TORONTO — As Ontario finally revealed on Monday an update to a sex-education curriculum that’s stagnated since 1998, parents were told they could pull their children out of some but not all of the lessons.
Robyn Urback: No, the ‘gay-activist’ premier is not trying to corrupt your children
On Monday, the Ontario government released the details of its new sex ed curriculum, catapulting the province’s fretful moralists into the soft velour of their fainting chaises. “MpffffSEXphhhKIDS,” they wail into crimson pillows, with the curriculum ripped in tatters and spewed across the bearskin rug. “[Unintelligible] ANAL IN KINDERGARDEN [unintelligible] WHY, KATHLEEN?”
Organizations have mobilized. The Campaign Life Coalition, which previously identified Kathleen Wynne as a “gay-activist” turned Premier — one who wants to get tweens “thinking about anal intercourse” — has launched a rally at Queen’s Park for Tuesday to protest the new curriculum. The Institute for Canadian Values was ahead of the game, releasing a statement last month abhorring Wynne’s supposed plan to “start teaching grade one children how to give sexual consent.” The REAL Women of Canada also got out early with a release, and they were aghast at a program that “conveys the message that promiscuous sex is expected of children.”
What’s next, Ms. Premier? Hmm? Drinking? Instructions on how to roll marijuana cigarettes?
“It’s actually in the Education Act that a parent has the right to withdraw their child from content they don’t want their child to receive,” Education Minister Liz Sandals said in an interview.
That could be anything from a novel in English class (some people object to Harry Potter books because they glorify witchcraft) to evolution.
The revamped sex-ed curriculum includes lessons about technology and sexuality — such as the dangers of sexting or sending nude photos online — and begins with discussions about healthy relationships and anatomy as early as Grade 1.
For some parents, discussions of anal sex or contraception in Grade 7 might raise eyebrows, but Ms. Sandals said the material relating to sex is only about 10% of the lengthy document. It also includes health lessons about nutrition and why physical activity is important. Those are efforts to combat childhood obesity, just as the sex-ed lessons seek to address sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates that have climbed among teens while the number of unplanned pregnancies has fallen.
That trend shows the old curriculum did a good job teaching about contraception, but may have not done enough to explain there’s more than one way to get an STI. That’s why the new guidelines include more discussion about safe oral and anal sex, the Education Minister said. The new lessons will be introduced starting in September.
Former premier Dalton McGuinty pulled back on similar changes in 2010 in response to a vocal minority opposed to the evidence-based reforms. Demonstrations are planned for the provincial legislature on Tuesday, both for and against the new curricula.
Parents have the right to pull their children from sex-ed classes, but it’s a “real rarity,” said Bob Schreader, vice-president of the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association. That group and the Institute for Catholic Education supported the curriculum throughout its development.
“As a Catholic community, we’re going to ensure our children get that information, but we are going to do it through a Catholic lens,” Mr. Schreader said. He said parents’ concerns can often be allayed by talking to teachers instead of pulling their children from classes.
Kevin Van Paassen for National PostOntario Education Minister Liz Sandals unveils the province's revised Health and Physical Education curriculum at a press conference at Queen's Park in Toronto, Monday, Feb. 23, 2015.
There is no province-wide process to follow if parents want to opt out. Each school board deals with such matters differently, usually under equity policies for religious or conscientious accommodation.
Some schools still send out letters or permission forms before sex ed begins, but not all. Michael Barrett, president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, advises parents to talk to their children’s teachers if they are concerned about the material.
Ms. Sandals also noted that schools are not required to provide alternative assignments or tests if children are pulled from class, so it’s important to understand if material will be covered in other ways or not.
And some aspects of the new health curriculum can’t be avoided — explaining why it’s OK that some families are different, and not teasing other students because they have “two mommies” or two fathers, for instance.
This portion of the curriculum was enshrined in Ontario law under an anti-bullying bill in 2012, as well as under provincial human-rights legislation.
“The human-rights pieces [of curriculum], you’re not going to be able to exempt your [child] from those,” Mr. Barrett said.
Ontario's new sex education curriculum to teach anatomy in Grade 1, contraception in Grade 7
National Post View: New sex-ed curriculum should be sensitive to all sides
Marni Soupcoff: The worst part about Ontario's new sex-ed program has nothing to do with sex
All three parties at Queen’s Park have lauded the update as necessary. Even the Progressive Conservatives, who lambasted the 2010 version, have said the new curriculum was required. However, Conservative MPPs have also said they will listen to constituents as the new lesson plans roll out and raise any issues in the house.
A case that could be considered this year by an Ontario court could test how much right a parent has to know what’s discussed in classrooms.
In 2012, Steve Tourloukis, a Hamilton, Ont. dentist, brought an application against the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board for refusing to give him advance warning when certain topics that contravene his Orthodox Christian faith were to be raised in class. His lawyer said Monday the hope is that case will be heard in court this year.
When the lawsuit was filed, then education minister Laurel Broten defended the school board’s decision, saying it was not possible to predict when a teacher might discuss same-sex marriage or other issues on Mr. Tourloukis’s list.