Alberta parents can pull kids from lessons about sex, religion, or sexual orientation
 

Alberta passes law allowing parents to pull kids out of class

Ironically, a bill meant to enshrine gay rights has included a clause forcing educators to notify parents when their children's curriculum includes such controversial topics including sex, religion, and sexual orientation.

The problem here is that now teachers need to be careful when planning their lessons. They aren't held from holding casual conversations when they come up, but if any aspect of a lesson is interpreted as controversial, the teacher could land themselves into trouble.

Furthermore, this basically creates an opting-out for kids whose parents don't want them to learn about relevant social issues related to sex and sexual orientation. Teachers will need to use the permission-form format for teaching these topics, which I think makes it all too easy to yank kids out of it. Religion has a much longer history of problems in the education system, so to me the sexual orientation bit stands out to me.

• Do you feel this law is fair?
• Should parents have this much power in determining what lessons their kids get in the public school system?
• Do you feel the public school system should teach formal lessons on sex, religion, and sexual orientation? Why or why not?
• Is this a case of an advance or regression in human rights issues?

I think this is a regression, personally. It gives parents the power to essentially shelter their children from education about important matters. Sex is real; homosexuality is real. There is a certain age when children should start learning about these matters formally. Children aren't as ignorant as some may believe. They have curiosity; they have questions; they have misconceptions that need to be cleared. This is what education is for.

The religion thing...I don't know. There are problems in that religion is a complex issue when it comes to followers of different faiths, and then you have non-believers. I don't see much room for religion in a public school system, unless it was a kind of survey course to learn about world religions and their role/influence in society.

What do you think overall?

I find this a frustrating turn of events. What could better be accomplished through a parent speaking with their teacher has turned into an institutionalized mess that creates more red tape for our over-burdened teachers. Were this to be considered a matter to be dealt with strictly between a parent and the teachers, the concerned parent would be able to explain their perspective as they request their child to not participate in certain matters.

This hardly seems a productive way for Alberta to deal with a few parents. It takes the power away from the individual - both the parent and the teacher. It invites humiliation for the student whose parent refuses to fill out the form.

I certainly hope that this policy doesn't bleed over into the states.

I think some aspects of it are fair and some are not.

While I think parents should have knowledge about what is going on and what is being taught to their child during the day, on sex education it should be mandatory. It can be argued that sex education is really public health education and STD's, contraceptives and necessary information that children need to have. Back when I was in school, we had the whole sex ed complete with slide projections of the location of the organs, ovaries and whatnot and the cheesy little film about how a sperm fertilizes an egg and this is what leads to pregnancy etc. That information is important too. While kids are more mature and with the internet they know a lot more, some of them are suprisingly naive. Mandatory, no parental choice, sex ed gets my vote.

Sexual orientation I can't say because I don't know what is being taught. Is it lessons on tolerance or how to explore your inner lesbian kind of thing. That's a tough one because kids can be so cruel to one another. I can just envision the teacher telling the class that it's ok for a man to love a man or a women to love a women and having some bright bulb in the class turn to some poor unspecting kid that's rumored to be gay and saying "Yea, you can ask Mark all about that, he loooves other men"

Religion is easy. Religion has no place in a publicly funded classroom, ever. The only acceptable time is in the purely historical context while studying that topic.

The kids whose parents would pull them out of classes dealing with sex are the ones who need that education the most. Viewing sex as a negative thing or something that shouldn't be discussed is a detriment to our society and those who feel that way are harming others by legislating their beliefs into modern states.

It's usually a definition of what homosexuality/bisexuality/transsexuality is, with lessons on tolerance, and an emphasis on creating a safe space in schools. Most teachers are incredibly uncomfortable with the topic as they don't want to offend anyone, one way or the other, so it gets briefly covered. I highly doubt any teacher who considers themselves to be a professional would even think about teaching a course on exploring your inner lesbian. We don't even do that in women studies at the university level.

Personally, I think this is problematic. It's one more hoop teachers have to jump through in order to convey important information to students. And I agree with MSD--typically the people pulling their kids out of class are the ones with kids who need the information the most. I don't have any statistics to back this statement up, but I've seen enough anecdotal evidence to wonder if teens with Christian conservatives for parents really do get knocked up more often than those with liberal let's-talk-about-sex-openly parents.

And I think religion is okay so long as it's as Baraka suggested--in a survey course where all the major world religions get covered, or in a history course where it must be talked about. Religion is another one of those issues where schools are so desperate not to offend anyone.

I kinda /sign everything Halanna said, with the exception that I think that so long as it's a tolerance-building lesson on orientation, that should be mandatory. I can't quite envision a 'inner-lesbian' lesson, lol.

I remember in grade school, parents had to give permission for children to sit through sex ed. In my classes, I would say about 90% of kids were allowed to attend the class.

How else is a kid supposed to grow up to a rapist and serial killer if you don't suppress their sexuality?

I think the law should be amended to not only require attendance in schools until 16, but also that they receive comprehensive sex education before they're allowed to drop out. They're the ones who need it most.

When I made the "inner lesbian" comment, while it was tongue-in-cheek, what I was thinking was this:

Is the teacher standing there saying, "If you are a boy(girl) and you feel sexually attracted to a boy(girl), that's ok! It's perfectly natural, you shouldn't feel that you are doing something wrong. Explore your feeling and don't let anyone tell you different."

Something along those lines.

Maybe these lessons should be moved out of the classroom and be held at a local hospital or other medical facility as a field trip, albeit mandatory. Have doctors and nurses present the material instead of teachers. This would help coat the topics in a more medical veil instead of an instructional one from the classroom. Doctors inherently feel comfortable with these topics anyway.

Hell, let the parents decide if they don't want their kid exposed to homosexuality, sex in general, and religion.
The kids will learn the basics from their classmates, the parents will feel like they've done the right thing, and there's always the internet for your kid to get himself some education. You know they'll end up there sooner or later.

That's a fine live-and-let-live policy, biznatch, except when it comes to the affect of inadequate sex education on the society as a whole. It has a nation-wide affect beyond individual behavior regarding their sexuality.