The debate over respecting the boundaries of females has spilled over the border and has galvanized protests at the Alberta legislature.
“Both were there as participants in two similar, yet very different, rallies scheduled only an hour apart. The crux of both protests was the controversial Bill 10. The first one took place to support trans rights while the second was organized to give displeased parents a voice against the bill. The bill, originally passed by the Progressive Conservative government in March 2015, focuses on students having access to gay-straight alliances.”
No problem with GSA’s, but what the protesters are objecting to is this from the guidelines sent to the public schools. This quote from page 6 of that document:
“Some students have not disclosed their sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression beyond the school community for a variety of reasons, including safety. In keeping with the principles of self-identification, it is important to:
• inform students of limitations regarding their chosen name and gender identity or gender expression in relation to official school records that require legal name designation; and
• protect a student’s personal information and privacy, including, where possible, having a student’s explicit permission before disclosing information related to the student’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression to peers, parents, guardians or other adults in their lives.
Wherever possible, before contacting the parents or other adults involved in the care (such as social workers or caregivers) of a student who is trans or gender-diverse, consult with the student to determine an appropriate way to reference the student’s gender identity, gender expression, name and related pronouns.”
One can see where parents might be concerned as schools have been directed to withhold information regarding their children. Keeping parents out of the loop with critical information regarding their children isn’t a good policy as parents or one’s family is responsible for the child’s well being for all the time the child is outside of school.
Conversely, a child from a family holding traditional views on gender or sexuality would be placed in a tenuous position, facing a bevy of negative consequences at home for going against her or his family’s values.
The legislation as worded has the very distinct possibility of creating a culture of distrust between the school and the parents. Open discourse and communication are key in maintaining the school/home relationship that is vital for student success in the academic environment.
Adequate supports must be in place for students whose values differ from their parents, and schools should be facilitating the dialogue between children and their parents. Withholding pertinent information from parents only places schools in opposition to families thus removing a foundational connective bridge in educational process – and that benefits no one.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
13 comments
May 16, 2016 at 8:20 am
tildeb
Do children have any right to privacy? How you answer that questions I think is important because it informs all the rest.
Rather than phrase it as schools withholding information from parents, it could be phrased that school staff will not share information the student wishes to remain private.
How could a student feel safe at school if certain yet typical admissions contrary in any way to the guardian’s wishes and expectations would automatically passed along to the guardians in full? I think students would treat school as a hostile environment.
In a broader sense, are we as educators more concerned with each student’s welfare and safety than being an extensions of the parent’s eyes and ears?
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 16, 2016 at 11:16 am
The Intransigent One
Even more important to academic success than the school/home relationship, is the kid being safe at school. Unfortunately, for some kids, one aspect of being safe at school is being safe from your parents. And by the time a kid is old enough to know she’s non-heteronormative, she’s also old enough to know whether it’s safe or not for her parents to know, and to have the right to control how and when, or if, they find out. If a kid can’t trust her parents, she needs other adults she can trust, and making it a policy to violate kids’ privacy and safety by disclosing information about their sexuality and/or gender identity without permission, is a great way to eliminate the possibility of a safe and trusting adult relationship at school for queer kids.
LikeLike
May 16, 2016 at 11:28 am
The Intransigent One
Wow, this has stirred up a lot of feelings for me…
It seems to me that if parents are outraged that schools keep some of their children’s information confidential, they should be looking inward, not outward. Be the kind of parent that it’s safe for your kid to be out with, and it won’t be an issue. Because let’s face it, you don’t get the relationship with your kids that you want, you get the relationship you deserve. Earn your kids’ trust, or stfu.
LikeLike
May 16, 2016 at 12:24 pm
firefly128
I think it’s odd that schools are treated as somehow different from anywhere else. Parents are involved in everything in their kids’ life until they’re teens, so the idea that school should be different is strange. Plus, it’s odd that people counter with things like, “If the parents were good people, the kids would tell them.” Don’t you think that all this rhetoric that goes around that traditional people are hateful and bigoted could actually make kids less trusting of their parents, regardless of the parents’ behaviour? I can honestly say that my experiences with the school system lately tend to paint conservative types- especially people who are religious – in a very negative light.
To me, this entire approach has a lot of negativity to it. It says to those with traditional values, “The identity and values of a trans or gay person matter more than yours do. Yours are backward and bigoted and you should be ashamed of them.” It says the self-identification of a person trumps the need for privacy and feelings of safety for *the entire rest of the student body*. My question is where the school system figured it had the right to tell people such things. I’ve heard quotes from some of the pro-bill 10 demonstrators saying of the anti-bill 10 demonstrators things like, “you should shut up and move on with the rest of us” or “I can’t believe we’re still talking about this” – a classic trend in this kind of activism that does not engage or respect the other side, but attempts to shut them down with insults, and by characterizing them as vile, hateful backwater hicks.
If we create this kind of school environment for our kids, I’ll be lining up with the rest of them to homeschool my own, at least until they’re old enough to have decent critical thinking skills.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 16, 2016 at 2:30 pm
The Arbourist
@Tildeb
Do children have the experience and knowledge to use their rights to privacy appropriately? Are parents responsible for their children’s safety, actions, and upbringing? As we substitute for parents in there absence is it not our duty to keep them in the loop as much as possible?
To answer your question, I think children have some rights to privacy, but nothing resembling what adults have, as in theory, adults can make more judicious and reasonable decisions that the children they are raising.
So are there any other diagnosis in the DSM that we should exclude parents from? Depression is very stigmatizing, and suicidal ideation is also a very private matter.
We are educators, you parent types need to back the heck down and let us decide what you know and do not know about your child. This is not what you said, but it is what some parents will hear – and that whole being a part of the educational team of success becomes more frayed.
As I said in the OP, my concern is about the possible damage to trust between teacher and the people who are raising the children the other 19 hours of every day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 16, 2016 at 3:58 pm
The Intransigent One
@firefly128
“Don’t you think that all this rhetoric that goes around that traditional people are hateful and bigoted could actually make kids less trusting of their parents, regardless of the parents’ behaviour?”
No.
I’m 100% certain that what made/makes me mistrust my hateful and bigoted, traditionally-religious relatives, is the hateful and bigoted things they’ve said and done. Mind you, learning in the news about the hateful and bigoted behaviour of others of the same faith as my family, and seeing my family members fail to condemn those actions (and sometimes even praise them), hasn’t helped either.
If traditionally-religious parents want the trust of their less-religious, or queer, or otherwise nonconformist kids, it’s up to them to make sure their kids know they not only love them no matter what, they accept them as they are, and won’t have them abducted and forcibly sent to an ex-gay “therapy” camp, or an arranged marriage or genital cutting in a foreign country, or throw them out of the house, or beat them or honor kill them or any of the many other abuses inflicted on nonconforming kids by the traditionally-religious.
“It says the self-identification of a person trumps the need for privacy and feelings of safety for *the entire rest of the student body*.”
Yeah, cuz queer and trans kids are so fucking dangerous. Nice.
LikeLike
May 16, 2016 at 4:16 pm
The Intransigent One
I guess my bottom line is, the student-teacher relationship is more important than the teacher-parent relationship, and teachers should have the same kind of confidentiality (and mandatory reporting) rules regarding their students, as mental health professionals have for kids of the same age.
LikeLike
May 17, 2016 at 6:09 am
tildeb
I understand the criticism you offer in the form of assumed surrogate parenting by teachers but I think not passing on certain information is an important part of building trust with students and improving a relationship of respect. Of course this necessarily involves a judgement call about student safety so I think a main consideration should be whether or not the teacher feels passing on certain kinds of information would improve or decrease the student’s sense of safety.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 17, 2016 at 10:06 am
Lavender Blume
I appreciate that liberals are well-meaning in all of this but it’s simply not the right of any public or private institution to decide on behalf of legal guardians what they should or should not know about their dependents. What parents might do with that information is not the key issue here; withholding information is a dangerous path to go down if your criterion for secrecy is an assumption about a parent’s personal opinions and future actions. It’s a given that some parents won’t be welcoming but preventing any communication from occurring is not going to improve the situation going forward. That’s a guarantee. Parents who would be welcoming and their children both would also be robbed of an opportunity to connect – to parent and receive parenting – thus preventing that critical parental support and perspective. While we all hope that parents aren’t abusive and deal reasonably and compassionately with their children’s concerns, we have to remember that children have legal guardians for good reason. Undermining that child-parent relationship places parents, who have familial, fiscal, and legal responsibilities, in an impossible position. It also constructs children as having the knowledge, maturity, and capacity for critical analysis – the very lack of which forms the basis for a legal age of reason in the first place. Children are children. If we’re concerned about parent’s reactions, lying to them isn’t the way to address it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 17, 2016 at 12:39 pm
The Arbourist
@Lavender Blume
and
Well said. :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 18, 2016 at 8:39 am
tildeb
@ LB
LB’s comment with mine to it in parentheses.
I appreciate that liberals are well-meaning in all of this (I’ve met a few conservative in all of this that are well-meaning, too, and omit telling parents certain things about their kids but let’s pretend it’s a political and not a educational matter) but it’s simply not the right of any public or private institution (we’re talking about teachers and not the institutions themselves) to decide on behalf of legal guardians what they should or should not know about their dependents (in some cases, this is exactly what teachers should do for professionally ethical reasons you are simply waving away).
What parents might do with that information is not the key issue here (you’re right… the issue is whether or not teachers should pass on all information always… even if doing so deeply harms the child. destroys the teacher/student trust relationship, and erases any sense of safety at school for the student); withholding information is a dangerous path to go down if your criterion for secrecy (omission, not secrecy) is an assumption about a parent’s personal opinions and future actions (but it’s not about parent’s personal opinions and actions necessarily – although those are factors; it’s about whether or not students should have their own wishes for privacy respected and why that is sometimes the right professional decision to make… taking no action. Imagine if the same reasoning were used for, say, assaults, and that police must be always informed. Of course we expect teachers to exercise reasonable omissions).
It’s a given that some parents won’t be welcoming but preventing any communication from occurring (who says ‘any’? The student can do so at any time) is not going to improve the situation going forward (Au contraire: the trust relationship between student and teacher is rather critical to the ability to teach and breaking it is not a trivial matter). That’s a guarantee (umm… no it’s not and sometimes contraindicated; not saying something is sometimes the right omission, the professional, ethical, and moral one to follow).
Parents who would be welcoming and their children both would also be robbed (no.. again, the student can talk to parents at any time they choose; there is no ‘robbery’ here) of an opportunity to connect – to parent and receive parenting – thus preventing that critical parental support and perspective (teachers who do not pass on such personal information are not preventing critical parent support; the student is not ready to have that conversation with the parents yet and why should teachers decide for them in all cases?).
While we all hope that parents aren’t abusive and deal reasonably and compassionately with their children’s concerns, we have to remember that children have legal guardians for good reason (are those reasons being met necessarily by passing on all ‘private’ information the student does not want to share with them? I don’t think so).
Undermining that child-parent relationship (Presume the conclusion much?) places parents, who have familial, fiscal, and legal responsibilities, in an impossible position (No it doesn’t. Withholding what the student does not wish parents to know is not the teacher undermining the child-parent relationship… that’s already occurred or is in some question if the student doesn’t trust the parents with that information yet. Saddling the teacher with the role of jailhouse snitch hardly improves anything if the safety and dignity of the student is of any concern; all it does is grant teachers a pass on taking any professional responsibility for the breaking of a student’s trust and undermines the ability of a teacher to make that judgement call).
It also constructs children as having the knowledge, maturity, and capacity for critical analysis (most do to varying degrees) – the very lack of which (I know of no children who lack all knowledge, have no maturity, and lack all capacity for critical analysis) forms the basis for a legal age of reason in the first place. (This smacks of religious dogma whereby before a certain age children are innocent from committing sin. Age of majority is about full and autonomous legal responsibility, which is not to say that prior to this age there is no responsibility; it’s a graduated development where a two year old is the same as a 17 year old because neither has reached the age of majority. It’s the same for some hypothetical ‘age of reason’; a spectrum and not a fixed point. Shouldn’t teachers respect and take into account this development?)
Children are children. (Yes, and idiots are idiots. What’s your point?)
If we’re concerned about parent’s reactions, lying to them (Who’s lying? Not the teacher. The teacher simply isn’t saying something specific to the parents that the student doesn’t want passed on) isn’t the way to address it (but telling parents what the student doesn’t want them to know is a way to properly address this concern? What colour is the sky in your world?).
LikeLike
May 18, 2016 at 9:53 am
The Arbourist
@tildeb
Is that varying degree and capacity for critical analysis enough for them to make decisions in their lives? The 8 year hold who won’t do math or the 11 year old who would like to smoke or believes that violence is the way to resolve disputes?
These are choices being made by individuals who believe it is in their best self-interest. Should we respect and laud their choices?
Absolutely not. Their preferences are not to be respected or tolerated.
The cases I mention are clear cut and meant to illustrate that the majority of children are not ready to make life altering decisions. Critical thinking if anything, is at an very early stage.
We cannot outright discount the input of the child, but in theory, since we are the educated adults have to make the call, with what we feel are the best interests of the child.
This metric ‘the best interests of the child’ is not going to be standardized across the teaching population.
The issue of when to go the parents is nothing new in the educational field. It will come down to individual teachers making the calls, for better or worse, on a case by case basis.
What seems to be at variance is the level of how much credence is given to what students think is best for themselves. Lavender makes some good points, as do you Tildeb and I think it issues like this one that typify the complex nature of teaching and the interpersonal dance that all teachers need to be aware of in order to try and find what is best for each of our students.
The tl;dr of it all is that there are not very many useful simple answers when it come to issues like this because of the very specific nature of the beast.
Invariably there will be cases where contacting the parents will be the right course of action – in others it most certainly will not be the case. Students and their concerns make for a very large spectrum of possible right and wrong choices/responses in the multitude of situations that arise in school.
They did say at teacher skool that this job was always interesting. :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 18, 2016 at 12:09 pm
tildeb
I’ve never encountered such an issue with any students under the age of 13 and only after the student has brought it up. All I do is go over options – including and usually first, talking with parents. I offer sources for further information but usually the students are far more knowledgeable about this than I. This kind of talk is under the umbrella of caring for and respecting students and offering guidance not to some ‘answer’ but as a means for the student to learn more. After all, it falls to the student to learn how to navigate these kinds of difficult and very personal issues over time. I don;t think it’s my call to make to preempt the process and contact parents… unless the student were to specifically ask me to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person