The education system of Ontario is facing an unprecedented state of affairs. There is a wide rift drawn in the sexual orientation dispensation. There exist three schools; the schools differ in their treatment of students. There are safe, positive, and queer schools. Each has its own unique set of rules that it plays by. The safe school is the epitome of modesty. All manner of sexual dispensation is tolerated (Goldstein et al, 2007). In the school, all people learn to live with, and accept the inclination of other parties. In the end, all people learn to live in harmony.
Safe, Positive, and Queer
The setting allows peace and coexistence to prevail in the society. The positive schools, on the other hand, promote the use of rules and regulations predetermined by the relevant authorities. A positive approach vouches for adherence to rules that govern the interaction of parties to the issue. This promotes a sense of equality in the schools. The rules are set in such a way as to give all parties leeway to act within the confines of the lettering of the rules. In this sense, they differ from the safe schools in that they do not morph to the dispensation of parties (Goldstein et al, 2007). They, however, provide for the special needs of each group but only in the rules. The queer schools seek to promote the understanding of all parties and their inclinations. In this context, all groups are accepted and a framework for coexistence based on anti- bullying laws enacted. Some religious affiliations define the new order as being exceedingly absurd.
The Catholic Church has come out strongly to oppose the requirements. They presuppose a need to create clubs with definite names in order to allow acceptance. In the queer schools dispensation, students are allowed to practise their respective conducts, and live free. The queer schools aim at fostering understanding the lifestyle of other people. The Catholic Church took issue with the legislation because it allows students to name their clubs, which way how. The church feels that letting the students name their respective clubs in an unregulated manner will create a negative impression (Goldstein et al, 2007). The church is of the opinion that the clubs should be labelled as anti- bullying clubs, but not as anti-homophobia clubs. The legislative assembly has stuck with its decision to allow the practice much to the church’s chagrin. The safe schools approach suffers a lack of commitment. One cannot help feeling that it lacks the motive to foster understanding and address pertinent issues. The system aims at promoting tolerance, but not understanding. The tolerance model works for all parties except the queer students and staff (SSAT, 2008). The queer members of society do not have a forum for addressing their needs and internal strife. Safe schools cover up the dilemma behind a veneer of tolerance and adulterated tranquillity. Positive schools are decent, but they do not offer much help because they fail to address the intrinsic acceptance. The students and staff subscribe to a system of rules imposed on them, but not fully addressing their exemption (SSAT, 2008). Leanings of each set of people especially based on sexual bearing need no addressing, in such an overt manner. In the same token, they must not, shrouded, and veiled in obscurity, warrant disguise.
In conclusion, therefore, schools have to adopt a hybrid system that does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others in the pretext of equality. The queer schools are laudable because they promote understanding, but they exemplify excesses of liberalism. The school board has to evaluate the available options to foster understanding. The dispensation meted out should be more representative of impartiality rather than intervention.
Goldstein, T., Russell, V., & Daley, A. (January 01, 2007). Safe, Positive and Queering Moments in Teaching Education and Schooling: A conceptual framework. Teaching Education, 18, 3, 183-199.
Safe Schools Action Team. (2008). Shaping a culture of respect in our schools: Promoting safe and healthy relationships : report on gender-based violence, homophobia, sexual harassment, and inappropriate sexual behaviour in schools. Toronto: Ministry of Education.