Sex-ed protesters plan to keep kids home from school Tuesday

70 posts / 0 new
Last post
oldgoat

OK Magoo, I'm not giving up because I like you.  (even though I can still ban you just for the hell of it).  Truth is objective and overrated. The current discourse on this matter, IMHO does not respect the layers of issues that need to be addressed to achieve a successful outcome, that being kids going to school, for all the courses. I'm just saying the board here is going about it wrong.  Really, they should hire me for about say $800 a day and I'd get some buy in from the local community.  In my work, I'm actually pretty results focussed

 

oldgoat

Fuck, Wynne has lots of $$ to throw around for consultants, make it $1100 a day with no time frame.  I'd still get the job done better.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Truth is objective and overrated. The current discourse on this matter, IMHO does not respect the layers of issues that need to be addressed to achieve a successful outcome, that being kids going to school, for all the courses.

OK.  Can you be specific about what you think might have better been done?  If I promise not to rabbit-punch whatever those things are (even as we acknowledge that you can ban me for lulz?) 

And for the sake of discussion, let's also assume that moving this new curriculum forward (after it got euthanized five years ago) is a priority alongside getting buy-in from some parents?

oldgoat

8th glass of wine at least.  Tomorrow, ok?  Actually I think I've been doing pretty well so far.  First, you don't go in with that kind of priority. A vision of the end game maybe, but the process and timeline will be a result of discussion.  This takes time and relationship establishing.  I've actually done this stuff. There are some pretty established mosques that could be engaged to help.  They might have doubts themselves, but they  much more represent established Muslim communities. They would rather be bridge builders than dividers. 

 

Anyway, I am off to the arms of Morpheus

oldgoat

oldgoat wrote:

Fuck, Wynne has lots of $$ to throw around for consultants, make it $1100 a day with no time frame.  I'd still get the job done better.

 

plus expenses of course, like taking Magoo and unionist and whoever the hell to lunch.

mersh

oldgoat your posted rates are actually quite the bargain -- but I think you should be paid market-level fees for the work you're doing here, too! I appreciate how you parse being right and being effective as not necessarily equal but not necessarily contradictory, either.

Unionist

oldgoat wrote:

As with any newcomer population, they're terrified for their kids losing values and traditions which they have depended on for generations. 

I appreciated and was impressed by the sensitivity and wisdom of your comments, oldgoat.

With the sole exception of the sentence I quoted above.

Some people, indeed some "communities", come here precisely because they want to discard the centuries of bullshit they have lived with. (Little do they know what bullshit they'll face here!!) Others come proud of and committed to their "values and traditions". And there's quite a spectrum between and beyond.

Please don't generalize. That way lies error.

Maybe if you changed "any" to "many". But even then, I really don't like the stereotyping of immigrants as all (or many) wanting to bring their traditions, values, culture, religion, quarrels, prejudices, etc. and create ghettoes in Canada so that they can continue to pretend they're still at "home". I don't believe in such generalities.

youngsocialist

As a Wynne hating queer who would have benefited from the revamped sex ed... Any protest that damages the Liberals chances (who have practically evaded responsibility for any wrong doing for the past few years) at winning the next election is good to me.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

That seems a bit like taking delight in a Conservative POC losing an election because of racism.  Yes, we might want them to lose because they're Conservative, but is it really "anything goes" now?

youngsocialist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

That seems a bit like taking delight in a Conservative POC losing an election because of racism.  Yes, we might want them to lose because they're Conservative, but is it really "anything goes" now?

When John Tory lost his seat due to Liberal racism, it was very easy to criticize the Liberals.

Liberals have used this tactic and gotten away with it many times. So if the protests can damage the Liberal brand, then that's good with me.

voice of the damned

youngsocialist wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

That seems a bit like taking delight in a Conservative POC losing an election because of racism.  Yes, we might want them to lose because they're Conservative, but is it really "anything goes" now?

When John Tory lost his seat due to Liberal racism, it was very easy to criticize the Liberals.

Liberals have used this tactic and gotten away with it many times. So if the protests can damage the Liberal brand, then that's good with me.

Well, I guess if you think that bigoted demagoguery is inevitably gonna be a feature of both parties' arsenals in the Liberal Vs.Tory wars, AND if you dislike the Liberals enough that you want the Tories to beat them, then it probably makes sense, albeit in a nihilistic sort of a way, to hope that right-wing, anti-gay parents will vote Tory and defeat the Liberals.

6079_Smith_W

youngsocialist wrote:

Liberals have used this tactic and gotten away with it many times. So if the protests can damage the Liberal brand, then that's good with me.

If this was an issue on which they had been unethical in the first place, and had treated those people unfairly I might agree. That is not what happened, as far as I know.

But as for just using stuff as a political foil whether you believe it or not, just to hurt your opponent, Mr. Harper has shown that it works.

If one is willing to throw any sense of values and concern for the real issues out the window and just turn it into a horse race, I guess it is fine.

I won't be cheering for it.

 

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

youngsocialist wrote:

Liberals have used this tactic and gotten away with it many times. So if the protests can damage the Liberal brand, then that's good with me.

If this was an issue on which they had been unethical in the first place, and had treated those people unfairly I might agree. That is not what happened, as far as I know.

But as for just using stuff as a political foil whether you believe it or not, just to hurt your opponent, Mr. Harper has shown that it works.

If one is willing to throw any sense of values and concern for the real issues out the window and just turn it into a horse race, I guess it is fine.

I won't be cheering for it.

 

I remember during the Oka standoff, there was a not insignificant section of English Canadian opinion that held to a viewpoint roughly as follows: "Damned right I support the Mohawks, because goddam Quebec blah blah blah bloody frogs blah blah blah."

Score one for First Nations, I guess.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Three teachers lose jobs over sex-ed boycott

Quote:
At Thorncliffe Park Public School, an early September boycott of nearly 800 students over the revised curriculum dwindled as parents gradually brought their kids back to school, but when the last 100 still failed to show up by mid-October, the school was forced to dissolve two Grade 1 classes and declare two long-term occasional teachers as “surplus.”

As I understand it, this is because provincial funding is tied to enrolment/attendance, and if I recall correctly, job loss was already being considered as a possible result when the protests first started.

As an aside:

[IMG]http://i68.tinypic.com/10hu4u9.jpg[/IMG]

I'm sure this was nothing more than some very fortuitous photojournalism.  I'm sure that banner reads "Say No To Irresponsible Sex Ed", but still... LOL.

voice of the damned

So this boycott has now been going on long enough, and in sufficient numbers, for it to have an impact on school enrollment substantial enough to warrant the termination of teaching jobs at the school.

I'd say we can probably conclude that this is NOT simply a case of Charles McVety handing misleading pamplets to hapless parents, who would otherwise be glad to listen to a truthful explanation of the program if only someone would make it available to them.

EDIT: Well, reading the article again, it would seem that the most of the students have in fact returned to school, with only about a hundred remaining absent. I wonder if that was because of the information sessions mentioned by the article, or the parents just lost their nerve, etc?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Good question, and I don't think there's any way to answer it.  Some kids who haven't returned are apparently now enrolled in Muslim schools and some are being home schooled.  The unfortuante part is that those 100 students are liklier to wind up with a less than par education, which will make their lives more difficult down the line.

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
Good question, and I don't think there's any way to answer it.  Some kids who haven't returned are apparently now enrolled in Muslim schools and some are being home schooled.  The unfortuante part is that those 100 students are liklier to wind up with a less than par education, which will make their lives more difficult down the line.

Sounds like the makings of another information pamphlet, to the students.  "Your life will likely be made more difficult by the decisions of your parents.  Don't play it forward to your own children down the road.'  We'll have this licked in a few generations if we keep pounding away at the kids with reason.  Not literally pounding...you know what I mean.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I wonder if that was because of the information sessions mentioned by the article, or the parents just lost their nerve, etc?

If I were to guess, I'd suggest that the original protest, in which kids were "alternate schooled" in a park beside the school had a bit of a "large group" dynamic to it that made joining on seem easy enough, but when the availability of that space (and the weather) made that unsustainable, that left only private schooling or home schooling.  Private schooling is probably beyond the means of some, and home schooling is a pretty significant responsibility.

Quote:
We'll have this licked in a few generations if we keep pounding away at the kids with reason.

It's not a closed system.  Even if these kids grow up to choose public schooling and sex ed, there'll be more new kids and their parents.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

SJ, not sure how to take your post... To clarify, I don't think most parents are actually equipped to homeschool. For example, my SIL has a university degree and worked as an RN and a missionary involved with public health in 3rd world, disciplined and hyper -responsible. Opted to homeschool two of her kids and neither of them finished the equivalent of high school until their mid 20s. It takes a special kind of dedication and a particular skill set to do homeschooling well. If you're pulling your kids out as a knee jerk reaction, rather than thinking it through, chances are lower its not going to go well.

Pages