Yes. Forgive my EGREGIOUS error that could have brought the world crashing down!I assume you mean the authors of the bill have no desire to do that.
This:So you think that they don't want kids to be taught about things in context? Based on what?
Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of HB0246
If you will note...I’m not a fan of excessive state level bureaucracy when it comes to schools. I’d rather see the state be involved in maintaining proper funding for schools. So when it comes to stage legislation that requires VERY specific requirements for education? Of course I don’t think it will have any concern with context. I think it is more about, as the OP article says: “tolerance.” Of course...I don’t think it is ACTUALLY tolerance. I think it is pandering. Hence the other VERY specific inclusions is “unions.”
There isn’t one true history? What? YES. There is. A quote I use often in my line of work: “you can have your own opinions, you cannot have your own facts.” History is the study of past events. And it does included EVERYONE. This is why revisionist history is so incredibly important and NOT a bad thing. Because history should ALWAYS be revised as more FACTS are introduced.The whole study of history is the study of the things that happened and the context in which they happened. In the case of Turing, I think it's certainly relevant that he was living a life considered so illegal, and yet was still able to make meaningful contributions to mathematics and the war effort in spite of that cruelty.
The OP makes the glib comment that "I didn't realize they had different History." and then mocks by asking if they have different math or geography. The fact is OF COURSE they have a different history. The history of Africans in the Caribbean is different from the history of indigenous people in the Caribbean, which is different from the history of Europeans in the Caribbean. The history of homosexuality in society is far different than the history of heterosexuality.
There is no "one true history". History isn't a list of facts or dates. It's the story of things we now find important and how they existed in the past. If we value democracy, then we should study it's existence in the past, but also study the existence of dictatorship and how one can become the other. If we value human rights, then we should study struggles by people to win rights, as well as the history of people trying to deny them rights. Every historian makes the decision of what isn't important and what is. Either we simply stay stuck in the decisions of people in the past on what is and isn't important, and get on with memorizing ossified facts and dates, or we keep the study of history alive and study the things we now want to know about.
Yes. Homosexuals and African Americans and Bohemians have had difference experiences. Absolutely. But when teaching the topic of American history? We should be talking about those groups within context of American history. So when we talk about the Civil War? Slavery and the experience of African Americans should be a primary driving force in the lesson plan. Slavery was the primary cause of the war.
My issue here is at what point do teachers have to STOP important lessons like what I just listed...to make sure they teach the required state mandated curriculum? So to reiterate. No. I don’t think those writing the bill are ACTUALLY concerned with HOW it is taught. Just THAT it is taught. Which...to me? Would be almost...if not just as...egregious as not teaching it.
Did you catch the requirements on ALL texts they listed? I may or may not be reading that correctly, but it seems like it may limit assigned reading materials.