Alberta Education dumbs down
Jun 2nd 2009 | 1:07 pm
#31
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 40,070
From: Ontario
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
Even if this proves to be true - so what?
The type of parent that would do such a thing is the type of parent that will have brainwashed their child with their beliefs from a young age anyway. The remainder of the class will continue with their studies and the child will likely go on to follow its parents's beliefs without question for ever and a day.
Storm in a teacup if you ask me.
The type of parent that would do such a thing is the type of parent that will have brainwashed their child with their beliefs from a young age anyway. The remainder of the class will continue with their studies and the child will likely go on to follow its parents's beliefs without question for ever and a day.
Storm in a teacup if you ask me.
Jun 2nd 2009 | 1:11 pm
#32
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,402
From: South of Calgary
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
Until a judge has interpreted the sections, no-one really knows what they mean. Secton 11.1 is ambigous. What does "explicitly" mean? If I was teaching evolution and mentioned, in passing, religion, would this suffice, or would the lesson have to involve religion more?
I believe the nuances of the law are about to change but, regardless, old law or new law, if it limits freedom of discussion in the classroom it's worth getting mildly flustered about. I say mildly as I don't image anyone moves to Alberta expecting it to be a bastion of liberal thought, moving there does imply acquiesence to a degree of bigotry. Nonetheless, legislation is not wine, it doesn't get better with age.
Last edited by Almost Canadian; Jun 2nd 2009 at 1:14 pm.
Jun 2nd 2009 | 1:12 pm
#33
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 15,883
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
What is it in 11.1 that is unclear?
I don't see any mention of science in there anywhere.
Nor do I see how the content of any science curriculum could be considered to have any "explicit" content referring to religion, sexuality or sexual orientation.
9 The following is added after section 11:
Notice to parent or guardian
11.1(1) A board as defined in the School Act shall provide
notice to a parent or guardian of a student where courses of
study, educational programs or instructional materials, or
instruction or exercises, prescribed under that Act include
subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or
sexual orientation.
(2) Where a teacher or other person providing instruction,
teaching a course of study or educational program or using the
instructional materials referred to in subsection (1) receives a
written request signed by a parent or guardian of a student that
the student be excluded from the instruction, course of study,
educational program or use of instructional materials, the
teacher or other person shall in accordance with the request of
the parent or guardian and without academic penalty permit the
student
(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction,
course of study or educational program is taking place or
the instructional materials are being used for the duration
of the part of the instruction, course of study or
educational program, or the use of the instructional
materials, that includes the subject-matter referred to in
subsection (1), or
(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part
in the instruction, course of study or educational
program or using the instructional materials.
Notice to parent or guardian
11.1(1) A board as defined in the School Act shall provide
notice to a parent or guardian of a student where courses of
study, educational programs or instructional materials, or
instruction or exercises, prescribed under that Act include
subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or
sexual orientation.
(2) Where a teacher or other person providing instruction,
teaching a course of study or educational program or using the
instructional materials referred to in subsection (1) receives a
written request signed by a parent or guardian of a student that
the student be excluded from the instruction, course of study,
educational program or use of instructional materials, the
teacher or other person shall in accordance with the request of
the parent or guardian and without academic penalty permit the
student
(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction,
course of study or educational program is taking place or
the instructional materials are being used for the duration
of the part of the instruction, course of study or
educational program, or the use of the instructional
materials, that includes the subject-matter referred to in
subsection (1), or
(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part
in the instruction, course of study or educational
program or using the instructional materials.
Nor do I see how the content of any science curriculum could be considered to have any "explicit" content referring to religion, sexuality or sexual orientation.
Jun 2nd 2009 | 1:19 pm
#34
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,402
From: South of Calgary
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
It seems to me that the "libel chill" effect is a valid concern. Religionists only have to move against one teacher to effect a general change in the circullum. In a multi-cultural democracy it's inappropriate to give the followers of one religion the ammunition to shift the lessons taught to everyone.
Legislation is supreme (until struck down). Any school/teacher following it would have a complete defence. What civil claim could stand that doesn't already stand?
If person A is miffed about a subject being taught, they have the form of redress that they think appropriate now. The legislation doesn't stop that, in fact it could be argued that it bolsters it.
I would be way more concerned with the Human Rights Commissions that abound throughout the land, their procedures and judgments are truly crazed.
Jun 2nd 2009 | 1:23 pm
#35
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 40,070
From: Ontario
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
Until a judge has interpreted the sections, no-one really knows what they mean. Secton 11.1 is ambigous. What does "explicitly" mean? If I was teaching evolution and mentioned, in passing, religion, would this suffice, or would the lesson have to involve religion more?
Jun 2nd 2009 | 1:31 pm
#36
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 40,070
From: Ontario
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
Bu the legislation simply allows a child to be removed, not to stop the lesson being taught. What claims would those affected have against the school or a particular teacher?
Legislation is supreme (until struck down). Any school/teacher following it would have a complete defence. What civil claim could stand that doesn't already stand?
Legislation is supreme (until struck down). Any school/teacher following it would have a complete defence. What civil claim could stand that doesn't already stand?
You constant fail, deliberately I suppose, to understand that the cost of litigation is what matters, not who would win the action given unlimited funding. A realistic threat of a court action is what wins negotiations, actual court actions are something for the affluent and whimsical.
Jun 2nd 2009 | 1:51 pm
#37
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,402
From: South of Calgary
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
The concern is that the teacher is obliged to notify the parents of material to which they may object. They may, of course, follow the TV station approach of sticking a disclaimer on everything, but otherwise the individual teacher is at risk of legal action for not issuing a warning of pending inappropriate commentary. As best I can tell, a teacher's only defence against such a complaint would be to go to court. Since that option is beyond the realm of the common man the teacher is obliged not to get into trouble in the first place and so the threat of litigation changes the curriculum.
You constant fail, deliberately I suppose, to understand that the cost of litigation is what matters, not who would win the action given unlimited funding. A realistic threat of a court action is what wins negotiations, actual court actions are something for the affluent and whimsical.
You constant fail, deliberately I suppose, to understand that the cost of litigation is what matters, not who would win the action given unlimited funding. A realistic threat of a court action is what wins negotiations, actual court actions are something for the affluent and whimsical.
I am fully aware of the cost of litigation in Canada. Your last sentence is, to an extent true, but is predicated on the "realistic threat" being available to the complainant.
It seems to me that the concerns about warnings that you have will be dealt with by the schools (perhaps collectively) agreeing at the start of each school year to explain to the parents what "issues" will be dealt with and making it encumbent upon the parents to exercise their opt out in advance of the subject being taught.
As I said, storm in a teacup
Jun 2nd 2009 | 2:15 pm
#39
Cynically amused.
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,648
From: BC
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/200...igious-groups/
Abbotsford were ahead of the game then.
Whilst the above course has been reinstated, parents have the right in that school district, and the one my kids are in, to pull their children from any class they find objectionable on religious grounds. Parents exercising that right happens more than you might think.
Abbotsford were ahead of the game then.
Whilst the above course has been reinstated, parents have the right in that school district, and the one my kids are in, to pull their children from any class they find objectionable on religious grounds. Parents exercising that right happens more than you might think.
Jun 2nd 2009 | 2:53 pm
#40
Thread Starter
Part Time Poster
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,219
From: Worcestershire
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
Evolution can be considered to be in conflict with their religion
It doesn't exclude science and if you've followed the press
what was said early on "When asked by a reporter whether Bill 44 would allow parents to pull students from classes dealing with evolution, Ed Stelmach agreed that it would"
it may be old but its a precedent thats been set at rather too high a level to be ignored
Jun 2nd 2009 | 3:14 pm
#41
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,710
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
because for many a right wing nut job and that includes your premier...
Evolution can be considered to be in conflict with their religion
It doesn't exclude science and if you've followed the press
what was said early on "When asked by a reporter whether Bill 44 would allow parents to pull students from classes dealing with evolution, Ed Stelmach agreed that it would"
it may be old but its a precedent thats been set at rather too high a level to be ignored
Evolution can be considered to be in conflict with their religion
It doesn't exclude science and if you've followed the press
what was said early on "When asked by a reporter whether Bill 44 would allow parents to pull students from classes dealing with evolution, Ed Stelmach agreed that it would"
it may be old but its a precedent thats been set at rather too high a level to be ignored
I disagree with him (obviously), also creationism is not just about evolution, but also affects some very early elementary science courses, eg KG dinosaurs, GR2 rocks and minerals etc.
Jun 2nd 2009 | 3:14 pm
#42
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,710
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/200...igious-groups/
Abbotsford were ahead of the game then. Whilst the above course has been reinstated, parents have the right in that school district, and the one my kids are in, to pull their children from any class they find objectionable on religious grounds. Parents exercising that right happens more than you might think.
Abbotsford were ahead of the game then.
Whilst the above course has been reinstated, parents have the right in that school district, and the one my kids are in, to pull their children from any class they find objectionable on religious grounds. Parents exercising that right happens more than you might think.
Jun 2nd 2009 | 3:16 pm
#43
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,710
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
Ah the bigot reference again. The legislation does not limit freedom of discussion, it allows parents to remove their child. If the child is removed, blame (if you wish) the parents. I would have thought that the legislation is "liberal", it allows people to pursue their beliefs. Surely, bigoted legislation would force them to attend with front row seats?
Jun 2nd 2009 | 4:08 pm
#44
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 31
From: Alberta
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
How likely is it that children will be withdrawn from classes on religious grounds?
Is it not fair to say that if the parents are that devout they will be sending their children to religious schools where they can be educated with a religious overtone to all their education. We have a non fee paying Catholic school in my town and children of parents from other denominations are welcome.
Is it not fair to say that if the parents are that devout they will be sending their children to religious schools where they can be educated with a religious overtone to all their education. We have a non fee paying Catholic school in my town and children of parents from other denominations are welcome.
Jun 3rd 2009 | 1:20 am
#45
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,402
From: South of Calgary
Re: Alberta Education dumbs down
My reply to your post stated a fact. I then replied to Steve P's thread. There was no reference in that reply to your intelligence. Had I wanted to single you out I would have done so.
Your reference to "par for the course" implies that I have done this to you previously. I can't recall that I have.
If you were offended by my posts above, I sincerely apologise. No discourtesy was intended.
As I have said on numerous occassions, my belief is that the entire episode is a storm in a teacup. You evidently don't. Each to their own.
