tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post5901930155413581629..comments2023-07-30T06:56:42.018-07:00Comments on Parenting is Political: The New K-8 Ontario Sex Ed Curriculum: Too Far or Not Far Enough?StepfordTOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08340282997915000608noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-2336516238316615612015-02-27T20:12:48.356-08:002015-02-27T20:12:48.356-08:00Sex education is very important... With the improv...Sex education is very important... With the improvement with technology we have to care about this.. <br /><a href="http://gasajamukuat.com" rel="nofollow">Gasa</a> | <a href="http://foredipriaperkasa.com" rel="nofollow">Foredi</a><br />Seo Mediahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14398852132713710282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-74128022522874087742014-04-18T01:03:35.657-07:002014-04-18T01:03:35.657-07:00I just wanted to add a viewpoint that you may have...I just wanted to add a viewpoint that you may have missed.<br /><br />Part of the opposition to the new sexual education curriculum in the Catholic board rises from the introduction of incompatible teaching about gender roles as you have mentioned. (As an aside, since you didn't distinguish in your post, the Catholic teaching is that the act is sinful but the tendency is not. Most evangelical churches, such as the ones you probably heard about, don't make that distinction.)<br /><br />The other factor which you might have missed is the introduction of discussion on masturbation and anal intercourse, both of which are considered morally sinful. While discussion about these topics absolutely needs to take place as you pointed out, the proposed timeline (gr 7) is far too early when theology education is taken into account. <br /><br />The Catholic teaching on Theology of the Body (written by Pope John Paul II) is not something so simple that a 12 year old who is still developing their basic theology would be ready absorb. More so for a 8 year old when discussing gender roles (Theology of the Body covers both).<br /><br />I think that if the public board wishes to use the new sexual education curriculum, they are free to do so (although, having learned a bit about Theology of the Body, I don't think it's a good idea). Forcing the Catholic education system to adopt the same curriculum though becomes an issue of teaching Catholic children concepts which may damage their spiritual development. More troubling from a legalistic point of view, I think it may even border on impeding religious freedoms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-39057685080331617542014-04-06T20:30:11.173-07:002014-04-06T20:30:11.173-07:00Thanks for your comment. I agree that dialogue abo...Thanks for your comment. I agree that dialogue about when one is ready to have sex has a place in a sex-ed curriculum, and that such a dialogue does not necessarily have to be normative or moralistic. But in the passages I cite in my post, there is a decided slant in favour of delaying sex, and I don't think a secular curriculum should take a position on that issue. I also object to the use of the word "abstinence" because of its religious-political connotations south of the border and increasingly in Canada as well. I think fruitful discussions about decision-making regarding when to engage in sexual activity can be had without reference to such a culturally freighted term.<br />StepfordTOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08340282997915000608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-64025990994654404862014-04-06T18:42:26.315-07:002014-04-06T18:42:26.315-07:00I wrote out my reply several times, and just delet...I wrote out my reply several times, and just deleted it to start over. Chris (above) said it really well, "I don’t see how encouraging politicians to disregard their constituents’ values can improve the situation, since it is just as likely to thwart progressive values as conservative ones." <br />Sexual education like any other discipline should be free of moral judgments on either side. It should be a dialogue that allows for a diversity of opinions supported by the family who is responsible for raising them. For better or worse, that is the job of the parents. <br />When I teach history at the secondary level, I am not permitted to teach morality. Consider the implications of the following scenario: teaching about European contact in my school board (which happens to have a large Aboriginal population). If I imply that contact was good, I have isolated half of my class. If I say it was bad, I isolate the large portion of my class who are descendents early settlers).<br /><br />On a different note, I honestly don't understand your objection to the discussion of abstinence. There are psychological and physical reasons to delay sexual intercourse, and that's not a statement of morality. It doesn't imply that you are wrong not to wait. Dialogue about when one is ready to have sex is not taking a moral stance. I just absolutely disagree with you on that one. Are you honestly reading those as "shaming" ? That's absurd to me. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-15143703244408618992014-02-28T11:38:43.037-08:002014-02-28T11:38:43.037-08:00This is an interesting post. Truly, with the adven...This is an interesting post. Truly, with the advent of social media, most sex education policies are rendered obsolete. Currently, I think we have less and less control over the content our kids are exposed to over the internet and over their actions as well. At the end of the day, I think a better choice, besides sex education in schools, is to engage with the topic at home. We must open our lines with our children regarding these sensitive topics in order for them to feel honest and comfortable with us. With an open communication, we might be able to guide them better into making informed choices. Let us let the schools handle the scientific and biological aspects of sex ed, but we must focus ourselves on the decision-making aspect of making an informed choice.<br /><a href="http://zalkin.com/what-we-do/personal-injury-cases/overview/" rel="nofollow">Vesta Duvall</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01082130031462496863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-22071868799890698752013-10-04T08:20:00.837-07:002013-10-04T08:20:00.837-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.jhonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15160652105511815823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-23205423866360609362013-08-10T04:27:03.523-07:002013-08-10T04:27:03.523-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09103380501207577991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-13332283773786252152013-06-15T12:02:11.582-07:002013-06-15T12:02:11.582-07:00I agree with a lot of what you say, Andrew, but I ...I agree with a lot of what you say, Andrew, but I don't know how in a democracy you can avoid politicians being beholden to their constituents. We wouldn't want them to get elected and just do whatever they want, in education or any other area, would we? I do agree, though, that they could show more leadership in the sense of not caving in, as the McGuinty Liberals did in 2010, to minority groups trying to insert their religious values into our secular education system.<br /> <br />I also appreciate that the problems on the ground -- the ground in this case being the classroom -- are more complex and intractable than they might seem to me, looking at the issue through a theoretical lens, or even just as a parent who wants her kids to have the benefit of a progressive, non-doctrinaire sex education.<br /> <br />Like Chris, I don't know what the solution is. I think the idea of structuring the non-scientific parts of the sex ed program as debate or inquiry is a good one. But what are the chances of that happening on a regular basis? Does the new Ontario curriculum allow for that to happen? <br /> <br />It seems to me that a lot depends on how a teacher chooses to handle sex ed. This year, for the first time, I feel as though my daughters' teacher is taking it seriously. (On the first day of the unit, she told the class: "Le sexe peut être fantastique!" which was the first positive thing they'd heard said about the subject in a sex ed class.) But I think even she could benefit from a less preachy, more engaging, and more up-to-date curriculum.<br />StepfordTOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08340282997915000608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-89688035790057238242013-06-15T10:39:12.127-07:002013-06-15T10:39:12.127-07:00Chris -- I agree that the emphasis on "refusa...Chris -- I agree that the emphasis on "refusal skills" when it comes to sex and drugs (which the curriculum implicitly equates) is not only too little too late, but in direct contradiction to the not-so-hidden curriculum of obedience and compliance. I also agree that kids probably get turned off sex ed because they pick up on the dishonesty (or hypocrisy?) underlying so many of these programs. A related problem is that in the Ontario program (and in most others, I suspect) the material is presented in a way that is almost guaranteed to bore kids to tears. I don't see why this has to be the case. After all, there's nothing inherently boring about sex. I remember you once saying (in a comment on another post) that your ideal sex ed program would be a mix of science, history, and literature. I don't see why schools couldn't in fact design their sex ed programs that way. Present the factual, scientific stuff, but follow that with a history of sexuality, and an examination of the ways in which sexuality, including adolescent sexuality, is explored through literature, movies, etc. (It surprises a lot of kids to learn how young Romeo and Juliet are supposed to be, for instance.) I think setting up the course this way would avoid the problem of preaching or indoctrinating. The emphasis, ideally, would be on discussion and debate. <br /><br />Of course, true debate is probably not the goal of most sex ed curricula. But one can dream, right? <br />StepfordTOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08340282997915000608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-66422477420875818252013-06-11T20:26:39.889-07:002013-06-11T20:26:39.889-07:00Tracy -- Thanks for your comment. I hadn't rea...Tracy -- Thanks for your comment. I hadn't really thought about video games (probably because my girls don't play them), but you're right, that's another way kids are being "educated" about sex and gender relations. Obviously, there are many good, educational (or simply fun) games out there too, but I think the point is that it's becoming increasingly difficult for parents to control which games kids have access to, just as it's almost impossible to monitor everything they are doing online. I think that rather than trying to police kids, we need to present them with alternatives and, as you say, help them critically wade through the content they have access to, be it online, in games, in advertising, etc. A good sex ed curriculum could help with this process, but I'm not convinced the revised Ontario curriculum, in its current form, is up to the task.<br />StepfordTOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08340282997915000608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-62929689993355274232013-06-11T15:13:12.212-07:002013-06-11T15:13:12.212-07:00Andrew is right that it’s hard to imagine a sex ed...Andrew is right that it’s hard to imagine a sex ed curriculum that could satisfy both progressives and religious conservatives. I prefer the more progressive approaches, but Andrew’s point – that politicians should be leaders, showing the way forward, rather than representing their constituents’ views – triggers some resistance in me. If leadership means “any successful imposition of one’s own policy preferences onto a community, regardless of the community’s own preferences,” then the religious conservative who abolishes sex ed is just as much of a leader as the progressive who imposes a progressive program. In other words, I don’t see how encouraging politicians to disregard their constituents’ values can improve the situation, since it is just as likely to thwart progressive values as conservative ones.<br /><br />I’d be more inclined to define a “leader” as someone who helps create a consensus (or at least a majority) among members of the public, rather than someone who imposes a solution regardless of what the public wants. If Andrew just means to criticize politicians who make no efforts (and take no risks) to do that, then I agree with him.<br /> <br />Both Andrew and I may think that the more progressive approach better “meets the needs” of students, but that’s exactly what the conservatives disagree with us on. Should it just be a winner-take-all battle for a political majority? Maybe it should. But if it is, there will be a lot of places where progressives won’t win. <br /><br />I don’t know what the solution is. As long as people want schools to dictate the “correct” facts and opinions, the system will break down whenever there is no consensus about what’s right and true. I wish people saw schools more as centers of inquiry than as purveyors of truth, but of course that, too, is a value judgment that lacks any consensus.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-43385942673094657472013-06-11T13:37:37.163-07:002013-06-11T13:37:37.163-07:00For me, the sex ed curriculum is a victim of the p...For me, the sex ed curriculum is a victim of the politicization of education. We have culturally shifted from politicians being leaders, showing us the way forward, to followers who represent their constituents to government. As long as politicians feel they are beholding to their constituents, and education is part of the political agenda, it's going to be difficult for Ontario's education system to be progressive in any area, sex ed included. As soon as any area of education moves forward the most conservative elements start to bleat and politicians back off because they feel they no longer have public support. <br /><br />Another wrinkle is that, of course, this is the area of the curriculum where religious views are most commonly expressed. How can there be a curriculum that adequately meets the needs of sexually active 13 year olds and students who are very conservatively religious? How can we address the needs of students who are beginning to explore their gender identity alongside students who have been told for 10+ years that such things are evil and vile? It's impossible.<br /><br />This kind of chill extends beyond the policy/curriculum level and right to the grass roots. Educators are increasingly nervous about teaching these topics in any way because some parents are increasingly uncomfortable. I've had parents of grade 7 students demand that their children be removed from health classes because they didn't want their daughters taught health by a male teacher. I have parents withdraw their children on religious grounds. And so on. <br /><br />The MOE has tried to address the diversity of opinion on this by making the curriculum vague and non-specific. Instead this has left teacher exposed on this controversial and crucial issue and unsure what exactly they have support to do. Teachers who go beyond the curriculum to meet the needs of their students are exposed legally, so they stick to the letter of the curriculum.<br /><br />I can see why it took you a while to write this. It's a mess!!Andrew Campbellhttp://acampbell99.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-48268534091921090202013-06-11T13:35:15.730-07:002013-06-11T13:35:15.730-07:00I love how they want to teach the kids assertivene...I love how they want to teach the kids assertiveness and "refusal skills" -- at the same time that they're obviously trying to tell them what to do and what to think.<br /><br />Sex seems like one area where schools' emphasis on obedience and on compliance with "expectations" is very likely to backfire. Even if they did try to teach kids to think for themselves in this one area (which they aren't), it would be too little, too late.<br /><br />I agree that the schools shouldn't preach at the kids about sex or try to indoctrinate them into a particular set of values, but I think it would be great if schools could go beyond just presenting factual information and help students develop their own thinking about how to act and how to treat other people -- without pushing them toward preconceived "right" answers. I doubt schools are capable of doing that, though.<br /><br />There is a layer of dishonesty under so much sex ed and other "guidance" programs. The elementary program here is designed to scare kids into not drinking, smoking, or doing drugs, for example, and the sex ed program is heavy on abstinence. But are the teachers all teetotalers? Have none of them ever smoked a cigarette, or a joint? Were none of them sexually active as young people? If they were, do they necessarily regret all of it? This implicit dishonesty doesn't seem to bother anyone -- god forbid they should be candid -- but I think the kids know it's there.<br /><br />The lack of candor, the desire to indoctrinate, and the unwillingness to allow kids to think for themselves are all a kind of disrespect that none of us, as adults, would respond well to. Why do we think kids will respond well to them?<br /><br />Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-13646763167985593002013-06-11T13:11:31.466-07:002013-06-11T13:11:31.466-07:00Agreed...how do we even begin to address suicides ...Agreed...how do we even begin to address suicides as a result from slut-shaming and bullying in a rape-culture?bachwordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09667025295433857506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-73512935907437476562013-06-11T13:01:14.635-07:002013-06-11T13:01:14.635-07:00Hi Sylvan! Thanks for commenting. You make a great...Hi Sylvan! Thanks for commenting. You make a great point about the negative repercussions of a sex-negative curriculum, though I'd argue that the 2010 curriculum is mixed -- it's trying to please everyone, I think. I believe it's especially true that it's difficult to address an issue like "slut-shaming" in a constructive manner, when there is an (implicit) element of "sex-shaming" in the curriculum itself. One hopes, though, that some of these issues can be addressed during the second revamp of this curriculum.<br />StepfordTOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08340282997915000608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-74920286152139153332013-06-11T13:00:04.156-07:002013-06-11T13:00:04.156-07:00Fabulous post!
I'd like to comment that chil...Fabulous post! <br /><br />I'd like to comment that children's access to more sexually explicit and violent video games has also changed dramatically in the last decade. My son is in grade 6 (age 12) and he tells me about some of his friends playing/having access to Grand Theft Auto...a rated M (mature) video game for its sexual content and violence. I had the privilege of attending two critical media literacy conferences at the Faculty of Education at Western University in 2010 and 2011. It was there that I saw for the first time & experienced first hand, in Grand Theft Auto, a character pay for a prostitute, have simulated sex in the back seat, pop her off when he was through and take back his money. What kind of message is that sending to adults? More importantly, what is that message saying to children and what is the impact?<br /><br />Our children are exposed to sexual imagery and messages at a very early age through pop culture & role models (actors, sports) music lyrics (Pitbull's Hotel Room, Britney Spears' If You Seek Amy aka FUCK me) and videos, TV, toys (Bratz Dolls - age compression) commercials, movies, video games, not to mention the internet, social media and so forth. <br /><br />We owe it to our children to educate them truthfully about sexuality, unbiasedly, with respect and tolerance, without prejudice, without fear. We are all a product of sex; we wouldn't exist without it. Even the McVetys of the Province. And I wholeheartedly agree with you, sexuality is one of the most basic, natural and vital components of the human experience. It's time for everyone, especially Ontario's sex ed curriculum to embrace this and start working together. Because I think it's time we really dedicated ourselves to helping kids critically wade through the often confusing plethora of sexual content they see on a daily basis and commit to promoting healthy sexual attitudes and practices. <br /><br />Just my two cents worth, thanks again for this much needed dialogue!<br /><br />Tracybachwordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09667025295433857506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7844167015224368882.post-63309441868234306912013-06-11T12:34:15.217-07:002013-06-11T12:34:15.217-07:00You wrote: "nothing is less engaging or easie...You wrote: "nothing is less engaging or easier to dismiss than sermons about the dangers of sex" -- and to that I'd add that this kind of sex-negative curriculum damages its own credibility in the same way that anti-drug sermonizing teaches kids that adults aren't to be trusted about drugs.<br /><br />It's also alienating! Good luck getting kids engaged in discussions about consent, contraception, STIs, and healthy sexual relationships when you've already established that they're being judged for making their own choices about their own sexuality. I can't even imagine how to address something like slut-shaming after teaching kids that having sex is irresponsible and bad.Sylvannoreply@blogger.com