School boards asking for guidance on sex ed

State of curriculum remains unknown

TORONTO — A controversial decision by the Ontario government to scrap the sex-education curriculum before a new one is in place has left school boards in limbo with just weeks to go before students return to classes.

The newly elected Progressive Conservative government has said students will continue to learn the “2014 curriculum,” which is in fact a document last updated in 1998, until parents across have had a chance to weigh in on a new version.

The Ontario Public School Boards’ Association said they have yet to receive any direction from the Tory government on the issue.

“Pretty much what you’ve seen on TV or in print, that’s what we know,” said association president Cathy Abraham. “Boards have not been advised of anything by way of official notice from the ministry (of education) about what’s going to happen in the fall.”

The curriculum — updated by the Liberals in 2015 — included warnings about online bullying and sexting, but what angered some parents and especially some social conservatives were portions of the document that dealt with same-sex marriage, masturbation and gender identity.

Premier Doug Ford promised during the spring election campaign to replace the sex-ed curriculum, saying parents were not consulted enough. He accused then-premier Kathleen Wynne of turning Ontario schools into “social laboratories” and students into “test subjects.”

Earlier this week, Ford said reverting to the older version of the lesson plan would be temporary until the completion of a provincewide consultation with parents. His comments followed conflicting messages from Education Minister Lisa Thompson, who told reporters Monday only a portion of the curriculum would be rolled back, only to say hours later the full document would be scrapped.

Thompson has not answered questions from the media since Monday, but a spokesperson said school boards will receive instructions on the curriculum in the coming weeks.

Abraham said the government’s decision raises a number of logistical questions which need to be answered.

During a typical curriculum revision, she said, the government spends months preparing and provides teachers with training so they can adequately teach the material to their students. If the government intends to update the material in some way, even as just a temporary measure to bridge the content gap between the 1998 version and the 2015 update, that will take time as well, she said.

There will also be newer teachers who have simply never taught the material, she added.