If they insist on using euphemisms, then I would like a convincing explanation as to why terms like "slavery" are historically inaccurate and why the euphemisms aren't and I'm not convinced at all. As I was reading Hess's essay, the only way he legitimizes this new framework is to repeatedly state how legitimate it is which is a rather pathetic way to argue. (It's not even an argument. It's a repetition of a claim.)

This covering up of controversial conflicts in American history reminds me of the Japanese education system covering up WWII atrocities in Japanese textbooks so Japanese children won't grow up thinking too poorly about their country. We know how well that went. Moreover, the concept of having an administration controlling what children ought to learn about is paradoxical. Would anyone sincerely want a bureaucracy controlling what type of knowledge he or she has access to? Yet, perhaps a bureaucracy like this is necessary. (I wish I could argue that it isn't, but I don't have enough evidence to form a strong argument.) In the end, if any student were serious about learning history, or learning anything for that matter, he or she should seek out the knowledge on his or her own accord rather than just following some curriculum formed by bureaucrats. Like "all politics is local," all knowledge is individual.

As for the process in creating this framework, I'm afraid I don't know much about it. Perhaps I'll read more about this when I have time.