PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE |
|
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today regarding the Equity Policy Sexual Orientation component. My name is Gloria Turner and I come as a member of a school council of this Board, and the Equity Policy Steering Committee representative for all school councils. I am thankful for the opportunity I had to be a member of the Steering Committee and to represent all School Councils. Having said that, I must now follow with several concerns that I have observed throughout this process. The first category of concern was my lack of ability as the single school representative to report to all school councils. 1. REPORTING TO SCHOOL COUNCILS WAS RESTRICTEDi) No reporting was made to school councils by the original school council representative prior to my serving on the Committee.ii) I had only official School Council email addresses as a means to communicate with them. Many school councils do not monitor them, as they should. iii) Discussions and documents were deemed 'confidential' making reporting very difficult if not impossible. These three facts are acknowledged by the Equity Policy Chair. iv) Vital information that I requested was sometimes slow in coming. There were wait times of several weeks for the School Board's decision on the final validation process and final drafted policy, and several months for both the Section 1 Guidelines, and the Minutes of the final meeting of September 24, 2007. This has also been acknowledged by the Chair. v) School council input - My own school council was asked by the School Board to await information and an invitation, but these were not finally offered until around June 12, 2007 - after our final school council meeting and after our final school newsletter. There was little opportunity to discuss it or to bring this information to the parents of our school. School council involvement is mandated through the Ontario Parent Involvement Policy, and affirmed in the Director's statement regarding Communications and Community Relations wherein he stated, "Communication must be valuable and allow for necessary dialogue that is critical to our students' success. To do that, we must reach out in diverse and meaningful ways to all our stakeholders - in print, broadcast media, and in person whenever possible. We believe that involving parents is critical. We do our best to supply consistent and relevant information to all of our stakeholders." No information went out to school councils via email but only through the School Board's communication system called First Class, which some school councils are not yet familiar with, including my own school council. Some are just being trained on it now. Furthermore, this information from the School Board on First Class was only in response to my own two reports to school councils, one in my role as Director of HWFAC and one in my role as Steering Committee representative. They did not include draft policy particulars, as that was all confidential, but only issues of process and several assurances as to its legal validity, which is in dispute. So, for this strand of the Policy, there were no responses or approvals received or considered by the Steering Committee from any of the School Board's 120 or so school councils. This legitimate complaint regarding lack of broad-based school council input was also acknowledged by the Equity Policy Chair but justified by stating that the first two strands of the Policy were dealt with the same manner. In bypassing School Councils, the Board has also contravened Ontario Regulations 612 and 613, which require school boards and principals to solicit views from school councils and report back to school councils on any advice received." My second category of concern has to do with make-up of the Committee, the process of committee, lack of true community validation by the committee and the lack of true dialogue within the committee. 2. No Agreement Was Reached at Steering Committee level to any of the Ten Sections:Several pertinent issues that were raised by myself and a few other members of the Steering Committee were also raised by the community. No less than 11 major and separate issues were raised and strong, legitimate objections given. Some of these still unresolved issues include:2.1 Failure to acknowledge and address lack of public support. Of the 38 total responses received between the brief period of time of early June to mid-July, 33 were opposed, which is 86%. This doesn't even take into account the other negative responses received by the School Board over the past several years. As you are aware, stakeholder support is a fundamental requirement within the guidelines of the Ministry of Education's Equity Policy Memorandum 119. Stakeholders are described as: "students, teachers, support staff, school board trustees, administrators, and the community." When asked why the School Board intends to proceed with this component despite the many objections of more than 86% of the community, their answer was that, "The Board will make a decision based on what will serve the greater number in the community. The Equity Policy will never have agreement. We ask ourselves what common points will serve the greater community?" I submit to you that only Supporting Guideline 8 on Harassment and 10.4 on Staff Development were found to be common points at both the Steering Committee level and at the community level. All other Guidelines were strongly objected to. In fact, Guiding Principle #1.1 is inconsistent and explicitly contradictory to Guiding Principle #1.1 in the first strand of the Policy, that of ensuring and demonstrating respect for Aboriginal, racial, ethnocultural and religious differences. 2.2 The Policy Development Process - Steering Committee Make-Up: There was a lack of adequate parent representation on the Steering Committee and an imbalance of social/political versus public/ parent/ cultural stakeholder representation, creating a distinct bias and bringing illegitimate results to all voting. Of the original selected 18 steering committee members, 83% were school board employees and community agencies that all seemed to support the anti-homophobic and anti-heterosexist direction of the policy from the outset. Only 17% were community members directly opposed to this approach. Just one individual was present to represent the diversity of opinion of all parents, and that parent is a self-professing and practicing homosexual. Changes and discussions that were resolved by way of voting were invariably carried by the 83%, effectively dismissing the public/parent/ cultural representatives' objections, suggestions and recommendations. Foundational Principle: Regarding equality of access versus applying the principle of equity whereby resources and assistance are brought to individuals that face language, cultural or accessibility barriers, it was requested that the terms equity and equality be included in its Glossary for clarification purposes. But this was denied, as were all other definitions requested by myself for the purpose of clarification. No reasons were given. Weight Given to Steering Committee: The Policy Working Sub Committee, together with the Equity Policy Department, pre-drafted, directed, and ultimately changed and approved the Supporting Guidelines. The Steering Committee was gathered in an advisory capacity only, and had little influence in either its development, final drafting or in defining minimum community validation requirements. 2.3 Foundational Legislative Principles: There was never any agreement on the Steering Committee as to the suggested interpretation of the Ontario Human Rights Code and Policy Memorandum 119 as set out in the Common Understandings of Equity Policy Development. This document is attached to your Notes. Several had objected to this and I did as well. In fact: a) The Human Rights Policy on Sexual Orientation has not yet been tested or validated in the Courts. Regarding its term "immutable," current research does not support this but has in fact found sociological factors common in the histories among homosexuals' family relationships, as well as instances of sexual interference and bullying. It is proven to be both preventable and successfully treated. The very foundation upon which this policy rests, that of immutability and its inclusion in social and natural justice, is erroneous. b) The Equity Department is taking an overbroad interpretation of the Human Rights Policy on Discrimination and Harassment by interpreting that a bias means the same as a view or opinion and that those views and opinions denote a type of discrimination. Someone's 'view' or manner of looking at things, their opinion, judgment or belief may not necessarily reflect bias provided it is evidence-based. According to Miriam-Webster, a bias is a 'bent, tendency or an inclination'. c) d) Finally, nowhere is it held in the Charter, Human Rights or Education Act that there is no longer the freedom of opinion or belief when it comes to issues around sexual orientation. Neither does the Ministry require School Boards to draft such policies nor does the Ontario Curriculum include or require its teaching. Nor can one find in the Human Rights Code or elsewhere a 'right' that mandates teaching around sexual orientation issues and its inherent 'social justice' ideology. Instead, School Boards are to strive to create and maintain harassment-free work and school environments through publication and enforcement of anti-harassment policies. 2.4 Glossary Definitions: Unauthorized changes were admittedly made to several terms: bias, culture, discrimination, LGBT persons, plus several others. None were corrected to reflect common, international and historic meanings. Their new definition of discrimination is unlike the language in both the Human Rights Code and the Charter. 2.5 Labeling: The Steering Committee also heard from the community that the terms homophobia and heterosexism are unnecessary, inflammatory and negative labels and there is legitimate concern that they will be used against those who express a traditional view of marriage, gender and human sexuality. The definition of homophobia in this Glossary is so overbroad that it both removes the term 'irrational' and then includes name-calling. Name-calling is an example of mean-spiritedness and should be addressed like all other forms of bullying and disrespect. Children must be taught to respect all persons, but that does not include affirming all forms of sexual expression. The terms fear and hatred were understood by some members on the Steering Committee to include those who hold a contrary or a traditional view toward sexual orientation regardless of whether there is actual discriminatory conduct exhibited. The definition of heterosexism is also problematic as it implies one's belief and fact to be a false assumption. I argued against these labels as they will certainly deny legitimate discussion and critical thinking, as well as freedom of speech, opinion and belief. They will also serve to inflame emotions, and to bring conflict in classrooms, playgrounds and staff rooms. These labels are explicit expressions of judgmentalism and intolerance and legitimize further name-calling. These labels - homophobia and heterosexism - are integral to 7 of the 10 Supporting Guidelines, starting with Section 1.1. In fact, the School Board is charged by the Ministry of Education and paid by the taxpayers to teach our children the required curriculum with Truth, facts, health, safety and respect for family values, culture and beliefs always in mind. We must draft and implement policies that are consistent with these aspects. 2.6 Progressive Discipline There is also concern that progressive discipline will be taken to enforce this elimination of legitimate expression, belief and conviction. This policy does implicitly evaluate and comment on belief systems by elevating one belief system and identifying and eliminating all others, as set out in Guidelines 1.1, 1.2 and so forth. 2.7 Removal of Barriers There were no admitted so-called 'barriers' attested to during two years of Steering Committee meetings, even when examples were requested. Objections and concerns were raised as to the danger of removing rational and health-based barriers that have until now prohibited discussions of all types of sexuality in the primary and middle grades. Section 4 on Curriculum of the draft policy includes all environment and all subject areas. This is contrary to policies that are in place for the physical, emotional and spiritual well being of students, and that respect parents' sole right to address the subject of sexuality with their own children when they deem it appropriate. Children will logically link sexual orientation issues with the sexual conduct that defines such orientations. Developmentally they are unable to understand or to bring discernment and critical thought to the adult subject of human sexuality. In fact, professionals and parents agree that great harm is brought to children's psyches when they are exposed to sexual matters, no matter how sensitively or age-appropriate the subject is delivered to them. 2.8 Missing from the Draft Policy What may not be immediately apparent is the omission of language - regardless of arguments for their inclusion - that would provide assurance of protection of religious and cultural beliefs. They removed the phrase 'evidence-based teaching' and denied the request that clarifications be included within the policy. Also absent is language concerning its implementation. They denied permission to Steering Committee members to speak to the issue of medical evidence, and then by clarification stated that, "Nothing in this policy empowers or enables staff to ignore their obligation to deliver the Ontario Curriculum in the manner set forth by the Ministry." Yet remember that sexual orientation issues are not part of the Ontario Curriculum. However, this School Board has stated that it will, together with LGBT representation, prepare such curriculum. My third and final category of concern tonight is with regard to 3. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONa) The School Board sets forth its commitment in its own Public Consultation Policy 2.02, to being a consultative organization that values community views and that makes dialogue an important part of its mandate. This Public Consultation Policy was approved in March 2005, before the Steering Committee's meetings began. Consider the highlighted sections in its policy, which I have attached:1.1 (see underlined portion) - The process is an opportunity for:
2.6 … it will engage in various outreach activities using a variety of consultation techniques to both inform the public about key issues and promote input opportunities. It was confirmed by the Equity Department that no other public school parents, from which the School Board is entrusted with their almost 60,000 children, or other pertinent stakeholders within Greater Hamilton were informed by the School Board of this drafted policy, except by means of its being posted within the vast School Board website through half of the summer months, and by written notice to 65 or so individuals and organizations. Because of such lack, there was no further stakeholder input received and parents and current sitting school councils still await information and input opportunity from their School Board. The School Board is accountable to the public and is entrusted with the public's children, and must be transparent and forthcoming. As the representative of the school councils on the Steering Committee, I submit that this strand of the Equity Policy has not been transparently passed via necessary channels and is seriously lacking in public consultation and approval. I submit this Strand be set aside in favour of a policy which seeks to penalize harassment and bullying for any reason, a policy which will be subject to true public consultation and a policy that I believe will receive far greater public support. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, Gloria Turner School Council Representative Steering Committee Equity Policy Attachments: 1. Common Understandings 2. Public Consultation Policy 2.02 |