Although. a prescribed part of the curriculum, the Ministry recognized that some parents or guardians wished to personally assume the entire responsibility for teaching their children about the topics covered in the program. Those parents could request that their children not participate in the school program . . . Family Life Education has developed over the years and is now incorporated in [Career and Personal Planning]. . . parents continue to have the option to have sensitive topics delivered . . . by alternative means.14 Thus, from at least 1987 - not 2000 - the Ministry of Education has formally acknowledged parental authority to withdraw their children from classroom instruction. But this authority was not granted by the Ministry. Quite the reverse: the authority of the Minister, teachers and administrators with respect to students is delegated to them by parents, a delegation reflected in the traditional statement that teachers act in loco parentis. And this introduces the fundamental issue. It is now reasonable to anticipate serious parental objection arising if the coercive power of the state educational establishment, employed throughout the curriculum, is used to induce children to approve of homosexual conduct and relationships. It is true that the need to formally acknowledge parental authority with respect to morally controversial instruction first arose with the introduction of sex education, broadly construed as 'health' or 'family life' education. Ministry policy on "opting out" and "alternative delivery" focussed on these subjects not because parental authority was operative only within this context, but because it was mainly within these parts of the curriculum that one might reasonably anticipate serious parental objection. That is no longer the case, courtesy the rulings of a handful of superior court judges, the passage of The Civil Marriage Act and the private agreement between the Ministry of Education and the Correns. It is now reasonable to anticipate serious parental objection arising if the coercive power of the state educational establishment, employed throughout the curriculum, is used to induce children to approve of homosexual conduct and relationships. The withdrawal of students from lessons or classes - formerly an issue in only one or two subjects - has become an issue in all. Knowing this, and having a low opinion of the judgement and competence of parents who do not share their views, the Correns and the government have arrogated to themselves the moral guardianship of public school students, concealing the move behind the false pretence that parental authority to withdraw their children from morally controversial classes is limited to subjects directly related to health and sex. Archbishop ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of Vancouver warned parents about this threat: [T]here is widespread anxiety that this agreement will not only see the introduction of material that is in conflict with Catholic teaching on marriage and human sexuality at the earliest grade levels, but could go so far as to restrict the abilities of parents to determine whether their children are exposed to this material. This would be clearly contrary to the fundamental and non-negotiable right of parents to raise their family and educate their children. The right of parents to determine how their children receive instruction on matters of faith and morals is a primary consideration, and anything that puts it at risk should not go unchallenged . . . [T]he government should be reminded that parents are the final decision makers when it comes to their children’s education. This is particularly so when it comes to their moral upbringing. As stated by ▇▇▇▇ Benedict, the right of married couples to determine how their children are educated is simply non-negotiable. They must have the right to remove their children from problematic course content.15 “. . . the possibility that an increasingly kaleidoscopic view of sexuality might be inculcated in children over the objections of their parents is profoundly disturbing. The Ministry agreed to develop internal guidelines to be applied to curriculum standards ("Integrated Resource Packages" - "IRPs") to ensure that all curriculum standards reflect "inclusion and respect for diversity with respect to sexual orientation, and an over-arching concern for social justice." The Correns were given the privileged position as consultants in the development of these guidelines, with the power to suggest what parts of the curriculum should be revised first. The government also agreed to solicit input about curriculum revisions from groups or organizations recommended by them as having "expertise in sexual orientation, homophobia and other issues of inclusion and diversity in the curriculum." The internal guidelines were to be implemented by 30 September, 2006. Again, the text of the agreement, the month's secrecy following its signing, and the timetable for implementation helped to ensure that parents would be shut out of this process. Note that 'sexual orientation' is not defined, so the agreement is open-ended with respect to what forms of sexual 'diversity' the curriculum is to respect. It is a mistake to assume that 'sexual orientation' refers only to same-sex attraction, even though that is how it is commonly understood. In activist literature, it it includes not only homosexual inclinations, but bisexual interests and those who desire sex change operations. The usual acronyms used to describe ‘alternative orientation’ are variations on “GLBT” - gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered.16 Consistent with this open-ended understanding of 'sexual orientation,' the Correns are seeking the introduction of "non-heterosexual realities" into the curriculum from Kindergarten to Grade 12.17 Similarly , Ministry instructions to curriculum reviewers, revised in light of the Corren agreement, instruct them to include “representation of individuals and groups across the full range of gender identity and sexual orientation.”18 What might "non-heterosexual realities" and “the full range of gender identify and sexual orientation” include? Might "non-heterosexual realities" or 'sexual orientation' be manifested in tranvestism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, and paedophilia? In 2003, two researchers suggested that these 'orientations' be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, just as homosexuality had been removed thirty years earlier.19 Judging from the entry in Wikipedia, the current tendency is toward greater 'diversity and inclusiveness' in defining 'sexual orientation': asexuality, monosexuality, autosexuality, pansexuality, homoflexibility, heteroflexibility, BDSM (various combinations of bondage, discipline, domination, submission and sado-masochism), fetishism, prostitution, polyamory, and zoophilia. Bearing in mind that the Correns mean to revise curriculum for all students beginning in Kindergarten, the possibility that an increasingly kaleidoscopic view of sexuality might be inculcated in children over the objections of their parents is profoundly disturbing.20
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Settlement Agreement
Although. a prescribed part of the curriculum, the Ministry recognized that some parents or guardians wished to personally assume the entire responsibility for teaching their children about the topics covered in the program. Those parents could request that their children not participate in the school program . . . Family Life Education has developed over the years and is now incorporated in [Career and Personal Planning]. . . parents continue to have the option to have sensitive topics delivered . . . by alternative means.14 means.16 Thus, from at least 1987 - not 2000 - the Ministry of Education has formally acknowledged parental authority to withdraw their children from classroom instruction. And, quite apart from the formal acknowledgement of the Ministry, school districts have customarily responded respectfully to parental concerns. The Chairperson of Richmond School District, citing several examples, pointed out to the Minister that for years they had “made a range of common sense accommodation for parents that have strongly held beliefs that lead them to be concerned about their children’s participation in various parts of the curriculum.” It would be of great concern to the Board if the modification to the Opting to Alternative Policy were to suppress its ability to make common sense accommodations in response to these and other concerns expressed by individuals in the Richmond community.17 In fact, the first part of the Corren Agreement has precisely this effect, though the government has, thus far, been unwilling to admit it. But the key point, not addressed in this correspondence, is that parental authority was to withdraw their children from objectionable classes is not granted by the Ministry. Quite the reverse: the authority of the Minister, teachers and administrators with respect to students is delegated to them by parents, a delegation reflected in the traditional statement that teachers act in loco parentis. And this introduces the fundamental issue. It is now reasonable to anticipate serious parental objection arising if the coercive power of the state educational establishment, employed throughout the curriculum, is used to induce children to approve of homosexual conduct and relationships. It is true that the need to formally acknowledge parental authority with respect to morally controversial instruction first arose with the introduction of sex education, broadly construed as 'health' or 'family life' education. Ministry policy on "opting out" and "alternative delivery" focussed on these subjects not because parental authority was operative only within this context, but because it was mainly within these parts of the curriculum that one might reasonably anticipate serious parental objection. That is no longer the case, courtesy the rulings of a handful of superior court judges, the passage of The Civil Marriage Act and the private agreement between the Ministry of Education and the Correns. It is now reasonable to anticipate serious parental objection arising if the coercive power of the state educational establishment, employed throughout the curriculum, is used to induce children to approve of homosexual conduct and relationships. The withdrawal of students from lessons or classes - formerly an issue in only one or two subjects - has become an issue in all. Knowing this, and having a low opinion of the judgement and competence of parents who do not share their views, the Correns and the government have arrogated to themselves the moral guardianship of public school students, concealing the move behind the false pretence that parental authority to withdraw their children from morally controversial classes is limited to subjects directly related to health and sex. Archbishop ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of Vancouver warned parents about this threat: [T]here is widespread anxiety that this agreement will not only see the introduction of material that is in conflict with Catholic teaching on marriage and human sexuality at the earliest grade levels, but could go so far as to restrict the abilities of parents to determine whether their children are exposed to this material. This would be clearly contrary to the fundamental and non-negotiable right of parents to raise their family and educate their children. The right of parents to determine how their children receive instruction on matters of faith and morals is a primary consideration, and anything that puts it at risk should not go unchallenged . . . [T]he government should be reminded that parents are the final decision makers when it comes to their children’s education. This is particularly so when it comes to their moral upbringing. As stated by ▇▇▇▇ Benedict▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, the right of married couples to determine how their children are educated is simply non-negotiable. They must have the right to remove their children from problematic course content.15 content.18 “. . . the possibility that an increasingly kaleidoscopic view of sexuality might be inculcated in children over the objections of their parents is profoundly disturbing. The Ministry agreed to develop internal guidelines to be applied to curriculum standards ("Integrated Resource Packages" - "IRPs") to ensure that all curriculum standards reflect "inclusion and respect for diversity with respect to sexual orientation, and an over-arching concern for social justice." The Correns were given the privileged position as consultants in the development of these guidelines, with the power to suggest what parts of the curriculum should be revised first. The government also agreed to solicit input about curriculum revisions from groups or organizations recommended by them as having "expertise in sexual orientation, homophobia and other issues of inclusion and diversity in the curriculum." The internal guidelines were to be implemented by 30 September, 2006. Again, the text of the agreement, the month's secrecy following its signing, and the timetable for implementation helped to ensure that parents would be shut out of this process. Note that 'sexual orientation' is not defined, so the agreement is open-ended with respect to what forms of sexual 'diversity' the curriculum is to respect. It is a mistake to assume that 'sexual orientation' refers only to same-sex attraction, even though that is how it is commonly understood. In activist literature, it it includes not only homosexual inclinations, but bisexual interests and those who desire sex change operations. The usual acronyms used to describe ‘alternative orientation’ are variations on “GLBT” - gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered.16 transgendered.19 Consistent with this open-ended understanding of 'sexual orientation,' the Correns are seeking the introduction of "non-heterosexual realities" into the curriculum from Kindergarten to Grade 12.17 12.20 Similarly , Ministry instructions to curriculum reviewers, revised in light of the Corren agreement, instruct them to include “representation of individuals and groups across the full range of gender identity and sexual orientation.”18 ”21 What might "non-heterosexual realities" and “the full range of gender identify identity and sexual orientation” include? Might "non-heterosexual realities" or 'sexual orientation' be manifested in tranvestism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, and paedophilia? In 2003, two researchers suggested that these 'orientations' be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, just as homosexuality had been removed thirty years earlier.19 earlier.22 Judging from the entry in Wikipedia, the current tendency is toward greater 'diversity and inclusiveness' in defining 'sexual orientation': asexuality, monosexuality, autosexuality, pansexuality, homoflexibility, heteroflexibility, BDSM (various combinations of bondage, discipline, domination, submission and sado-masochism), fetishism, prostitution, polyamory, and zoophilia. Bearing in mind that the Correns mean to revise curriculum for all students beginning in Kindergarten, the possibility that an increasingly kaleidoscopic view of sexuality might be inculcated in children over the objections of their parents is profoundly disturbing.20disturbing.23
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Corren Agreement