It is very difficult for high school history teachers to fit in all the context necessary for students to understand the information, not to mention present it in an interesting way, while still hitting all the points they're required to by the College Board or state standards. Even the most comprehensive, most objective, and best-organized curriculum will have to leave some things out that one could argue are essential. Your teacher has to fit all of US history including the colonial period into one year, while also not overwhelming all of you with a flood of barely relevant and connected facts and trying to make it as engaging and interesting as possible, and accommodating the fact that no matter how well they planned or how prepared their students are, a significant portion of the class will inevitably miss what's going on at any given time because they are absent, late, in the bathroom, or not paying attention. (This isn't a criticism of students, who can hardly be expected to pay perfect attention all day every day and never have to go to the bathroom. It's just a reality teachers have to deal with.) This isn't to mention all the horror going on for both teachers and students with the current Covid-19 situation. If you're wondering why a subject that seems very important to you isn't being covered in greater depth, this is actually sort of mission accomplished for the teacher, because it means that now you have your topic for an essay or research paper, or at the very least it means that you're motivated now to read about history on your own.

So the question is, why was the Communist Manifesto left out and not something else? From what I remember, which corresponds with what I found after briefly looking at materials available online, the APUSH curriculum addresses communism almost exclusively in terms of US geopolitical strategy and the Cold War. The Communist Manifesto would not be terribly useful for understanding the Soviet Union's place in American foreign policy after 1945, or even for understanding the Soviets' own strategic and ideological motivations at this point. The Red Scare is dealt with basically in terms of the government's repressive reaction to radicalism and unrest during and immediately after the First World War, rather than as part of a broader history of American left-wing movements, which are barely discussed. The College Board made the decision that Marxist ideology is not a significant enough factor in US history to warrant great attention, even if the Soviet Union as a geopolitical rival is. This isn't surprising for a curriculum which provides a basic overview of US political history, with some vague gestures towards cultural and economic history and the history of social movements when absolutely necessary.

This may not be the right way to approach teaching US history, and there are certainly some hidden political narratives behind the APUSH curriculum, which has been the subject of controversy semi-recently (someone else might be in a better position to comment on this). The AP Euro curriculum does include discussions of Marxism, and some materials for teachers do suggest that students read the Communist Manifesto. The College Board could be criticized for having a narrow view of US history (among other things), but I don't think that they are worried that students aren't capable of learning about Marxism or entertaining Marx's ideas.

Hey there,

Just to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.

If you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!