A report from the BCTF to the members of the legislative assembly
http://www.bctf.ca/publications/NoteFromTeachers.aspx
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Good article on self censorship
I commend Murray Corren for his timely argument against a parent’s right to remove her child from parts of the curriculum ("A censor? Who, me?" Jan./Feb. 2007 Teacher). Last year I had a child removed from my class production of A Christmas Carol because the parents objected to the Christmas (not Christian) overtones. The child clearly wanted to participate in the play and, in my view, would have benefitted from doing so.
If it can be shown that parts of the provincial curriculum are harmful to the development of a child, reason would dictate that the curriculum be changed. The governmentally sanctioned policy of pulling one child out of the classroom seems wrong, not only because of what the child will miss, but because the other children would suffer—if indeed the curriculum was harmful. Of course no parent(s) has convinced the provincial
Also in your Jan./Feb. issue of Teacher, is a letter from Richard Peachey who maintains that a parent should, and does, possess the right to remove her child from parts of the curriculum for "genuine conscientious reasons." What Peachey finds objectionable is homosexuality. Yet the position of our courts and governments, as made plain in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is that homosexuality is acceptable in our society. As Corren rhetorically asks, how can a parent be allowed to restrict learning stimuli from her child that the society has affirmed to be worthwhile and in a child’s best interest to learn?
For "genuine conscientious reasons" our provincial government has included instruction on same sex families. I think it is timorous for the same government and school boards to permit some parents to dispense with parts of the curriculum, particularly instruction that promotes sensitivity toward people with a different sexual orientation. Peachey’s putative right to deny his child this instruction is not defensible in a society expressly opposed to bigotry and hate.
Jim McMurtry, Surrey
If it can be shown that parts of the provincial curriculum are harmful to the development of a child, reason would dictate that the curriculum be changed. The governmentally sanctioned policy of pulling one child out of the classroom seems wrong, not only because of what the child will miss, but because the other children would suffer—if indeed the curriculum was harmful. Of course no parent(s) has convinced the provincial
Also in your Jan./Feb. issue of Teacher, is a letter from Richard Peachey who maintains that a parent should, and does, possess the right to remove her child from parts of the curriculum for "genuine conscientious reasons." What Peachey finds objectionable is homosexuality. Yet the position of our courts and governments, as made plain in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is that homosexuality is acceptable in our society. As Corren rhetorically asks, how can a parent be allowed to restrict learning stimuli from her child that the society has affirmed to be worthwhile and in a child’s best interest to learn?
For "genuine conscientious reasons" our provincial government has included instruction on same sex families. I think it is timorous for the same government and school boards to permit some parents to dispense with parts of the curriculum, particularly instruction that promotes sensitivity toward people with a different sexual orientation. Peachey’s putative right to deny his child this instruction is not defensible in a society expressly opposed to bigotry and hate.
Jim McMurtry, Surrey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
