• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ontario's Sex Ed Curriculum Reversal

OlNate said:
Tos, I will always accept all your love... ;) But I'm not being silly. Your quote has nothing to do with school curriculum. In fact, given the issues the new curriculum is trying to address, the second part of your quote comes into play: "Nothing less than cogent evidence of danger to the child's life or health is required before the court will deprive a parent of such care and control".

By denying their children sex education which deals with the realities of today, they are essentially putting their child's health, and potentially their life, in danger.

I'm not as hardline as some. I would support a parent opting to choose to teach the curriculum to their child, rather than some "stranger"...provided the child could pass a test on the material, and be interviewed by a counsellor - this would be especially important for a kid who knows they are gay, and come from a homophobic home, for example. But rejecting the curriculum outright, as if by doing so we could "return to a simpler time" (when kids were getting pregnant and STD's in far greater numbers than countries where kids are properly educated), or something, is unacceptable. I don't want those kids around my kid.

Wynne made a giant mistake by not consulting more, and not respecting parents more...but I fiercely support a curriculum that deals in today's realities. I guess that's where I land, Tos. :)
Click to expand...

If parents don't want to introduce their young children to that kind of sex curricullum, they're within their rights! It's a good thing Ford won and booted Wynne's curriculum out of the school!

If the agenda is to truly protect children, it's the parents that you have to equip how they can effectively teach their children about inappropriate touchings, and sex abuse.
 
OlNate said:
Question: Would you rather have a child learn about today's sexual norms from a trained teacher, or PornHub?
Click to expand...

I'd rather the child learn from their own parents! It's not rocket science to get parents to learn - give them workshops!
How hard can it be to teach your child to not let anybody touch you inappropriately? I was taught by my mom!
She also taught me to not fall for possible tricks used by abductors - what to do if someone tries to abduct me.

Trained or not, you can't tell who abuse their authority! Look at the trained coaches, and teachers, daycare providers, and priests/pastors who used their authority to be able to get their hands on children!

What dream job would you think a pedophile would want to have?

Lol! Look at Wynne! She didn't even know she has a pedophile for a Minister! :lol:
 
Last edited:
OlNate said:
You're against kids seeking help against abuse in the home? Because "socialism"?
Click to expand...

No. But we do have a socialist climate - the government interferes and tries to get control of everything!

Wynne's sex curriculum is more of spreading her own LGBT agenda!

People are more aware now, and observant.....that's a big help to kids.
 
tosca1 said:
If parents don't want to introduce their young children to that kind of sex curricullum, they're within their rights! It's a good thing Ford won and booted Wynne's curriculum out of the school!

If the agenda is to truly protect children, it's the parents that you have to equip how they can effectively teach their children about inappropriate touchings, and sex abuse.
Click to expand...

Tos, if you want me to take you seriously, please stop with the Ontario Proud memes...we always do better when you say things in your own words.

I would agree, teaching parents to have these conversations with their kids would be great. But you still need to ensure that these lessons are being taught - it's the same as any home schooling situation, kids can be taught at home, but they need to pass equivalency tests.

Also, what about when it's family members doing the inappropriate touching? Please consider the following:

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-child-abuse

Given these statistics, do you seriously think that the best approach is to have ALL children get their sex ed in the home? Wouldn't it be a good idea to build a layer of redundancy in there, to ensure that kids getting abused in their home are taught that's not ok? And given the age that these kids are being abused in some cases, do you really think there is a "too young" status to teach kids about consent? I'm sorry, but folks need to face reality. You're not just making the decision for your kids, who may be perfectly safe and healthy, you are making the decision for ALL kids, including those who may be in abusive or high risk home situations, and preventing them from being empowered with the knowledge to stop the abuse. Is that really what you stand for?

And one more time, please point to where it states a parent has this right. I was able to refute the last link you provided, maybe you have another?
 
tosca1 said:
I'd rather the child learn from their own parents! It's not rocket science to get parents to learn - give them workshops!
How hard can it be to teach your child to not let anybody touch you inappropriately? I was taught by my mom!
She also taught me to not fall for possible tricks used by abductors - what to do if someone tries to abduct me.

Trained or not, you can't tell who abuse their authority! Look at the trained coaches, and teachers, daycare providers, and priests/pastors who used their authority to be able to get their hands on children!

What dream job would you think a pedophile would want to have?

Lol! Look at Wynne! She didn't even know she has a pedophile for a Minister! :lol:
Click to expand...

The pedophile thing is a disgusting meme, and the fact that you use it to have an ugly laugh at Wynne (who I hated, as we have discussed before) makes me doubt your seriousness on this subject. And schools have far more infrastructure in place because of past problems with sexual predators than a home does - see my last post.

tosca1 said:
No. But we do have a socialist climate - the government interferes and tries to get control of everything!

Wynne's sex curriculum is more of spreading her own LGBT agenda!

People are more aware now, and observant.....that's a big help to kids.
Click to expand...

Absolute hogwash...."LGBT agenda"...good grief, what exactly is that, pray tell? You make it sound so Dr. Evil-esque. The reality is that there are LGBT kids for whom the old curriculum was completely unhelpful. It's a public school, therefore the curriculum should reflect all students going there, whether or not you care about of approve of the LGBT community.

This has nothing to do with socialism. At all. I think it's a very bad idea to politicize education...that leads to not so great things. I think you're being more than a little paranoid here...or partisan to a fault, not sure which.

I will agree that people being more aware and observant now is a good thing...but that's thanks to education. More education means more protection. I question the motives of anyone who would restrict education.
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
You seem to think the curriculum makes things easier for pedophiles when in reality it does the opposite, and that was the point. The goal of teaching kids at that age about things like terminology and what consent is about is to combat sexual abuse, which is a real problem. They are not doing it for the sake of it or to "corrupt" their minds like you think they are. You don't even know what is in the curriculum, have you ever actually read it? You are the one just throwing out tabloid clickbait headlines, you not actually disproving or showing how the curriculum is bad.

That is not an attack that is literally what you are doing by supporting the old curriculum.
Click to expand...

Children don't have the ability to consent.
 
OlNate said:
Interesting, I'd never looked into how it works down there.

The problem I see with parents having control over curriculum is exemplified with what we're seeing here. The new curriculum addresses modern societal norms, where the old one ignores them, leaving kids to find out about them on their own, often from much less trustworthy sources. But, because the parents are uncomfortable with the content, and would rather bury their heads in the sand, a provincial leader made killing it part of his platform, and got elected. Now the kids will not get the information they need.
Click to expand...

Parents, obviously, can't have total control over a public school curriculum (many regulations are in play), but that doesn't mean that the school necessarily usurps the parent's right to make certain information decisions for his/her child. That right is reflected in allowing the parent to opt-their-child-out of certain "lessons."

Question: Would you rather have a child learn about today's sexual norms from a trained teacher, or PornHub?
Click to expand...

The teacher, obviously, but I'm a big supporter of sex-ed in schools.

That's irrelevant, however to the discussion, which is whether or not individual parents have the right to choose what/how/when their children learn sex subjects.

The correct answer is -- yes, they have that right. At least in the US, they do -- no idea what they do in Canada.
 
OlNate said:
I would agree, teaching parents to have these conversations with their kids would be great. But you still need to ensure that these lessons are being taught - it's the same as any home schooling situation, kids can be taught at home, but they need to pass equivalency tests.
Click to expand...

I'm sure if you understand this - but there is no "equivalency" requirement for a homeschooling parent to teach sex ed. And "these lessons" as you say are often NOT taught at all in parochial schools. And, when they are taught -- it's from a religious perspective.

Does Canada force private schools and homeschooling families to teach sex ed?

Because the United States does not.
 
HowardBThiname said:
I'm sure if you understand this - but there is no "equivalency" requirement for a homeschooling parent to teach sex ed. And "these lessons" as you say are often NOT taught at all in parochial schools. And, when they are taught -- it's from a religious perspective.

Does Canada force private schools and homeschooling families to teach sex ed?

Because the United States does not.
Click to expand...

Sorry, to be more clear: If they want to get into university or college, they need to pass equivalency tests. I don't know what the exact rules are for homeschooling, as I would never think that was a good idea (and not realistic for our household anyway), it was more an illustration. My wife's family all homeschool, and I know when the one kid decided he wanted to go into public high school, he needed to pass equivalency tests so they knew what grade to put him in. Another family I know that homeschooled their kids all the way up to university had to prepare their kids for the university equivalency exams in order to be accepted.

The rules appear to be different from province to province, which reflects our education system - education is a provincial affair, so this makes sense. But I think there's a major risk to not having rules and standards associated...and I think that withholding appropriate (reflective of societal and biological realities) sex education from your child constitutes abuse, which would be where I would debate from when saying that parents do not have the right to refuse to have their child educated regarding sex. Whether or not I would win is a different story, of course...hehe... I'm still waiting on Tos to get back to me on that one... ;)
 
OlNate said:
Sorry, to be more clear: If they want to get into university or college, they need to pass equivalency tests. I don't know what the exact rules are for homeschooling, as I would never think that was a good idea (and not realistic for our household anyway), it was more an illustration. My wife's family all homeschool, and I know when the one kid decided he wanted to go into public high school, he needed to pass equivalency tests so they knew what grade to put him in. Another family I know that homeschooled their kids all the way up to university had to prepare their kids for the university equivalency exams in order to be accepted.
Click to expand...

Here (Kansas), homeschoolers must meet a minimum amount of hours per day (and days per year) and they also sit for standardized testing. The universities have been heavily recruiting homeschooled kids for the past few years. They'll take SAT scores or homeschool transcripts, or both. Kansas may be a little unusual in that it has a large homeschool presence and the state caters to them quite a bit. Different states may have additional requirements, I don't know.

The rules appear to be different from province to province, which reflects our education system - education is a provincial affair, so this makes sense. But I think there's a major risk to not having rules and standards associated...and I think that withholding appropriate (reflective of societal and biological realities) sex education from your child constitutes abuse, which would be where I would debate from when saying that parents do not have the right to refuse to have their child educated regarding sex. Whether or not I would win is a different story, of course...hehe... I'm still waiting on Tos to get back to me on that one... ;)
Click to expand...



While I would encourage parents to let their child attend, I would never back a requirement to force them to do so. A difference in parental ideas is not necessarily abuse. A lot of the backlash agaisnt sex-ed (in the US) comes from religious sectors - far-right Christian and Muslim are the main two holdouts. Their religious tenets do not encourage the secular teaching of sex. The US happens to respect their religious rights.

That why Texas Children Protective Services had absolutely no power in the FLDS case a few years ago. None of us like seeing children grow up in that environment but the US has determined that unless a parent is actually harming a child, they have the right to raise that child as they see fit -- and for FLDS that means not teaching young girls anything and then marrying them off as soon as they reach 16.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Here (Kansas), homeschoolers must meet a minimum amount of hours per day (and days per year) and they also sit for standardized testing. The universities have been heavily recruiting homeschooled kids for the past few years. They'll take SAT scores or homeschool transcripts, or both. Kansas may be a little unusual in that it has a large homeschool presence and the state caters to them quite a bit. Different states may have additional requirements, I don't know.

While I would encourage parents to let their child attend, I would never back a requirement to force them to do so. A difference in parental ideas is not necessarily abuse. A lot of the backlash agaisnt sex-ed (in the US) comes from religious sectors - far-right Christian and Muslim are the main two holdouts. Their religious tenets do not encourage the secular teaching of sex. The US happens to respect their religious rights.

That why Texas Children Protective Services had absolutely no power in the FLDS case a few years ago. None of us like seeing children grow up in that environment but the US has determined that unless a parent is actually harming a child, they have the right to raise that child as they see fit -- and for FLDS that means not teaching young girls anything and then marrying them off as soon as they reach 16.
Click to expand...

Ok, looks like we're moving into a more general conversation, bringing all the US content into this, so I'll go in that direction... :)

I think a lot of bad decisions have been made in both our countries in order to appease the religious crowd...and I say that as a Christian. I personally struggle with "personal freedom" sometimes...and when I say struggle, I mean I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, so please don't bite my head off...hehe...

I look at this a little like the vaccination thing. When it comes to sex ed, as with vaccinations, the more people you can teach, the better off we are at the societal level - less abortions (I'm pro choice, but would like to see less women put in that position), less young people afraid to report abuse, less transmission of STD's, etc. - and the more kids we educate, the more healthy attitudes around sex and sexuality will become the norm in our society...similar to the way that if you vaccinate enough people, the overall public will be safe from those diseases overall. When the societal benefits are so obvious, and the harm equally obvious if the education or vaccination is not delivered, then it seems like this is a no brainer to make mandatory.

And yes, I know that makes it sound like I'm advocating for fascism...lol...which is why I honestly struggle with it. In both cases there is no good reason to forgo, with very few exceptions on the vaccination front due to medical reasons, and zero exceptions (that I can think of) on the education front. Just because one understands about sex doesn't automatically imply that they go out and join an orgy club, and if the parents and church has done an adequate job of instilling their values, the kid won't suddenly do a 180 and start worshiping the devil. The old adage of "your rights end where mine begin" is deceptively simple...in reality it's much more complicated, because both people can say that at the intersection of what they see as conflicting rights...who is more right?

By way of a compromise, I go back to what I said earlier. If you want to teach your kids about sex (for whatever reason, when my folks had "the talk" with me, I would have rather it come from ANYONE else...lol), then let them opt out and be taught by their parents...but make them write the test at the end, to ensure that the curriculum content has been delivered. Also have them talk to a school counsellor to ensure that if there are any questions or concerns the kid can't talk to their parents about...especially given the statistics around childhood sexual abuse mainly happening in the home. If parents want to be the one to educate their kids on this, ok...but then, educate them, and don't fill their heads with nonsense, or worse, raise another generation of people who hate folks who are different than them, or feel entitled to push the limits, or brazenly march past the limits, of consent.

Meanwhile, to bring it all back to Ontario, what's happening here is a damn mess:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/24/doug-ford-sex-ed_a_23488631/
 
OlNate said:
.

I look at this a little like the vaccination thing. When it comes to sex ed, as with vaccinations, the more people you can teach, the better off we are at the societal level - less abortions (I'm pro choice, but would like to see less women put in that position), less young people afraid to report abuse, less transmission of STD's, etc. - and the more kids we educate, the more healthy attitudes around sex and sexuality will become the norm in our society...similar to the way that if you vaccinate enough people, the overall public will be safe from those diseases overall. When the societal benefits are so obvious, and the harm equally obvious if the education or vaccination is not delivered, then it seems like this is a no brainer to make mandatory.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that those results that are likely when sex-ed is taught on a universal basis, where I struggle is with the question -- at what cost? And, I'm not ready to take away anyone's rights -- not even if they're for dumb religious reasons. With immunizations we also have opt-outs, the parent can homeschool or opt-out for medical reasons. If a pandemic were to hit, I could see tightening up the rules a bit -- until the danger is passed -- but for the most part, I like to let people make their own decisions, based on what they think is best. We could mandate flu shots for everyone, adults included, along with mandatory pap smears and colonoscopies. We could do all that -- but I think we would be wrong.

And yes, I know that makes it sound like I'm advocating for fascism...lol...which is why I honestly struggle with it. In both cases there is no good reason to forgo, with very few exceptions on the vaccination front due to medical reasons, and zero exceptions (that I can think of) on the education front. Just because one understands about sex doesn't automatically imply that they go out and join an orgy club, and if the parents and church has done an adequate job of instilling their values, the kid won't suddenly do a 180 and start worshiping the devil. The old adage of "your rights end where mine begin" is deceptively simple...in reality it's much more complicated, because both people can say that at the intersection of what they see as conflicting rights...who is more right?
Click to expand...

I don't think you're advocating for fascism, but I do think you're advocating from a place of fear. The thing is -- I don't think we'll ever create a utopia, not because we can't mandate everyone to behave a certain way, eat certain foods, practice safe sex - but because human beings long for freedom over just about anything else.

By way of a compromise, I go back to what I said earlier. If you want to teach your kids about sex (for whatever reason, when my folks had "the talk" with me, I would have rather it come from ANYONE else...lol), then let them opt out and be taught by their parents...but make them write the test at the end, to ensure that the curriculum content has been delivered. Also have them talk to a school counsellor to ensure that if there are any questions or concerns the kid can't talk to their parents about...especially given the statistics around childhood sexual abuse mainly happening in the home. If parents want to be the one to educate their kids on this, ok...but then, educate them, and don't fill their heads with nonsense, or worse, raise another generation of people who hate folks who are different than them, or feel entitled to push the limits, or brazenly march past the limits, of consent.
Click to expand...

If we mandate a test -- we're going to be storming the FLDS compound again and separating all those children from their mothers. We're probably also going to be taking a lot of Muslim and far-right Christian kids away from their families. Think of all the hullabaloo over the immigrant kids being separated from their parents -- this would dwarf that by far.

Meanwhile, to bring it all back to Ontario, what's happening here is a damn mess:
Click to expand...

Yes, it seems to be. We have those hot-button issues all the time, too. But, I don't need to tell you that.
 
OlNate said:
Tos, if you want me to take you seriously, please stop with the Ontario Proud memes...we always do better when you say things in your own words.

I would agree, teaching parents to have these conversations with their kids would be great. But you still need to ensure that these lessons are being taught - it's the same as any home schooling situation, kids can be taught at home, but they need to pass equivalency tests.

Also, what about when it's family members doing the inappropriate touching? Please consider the following:

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-child-abuse

Given these statistics, do you seriously think that the best approach is to have ALL children get their sex ed in the home? Wouldn't it be a good idea to build a layer of redundancy in there, to ensure that kids getting abused in their home are taught that's not ok? And given the age that these kids are being abused in some cases, do you really think there is a "too young" status to teach kids about consent? I'm sorry, but folks need to face reality. You're not just making the decision for your kids, who may be perfectly safe and healthy, you are making the decision for ALL kids, including those who may be in abusive or high risk home situations, and preventing them from being empowered with the knowledge to stop the abuse. Is that really what you stand for?

And one more time, please point to where it states a parent has this right. I was able to refute the last link you provided, maybe you have another?
Click to expand...

What Ontario proud meme are you on about???

You can't protect all children anymore than you can't protect all women! That's the reality!

If some family members can abuse their own - what more if you've got the authority, and yet they're not your own?
Like teachers, and coaches, and babysitters, and priests, etc...,

Pedophiles will tend to gravitate to places where there is access to children!


It is a basic right. Read the link I gave you. here's another one:

Parental authority refers to parents' rights and responsibilities toward their children from the minute they are born until they turn 18. Under their parental authority, parents make decisions that affect their children's well-being.
Click to expand...
https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/parental-authority-rights-and-responsibilities-parents
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
It is not forcing the LGBT agenda on kids, it is merely reflecting reality. Kids need to learn this stuff, it cannot just be left to parents, it is far too important to do so.
Click to expand...

Took you a few posts, but you eventually came out with it, eh? ;)

People like you folks that can't for any reason acknowledge the rational opposition to explicit sexual education are hopeless, and for parents like me, who approve of same sex relationships, you're also very dangerous. Teaching 6 year old's about same sex through public schools is no more effective than what they see and hear elsewhere. You claim it's important to do so, then the burden, as you attempted to shift it to Tosca1, no resides solely on you. Why is it important to expose children through various means of curricula, to LGBT issues? And, you can't mention bullying as a reason, because it's already been thoroughly debunked; soundly, actually. So come on scholar, unless you agree with the efforts of Levin, and his ulterior motives, then you have no rational argument to offer school children such explicit material, material I might add that, if shown on TV would carry, YOU guessed it, and parental warning.. Shocker!


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Took you a few posts, but you eventually came out with it, eh? ;)

People like you folks that can't for any reason acknowledge the rational opposition to explicit sexual education are hopeless, and for parents like me, who approve of same sex relationships, you're also very dangerous. Teaching 6 year old's about same sex through public schools is no more effective than what they see and hear elsewhere. You claim it's important to do so, then the burden, as you attempted to shift it to Tosca1, no resides solely on you. Why is it important to expose children through various means of curricula, to LGBT issues? And, you can't mention bullying as a reason, because it's already been thoroughly debunked; soundly, actually. So come on scholar, unless you agree with the efforts of Levin, and his ulterior motives, then you have no rational argument to offer school children such explicit material, material I might add that, if shown on TV would carry, YOU guessed it, and parental warning.. Shocker!


Tim-
Click to expand...

Since when do same-sex relationships carry a parental advisory? How does teaching kids about the existence of same-sex relationships harmful in anyway? Bullying is a very good reason to teach them about it, it has not been debunked in anyway. And then there are parents that would try to teach their children that same-sex relationships are unacceptable and those people and their children should be avoided.
 
Carjosse said:
Since when do same-sex relationships carry a parental advisory? How does teaching kids about the existence of same-sex relationships harmful in anyway? Bullying is a very good reason to teach them about it, it has not been debunked in anyway. And then there are parents that would try to teach their children that same-sex relationships are unacceptable and those people and their children should be avoided.
Click to expand...

They don't carry a parental advisory, anymore, but they did up until very recently. If a parent believes, as many do, that SS attraction is a choice, then guarding against that for your children is a rational caution to approach, if one doesn't want that for their children. (The science is NOT settled on this question, far from it). Harm is a relative thing philosophically speaking. Certainly one can name a few things that, as a homosexual, one is statistically more prone to being affected by than a heterosexual would otherwise be. Domestic violence, STD, (among male homosexuals specifically) Rape, the list is extensive, but again, it's all relative, but no less reality. It actually has been thoroughly debunked as being a homosexual today is no more or less likely to involve being the subject of bullying, or violence from non same sex attracted individuals. In fact, if you wear glasses, you're more likely to be bullied these days. But we're NOT just talking about LGBT issues. What was in Levin suggested curricula was way more explicit than that, and it was this that I was referring to that would carry a parental advisory.. Sticking carrots up one's vagina, or using a fleshlight for experimental masturbation are two that come to mind.. Would you agree that those sorts of explicit sexual conversations are better left to a parent and not some school administrator? At least you can agree that such methods of sexual gratification, or techniques are not subject to interpretation as their efficacy on young minds? I support ramped up sexual education for children once safely past puberty, but NOT before.

That turf belongs to the parents, not the state! The difference between liberals and conservatives is a simple one. If we don't like something, or even if we do like it, we leave it for the individual to decide, whereas liberals want everyone to either block it, or buy it! If there had been an opt-out, fully transparent policy to the Ontario Sex Ed curricula, then I would have supported that, but I'm conservative, NOT a liberal. ;)

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
They don't carry a parental advisory, anymore, but they did up until very recently. If a parent believes, as many do, that SS attraction is a choice, then guarding against that for your children is a rational caution to approach, if one doesn't want that for their children. (The science is NOT settled on this question, far from it). Harm is a relative thing philosophically speaking. Certainly one can name a few things that, as a homosexual, one is statistically more prone to being affected by than a heterosexual would otherwise be. Domestic violence, STD, (among male homosexuals specifically) Rape, the list is extensive, but again, it's all relative, but no less reality. It actually has been thoroughly debunked as being a homosexual today is no more or less likely to involve being the subject of bullying, or violence from non same sex attracted individuals. In fact, if you wear glasses, you're more likely to be bullied these days. But we're NOT just talking about LGBT issues. What was in Levin suggested curricula was way more explicit than that, and it was this that I was referring to that would carry a parental advisory.. Sticking carrots up one's vagina, or using a fleshlight for experimental masturbation are two that come to mind.. Would you agree that those sorts of explicit sexual conversations are better left to a parent and not some school administrator? At least you can agree that such methods of sexual gratification, or techniques are not subject to interpretation as their efficacy on young minds? I support ramped up sexual education for children once safely past puberty, but NOT before.

That turf belongs to the parents, not the state! The difference between liberals and conservatives is a simple one. If we don't like something, or even if we do like it, we leave it for the individual to decide, whereas liberals want everyone to either block it, or buy it! If there had been an opt-out, fully transparent policy to the Ontario Sex Ed curricula, then I would have supported that, but I'm conservative, NOT a liberal. ;)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Have you ever actually read the curriculum? I see you are more comfortable living in ignorance and lies, you are the reason we need sex education taught in schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom