Is that how you learned?Thank God. Now children can learn about anal sex directly from their local Catholic priest.
Is that how you learned?Thank God. Now children can learn about anal sex directly from their local Catholic priest.
I'm not going to research your claim whether it is true or not because I don't care and even if true why does it affect teaching children tolerance. What I care about are that children are taught to be tolerant of others and not be ashamed if they have feelings different than others. It is obvious you have formed a judgement. Sorry, please be informed not just opinionated.I have not engaged in this topic, and cannot form any judgements based on ignorance, but is it only me who wonders how a document created under the direction of a convicted pedophile (B Levin), does not deserve some scrutiny?
Smallcock, it astonishes me you weigh into something when it is obvious you don't have the mental capabilities to make a rational assessment of any issue.Another proud day to be Canadian. Good on Ford. The notion of teaching (indoctrinating) first grade kids with gender identity politics trash and sex, is inappropriate.
Teach me how to Dougie, teach me teach me how to Dougie
Don't be fooling yourself. Kids do not care about the sex ed program.Back to 1950's style of sex ed. Rubbing noses with give you the clap. While kids can watch Jules Jordan videos on pornhub.
We teach tolerance and that there are other options out there. I don’t think that’s wrong even if I am ignorant and can’t understand that many genders.31 different gender identities, according to NYC.
What the fuck is that?
Sounds like a whole bunch of made up shit to me..
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/new-york-citys-31-recognized-gender-identities
I disagree. Having kids is not a licence to understand a whole generation of them and what they go though.Only one comment is appropriate for this thread.
If you do not have any kids, then just shut the hell up.
:nod:
That is completely wrong, and that is why Liberals are in deep trouble.I disagree. Having kids is not a licence to understand a whole generation of them and what they go though.
Working with them everyday does. I don’t expect policy makers or psychologists and educators to have kids in order to understand what they need.
Not necessarily true. Look at anti-vaxers, for example, or religious people who refuse to take their kids to the doctor when they’re sick. There are quite a few cases where a government may need to intervene on a child’s behalf because their parents are making decisions that are harmful to that child. Now, does that extend to eduction? Well, that’s up for debate. I certainly don’t want a nanny state that exerts control over all aspects of our lives, but there has to be a happy medium.That is completely wrong, and that is why Liberals are in deep trouble.
A parent with a kid, the parent is the ultimate decider what is best for their kid.
Not someone else.
Thanks for your input Mrs Church Lady! Yes , now the only dirty stuff students will encounter will be the pieces of ceiling falling from above thanks to Fords cancellation of the badly needed $100 million school repair plan.All the garbage is out (same sex couples, teaching deviant behavior like anal, gender identity, all that new junk everyone was against)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-sex-ed-plans-1.4742523
Actually you are likely to be completely wrong. Any competent parent takes information from experts, regardless if they have children themselves.That is completely wrong, and that is why Liberals are in deep trouble.
A parent with a kid, the parent is the ultimate decider what is best for their kid.
Not someone else.
In fact at that age lots of kids are quite uncertain why boys and girls are 'supposed' to be different; they don't see the difference when they play together. And they ask, and even pester their parents about the "whys".I don't think explaining "gender identity" to grade 3's is appropriate.
In fact, the whole concept of "gender identity" is somewhat dubious.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read.A parent with a kid, the parent is the ultimate decider what is best for their kid.
Not someone else.
That is completely wrong, and that is why Liberals are in deep trouble.
A parent with a kid, the parent is the ultimate decider what is best for their kid.
Not someone else.
So it's OK for the school to lay down rules about what 'Thou shalt not do' but an improper waste of time to teach why? Surely that's backwards. The 'whys' are the most important part of any subject.I think that schools teaching kids a code of conduct that applies to their behaviour at the school needs to be separated from schools determining what academic topics should be covered with the limited resources and time there is to teach them.
The precise problem with the sex education curriculum is that it deals with a number of code of conduct issues but wraps them up as if they are academic subjects. As an example, there is a difference between telling children that they may not bully or harass anyone for any reason, including based upon their sex, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identification, versus then telling them that the reason they must not do so is because: a) gender is a fluid concept, b) all sexual behaviour is equally valid, etc. Parents do not agree on all these "whys" that are offered to underpin the code of conduct. However, the "whys" are unnecessary.
The pragmatic solution is to dispense with these debatable explanations. Instead, schools should focus of communicating and enforcing their codes of conduct, and delivering academic teaching on subjects that aren't subject to social science and political debate. Frankly, there's plenty of room for improvement in teaching math, english and science at the elementary and secondary level, and there is more than enough of these subjects to teach in order to occupy all the teaching resources that we can afford.
We should not only LET parents be parents, we should design a school systems that REQUIRES them to do the parenting.
It's not backward, it's pragmatic. In a democracy, it doesn't matter why we agree, it matters THAT we agree. And that matters most of all when we can agree what to do but can't agree on the "why". Of course, your insistence in framing the code of conduct as a "subject" illustrates my point as to what the problem is.So it's OK for the school to lay down rules about what 'Thou shalt not do' but an improper waste of time to teach why? Surely that's backwards. The 'whys' are the most important part of any subject.
Roughly speaking, the abandoned curriculum was about a dozen pages per grade. While your concern for wasted class time is admirable, I hardly think covering the bits within those pages that you might call "debatable explanations" negatively impacts anyone's math skills. At least your 'no debatables' restriction rules out teaching Creation Science(sic) or Christian morality. But if a school teaches only those topics that "…aren't subject to social science and political debate", their grads will be entirely unequipped to deal with real life and the reality of people no matter how well they know their 13x table.
And they still won't know why that line is straight and this one isn't.