Author Archive CPoSD76

This can happen to your child in SD76

6-Year-Old ‘Disciplined’ For ‘Misgendering’ A Transgender Classmate

Procedures for SD76’s policy 621 states that if your child is NOT at school, and violates school policy, then that child can be punished for violating school policy. Procedures for policy 622 states every child must be AFFIRMED in their gender confusion, and that it is an offense to present contrary evidence.
THUS any child who shows ‘transphobia’ at home or at the mall, will be punished at school.
Ross Glen Elementary recently published in a school newsletter that ‘adults were taught wrong’ and that a child as young as 3 could be transgender.

You have THE RIGHT to teach your child your own values, and as long as those values are within the law.

SD76 DOES NOT have the right NOR the AUTHORITY to punish your children for any action taken off of school property.

SD76 DOES NOT have the right NOR the AUTHORITY to impose a moral an ethical standard beyond the law upon you or your children.

SD76 IS SUBJECT TO the Family Law Act, and YOUR PRIOR RIGHTS as parents.

YOU have the right to bring charges against any staff member or employee of SD76, should they violate any part of the family law act, or your rights as a parent.

Tags, , , ,

PCE Candidate Survey

Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) has released a survey asking key question of candidates for school board in October 2017’s Municipal Elections. How the candidates answer those questions will provide key information to electorate on where all candidates stand on the education issues that are at the forefront of the coming election.

PCE_Survey Direct Download

The CPoSD76 will be doing profiles on all candidates who put their names forward on Sept 18th, and giving an A to F grade on if the CPoSD76 endorse that candidate for the position of Trustee in the Medicine Hat Public School District. In order for a Candidate to have a passing grade, they must at a minimum have completed and returned the PCE survey.

The CPoSD76 are of the position that if any candidate can not fill out the survey, and provide direct and honest answers to the questions most concerning to electorate in Medicine hat, then they will receive an ‘F’ on their profile.

The CPoSD76 would also like to thank PCE for providing electorate all across Alberta with the tools they need to make informed decisions on who they will put in Fiduciary charge of their children.

Our children are the future, and giving them the best possible education and the most prosperous future are the most important goals for parents.

Tags, , , , ,

Media Release Regarding SD76’s second rejection of the CPoSD76 petition.

 

On July 21, the CPoSD76 submitted additional information to the Secretary of SD76 at his request. Our previous submission on July 7th was in compliance with the proceedings of the court appeal on March 10th, 2017.

Our submission on July 21st was an attempt to work with the Board to have it meet new requirements set out by the Secretary, that were not in fact discussed during the appeal proceedings.

In regards to the response by the Secretary for our July 21 Submission:

  1. We did not receive back from the Secretary the original of the petition from September 2016, and a copy of that original is all we had to work with. The “penciling in” as CHAT news put it was in fact at the request of the Superintendent and Chair of the Board on July 7th. The addresses were those of the signatures that had previously only had a postal code, and they were filled in with RED INK so as to not mistake them as being originally on the petition. This of course could have been told to CHAT had they made any real effort to get a response from the CPoSD76 prior to releasing their one sided story.
  2. The insinuation by the Secretary that we had ‘made up’ or ‘falsified’ signatures or address is a slanderous accusation with no truth to it. Everything we have done has been above reproach, and again, Justice Tilleman specifically asked the Legal council if the Board or Secretary had concerns with the witnesses or integrity of the signatures, and the Legal council stated that they did not. The CPoSD76 take exception to the suggestion, and are considering appropriate responses.
  3. The Secretary rejected all the effort that the CPoSD76 went to get the information for the postal code signatures, and the CPoSD76 believe that they were deliberately mislead during the appeal process. The CPoSD76 do not believe that the Board and Secretary have honoured the statements made to the Justice during the March 10th appeal proceedings.
  4. The CPoSD76 have seen continued obstruction from the Board and Secretary in regards to the petition, and do not believe that any petition would be accepted at any time. This is evident through the changing requirements, and the acceptance and then rejection of signatures, the continued miss characterization of facts and numbers, and repeated misrepresentations of the intentions and concerns of the CPoSD76.

Despite chairman Massini’s assertions that the matter is closed, and that we must “start over,” the CPoSD76 do not hold that same position. During the March 10th appeal Justice Tilleman invited the petitioners to return to his court room, should the district reject the petition a second time. The CPoSD76 are considering all options.

Tags, , , ,

Daily Tidbit

No quote today