A common concept which has been expressed in defense of various sensitive topics being tackled by Public Health and School Boards is that imparting knowledge to children will empower them to make good decisions. At first glance this may seem to be a reasonable concept, but does it actually work? Does imparting all knowledge to children always lead to more children making better decisions?

This same concept has been applied to sex education since 1987 in hopes of keeping children safe while sexually active. Since its inception, condom-based sex education has led the way to more liberal attitudes toward pre-marital sex resulting in Hamilton's teen pregnancy rates increasing by 30% and sexually-transmitted diseases increasing in far greater numbers. Now this same concept is being applied to drug education and being defended by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.

A National Post article of December 14, 2002 bore the headline "Grade 6 student taught how to snort cocaine." It was reported in this article that a Grade 6 class at Chedoke Middle School learned in detail how to snort cocaine. The teacher, in response to one student's question used white chalk to draw a circle on the blackboard to represent a mirror or a piece of glass, a surface from which cocaine is often inhaled. The teacher then drew dots in the circle to represent the white powder and students were shown how the dots are pushed together into lines that are then snorted through a tube.

The Ministry of Education stated, "That sort of display in an elementary school is just not acceptable. We're certainly concerned this is happening in an elementary school in our province." The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board defended the teacher's actions.

HWFAC was alarmed by the Board's defense and thus wrote to obtain clarification on this issue and assurances that this type of knowledge would not be imparted in an elementary classroom again. The response was defensive and surprising given that a Trustee stated at a public meeting that all trustees shared our position that teaching cocaine snorting in public schools is not acceptable.

In the teacher's defense the Board wrote, "The teacher did not plan for specific instruction on snorting cocaine. The issue boils down to whether the teacher should have provided an answer with regard to the student's question or not... in other words, was responding to the question necessary to achieving the expectation? In the teacher's professional judgment, it was." In HWFAC's judgment it was not. The curriculum does have an expectation that students will understand the short and long term effects of cannabis and other illicit drugs but it does not have the expectation that children will understand now to ingest them. There is little doubt that the teacher meant well, however even the most well intended can make judgment errors which is what has happened in this case. This student's question was not part of the expectation and so the question should have been re-directed to the student's parents who could handle it in a fashion they felt suitable. The judgment error is concerning but forgivable, however the school Board's defense of imparting such knowledge to elementary students is, as the Ministry said, "Just not acceptable."

It is important that parents ponder this event, decide if you feel your child needs to have such knowledge imparted and then contact your trustee and your child's teacher to inform them as to how you stand on this issue. This is every parent's responsibility. It is just our mission to inform you, equip you and motivate you.

by Jim Enos

Top of Page
Back to Newsletter Articles
Back to HWFAC's Home Page