Educational Malpractice? Human Rights, Censorship, and the LGBTQ+ Community in Ontario’s Health and Physical Education Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The announcement of a new Health and Physical Education curriculum in 2010 by the Liberal McGuinty government resulted in considerable controversy in Ontario. Key religious groups, as well as socially and politically conservative groups, opposed the inclusion of queer-positive content in public education. This opposition ultimately led to the shelving of the proposed curriculum. However, under the Liberal Wynne government, a version similar to the original 2010 curriculum has been taught in schools since September 2015. This paper examines the struggle since the 1960s for curricular inclusiveness of the LGBTQ+ community in the Health and Physical Education curriculum document, and the arguments that have been used to censor the LGBTQ+ community. Ultimately, it was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code that prevented censorship in education. Human rights legislation was used to uphold civil rights in both the Catholic and public school systems and rose above the political decision-making that had censored the LGBTQ+ community. RÉSUMÉ L’annonce d’un nouveau programme d’études en santé et en éducation physique, en 2010, par le gouvernement libéral McGuinty provoqua une énorme controverse en Ontario. Des groupes religieux fondamentalistes ainsi que des organismes sociopolitiques conservateurs se sont opposés à l’inclusion de contenu sur l’homosexualité dans les programmes d’enseigne- ment public. Cette opposition conduisit à une mise au rancart du programme. Cependant, sous le gouvernement libéral Wynn, une version similaire au programme original est enseignée dans les écoles depuis septembre 2015. Cette étude s’intéresse à la lutte—en marche depuis les années 1960—pour l’inclusion des membres de la communauté des LGBTQ+ dans les programmes d’études en santé et en éducation physique, ainsi qu’aux arguments utilisés pour censurer cette collectivité. Finalement, ce fut la Charte des droits et libertés et le Code des droits de la personne de l’Ontario qui empêchèrent la censure en éducation. On eut recours à la législation sur les droits de la personne pour soutenir les droits civils autant dans le système des écoles catholiques que dans celui des écoles publiques et supplanter les objections politiques qui censuraient les LGBTQ+.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".