Sanitized sex-ed offered at Toronto school
‘Religious accommodation’ lets parents opt for lessons with no mention of genitalia
An alternative to Ontario’s updated health curriculum is being offered by the Toronto elementary school that found itself at the centre of the sex-education controversy — with Grade 1students having the option to learn about “private parts” instead of proper names for genitalia.
Thorncliffe Park principal Jeff Crane said that because a number of parents had concerns about their children being taught the words penis and vagina, the school decided to offer a class where teachers covered the key issue of inappropriate touching without being specific about body parts, a move meant to keep kids in school this week and learn at least some of the curriculum.
About 60 per cent of the 300 students in that grade were taught the proper curriculum, the remaining 40 per cent the sanitized version.
“We let parents know ahead of time when the health strands for human development were being taught and, for Grade 1, that there would be one lesson where there would be discussion of body parts. . . . They were told if learning the names of genitalia was a concern, they could write me a letter requesting a religious accommodation,” said Crane, whose school is located in the riding represented by Premier Kathleen Wynne,
In September, Thorncliffe Park school was hit by protests and hundreds of kids were pulled out of classes because of the sex-ed curriculum
who championed the updated health curriculum.
Parents were told “the lesson would be exactly the same, but instead of using proper terms like penis and vagina, we would use the term ‘private parts.’ The key learning in that expectation is that this is a part of your body always covered with clothes, nobody touches it and you don’t show anybody.
“We were able to maintain the integrity of the expectation with a very simple accommodation.”
Last September, Thorncliffe Park school was hit by protests, which saw hundreds of children pulled out of school because of the sex-ed curriculum, where parents set up their own classes in the adjacent park. Even weeks later, when that protest ended, enrolment remained lower than expected. But now, it has rebounded and sits at 1,310 students, down from the projected 1,350.
Crane said he held 20 sessions with more than 650 parents to go over the curriculum and to counter misinformation circulating in the community, which has a large Muslim population.
He said he expects to offer modified lessons to pupils in Grades 4 and 5, when puberty and menstruation are among the topics covered.
When the curriculum was reintroduced, after being shelved by then premier Dalton McGuinty following an outcry from some religious groups, it was hailed by both Wynne and Education Minister Liz Sandals as a necessary update for decadesold materials that did not address the realities of children’s lives today.
At the time, both noted that sexabuse investigators, Children’s Aid and public health had urged the teaching of names of body parts to younger students. Sandals had also said about the curriculum: “I anticipate there will be members of various religions who may object to one thing or another . . . but the curriculum is the curriculum that will be taught in Ontario schools.”
When asked about the alternative version, a spokesperson for Sandals said: “We value the full range of diversity among our students and aim to create safe, inclusive and accepting school environments that support the achievement and well-being of all students. We want students to be in the classroom and learning.”
Nicole McInerney also said: “If parents wish to discuss possible accommodation, including exemptions, it is our expectation that these requests be considered on a case-by-case basis within the board’s existing policies and that reasonable alternative activities be offered.”
However, veteran sexual health educator Lyba Spring noted the most common ages for sexual abuse is between 5 and 9 years old, and “parents should understand the importance of their children having dictionary words for their genitals . . . (the terms) are the building blocks for further sexual health education as they continue in their secular public school.”
She warned of the long-term implications of the alternative lessons in Grade1. “They are already subverting the curriculum. . . . What happens especially in Grades 5 and 6, when they are talking about sexual intercourse … because they are talking about the prevention of sexually transmitted infections? What happens as they are talking about consent? I can just see parents’ minds working, and at every step of the way, they will try and subvert and disrespect the curriculum.
“If schools ‘accommodate’ at this early stage in the game, they are set- ting themselves up for real battles later on, and the only ones who are going to suffer are the kids.”
Now that it’s time to start talking about sex, many schools across the province have been sending home letters to parents to give notice of upcoming lessons. Boards say overall they haven’t been overwhelmed with requests for kids to be removed from class or otherwise accommodated and credited that with outreach efforts.
That includes the province’s Catholic boards, where Grade 1s are taught the full human development curriculum, including references to genitalia.
The Peel District School Board, which also has a significant number of families that, also for religious reasons, have expressed concern about the curriculum, does not offer such alternative classes. However, like most boards, Grade 1 teachers there have the option of using age-appropriate drawings of a child with or without a bathing suit to label body parts.
“We haven’t heard much (opposition),” said Michael Barrett, president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association and a trustee in Durham Region.
“There are still, obviously, pockets of people concerned about what’s being taught. . . . There are still some misconceptions about what’s being taught in class, but boards have been doing a good job of reaching out to the community.”
A Peel spokesman, Brian Woodland, said in schools where parents intended to keep their children home on days sex-ed classes were scheduled, face-to-face meetings were held and, in the end, very few did so. At one school, more than 100 such requests were whittled down to four.
The board also created its own guideline, translated into 10 languages and sent home with all children (reprinted twice because of demand) and sought the endorsement of local religious and cultural leaders, even providing them with the same training as teachers.
In Toronto, the board created a guide for principals, and in recent months has focused on preparing teachers.
“We’ve had about 40 sessions, with 1,300 teachers and the goal is just to get teachers comfortable with the curriculum so they know the expectations really well, and to share teaching strategies that exist,” said George Kourtis, the Toronto District School Board’s co-ordinator of health and physical education/athletics. “Just like any other subject, we want them to be comfortable.”
Schools send anyone who will be teaching the material for training, “and we leave it up to each and every school on how many they want to send,” he added. “We’ve had sessions with10 teachers from one school — it all depends on who is delivering the health curriculum.”
Typically, their big worry is parents’ reaction “but we show them (a 2015 study) that said 94 to 97 per cent of parents want this being taught in schools,” he added.