California is officially insane!

[Inthemiddle]

I would much rather have them know practical things about social studies than things that make people feel better about themselves.

The Ignorant American Voter - US News and World Report

Unfortunately, Americans are doing little to educate themselves about their leaders and their policies, says bestselling author and George Mason University historian Rick Shenkman in his new book Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter. Shenkman cites some damning facts to make his case that Americans are ill-prepared to guide the world's most powerful democracy. Only 2 of 5 voters can name the three branches of the federal government. And 49 percent of Americans think the president has the authority to suspend the Constitution.

Yup. That's not important stuff. We need to tell them about a cross-dressing stagecoach driver...

You think that this is remarkable or the fault of the school system teaching about gays? You know just as well as I do that most Americans are intentionally ignorant on most things because they're rather pre-choose a position and they go to extraordinary lengths of stupidity to try to maintain and defend it. So your solution is to simply stop teaching children to consider "out-of-the-box" ideas?

 

[Harry Dresden]

With all of the bullying and gay bashing going on in US schools, this law could be a good thing for more than one reason. Perhaps teaching kids about the contributions some gay innovators have made to the world will make some of those kids think twice about beating up that gay kid.

yea because that has stopped non-gay kids from being bullied or beaten up.....are you ******* serious?.........

 

[Inthemiddle]

What if you dont want your children to 'learn tolorance of homosexuals'??

Then you can go rot in Hell like all the parents who didn't want their children to learn next to black children or learn tolerance of black people.

 

[Full-Auto]

Do you discuss the orientation of the others? NO!!! Gay in not a race, but a medical condition.

Is your stupid a medical condition too?

It is a medical condition . Both sexes are on this earth to reproduce either by god or by science or what ever you believe. If your in a same sex relationship that will not happen naturally.. Just like transgender people are trapped in the wrong body is a medical condition. Something in your DNA makes you gay. Since most gays say they would not have chosen to be GAY since they say its not a choice that is how your born then its a medical condition!

I am not trying to offend here. But you hit on my meaning. It isnt a choice.

My point is did this innovation etc come about because they are gay, if not it has no place.

 

[Inthemiddle]

with internet these days what about learning this stuff on your own free time, instead of shoving it down the throats of people who do not want to know about it.

Maybe we should do that with algebra too?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

California schools scrambling to add lessons on LGBT Americans - latimes.com

What is with the right’s bizarre obsession with this non-issue?

Don’t conservatives believe in the state’s ‘right’ to educate its residents as it sees fit?

The conservative tradition of hypocrisy is alive and well.

 

[Katzndogz]

Every year my children, who attend a California public school, hear about the contributions of Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez. What's wrong with also learning about the contributions of, say, Harvey Milk?

If you think that replacing core subjects with these contributions will make your children more competitive in a world market, nothing. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Your children will be competing with highly educated and prepared Asians and Indians. The executives looking for educated and capable employees won't care at all about the contributions of Harvey Millk (which was nothing by the way).

So what you are saying is that we should cut out ALL social studies since they don't help in a "global market"? Guess that goes for the Arts too? What about sports programs? How do they help in a "global market"?

Tell me about the Japanese school curriculum. Do they exclude the arts and social studies? How about in places that are tops in education like Finland? Do they exclude anything that doesn't help them in the "global market"?

The area that I lived in was pretty much ethnically Chinese. A model closely followed by the Japanese. The children go to public school, some go to private school. After school, at 3pm, they go to Chinese school where they receive the education they don't get in public school. After Chinese school, which ends at 6, there is fine arts instruction. I was in art school with plenty of Chinese kids in my class starting at 6 years old. On other nights, the students attended music and/or dance classes. "School" ended at 8 or 9 pm. Then it was time for homework. The entirety of these educational programs is overseen by Chinese Tiger Moms who consider the education of their children their primary occupation whether Mom is a waitress or a surgeon. Sports is an elective, and only if the child shows a propensity. Sports with the changes in sports which minimize winning is not emphasized. Attending public school is a requirement of the law. Those who cannot afford private school, can afford supplemental school. Those that cannot afford supplemental school do it themselves.

When you eliminate the social programs, the sex education programs with grades handed out for how well a child can put a condom on a banana, you would be surpirsed at how much time there is for art, music and sports. After all there was no problem whatsoever in the past about accommodating these subjects.

Like it or not, your children are disadvantaged by the lack of education they are getting. Since you, as a parent, won't demand that the schools do their job of educating, it is incumbent on you to take steps to see to it yourself. If you persist in believing that teaching these asinine social programs has a value in a global marketplace, nothing is going to help you. You may wish they had a value, you may want it, but factually, no one looking for an engineer is going to hire someone because they know about MLK but can't do advanced calculus. Which is something taught in Chinese schools by age 12.

It's really ironic, but private and supplemental schools do not have the same problem with bullying and intimidation that our public schools have. They have NO problem. The students are so challenged, with the expectation of excellence so high, they don't have time to engage in nonsense like a gay/straight alliance to make gays feel good about themselves. They are busy, they have better things to do. The nonsense is confined to Americans and other students who don't pursue quality.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I have no issuses it being discussed in social studies classes. Now tell me how often kindergartners engage in such topics.

This is the real problem with the law. Not that it requires schools to talk about gay people. They should talk about homosexuality in America as part of social studies and history classes. They should talk about it as part of sex ed classes. This law isn't bad for its content, it's bad for it's idiotic reach. There's no reason to apply it all the way down to Kindergarten. No earlier than Jr. High.

 

[Katzndogz]

California schools scrambling to add lessons on LGBT Americans - latimes.com

What is with the right’s bizarre obsession with this non-issue?

Don’t conservatives believe in the state’s ‘right’ to educate its residents as it sees fit?

The conservative tradition of hypocrisy is alive and well.

No no, absolutely a state should have the right to take concrete steps to make sure the students don't have an education. As long as the consquences are accepted as well. After a few decades of substituting core subjects with feel good fluff, California has no room to complain that it ranks next to last in educational ability. In fact, it should be one of the points that California should be proud of. The students, as graded on the smiley face standard are happy.

 

[Katzndogz]

I have no issuses it being discussed in social studies classes. Now tell me how often kindergartners engage in such topics.

This is the real problem with the law. Not that it requires schools to talk about gay people. They should talk about homosexuality in America as part of social studies and history classes. They should talk about it as part of sex ed classes. This law isn't bad for its content, it's bad for it's idiotic reach. There's no reason to apply it all the way down to Kindergarten. No earlier than Jr. High.

It shouldn't be taught AT ALL. It's a waste of time, something that schools now excell.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Kindergarteners in my children's school learn about MLK and Cesar Chavez.

Great , no issues there, Did you tell them how they swing? After all the calif legislation states it should and will be taught to this age group.

What are the advantages?

Their minority status IS discussed. When do we talk about their contributions? Usually during Hispanic American history month or Black History month. Why would you object to talking about the contributions of LGBT Americans if these other minorities are discussed?

I've already mentioned the advantages. It is an advantage, first, to the gay kid that gets to hear about people like him and their contributions to America. It is an advantage in the classroom to open discussions like these where kids can talk through them. Talking about these issues in class does have a positive effect:

• Having a Gay-Straight Alliance in school was related to more positive experiences for LGBT students, including: hearing fewer homophobic remarks, less victimization because of sexual orientation and gender expression, less absenteeism because of safety concerns and a greater sense of belonging to the school community.
• The presence of supportive staff contributed to a range of positive indicators including fewer reports of missing school, fewer reports of feeling unsafe, greater academic achievement, higher educational aspirations and a greater sense of school belonging.
• Students attending schools with an anti-bullying policy that included protections based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression heard fewer homophobic remarks, experienced lower levels of victimization related to their sexual orientation, were more likely to report that staff intervened when hearing homophobic remarks and were more likely to report incidents of harassment and assault to school staff than students at schools with a general policy or no policy.

So, what's the disadvantage?

You're really missing the mark here though. The fact is that homosexual orientation has and is being taught in classes as has always happened. Alexander the Great comes to mind as he was most likely bisexual (as was common in that time/area) The simple fact is that such things can be taught in context but what is being referred to here is not done in that matter. Instead, we take things out of context and teach them simply because of their sexual orientation or race. That is rather asinine. MLK should be taught in schools but not because he was black but because he was such an important figure in history. On that same note, there is zero reason to have a 'black' history month in which to teach about MLK in. That lessens his life and highlights that he is being taught not because of the great things he accomplished but because of his race. There should be no GLBT, black or any other month/time that our schools teach about these people. They should instead be taught all year around without the bullshit overtones.


The same goes for GLBT history. We don't need it and we certainly do not need to be focusing ion that aspect of their lives. Instead, simply teach them as they come in history and the fact that their sexual orientation was different may or may not be part of that instruction. It really would depend on the situation as well.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It shouldn't be taught AT ALL. It's a waste of time, something that schools now excell.

And what do you call Phys Ed? How about music? Biology? Calculus? Latin? All of these things can be considered a "waste of time" based on individual sets of values. I mean, I have to be honest, I don't actually use algebra in the adult world, except for when I try to tutor kids in it so they can do well in school. And even as much as I enjoyed Latin class, the only thing I really got out of it was a long term friendship with the really hot girl I sat next to my senior year. The education wasn't valuable to anything in my adult life. Well, not the education from the teacher, anyway. The girl taught me several things that I now use on a regular basis in life.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I have no issuses it being discussed in social studies classes. Now tell me how often kindergartners engage in such topics.

This is the real problem with the law. Not that it requires schools to talk about gay people. They should talk about homosexuality in America as part of social studies and history classes. They should talk about it as part of sex ed classes. This law isn't bad for its content, it's bad for it's idiotic reach. There's no reason to apply it all the way down to Kindergarten. No earlier than Jr. High.

It shouldn't be taught AT ALL. It's a waste of time, something that schools now excell.

i agree.....i don't ever remember being told the sexual preference of someone i was learning about......it was never" oh and by the way,Issac Newton was a Heterosexual".....like who gives a **** .....i heard Michelangelo was possibly Gay....does that diminish what he did?.....of course not.....and i dont think it would matter if i was told that back when....and i dont think like one poster said here, that maybe this will make bullies consider this before they beat on a gay person.....how stupid was that....

 

[syrenn]

California schools scrambling to add lessons on LGBT Americans - latimes.com


-

And you wonder why this state is broke.

 

[J.E.D]

Uh, no, probably not.

I'm always amazed at people who completely forget what they were like in High School or how teenagers actually think.

And yet:

• Having a Gay-Straight Alliance in school was related to more positive experiences for LGBT students, including: hearing fewer homophobic remarks, less victimization because of sexual orientation and gender expression, less absenteeism because of safety concerns and a greater sense of belonging to the school community.
• The presence of supportive staff contributed to a range of positive indicators including fewer reports of missing school, fewer reports of feeling unsafe, greater academic achievement, higher educational aspirations and a greater sense of school belonging.
• Students attending schools with an anti-bullying policy that included protections based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression heard fewer homophobic remarks, experienced lower levels of victimization related to their sexual orientation, were more likely to report that staff intervened when hearing homophobic remarks and were more likely to report incidents of harassment and assault to school staff than students at schools with a general policy or no policy.

2009 National School Climate Survey

So, having these discussions in class actually reduces the incidents of anti-gay bullying.

What if you dont want your children to 'learn tolorance of homosexuals'??

Thats what it is coming to, if you want a normal child that is prepared for the world you have to homeschool or private school. If you want a liberal that has no control over themselves and exists only to serve whatever will please them most at an instant, send them to public schools.

If you want to teach your kids to be intolerant of other people, then teach them that bigoted crap on your own time. I'm sure they'll turn out to be wonderful adults. Intolerance doesn't belong in public schools.

 

[J.E.D]

When henry ford opened the first assembly line was he gay or straight? history and stupid Californians need to know.

And yet if he were black , it WOULD be discussed during Black History Month. California is already required to include minority contributions in their Social Studies curriculum. This is just ADDING another minority.

Growing up a gay kid, I can tell you that I would have loved to learn about the contributions of LGBT Americans.

with internet these days what about learning this stuff on your own free time, instead of shoving it down the throats of people who do not want to know about it.

Homosexuality is a non-issue for most kids these days. Seems like the people who don't want to know about it are the bigots on this board. Since when do your own views determine what cirriculum is taught in CA public schools?

 

[J.E.D]

With all of the bullying and gay bashing going on in US schools, this law could be a good thing for more than one reason. Perhaps teaching kids about the contributions some gay innovators have made to the world will make some of those kids think twice about beating up that gay kid.

yea because that has stopped non-gay kids from being bullied or beaten up.....are you ******* serious?.........

Yeah, I am serious. If this cirriculum causes one kid with a chip on his shoulder to respect gay people, and think twice about beating one up, then it is worth it. Or we could continue to do things the way the cons on this board seem to be in favor of: put the gay kids in the closet and forget about them, and when they do come out of the closet, ridicule them and tell them they're not worth shit.

 

[Katzndogz]

If it is a non issue, then it doesn't need to be taught in schools does it? If you ask the most tolerant of tolerant kids whether they would like to study algebra or the life of Harvey Milk (complete with lies) they will chose Milk, each and every time. It's easy. Just look rapt and finger your crotch, it's an easy A.

This allows California to be on the cutting edge of education AND second to last in student ability. Yet, be proud of both. These kinds of course are insurance of sinking ability. This is really not without its own reward. California routinely not only fails to teach, but gets to claim that it's a lack of money as an excuse why they don't teach.

 

[Katzndogz]

With all of the bullying and gay bashing going on in US schools, this law could be a good thing for more than one reason. Perhaps teaching kids about the contributions some gay innovators have made to the world will make some of those kids think twice about beating up that gay kid.

yea because that has stopped non-gay kids from being bullied or beaten up.....are you ******* serious?.........

Yeah, I am serious. If this cirriculum causes one kid with a chip on his shoulder to respect gay people, and think twice about beating one up, then it is worth it. Or we could continue to do things the way the cons on this board seem to be in favor of: put the gay kids in the closet and forget about them, and when they do come out of the closet, ridicule them and tell them they're not worth shit.

To summarize:

Better the entire school fail, than one gay kid gets his feelings hurt.

 

[J.E.D]

yea because that has stopped non-gay kids from being bullied or beaten up.....are you ******* serious?.........

Yeah, I am serious. If this cirriculum causes one kid with a chip on his shoulder to respect gay people, and think twice about beating one up, then it is worth it. Or we could continue to do things the way the cons on this board seem to be in favor of: put the gay kids in the closet and forget about them, and when they do come out of the closet, ridicule them and tell them they're not worth shit.

To summarize:

Better the entire school fail, than one gay kid gets his feelings hurt.

To summarize: You can't see beyond your nose.