The primary purpose of school is obviously to teach children basic fundamentals they'll need in life, yes, but at the same time the teachers and administrators are also responsible for protecting the children and ensuring that they have a safe learning environment. Part of that includes taking appropriate measures to counteract bullying as much as possible.

Anyway, back on topic, I personally don't think the order in which information is presented is terribly important, and changing the order isn't likely to have an impact on anything one way or another. Now if the schools are using textbooks with information that is verifiably false, then yeah, that's obviously a big problem. But order is largely irrelevant, at least for the subject of history.

Here, maybe this will make you feel better..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_GNFQk-_...

I call bullshit.
She's 13; her sexual appetites shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. "Whore" and "cock-muncher" sound to me like the epithets of enemies, not comments on her sexual deviancy.

The bigotry is primarily on the side of those forcing the rest of us to accept the mental illness of some as normal and healthy.

Call me all the names you like; I will always be unwilling to call crazy "sane".

Instead of wasting time, money and resources dictating how people will interact with one another *based upon race, sexual appetites, or other irrelevancies*, they should focus on grinding the fundamentals into the children.

Schools *distort* the role the Soviet Union played in WWII... but they also teach about the October revolution. Why schools even mention the Soviet Union in regard to WWII when they can't even teach our kids the date of Pearl Harbor or its significance, I can't guess.

Rearranging the order in which information is presented... teach about Hiroshima and Nagasaki first, and Pearl Harbor last, and those mushy little minds will end up "feeling" (cause God knows they aren't being taught to think) that WWII was our fault and we were the bad guys.

Why is the Gettysburg Address even included? Are any speeches by Jefferson Davis included? Why not put the destruction of Atlanta first?

We know why; to indoctrinate the children in the yankee version of the Confederate War.

When my eldest brother was in school, my parents had to raise hell at his school, in the late 50s or early 60s, because they were teaching that it was the United Nations that won WWII, not the Allies. Now, there *were* attempts during the war to adopt the name United Nations, but it never caught on and was never used seriously during the war. And the U.N. didn't exist until after.

But, the textbook makers were trying to promote the idea, subtly, subconsciously, that the UN defeated Charlie Chaplin and his evil Nazi regime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DueSvcjn8...

While I agree that Common Core is a bad idea, this guy goes on an incessant rant about things that are irrelevant to the issue, and several of his fears are irrational hyperbole. It should be noted that the policy doesn't state that students should not be taught about the Civil War at all, as he claims, but rather only that they should be presented with the Gettysburg Address first and then taught about the Civil War afterwards. While such a policy is certainly puzzling, he's making it sound far worse than it actually is. Students will still learn about the Civil War. They'll just read the Gettysburg Address first.

His comment about the LGBT community was especially ignorant and bigoted. No one is preventing bigoted parents from teaching their bigotry to their children. Rather, school administrators are merely trying to provide a safe learning environment for all their students, including the ones who are LGBT. If bigots like him had their way, tragedies like what happened in Anoka, Minnesota would happen in every city across America. Efforts to prevent such atrocities are completely justified.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...

He also vents unfounded fears about schools potentially not teaching about the holocaust (which is extremely unlikely), yet he seems to be totally unaware that homophobia was a big part of the holocaust.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805006...

As for not teaching what Communism leads to, that's never been a part of any school curriculum, at least as far as I'm aware. Schools teach about the roll the Soviet Union played in World War II, but an in depth discussion of what Communism actually is has never been part of the curriculum in the first place, so it's not possible to remove it, because it was never there to begin with.

Ultimately, he's overreacting to what amounts to nothing more than a rearranging of the order in which information is presented (present the Gettysburg Address first, and then teach about the Civil War afterwards). The schools are not removing any existing curriculum, just switching the order up a bit. Is it kind of stupid and pointless? Yes it is. But it is NOT the apocalyptic removal of curriculum he claims it is, and to present it as such is disingenuous.