I just read a Facebook post by an organization supporting
the Saskatchewan government’s proposed legislation relating to gender curricula
in primary schools. As a retired teacher, I’m convinced that a new and serious rift
between homes and schools will occur if the tone of the resulting conflict is
not dampened. It’s quickly turning ugly.
First, let’s make just a few observations about the life conditions
humanity would most likely agree to as ideal, an environment worth striving
toward, in our homes and in our schools:
In the best world we can imagine, the air is clean, the
water is clean and clear, the nights are peaceful and quiet and there’s no good
reason to lock your doors and windows. Children walk to school hand in hand,
unaccompanied by adults, and are secure in their homes, in their schools and on
the streets and playgrounds. There are challenges aplenty to whet the
imagination, variety and inviting prospects enough to allow everyone optimism about the
future, celebratory social events enough to bind neighbour to neighbour.
Everyone has access to sufficient safe and nutritious food
without charity; clothing and shelter to suit the climate are general, health
and emergency services are in reach when illness, bad weather or disasters
strike. The prospect of war and the need to divert resources to prepare for it
no longer exists; crime is rare because the desperation of poverty no longer
drives individuals to theft and violence.
To keep and maintain such a world, the training and
education of the young is as vital as it is among lions and tigers where the
survival through adulthood is completely dependent on the ability to stalk and
hunt in cooperation with others. What do human children need to learn, what
skills need to be rehearsed again and again so that we together nudge our
common humanity toward the best we can be?
To this end, I offer some thoughts
that bear consideration in what is fast shaping up to be a fight about parents’
rights vs. public schools and curricula. The struggle for control of what
children shall be taught is as old as education itself; an example among many
is 1) below.
In the late 1950s, Nikita Khruschev sought to promote atheism,
obliterate religion and in that campaign declared that, “… all Soviet children
belong to the Soviet State.”[i]
The Nazi regime similarly targeted youth with its most strident propaganda
campaign. State monopoly of educational curriculum development seems to be a very
bad idea, especially when it falls into the hands of totalitarian regimes. Is
it equally true that a laissez-faire, democratically-elected government leaving
education matters completely in the hands of local administration would be a
mistake of another kind?
We probably shouldn’t avoid talking about the changes that
have led to a rancorous dispute about sexual/gender issues in school curricula.
I took my elementary and middle school public education in 1947 to 1956. Gender
and sexuality where not on the curriculum at all, references to it didn’t
appear on radio or TV, parents were loathe to even allow their children to be
present where animals were breeding or giving birth. Today, verbal and visual
references, even explicit depictions of sexual matters are accessible to small
children, can hardly be avoided in a home with TV and internet. A
seventy-year-old approach to preparing children for the sexual/gender realities
they’ll need to face simply won’t answer to the need. We must engage in many
conversations that aren’t “them against us,” but are “all of us for
all the children.” To this end, I offer some thoughts that bear consideration
in what is fast shaping up to be a fight about parent’s rights vs. public
schools and curricula. By no means exhaustive, I hope it can get at least one or two conversations started.
1) In the 1920s, hundreds of Mennonite families left
Canada and moved to Mexico because they were unwilling to enrol their children
in provincial schools. They’d set up their own schools where rudiments of
language and arithmetic were taught, and the bulk of the curriculum was
Bible-centred. The national mood was overwhelmingly for compulsory citizenship
education and conformity to a national standard, and both the conservative
Mennonite community and the Indigenous people experienced the practice of forcing
assimilation via public education.
2)
Today, under the umbrella of multi-culturalism, a
citizenship-oriented public education remains mandatory, but separate schools,
home schooling are permitted, even financially supported in some cases so that
cultural/spiritual values education can form part of children’s education alongside
the public schools’ curricula. Is there a downside to a child being schooled
with different value sets in the classroom and the home? An upside?
3)
As with the exiting Mennonites in 1) above, the
2023 backlash against gender issues as part of public education is bound to evoke
comparisons to the force-feeding of values to captive children. The “revolt” of
parents was completely predictable in the case of the Mennonites as it is with
parents in Saskatchewan today who deem a conservative, home-based approach to
sex/gender values to be “right,” considering the sensitivity of the subject.
4)
It seems overstated to assert that “the state”
has the right to determine what education its citizens must have in the
interest of maintaining a peaceful and prosperous democratic nation. By the
same token, it seems simplistic to assert that parents alone have that right, given
that children very quickly become independent adults with the necessity of
functioning in society as opposed to in family or in school. In a democracy
like Canada, a citizens’ education would likely be developed if it didn’t
already exist, while at the same time, our multi-cultural, multi-faith society demands
a more liberal approach to education content than that of the Government of
Saskatchewan in the 1910s and ‘20s.
5)
For a percentage of parents to demand and be
granted as a right the addition or subtraction of material from a provincial
curriculum automatically usurps the equal right of dissenting parents, and vice
versa. Can disagreement on what’s allowable in public education and what isn’t succeed
if settled by a zero-sum combat?[ii]
6)
As a teacher, I was trained on what rights and
responsibilities I had and didn’t have over and for students in my classroom. I
had a right to protect the integrity of the learning environment by evicting a disruptive
student, for instance, but not to administer corporal punishment. As a teacher,
touching a student, even supportively, would put me in danger of violating a
student’s rights. If I observed that a student coming to school appeared to
have been physically abused, it was my solemn duty to report it—not to the
parents—but to the police and/or social services. If a boy of twelve were to
have asked me to use the “they” pronoun for them, but not to tell their parents,
would that have been a dilemma for me that I as a classroom teacher didn’t
deserve?
7)
Using rights as an argument in these
situations is fraught with problems. Teachers, parents are not equally competent;
most teachers nourish and educate, some occasionally neglect or abuse students
and are struck off; most parents nourish and teach, some abuse and/or neglect
their own. Whose rights matter here? Who needs the protection of rights?
Would it be truer to the current conflict to speak of school responsibility
and parent responsibility as relating to the children?
8)
Many Canadian parents entrust their children to
organized sports programs. Some, of course, seek to influence how coaches make
decisions affecting their child, castigating a hockey coach, for instance, for
not giving their child more ice time. If we decided it’s one parent’s right to exercise
some control at that level, then it would surely become ALL hockey-parents’
right. Would it then be possible for a coach to form and direct a team?
9)
Suppose a government were to decree that school
curricula at the, say, Grade Six level, must include training in the use of
firearms and the martial arts. How would Quakers, Doukhobors, Mennonites and
other pacifist-bent groups respond, and how might that be comparable to
protests over the gender studies curricula happening today?
10) Historically,
how have protests regarding public education content been resolved? Allowing
children of non-Christian families to congregate in a separate area during
opening exercises that included The Lord’s Prayer and Bible reading was one
response. Eliminating sectarian religious activity in public education is the
current approach. Neither response has met with universal approval, as you’d
expect. Bill 137[iii] if passed
will require that schools inform parents of the scheduling of sex/gender class
instruction and that provision be made for children to be excused during those
times if parents request it. Where will they be while excused, and what will
they be doing and under whose supervision might well be the relevant question.
11) I
can imagine an eight-year-old pretending to be copycat trans-gendered as a way
of fulfilling some need for acknowledgement, although it’s not easy given the negative
response to gender difference generally in this country. And if an
eight-year-old is struggling with a gender identification issue, how would a
loving, nurturing parent not already know this before it manifested in school? Does
gender dysphoria in children really only exist because the education system has
promoted it? If it is, what would be the motive behind it? By what means would
all educators have planned such a program and kept the planning secret?
12) If
a student asks for non-gender-specific pronouns in school, is it logical to
assume that the school has groomed that student to a trans-gender self-appraisal?
And if a teacher is faced with a request for secrecy vis-e-vis the parents, is
it logical for that teacher to assume a relationship breakdown in the home? Is
it more reasonable in such a situation to refer the student to professional counselling
whose object would be to involve the parents with the student’s consent, as
prescribed in Bill 137?
13) Private
indebtedness and public indebtedness are both serious issues in Canada. Imagine
that the federal and provincial governments were to decree that much more
intensive consumer education must be offered at every grade level. Imagine
further that many schools would end music or art programs to free up resources for
consumer education. How do we decide what is essential, what is “nice to have
but not essential,” and what is unnecessary as part of public, citizenship
education?
14) Is
it possible for public education to present a comprehensive social studies
curriculum that excludes or restricts sexual/gender relationship matters?
15) Is
sexual interference against children enough of a problem in Canadian society to
warrant teaching even the youngest to identify and defend against paedophilia,
child pornography and related abuses of the young? And is the environment of classroom and
playground relevant to how any such teaching should occur? (See Pedophilia - Wikipedia for related
information.)
16) Education
has become much more integrated, more confluent than formerly. Roughly, simply
visualized, Industrial Arts and Arithmetic can be taught as less-separate
subjects, and theoretically, “Industrial Arithmetic” could take on the aura of
an entity which advances both disciplines simultaneously. Teaching “the whole
child” is a common catch phrase. If parents sincerely and consistently seek to
pass on values that may not be shared by the majority of citizens (recent
immigrants, members of minority religions, for instance) does that mean that
there are “parts of a child” public education has no business addressing? If
so, what are they?
17) It’s
been nearly half a century now since public educators began searching for
better ways to tailor teaching to individual learning strengths. Earlier on, education
required every student to rise to an average standard … or “fail.” Individualized
learning, however, can never reach its apex; that would be one teacher teaching
a class of one student. (In this sense, a parent is an excellent choice as a
teacher of that child, given the skill and perseverance of a parent in the nourishing
arts.) Although class sizes have improved somewhat, and teacher-aides have been
hired in some places, we still lack the resources to do our best for, particularly,
special needs students whose special need isn’t physically obvious. Do we
accept that gender dysphoria constitutes a special need in some children,
affecting learning?[iv]
18) School
classrooms and playgrounds develop cultures that take the shape of their adult
leadership, their facilities and the children themselves. Friendships form,
cliques develop, prejudices spread like viruses, pecking orders are established,
all under the umbrella of children’s need for acceptance in a culture over
which they have little or no control. A microcosm of the world in which their
adult stage must make its way; a practice run for maturity. Does a child who’s
“gender different” stand a better chance of acceptance if all children on the
playground are taught that gender identification differences exist and are
“normal,” or are they better off if gender identification is not broached in
primary and middle grades, and they attempt—and sometimes succeed—in hiding
their difference? Are there home environments in which a child’s uniqueness is
denied, such that some children seek it in places where it’s recognized … in
school, for instance?
19) Assuming
“parental rights” are fundamental rights like freedom of conscience, freedom of
religion or freedom of speech, would such a “parental right” include surgically
removing the foreskin of baby males or the clitorises of baby females in obedience
to a religious dictate? Would it mean that children are completely subject to their
parents’ choice regarding vaccinations or medical treatments like blood
transfusions? Is the application of corporal punishment to correct behaviour a
part of “parental rights?” Could there be a conflict between parental rights
and human rights applying to the child, and how and by whom would such rights
conflicts be adjudicated?
20) Much
of a child’s life is legitimately regulated by parents: sports participation or
not, family moves whether the child approves or not, bedtimes, table manners,
music lessons, etc. Failure to raise a child to accept guidance and to live
peacefully and cooperatively with others and, yes, to bend to authority and the
rule of law, could surely be chalked up to parental neglect, school and
community neglect, or both. How important is it that a child is being guided
toward the same set of values by his/her/their teachers and parents? Are there
forums for home/school values discussions?
21) In
ancient times, school curricula revolved around community faith and life, standardized
content enabled by the fact that mono-culturalism made common views on values
and life skills likely. In a diverse, multi-cultural, post-modern nation like
Canada, values coinciding can’t be taken for granted. The strongest thread
binding us together is our citizenship; our common celebrations relate to
nationalism, not to religious or cultural observances. If correct, what does
this say about the process of determining educational content?
22) Suppose
that you, a parent of an eight-year-old, see in your child’s homework an
emphasis on saving money that in your eyes communicates a message of which you disapprove.
You would rather see generosity given at least equal time with wealth
accumulation. How would you proceed in the best interest of your child’s well
being? Is it possible to supplement the school’s curriculum with your values
regarding money in such a way that the child benefits from the combination? or do
you protest to the teacher? or is it more important that you as a parent begin
to teach your child that life is about competing visions, and in your family,
this or that value is king?
23) Do
we know who wrote the Grade Five curriculum on sex and gender? Do we know how it
was vetted and approved? Are we willing to find out before reaching a judgment
about whether it’s conceived and delivered appropriately? Are we prepared to go
beyond “all or none” to possible tweaks of whatever previous work on the
subject has produced?
I’ve tried with this to generate at least some public
thought about the current division shaping up regarding sex/gender education in
the public school system. We live in a world where increasing hard-line
division has become a real concern, and the fact that public, aggressive
demonstrations for and against proposed legislation on the subject threatens to
increase the sense of “them vs. us” in an era that can ill afford further
hardening of opposing positions.
A liberal vs. conservative worldview has always existed and
always will. Saskatchewan citizens have alternately elected more-conservative
and more-social-democratic governments, and this pattern has served us well. It’s
when we become convinced that it ought to be one or the other, fulltime, that
we begin to see the other as a cohort that must be defeated, and
our elections become zero-sum games.
We can’t afford that in education. Our resources can’t
possibly stretch to accommodate the myriad points of view and diverse value
sets represented in the broad range of political, social and faith persuasions.
In my opinion, opening up every detail of public education curricula to close
scrutiny would end up making us all conflicted and angry: should there be music
or no, and if so, what kind of music, and at what grade levels? A dozen in
conversation around a table, a dozen opinions. Every choice a compromise … or heated
separation. More STEM education, less social studies? The other way ‘round? A
dozen in conversation around a table, six of one opinion and half-a-dozen of
the other. Somehow, we must engage in a conversation across worldviews about
how educational content will be developed and how disagreements will be
arbitrated … and honour whatever decision we’ve arrived at.
[i] Friesen,
Leonard G. Mennonites in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2022, p. 261
[ii] Zero-sum
is a term used to describe sports games particularly. In simple terms, it means
that there must be a loser for there to be a winner. A conflict or game without
a loser would be a win-win conclusion; in this case, it’s hard to imagine such
an outcome without dividing children into the “gender education” and
“non-gender education” groups, possible now via separate schools or home
schooling. Dividing a single playground population has its own effects (see #17),
a reminder that “win-win” can turn out to be “lose-lose.”
[iii] "The
Parents' Bill of Rights outlines a number of different rights that parents have
regarding their children's education, including:
• act as the primary decision-maker with respect to the
pupil's education;
• be informed on a regular basis of the pupil's
attendance, behaviour and academic achievement in school;
• consult with the pupil's teachers and other employees
of the school with respect to the pupil's courses of study and academic
achievement;
• have access to the pupil's school file;
• receive information respecting the courses of study
available to the pupil, including online learning, and to make decisions as to
which courses of study the pupil enrolls in;
• be informed of the code of conduct and administrative
policies, including discipline and behaviour management policies, of the
school;
• be informed of any disciplinary action or
investigation taken by the school in relation to the pupil's conduct;
• if the pupil has been expelled from school, request a
review and reconsideration of the expulsion after the expiration of one year;
• be informed and consulted in relation to the pupil's
school attendance problems;
• be consulted in or request a review in relation to
the pupil's capacity to learn;
• excuse the pupil from participating in the opening
exercises;
• be consulted before any medical or dental examination
or treatment is provided to the pupil;
*********
• if sexual health content is to be presented to pupils
in the school:
o at least two weeks before the sexual health content
is presented to the pupils, be informed by the principal of:
§
the subject matter of the sexual health content;
§
the dates on which the sexual health content is to be presented to the pupils;
and
§
if the parent or guardian so chooses, withdraw the pupil from the presentation
of the sexual health content by giving written notice to the principal;
• if the pupil is under 16 years of age, provide
consent before the pupil's teachers and other employees of the school use the
pupil's new gender-related preferred name or gender identity at school; and
• be a member of the school community council or the
conseil d'école, as the case may be, of the school.
[iv] “Dysphoria
is a profound state of unease or dissatisfaction. It is the semantic opposite
of euphoria. In a psychiatric context, dysphoria may accompany
depression, anxiety, or agitation...” (Wikipedia definition)
