The Ontario sex-ed curriculum has been dogged by controversy since the start – thanks in part to a flawed consultation process. When Doug Ford repealed it last week, he also instructed his new education minister, Lisa Thompson, to fix the process. It's a worthy task.As someone who does engagement for a living, I'd like to make a few comments on the process. A word of warning: I'm not taking sides here, just offering a little frank advice.When the curriculum was first released in 2010, social conservatives were outraged that it included topics like same-sex families and anal sex. When Dalton McGuinty saw the reaction, he quickly shelved the plan.In 2014, Kathleen Wynne decided to take another run at it, this time with more involvement from parents. She asked the province's 4,000 elementary schools to select one parent each to participate in a survey. The ministry also consulted with a wide range of experts.In the end, however, the new document looked a lot like the old one. While the so-cons were beside themselves, most Liberals applauded the government. In their view, the critics were a small band of extremists, opposed to giving children the information they need to navigate the digital world.So-cons see it differently. They say they want to prepare children for the times, but the place to start is with values not information. In this view, providing too much information before kids are grounded can confuse them. Focusing on values first gives them the moral compass they need. And it is the parents' job to guide this, not government's.This is a problem for Liberals. Providing information is about education and education is at the top of their list of values. They believe informing children enhances their ability to make choices, which, in turn, helps keep them safe and promotes their well-being.So, on one hand, the two sides agree on the need to prepare children for this new environment; and they also agree that values and information are part of the right approach. On the other hand, Liberals' ambitious commitment to informing kids clashes – sometimes profoundly – with so-cons' deference to parents.This is not new: there's a long-standing debate about who is right and wrong here. For the moment, let's just say that, in a democracy, people are free to hold different values so long as they don't use them to limit other people's freedoms, from same sex marriage to religious freedom. The more interesting issue here is the challenge this poses for governments, which is to treat both sides fairly.I think the Liberals' consultations on the curriculum fail this test. Consider the debate over whether/when masturbation should be discussed in the classroom. The curriculum says yes. Presumably, this is based on expert advice from the consultations. That's good to know, but it doesn't validate the government's position.An expert can't draw valid conclusions about when to discuss masturbation in the classroom without first knowing how and where masturbation fits into the society's values. Social values are a critical part of the context. But according to the so-cons, that's the discussion that never happened. If the government finds advice like this convincing, it's because it shares the same values as the experts – which drives so-cons crazy.It shows that the government had little or no interest in trying to balance competing views. If so, this is a serious flaw in the process. It runs afoul of the principle of inclusion.How would a more inclusive process deal with this question? Two things need to change in the Liberals' approach to consultation. First, the process must be clearer about who is being consulted and why. There is an important division of roles between parents and experts.As guardians, parents have a special contribution to make on questions about values, and the process should ensure their voices are heard and seriously considered. Regarding the information kids need to make informed decisions, parents – including so-cons – should recognize the critical role experts play in ensuring decisions are evidence-based – or perhaps better, evidence-informed. Ideally, information and values will be neatly aligned in the curriculum – which brings us to the second point.Engaging these people should go beyond merely consulting them. The process should create a forum where participants feel comfortable discussing and debating different views and working together to find a better balance between them. I believe parents and experts would rise to the occasion.Lots of Ontarians agree that parents should have a greater say in these matters. Still, when it comes to education, few are extremists. Most Ontarians want their children to be well-informed and they believe that expert opinion matters. They want a better balance between a values-based and an evidence-based approach.If the Conservatives want to find that balance, they need a different kind of engagement process; one that brings parents and experts together in genuine discussion. Such processes are being used around the world with much success.My advice to the minister is to ensure that her process takes a significant step in this direction. In my experience, people and organizations are far more likely to accept difficult trade-offs and decisions if they've had a hand in making them.Dr. Don Lenihan is an internationally recognized expert on public engagement and Open Government. He is currently advising The Ottawa Hospital on an engagement plan to develop its new Civic Campus – a $2 billion, 10-year project. He also co-chairs the Open Government Partnership's Practice Group on Open Dialogue and Deliberation. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan