Here’s another similar situation right here in Ontario.
Oakville parents are fuming over this one.

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/1008746—betrayed-halton-parents-fume-over-high-school-proposal

“Oakville parents are crying foul after they volunteered countless hours over three months on a committee for a new high school, only to learn the proposal going forward is something they hadn’t discussed.

‘We provided three scenarios that the director and (senior staff) had to choose from’ to bring to trustees to vote on, said Mark Verdun, a father of two and member of the boundary review committee for the new high school in Oakville’s northwest Ward 4.

‘The ultimate scenario chosen was one that was never debated or discussed or sanctioned by the committee, which was the whole point of our assignment.’”

Plus ça change…

Would it not be the slippery slope….............

By that I mean, it would not be a problem if it were not for the diversity policies of the educrats. What do they mean by diversity, or better way of saying it, how is it define in the public education system. It appears that there is not a clear definition.

Here is the best one, I came up with on E-How.

“Diversity refers to the range of identities that exist in a group of people. Common identity categories referenced when discussing diversity include race, class, gender, religion and sexual orientation. Diversity in education represents a broad range of ideas and initiatives to create learning environments that are safe, inclusive and equitable for as many identities as possible. Recognizing, fostering and developing sensitivity to the needs of people in various identity categories are primary aims of educational diversity.”

Read more: What Does Diversity Mean in Education? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6458319_diversity-mean-education_.html#ixzz1PLsxNGwM

People are reacting, and I don’t blame them for doing so, when rights are granted above the human rights and the Charter of Canada. In other words, the rights of a minority, over rides the rights of the majority.

Another way of looking at it, is the banning of Merry Christmas and anything that has a Christian theme in our public schools, and even some have policies on it.

Diversity has two dimensions, the primary (mainly biological, usually visible: age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disabilities), and the secondary (sociocultural, usually invisible: language, education, values occupation, culture, learning sty, etc.). These various differences that inhibit inclusion at both the individual and institutional dimensions, need to be examined in light of the goal of schools and communities to begin “living diversity.” This is an approach to education and communal life that views multiculturalism as integral to the very fabric of our culture, as a basic value undergirding all that is done.”

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/rosado_managing_diversity.pdf

Too bad, the secondary seem all too important within the education system, to the point that the diversity policies end up discriminating against others who do not hold the same values, nor do they want these values imposed unto their children.

Or a more recent example that was brought to my attention. A high school, is suspending students who call other students stupid. Now that is fair, but when students call themselves stupid, they too are handed a day suspension. The diversity model that is at play in the public education system, is impossible to implement, since it includes all soft values, along with the biological that one cannot change.

And government has no business controlling thought, cultural values, and opinion, beyond the human rights codes and the Charter. But the public education system seems to think that they are responsible or their duty to implement policies that imposes restrictions on parent’s rights, and how they raise their children.

I do not think the answer is to choose a school based on world views that suits a child. Rather, the view that a school respects the values and beliefs of their students first, and stick with the business of educating their students, by following the human rights code. A good place might be the children rights code of the UN. Lots of places within the education system, to start in….................

Nancy, with all due respect, in any school you would have parents having opinions all over the spectrum on any particular issue.

Any decision taken will have parents that like it and parents that dislike it.
The problem is that the schools keep promising that they can be anything to anybody.

As long as we have a process of taking decisions that is clear and transparent and we know who is taking what kind of decision that’s the best we can hope for.

If we had some more choice when choosing the school our children attends some of these issues may get alleviated, but they will always remain.
What makes sense to me may be the worst possible choice in the eyes of my neighbour. A school cannot implement two opposite courses of action.

So we may want to discuss what is the right process or who should choose but the ideea that we can make everybody happy is just not realistic.

But there is legal rights to considered here, keeping that in mind, are the diversity policies of the schools a good fit. Some, or perhaps one, or many may end up excluded, and other times no one feels excluded or slighted.

Not in my eyes, when they start to include other things beyond the gender, race, age, sexual orientation, and disabilities.

This is a BIG issue, with many smaller issues and considerable history, as you might appreciate.  I am preparing a “Where do we go from here” article, but below is my comment on our newspaper’s blog before the final vote on the 14th.

Was The “Domino Effect” A Goal In This LGBTQ+ Secret Exercise?    Part I

(Domino Effect — The consequence of one event setting off a chain of similar events — like a falling domino causing a whole row of upended dominos to fall)

1.  It was educational to compare Burnaby School Board’s policies — for example, #5.40 -  Student Choice/Animal Dissection with #5.45   -  Homophobia/Heterosexism.  Whereas the language in 5.40 is straightforward and value-free the language in 5.45 is circuitous, judgmental and commanding. Phrases and terms such as “dangerous to individuals and communities”, “embed and integrate”, “promote a systemic response” are laden with overtones of authoritarianism and discipline.

2.  I mention the “Domino Effect” because I feel there is a strong “hidden agenda” here of an attempt to achieve the most far-out policy ever on this issue and then have it used in whipsaw manner to get other school boards in line.  I see the hand of “EXTRA”, the gay and lesbian newspaper, already proclaiming this policy as a done-deal.  The article was entitled—  “Burnaby unanimously passes anti-homophobia policy”  http://www.xtra.ca/public/Vancouver/Burnaby_unanimously_passes_antihomophobia_policy-9833.aspx

I see lesson plans already available, 68 pages, developed this year by Pride Education Network (PEN) an organization based in Vancouver.

http://www.galebc.org/The Gender Spectrum.pdf

I remember when my children were young and they had to participate in “life-boat” exercises (6 in a life boat which can carry only 5 – one an elderly grandmother! Who do you toss out?) and parents protested about this “values clarification” curriculum (There are a lot of “exercises” in these “Gender Spectrum” lesson plans!).

I see also the hand of the BC Teachers’ Federation (BCTF) as it provided a Social Justice Grant for this curriculum project.  I also see the hand of the Vancouver Elementary School Teachers’ Association which covered the release time of two teachers.  To these sponsors this is a “social justice” issue as much as it is anti-bullying, anti-homophobic, anti-heterosexism, etc.  Cultural transformation by decree (?)  A good dose of transparency would reveal this ad hoc group’s journey. 

Sure, this issue needs careful attention, but isn’t this Burnaby approach overkill and perhaps even a radical displacement of regular curricular content and skills?

3.  In my 40 years of working for education reform, especially for the voice of parents to be heard — for public schools to be responsive to parents — this is a FIRST.  This is the first time I’ve seen such an effective grass-roots parents group, which started small because of a single issue, and kept growing in sophistication and organization as a result of blocking and obstacles.  The traditional Canadian values of diversity, pluralism, and tolerance were articulated loud and clear by the parent group and its supporters.  And, the media played their wonderful democratic duty in bringing this issue to the fore.  Parents’ Voice website is worth a good look and admiration. http://www.theparentsvoice.org/Welcome.html

Was The “Domino Effect” A Goal In This LGBTQ+ Secret Exercise?  Part II   (June 09, 2011 by Tunya Audain on Vancouver Sun blog)

Despite all the lip-service to parent involvement, partnering, collaboration, engagement, etc. from our government school people, — that’s all it’s ever been —sweet talk.  No respect!  And government back-up of the parent voice is absent or hollow at best.

When a public school system does not listen to the public it serves, when it is a virtual monopoly and seductively herds most parents to their schools, then it’s time to again talk about school choice and vouchers.  If parents and their children are to be a trapped and captive audience then they need to have good exit choices when their values are dismissed.  The public money collected via our taxes for education should be available equitably to follow students to schools of choice.  Vouchers are an economically sound plan to obtain good academic and social results.

Furthermore, parents in these public school systems have few rights.  Students, teachers and staff have rights often written up in policies and handbooks.  Where are the enforceable rights for parents enshrined?

I think the parents and supporters of Parents’ Voice should examine this “Parents Rights And Their Children’s Education” brochure   http://genuine-education-reform-today.org/2010/04/06/parent-rights-and-their-childrens-education/

See #3, The Right to be Heard and Consulted, and #6 The Right to Safeguards.  If these rights had been honored by the public school board we would not have had this parent uprising today.

4.  I learned so much from this event.  I have great awe for the Catholic Civil Rights League and really enjoyed their list of the contents on their site.  I particularly found useful (and related to this Burnaby situation) the articles about Quebec’s slide toward totalitarianism.  See “Quebec’s creepy new curriculum” http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php  which helped me gain some insights into how socialism (central state control) invariably leads to totalitarianism.  See my article — Where is Quebec’s totalitarianism coming from?
http://genuine-education-reform-today.org/2011/06/08/where-is-quebecs-totalitarianism-coming-from/

5. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  This saying was never better illustrated than by this Burnaby Public School Board ham-fisted effort in addressing a social concern with a cudgel.  “Orwellian” is a good description being used in this chapter in school history.  Thankfully, we have a model here of vigilant parents who were not cowed by the system and who stood up to advocate for their children.

“Parents’ Voice is a parent and student movement that promotes respect and equality for ALL students, parents and staff.”

Europe, the above can be done more easily than the diversity and social   justice policies. I really do think it breeds intolerance, under the current diversity and social justice policies.