The last week brings to mind the old song from the rock musical Jesus Christ Superstar — "What's the buzz? Tell me what's happening! What's the buzz? Tell me what's happening! Why should you want to know? Don't you mind about the future?"
Let's be perfectly clear right from the start. Alberta is not turning back the clock! Alberta students will continue to take a full robust curriculum examining all aspects of modern science, including biology, chemistry and physics. Bill 44 (the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act) is not a get out of class free card for anyone who finds molecular biology difficult. Geology is not religion — even if you claim to worship rocks.
Bill 44 simply continues the current law and practice in Alberta where parents are entitled to know when their children study religion and sex ed, or sexuality. Currently, Section 50 of the School Act provides that a child may be exempted from religious instruction or exercises. Mandated policy in the Guide to Education (page 71) requires that parents be notified when the curriculum deals with sexuality and are entitled to ask that their children be excused. Bill 44 puts both provisions into law (rather than mandated policy which some people were not aware of, and others were concerned could be changed without public debate) and requires notification (which Section 50 of the School Act does not explicitly do).
Some argue that by putting these provisions into the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act there is a significant change — elevating them to the status of "rights". Surprise! These already are rights. Parents have the right to know what their children are being taught. They have the right to review curriculum with teachers — and in fact are encouraged to do so. More parents should take such an interest in what is happening in school.
When it comes to values and value systems, there has always been the question of whether schools should teach values or whether this is the purview of the family. In a modern pluralistic society, there is no way to avoid discussions of values. We certainly want our schools to talk about citizenship, and what it means to be a caring society. And there are too many situations where families are not strong — or even there.
However, there is particular sensitivity about specifically teaching about religion and religious doctrine. While I want my children to understand the spectrum of religions in the world, I may not want you to interpret for my child what the doctrines of my religion are. And when it comes to sexuality and sex education, it is important to me that I know what you are teaching my child. Then I can be involved in ensuring that my child has more than a technical understanding of the mechanics of sex, but also a clear and unequivocal view of the importance of sex within a loving and caring relationship. It is for these reasons that notification is provided to parents, and the opportunity is there for a parent to say, "I would rather my child does not participate."
Simply put, Bill 44 is not about making false choices — tolerance or intolerance, ignorance or intelligence, Darwin or Jesus — but about parents' awareness of what is taught in religious or human sexuality classes. Instruction about religion and human sexuality have always been areas of sensitivity for some parents. Parents have always had the right to exempt their children from instruction in these areas. Parental rights include being informed about and given the chance to opt out of explicit religious instruction and exercises, and instruction about human sexuality. Parental rights do not include allowing religious interpretation of the broader program of studies as grounds for opting out.
Let me be perfectly clear: Public education in Alberta will unequivocally continue to include evolution. Evolution is an integral part of Alberta's world-renowned curriculum. Teachers are required to teach the programs of study, and therefore are required to teach evolution when it arises in the programs of study. Evolution is presented as a widely accepted scientific theory on origins based on many well-tested lines of evidence. We are noted for the rigor of our science curriculum, the breadth and depth of language arts and literature courses, and the diversity of opinions expressed and explored in social studies. That will not change.
Science is clearly different from religion in that we do not have, for instance, Hindu calculus or Catholic chemistry. Science looks at how the world is; religion is one way of understanding what the world means. Science programs may include discussion of other explanations of origins, including creationism, but these explanations will not be given equal time and emphasis, or recognition as scientific theories. Teachers are expected to respect students' religious beliefs and allow them to express views based on their personal values and beliefs. Our curriculum, Provincial Tests and Diploma Examinations undergo an extensive review to ensure that they adhere to the Guidelines for Recognizing Diversity and Promoting Respect.
A cohesive, pluralistic society requires informed citizens who understand both science and religion, even if some of these citizens choose not to believe in aspects of one or the other. While not all students take courses specifically about religion, topics related to religion may be explored in other programs of study, like social studies. Bill 44 will not change that. Students should be learning about beliefs they do not necessarily agree with, whether scientific or religious. Thinking through personal beliefs is an important part of developing judgment and character. Some parents prefer to rely on religious traditions like prayer to develop character.
The Alberta Human Rights Commision is not there to take teachers and school boards to task for failing to inform parents. Its role is significantly more important than that. This concept that teachers will have to fear any utterance — that discussion in class will "freeze", that there can be no utilization of "teachable moments" when a topic touches on religion or homosexuality — is bizarre. Social studies classrooms must and will be able to discuss current events — even when, especially when, they involve a clash of cultures, values, and even religions. That is not teaching religion — that is acknowledging the reality of today's society and developing students who are global citizens. Science will continue to teach about the cell structure and its continuing adaptive evolution. That is basic to understanding where we are going and how we deal with disease, among many other things.
Should these changes be in the School Act, rather than the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act? Probably. That is certainly my view. The School Act is where one would expect to look for school-related matters. However, some argue that rights should be reflected in the Act which deals with human rights. Which piece of legislation it is included in does not change the fact that parents are ultimately responsible for their children, that society has an interest in making sure children are appropriately educated, and that in some areas there is inevitably going to be a clash of values which needs rational discussion and resolution.
Comments
Dave, thank you for taking the time to post this.
While I'm glad to hear your thoughts on the issue, here is what continues to trouble me (and countless others):
"Students should be learning about beliefs they do not necessarily agree with, whether scientific or religious."
Science is centered around observation, making rational and educated guesses, refining those guesses through further observation and experimentation, and slowly chipping away at the mysteries behind our Universe. When a scientific belief is eroded, science as a whole is strengthened.
Religion is presented as-is; when challenged, it irrationally seeks evidence to support its existing conclusions. Beliefs are the pillar of every religion, and when they are eroded, the religion as a whole is weakened.
It is absurd to give religion and science equal weighting in any calculation of educational value.
One can easily grasp the individual's right to choose what they believe; perhaps it is not so easy to see that choosing to bury our children's heads in the sand is doing our society no favours in the long term.
I look forward to the day when science and religion can co-exist in the classroom: one as an objective analysis of the natural world, and one as an analysis of cultures and human nature.
Thanks again for your time!
-- MM in Edmonton
Evolution is not a religious topic, and science class should not talk about religion. Therefore skipping science class for religious reasons is not a valid excuse.
Students must learn how science arrives at accepted theories. If people understood how science works, they would realize that evolution is not a religious topic. This misunderstanding combined with the law will lead many parents to request their students not be exposed to the theory of evolution.
An understanding of evolution is necessary for understanding the modern world, including topics like swine flu.
Religion should be taught in social studies, from the point of view of history & societies. All the major religions should be covered. Since this is history and social studies and not teaching students what to believe there should be no valid religious reason for opting out of these classes.
Government funding for religious teaching must be eliminated. Funding for Catholic and other religious schools is not appropriate in a society that values separation of church and state.
The difference, and you know this, is that teachers, schools, and school districts can now be hauled before the Human Rights Tribunal.
Before, parents really didn't have any choice but to accept the school districts interpretation of the School Act. Now, they have a vehicle to take their complaints to.
Are you so smug that you are willing to bet your reputation that a tribunal will interpret the word 'explicitly' the way you do?
You campaigned for the leadership on a moderate platform. You and your supporters tell us to work within the Conservative party to be a moderate voice. But when push comes to shove, you cave to the fundamentalists in your caucus.
There is no point in keeping the Conservatives around.
First of all, my congratulations on one of the greatest headlines ever. (Maybe when you get tired of politics, you can come work on our night desk.)
But I do want to make two points:
1) The media's belief that Bill 44 could have an impact on the teaching of evolution evolved, quite organically, from comments the premier made at a press conference last week. When asked whether Bill 44 would allow parents to pull their kids from classes on evolution, he said yes.
Culture minister Lindsay Blackett, whose bill this is, confirmed the premier's interpretation, saying that evolution was only a small part of the curriculum. As far as I recall, your blog represents the very first time that any minister or gov't MLA has said, for the record and without equivocation, that evolution and geology classes will not be subject to the impact of Bill 44. It would be good to hear those comments outside the blogosphere.
2) Your last paragraph is exactly right. These changes should be in the School Act. And the reason is simple. To me, Bill 44 clearly leaves open the potential, intended or otherwise, for teachers and schools to be subject to the discipline of human rights tribunals. That's a sad infringement on free speech. It is inevitable, human nature being what it is, that at least a handful of parents will attempt to use the new rights granted them in Bill 44 to influence classroom teaching, be it on evolution or same-sex marriage. That's the real concern here.
Thanks for creating this forum for discussion. I hope to see my posting up soon!
Cheers
Paula
I have reflected and ruminated on Bill 44 exemption provisions for a few days now and just finished my blog post - with I will publish tomorrow morning.
I think the parental exemption amendments in Bill 44 are unnecessary, dangerous and a mindless political sop by many in the PC caucus. Too many appear to be merely prepared to "go along to get along" with the So-Con element in their midst for political pandering purposes.
If I am right, that is a dereliction of duty to citizens in a representative democracy.
Dave:
There is a fundamental disconnect between the very reasonable position you are advancing in your blog and the content and effect of Bill 44.
There is no objective criteria for determining whether a given topic triggers the requirement for advance notification of parents. Just because you believe that evolution isn't subject matter dealing explicitly with religion, doesn't mean that a creationist parent (or for that matter the premier) would agree. And it is the creationist parent, not the reasonable and progressive minister, who is empowered to haul the teacher (actually the teacher's school board) to the human rights tribunal. Similarly with sexuality and sexual orientation.
So here is a proposal to make the Bill better (or rather, less bad) -- remove the references to "instructional materials, or instruction, or exercises" so as to limit the prior notification requirement to "courses of study, or educational programs" only. This would be far easier for school boards to administer and would reduce the potential chilling effect that the proposal, if implemented, would have on classroom teachers.
By the way, cute title, but the objections being voiced to Bill 44 are by no means specious.
I haven't agreed with one damn thing this government has done since Getty was here, but I agree with this!
In the final analysis, this is about ideas and points of view...I always find it interesting that ideas can shake things up so much...people are ready to go to war against ideas. What power there is in ideas, and yet they are completely imaginary, reified notions. They really don't have power apart from our reactions to them. And so I don't personally understand why anyone would not want a child (or themselves) exposed to ideas...but then I have a rather Zen view of things, generally.
Should parents wish their students withdrawn from classes where evolution will be discussed, then I feel that all medical care or treatment that has arisen from understanding of Darwin's principles as applied to Genetics and the discovery and manipulation of DNA, would be beyond the reach of those families. In other words, if they want their belief to disrupt the teaching process, then they would be opting out of any evolution based science as applied to their medical care.
That would be a test of their understanding of the subjects being discussed.
Parents already have numerous avenues to explore a faith based and informed education, from charter schools to home schooling where they can supplement their curriculum with faith-based education on their own time and on their own dollar.
We most certainly do not need interference of this type in a public school system. If they don't like evolution, there's the door ... find yourself one of those lovely Christian academies down by Red Deer and stay out of the public system altogether.
Putting this legislation in Human Rights legislation is clearly an attempt to enshrine a nice little sop to the religious right in the province. In the past, I've voted PC. Never again.
Matthew...I couldn't agree with you more. Ihave never voted PC, and I whole heartedly support the most common sense party of all........the Green Party !
... Although the Alberta Education guidelines for teaching "controversial issues" might need some tweaking and perhaps more definition, I largely agree with them. Perhaps more the issue is finding a more accountable way to ensure that teachers are teaching within the guidelines.
As a former public school teacher of sexuality education, I already sent advance notice out to parents that provided them an opportunity to pull their student and provide alternative education at home or provide them with my teaching materials and use it to cover the curriculum themselves at home. As well, providing advance notice of even touching on "controversial issues" as it might come up in a discussion etc. in a related or unrelated class is completely unrealistic and unacceptable to me....If parents want these accommodations and rights as I understand them in Bill 44...they already have them...by supporting and enrolling their child in separate school education, private/charter schools or alternative programs offered within their school board that provide their bent on these topics. Public education is both democratic and pluralistic....I want to be able to count on that as a public school taxpayer and parent...don't I have rights too? I want young people to have opportunities to develope and test higher level thinking skills against "contentious or controversial issues". And I do not want my provincial government or public education tax payer money or personnel's time and energy used to litigate cases that I foresee from Bill 44.
Thanks Dave for the opportunity here to add my two bits
Wendy
Evening Dave,
I am very disappointed that the Conservative party has decided to pass this regressive legislation. Limiting a child's education is a giant step backwards. The children in this province should receive a full education.
Instead of allowing parents to pull their children out of classes in public schools, the teaching of evolution, sexuality and other religions should be made mandatory for private and charter schools. Allowing uneducated, backward parents to limit their children's future is disgusting. This legislation is an embarrassment to all educated and enlightened people.
I have voted conservative for the last 20 years but this time your Party has gone too far. I will make every effort to defeat the Conservatives in the next election.
RF