Schools Req'd to notify parents before teaching evolution

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Nope. It allows parents to opt their children out of any subject matter deemed offensive and against religious convictions. So not just religious education, but evolution, human biology, and sex ed. Despite the change of language to say they "should" be able to discuss certain topics, the main thrust of the argument is to allow parents to pull their children out of anything offensive.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything that supports that claim. Could you reference a source for me?

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...an-rights.html

A controversial new bill does not give Alberta parents the right to pull their children out of science classes when evolution is discussed, according to Lindsay Blackett, the provincial minister responsible for human rights.
New rules buried in a proposed amendment to Alberta's human rights legislation that extends rights to homosexuals would require schools to notify parents in advance of "subject matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation." Parents can then ask for their child to be excluded from the discussion.

"This is opt-out on religious instruction not on grounds of religious beliefs. So the thought that somebody can get out of evolution using the fact that it's against their religious beliefs is not correct," he said. "Evolution is not a part of religious studies, it's part of science curriculum, and there is nothing that will change that going forward."
If a teacher follows the curriculum there "is no problem."
"We aren't talking about discussions that come up in class," he said. "We expect people to be reasonable. We expect that the teacher has to have the latitude. We are not the thought police, and we don't want to interfere with their ability to teach their classes."

[You Need a Thneed]

While it is unfortunate that some parents will pull kids out of discussions they really should be a part of, the alternative where parents cannot control - somewhat - what is being taught to their children, is FAR, FAR worse. Orders of magnitude worse.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything that supports that claim. Could you reference a source for me?

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...an-rights.html

I appreciate that, but how are they going to fight the obvious implication that evolution is counter to religious instruction and thus, offensive. Its the logical next step.

They can say whatever they want, but I doubt that will hold up against a human rights challenge. They are expecting people to be reasonable, just as he says... but people who would want to pull their children out of these discussions, rather than sit their children down and discuss what they learned are anything but reasonable. They would have to prove creationism is exempt from religious conviction. That would be no simple task.

Even putting the evolution argument aside, Blackett is full of crap. Sexual orientation is a part of biological science, yet, they are allowing people to opt out of it. There are scientific reasons as to why some people are homosexual, transgendered, etc. Refusing to teach about it is refusing science. So no, the cirriculum is not safe. I highly doubt this argument is over. Clearly, the ATA doesn't think there will be "no problem", or they wouldn't have attacked this so vehemently.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Even putting the evolution argument aside, Blackett is full of crap. Sexual orientation is a part of biological science, yet, they are allowing people to opt out of it. There are scientific reasons as to why some people are homosexual, transgendered, etc. Refusing to teach about it is refusing science. So no, the cirriculum is not safe. I highly doubt this argument is over. Clearly, the ATA doesn't think there will be "no problem", or they wouldn't have attacked this so vehemently.

Without a doubt, the second you give legitimacy to an arguement in the education system, you cannot close the barn door before challanges are made to the curriculum. The big one being that material in which parents have a legal right to pull their children out of shouldn't be on provincial exams (That will be the next legislative stance). If it's not on the provincial exams, teachers rushing to finish the curriculum if they fall behind are going to skip over teaching it effectively removing even children from non-nutbar parents from learning about reality.

[MelBridgeman]

So the Alberta is given it's citizen the freedom of choice and somehow we are backwards and redneck, odd thing to say if you are left leaning? I mean most non-religious people would pull their kids out of religion class, and that's great you got a choice...The "backward" people deserve a choice too...

[mykalberta]

Since when is creationism or total evolution ever taught as fact in school.

The non Darwin theory of evolution is brought up but its not hammered in as fact, as it shoudnt be because it cannot be proved 100%. It is taught as a theory that has evidence to support its conclusions and nothing more.

Darwins evolution is taught as fact because it is fact.

I thought this allowance already existed. I went to public school and my parents removed me from the religious studies class in Grade 4 and French in 4, 5, and 6.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

So the Alberta is given it's citizen the freedom of choice and somehow we are backwards and redneck, odd thing to say if you are left leaning? I mean most non-religious people would pull their kids out of religion class, and that's great you got a choice...The "backward" people deserve a choice too...

We already DO give parents the freedom of choice. We have probably the most diverse and effective system of charter schools in the country. All this Bill does is insert sectarian opinions into the public school system. It was bad enough when just the state was setting curriculum, now we have to contend with religious interest groups.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by peter12

We already DO give parents the freedom of choice. We have probably the most diverse and effective system of charter schools in the country. All this Bill does is insert sectarian opinions into the public school system. It was bad enough when just the state was setting curriculum, now we have to contend with religious interest groups.

So they shouldn't have the same rights as you because you don't agree with what they believe?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

So they shouldn't have the same rights as you because you don't agree with what they believe?

If they want a specific institution to teach their beliefs, they have the absolute freedom to do so. There are a myriad of private and charter schools that can meet this capacity.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

So the Alberta is given it's citizen the freedom of choice and somehow we are backwards and redneck, odd thing to say if you are left leaning? I mean most non-religious people would pull their kids out of religion class, and that's great you got a choice...The "backward" people deserve a choice too...

But we are not giving people the freedom of choice, we are taking away a child/teenager's right to learn and make their own informed decisions in order to satisfy the ignorance of others.

We are taking away their right to learn about sexually transmitted infections, contraception, human sexuality, religious rationale, and putting their quality of education in the hands of the unwashed masses. Like it or not, education is training young people to be productive members of society, and that is a responsibility shared by society and parents. Society has an obligation to educate people to safeguard others. (Ie: Ensuring homosexuals are treated equally, attempting to diminish teenage pregnancy, etc.).

As for evolution... its technically a theory, because it can not be proven right. It can not be proven wrong though. Like gravity.

Frankly, I hate the ostrich approach. Knowledge is power, even if you don't agree with it. Sex happens, homosexuals exist, whether these crackpots like it or not. Ignorance is not bliss, nor will it make life any better.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

But we are not giving people the freedom of choice, we are taking away a child/teenager's right to learn and make their own informed decisions to satisfy the ignorance of others.

We are taking away their right to learn about sexually transmitted infections, contraception, human sexuality, religious rationale, and putting their quality of education in the hands of the unwashed masses. Like it or not, education is training young people to be productive members of society, and that is a responsibility shared by society and parents. Society has an obligation to educate people to safeguard others. (Ie: Ensuring homosexuals are treated equally, attempting to diminish teenage pregnancy, etc.).

As for evolution... its technically a theory, because it can not be proven right. It can not be proven wrong though. Like gravity.

Let's not go so far the other way and say that public schools are the only institution that can or should teach these things.

My real problem with Bill 44 is the extension of human rights commissions and the introduction of even more sectarian differences in the public sphere of education.

[GirlySports]

I don't know much about this don't have any strong feeling either way.
But was there alot of pressure from the public? Were parents threatening to pull kids out of school with the current curriculum?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

But we are not giving people the freedom of choice, we are taking away a child/teenager's right to learn and make their own informed decisions in order to satisfy the ignorance of others.

We are taking away their right to learn about sexually transmitted infections, contraception, human sexuality, religious rationale, and putting their quality of education in the hands of the unwashed masses. Like it or not, education is training young people to be productive members of society, and that is a responsibility shared by society and parents. Society has an obligation to educate people to safeguard others. (Ie: Ensuring homosexuals are treated equally, attempting to diminish teenage pregnancy, etc.).

As for evolution... its technically a theory, because it can not be proven right. It can not be proven wrong though. Like gravity.

Frankly, I hate the ostrich approach. Knowledge is power, even if you don't agree with it. Sex happens, homosexuals exist, whether these crackpots like it or not. Ignorance is not bliss, nor will it make life any better.

I don't argue with any of that at all, but again people have the right to be ignorant, and some people will always be like that, despite how much you try and educate them....

Either way i went to a catholic school in calgary, never was taught about homosexuality, but I know they exist and I have no problems with it, not because i was taught that, but because i was taught tolerance yadda yadda yadda...also in terms of evolution, homosexuality makes sense too...

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Let's not go so far the other way and say that public schools are the only institution that can or should teach these things.

My real problem with Bill 44 is the extension of human rights commissions and the introduction of even more sectarian differences in the public sphere of education.

No, but public education is expected to be a balanced starting point. Often, its the only introduction to many of these subjects that most people ever get. The government does use the education system to help mold the next generation to be productive. If we allow intolerant parents to pull their kids out of important subjects, which could lead to these subjects being pulled outright, what will that do for society?

However, you are absolutely right. That's the real problem... however, the spinoffs are there too.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't know, I can sympathize on all sides.

I really think that parents need to be involved in the whole teaching their kids the whole human sexuality thing, you know, the talk. If I'm a responsible parent, I guess I would need to know what they're teaching my kids, especially if I've taken it upon myself to talk to them about sex.

Just because somebody is a teacher it doesn't make them supremely qualified to talk about sex or the birds and the bee's. I mean come on, all of us older people probably had to take some sex ed classes in high school from some sweaty nervous goof of a teacher who read the textbook the night before.

I'm also partially against the nanny state concept where the schools need to teach kids on a personal side instead of teaching them reading and writing and math and history.

I have no problem with a parent pulling a student out of a class if they're uncomfortable with the curriculum if we're talking about sexuality as long as their substituting some other method.

I also don't think that a parent should be allowed to pull a kid out of class until they sit down with the teacher and review whats being taught.

But part of being a free society is allowing people to make choices, and decide if certain topics are something that they want the school to teach their kids.

And no I'm not talking about sciences and evolution here. Those should be mandatory.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

No, but public education is expected to be a balanced starting point. Often, its the only introduction to many of these subjects that most people ever get. The government does use the education system to help mold the next generation to be productive. If we allow intolerant parents to pull their kids out of important subjects, which could lead to these subjects being pulled outright, what will that do for society?

However, you are absolutely right. That's the real problem... however, the spinoffs are there too.

Living in a free society, we expect a large amount of imperfection. I would certainly prefer a small minority engaging in ignorant behaviour than allowing the state to force people to adhere to government curriculum. What happens if the state ceases to be free or just? Where are our options?

That said, I do agree with your criticism of the "ostrich approach." It is uncivilized and stupid and I will spend my entire life being in opposition to anyone who thinks that all is not fit to learn.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The non Darwin theory of evolution is brought up but its not hammered in as fact, as it shoudnt be because it cannot be proved 100%. It is taught as a theory that has evidence to support its conclusions and nothing more.

Darwins evolution is taught as fact because it is fact.

I don't understand what you are saying here, you are using words that don't make sense together. A theory is not a fact, a theory may contain facts. A theory cannot be "proved", proof belongs in math, not science.

What non-Darwinian theory of evolution are you talking about? Are you talking about the modern synthesis? Or are you talking about Lamarckian evolution?

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I thought this allowance already existed. I went to public school and my parents removed me from the religious studies class in Grade 4 and French in 4, 5, and 6.

The difference being now teachers are obligated to inform parents when the subjects come up, and if they fail to do so they can be taken to court over it for a human rights violation or something.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I don't argue with any of that at all, but again people have the right to be ignorant, and some people will always be like that, despite how much you try and educate them....

Either way i went to a catholic school in calgary, never was taught about homosexuality, but I know they exist and I have no problems with it, not because i was taught that, but because i was taught tolerance yadda yadda yadda...also in terms of evolution, homosexuality makes sense too...

I went to Catholic school too. Homosexuality was a few brief comments that teachers whispered out while looking around to make sure they wouldn't get fired.

However, I think in a truly free society, ignorance can't be acceptable. How can people make good decisions when they have no idea what they are talking about. While I know the province can't force people out of ignorance, but they shouldn't be enabling it either.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

However, I think in a truly free society, ignorance can't be acceptable. How can people make good decisions when they have no idea what they are talking about. While I know the province can't force people out of ignorance, but they shouldn't be enabling it either.

I agree, I had this as a quote in my sig for a while:
"Only the educated are free." - Epictetus

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Living in a free society, we expect a large amount of imperfection. I would certainly prefer a small minority engaging in ignorant behaviour than allowing the state to force people to adhere to government curriculum. What happens if the state ceases to be free or just? Where are our options?

That said, I do agree with your criticism of the "ostrich approach." It is uncivilized and stupid and I will spend my entire life being in opposition to anyone who thinks that all is not fit to learn.

I don't condone the state forcing people to adhere to government cirriculum.

I think they should be free to teach all established theories, facts, and opinions on all sides. Multiple viewpoints, promote discussion and real learning. Hell, teach Creationism as a theory too, its so full of holes and obvious issues, no one will take it seriously over darwinian evolution (as well as others). Sometimes there's no right answer (at least not yet), and pulling children/teenagers out means they never get the chance to come up with their best solution and join the debate.