We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
First, it's ironic that the left pushed for (and the right resisted) state supervision and standardization of public school curricula, but now it's the openly progressive teacher in the "Maoism" link who resists the oversight and approval of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction - are you saying that Superintendent has the right to dictate this course curriculum?
And referring to the other article, should we not teach the science of global warming? How about evolution? To cherry pick one of these but reject the other is inconsistent, as they are both incomplete fields of scientific inquiry, and it is a disservice to children to keep them ignorant of these topics. So, who gets to make these decisions? The State? The teacher?
Next, from the Maoism link, "he is contemptuous of teachers who resist admitting that all history instruction is political."
Almost. Political history is political. There is nothing political about facts, but their interpretation may be. Now, I'll grant him that many history courses try to ignore politics when possible, but if it can't be taught objectively, then the answer isn't to just pick "progressive" as the correct point of view and run with it. That is as much a disservice as any other biased perspective would be.
Final point, neither chemistry nor physics is required for high school students here in Virginia (note: I teach both). And with their poor math backgrounds and unrealistic expectations of the world, I have a hard time explaining to students why these courses are important. So long as we continue with compulsory education to age 18, with little separation by ability and little consequence for falling behind in knowledge, that isn't going to change.