Regarding a Grade 6 Civic Assignment

Yesterday evening, my sister, a Grade 6 student, came to me asking for help with a school assignment. As it was explained to me, students were asked to write about a “historic event from 2025.” That, on its face, is a perfectly reasonable and even commendable goal for an elementary classroom.

The problem was one of the assigned or optional topics: the assassination of Charlie Kirk, an American political commentator with no relevance to Canadian civic life and no place in a Grade 6 curriculum.

I want to be clear about what this is and what it is not.

This is not a partisan complaint.
It is not an attempt to score political points.
And it is not an attack on teachers or staff.

It is a concern about judgment, age-appropriateness, and the growing tendency to import American political culture into Canadian classrooms, even at the elementary level.

Rather than escalate unnecessarily, I chose to do what adults are supposed to do: raise the issue directly, respectfully, and in writing with school administration. The email below reflects that approach. It is fair, but firm. It outlines why this topic is inappropriate for Grade 6 students and offers concrete Canadian alternatives that would better serve our civic education.

I'm sharing it publicly because this is not just about one assignment or one school. It's about where we draw the line, and whether we're willing to say, plainly, that Canadian kids deserve Canadian civic education, not American culture-war figures.

The email follows in full:

Title: Concern Regarding Grade 6 Assignment Topic Selection

Dear Principal Jordan,

I’m writing to share a concern regarding a recent Grade 6 assignment, as it was explained to me by my sister, who is a student at the school.

I understand that the assignment asked students to write about a “historic event from 2025,” and I appreciate the intent behind encouraging students to engage with current affairs and develop early civic awareness. That goal is worthwhile and important.

However, I am concerned that allowing—or assigning—students to write about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, is not age-appropriate for a Grade 6 classroom.

My concern is not partisan. Left or right, Charlie Kirk was a very divisive, foreign political influencer with no relevance to Canadian civic life and no meaningful connection to the institutions or democratic processes that Canadian students are meant to be learning about at this age. Introducing such figures to eleven-year-olds, who have not yet developed strong critical-thinking or media-literacy skills, risks exposing them to highly ideological material that they are not equipped to properly assess. Even unintentionally, this can create an environment where political ideology is filtered into the classroom rather than civic understanding.

I want to be clear that I am not questioning the professionalism or good faith of you and your staff. I am simply raising a concern about judgment and appropriateness at the elementary level.

If the assignment was meant to focus on significant developments from 2025, there were many Canadian topics that would have been far better suited for a Grade 6 class, such as:

• the “Elbows Up” movement and its cultural meaning
• Canada’s new Prime Minister, Mark J. Carney
• the Toronto Blue Jays and their role in shared Canadian identity
• MPs crossing the floor and what that means in a parliamentary system
• Jagmeet Singh’s resignation, the NDP leadership race, and how party leadership works

These topics are age-appropriate, nationally relevant, and grounded in Canadian institutions, exactly what elementary civic education should aim to provide.

I raise this concern respectfully, but firmly, because I believe Canadian classrooms should prioritize Canadian civic literacy and exercise care when dealing with contemporary political material, especially at the elementary level.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my perspective. I appreciate the work that goes into educating students and maintaining a balanced learning environment.

With warm regards,

— Will Adams

I want to emphasize something important:

This was not written lightly, and it certainly wasn't written to provoke a reaction. It was written because there is a line between civic education and ideological exposure, and that line was crossed here.

Elementary schools are not meant to be venues for introducing partisan political personalities, especially not foreign ones like Charlie Kirk, whose relevance exists almost entirely within American media ecosystems. Whether one agrees with him or not is beside the point. Grade 6 students are not equipped to evaluate ideological messaging. They are still learning how democratic systems work at the most basic level.

That is precisely why judgment matters.

When educators select topics, they are not merely offering information; they are setting boundaries. They are signalling what is appropriate, what is relevant, and what belongs in the intellectual development of our children. Choosing to elevate a U.S. culture-war figure into that space—even as an “option”—reflects a lapse in that responsibility.

Canada has its own civic story. Our children should be learning how our institutions function, how our political disagreements are resolved, and how our democracy operates. We do not need to borrow American outrage cycles to make civics engaging. In fact, doing so actively undermines the goal.

This is not a demand for ideological conformity. It is a call for discipline and restraint, two qualities that are essential in education, especially when dealing with young students.

I am hopeful the school administration will take this feedback seriously. Not defensively, not dismissively, but as an opportunity to reaffirm what elementary education is meant to be: age-appropriate, nationally grounded, and focused on building understanding rather than importing controversy.

If we want students to grow into informed, independent thinkers, then we owe them something better than ideological shortcuts. We owe them context. We owe them relevance. And above all, we owe them care.

— Will Adams
Editor, The Provincial Times