Then I suggest you lobby your MP/MLA to outlaw all religions and the practice of them in private. Secularism is not accepted without exception in Canada. I would respectfully suggest you get over it.

If parents wish to indoctrinate their children with their beliefs, that is a matter for them. If you wish to change this, you will need to have the Constitution amended, something you have virtually no prospect of achieving.

To drag this back to topic or at least to where I wanted it to go
The real issue isn’t the minority that may skip some lessons

But that this has been added to a human rights bill that positions teachers such that they may be asked to defend their actions in a human rights commission and face the implications of being challenged at such a high level
I understand that this existed in Alberta at school board level and I still consider that quite backward but at least it would have been dealt with at a local level in a non threatening environment
The fear is not that the odd pupil gets left behind; but that the topics get avoided all together to avoid any personal legal risk or so called human right based legal challenges and that all pupils in a school could get left behind

This is about adding relgious baggage to human rights law...

I agree this shouldn’t be an issue parent can teach their child what they want to a point (including right wing Nazi propaganda??? )

However the parent shouldn’t have the right to prevent their child from learning about other religions or things that may be interpreted by their religion as offensive or morally wrong that are present in the real world so they can form their own opinion …that’s censorship

They can already do this, it's called "Religious Schools" or "home schooling"

I don't follow you here.

The legislation requires teachers/schools simply to inform parents. It's then the parents' decision to choose to withdraw their child from the lesson. In other words, it provides the parents with a form of redress if they do not agree with the subject matter. I fail to see how it will require schools/teachers to avoid topics. The only burden upon the school/teacher is to inform the parents.

I would imagine that this will be done at the beginning of each teaching "session" by stating something along the lines of "The Social Studies class will include subject matters such as Catholocism, Judaism, etc this period" " The Science class will include subject matters such as evolution, etc this period" etc., etc., it will then be encumbent for the parents to inform the school of their intention for their child to be removed from the class. It will not allow the parents to prescribe what subject matter is taught.

If anything, by providing objecting parents with a form of redress, it will ensure that "difficult" subject matters are discussed.

This is the cause for concern being raised by the teachers, it focuses around the fact that many subjects aren’t exclusive in context and content, that many issues can arise from informal debate in class and lead to subjects that under these guidelines can’t be openly discussed without informing the parent or if they are can be open to possible litigation (under the banner of human rights legislation)
Unless the worlds has change dramatically since I was young learning is an interactive dynamic environment involving questions conjecture , that young adolescents will drag subjects around to sex and controversial topics as fast and quickly as their minds can get them there.



But even they have to follow a curriculum set by the state, this enables them to step over the uncomfortable bits with parental approval whist being protected by human rights legislation

Don’t forget it also states without academic penalty in the bill

By your logic the parent may choose to pull the pupil form all social studies and science classes to avoid the risk of them learning something unpleasant, yet still expect them to get a grade in the subject
That may work, if they pull them from the majority of all classes, an allow them to freely teach the other that are left

What about if they indicate which classes the topic will definetly arise in, but later one pupil refers back to that week to what was taught, but now with the “excluded” students back in the classroom?

Do you discus the topic , or state that because we haven’t informed the parents we can’t complete your understanding of this today or at least until the next time the “excluded" students aren’t in the room, you certainly can’t remove what was said, you can’t stop what will be said informally and you can’t stop student to student discussion, but can you determine how liable the school is for the dissemination of that information?


And I can’t understand how they expect it to work without a real Academic penalty even if they fake the grade

The only question I haven't seen asked that is the most relevant would be what happens at exam time?

If a child has been removed from class for a topic, how does the child answer any relevant questions on the exam paper? Not being able to answer a question would lead to a loss of mark for that question, and in borderline students could mean the difference between a passing or failing grade.

Does the child get removed for the whole class or just the section of the class in which the topic is dicussed?

he she should be able to be removed without Academic penalty ??

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.

I think that is all politician’s legal waffle, which the schools are left to work around, and possibly undermine the value of an Albertan/Canadian education

Thanks, but then do they remove questions on the subject from tests and exams for everyone, or just those who've been removed from class?

If a child is removed without academic penalty, would any of the rest of the class be penalised for answering questions wrongly in a test?

I don't think anybody behind the bill has even bothered with that issue

a two tier exam divided by religous belief



can you imagine in the job interview " don't worry I sat the 'Anglican' version of that exam"

When my kids did " sexual health" topics in the UK, I had to sign a form to say it was Ok for them to attend the class. I could opt them in or out - is that not the same thing??
My daughter in grade 5 here in BC had a sex ed class and one on drugs recently - again i had to sign a form to say she could attend ( parents were also invited to attend the session) the boys and girls were separated into different groups ( help the giggling and embarassment issue i guess) mainly as the topics were gender specific - Boys were taught about male puberty issues and girls about female puberty issues and periods. Children were not forced to attend and parents could choose if they wanted their child to attend or not.
Some familes are very " closed" on these subjects for whatever reason and thats their choice be it religion or personal morals ethics. For a child of 10 its a parents right to decide if they feel that is what they want their child to learn. I personally think its bloody great - being schooled in a catholic convent myself we were taught NOTHING so i had a few surprises i could have done without. Its a great way to initiate home conversation too and encourages openess. But each to their own i guess - i would draw the line at my child being taught information about sexual acts - others may not be bothered about this - my point being about personal choice and whats acceptable.

Religion, we didnt get a choice, mine were taught in the Uk about many different religions, my son went through a phase of wanting to be a Hindu " when I grow up" as they have a monkey God and he thought that was superb. I find this subject annoying and feel that kids should be taught a bit about all religions and that no particular one is right or wrong - too many extremeists in the world - so teaching respect for religion is a good thing. But again i can see how some extremeists would object to their child being taught other religions - after all information and education is power, people start to question and some religions lose out as a result - they prefer the feed em crap and keep em in the dark method.

I would imagine that without academic penalty refers to the fact that the absence cannot be used against the student. Until a judge interprets this, who knows?

If a major part of the study is about the topic itself, I cannot see how a student could expect to pass the course but, again, that would be the choice of the student/parent. I don't know how many 6 year olds are given exams that are life and death and, by the time the student gets to the "real" exams of grades 10 and above, the decision to attend is likely to be their's as opposed to their parents' (although I am sure you will argue that it will still be their parents').

Again, what constitutes "explicitly" is likely to impact the issue of a student referring back.

We can debate the point ad infinitum. It's not something that I intend to get concerned about.

No

Because it wasn't written into a piece of Human rights legislation

I agree we could debate the detail for ever, until somebody probably the judge sets an actual precedent
Certainly from the debate on here (or lack of it)
It could be interpreted that many see this as minor, and have little concern that such a vague and odd addition is acceptable to be tied to human rights legislation

I think I’ve become more concerned about that lack of concern than the detail of the bill