School boards await directions on sex ed

The Canadian Press
Shawn Jeffords

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 the province have had a chance to weigh in on a new version.
The Ontario Public School Boards’ Association said it has 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.”
Early last week, Ford said reverting to the older version of the lesson plan only would be temporary until the completion of a province-wide consultation with parents.
His comments followed conflicting messages from Education minister Lisa Thompson, who told reporters last Monday that only a portion of the curriculum would be rolled back–only to say hours later that the full document would be scrapped.
Thompson has not answered questions from the media since last Monday but a spokesman 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 that need to be answered.
During a typical curriculum revision, she noted, 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, Abraham said.
There also will be teachers who simply have never taught the material who will have to be brought up to speed, she added.
“If you are a brand new teacher, you do not know what is in that old curriculum,” she remarked.
“That is going to be a challenge.”
Abraham also took issue with the Tory government referring to the 1998 curriculum as a 2014 lesson plan.
“The curriculum we were using in 2014 was the 1998 curriculum,” she stressed.
“This curriculum wasn’t changed until 2015.”
Regardless of the government’s decision, Abraham said teachers will be there for their students.
“I know that if a student shows up in class some day with a particularly troubling story about something and it’s an opportunity for a teacher to talk about consent, that teacher is not going to say, ‘I would talk to you about this but it’s not in the 1998 curriculum,'” she noted.
“Teachers are going to take care of their kids while still recognizing that that’s not in the curriculum. That is a significant challenge.”
Laura Elliott, education director for the Thames Valley District School Board in London, Ont., also expressed concern about the lack of instructions from the government.
At a very basic level, she said, the ministry should post the 1998 curriculum online soon so teachers can have access to it.
“Typically, when there is a new curriculum, there are some resources . . . for school boards to support our teachers in the instructional matter,” Elliott noted.
“I’m not sure if the runway will allow for that.”
The Toronto District School Board said the government is putting school boards in a difficult position by asking them to teach an outdated document that may not fulfil the boards’ obligations under more contemporary pieces of legislation.
“We are obligated, regardless of what the topic is, to teach the Ontario curriculum,” said board chair Robin Pilkey.
But we also have an obligation to our students, she added.
“We have other things that we’re guided by, like the Education Act and Human Rights Code, to make sure that all of our students feel included in school and that we reflect their reality in their classrooms,” she noted.
Pilkey also urged parents to speak up during the consultations the government has promised to hold.
“Otherwise they’ll be hijacked by probably special interest groups,” she said.