Sexual Education Curriculum – Parent Questions to Minister of Education and Public School Boards across the Province of Ontario (Note: The respective section in the Health and Physical Education curriculum to which we refer in the document is titled C. Healthy Living – Human Development and Sexual Health) INTRODUCTION As parents we are greatly disturbed by the Healthy Living – Human Development and Sexual Health sexual education curriculum released by the Minister of Education, and the Liberal government under Kathleen Wynne in Ontario in 2015. Tens of thousands of parents across Ontario have expressed their concern about the curriculum and the main direction of the concerns can be summarized in a short statement: “too much, too early and too graphic”. In this document we are presenting a number of concerns and questions about the curriculum that tend to be overlooked in the debate in the media, but, in our opinion, are equally important. In addition, various religious and cultural traditions have expressed their astonishment that this curriculum tries to decouple sexuality, sexual intercourse and sexual expression from concepts such as: life and its meaning, love, responsibility, faithfulness, morality, and ethics. We feel that this approach will leave our children sexually “crippled”, as they will be unable to connect their sexuality, as the highest physical form of expression of love, to the meaning of their life and their overall vocation as human beings. Nevertheless, we intentionally choose to leave ethics, morality and love out of this current document and wish to consider it in the future. For now we will focus on the technicalities and serious omissions and disinformation contained in the 2015 curriculum. An initial list of questions Ministry of Education and Ontario Educational institutions is briefly presented below: QUESTIONS Genitals -‐ Grade 1 (Age 6) (Note: the direct questions to the Ministry of Education and School Boards are in bold) 1. The curriculum states that the children need to be able to “identify” genitals, but imposes no limitation on how graphic these lessons are going to be. What are the limits for graphic depictions of genitals for 6-‐year-‐olds? Is it left for the teacher to decide what kinds of graphics are ok and what are not? Is, for example, bringing real pictures showing men with exposed penises and women with exposed vaginas ok? Are there curriculum-‐imposed limits, besides legal limits, as to what kinds of graphic materials teachers can use? Are the School Boards going to put some additional limitations on how graphic this education of 6-‐year olds can be? 2. Many parents feel that teaching 6-‐year-‐olds about genitals is excessive. In response, many officials say that it is done in order to protect minors from sexual abuse (sexual predators, pedophiles). Careful review of the curriculum shows that, while exposing children to excessive information about genitals, the curriculum does not “deliver” on the promise of protecting minors from sexual abuse. In fact there are ABSOLUTELY NO WARNINGS, explicit or even implicit, about adult sexual predators in the curriculum. Shouldn’t we teach children that if ANYONE, especially an adult, touches any of their genitals that they should immediately report the incident to parent or adult they trust REGARDLESS whether they are hurt, or felt comfortable with it or not? The way the curriculum is written seems to suggest that it is ok as long as the child is not hurt, or feels comfortable. This is unacceptable. Why is the language of the curriculum so vague in this regard? Why doesn’t it include warnings about adult sexual predators and pedophiles? 3. In addition, while teaching the 6–year-‐old children excessive, visual information about genitals, the curriculum completely fails to warn them about child pornography. There are no explicit or implicit warnings about it to be found there, such as: “If an adult asks to, or makes you, expose your genitals, maybe even taking pictures, you need to know that it is illegal and you should report it to a parent or an adult you trust.” Why is the Curriculum silent on the threat of Child Pornography? (Note: “Sexting” is mentioned much later, in grade 7, but even there the curriculum fails to explicitly warn about adult sexual predators. And of course, “Sexting” is only one, and pretty much the mildest, tool used in order to create child pornography. Unfortunately, even when it comes to “sexting” the curriculum is presenting false information to students: “There are also legal penalties for anyone sharing images without consent.” -‐ NOT TRUE: There are legal consequences if an adult shares pornographic pictures of children, REGARDLESS of consent or lack of it.) 4. Although we feel that teaching 6-‐year-‐olds about genitals is excessive, we definitely feel that there is ABSOLUTELY no need for a 6 year-‐old boy to be able to identify girl’s genitals (vulva, vagina), and for a girl to learn about a boy’s genitals. Is there a plan in schools to separate Grade 1 children into boy and girl groups while teaching them about their respective genitals? Masturbation and Pornography – Grade 6 (Age 11) 1. The original curriculum clearly shows masturbation as a learning expectation for 11-‐year-‐old children. Thanks to widespread public outcry, the education minister Liz Sandals released “Myths and Facts” document in which she states: “While the concept of masturbation is included in Grade 6 curriculum, it is only mentioned in an optional prompt. This is not a mandatory learning expectation.” It is still disturbing that it is left to the discretion of individual teachers to decide whether to cover masturbation, and to what extent, with 11-‐
year-‐old children. As parents we want to understand what kind of masturbation related materials are the teachers allowed to cover in classes? Are there any limitations, for example on how graphic these lessons can legally be? 2. Based on what we see in the 2015 curriculum, there are no warnings about masturbation when it is presented to students. It is a well known fact that masturbation can lead to many issues that negatively affect children, including compulsive masturbation, depression, and an inability to maintain romantic relationships. Why is the curriculum not warning children about the potential harms of masturbation? 3. Excessive masturbation and pornography use are often directly linked. There are multiple studies showing negative effects of excessive use on pornography on the development of children. The 2015 curriculum, while covering material about masturbation, optional or not, fails to warn children about the potential harms of pornography. Why is the curriculum avoiding any material warning the children about possible negative health and developmental effects of pornography consumption? Why there are no direct warnings about Internet pornography consumption? Sexual Intercourse and Consent – Grade 7 (Age 12) Although 12-‐year-‐old children are encouraged to consider delaying having sexual intercourse with their “partners”, nevertheless the option for them to actually engage in sexual intercourse with their partners is presented as a valid choice in the curriculum as long as there is consent. As parents we definitely feel that age 12 is too early for children to engage in sexual intercourse and schools should not present that as an option. Based on this we have the following three questions that need clarification: 1. The Curriculum DOES NOT inform 12-‐year-‐old children that it is illegal in Canada for an adult to invite them to engage in a sexual intercourse, regardless of consent or lack of it. Therefore, it fails to warn children about sexual predators and pedophiles. Why does the curriculum fail to explicitly inform children that it is illegal for adults to invite children to have sexual intimacy with them? Why does it fail to inform children that it is illegal for adults to have any sexual intimacy with minors REGARDLES OF CONSENT? (Note: Age of consent in Canada is 16) 2. When talking about sexual intercourse and protection it fails to inform the children that no protection guarantees them 100% safety or give them failure rates of different forms of contraception. Why does the curriculum fail to provide this essential information to children so that they have all the information they need before making decision to engage or not to engage in sexual activity? 3. When presenting “alternative” forms of sexual intimacy, and intercourse, the curriculum is not clear as to when these forms are undesirable and can become harmful. For example, 12-‐year-‐old girl may leave the school with the perception that it is “ok”, and not harmful for her, to accept invitations for anal intercourse. As a result, 12-‐year-‐old girls may be more effectively pressured by their “partners” to submit to having anal intercourse. After all, they talked about it in school and it is presented as equally viable as vaginal intercourse, for all sexual orientations. Facts: From a heterosexual sexual intimacy perspective, an anal intercourse is a form of oppression of teenage girls; it is painful, degrading, and much riskier with regards to the transmission of diseases (STIs). Why does the curriculum fail to include material on the health risks of anal intercourse and does not make it clear what sexual orientations it addresses when presenting children with any material regarding anal sex? Conclusion Careful review of the new Sex-‐Ed Curriculum shows some disturbing facts: •
•
•
•
It consistently, and systematically, fails to warn children about the threats posed to them by adult sexual predators and pedophiles, across all the grade levels. It consistently fails to warn children about child pornography, or adults that may be interested in obtaining material including their bodies, and genitals in particular. It forces us to ask the question whether this omission is not actually intentional, and to what extent this astonishing omission was influenced by people having problems similar to these Ben Levin has? In the entire curriculum, there is not even one warning about the harmful effects of pornography consumption on children. The word “pornography” is NOT MENTIONED in the curriculum at all. The curriculum may leave 12-‐year old girls with the perception that it is acceptable, and not harmful for them, to accept invitations for anal intercourse. polpac.org