NationStates

Hakons wrote:we do cover LGBT events in our history and gov classes, but we do so in a sequential, historical matter. We don't single-out LGBT events and dump them together. In fact, that would be a good example of tearing away the context.

Nonsense. When you are studying a specific subject in history it is perfectly fine to collate the key events together. If I were learning about the history of the Stasi in East Germany for example, then going through the entire history of the Germanic people would be a waste of time. Being able to select the relevant information is the sign of a good academic; while an unorganised information dump is the sign of a bad one.

It just sounds like you are trying to make an issue out of nothing.

Cool

Trumptonium1 wrote:

The South Falls wrote:I'm not sure curriculum changes will help.

I'm not sure doing nothing - let alone starting to teach LGBT history - helps America's gigantic lag behind the western world in education.

Fine, love or hate America's healthcare system, the US has perfect outcomes going for it. Some of the highest cancer survival rates on the planet, better surgical survivability than the Nordics .. okay.

The same is absolutely not true of the education system. Outside of tertiary education, US education is wank.

History is irrelevant to the education gap. It has little to no applications.
Language and Math are far more important.

They say history teaches us not to repeat mistakes, but frankly I think it just makes people hate each other and want revenge. We need to live in the present people.

Azdov Mobius wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
I'm not sure doing nothing - let alone starting to teach LGBT history - helps America's gigantic lag behind the western world in education.

Fine, love or hate America's healthcare system, the US has perfect outcomes going for it. Some of the highest cancer survival rates on the planet, better surgical survivability than the Nordics .. okay.

The same is absolutely not true of the education system. Outside of tertiary education, US education is wank.

History is irrelevant to the education gap. It has little to no applications.
Language and Math are far more important.

They say history teaches us not to repeat mistakes, but frankly I think it just makes people hate each other and want revenge. We need to live in the present people.

The present is just subset of history, arbitrarily divided from the rest of history. You cannot meaningfully understand what is happening today, the fifth day of February in the two thousand and nineteenth year of the common era, without understanding yesterday, and last week, and last month, and last year, and so on. This thread is about a law that won't take effect until the start of the 2020 school year. That present, when it comes, will be inextricably linked to the past. To history.

Azdov Mobius wrote:History is irrelevant to the education gap. It has little to no applications.
Language and Math are far more important.

History has plenty of applications. Understanding the origins of things allows insights into the nature of said things. The world appears two-dimensional without a knowledge of history.

I don’t necessarily see what this adds to the curriculum, to be honest.

Engleberg wrote:I don’t necessarily see what this adds to the curriculum, to be honest.

Adding LGBT history adds LGBT history, obviously.

Ifreann wrote:

Engleberg wrote:I don’t necessarily see what this adds to the curriculum, to be honest.

Adding LGBT history adds LGBT history, obviously.

Well that is a given.

What does this history add that would be necessary in the curriculum? As of now, American history is necessary to give an understanding of how the nation came to be what it is now. World history gives an understanding of how the world has changed, and how it will continue to. Both of these give students (who pay attention, of course) better understandings of important areas of life.

I don’t see how adding this would bring anything necessary into the curriculum.

Engleberg wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Adding LGBT history adds LGBT history, obviously.

Well that is a given.

What does this history add that would be necessary in the curriculum? As of now, American history is necessary to give an understanding of how the nation came to be what it is now. World history gives an understanding of how the world has changed, and how it will continue to. Both of these give students (who pay attention, of course) better understandings of important areas of life.

I don’t see how adding this would bring anything necessary into the curriculum.

By your own definitions I would think it would give an understanding of how the nation came to be what it is now.

Engleberg wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Adding LGBT history adds LGBT history, obviously.

Well that is a given.

What does this history add that would be necessary in the curriculum? As of now, American history is necessary to give an understanding of how the nation came to be what it is now. World history gives an understanding of how the world has changed, and how it will continue to. Both of these give students (who pay attention, of course) better understandings of important areas of life.

I don’t see how adding this would bring anything necessary into the curriculum.

Japan's supreme court recently upheld a legal requirement that transgender people be medically sterilised, and Japan is not the only nation with that requirement. Let me say it again for emphasis. A class of people are being sterilised by their governments. Today. Now. Are you going to tell me that this doesn't matter? That there is no value to understanding how this situation came about? That an understanding of the modern world can be complete without understanding this, or even knowing it?

I mean, it wasn’t really needed, and forcing schools to teach it is kind of stupid.

Eh, shouldn’t do much harm, so there isn’t much wrong with it, I guess.

Sicaris wrote:I mean, it wasn’t really needed, and forcing schools to teach it is kind of stupid.

Eh, shouldn’t do much harm, so there isn’t much wrong with it, I guess.

"Shouldn't do much harm"? OK, I'll bite, what harm can it do?

The New California Republic wrote:

Sicaris wrote:I mean, it wasn’t really needed, and forcing schools to teach it is kind of stupid.

Eh, shouldn’t do much harm, so there isn’t much wrong with it, I guess.

"Shouldn't do much harm"? OK, I'll bite, what harm can it do?

Why, giving children teh gay, of course!

Ifreann wrote:

Engleberg wrote:I don’t necessarily see what this adds to the curriculum, to be honest.

Adding LGBT history adds LGBT history, obviously.

Well they are not adding LGBT history, it's more of a look at the cool things gay people did, dont hate them.

I dont object to teaching tolerance, but that is what the law is forcing, not the history of the gay rights movement.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Adding LGBT history adds LGBT history, obviously.

Well they are not adding LGBT history, it's more of a look at the cool things gay people did, dont hate them.

I dont object to teaching tolerance, but that is what the law is forcing, not the history of the gay rights movement.

Are there proposed lesson plans available etc that confirm the claim that the specific content is only dealing with "the cool things gay people did"?

I have no problem with this.

The New California Republic wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Well they are not adding LGBT history, it's more of a look at the cool things gay people did, dont hate them.

I dont object to teaching tolerance, but that is what the law is forcing, not the history of the gay rights movement.

Are there proposed lesson plans available etc that confirm the claim that the specific content is only dealing with "the cool things gay people did"?

...What exactly WERE the cool things that gay people did?

Seriously.

IMO it's a little bit irrelevant, but hey...

you do you, NJ

The New California Republic wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Well they are not adding LGBT history, it's more of a look at the cool things gay people did, dont hate them.

I dont object to teaching tolerance, but that is what the law is forcing, not the history of the gay rights movement.

Are there proposed lesson plans available etc that confirm the claim that the specific content is only dealing with "the cool things gay people did"?

Annoyingly enough, I can't find a single new report that actually provides the bill number

Alvecia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Are there proposed lesson plans available etc that confirm the claim that the specific content is only dealing with "the cool things gay people did"?

Annoyingly enough, I can't find a single new report that actually provides the bill number

Maybe this is all fake news...


Fake News Jersey!

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Are there proposed lesson plans available etc that confirm the claim that the specific content is only dealing with "the cool things gay people did"?

...What exactly WERE the cool things that gay people did?

Seriously.

Harvey Milk did some good stuff, as did Alan Turing.

Looking at all the baizuo comments on news articles about this and Chinese feeds to be frank I'm start to believe America deserves it's own self-designed downfall.

It's like that guy in every group coursework piece who comes up with dumb stuff and pretending he's contributing to progress but really is just digging himself a bigger hole with the knowledge gap becoming ever clearer as the semester goes on.

Clearly falling on international education rankings consistently for 30 years straight isn't enough of a wake-up call.

state enforced homosexuality

Ifreann wrote:

Alvecia wrote:Annoyingly enough, I can't find a single new report that actually provides the bill number

Maybe this is all fake news...


Fake News Jersey!

Legitimately though, I can't find anything about LGBT history in schools on the NJ Agenda for last Thursday, when this bill was supposedly signed.

Maybe someone else can find it, I'm lost
https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/

The New California Republic wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Well they are not adding LGBT history, it's more of a look at the cool things gay people did, dont hate them.

I dont object to teaching tolerance, but that is what the law is forcing, not the history of the gay rights movement.

Are there proposed lesson plans available etc that confirm the claim that the specific content is only dealing with "the cool things gay people did"?

Earlier in the thread I posted an article from NJ.com that has more information on the law, before it was signed. The law does the same thing for the disabled.

Generally speaking lesson plans are not designed by the legislature but whoever does the local curriculums.