Ontario government’s lawyer says teachers can use own judgment in sex-ed lessons

Posted on January 12, 2019 in Education Debates

Source: — Authors:

TheGlobeandMail.com – Opinion/ Readers’ Letters
January 10, 2019.   EDUCATION REPORTER

Elementary-school teachers can use their “professional judgment” when developing lesson plans and have a duty to teach in a way that’s inclusive of all students, a lawyer for the Ontario government argued in a hearing that challenges the rollback of the province’s sex-ed curriculum.

Zachary Green told a panel of three divisional court judges on Thursday that while teachers are expected to follow an interim curriculum and assess students based on those grade-level expectations, they are also not prevented from drawing on resources, including the 2015 sex-ed document, which was repealed this fall by Doug Ford’s government.

“In following the 2018 curriculum, teachers in fact have access to a wide range of resources,” Mr. Green told the court.

His argument comes despite the Premier’s statements earlier this year in which he threatened to discipline educators who defied his government’s orders to use a 20-year-old sex-education curriculum, and launched a platform for parents to anonymously report concerns on what is being taught in classrooms. “Make no mistake, if we find somebody failing to do their job, we will act,” Mr. Ford said in a statement in August.

The Ontario government directed school boards in August to scrap a 2015 sex-ed curriculum for Grades 1 to 8, developed by the previous Liberal government and containing references to same-sex families and consent. The government replaced it with a previous health and physical-education curriculum which includes a 1998 document on sexual health.

In a two-day hearing this week, the court heard two separate legal challenges to the rollback of the curriculum.

The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) said the government restricted teachers’ freedom of expression by creating a chilling effect among educators with threats of disciplinary action.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said the government is discriminating against same-sex parents and their children and violating their constitutional right to equality by erasing references to sexual orientation, gender identity and same-sex relations from the curriculum expectations.

The government has said that it plans to release a new curriculum for the next school year starting in September. In the interim curriculum, gender identity is mentioned in the introduction and the glossary, but is not among the grade-by-grade learning expectations for elementary students. Consent and sexting are no longer discussed in Grade 7, and the curriculum doesn’t include topics of gender identity and sexual orientation in Grade 3. The 2015 curriculum addressed all these topics.

Mr. Green was asked by the panel of judges if teachers could discuss issues contained in the 2015 document, including consent, in the classroom. He said that, while teachers are guided by curriculum expectations, they would also be free to use a variety of resources at their discretion in lesson plans and could discuss consent.

However, “it’s not a blank cheque,” he said, adding that teachers would have to be use appropriate professional judgment.

Outside the courtroom, ETFO president Sam Hammond said he was surprised to hear the government’s position on using the 2015 curriculum as a resource.

“I’m very … pleased to hear that. But I’m absolutely surprised to hear it,” Mr. Hammond said. “It’s the first time since this whole debate began that the government or a representative of the government has in fact said yes, teachers may use the 2015 curriculum as a resource in implementing the current curriculum.”

He said that if the government had told teachers that they were free to use their professional judgment and the 2015 curriculum as a resource in implementing the current curriculum, “we wouldn’t be here today, quite frankly.” Instead, Mr. Hammond said the government chose to publicly threaten teachers.

NDP education critic Marit Stiles said the government has released “pretty confusing and conflicting” communication on what the expectations are of educators teaching the sex-ed curriculum. “Today was just another indication of this ongoing chaos and confusion that they have created,” she said outside the courtroom.

Some parents and groups, especially social conservatives, had labelled the 2015 curriculum age-inappropriate for young children, zeroing in on its lessons on gender identity and same-sex marriage.

Tanya Granic Allen, who ran for the provincial Progressive Conservative Party leadership against Mr. Ford and who has been a vocal opponent of the 2015 sex-ed curriculum, said the government has failed in its promise to repeal the curriculum if it can still be taught and used as a resource.

“Whatever the judges decide in today’s case, this week’s legal proceedings have shed more light on what is shaping up to be the betrayal by [Education Minister Lisa] Thompson, of one of Doug Ford’s key campaign commitments,” Ms. Granic Allen, who heads the group Parents As First Educators, said in a e-mailed statement.

The sex-ed component of the wider health and physical-education curriculum is usually taught in the spring.



Readers’ Letters:

The Ford government has been all over the place on this interim curriculum. Now we’re supposed to believe a single lawyer and believe that Ministry policy will follow suit? Even if that were the case, the central problem would remain: different students would get different levels of protection against bullying, STIs and abuse depending on their individual teacher’s motivation. This is unacceptable. Our kids’ safety should not depend on winning the teacher lottery —that’s why a uniform, detailed curriculum was enacted in 2015. – Spxcy Garage

In response to Spxcy Garage:

Why do liberals like you insist on trying to brainwash my children with your same-sex curriculum? By all means teach your children whatever you want. Do not teach mine. My religious values are offended by same-sex, gender fluid ideology. You must stay on your side of the fence and not infringe on my rights. – Chad Chen

In response to Chad Chen:

You might be “offended by same-sex, gender fluid ideology,” but both sexual orientation and sexual identity are protected human rights in the Province of Ontario. Gay and transgender kids therefore have a right to get sex-ed which is useful to them, in spite of what you might think. – left-leaning

Missing in the comments is a little sympathy for the poor teacher who has drawn the dubious honour of teaching sex-ed. Many, I think, would rather do anything else than be subjected to the close scrutiny that will come from parents and students with this controversial course. The dilemma is do they play it safe and hope to avoid the parent confrontations which will be inevitable, or do they make a judgement call, which could cause problems. My bet is that teachers aren’t lining up to teach this course. – JeffSpooner

One would almost think they hadn’t thought this through at all. We’re teaching the old way. Sort of. Mostly. Except if someone doesn’t want to. Then they don’t have to. Although we will kick them out if they don’t. But they can use their judgement. Kind of.

Who’s on first? – JPP221


Tags: , , , ,

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 12th, 2019 at 11:00 am and is filed under Education Debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply