Political Abuse of Children:
Vulgar Pride-
You don’t want to know…
But you need to!
Join Kari Simpson and Ron Gray tonight!
7:30 – 8:15 pm: Are schools politically abusing children? Burnaby Policy 5.45 controversy is gaining momentum as more parents find out about sex activist teachers’ plans to sexualize their children. Parents Voice spokesman GORDON WORLD will talk about this growing movement to end the political abuse of children.
8:15 – 8:40 pm: Is the Pride Parade VULGAR? RoadKill Radio wanted to find OUT! So we sent RoadKill Radio’s own Kari Simpson and two cameramen (yes a threesome!) to Vancouver’s Pride Parade to see if Kwantlen University Professor Shinder Purewal’s observations were correct! Vancouver Sun story here.
8:40 – 9:30 pm: Yes, you need to know! NATHAN COOPER will join us for a cross-country look at headline happenings! How’s this for a list of topics:
- Abortion statistics show reality of a land without restrictions
- Vancouver Coastal Health to hand out $50,000 worth of crack pipes
- Gynecologist calls for national campaign against promiscuity
- Prevention Success: HIV Decline in Zimbabwe, behaviour related!!
- Taxpayer abuse by the Department of Canadian Heritage
Murray Corren on the Rights of Parents:
[The following quotation from an article by Murray Corren is significant for showing that he regards the teaching of the acceptance of same-sex marriage as non-negotiable and connected with basic "Canadian values." ]
So, the question then is: What rights do parents have to determine what parts of the provincially mandated curriculum their children will learn and how they will learn it? Many teachers may be surprised to learn that those boundaries are very restricted and have, for years, been clearly defined by the Ministry of Education. The policy, currently described as the Alternative Delivery Policy, clearly defines the areas of the curriculum where students and their parents or guardians may arrange for alternative delivery of instruction; namely, the Health curriculum organizer of Health and Career Education K to 7, Health and Career Education 8 and 9, and Planning 10, and the Personal Development curriculum organizer of Personal Planning K to 7. The policy does not apply to any other prescribed learning outcomes in those IRPs. Nor does it apply to any other BC provincial curriculum.In a letter from the deputy minister sent to all the education partner groups in September 2006, this policy was, once again, reiterated “in order to clarify some common misunderstandings” with regard to its application.
“The policy does not permit schools to omit addressing or assessing any of the prescribed learning outcomes within the health and career education curriculum,” the letter states, and goes on to say, “Neither does it allow students to be excused from meeting the expectations of any prescribed learning outcomes related to health. It is expected that students who arrange for alternative delivery will address the learning outcomes and will be able to demonstrate that they have done so.”
Just so that we are all clear, the Alternative Delivery policy applies only to the health organizers of the above-named IRPs and to no others. What this means is that there are no other areas of the curriculum that students have the option of not being in attendance or accessing alternative means by which to achieve the required learning outcomes. So, when a student says he or she can’t participate in lessons, other than those of the health organizers, for whatever reason, our response needs to be that they are required to be in attendance and are not exempted from meeting the prescribed learning outcomes.
This brings us back to the examples described earlier where teachers have allowed parental pressure to determine what and how we teach to meet the requirements of the curriculum. As professionals, we have a duty to address the learning needs of all our students by ensuring that they be exposed to ideas, materials, and knowledge that informs and educates them about the world in which they live. When we relinquish our right to professional autonomy and bend to the dictates of a small segment of the parent population, we do a disservice to our students as a whole.
So, when a parent declares that a teacher’s choice of a novel to be used in class must be vetted by the parent first; when, in social studies, children are learning about the different family models, a parent objects to the inclusion of same-sex parented families; or when a child is not permitted to attend music or physical education classes because of the religious beliefs of the family, we need to take a stand. Our response should be, “This is the public education system and I am required to follow the mandated provincial curriculum. If you are not happy about that, there are other educational options available to you and to your child.” [From Teacher Newsmagazine, Volume 19, Number 4, January/February 2007]