Strange, I thought.....
So I read the Bill itself carefully.
Is it trying to formalise what is already New Hampshire education policy? Although dated 2025 it starts
Beginning in the school year 2008-2009,
What are their reasons? Those are not stated, at least not in that document. Would the Bill have a covering paper explaining its rationale and development?
Other respondents have already read the Bill as proposing to ban all the crossed-out subjects and topics.
The Bill does
not say those topics
shall be removed - assuming "shall" has the same weight in law in the USA as in the UK.
Instead it proposes a very narrow, minimum curriculum -
but, implies those other topics or subjects are simply not necessary; perhaps at best, taught only by individual schools' choice.
Also, the "unnecessary" topics selection shows some examples suggesting political motives.
Whether schools would still be willing or able to offer any of the "unnecessary" topics and subjects is an open question, especially if the policy becomes so widespread or Federal it starves them of funding and teachers.
Three subjects oddly omitted altogether, even deleted, are History, Geography and Domestic Science. Do American schools not teach these at all? One huge example: without History and Geography it would be very difficult to explain the USA's own development, let alone sensitive areas like the two World Wars and the Holocaust.
[In my day and school, Domestic Science was taught only to the girls, while we boys learnt Woodwork or Metalwork. In hindsight it would have been better to teach D.S. to both sexes.]
Would Personal Finance simply, and logically, become part of the general Arithmetic and Mathematics syllabus? Presumably the whole subject gives a cohesive progression from simple arithmetic and counting money in a child's very first couple of Years at school; to fairly advanced, wide-ranging Mathematics at school-leaving age. That to give the youngsters a better chance of at least modest technical or administrative employment, apprenticeships or further-education.... and to look after their money!
Removing Engineering and IT would seem very peculiar in a nation usually proud of the technical professions, and seeming to want to regain its once-major manufacturing industry. Yes, the youth of today are all conversant with "smart"-phones, social-media and the like; but that is no more IT literacy than watching TV means electronics expertise, or changing the oil in a car makes one an Engineer.
It is not for me to say Yea or Nay formally, I cannot do so both morally and legally anyway; but perhaps the Bill's authors might care for what they wish.
Taking that bill literally, as rule rather than suggestion, would offer a very boring curriculum overall for the unfortunate pupils, and severely cramp their future lives.
It would not do the future of the United States of America any good, either.
