New Ontario Sex Education Fails

[zip14]

After reviewing the new Ontario Sex Education document Grades 1-8 I am discouraged in several ways.

1. A key contributor to the curriculum is currently up on and plead Guilty to several Child Porn charges including counseling a mother online to sexually assault her own child.

2. It normalizes the partaking of anal sex starting in grade 7

3. Searching a PDF of the document for the word "Grooming" yields no result.

4. Searching a PDF of the document for the word "Pedophile" or Padosadist yields three occasions where the word Pedometer appears.

Many other items in this curriculum are long overdue but it is put forward by the same Education Minister that authored a new law that would see teachers convicted of child porn or sexual assault of a teacher able to reapply for their teaching license after a 5 year time out.

Should children be taught what Grooming is and feels like and what a Pedosadist is and wants?

 

[bey]

i don't really follow education in ontario news so i don't know if point one is true, but if it is i suppose it goes to show that there are sick people in every walk of life, including curriculum writing.
point 2 sounds fine to me - if you are going to teach about vaginal sex why wouldn't you teach about anal sex too? i'm sure by "starting in grade 7" they mean that they teach about different forms of sexual activity when children are in grade 7 (puberty, some starting to become sexually active...) and not teaching that having anal sex in grade 7 is normal. but i think a sex ed curriculum that only taught about m/f vaginal sex would be discouraging. there are lots of ways to be 'intimate', each with risks and rewards and people should know what they are so they know. i remember being in grade 7 and i won't count myself in this because of my abuse history, but most of my friends were starting to fool around in one way or another. i think anal sex, oral sex, same sex relationships etc should be normalized for young people, because it is normal and that might be their thing when they grow up.
does the curriculum talk about sexual abuse, consent and stuff like that? maybe they use a different word for "grooming" and such? i would be shocked if the curriculum, especially in younger grades, wasn't about sexual abuse prevention. i am born in 1978 in ontario and my sex ed and school in elementary was mostly about that. mostly about strangers, but that was back in the 80s. not that it did any good...
anyways, just my thoughts. just read a couple articles on it, and its interesting to hear about how the curriculum is changing here, and why. thanks.

 

[Still]

Zip14,

Only cuz you asked, I'll be very frank:

This is phenomenally f*cked-up on a nuclear scale!

If they are not preaching safety from predators of ALL types, they are wrong!
If I'm getting the tone and theme correctly from your description, this IS GROOMING.

A LOT of sex-ed for kids in North America is grooming through perceived normalization. No one with any care, brains or fortitude is willing to stand up and call it for the complete sick shit that it is.

but that's just me.

 

[bey]

still, what would you say the "grooming through perceived normalization" is? thinking back to my sex ed days in school it was mostly like "don't go in the car with the guy with candy""don't let the babysitter give you a bath' or "don't go into your neighbours basement to see his kittens" kind of things. i can't really see where anything was 'normalized', at least in my old school 1980s sex ed. but i am interested in your perspective. there wasn't a lot about incest or power dynamics or anything, but i was in grade 2 or 3 when i had that class i'm thinking of.
the only thing i see being normalized in this new curriculum is things like same sex relationships, gender variance, needing consent and out-of-marriage sexual activity. but maybe i'm missing something.
just wondering what you see as being a problem with current education stuff.
ben

 

[zip14]

Hey Guys,

Here's the deal.

The Minister of Education in Ontario is Liz Sandals. I hate her.

Before the Gov fell and we had an election in 2014 she put forward a "get tough on bad teachers" Bill that held an ugly little clause that...

Allows teachers convicted of child porn or sexual assault of a student to reapply for their teaching certificate after a 5 year time out.

I say fuck you Liz Sandals. Fuck you you bitch.

 

[zip14]

I don't care what my Gay friends do in the comfort of their bedrooms but if my daughters were subjected to the curriculum coming in the Fall I would have opted them out.

I don't need the Government to co-parent and given the fact that the Gov is cool with convicted pedophiles getting teaching license back after a time out they lose the opportunity to have a say.

 

[zip14]

I am offended that the word Grooming and Pedophile r absent from the curr. Given 1in3 girls & 1in6 boys w b molested by 18.

Terms used in educating kids about Pedophiles - Intimidation, accidental touch, grooming, blaming, abusers are all absent from the new sex ed curriculum in Ontario.

I am far from fucking ok with what Ontario is doing to maintain the culture of silence that keeps victims quiet.

 

[bey]

I actually kind of agree with not teaching children about "pedophiles" using that term. I think its up there with "stranger" and creates the image of a bad person which is probably not how a kid will see their abuser. Since most people I know were hurt by family or "friends", pedophile could be confusing - eg "they arent pedophiles, they are my dad / coach / brother / friend..." if you told me at 8 years old that pedophiles were sick people who sexually molest kids I would never in a million yrs say "oh like my mom! Shes a pedophile." Im a grown man and shes dead and still feel uncomfortable with that. It doesnt match up to how I feel about her. If you taught me that some people do that to kids and its wrong, and heres how to get help... maybe I would have heard it more. Or maybe not.
I will admit that I totally dont get not teaching kids about gay relationships including sex and consent. If they dont know, how will they know what is safe or know how to say no when a partner (or someone else) asks them to fool around. I feel like denying kids that knowledge is setting them up to get hurt.
I dont know anything about the teaching license thing but thats bananas if its true. Dont teachers have to have a v.s. background check?

 

[JayBro]

I have a few thoughts on this issue. For #1, although I share your concern over the education professor and former member of Kathleen Wynne's transition party who was charged with child porn charges, he was not part of the drafting of this sex ed curriculum. That was not in his job title and he was more or less involved with her taking over for Dalton McGuinty.

For #2, I don't think it necessarily normalizes or encourages anal sex for grade 7's per se but rather is giving them a realistic understanding of the types of sexual activity that people do perform. You also have to keep in mind that some of these grade 7s are gay adolescents and anal sex is performed by both male same-sex and opposite-sex i.e. heterosexual sex partners; just as the "standard" sex education model of penile-vaginal intercourse is relevant to many students, so too is anal sex. You shouldn't prohibit LGBTQ students from learning about sexual behaviour that is relevant to them just the same way you shouldn't prevent heterosexual students from learning about relevant sex ed. Also, who's to say that Grade 7 girls in their future won't ever be confronted by a sex partner who wants to have anal sex with them: don't you think it is important that they too know how to make informed decisions?

I would agree though that there should be information about sexual abuse from adults as well as fellow youth. But perhaps they used other terminology which isn't what we typically use? For example, often when a child or youth is confronted with sexual abuse they don't yet use the words "grooming", "pedophile" etc. to articulate what is happening to them. So maybe it makes more sense for them to frame it in a way which is easier for the child to understand and possibly identify with via their lived or potential experiences.

 

[Still]

Mondo-sized Issue #1:

School is meant for academics and not social agenda. Public schools have become am agendized petri dish for every freakin cause out there. If you doubt that, tell me why private schools would throw yer arse out the door for even suggesting such "curriculum."

This sex-ed crap is not even "curriculum" by academic defines. Its social and moral grist that certain folks want to take control of. they think since you are sitting your kids in a publicly owned and operated school, they get to say what sizzles and what does not.

So take-away, follow-up question #1: Why dont the private academies drink this koolaid?

Mondo Issue #2: How fucking arrogant can these powers be to think they know better than the parents!!? I know math teachers who know dick about MATH! I know history and civics teachers who can't cite the Bill Of Rights!! What makes anyone think public school STAFF can handle so vital an issue as human sexuality without fucking it up royally?

Massachusetts cant even keep their fkg pedofiles out of the classroom...and people want to trust these fk-tards to go into sex-land with their kids?

But that's just me>

 

[bey]

but sex ed has been part of school curriculum for ages, this isn't a new thing and from what i gather its really not that different from what they've always taught. maybe just more information, updated, thats about it. and parents know what the public board curriculum is, and if they don't like it for any reason they can go private school or homeschool (my one kid attends a private school, other two public). parents can teach their kids whatever they want at home, either to supplement or re-teach the whole sex ed thing.
as for parents being better teachers of sexuality, i've got my own history with that, but i think thats just not right. my parents were the ones abusing and raping me, so they sure did teach me all about sex and sexuality, i'm still trying to un-learn those lessons. even parents with the best intentions are going to bring their own stuff into teaching about sexuality, so why not balance that with a peer-reviewed curriculum at school as well.
i can't see any bad with giving kids information. and information needs to include safe sex, safe choices, gay and lesbian relationships, gender variance, consent, and staying safe. seems to me thats what this curriculum is all about.

 

[Cthulhu]

I'm totally in line with bey on this one. The schools IMO have an obligation to provide information on these HUGE issues to kids. Parents actually can't be trusted to do the honourable thing - Schools aught to give this type of info to kids to give 'em a fighting chance. I think this is doubly important for kids who are gay/trans ect. Their parents probably arn't to informed on this issue and there are people who will misinform children for their own benefit at the child's cost.

And in ref: to Mondo issue #1, Still. I disagree strongly there. Basic education includes social education. It is designed to build responsible citizens. That includes ones that need to know how to put on a condom, how to negotiate sex, identify a bad scene and protect themselves and others. Look up the rates in the US for teen pregnancies and STDs and compare that with the types of sex ed in those areas. Poorly informed kids make stupid choices and pay for potentially their whole life.

 

[Nothing Man]

I have to agree with Bey also. Knowledge is power and denying kids realistic information about what actually happens in the real world could deny them what they need to know to protect themselves and others.

 

[Still]

NOTE PLEASE: I'm not getting pissy about this. I am engaging in a genuine exchange and challenge of the issue....not fighting. If you read any of my tone as such, its my mistake...not my intention.


1) So why then do the best private academies in the UK and New England leave it to the families to handle sex ed?

EDIT ADD: In other words, sexual abuse is not "sex with a child." Sexual abuse is not "sex with peers." They are not in any way related. When a Boy and Girl get together in High School, they are not generally in a power-play abuse situation. Abuse identification was taught to each of them in elementary school. Sexual relations are not degrees of abuse. Sexual Relations are just that!

2)

what they need to know to protect themselves and others.

So what is it all about then? Its now about protecting, or is it about educating?

I've not seen any public school sex-ed curriculum discussed in the Massachusetts Public Schools that deals with avoiding sexual abuse. "Sex Abuse Safety" is treated separately in early years...from grades One and onward. Same with New Hampshire public schools. Sex Ed and Abuse are ENTIRELY segregated so as to not blend the two areas, as they are not related.

In NH and MA, one can opt out of Sex Ed. In public schools, one may not opt-out of SA Safety.

 

[bey]

i hear what you are saying, but i think education is protection. i don't know how a kid could be informed if they don't know about sex ed stuff, about bodies and sexual activity and all of that. sex ed and sex abuse prevention are totally related. certainly not that sex education will prevent all sexual abuse, thats just not gonna work, but some, yeah. it wouldn't have prevented mine, and i don't think it would have derailed it no matter what they were teaching. but other kids, maybe.

one example, if a gay kid is taught at home by their parents that being with another man is wrong and that he is wrong for desiring that, and is given no information about safe sex, consent, power dynamics, how is he ever going to be able to say no when someone comes along and tells him he's beautiful and not-wrong and encourages him to have sex, maybe even pressures him. how could he know what consent is and if he is able to consent or not? how can he know how to protect himself if he does consent?

i think education and abuse prevention and so closely tied together, taking one away totally lessens the use of the other. you can't know what you don't know.

consent is sex education. knowledge is sexual abuse safety. kids getting together in high school has so many possibilities for sex abuse, in so many ways, its not always just 'fooling around' or whatever. abuse isn't only 'pedophiles' its a huge part of our society and our sexuality. the only way to give people power is to give them information.

 

[Still]

So I looked into some of the many private academies in my area. One that I respect very highly in all ways does handle this topic directly, but in a holistic approach. Here's the description of the Health & Wellbeing curricula:

THE PHILOSOPHY
The Wellness Program is committed to the belief that health affects and is affected by all aspects of one's life. The curriculum is based on The National Commission's recommendations and the most current research in health education. The goals are to provide the students with accurate information and to help develop healthy individuals.

THE OBJECTIVES
Derryfield's objectives in developing personal and social responsibility and physical health are reflected throughout its educational programs:

to foster cooperation, open communication, and a respect for individual differences, including gender, race, sexual orientation, and culture;

to provide an opportunity for open, informed dialogue among students, faculty, staff, and parents addressing personal, social, and ethical issues;

to enhance a student's ability to think independently and take active responsibility for his or her own development and well-being;

to enable students to make informed and responsible choices regarding sexuality and the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs;

to encourage students to articulate their personal convictions and to incorporate those values into their decisions and relationships.

THE PROGRAM
Students in grades 912 participate in topical Health & Wellness seminars throughout the year.

So I stand corrected and educated.

The Derryfield School

My kids' private academy leaves discussion of "orientation" at the door, but the health classes do in fact cover all the mechanics, consequence and nature of human sexuality. HOWEVER....this VERY VERY conservative academy has an amazingly active "Gay Straight Alliance Club."

Its a surprisingly bully-free school. The free and open existence of the SGA club sees zero hate. Something about "official acceptance," or "official embrace" of LGBT pulls all license to be negative.

My kids' public k-8 school (and our town) had an environment of safety and openness to the degree that Same-Gender-oriented kids of any age never even hesitated to be free and clear about their attractions and relationships. Example: Two boys holding hands in grade 5 would not be admonished. Or maybe you'll here that 8th-grader "Jack broke-up with Samuel last week, so now Billy and Samuel will be doing the science project together."

The orientation is not viewed as any sort of anomaly by any of the student body BEFORE they ever had any "sex-ed" classes.

Free(d) organic nature of people can be trusted. I just do not accept shoving any conclusions down anyone's throat.