Parental fiat should not determine what kids learn
The most notable aspect of the Ford government’s “new” sex-ed curriculum is, evidenced by the dismayed reaction of social conservatives, how similar it is to the 2015 curriculum that it replaced.
The fact that the 2015 curriculum has been largely kept in place and expanded upon is a testament to the sustained advocacy of students, parents and teachers across Ontario.
While some, like the opposition NDP, have decried Ford for wasting a year on what turned out to be largely a rebranding exercise, we should all welcome the fact that our schools will teach a modern health education curriculum that addresses the needs of today’s students. But there is still a cause for concern. As it turns out, not all students will actually end up learning the new curriculum.
Amidst the roll out, the government issued a memorandum that gives school boards three months to create a process for parents to remove their children from classes where human development and sexual education will be taught.
Boards will be required to give parents 15 school days notice before such lessons are taught, and parents will have up to five school days to submit an exemption notice for their children.
While largely a fig leaf to aggrieved social conservatives that helped get Ford elected, Education Minister Stephen Lecce defended the opt-out policy by saying, “We do believe that parents have an important say in some of the more sensitive issues and subject matters that get taught to their children.”
A parental opt-out policy completely ignores the views and wishes of students, the people who such a decision will affect
To be fair, an opt-out process for parents was also available under the Liberals. But irrespective of the party in power, the question we should be asking ourselves is why individual parents should have the exclusive right to pick and choose what their children learn, especially when it comes to matters pertaining to health.
Consider what we do in medicine. Both the law and medical professional codes require that physicians always act in their patients’ best interests.
Regarding children and the issue of medical consent, when a child, regardless of age, has the mental and emotional maturity to understand the nature of the medical issue they face, parental consent is largely irrelevant. As put by the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth: “In Ontario, the law is that everyone, even people younger than age 12, can make their own decisions about their health.”
So, if parents do not have the exclusive right to determine the health care children receive, under what grounds should they be given veto power over what children learn about their own health? As is the case in medicine, should schools not also be required to always act in their students’ best interests?
And what about what the students themselves want? Much talk in modern education policy centres around the concept of student voice, the idea that students should have authentic input into the education they receive. However, a parental opt-out policy completely ignores the views and wishes of students, the people who such a decision will affect.
Given the socialization role that schools play, what we teach our children is inherently contentious and political. This is why we regularly conduct democratic exercises like elections and public consultations.
We have repeatedly done these things in Ontario and, as stated by Minister Lecce himself, the results speak loud and clear: “The overwhelming (number) of parents in this province want their kids to learn a modern curriculum that teaches respect and embraces the principles that define this nation.”
Parents should have a say in what our schools teach. But as part of broader society, not as individuals.
Whether it is health, or any other subject, parental fiat should not determine what kids learn.