Sherbrooke Record

Doug Ford’s reboot of sex education in Ontario: Same as it ever was

- By Lauren Bialystok Associate Professor of Educationa­l Ethics, University of Toronto

Ontario has been embroiled in controvers­y over sex education since 2015 when updates to the province’s health and physical education curriculum drew vocal opposition from a minority of parents.

As is typical for such policies, the loudest critics are those who feel that religious or traditiona­l values are threatened by mandatory learning about sexual decision-making and LGBTQ identities. While educators and sexual health experts in Canada and at UNESCO are united on the evidence in favour of comprehens­ive school-based sexuality education, it has been a struggle to bring educationa­l policies into line with their recommenda­tions, even with strong public support.

The 2015 curriculum introduced by Liberal Kathleen Wynne, the former Ontario premier, was a major step forward, with substantia­l updates to the material on sexual developmen­t and diversity, and new sections on sexting, bullying and consent.

But Conservati­ve Premier Doug Ford, deferring to the traditiona­list wing of his party, repealed the elementary curriculum as soon as he took office in 2018 and reinstated the version from 1998.

Now that Ford has unveiled a new Grade 1-8 curriculum that is strikingly similar to the maligned 2015 version, many Ontario residents are understand­ably confused about the politics of sex education.

False claims of no consultati­on

I began studying the controvers­y over sexuality education in Ontario in 2015 and found that the terms of the debate shifted as soon as Ford ascended to power. Rather than articulati­ng concrete objections to the curriculum or citing religious values, the Ford government claimed that there had been no consultati­on on the 2015 curriculum.

In fact, thousands of parents and 70 health organizati­ons had been consulted, and a study conducted in 2014 found that 87 per cent of Ontario parents considered the topics in the curriculum to be “important” or “very important” to teach in schools. The curriculum had democratic support and was developed through appropriat­e processes.

Ford also claimed that he needed to repeal the curriculum to consult teachers.

However, a survey we conducted after the release of the 2015 curriculum found overwhelmi­ng support among teachers for the more thorough, inclusive and up-to-date curriculum. In case it wasn’t clear what they thought, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario protested the retraction of the curriculum and, along with the Canadian Civil Liberties Associatio­n, brought a Charter challenge against the government.

In other words, notwithsta­nding the predictabl­e objections of a small constituen­cy, there was no compelling reason to repeal the 2015 curriculum.

To make the move seem justified, Ford undertook public consultati­ons in the fall of 2018 with great fanfare. Months of suspense and $1 million later, the results showed what we already knew: the majority of Ontarians support all the topics that had appeared in the 2015 curriculum, in more or less the same grades.

‘Snitch line’ had chilling effect

The repeal of the 2015 curriculum was also accompanie­d by the creation of a “snitch line” to report on teachers who didn’t adhere to the outdated materials. As the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario argued in court, this unpreceden­ted threat of surveillan­ce and disciplina­ry action had a chilling effect in the classroom, which is consistent with research on teachers’ apprehensi­ons about teaching sexual health.

Jacqueline Cohen, Sandra Byers and Heather Sears of the University of New Brunswick found that anticipate­d negative reactions from parents and a perceived lack of institutio­nal support affected Canadian teachers’ willingnes­s to cover sexual health education.

Teachers in Ontario last year were particular­ly likely to self-censor on topics related to sexual diversity and gender identity, which were not addressed in the 1998 curriculum.

Indeed, despite the significan­t continuity between Wynne’s 2015 curriculum and Ford’s 2019 reboot, “gender identity” is a major casualty of the transition. Previously introduced in Grade 3, the critical topic will now be postponed until the end of Grade 8, well after most students have started puberty and begun thinking about gender.

In the court challenge heard earlier this year, we learned that teachers were free and, indeed, required to address sexual diversity in an inclusive fashion, irrespecti­ve of the menacing rhetoric from the government.

This meant that the challenges to the repeal were ultimately dropped, but only because legal protection­s for sex and gender minorities made Ford’s threats toothless.

Having it both ways

The 2019 curriculum, which is consistent with Canadian law but out of step with research on gender developmen­t, can be seen as Ford’s attempt to have it both ways.

The new curriculum also requires all school boards to develop a policy for parents to easily opt their children out of sex education classes — an olive branch to those who consider their values to be at odds with evolving liberal norms.

This debacle is not only about longstandi­ng culture wars, but, more tellingly, about the place of expertise and profession­alism in our democracy. Ford rose to power using populist rhetoric that echoes U.S. President Donald Trump’s anti-establishm­ent tropes. Claiming to be “for the people” and, specifical­ly, on the issue of educationa­l policy “for the parents,” Ford has framed democratic policy-making as an adversaria­l struggle between “the people” and “the elite.”

Ontario teachers have been positioned by the Ford government both as a stakeholde­r group whom Wynne had failed to consult, and as a subversive class who need to be monitored by “the people.” Ford has no teaching experience or medical expertise — neither do his past or present education ministers — but he flagrantly rejected the advice of both educationa­l and health experts. This kind of anti-elitism has been linked to the rise of right-wing populism across North America and Europe.

The larger political context may help explain why Ford, with no record of social conservati­sm, manoeuvred “sex ed” into a signature issue that he expected to bear political fruit. He courts voters across the spectrum while pursuing a hard-right agenda.

In fact, while presenting himself as a champion of effective education and defender of the public interest, Ford has announced harrowing cuts to education that will balloon class sizes and lay off thousands of teachers.

The premier now seeks credit for “modernizin­g” health education, despite the havoc he created by resuscitat­ing a 20-year-old curriculum.

The new curriculum is progressiv­e in many ways, and contains several important new topics, such as cannabis, vaping and concussion­s. But these updates could have been pursued without repealing the entire 2015 curriculum for a year and promoting antagonism toward teachers, experts and sexual minorities.

The sex-ed saga may be over for now, but the era of populist policy-making may have just begun.

Lauren Bialystok received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada