daniel zekveld says no
Policy analyst for the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada
Governments that make sex ed mandatory overstep their authority. By making sex ed opt-in, Alberta’s government is respecting parents’ authority to direct children’s education.
In R. v. Audet (1996), Supreme Court justice Gérard Vincent La Forest wrote, “Parents delegate their parental authority to teachers and entrust them with the responsibility of instilling in their children a large part of the store of learning they will acquire during their development.” That is, parents don’t relinquish their authority over a child’s education when they send the child to school but continue to exercise it. The government has a legitimate interest in ensuring children receive an education, whether in public or private schools or at home. But the content of sex ed, the moral views of parents and the position of parents in their child’s life point to the need to maintain parental authority over sex education.
Sex education in Canada varies between provinces, as do governments’ approaches to parental involvement in education. Ontario’s sex ed curriculum, for example, was updated in 2015 and 2019 to include elements such as consent, gender identity and sexual orientation, pornography, masturbation and various types of sexual activity. Sex ed curriculum today goes beyond biology, human reproduction and disease prevention. It includes more-controversial topics, at younger and younger ages. Today’s sex ed can lead parents to wonder if not what subjects are being taught, then at least how they’re being taught.
Some parents and advocates believe sex ed should emphasize abstinence as the best way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases or an unplanned pregnancy. Others might encourage children to explore their sexuality, teaching them how to have sex safely. Still others stress that sexual intimacy should be reserved for a committed relationship. There is no consensus on what should be included and at what age. Reasonable people will disagree, because sex ed goes beyond facts and into questions of morality and values. Topics such as anatomy and disease differ categorically from questions of how and when a child should become sexually active.
Beyond issues of content and different moral views is the question of who is teaching. The family, not the government or teachers, is best placed to raise children. Parents make informed decisions on how to raise their children in the context of a deep emotional and relational connection—connections that teachers can’t have to the same extent. Parents may raise their children imperfectly, but they remain best placed to decide when, where and how children receive sex education.
Provincial governments can create sex ed curriculum. It should be done in consultation with parents and provided to parents so they can continue to direct the education of the child. But the nature of the subject matter and the primary responsibility of parents make it paramount that parents can choose whether their children receive such teaching in school.
pam krause says yes
President and CEO of the Calgary-based Centre for Sexuality
The Centre for Sexuality has been serving parents, children and families in Alberta for 52 years. Our decades of experience have shown that sexual health and well-being are inextricably linked to overall health. Comprehensive sexual health education gives students vital information about their bodies, development and growth, and about important health matters such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). It also helps youth learn about healthy relationships, providing skills and tools around communication, decision-making and consent. All of these are essential elements in the reduction of gender-based violence.
Youth are exposed to a plethora of inaccurate and harmful information. The aim of our comprehensive sexual health education program is to help them navigate developmental changes and build knowledge, skills and motivation to make informed, healthy choices about their bodies, relationships and sexuality. Our three interconnected core components are sexual and reproductive health information, healthy relationship education, and sexual violence prevention/consent skills promotion. All of this is informed by research and evidence.
We know that parents are essential sexual health educators for children and that they can and should have conversations with their children about what they’re learning at school, no matter the subject. In fact, a conversation between parent and child in preparation for, or after, sex ed is a great opportunity to discuss family values. For example, what are the family expectations around dating, social media use etc.?
Without mandatory comprehensive sex education in schools, however, students simply don’t receive the consistent and comprehensive information to achieve healthy bodies and healthy relationships. Educators provide facts, foster critical thinking, promote respect, broaden students’ perspectives and prepare young people for the complexities of adult life. Courses in sexual health—just like biology, social studies and other core classes—play a vital role in building these skills. Mandatory sexual health education also ensures that all students have access to evidence-based information from trained educators, regardless of how conversations about sex are approached at home. Not all parents are comfortable with topics related to sexuality, and some don’t have accurate information themselves.
The benefits are clear. When youth receive quality sexual health education from professionals, they are likely to delay their first sexual experience and have lower rates of unplanned pregnancies and STIs. Sex education contributes to the prevention of intimate-partner and sexual violence. And youth who receive comprehensive sexual health education are more likely to communicate with their parents about relationships and sexuality. So sexual health education in schools isn’t about keeping parents out. It’s actually about increasing the odds that parents will be part of the conversation in the first place.
daniel zekveld responds to pam krause
Pam Krause argues for mandatory sex education, using the Centre for Sexuality’s standards as the example of what it should look like. The problem is that Canadians have different ideas about what should be taught. Mandatory sex education inevitably goes beyond basic facts. Many parents aren’t bothered by the idea of sex education per se but by allowing strangers to decide what to teach their children about sex.
Sex education means different things to different people. “Comprehensive sex education,” which covers not just the basic science of reproductive systems but also sexual relationships and decision-making, is inevitably value-laden, as is “abstinence education.” And within both there is diversity of thought and opinion.
One educator might say or imply that some types of sexual activity or relationships are inappropriate, while another might say anything goes if it’s consensual. Perhaps one educator is anti-abortion or says gender cannot be changed, while another says abortion is a legitimate response to unplanned pregnancy or that gender is fluid. Aside from value judgments, an educator might emphasize or neglect facts about certain sexual acts being riskier than others.
Choosing which topics to cover or emphasize (or not) is a value-laden proposition. As such, parents rightly want to know what their children are learning. Well-informed parents might choose to send their children to sex education at school because it aligns with their moral views and they trust how the teacher will present the information. Alternatively, they might choose to opt their child out (or not opt in) and provide sex education themselves. Governments shouldn’t prohibit them from doing so.
Krause is right that children are often exposed to “inaccurate and harmful information” and that good sex education helps to achieve positive outcomes. But Canadians’ views on “good sex education” will differ. Further, Krause hasn’t shown that good outcomes cannot be achieved without mandatory sex education.
A government that makes sex ed mandatory is inevitably choosing one approach and imposing it on everyone.
Of course, many children are exposed to harmful information. For example, many are (mis)taught about sex by pornography. That can be a major problem for families to contend with. Pornography contributes to higher rates of youth sexual activity and sexual violence. Sex education may be helpful in combatting elements of this, although educators will have differing moral perspectives on porn as well. So again, mandatory sex ed isn’t the answer. A child’s relationship with friends and family is more important than a standardized curriculum in shaping a child’s ideas about healthy sexuality and relationships. A child’s communication and relationship with mother and father is especially important.
Parents who keep their children out of sex education in school are typically those who think carefully about the issues, believe sex belongs within a context of committed relationships, and want to have a relationship with their children that includes conversations about sex. Mandatory sex education wrongly assumes that such parents will fail to educate their child.
Krause says mandatory sex education increases the likelihood that parents will have such conversations with their children. But it’s doubtful that parents who wouldn’t have these conversations if sex ed were optional will have them if it is mandatory. Mandatory sex ed might instead foster a culture in which people see the state rather than parents as responsible for teaching kids about sex. Ultimately, parents get involved because they care about what their children learn about sex.
Krause admits parents are essential sexual health educators but would mandate that they entrust their children to trained educators to learn about sex “regardless of how conversations about sex are approached at home.” But the default shouldn’t be to give the responsibility of sex ed to teachers. Mandatory sex ed denies the authority of parents to direct the education of their children, particularly as it pertains to the child’s moral upbringing.
When it comes to raising children and having difficult conversations, parents are the experts. Not necessarily because parents know all the facts and data, but because parents know their children best and have the closest relationship with them. Sex education is important. And parents remain best placed to decide when, where and how children receive such education.
Like many parents, I have my own ideas of what would be best included in sex ed curricula. I imagine that Krause would disagree with some of my ideas, and vice versa. A government that makes sex education mandatory inevitably chooses one approach to sex education and imposes it on everyone. The better solution is to respect the responsibility of parents to choose whether sex education happens at home or school.
pam krause responds to daniel zekveld
The question of whether governments should mandate sex education in schools or make it opt-in is often framed as a matter of parental rights and authority. What’s being lost in all the rhetoric is the government’s responsibility to ensure that children receive a comprehensive education that prepares them for life in the real world.
While parental involvement in sex education is important (and often times preferred), so is the necessity of making it mandatory in our schools.
The argument that sexual health education should be treated differently than other core subjects such as math or social studies minimizes the positive impact that comprehensive sexual health education has throughout life. Evidence shows that when youth learn about how to communicate, make decisions and understand consent, sexual activity is actually delayed and youth increase their knowledge of how to prevent intimate-partner violence.
I acknowledge the importance of parental involvement; however, it’s essential to strike a balance between respecting parental authority and addressing the broader public interest. Provincial governments, responsible for creating sex education curricula, should actively consult with parents to ensure their perspectives are considered. However, making sex education a choice will leave some students inadequately prepared for the complexities of relationships and sexual health.
Parental involvement and effective parent–child communication about sexual health is ideal but in reality it frequently doesn’t occur or is inadequate. Many parents don’t engage in discussions about sexual health, because of their own limited knowledge, uncertainty about what information is appropriate for different age groups or general discomfort or unease with the topic.
As a result, many parents avoid conversations about sexual health altogether or wait until their children initiate discussions. When children do ask questions, parents may respond with brief answers or quickly shut down the conversation.
Parental involvement and communication about sexual health is ideal but in reality frequently doesn’t occur.
Sex education has evolved in Canada. It reflects changes in societal norms, values and health concerns. Alberta’s decision to make sex education opt-in may appear to respect parents’ moral views, but it runs the risk of inadequately preparing children for the challenges of the modern world. The expansion of sex education beyond biology and disease prevention reflects the evolving understanding of human relationships and contributes to the holistic development of individuals.
The ongoing controversy over sex education content and delivery reflects the diverse perspectives within our society. While some parents advocate for an emphasis on abstinence, many support a more comprehensive approach. The lack of consensus on the “right” way to teach this subject underscores the need for a standardized curriculum that incorporates various perspectives while prioritizing the well-being and education of all students.
The argument that parents are best placed to raise children and make decisions about their education assumes that the family environment is universally equipped to provide accurate information or is comfortable doing so. But the reality is that families vary greatly in their ability to address sensitive topics such as sex education. Professional educators can offer a broader perspective, ensuring children receive accurate information and fostering an environment where questions are welcomed without judgment.
There’s no denying that parental involvement is a key part of com-prehensive sexual health education. Research shows that youth want to discuss sexuality and sexual health with their parents, yet often parents feel ill equipped.
At the Centre for Sexuality, we strive to provide parents with the skills to engage in conversations whenever their child wants to talk. We organize parent nights at schools, where parents can meet our educators and familiarize themselves with the topics and activities covered. Parents can even participate alongside their children.
Our aim isn’t to take over the role of parents. Rather, comprehensive sexual health education serves as the foundation for future discussion and parental guidance. Parents reinforcing family values and facilitating open discussions on complex topics are essential aspects of healthy development for children and youth.
While parents should be consulted in the development of curricula, leaving sex education as an opt-in choice risks compromising children’s comprehensive education and well-being. Striking a balance between parental involvement and societal needs is crucial to ensure that all children receive the knowledge and skills necessary for navigating the complexities of the modern world.
____________________________________________
