School board trustees who support the current sex-ed regimen often frame complaints as discriminatory by citing the code. These trustees, along with the province’s human rights system itself, create a significant barrier to change.
But it’s not insurmountable if the political will is there, experts told The Epoch Times. Solutions they propose include taking on the human rights system itself, and following a path similar to the charter school system.
Opt-Out Option Limited
The opt-out option has limits, however, as an Ottawa parent found out when Pride Month celebrations brought sexual-preference discussions to his daughter’s kindergarten class. When he complained, the school cited the Human Rights Code in defence.The parent, who wishes to use the pseudonym William to protect his daughter’s privacy, had an issue with items related to sexual identity in a book the teacher read to the class. He says he'd prefer those topics be saved for when his daughter is older.
William forwarded to The Epoch Times his email exchange with the school principal, which ended with the principal saying that parents may choose to have their children opt out of sex-ed.
However, the principal noted: “Everything else in the school, whether it’s Black History Month, Pride Month, Asian Heritage Month, our educators may choose books [to] read to children, songs, or do other activities that highlight these events and there is no opt-out option in the public school system that pertains to this, as per the Human Rights Code.”
William said discussions on these topics shouldn’t be held at the kindergarten level. “That’s an adult conversation,” he told The Epoch Times.
He is happier with the school’s new principal, who seems more understanding about his concerns.
Campaign Life Coalition spokesperson Jack Fonseca told The Epoch Times that principals and teachers can make a big difference despite the official curriculum, for better or for worse.
Trustees Banned
The books available in school libraries are also a matter of concern for many parents.The commission has stated explicitly that it favours the curriculum brought in by the Liberal government of Kathleen Wynne in 2015, which is largely what remains in place. In 2018, the commission spoke against the Ford government’s proposed roll-backs of some sex-ed content, particularly the parts relating to LGBTQ+ components.
Solutions
Ontario lawyer Alexander Boissonneau-Lehner said there are ways, in theory, that a provincial government could overcome the human rights system to remove these elements of concern from schools.The government could add a statement to the Human Rights Code to the effect of, “nothing under this code is to be interpreted to apply to school curriculums,” he said, though noting that this would “be controversial and a big, hot-button issue.”
If the government doesn’t change the code but proceeds with school system changes anyway, opponents may file complaints to the tribunal. In this situation, the tribunal would then decide on a case-by-case basis whether the code had been violated.
Charter Schools, Voucher Programs
Rodney Clifton, a University of Manitoba professor emeritus of sociology of education, says charter schools are another solution but suggests a different option, that of school voucher programs.Charter schools are publicly funded and tuition-free, and while they must meet certain education standards, they have more power over their curriculum and teaching approach. They are more common in the United States, and Alberta is the only province in Canada that currently allows them.
Clifton suggests a voucher system instead, where parents are given voucher dollars for their children to be used in any educational setting, whether public, charter, private, or home schools. The funds would follow the students instead of going directly to the schools, giving parents consumer choice. Voucher programs have started up in many parts of the United States in recent years.
Some concerned parents have turned to private schools or homeschooling, Clifton said, and a voucher system would allow them to take their tax money from the public system to do so.
“Why do parents have to pay for something that they’ve already paid the public system to deliver, but the public system has failed to deliver it?”