改标题：XX党，品德进入下水道。令人震惊的谎言。令人无法相信这是民主国家。
- 主题发起人 贵圈
- 开始时间
贵圈
政府都对党
- 注册
- 2014-10-21
- 消息
- 32,829
- 荣誉分数
- 6,359
- 声望点数
- 373
Sex-ed consultation a joke, FOI documents reveal
430
BY ANTHONY FUREY, POSTMEDIA NETWORK
FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 05, 2015 05:45 PM EDT | UPDATED: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 05, 2015 07:44 PM EDT
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne speaks at the 2014 annual meeting of the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario in Toronto on Aug. 13, 2014. Education Minister Liz Sandals stands behind Wynne. (Stan Behal/Toronto Sun files)
Change text size for the story
Report an error
More Coverage
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne’s consultation of parents regarding the new sex-ed curriculum was all smoke and mirrors.
“We committed to having a consultation with parents,” Wynne said last November, after an online survey was announced.
But results of the survey, obtained via a freedom of information request and made available to Postmedia Network, reveal the government clearly didn’t take the process seriously.
This will frustrate the many thousands of parents across Ontario still protesting material in the lead-up to the start of school Tuesday.
Last fall, Education Minister Liz Sandals announced the government would launch an online survey of 4,000 parents — one from every elementary school in the province — to acquire “more feedback from parents across the province.”
But that isn’t the number of responses they received. Instead, the government only tallied 1,638 respondents. It’s unclear how they failed to get even half the desired number.
There’s an ample number of parents who have an opinion to share, seeing as thousands have participated in protests since the curriculum was announced. Perhaps these aren’t the voices the government wanted to hear.
After all, principals handpicked the respondents. That’s hardly a fair consultation. An education ministry spokesman said last year it was done this way because principals “have better knowledge of their school communities.” They also have better knowledge of who will offer the results they want to hear.
However, it’s not as if they could get any results that didn’t appear supportive of the new sex-ed changes. The questions were too broad for that.
Here’s one: “It is important that curriculum is reviewed and updated regularly to keep up with the changing skills and knowledge children and youth need to thrive in today’s world.” Who’s going to say no to a statement like that? That’s why 85% of respondents strongly agreed and another 13% somewhat agreed.
The same goes for this softball: “It is important to me that the school curriculum supports students in having the knowledge and skills that allow them to make healthy, safe and informed choices.” (84% strongly agree.)
What’s the point of shelling out $19,000 to an external contractor to get responses to these vague statements? There isn’t a single question that’s specifically about the contents of the sex-ed curriculum.
The closest was: “I believe that the school should teach my child about both the risks of sexual activities and about ways to make safe and healthy choices regarding their sexual health.” Only 59% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement.
Postmedia reported last year that, according to the ministry, “Information gleaned from the parent survey will be used, along with work already done developing the previous curriculum, to draw up the new version which will be in place for the start of the next school year.”
Clearly that was bogus, considering the survey didn’t address anything specific about the sex-ed components of the curriculum.
There was, however, one question that wasn’t all mush: “How much would you say you trust each of the following sources of health information, in terms of providing reliable and accurate information on sexual health to your child(ren).”
The options included four authority figures: Parents, doctors/nurses, public health officials and school curriculum/teachers.
The teachers came last. In terms of which category parents consider “very trustworthy,” they put themselves at 87%, with doctors following close behind at 83%. Teachers scored a lousy 40%.
In other words, survey respondents believe parents are the most reliable source to provide sex-ed to children.
Regardless of the differing views on the curriculum and the ongoing protests, one thing everyone should agree on is this consultation was a joke.
430
BY ANTHONY FUREY, POSTMEDIA NETWORK
FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 05, 2015 05:45 PM EDT | UPDATED: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 05, 2015 07:44 PM EDT
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne speaks at the 2014 annual meeting of the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario in Toronto on Aug. 13, 2014. Education Minister Liz Sandals stands behind Wynne. (Stan Behal/Toronto Sun files)
Change text size for the story
Report an error
More Coverage
- Sex-ed strife: 'We will not be sending back our children'
- Parents speak out against new sex-ed curriculum
- Ontario's sex-ed curriculum: What's new?
- McNaughton not bowing to intimidation
- McNaughton not bowing to intimidation
- Parents speak out against new sex-ed curriculum
- Sex-ed strife: 'We will not be sending back our children'
- Ontario's sex-ed curriculum: What's new?
- Ontario's sex-ed curriculum: What's new?
- Who’s in charge of our schools?
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne’s consultation of parents regarding the new sex-ed curriculum was all smoke and mirrors.
“We committed to having a consultation with parents,” Wynne said last November, after an online survey was announced.
But results of the survey, obtained via a freedom of information request and made available to Postmedia Network, reveal the government clearly didn’t take the process seriously.
This will frustrate the many thousands of parents across Ontario still protesting material in the lead-up to the start of school Tuesday.
Last fall, Education Minister Liz Sandals announced the government would launch an online survey of 4,000 parents — one from every elementary school in the province — to acquire “more feedback from parents across the province.”
But that isn’t the number of responses they received. Instead, the government only tallied 1,638 respondents. It’s unclear how they failed to get even half the desired number.
There’s an ample number of parents who have an opinion to share, seeing as thousands have participated in protests since the curriculum was announced. Perhaps these aren’t the voices the government wanted to hear.
After all, principals handpicked the respondents. That’s hardly a fair consultation. An education ministry spokesman said last year it was done this way because principals “have better knowledge of their school communities.” They also have better knowledge of who will offer the results they want to hear.
However, it’s not as if they could get any results that didn’t appear supportive of the new sex-ed changes. The questions were too broad for that.
Here’s one: “It is important that curriculum is reviewed and updated regularly to keep up with the changing skills and knowledge children and youth need to thrive in today’s world.” Who’s going to say no to a statement like that? That’s why 85% of respondents strongly agreed and another 13% somewhat agreed.
The same goes for this softball: “It is important to me that the school curriculum supports students in having the knowledge and skills that allow them to make healthy, safe and informed choices.” (84% strongly agree.)
What’s the point of shelling out $19,000 to an external contractor to get responses to these vague statements? There isn’t a single question that’s specifically about the contents of the sex-ed curriculum.
The closest was: “I believe that the school should teach my child about both the risks of sexual activities and about ways to make safe and healthy choices regarding their sexual health.” Only 59% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement.
Postmedia reported last year that, according to the ministry, “Information gleaned from the parent survey will be used, along with work already done developing the previous curriculum, to draw up the new version which will be in place for the start of the next school year.”
Clearly that was bogus, considering the survey didn’t address anything specific about the sex-ed components of the curriculum.
There was, however, one question that wasn’t all mush: “How much would you say you trust each of the following sources of health information, in terms of providing reliable and accurate information on sexual health to your child(ren).”
The options included four authority figures: Parents, doctors/nurses, public health officials and school curriculum/teachers.
The teachers came last. In terms of which category parents consider “very trustworthy,” they put themselves at 87%, with doctors following close behind at 83%. Teachers scored a lousy 40%.
In other words, survey respondents believe parents are the most reliable source to provide sex-ed to children.
Regardless of the differing views on the curriculum and the ongoing protests, one thing everyone should agree on is this consultation was a joke.
贵圈
政府都对党
- 注册
- 2014-10-21
- 消息
- 32,829
- 荣誉分数
- 6,359
- 声望点数
- 373
xx党，这么说吧，一个党能够不要脸到什么程度？我今天开眼了。
xx党所谓做的民意调查4000份问卷，信誓旦旦得到了广泛的支持云云。本身这所谓调查就是掩耳盗铃，校长手选指定每个学校一个家长回答一些恶意设计不知所云的问题。完全是强奸民意。我还以为，自由党强奸民意成功了，拿到了4000份伪民意了。
却原来，4000份问卷，只收回不到一半。一大半学校，连校长，外加校长选的左倾家长，干脆不交这问卷。连校长，和他们选的左倾家长都不支持你XX党。然后更牛逼的是。xx党明知民意凋零，还假装我就是民意。
政治如果说有高尚有下贱的话，XX党基本上可以为后者做极端的注解了。
xx党所谓做的民意调查4000份问卷，信誓旦旦得到了广泛的支持云云。本身这所谓调查就是掩耳盗铃，校长手选指定每个学校一个家长回答一些恶意设计不知所云的问题。完全是强奸民意。我还以为，自由党强奸民意成功了，拿到了4000份伪民意了。
却原来，4000份问卷，只收回不到一半。一大半学校，连校长，外加校长选的左倾家长，干脆不交这问卷。连校长，和他们选的左倾家长都不支持你XX党。然后更牛逼的是。xx党明知民意凋零，还假装我就是民意。
政治如果说有高尚有下贱的话，XX党基本上可以为后者做极端的注解了。
最后编辑:
Mc_Michael_
知名会员
- 注册
- 2010-02-26
- 消息
- 140
- 荣誉分数
- 8
- 声望点数
- 128
默认推行 但是如果你实在不愿意 可以pull your kids out，不上也是可以的。那帮子整天抗议的人 不是头巾女就是亚裔 本地白人很少 要是觉得中国那种 打胎广告满天飞科学避孕的一个没有 的状况好 by all means回去呆着呗
Mc_Michael_
知名会员
- 注册
- 2010-02-26
- 消息
- 140
- 荣誉分数
- 8
- 声望点数
- 128
By the way 论花纳税人点钱做广告？恐怕没人比得过保守党 经济衰退财政赤字 都挡不住保守党花800 million 在attacking ads，竞选期间也就罢了 2014 夏天 年攻击Trudeau 的广告就满天飞 有钱干这个没钱振兴经济
9月罢课宣言
各位家长们:
开学在即，政府却执意不肯撤回或者修改新版性教育大纲。
我们欢迎正常、以严谨科学为依据的性教育，而不接受淡化性病危害、鼓励过早性行为、存在混淆儿童性别意识、抛弃爱与家庭教育、淡化父母的指导作用并违背科学知识等诸多问题的的乱性的性教育大纲。
我们响应Canadian Family Alliance的号召，连同其他各族裔家长一起开展声势浩大的罢课，在902 MPP抗议之后推动又一轮呼吁社会关注家长反新的高潮，同时也是对公校系统施加更大的压力!
本次罢课计划从9月8日起，为期一周（4天）。罢课期间将有许多日托中心为罢课家长提供照看服务（见下表）。
不可否认的是，4天的罢课会增加家长的照看负担，分散精力，影响孩子的学习，但相较于该乱性教育对孩子、对家庭、对社会带来的巨大危害，长痛不如短痛！
面对这样的乱性教育，你不出来，我不出来，谁出来？谁来保护我们的孩子，谁来保卫我们的社会？家长们，大家勇敢地站出来，克服困难，积极面对，这样才能无愧于我们的时代，我们的后代！
让我们一起行动，保护孩子！
让我们一起行动，维护家庭！
日托中心列表：
致校长罢课信： NoSchool-Letter-9.2.pdf
各位家长们:
开学在即，政府却执意不肯撤回或者修改新版性教育大纲。
我们欢迎正常、以严谨科学为依据的性教育，而不接受淡化性病危害、鼓励过早性行为、存在混淆儿童性别意识、抛弃爱与家庭教育、淡化父母的指导作用并违背科学知识等诸多问题的的乱性的性教育大纲。
我们响应Canadian Family Alliance的号召，连同其他各族裔家长一起开展声势浩大的罢课，在902 MPP抗议之后推动又一轮呼吁社会关注家长反新的高潮，同时也是对公校系统施加更大的压力!
本次罢课计划从9月8日起，为期一周（4天）。罢课期间将有许多日托中心为罢课家长提供照看服务（见下表）。
不可否认的是，4天的罢课会增加家长的照看负担，分散精力，影响孩子的学习，但相较于该乱性教育对孩子、对家庭、对社会带来的巨大危害，长痛不如短痛！
面对这样的乱性教育，你不出来，我不出来，谁出来？谁来保护我们的孩子，谁来保卫我们的社会？家长们，大家勇敢地站出来，克服困难，积极面对，这样才能无愧于我们的时代，我们的后代！
让我们一起行动，保护孩子！
让我们一起行动，维护家庭！
日托中心列表：
- 皇后雅思高中学分,免费申请大学
【联系人】吴老师 【联系电话】647-560-6469, 647-896-6362 【具体位置】201 Consumers Rd. Suite 307, Victoria Park & Sheppard
- 卓越教育
【联系人】Joe Lu 【联系电话】647-308-6671 【具体位置】3601 Highway 7, East, Liberty Square HSBC Tower, Suite 808, Markham，Ontario L3R 0M3 (Warden & Highway 7）
- 私立剑桥国际中学
【联系人】Lin Lin 【联系电话】647-505-7982 【具体位置】85 Kings Crescent, Ajax, ON, Canada L1S 2M4
- 数学提高★1对1辅导★快乐中文
【联系人】Jessie 【联系电话】416-836-0603 【具体位置】250 Consumers Rd. North York
- 高中和大学数学辅导
【联系人】浦老师 【联系电话】 905-883-4079 【具体位置】Richmond Hill
- 非凡教育中心
【联系人】叶老师 【联系电话】 416-499-1888 【具体位置】462 McNicoll Ave. Toronto, Ontario M2H 1E7
致校长罢课信： NoSchool-Letter-9.2.pdf
保守党在竞选经费的募集和使用上作了许多自废武功的限制好不好？比如说，左派诬指保守党是代表大资本家的，保守党却大幅压低捐款限额以限制个别富人对国家政治的影响。
他们小额捐款募的多，弹药充足，说明他们受欢迎受支持。这个还真没什么好抱怨的。
贵圈
政府都对党
- 注册
- 2014-10-21
- 消息
- 32,829
- 荣誉分数
- 6,359
- 声望点数
- 373
贵圈
政府都对党
- 注册
- 2014-10-21
- 消息
- 32,829
- 荣誉分数
- 6,359
- 声望点数
- 373
