LGBT history lessons heading for California classrooms

[Manhands]

I did. And I wasn't arguing with you. I was commenting on the analogy.

I mentioned overcoming oppression specifically. That was a strange way to agree...but okay, cool, high five.

[Xires]

http://kmph-kfre.com/news/local/lgbt...nia-classrooms







This seems like a mistake to me. History should be taught by prominence, not by ethnicity or sexual orientation. I'm worried that these changes - and other changes similar to them - will really just have the effect of separating and classifying people even more, creating more social divisions that will come back to bite us in the end.

Members of the LGBT community should be taught that US history is their history. Not that they have their own special corner where they can sit and hear about some random San Francisco politician. Furthermore, many schools already have classes that people who are interested can take, which specifically look at gender and sexuality.

Thoughts on this?

I saw "California" and didn't bother reading the rest. It's California...'nuff said.

[Reeve]

Congrats, you've never had to craft lesson plans or plan a course but you're an expert and know for sure that time constraints are not a thing 'cause you took some history classes.

I have and do every semester. Time constraints are the biggest worry, and I'm teaching at the college level and JC level, or preparing curriculum for other over tasked adjuncts. Survey courses are very difficult balancing acts since your trying to cover like 50 topics with enough depth.

If schools would just offer topical lens classes (High Schools anyway) it would be fine. Like a "History of Civil Rights," AP course or even a required one, I'd be all for it, but teaching Survey Courses is hard enough as is.

It doesn't matter whether or not I've taught these courses. The fact is that I learned history at a reasonable high school level in my K-12 despite the fact that we wasted a shit ton of time. That wouldn't be possible if the time didn't exist. Therefore, it does exist, regardless of your experience of college history teaching, which isn't relevant to K-12 anyway.

And I don't appreciate you condescending to me on this matter, as if I don't have any experience with my own education.

[Underverse]

I agree with you about what you are saying, but not why you are saying it? Like, I feel this might be a little bit pedantic on your part?
Showing that cultures across history have had different views about sexuality sounds like a valuable thing to include in education! But, apparently we can't, because it's not included in the "G" of LGBT?
This is exactly the thing that should be taught, surely?

It seems like you are actually providing very good reasons why these things should be taught in school, to reinforce the idea that the status quo of current culture isn't actually any kind of natural law, that it has changed and could change again.

I think you're making assumptions about my positions.

To clarify, I think homosexuality should be a part of history lessons. I don't think it should be an exceptional part, but it should be taught as an example of how behaviors differ by cultures, and contrasted with other manifestations of homosexual behavior.

I do not think that 'LGBT history' should be taught. I do not support the promotion of LGBT history as its own discrete item. I think this will lead to greater divisions between LGBT and non-LGBT communities.

It's sort of like giving the gays their own water fountains. At its core, it's a pandering, segregationist policy - maybe not with the same intention, but with a very similar outcome.

[Deleted]

Personally I am surprised (though shouldn't) that this is even an issue. As time goes on History grows thus needs to cover more information. Irrespective of the history pre 1980s there's still a significant amount of history regarding LGBT that's important to teach

[Underverse]

You just hit the nail on the head: much is a subjective word.

Did you just have to find SOMETHING to disagree with? Is that important?

You were talking about degree of impact, and using it as a justification to teach LGBT history. Now you say that your argument is entirely subjective. That's not a very strong argument.

[derpkitteh]

And the fact that you missed the Stonewall Riots and the police harassment that preceded them is a good reason we should be taught that history.

i knew about those, because i literally just watched the 80's documentary on CNN a few nights ago. i just didn't think to mention them.

[Adam Jensen]

We teach the history of civil rights, Jim Crow, etc. in our history classes. Dunno why we wouldn't also teach Stonewall and Obergefell v Hodges.

Yeah, god forbid we teach the next generation the mistakes and accomplishments of this one. "Oh but they're gays!" Yeah . . . and there's a lot of history about how they've fought for their rights to be treated as first class citizens. I'm all for teaching this, so maybe the next generation won't be so damn hateful over something as ridiculous as "who's fucking who."

[TheMediator]

Politics creeping into the class room is nothing new. Intelligent design in science class in Texas? Are you fucking shitting me? I also recall learning about "The Peanut Butter Guy" Washington Carver in school and thinking the only reason we learned about him was his race.

[Prokne]

Have you ever taught a History class?

I think he was saying that a lot of teaching time can be freed up by not repeating the same lessons over and over again and maybe doing better assignments. Really, history classes should be looking at historical documents and artifacts (primary source evidence) and writing papers. This sort of fills in what they miss by not having the time to read secondary sources.

Back on topic. I think a lot of primary schooling in the US is too repetitive. I understand that the detail of what is taught goes up each time it is retaught but in a lot of ways, that simplified lesson was just wrong because it left a lot out. The same kind of thing happens in STEM because it is too confusing to teach the minute details when students don't know basic theories and how they work. With history, I think you could probably teach more detailed information to younger ages with a macro overview at the beginning of each section. It would be much more productive than learning the same thing 3 or more times with a few more details thrown in.

[Reeve]

Politics creeping into the class room is nothing new. Intelligent design in science class in Texas? Are you fucking shitting me? I also recall learning about "The Peanut Butter Guy" Washington Carver in school and thinking the only reason we learned about him was his race.

Pretty sure Intelligent Design never succeeded in making into Texas classrooms.

[Underverse]

I'm really only vaguely aware of Harvey Milk (and because of trailers for the Sean Penn film at that), so I don't know if specifically his inclusion is justified or not, but I think part of the history we teach students is supposed to be to inform them how we got to our present situation, whenever the present might be. Going out and finding random ass LGBTQ people who were responsible for like pulling weeds out of the road in Ancient Rome would be inappropriate, but teaching them stuff that directly leads to the current political environment is not just fine, but desirable. Normally there is a very heavy emphasis on military conflict and external issues when it comes to US history, and I'm not really sure that's the best idea. I think it creates an illusion that domestic problems and turmoil are for other people, not us. On top of that, elementary school history is currently what's the most concentrated trash right now. Pretty much everything they teach is wrong and yet they keep teaching it year after year. I knew it was wrong before I left elementary school even.

I disagree in part. Teaching children the short view is a good way to raise subjective, low-information bigots. Without a comparison to the weed-pullers, you're really only learning how we do it. If you only give children one data point on which to form opinions, the opinions they form will be uninformed.

I would agree that early history classes need to be completely overhauled.

[Duravian]

Here in SF it doesn't even need to be taught. Any teacher here I've ever had has been pretty "down your throat" about LGBT themes. And the amount of young college students that go on to major in the most useless field of all time: LGBT studies, is phenomenal. I go to City College of San Francisco, and it's just full of this social justice mindset. Throw it all together into world/US history. Like OP said, they do not need a special corner to sit in. Nobody does. That's called historical bias.

[Underverse]

Personally I am surprised (though shouldn't) that this is even an issue. As time goes on History grows thus needs to cover more information. Irrespective of the history pre 1980s there's still a significant amount of history regarding LGBT that's important to teach

Like what?

On the small stage, there are plenty of important events. But I'm not sure how important these things actually are.

[Theodarzna]

I think he was saying that a lot of teaching time can be freed up by not repeating the same lessons over and over again and maybe doing better assignments. Really, history classes should be looking at historical documents and artifacts (primary source evidence) and writing papers. This sort of fills in what they miss by not having the time to read secondary sources.

Back on topic. I think a lot of primary schooling in the US is too repetitive. I understand that the detail of what is taught goes up each time it is retaught but in a lot of ways, that simplified lesson was just wrong because it left a lot out. The same kind of thing happens in STEM because it is too confusing to teach the minute details when students don't know basic theories and how they work. With history, I think you could probably teach more detailed information to younger ages with a macro overview at the beginning of each section. It would be much more productive than learning the same thing 3 or more times with a few more details thrown in.

Its IMHO a huge problem, teachers just don't coordinate and then there is the summer break which causes a lot of lost information.

[Underverse]

Yeah, god forbid we teach the next generation the mistakes and accomplishments of this one. "Oh but they're gays!" Yeah . . . and there's a lot of history about how they've fought for their rights to be treated as first class citizens. I'm all for teaching this, so maybe the next generation won't be so damn hateful over something as ridiculous as "who's fucking who."

On the contrary, teaching divisions will lead to more divisions. As in, placing any history involving LGBT individuals into the LGBT category is a great way to foster group generalizations.

What we should be doing is teaching children that individuals do what they want - not that groups act a certain way and are subject to uniform pressures.

[Serpha]

Anyway, posts about sexuality aren't allowed yet this one is still open?

[Narwal]

You will probably see Christians lash out against this, it will be ignored by California.

Soon after, you will see Muslims lash out against this and then California will offer opting out of learning about this subject.

[Underverse]

Anyway, posts about sexuality aren't allowed yet this one is still open?

Well, this is a thread about school teaching policy. Why are you so anxious to have it closed? The discussion here has been civil.

[Reeve]

Anyway, posts about sexuality aren't allowed yet this one is still open?

It's not a post about sexuality. It's a post about California educational guidelines.