Let the controversy begin….Again!

Five years after the revised Ontario Health and Physical Education (HPE) curriculum was shelved due to objections concerning certain content on human development and sexual health (aka “sex ed.”), the documentation has been recently re-released (with a few additional amendments) with planned implementation in schools when September rolls around. Unsurprisingly, the news has been met with similar resistance as was seen back in 2010. The concerns regarding the documents seem to surround the age-appropriateness of various topics (i.e. what grade to teach anatomy terminology) and whether particular material should be taught at all (i.e. gender identity, same-sex relationships, etc.).

First off, let me begin by saying that I am not here to pick sides or campaign for one camp over another. As a student in a pre-service teaching program in physical education, this issue has direct impact on my future as an educator. This may very well be the curriculum that I am required to follow if or when I begin my teaching career. Rather, I am using this blog entry to make sense of these changes, understand how they will impact teachers and students, and how these types of policy revisions reflect education in the 21^st century.

Having not been updated since 1998, the long overdue revised documents are now comparable to the curricula of the other provinces across the country. Unfortunately, being overlooked among the controversy are the less debatable changes. However, for me, even these revisions represent the shift to a "new story" of education. This includes the implementation of essential educational literacies (particularly an emphasis on mental health in the high school curriculum), a focus on 21^st century skills, and updates on the movement side of physical education, including the advocacy of physical literacy. Still, all of the attention remains on the human development and sexual health portions of both curricula. 

The arguments from those that oppose the curriculum revisions sound something like this: 

•  Parents should decide when/if their children learn about certain components of sexual health
• Sex hasn’t changed since 1998, so why does the curriculum need to change?
• If children are not asking about sex, they don’t need to know about it
• Ontario does not need a “radical” sex ed. program
• Teachers need to focus on teaching math and reading skills

Proponents of the amendments contend that children are reaching puberty and are aware of sexual matters at a younger age, that the new curriculum provides knowledge children need to know and have a right to know, that technological advancements and changes in the educational landscape make it a necessity (i.e. the importance of teaching digital citizenship with the emergence of “sexting”) and that learning is the only way to promote awareness and acceptance in an increasingly socially progressive world.  

Both sides present valid points. Furthermore, the conflicting perspectives are completely understandable when you reflect on the wide spectrum of views and beliefs that educational stakeholders carry on the issue. For example, many teachers and school districts still teach a sex ed. program centred on abstinence. However, in both the elementary and high school revised curriculums, the introductory material identifies critical literacy as one of the goals for students in a high-quality HPE program. The question becomes, can students be critically literate without being provided the “whole picture” of human development and sexual health? Will students be taught the necessary skills to become healthy, safe and informed citizens? It is also important to note that students’ exposure to a meaningful HPE experience (of which sex. ed represents only a small portion) is already limited when you consider HPE is often taught by a generalist, discarded on a regular basis in favour of more “academic” subjects and not mandatory past Grade 9 in Ontario high schools. I know my human development and sexual health education in elementary school was virtually non-existent. In 4 years of high school, it lasted all of about 2 weeks.

Still, teachers must be prepared to adapt to the new curriculum as this time, despite the renewed controversy, it looks like it’s here to stay (Yay!). What we teach our students and when students are ready for certain material will always be debatable and subject to criticism. Teachers face this dilemma when they are tasked with the decision of whether to bring controversial global issues into the classroom or not. Should teachers educate their students on different religious faiths and values as a means of developing critical, multicultural and globally literate minds? And if so, when? To me, these discussions emphasize the importance of understanding both your curriculum and your students (Drake, Reid & Kolohon, 2012). And while the argument has been made that students who graduated by means of the “old story” of sexual health “turned out just fine”, perhaps the new curriculum aims to cultivate learners that are more than “just fine”…

I support the new curriculum whole-heartedly. However, I recognize that adapting to and implementing the revisions will present challenges for teachers, students and other educational investors alike. What do you think? Join the conversation!

What do students think? Here is a quick video on the thoughts of some insightful eighth graders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oER3MJshXU

If you are interested in viewing the revised Ontario Health and Physical Education curriculum documents (and older versions), check them out here:

Grades 1-8: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/health.html

Grades 9-12: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/health.html

Until next time!

References:

 

Drake, S.M. & Reid, J.L. & Kolohon, W. (2014). Interweaving curriculum and classroom assessment: Engaging the 21 Century Learner. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.