Firstly, we are talking about public education. “Public” is not synonymous with secular or anti-faith. Public school is supposed to embrace diversity and tolerance. So what if the people who work at PCC are Christians? Mr. Fevin’s letter (July 4, St. Albert Gazette, “Say no to religious zealots in schools”) presupposes that simply because they believe in Christianity, they must be “religious zealots” trying to convert the students to Jesus. Moreover, he claims that the WAIT program presents material that is inaccurate, anti-gay, anti-sex, anti-choice, slut-shaming, etc. Really? How many teachers in their right minds would invite anyone who actually did that into their classroom? My guess? Zero. Mr. Fevin’s accusations are as appalling as they are untrue – and bordering on religious discrimination. And where then does one draw the line here? What about the teachers themselves? As an agnostic, should I be harassing my child’s school to find out the ideological views of all her teachers? I mean, what if her teacher is a Muslim or a Christian? Doesn’t that mean my kid will be proselytized? It’s just absurd.
Let’s move on. The WAIT program is inclusive to all students regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, race or religion. Last I checked, things like healthy relationships and peer pressure applied to all people, not just heterosexuals. In fact, the EPSB Superintendent clearly stated that the PCC’s program was “scientifically sound, fact-based, and without religious context.” http://www.epsb.ca/media/epsb/ourdistrict/boardoftrustees/boardmeetings/2013-14/june17/June17,2014-ApprovedBoardMeetingMinutes.pdf
Unlike Mr. Fevin, I have actually witnessed the WAIT presentations – and I can confirm that EPSB’s evaluation is accurate. Students were challenged to identify their own values, to think critically about issues relevant to their lives. Was the entire sex-ed unit covered? No. FACT: no program covers everything. Each focuses on a certain topic(s). It’s the teachers themselves who are responsible for ensuring that all aspects of the curriculum are covered. If a teacher wants to use the WAIT program to cover the abstinence “section,” there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Same goes for Compass and contraception, or AHS and diseases.
Again, YES – the students also learned about abstinence (a curriculum requirement). Why is that bad? It’s ethically irresponsible to deliver sexual education without including abstinence in the discussion. Kids deserve to know all the options especially abstinence, because they certainly aren’t hearing about it from Nicki Minaj!
The vast majority of parents don’t want their 13-year-olds thinking that sex is “no big deal” as long as you strap on a condom. Parents want their kids to know how to resist societal pressures to have sex before the right time. And abstinence is not a religious idea. It’s a medical and scientific fact – and just plain common sense. I’m not religious, but I sure as heck don’t want my eighth grader having sex. It’s true that she may, but I want her to understand that she can make the choice to wait – and if she wants to wait, how she can succeed in that. THAT’S why the WAIT program exists – and I’m grateful.
Dawn Taylor, St. Albert
