It seems some kids become sexually active by grade 6 or 7.I think sex ed in schools is important.

I am a long-time lurker, and have never posted before, but this is a topic that truly hits home with me. I have taught middle years/junior high kids for over 30 years (mostly 7th and 6th grade) and have two children of my own who are now in their early twenties. I live in a small rural community. Whether we like it or not, children are sexually aware - and active- even as pre-teens. They encounter sex and sexuality in all aspects of their lives - music, tv, movies. The kids I teach are flabbergasted to hear that when I was young, there were no ads for feminine products, and married couples on TV sitcoms had separate beds. It is imperative that as parents and communities, we speak openly and often about sex and all that it entails - and schools and teachers are in a unique position to present and facilitate a clear, objective, unbiased discussion that is research/fact based. I recall a discussion I had with a 12 year old girl who was being fostered in our community after having been involved in child prostitution - her ability to describe the sex act (in great detail, and with a great deal of variety) was heartbreaking, as was her lack of awareness of such things as contraception, protection against disease, etc. The reality is that children are exposed constantly to sexuality, but without an understanding of the various issues/factors that will help them to make informed, healthy choices and decisions. Hopefully the Ontario curriculum will be handled well by schools and teachers, and met positively by parents and community members.

They are just starting to soon. And some of those subjects mentioned should not be taught at all-especially in co-ed classes the students for the most part will be embarrassed.

I think sex ed in the schools is generally a good thing. I believe, if it is taught properly, the correct information is given out on the above subjects, where parents may or may not know the correct information on some things. IE STDs I didn't know a lot about that aspect and did not try and pretend I did.

The bigger question is at what age does that info get taught. Afterall, kids develop and mature at different rates.

In my case, it was a joint thing between myself and the schools in what my kids got taught. The schools did a fabulous job on the factual side of the subject, while I would teach the moral aspects. Parents have to have an open and honest approach with their kids and not be embarrassed to talk to them about anything and everything.

When my kids were young I might have taken the position that these things should be taught at home (I'm an admitted fan of homeschooling anyway), but when I read some years ago about the large numbers of 8th graders who were engaging in oral s*ex, thinking it wasn't really s*ex (the Bill Clinton effect?), it changed my thinking on the subject.

I do wonder about something Janey mentioned, though: the co-ed classes. I hope they separate the genders, both to minimize embarrassment and to encourage open participation.

Being from an era where it was taught in the bleachers or the backseat of a 57 Chevy, I have mixed emotions on the subject.

If it's left to parents....it doesn't get taught. So kids end up pregnant or with std's.

If it's taught in schools in grade school. It turns on the curiosity button. So they experiment to young and get pregnant or get std's. So I don't know.

Honestly, unless you completely shelter your kid, there's enough in the media, and in their social groups, to make kids curious anyway.

I think it's a great idea. Schools need to cover this topic precisely because not all parents do. There are many other possible hot button topics that public schools also should cover but avoid because of how parents may react. I suspect in Canada people are more accustomed to receiving dictates from the government and are less likely to squawk about it.

There are many well-intentioned but essentially dumb decisions parents make about their kids, none more so (in my opinion) than deciding to home school them. However mediocre and poorly qualified public school teachers may be in some districts, and too many are, the stay at home parent becoming the instant teacher is usually much less qualified, less informed and certainly less experienced at teaching the subjects their kids need.

Those who want to improve their local schools can do so by providing whatever time and resources they can share.

Snidley,

"I suspect, in Canada, people are more accustomed to receiving dictates from the government and are less likely to squawk about it"

You couldn't be more wrong. If you really believe that, then you should follow politics in Alberta! We are so involved here, we got our last Premier, Allison Redford, kicked out of office after only two years. We may seem like a passive, polite bunch of neighbours, but the opposite is true, especially if someone is trying to ram something down our throats.

I remember when a friend's wife was raped by a home invader that her way to cope with it was to encourage women and girls to develop Karate skills and to lead mother-high school daughter conferences. The feed back from it was so positive, she then did a series at each of the high schools. The students offered written evaluations, and we were shocked to learn from so many of the girls who had attended about the number of them who had forced sex when they were younger. They said over and over that such discussions with teenagers is too late. It has already happened to many of them by that age.

I approve of age appropriate, trained sex education instruction.

Alisande and I seem to have the same thoughts on the issue. Right down to the homeschooling. But the reality is that kids are engaging in sexual activity at younger and younger ages. I am torn on the coed. On one hand I think they should be segregated but on the other I feel it is never too early for both boy and girls to learn to relate to each other and be able to talk about sexual thing. Maybe if they started early enough the embarrassment would be minimized and better lines of communication would be opened with the result possibly leading to less sex and more thought behind the process.

I do fear the lack of qualifications on most educators part to address this subject. Everyone comes to this subject with their own biases. But at least the kids would get the basic information. But then I question the qualifications of many parents these days. After all many mothers seem to have no problem with sexualizing their little girls if you observe how they dress them, pose them for photos etc.

Our DGD has known the proper name for her and her brother's 'privates' and that hers are *private to her* since she learned how to talk. She just turned four. A year ago my DIL was helping her change into her PJ's when I happened to pass the bedroom door. DGD told her mom that I shouldn't see her naked. DIL reassured her that was OK, and that "Grandma has the same girl parts as you and I." (I thought that was a better answer than that I'd been changing her diapers since she was born.)

I'm all for this education starting very early in the schools. It's much less likely to cause titters when it's introduced along with all new things kids are learning about the world. However...knowing the 'parts' and how they work isn't the same as understanding feelings and emotions -- and the difference between lust and love. I'm not sure how or when that gets covered. Possibly if parents know the schools are explaining 'the facts', they will talk to their kids about the rest. Then kids will still experiment with their sexuality, but perhaps there will be fewer diseases, unplanned pregnancies, and mindless sex. (How I detest the term "hook-ups".)

I had it in high school and it was a good thing. I don't think it is for grade school kids.

I teacher 7th grade life science and Positive Prevention (comprehensive s*x education and HIV/STDs prevention). The Positive Prevention curriculum comes from Red Cross, and is in accordance with California Education Code. I have gone through the official Red Cross training, and I am supporting the other teachers on the campus who will also be teaching it this year.

Like Mstork wrote, children are experiencing and doing things at ages younger than might be expected. Students share a lot of misinformation on the playground, and children are exposed to more of the adult world than we'd like. Ignoring the facts helps no one. Educating students on how to make good decisions for themselves and how to get help is important for the students and society as a whole. As adults, we have to put aside our biases and give them the education and resources that they need.

It's about learning facts, identifying risky behaviors and situations, learning how to get help if needed, learning about pressures from peers, media, and society, and being empowered to say "no" and make good decisions for oneself.

Part of the Red Cross curriculum includes building understanding, compassion, and concern for others living with a serious illness, their family, and friends. At my school, we show the following video Little Secret (the first 30 seconds or so of a black screen).

Additionally, California Science Standards requires teaching reproduction.

Even if I was not legally and ethically required to teach these subjects, I feel they are important for the junior high students to learn. I also think it is wonderful planning on the part of the Ontario education system to start early with age appropriate and scientific education that promotes making good choices and understanding of others. If we did that here, then it wouldn't be such an issue by 7th grade, and I believe we'd have safer and empowered students with healthier self images and images of others.

Part of the problem is that people get too hysterical about things when a word or two come into play. Calling educating someone on the name of body parts is ANATOMY, not sex education. Teaching the differences between the sexes isn't sex ed either. For elementary kids to know proper body part names is fine with me and what a school should be doing. Having health classes on diseases and how they're contracted isn't sex ed to me either, it's science and health. Sex ed is educating about sex, the activity, not gender. Eliminating some pre-teen and early teen pregnancies could be a good thing too even though a lot of people still like it since they get grandchildren one way or another. LOL

Back to my point, when people are writing proposals that say "let's teach sex ed to 1st graders..." when it's something like anatomy, they show me a lack of education on their part. I worked for school districts for a long time and the ignorance of the employees is shocking. And I've found that true in many districts.

I agree that "ignoring the FACTS" helps no one. Sadly schools do not teach all the facts. With 30 years of work with high schoolers I can confidently say the way to get a teen pregnant is send her to "teen issues" class. What they "teach" and what teens hear are two different things. No one tells the truth of what premarital sex, pregnancy, abortion does to a woman, emotionally, and psychologically. Our mental health facilities cannot handle all the depression and suicidal women these things are causing. Physical health is not the worst that is assaulted by sex too early. Most of that can be dealt with with a pill. Emotionally, psychologically these girls are damaged FOR LIFE. No amount of bolstering or positive support can change the fact that sex too early, outside of marriage leaves lasting scars. Kids hear from little on 'if you are ready' it is all ok. Anything and everything is all ok as long as YOU want it. That is BS!!! We are destroying our children with this hyper-sexuality. What we need is a campaign that gives these kids permission and support when they say NO!! Modesty and shyness is not a horrible thing!! It can go a long way in keeping kids safe.

There are many well-intentioned but essentially dumb decisions parents make about their kids, none more so (in my opinion) than deciding to home school them.

Snidely, your unpleasant comment about homeschooling started me thinking about the very satisfactory experience my husband and I had homeschooling our son for part of his school years. I remembered something I hadn't thought of in years: We had an Amiga computer in 1988, when he was 10, and some excellent educational software for it. My son wrote to one of his favorite software developers, offering to review their new programs from the perspective of a 10-year-old. He was a good writer, and they liked his idea. He had a great time getting free programs and sending the company his reviews. The woman he communicated with was very nice to him.

So thanks--I enjoyed remembering.

I don't have a problem with teaching anatomy and sexual differences early starting in first grade. I think the schools probably do need to teach sex ed in around 4-7th grade with some repeats in the later grades. Some of these kids aren't getting the proper information at home. I know with my kids it sometimes helps to get information from other adults as a backup to what I tell them.

Off topic, but in regards to homeschooling. There's a private school in my area that was started by a woman who used to provide homeschooling to families who liked the idea but who didn't want to do it themselves. They have a lot of interesting philosophies and aren't bound by the same rules that public schools are, which can be a benefit as a lot of public schools waste time and are forced to teach for the standardized tests. There's a no homework policy since they are able to cover everything in class, and the tests are all essay/short answer based, not multiple choice to make sure kids are really learning and not just memorizing facts that are quickly forgotten after the test. It only goes through middle school. It's expensive but I think the entire approach makes so much sense, and sounds like a completely different educational experience than I received.

I think homeschooling is great if the parent is willing to put the effort to make sure it's a quality education and the kids are socially adjusted and have well-rounded outside activities. And most parents who homeschool feel strongly about it so they do put the effort. If we didn't have excellent schools in the area I would probably do it, but it's a lot of work.

Kids will also learn that "no means no" (a very good thing), and about sexting, and anal sex. Often kids will engage in oral and anal so that they don't get pregnant, and they don't think they can get an std. I'm saddened to think that small kids would be doing these kinds of things.

I'm torn as it seems so young, but I don't have kids, but do know that kids are exposed to everything to do with sexual acts at a young age, everywhere.

"What we need is a campaign that gives these kids permission and support when they say NO!! "

Arcy-gw, prehaps you didn't read my entire post? Positive Prevention is a education curriculum that teaches students about "facts, identifying risky behaviors and situations,
learning how to get help if needed, learning about pressures from peers,
media, and society, and being empowered to say "no" and make good
decisions for oneself."

Chi83, the private school you wrote about is not doing anything unique or special. Public schools are doing the exact same things. In fact, that description almost exactly describes my class, only I am more diversified in the how I teach, options for the students, and in having project-based assessments, as life is not just a short answer/essay test. Additionally, private schools do not have to prove that the teachers know the content or are actually competent at teaching the content, and they don't even have to follow or ensure any specific content is taught. There are no real checks or balances for private schools, which isn't to say they aren't good at what they choose to teach. However, they are far less likely to be of high quality and consistency when it comes to teaching the information and skills that our society has deemed appropriate and necessary for students to learn to become highly capable adults with critical thinking skills.

I support the province's plans. As some mentioned when it was discussed recently, puberty is happening? occurring? much earlier, these days.

As in other areas of life, it seems to me that here, too, "knowledge is power". Or, perhaps, "Forewarned is ... fore-armed". I prefer a child that has been well and skilfully educated than one that learned of these issues ... from the TV ... internet ... in the school-YARD ... behind the barn, etc. ... where they'd find a great deal of misinformation along with some valid issues - a lot of chaff, with some wheat mixed in: maybe.

As for having the teaching done in mixed-gender situation, I think that would help some to understand that the others had been well trained, as well ... and could well help them to learn of the ways that other-gendered people approached such things, as well.

ole joyful ... who got kicked out of the barn when the bull was servicing one of the cows in heat ... wow! something engaging must be going on in there ('twas just a short engagement/(marriage?), I think)!

prairie rose,

" We may seem like a passive, polite bunch of neighbours". Ha, not at all. That isn't the impression I have. I've been to Canada many times, mostly to cities. I do perceive very many differences, just not these.

Why parents who are untrained and inexperienced as teachers think they can do a better job of educating their kids is beyond me. For a few elementary years, fine. Beyond that, kids in schools are learning subjects and doing so in ways that are beyond what many parents ever studied. How arrogant it is to think that as an untrained educators they can be more effective!

Alisande, I'm glad to have triggered a good memory for you.

Alice, that's great that your classroom is like that. Perhaps you have a more flexible school district. I know many teachers who are completely fed up with the limited decision-making they have, where they have to teach to standardized tests, and which their entire future depends on those results.

I went to public schools. I was a straight A student and took a load of honors and AP courses with perfect grades. I went to a top 10 university and was in for a shock when I arrived. I had perfected the art of memorizing and regurgitating facts for a test but I didn't truly learn. I knew how to do something, but I was never taught why I was doing it, or what it meant, or the impact. I went to 5 different schools in two different states so I can't blame any particular thing other than the style of teaching didn't work for me. I struggled in college because I felt that while I had gone to school, I hadn't really been educated.

That's just me, and there are plenty of people who went to public schools and feel it was just fine. There are many great public schools, with passionate, dedicated teachers.

As for private school teacher credentials, I would always do my research before enrolling as I know there aren't any mandated standards. For this particular school, all teachers have at least a BA in their topic. 20% have masters degrees and another 15% have PhD's in the subject that they are teaching, which I think is great for elementary school. I would much prefer teachers have degrees in specialized fields rather than general education degrees that are often seen in the elementary level. It's treated more like a high school where each subject is taught by someone with a degree in that field, instead of one teacher teaching every subject like most elementary schools. Of course having a degree doesn't assume someone can teach the subject to children but that's where I would rely upon the founder to ensure a good match. This type of approach really appeals to me, but that's not to say other approaches are bad.

Well, times HAVE changed, whether we want them to or not. I remember having sex education in 7th grade in girls' health class, which would have been in the mid 1960's. It is different today.

My grandson will be 5 next week. He needs to be taught that his privates are private to him, and if the school does it, so what? I think it's a good thing.

And I don't agree that sex education in schools will turn on the "curiosity button." Kids are ALREADY curious. And many have mis-information (for example, they think - oh, I won't get pregnant . . . .)

Some random thoughts:

The community church I attended as a child would celebrate the life markers of children's lives (birthdays, graduations, etc.) with the phrase, "May you grow in wisdom as you grow in stature."

Parents can go wild in search of 'the best' of anything for their children. Within the affluent North Shore of Chicago are dozens of small public grammar schools where students' test scores differ minimally from year year. Regardless, parents continually compare every aspect of each school, and proposals to merge districts are impossible to implement. (Each school replicates an entire bureaucracy and specialized staff.) There are also at least a dozen expensive private schools, parochial schools, parents sending kids to boarding schools all over the country and abroad. While rushing to buy a good future for their children, they often miss what usually works best: Parental involvement and expectations. The greatest academic 'successes' I've observed were where parents added a measure of 'home schooling' to supplement the public instruction received -- importantly, without undermining the school's authority and curriculum.

O.J.'s story about farm kids' observations is a reminder of how greatly -- and how recently -- the world has changed. Direct observation replaced verbal instruction about sex when people lived in a communal hut or a one-room log cabin. There was still need to communicate taboos -- and an "in your pocket" community to enforce them. Now that people have 'personal space' and can act in anonymity, some other framework is needed. Public schools have been forced to teach all kinds of life skills, far beyond the old Three R's.