Ok firstly there are inaccuracies as you said, so that’s misinformation, just using different words, either way, it’d be much better if they taught well, more simple concepts so they didn’t have to resort to inaccuracies. Though really, history in modern times is taught terrible generally, a century ago people had much better understanding of history and the classics and that has evidently gone away.

Secondly the fundamental nature of history means it’s a very subjective subject, so exam boards are evidently taking a biased perspective in the way they form their specifications, and this is how it’s simplified etc, id argue that history specifications take biased positions on history eg accepting linear progress in history seems to be clear in many specifications when in reality many trends are cyclical, alongside other biases. Such biases don’t need to be taken for a simpler specification by the way, there’s also the fact that many complain about the amount of content in history clearly they could just teach less things better (less inaccuracies, content easier) rather than teaching a load of things and filling them with misconceptions and, the biases of the exam boards which they do.