Ontario schools to get new sex-ed...... conservative parents "over our dead bodies".

[rafterman]

Ontario schools to get new sex-ed...... conservative parents "over our dead bodies".

Ha ha ha.....maybe I embellish a bit, but really give me a break.

"Leave it to us to explain to our kids about gays"

I can imagine that discussion.

Kate Hammer and Karen Howlett

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Published on Tuesday, Apr. 20, 2010 12:32PM EDT

Last updated on Wednesday, Apr. 21, 2010 7:34AM EDT


The days of euphemisms and innuendo in Ontario’s classrooms are numbered, with the province set to roll out a new sex education curriculum next fall built on clear and explicit language that has raised objections from conservative parent groups.

The revision, outlined in 208 pages that were quietly posted on the Ministry of Education’s website in January, will for the first time teach Grade 3 pupils about such topics as sexual identity and orientation, and introduce terms like “anal intercourse” and “vaginal lubrication” to children in Grades 6 and 7. The new curriculum begins in Grade 1 with lessons about the proper names of body parts.

The changes came to light Tuesday, when members of a religious, “family-focused” coalition threatened to pull their children out of school on May 10 unless Premier Dalton McGuinty abandons the changes.

The Premier stood by the curriculum, saying he has confidence in the judgment of school principals and teachers to present the information in a thoughtful and responsible manner. If sex education is not taught in the classroom, he added, students could get information from potentially uninformed sources, such as their friends.

“If we can provide it in a format and in a venue over which we have some control ... why wouldn’t we recognize that we live in an information age and why wouldn’t we try to present this information in a thoughtful and responsible and open way,” Mr. McGuinty said.

Critics said topics such as homosexuality are best left to parents to discuss with their children.

“I think it’s a sort of infringement on parents, because you’re talking about a very personal and sensitive area and dealing with kids so young I believe what it will end up infringing on their thought processes and their desires and ability to make correct choices,” said Reverend Ekron Malcolm, director of the Institute for Canadian Values, who is involved in the coalition.

Some of the most controversial changes are in the Grade 3 curriculum. In a discussion on human development and showing respect for people’s differences, for example, teachers are invited to discuss “invisible differences,” including gender identity and sexual orientation, in an effort to reflect the fact that more and more students have same-sex parents.

Christian right leader Charles McVety, who is also part of the coalition, said it is unconscionable to teach children as young as eight years old gender identity and sexual orientation. He accused the Premier of listening to “special interest groups with an agenda,” including former education minister Kathleen Wynne, who is openly gay.

The curriculum hadn’t been reviewed since 1998, and the changes reflect Ontario’s diverse society and have nothing to do with Ms. Wynne, who is now Transportation Minister, said Michelle Despault, a spokeswoman for Education Minister Lorna Dombrowsky.

“As a government, we have a commitment to provide a curriculum that is both equitable and inclusive,” she said.

A spokesman for Ms. Wynne said the minister will make no comment on the issue.

In another key change, the topic of puberty will be introduced in Grade 4, a year earlier than in the old curriculum, in recognition of the fact that many children reach puberty at younger ages. The description of physical changes is also more explicit in the new version, including the development of breasts and body hair.

All the changes are developmentally appropriate, and sex education doesn’t lead to sex, said Alex McKay, research co-ordinator for the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada.

“If anything, young people who are very well educated about sexuality and sexual health tend to actually delay having sex, because they fully understand everything that’s involved, biologically and psychologically,” he said.

There has always been a sting to the topic of birds and bees in the classroom. Sex education was first seriously considered in Ontario in the 1940s, fuelled in part by the spread of sexually transmitted infections during the Second World War. It wasn’t until 1966 that education officials drafted a Grade 9 course that introduced students to human reproduction.

Almost every change or revision since has drawn some objections.

In 2004, a parents group in Nova Scotia grew incensed after the province offered youth 12 years old and over a brightly coloured, spiral-bound notebook titled Sex? A Healthy Sexuality Resource.

When New Brunswick reviewed its sex education curriculum in 2005, parents called the course too explicit, pointing to references to homosexuality, orgasm and masturbation. The curriculum was adjusted slightly to place more emphasis on abstinence.

The new Ontario curriculum took two years to develop and involved input from principals and teachers in both the Roman Catholic and public school boards as well as parent groups and public health units in the province.

With research from Rick Cash

 

[Cycleguy007]

Whenever the topic of Sex Education in school comes up I immediately default to:

 

[Bear669]

Rotflmao!

Whenever the topic of Sex Education in school comes up I immediately default to:

Thanks CG, it really was one of the greatest bits in the history of Cinema!

 

[SillyGirl]

Shaking my head....

I never understand parents who think being properly informed will make their children more inclined toward making bad decisions.

 

[Cycleguy007]

I never understand parents who think being properly informed will make their children more inclined toward making bad decisions.

I agree with your statement Silly Girl, but I highly doubt that is the case in this instance. Not sure where you're from, (out of province maybe?), but this government has a long history of not doing ANYTHING if it doesn't have a direct positive advantage for itself....

I'm ALL for informative teaching in our schools, and have no issue with unbiased sex education et al... but I suspect an ulterior motive from McSquinty and his cronies in this particular case.

 

[SillyGirl]

I agree with your statement Silly Girl, but I highly doubt that is the case in this instance. Not sure where you're from, (out of province maybe?), but this government has a long history of not doing ANYTHING if it doesn't have a direct positive advantage for itself....

I'm ALL for informative teaching in our schools, and have no issue with unbiased sex education et al... but I suspect an ulterior motive from McSquinty and his cronies in this particular case.

What kind of ulterior motive?

I'm from the States, so perhaps shouldn't have commented on this at all...but I was just thinking in general, I think the more info a kid has, the better.

 

[papasmerf]

What kind of ulterior motive?

I'm from the States, so perhaps shouldn't have commented on this at all...but I was just thinking in general, I think the more info a kid has, the better.

When the information is complete you have a point.

 

[Cycleguy007]

What kind of ulterior motive?

I'm from the States, so perhaps shouldn't have commented on this at all...but I was just thinking in general, I think the more info a kid has, the better.

By all means comment... and it was a good one, and one that I happen to agree with...

As for the ulterior motive? With this government, who knows.... maybe something as simple as pandering to the gay community, or the teachers union... who knows.

 

[big.guy_13]

This is what I think: those 'concerned' individuals are completely full of shit. I would have killed for more sex ed in my younger days.

 

[Dewalt]

Well they aren't teaching the kids to have sex. They are just starting with things like "ovulation and when a sperm impregnates the egg" Shit, I knew how babies were made when I was 4 - my parents explained it with sensitivity and straightforwardness. I never had to have an awkward talk with them growing up about sex. Best thing they ever did. I grew up with a good education about it. Then again, they didn't tell me how much fun it could be to have two girls blow you at the same time - that I had to find out in my 20's.

 

[james t kirk]

When I went to High School, we had Health class combined with Gym class. The Gym teachers were SUPPOSED to teach a certain amount of Health Class, but most of the time, they asked us if we would prefer to take gym instead, so of course we all said YEAH and off we went to kick around a ball while they went and smoked in the Gym teachers office.

I do remember them showing us this film clip of a woman giving birth (we were in Grade 12) and it was this silent clip from the 50's or 60's (this was in the 80's when I was in HS). Anyway, we're watching this film loop in the dark of some woman giving birth (and it was no holes barred) when all of a sudden you hear BONK, some guy in the class passed out at the sight of it all. (I was enthralled by the shaved pussy - which was pretty rare back then). Anyway, this kid fieghnted in class at the sight of a birth. Funny thing was was that he was one of the tough guys in class. Bam, over he went.

 

[basketcase]

Reading today's news, the announcement seemed like a bit of a pathetic joke. In one sentence they say that Catholic schools MUST teach this curriculum since they are on the public purse. In the next they say that concerned parents can 'work' with their schools to address their concerns and not have their children attend those classes.

I don't think that the sex-ed topics that are described in the news are inappropriate either. Grade 3's will learn the proper names for body parts of which each one already sees on a daily basis.

Some Catholics seem upset because the curriculum for Grade 6 students includes masturbation and same sex relationships and not in the 'you'll burn in hell' sense. It might be nice if publicly funded education that discriminates based on religion was expected to teach kids to respect the charter of rights and freedoms wrt. homosexuality and allow kids to develop something other than an unhealthy distorted view about sex. I apologize if I offend anyone with this but I figure on a sex based forum we could at least accept sex as something normal.

 

[marikiss]

From what they described for third graders it's not really "sex" ed it's more basic ground work for it, just pointing out differences between boys and girls and i'm not sure what they were talking about with the homosexual side of things.

I have to say i laughed really hard when reading the quotes, from the christian right, what they are saying the schools are going to do is mostly what they are trying to do themselves.

 

[biog]

so nobody else thinks kids in grade 3 are too young for sex ed?

I do, so it would appear that I am a right wing Christian Conservative.

 

[blackrock13]

Whenever the topic of Sex Education in school comes up I immediately default to:

....... and not a single cue card or tele prompter in sight. Amazing skit.

 

[alexmst]

I do, so it would appear that I am a right wing Christian Conservative.

We didn't get any sex education in my school until we hit puberty around age 12/13 (grade 7). Nothing wrong with waiting till then imho.

Well, we did get to see a educational movie reel about the progress of sperm attempting to travel along, fertilizing the egg, that I think was created in the 1950's, in grade 4. We all though it was hilariously funny as I recall and the teacher kept saying "quit laughing and watch the movie". There was no Q&A afterwards lol.

 

[whollycheeses]

face reality

For Grade 3 students they want to discuss homosexuality and gender identity. As a parent myself I don't see why any other parent would have a problem with this. Ask any gay adult how old they were when they knew they were different and most will say between age 6 and 10. Grade 3 (age 8) seems like the perfect time for this discussion. It's not going to "confuse" any of the heterosexual children, but it will provide comfort and assurance for the kids who need it.

As for discussing masturbation and various sexual acts in Grade 6 (age 12) I say good. Let's face reality; like it or not, kids start experimenting and having sex at that age, and most parents can not or will not teach their kids what they need to know. Learning the facts in a classroom setting is much better than learning via internet porn IMHO.

 

[oldjones]

so nobody else thinks kids in grade 3 are too young for sex ed?

They're too young for it if you can insulate them from it so they never encounter it. But since they're gonna encounter sex everywhere from naughty adverts to the internet, to their friends behind the school, to their friends' older brothers to the weenie wagger on the way to the corner store, to the weird kid or coach in the locker room, I suggest the best approach is not to resist sex ed,. but to demand the best sex ed. Get the right info into the kids before they think to ask those questions that make parents squirm.

And heaven help all kids who never ask their parents, for fear of the squirming; they're the ones likely to be the weird kid. Deliberately keeping your kids ignorant is a perverse and counter-productive parenting strategy.

 

[train]

I'm wondering how all this is going to mesh with our efforts to pander to every possible culture and religious group. I may be wrong but I'n guessing that the most offended will be muslims, then Catholics - Bishops have already questioned content although I would lobby for a special class about staying out of dark corners when the priest is around.

 

[Cycleguy007]

Kids are aware of gender differences at this age...

I have no issue with educating our kids, (and I consider myself "conservative minded") provided it is done without bias and with the utmost of care not to go TOO FAR, TOO SOON.

My kids are enrolled in the Catholic school system and (so far) we have not heard of any negative repercussion of the province's announcement.