Teaching History in Florida

The History News Network, a history blog that I follow from time to time, has an interesting post on the new legislation passed in Florida state on teaching "objective" history.

Says one part of the bill:
“American history shall be viewed as factual, not constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.”

Actually, this passage seems to be over-quoted in the blogosphere, so at the risk of sounding trite, its oversweepingness and grandiosity got me thinking.

What does the bill mean by this, precisely?

I mean, for starters, aren't all histories "constructed"? And don't most high school history textbooks purport to teach "factual" history? Moreover, just because something is "factual" doesn't mean it isn't constructed. Are they suggesting that a history that doesn't teach the things they outline in the bill--the Revolutionary War, Civil War, etc. is "constructed", whereas a history that covers these topics is not? I'm not sure why it's necessary to point these things out in a bill. Does this mean that history taught in other states and previously in Florida is not viewed as "factual"?

It's as if by calling history "knowable", "teachable", and giving it a definition, the legislation is saying that history is definable and definitive, and in this particular case, touting one interpretation of American history as the authoritative version. Do the people who drafted this bill know anything about history? Or more importantly, about teaching it and about historiography? Are these same people who evidently know little about history the ones who get to determine which version of history is the "factual" one?

I am not saying that the Declaration of Independence, Civil War, etc. shouldn't be taught. Of course they should, as should the other topics this bill highlights--the holocaust, the plight of African Americans, contribution of women, and contribution of Hispanics. However, this bill already is a "constructed" history. Whoever wrote the bill chose to construct a history that doesn't necessarily include Native Americans, for example. I am not downplaying the importance of the topics the bill says should be covered. But what of the Vietnam War, the Palestinian-Israel conflict? In my recollection of k-12 history education, I remember it as being mostly dull, repetitive, inaccurate, monolithic and totally useless in the context of being an informed citizen in the world. From third grade till twelfth grade, 4-5 of those years were spent learning about the Revolutionary War and colonial history. (Yet, despite the repetition, I'm chagrined to say that I barely remember the details of American History. ) 2 weeks total (of those ten years) was spent on the Vietnam War.
And forget about different and alternative narratives of history. I had to wait till college/adulthood to discover those.

I should actually carefully peruse the full text of this legislation (some day when I'm not prepping for a trip with our choir or memorizing music, etc.), before interpreting/judging it, but this is just a stupid bill.