Interesting read re: Sex ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

And "bs". Ive read it and have my concerns (not very unlike hers). And many of my friends/adults/parents think much the same. Its not necessarily the content.....

---

Like what? The ages things are addressed at? Again, folks only have issue with the ages proposed when they MISINTERPRET what's being taught.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

M :)
just saw your "edit"



You missed that first time through and after "educating yourself"? :0 I guess so, I didn't.
Has she revised her reservations, added caveats or more addendums. Nope. See "despite my earlier misgivings about a,b,c.. Im all for it"? What's that tell you. That for the most part, relax...but there are some things, namely...

news flash M, despite your feelings on it (which are perfectly ok), many, many parents (underscore, stress, emphasize that word) aren't and think differently.
Deal with that. Its their kids to. The fact it is so controversial, such a "hot topic", is getting sooooo much press, should be an indication that this is not universally or perhaps even widely supported.
yeah some are "dead against", the main sticking points I hear from friends/parents are the ages for a couple things and...the disdain for "us"..they are our kids. Period.

and my last edit because I thought of a way to word it. This isn't a change to math, or English.

Obviously this is very controversial, maybe even a wedge issue. Some on your side of the fence, others firmly on the other and many ( my experience friends/family/colleagues) sort of like myself with variances here and there.Just see all the "fights" on FB....

"Personally" I think the debates are good/healthy because change to the curriculum is needed. But given they are "our" kids, my kids (your kids) and "you" have no right to dictate how they are raised, and the nature of some of the material. This is why public consultation, input parental input........

Perhaps parents should have been.....included (funny that given),
and those that are dead against not labeled homophobes (funny that given) 3
and aired last year, so that maybe some of the things could be "revised", changed a little if a lot of the parents....Or going through it now, and possibly.....

or even part of her election platform if she was so sure parents and most of them would be fully onside?

---

Again, you're just constantly reposting much of the same incorrect propaganda - even though you claim it's not necessarily your opinion. It doesn't help anyone, nor the discussion, to keep posting the same incorrect information about the curriculum, or ill-formed opinions based on that incorrect information.

Parents were NOT consulted en-masse, with public discussions for the last THREE times the curriculum was updated. There was absolutely zero reason for it to happen that way this time. I really don't understand why some parents scream this should be part of the process, when it never has been, and never will be.
Academia would simply never, ever move forward in any subject, if that was the case.
If the past sex-ed curriculum updates had been done in the age of mass information, we would have see the same kind of outcry and misleading propaganda - some people simply don't like change.

However, 4000+ chairs and heads of parent associations for 4000+ Ontario schools WERE consulted, and encouraged to review the program with their various boards and to provide their reports on it. That is a LOT of consultation with individuals, the majority of whom are parents.

That's roughly 12,000 individuals who had a chance to provide their feedback. To put that in perspective, many gov't decisions are based on research including just 1500 people. In this respect, we probably got off lucky the Libs reached out to so many. Other important decisions get a much less balanced look.

I have absolutely no issue with people being against the curriculum - if they're honest about why.

What i have an issue with is when folks post an opinion or make a claim that is completely false by claiming the the curriculum is teaching things it is not, to age groups it is not.

Wynn is full of doo doo. I wasn't consulted in the least and I am a parent. Less that 1% of us were. Therefore parents were NOT CONSULTED in any real manner. That said, I have read and re-read the full document and didn't want to comment on it until I had. There was far too much speculation (almost all politically motivated whether for or against). Now that I have read it, I am fine with 99% of it. I call malarkey on and have real issue with only one aspect of the curriculum: the non-scientific and agenda driven teaching of the numerous different genders. There are not numerous genders and the idea that there is absurd and driven by only one community. The rest of the curriculum is probably long over due and I applaud it. This 7 gender nonsense is a pant load of road apples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pondo

This 7 gender nonsense is a pant load of road apples.

---

That gave me a good guffaw. It's probably the only part of the curriculum that also has me scratching my head.

That entire community hasn't even figured itself out yet... as a result i have to wonder just what we'd be able to teach anybody about it, that could really help anyone, in any way - youth or adult.

Stick to the basics of the curriculum of "everyone is unique, as long as they're obeying the laws and not harming others, respect them all and let them be them".

I agree Oddmott. Stick to the basics, not some pseudo-science. Like it or not (and some won't), we don't teach creationism in public schools either.

Let me see if I understand you correctly M.

For parents who are fine (by and large) with it, see the needs but who question the ages some of it is being introduced or Who question a few other things.

They are uneducated, their opinions are worth trash, they don't know what they are talking about, and yours is the only one that matters and gospel? Can you say "closed minded"?

The whole purposes of public/parental input (and there wasn't a lot) is for those reasons and some others. Pondo just brought up another I guess he to is uneducated and his opinions with respect to his children....

You have some nerve telling one boatload of parents (and from all the hoopla its a lot) what to think, and what is right, or age appropriate for their children. Not sure why that concept is so hard for you.

Basically M
Maybe all you need to do is ask yourself this simple question.

Why was there no word of it in their election platform. For such an "educated" man, Im sure you can figure out why. And as such, what does that tell you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

They are uneducated, their opinions are worth trash, they don't know what they are talking about, and yours is the only one that matters and gospel? Can you say "closed minded"?

---

Haven't said that at all. I've said, and i repeat, that my issue is with those who lie about what the curriculum includes, and the ages the content is taught at, to cling to their propaganda.

Every. Single. Person that i've handheld through the curriculum points they're initially concerned about has afterwards said "Oh, well, that's not bad at all. That's not what so-and-so told me it was..."

Last weekend i walked my grandfather-in-law, a past "educator" (i'd say teacher but he claims there's a difference) for 16 years in the 60s and 70s, and an evangelical pastor for over 45 years, through the curriculum point by point. At the end of it his response was "well, that's not as bad as I've been told it is. And i guess this is the world we live in now, we can't pretend same sex relationships or sex diseases don't exist".

What i find funny, is that i've never once heard you complain about the past curriculum - which isn't very different from this one, actually taught a few sensitive topics to kids at YOUNGER ages and *GASP* was developed and introduced with LESS parental input or consultation.

Yet that was the one that affected YOUR kids.

Funny, eh?

M you discounted near most of what that mother said, (once she educated herself, she doesn't know what she is talking about, its not well thought out and more) what I have said, what many Ontarians are saying.

yeah there are those who are lets call it "over reacting". That may be so, they are still parents and still have a voice on a topic like this.

Hence why Ms Wynne didn't mention it during the election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Why was there no word of it in their election platform. For such an "educated" man, Im sure you can figure out why. And as such, what does that tell you?

---

The sex-ed curriculum was last updated in 1998 by the CONSERVATIVES. That update held exactly ZERO MENTION in Harris' election platform. The only education point that made the platform was the elimination of OACs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

M you discounted near most of what that mother said, (once she educated herself and more) what I have said, what many Ontarians are saying.

---

No, i didn't. I read it, realized she'd written from a stance of complete ignorance and then realized that she'd done a complete 180 once she'd familiarized herself with the content on her own, and reviewed it under consultation with teachers.

All that matters from that article is her end impressions.

Quote:

---

**Update March 1, 2015 – After reading through the 225 page curriculum and chatting with some friends who are Ontario teachers, here are some of the points of the actual curriculum.

Grade 1 – Teaching of names of body parts (penis, vagina, etc

– Discussions on consent (not specifically in a sexual context) such as saying no to things that make you uncomfortable, bad touch good touch, etc.

Grade 3 – Discussions on awareness about the different types of relationships. There will not be any encouragement to explore sexuality. This is part of an initiative against bullying and harassment.

Grade 4 – I didn’t catch this part in the document (forgive me, it was a LOT of information), but apparently there will not be talk about sexting in Grade 4. This doesn’t come in until Grade 7.).

Grade 6 – Puberty and development (which they already discuss)
– Masturbation. This will not be a discussion on how to, or promoting it – it will be addressed as something that happens, and is natural, and teachers will have guidelines to answer questions about it.

Grade 7 – Sexting and the dangers of it.
– Oral and Anal sex, the dangers surrounding it and STI’s. Again, this will not be an instructional class on how to pursue having oral and anal.

Overall, the curriculum will also focus on abstinence and promoting the idea that they should be waiting until they are older. There is nothing ‘graphic’ in this new curriculum, despite what multiple conservative publications and petitions would have people believe.

---

Absolutely nothing in her original piece holds any value, except to use it as an example of how/why some parents unfamiliar with the truth, and subject only to the hyperbole were "concerned".

Once she read the whole thing and made her final notes at the end, she shows you exactly that all her concerns were nullified.

Yep and some of her concerns are still in place. and that's really for many (lets exclude those who are simply dead against) the main "reservations" if you will.

Ps M, that very last line was one reason I thought to link that one..
At the end of the day, what parents "feel" is right (or not) for their children, whether they are ignorant as you so eloquently put it or not.

is what matters and I defy you say otherwise to any parent, whether they agree or not, Christian/other or not.

There are reasons this was shot down in 2010, why Ms Wynne pulled this out of the hat, with a majority. Some of them may be off ( right word?)...matters not. Its for parents (as that mom mentioned) and do keep in mind M....Not all parents are irresponsible or incapable of talking to their kids...And for those that are "dead against" even if they have religious beliefs, are capable of teaching their children the importance of acceptance and more. Just because one believes it to be a sin, doesn't mean one cant......

That's what discussion and public consultation should have handled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Yep and some of her concerns are still in place. and that's really for many (lets exclude those who are simply dead against) the main "reservation" if you will

At the end of the day, what parents "feel" is right (or not) for their children

is what matters and I defy you say otherwise to any parent, whether they agree or not.

---

Can you point me to which of the author's concerns are still in place? Somehow i'm missing them. I've compared the end list to her paragraph points and i'm not seeing them. Maybe i'm just glossing over them due to having reread this too many times now.

And i've got no problems with parents having concerns, if they're honest about what those concerns are and being honest about what is actually in the curriculum.

I've had folks tell me flat out they hold religious views and simply don't want this stuff addressed at school. I can respect why they feel that way. But, unfortunately for them, religion doesn't dictate education curriculum.

I've had folks tell me that they just don't think 12 and 13 year olds are aware of anal/oral and don't want it mentioned in sex-ed, even in a way that expresses they're just as dangerous as "normal" sex. And whatever... they can believe what they want. They're dead wrong, but they can believe that.
Just more proof that it falls on someone else other than those parents to make sure kids are adequately informed as to the dangers of the world around them.

If we opened up educational curriculum to mass parental review and approval before implementing changes or improving education - we'd never get anywhere because some group will always have some issue and they'll be happy to complain about it for forever.

The conservatives didn't do it, the liberals aren't doing it and you should never, ever expect differently no matter which parties hold power.