Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Really? Kids have that much free time from learning important crap like English, Math, history, and whatever physical sciences that they can study a course on the history of homosexuality?

When was the last time you saw an American high school curriculum?

They aren't exactly rigorous, and almost always include electives.

First, this isn't an elective. "a California law which compels the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender history into educational textbooks and curricula." If it were, I wouldn't give a crap. But legislatures don't legislate elective laws, because then people might not do what they want.

However, you appear to have missed my point, and that is that there are more important subjects for students to learn than gay history.

There isn't a systemic rejection of gays in textbooks, if a person is historically significant they get talked about, regardless of sexuality. This is in contrast to the "whitewashing" of blacks from textbooks in the early to mid 20th century. If anyone could point out specific instances where important gay figures weren't discussed in textbooks because of their sexuality, this law would be important.

As has already been stated, this isn't about talking about the sexuality of people throughout history. It is about the history of LGBT, how it was viewed and would in all likelihood talk extensively about the Gay Rights movement.

In the same way, people don't talk about 'Black History' by going through a history lesson and then saying at the end "Btw, Shaka was black so that's why he killed those Brits". It would be about the Colonialism and the Civil Rights movement in general not "things black/gay people did".

I don't see why you think it's so unimportant. It's not like it's replacing Maths or Legal Studies.

but by its very nature is it is. Its the incredible thing about math. If you have finite monies and finite time, everything is a zero sum game.
As the California school system is having problems teaching little Johnnie to read and solve for 2+2, they should focus on that FIRST.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Really? Kids have that much free time from learning important crap like English, Math, history, and whatever physical sciences that they can study a course on the history of homosexuality?

When was the last time you saw an American high school curriculum?

They aren't exactly rigorous, and almost always include electives.

First, this isn't an elective. "a California law which compels the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender history into educational textbooks and curricula." If it were, I wouldn't give a crap. But legislatures don't legislate elective laws, because then people might not do what they want.

However, you appear to have missed my point, and that is that there are more important subjects for students to learn than gay history.

There isn't a systemic rejection of gays in textbooks, if a person is historically significant they get talked about, regardless of sexuality. This is in contrast to the "whitewashing" of blacks from textbooks in the early to mid 20th century. If anyone could point out specific instances where important gay figures weren't discussed in textbooks because of their sexuality, this law would be important.

As has already been stated, this isn't about talking about the sexuality of people throughout history. It is about the history of LGBT, how it was viewed and would in all likelihood talk extensively about the Gay Rights movement.

In the same way, people don't talk about 'Black History' by going through a history lesson and then saying at the end "Btw, Shaka was black so that's why he killed those Brits". It would be about the Colonialism and the Civil Rights movement in general not "things black/gay people did".

I don't see why you think it's so unimportant. It's not like it's replacing Maths or Legal Studies.

but by its very nature is it is. Its the incredible thing about math. If you have finite monies and finite time, everything is a zero sum game.
As the California school system is having problems teaching little Johnnie to read and solve for 2+2, they should focus on that FIRST.

I thought it was already established that California was doing okay by US standards?

Not that it really matters. School shouldn't be just about the basics (how much money have you made off algebra?), and as other posters have pointed out, school largely involves social conditioning. I would think that encouraging kids to not be homophobic would be a good thing.

kartofelkopf wrote:Well, consider Black History Month.

That's pretty much my feelings about it. If black/hispanic/asian/native American/redneck history month is okay certainly gay history month wouldn't be out of place either!

So you've switched it from history to behavior modification. Ah the truth comes out. Behavior modification takes a lot more effort and time then just a blurb or two in a history textbook, which is what all this should be, unless you make it a big damn deal.

California students are not doing well, and that in comparison to other average US students. Translation: they might beat some student from Somalia ducking AK fire, but thats about it.

Frazzled wrote:California students are not doing well, and that in comparison to other average US students.

That's a pretty low standard anyway isn't it?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:California students are not doing well, and that in comparison to other average US students.

That's a pretty low standard anyway isn't it?

THATS MY POINT.

biccat wrote:
First, this isn't an elective. "a California law which compels the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender history into educational textbooks and curricula." If it were, I wouldn't give a crap. But legislatures don't legislate elective laws, because then people might not do what they want.

I didn't say that it was an elective. I was merely making a point about about the relative significance of legislating a mandatory change to an existing curriculum in light of the fact that most high school curricula are a long way from being overloaded with information to be covered. I made this point because you seemed to be implying that American high schools students are overburdened by their present, average level of required work.

biccat wrote:
However, you appear to have missed my point, and that is that there are more important subjects for students to learn than gay history.

Sure, and considering the context of this particular change to California law, I imagine most of them are covered.

biccat wrote:
There isn't a systemic rejection of gays in textbooks, if a person is historically significant they get talked about, regardless of sexuality. This is in contrast to the "whitewashing" of blacks from textbooks in the early to mid 20th century. If anyone could point out specific instances where important gay figures weren't discussed in textbooks because of their sexuality, this law would be important.

As it is, it's simply a push to incorporate more "progressive" elements into schools, not an educational concern.

Many people would likely consider that an educational concern. Remember, the difference between relaying information to someone and trying to influence their personal beliefs is far from cut and dry.

biccat wrote:
And "worthless" isn't the negation of "valuable" either.

You're picking nits where there are no nits to pick.

It is, however, an antonym of invaluable, which was my point.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Not that it really matters. School shouldn't be just about the basics (how much money have you made off algebra?)

A lot, actually. Math is a vitally important skill.

Want to know how much I've made off of uh...(remembering HS courses) English literature? Nothing.

Oddly enough, English Literature was required (4 years of English courses required), while Algebra was an elective (only 2 years of math required).

Emperors Faithful wrote:I would think that encouraging kids to not be homophobic would be a good thing.

Is it better than personal finance? Better than Asian History (there are a lot more Asians than there are gays)?

This program requires schools to teach history slanted towards a preferred political group. It will necessarily take away from other curricula at their expense. The legislature should not be engaging in this behavior.

Frazzled wrote:So you've switched it from history to behavior modification. Ah the truth comes out. Behavior modification takes a lot more effort and time then just a blurb or two in a history textbook, which is what all this should be, unless you make it a big damn deal.

All education is fundamentally about behavior modification. Even teaching the hard sciences is about influencing the way people think and behave when they consider the relevant subjects, and often just reason and logic in general.

biccat wrote:Is it better than personal finance?

Better? Why not have both?

I don't think encouraging children to not be homophobic and teaching children personal finance are somehow mutually exclusive. Then again, I don't think the former requires a class. It's a behavior thing, generally speaking high schools don't have classes for behavior to begin with, instead having classes for academic knowledge. Behaviors are taught based off of the attitudes and actions of the teachers and other staff as they go about their duties.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:Is it better than personal finance?

Better? Why not have both?

I don't think encouraging children to not be homophobic and teaching children personal finance are somehow mutually exclusive. Then again, I don't think the former requires a class. It's a behavior thing, generally speaking high schools don't have classes for behavior to begin with, instead having classes for academic knowledge. Behaviors are taught based off of the attitudes and actions of the teachers and other staff as they go about their duties.

See here's the problem right there. There are limited monies for education. There are limited amounts of time to teach. Its not a teach both option. Something has to give and right now we suck vs. the rest of the world in the basics (a note to an earlier poster - I'd be heavily down with a highly modified German system but thats another topic).

Now if this were included in history appropriately then I'd not have a problem with it. I'm sure there's a chapter on the 60s. It can be added as part of the central locus of the fight for expanding rights. A couple of paragraphs should do it.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:Is it better than personal finance?

Better? Why not have both?

Because you can't have it all. As Frazzled said, there is a finite amount of time available during the school year. You cannot teach everything. Any new required courses will edge out some other school program. If we made a list of important high school subjects that kids should learn, I highly doubt that "gay history" would be high up on the list.

edit: or "black history" or "single white female history" or "American persecution of white Europeans".

Frazzled wrote:See here's the problem right there. There are limited monies for education. There are limited amounts of time to teach. Its not a teach both option. Something has to give and right now we suck vs. the rest of the world in the basics (a note to an earlier poster - I'd be heavily down with a highly modified German system but thats another topic).

Now if this were included in history appropriately then I'd not have a problem with it. I'm sure there's a chapter on the 60s. It can be added as part of the central locus of the fight for expanding rights. A couple of paragraphs should do it.

I'm not suggesting the ideas in the OP's article are good, I'm merely saying that an institution being against homophobia and teaching tolerance in general DOESN'T conflict with the class you suggested. For me, it's not a matter of one class or the other, but rather, tolerance needs to be taught in all classes instead of merely in one specific class.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:See here's the problem right there. There are limited monies for education. There are limited amounts of time to teach. Its not a teach both option. Something has to give and right now we suck vs. the rest of the world in the basics (a note to an earlier poster - I'd be heavily down with a highly modified German system but thats another topic).

Now if this were included in history appropriately then I'd not have a problem with it. I'm sure there's a chapter on the 60s. It can be added as part of the central locus of the fight for expanding rights. A couple of paragraphs should do it.

I'm not suggesting the ideas in the OP's article are good, I'm merely saying that an institution being against homophobia and teaching tolerance in general DOESN'T conflict with the class you suggested. For me, it's not a matter of one class or the other, but rather, tolerance needs to be taught in all classes instead of merely in one specific class.

You're still spreading the same amount of time. Some other topic will now fall away. While you're worrying about tolerance, little Chang is learning how to make phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range.

MISTER PRESIDENT WE CANNOT ALLOW A PHASED PLASMA RIFLE GAP!

Frazzled wrote:You're still spreading the same amount of time. Some other topic will now fall away.

... so you suggest we remove the entire code of conduct from all public schools?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You're still spreading the same amount of time. Some other topic will now fall away.

... so you suggest we remove the entire code of conduct from all public schools?

You just changed the topic from teaching "gay history" to indoctrination to the student handbook. Which is it?

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You're still spreading the same amount of time. Some other topic will now fall away.

... so you suggest we remove the entire code of conduct from all public schools?

You just changed the topic from teaching "gay history" to indoctrination to the student handbook. Which is it?

...

Melissia wrote:I'm not suggesting the ideas in the OP's article are good, I'm merely saying that an institution being against homophobia and teaching tolerance in general DOESN'T conflict with the class you suggested. For me, it's not a matter of one class or the other, but rather, tolerance needs to be taught in all classes instead of merely in one specific class.

I never changed the subject so much as I never really agreed in the first place?

biccat wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Not that it really matters. School shouldn't be just about the basics (how much money have you made off algebra?)

A lot, actually. Math is a vitally important skill.

You actually made money from X = Y - ?

Want to know how much I've made off of uh...(remembering HS courses) English literature? Nothing.

Oddly enough, English Literature was required (4 years of English courses required), while Algebra was an elective (only 2 years of math required).

Generally, people that pass English Literature are capable of writing legible paragraphs. That's something that shouldn't be under-valued, seeing as we are actually on the internet here. Imagine some of the posters here trying to write a report of any kind with that kind of grammah.

Also, here in Oz both English and Maths was mandatory in schools, even though most courses had English as a required subject.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I would think that encouraging kids to not be homophobic would be a good thing.

Is it better than personal finance? Better than Asian History (there are a lot more Asians than there are gays)?

Is discrimination against Asians really a huge problem where you come from?

I can see it now, Little Timmy running around the playground with Little Sarah's pet doll as she chases him and shouts "You're so Chinese, Timmy!"

This program requires schools to teach history slanted towards a preferred political group. It will necessarily take away from other curricula at their expense. The legislature should not be engaging in this behavior.

Homosexuals are a political group??

Everyone's a political group.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You're still spreading the same amount of time. Some other topic will now fall away.

... so you suggest we remove the entire code of conduct from all public schools?

You just changed the topic from teaching "gay history" to indoctrination to the student handbook. Which is it?

All that Melissia has done so far is say that teaching basic subjects and teaching a subject that is likely to increase tolerance for homosexuals aren't mutually exclusive. Kids aren't going to be failing Maths because another subject mentions LGTB.

You didn't answer. Are you teaching tolerance, gay history, or are you now merely including it in the student manual of conduct (note mayhaps you did, but we did not have a class or anything at all about the manual except were given it and the usual 'if you %&$* up you're out' speech).

Melissia wrote:Everyone's a political group.

Am...am I a political group?

Great, another meaningless history month.

Black history, latino history, women's history, now gay history. When will they realize that the reason US kids do so poorly on history, in general, is because we are considering trivia as history to fulfill some minority's political agenda, rather than actually covering subjects that matter.

You know, when I was in school, we spent more time learning about George Washington Carver and his uses for peanuts than we did on John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison put together. I'm sure peanuts are a miracle food and all, but the Federalist Papers defined the country.

And no one ever told me who invented Spinach-Artichoke dip, which is much better than peanut butter, either.

Frazzled wrote:You didn't answer. Are you teaching tolerance, gay history, or are you now merely including it in the student manual of conduct (note mayhaps you did, but we did not have a class or anything at all about the manual except were given it and the usual 'if you %&$* up you're out' speech).

This doesn't address anyone's post. Anywhere. What post is this question directed at?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:You know, when I was in school, we spent more time learning about George Washington Carver and his uses for peanuts than we did on John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison put together.

I don't know who any of those people are.

Frazzled wrote:You didn't answer. Are you teaching tolerance, gay history, or are you now merely including it in the student manual of conduct (note mayhaps you did, but we did not have a class or anything at all about the manual except were given it and the usual 'if you %&$* up you're out' speech).

So you're saying your school didn't actually care that much about students following its behavioral rules?

I made my position very clear....

"I'm not suggesting the ideas in the OP's article are good"

IE, I don't think a specific class is necessary so much as the entire attitude of the school needs to reflect tolerance. Schools are where kids learn much of their social mores, and it's not just in the classroom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't know who any of those people are.

You wouldn't, he's mostly only important to early US history, having a profound influence upon the attitude of the colonies during their civil war against the UK due to his Federalist Papers, which are still used to interpret the constitution today.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

biccat wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Not that it really matters. School shouldn't be just about the basics (how much money have you made off algebra?)

A lot, actually. Math is a vitally important skill.

You actually made money from X = Y - ?

Yes, actually I do. Every day in fact.

I'm currently doing work with parabolic and elliptical mirrors. Unless you know about math and conic sections, you wouldn't understand these things.

When I finish my degree in Chemistry, I'll be making money off of applied math, too.

Redbeard wrote:Great, another meaningless history month.

Black history, latino history, women's history, now gay history. When will they realize that the reason US kids do so poorly on history, in general, is because we are considering trivia as history to fulfill some minority's political agenda, rather than actually covering subjects that matter.

You know, when I was in school, we spent more time learning about George Washington Carver and his uses for peanuts than we did on John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison put together. I'm sure peanuts are a miracle food and all, but the Federalist Papers defined the country.

I disagree. Speaking as someone who has relatively recent experience with high school, the reason 'US kids do so poorly on history' is because the curriculum is crap. We didn't have black history, latino history, women's history, Republican/Democrat history, or whatever minority/political agenda you want to talk about.

The problem is that, when you get to high school, they stop with the 'different levels'/'focuses' of history that you had in middle school.

To give an example:
In 6th grade, I took what was called 'Classical History'. It was from Hammurabi to the Renaissance, and lasted the whole year.
In 7th grade, I took what was called 'European History'. It covered Europe and Russia starting with the rise and fall of the Roman Empire to the reconciliation of East and West Germany and the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In 8th grade(which was in 2001), I took what was called 'American History'. It covered the discovery and colonization of the New World and ended with the US intervention in Somalia.

That's 3 history courses, each one lasting all year and each one being fairly comprehensive. And no. That wasn't a private school, that was a public school curriculum.

By contrast, in high school I had to take ONE of TWO history classes. World History or Economics, Laws, and Politics.
The second one went in-depth on why the US is the way it is, the first one was basically a joke with a paragraph on what I've seen entire college courses available on.

biccat wrote:Yes, actually I do. Every day in fact.

I'm currently doing work with parabolic and elliptical mirrors. Unless you know about math and conic sections, you wouldn't understand these things.

Melissia wrote:When I finish my degree in Chemistry, I'll be making money off of applied math, too.

Wow, you people mad.

I think I'll stick with my Law course and stay away from numbers if I can help it.

Kanluwen wrote:To give an example:
In 6th grade, I took what was called 'Classical History'. It was from Hammurabi to the Renaissance, and lasted the whole year.
In 7th grade, I took what was called 'European History'. It covered Europe and Russia starting with the rise and fall of the Roman Empire to the reconciliation of East and West Germany and the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In 8th grade(which was in 2001), I took what was called 'American History'. It covered the discovery and colonization of the New World and ended with the US intervention in Somalia.

You covered the entirety of European History in a single year?

We had whole years dedicated to just one of the World Wars. I don't know how you can call that comprehensive.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You didn't answer. Are you teaching tolerance, gay history, or are you now merely including it in the student manual of conduct (note mayhaps you did, but we did not have a class or anything at all about the manual except were given it and the usual 'if you %&$* up you're out' speech).

So you're saying your school didn't actually care that much about students following its behavioral rules?
***No. We did not waste time on the manual. If you violated the manual you were suspended or expelled. We didn't have a class. We didn't have training. You recieved a copy, signed a sheet saying you received a copy, and then it was your ass if you ed up. I'm not getting where you're going here.

I made my position very clear....
***I didn't get that. Please define what exactly you're saying. When would teaching occur and what would occur.