Parent Watch

What is the latest that is going on in the education system in Alberta, across Canada, and around the world?

Join the conversation in the Forum, or view the highlighted posts here.

Vote for the protection of ALL children.

Here’s Why Gender Theory is Dangerous

Some Points to ponder:
1. In Australia, the program was called "Safe Schools" | In SD76 it is called "Safe and Caring"

2. In Australia "professionals who dare to question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy will find themselves maligned and out of a job." | In SD76 under Policy 622 you can not present non-affirming evidence to students, and we saw a teacher threatened by administration even before the policy was passed.

Safe schools/Safe and Caring do not protect children from the harm that comes to them from 'transitioning', nor does it ALLOW for children to develop naturally. As has been noted in multiple articles "around 90%" of children with 'gender disphoria' grow out of it during puberty, or when removed from an environment that is imposing the abusive idea upon them.

I ask you to please Vote on October 16th for candidates who stand for biological fact, and for the true protection of children from this perverse and abusive teaching. Candidates who have the courage to put fact based principles above political dogma, and who are not intimidated by threats from those that wish to break ties between children and their parents in favor of a debunked theory.


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.


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.


Ross Glen School Claims that a child as young as 3 can be transgender

 
This was just shared by a Concerned Parent of SD76. If you have been told that they are not pushing the gender identity/unicorn in SD76, you were lied to. This is why it is pivotal for parents to carefully choose who they vote for in next October's Trustee Elections. THEY CLAIM THAT A CHILD AS YOUNG AS 3, could have gender identity issues! If you think that this has nothing to do with sex or sexuality, look at who is linked at the end. "www.teachingsexualhealth.ca"
 
I happen to know that a majority of the Trustees currently sitting on the Board believe that there are/were k-2 children in Medicine Hat that are transgendered. This is in my opinion why age appropriateness has not been set in policy.
When your school district is teaching young children that a biologically impossible cultural trend is 'true,' they have stepped outside of reason, and can not be trusted to educate your children. A child of 3 has barely begun to create permanent memories, let alone understand and 'choose' a gender. It is malpractice for any educator to teach such clearly false hypothesis. This is crossing into willful negligence, and parents need to start doing everything in their power to remove those from public education who are promoting such destructive and harmful 'education.'

[RESULTS Update] To Court, or not to Court

UPDATE


39% In Favor of returning to court.
61% Wish to focus on elections.

I respect the will of the people, and I too believe that the most important thing to focus on right now, is getting people on the school board who respect the authority and rights of parents to be involved with their children's education. As one parent put it, "the lines of communication are down." Just like I told the Secretary last September, my role is and always has been to restoring communication with parents. From my attempts to record proceedings, to my speaking up to the board, and to my taking the petition to appeal.

Given that the Secretary and Board had clear instructions to accept a copy of amended signatures from the Justice, and they have chosen not do so, it is evident to me and a majority of voters who signed the petition, that returning to court will not repair the lines of communication. I do understand the reasons why so many voted to go back to court. The Board, through allies in the media, have essentially maligned the electorate on the petition. They have portrayed the signatories as if they could not get the support for their position, and that they were unable to file a correct petition, when that is clearly not the case.

Should any of those signatories who voted in favor of returning to court wish to pick up the banner, and pursue an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench again, I will provide all necessary documents and evidence needed to do so. I support their right to do so, and I understand why they may want to. I will however point my focus on rebuilding the lines of communication, through the election of candidates that support parental authority, educational choice, and quality curriculum.


(For consistency and ease of understanding in this post I will be using the numbers that the Secretary used when discussing the number of signatures on the petition. There is some disparity between the numbers that I hold to and what the Secretary holds to, but in the grand scheme of things, those small differences would have no affect on the final outcome.)

On August 14, 2017, Secretary Jerry Lebossiere of SD#76 rejected an amendment to the petition I submitted in September, 2016. His excuse for rejecting it was that he could not accept any of the 121 signatures that had had their addresses corrected. In his rejection letter the secretary stated that "These addresses are not set out opposite to an original signature but are simply written in over the photocopied signatures," and that "as Secretary Treasurer I have no discretion to permit the inclusion of names on a petition that do not comply with the requirements." Additionally when the Secretary rejected the initial amendment of the petition on July 7th, he set out a an expiry for the petition of July 21, 2017.

When I took the petition to appeal on March 10, 2017, I did so seeking clarification on the act, as well as I contested the rejection of 259 signatures that had listed only a Postal Code, and did not include  the street address. Through the proceedings on March 10th, Justice Tilleman made it clear that a copy was sufficient for the amendment. From The Court Transcript: "Okay, so her[secretary's legal council] last words were the secretary is absolutely willing to evaluate fairly any petition that is re-filed or resubmitted, so, I mean, I take that to mean for example if you used a photocopy of the previous that someone, in an affidavit, certifies is the true copy, and the secretary says no, I’m not going to accept that, you’ll be back in court and I wouldn’t be very happy. It’s going to be accepted." The Justice earlier in the conversation stating "...then you would need addresses on the 259 so you’re 100 [this is rounded] short, sounds to me like you’ve collected other names, assuming you want to go the (b) route,..." To top it all off, the Secretary's legal council said, in her own words, "There’s no time limit on the petition names, there’s nothing that says that their name is on the petition for only a set period of time"

Taking the rest of the transcript into context, it is clear to me that the Justice gave the Secretary clear latitude to accept amended address on a copy, and also expected him to accept it, and the district freely told the Justice that we had no deadline/expiry on signatures. I will admit that I did not give a sworn copy of the petition sheets. I did however use the copy that was given to me by his legal council during the appeal proceedings, and red ink was used to indicate clearly which lines had been amended. The secretary did not contest that the pages were not a true copy, he contested that he had no way of knowing if the addressed were true. In affect insinuating that I or others had committed fraud, and made up the addresses. I might add, he provided no proof for his accusation.

In an effort to calm the Secretary's concerns, on the 21 of August, 2017, I e-mailed the secretary outlining my objection to his rejection of the 121 corrected address. I offered to provide him with sworn affidavits from the individuals who had collected the address information on the 121 addresses. I requested that he inform me by the 23rd of August whether he would accept that, and there by accept the petition. As of the 25 he has not. And so, just like in October of 2016, he refused to provide clarifications in a timely fashion.

That brings me to the point of this post. I am ready to go back to court. I am ready to swear under oath, and before the God of heaven and earth that my statements are true to the best of my knowledge. I stand by the petition, and I stand by the amendment and that it fulfilled all the requirements necessary to be accepted by the Secretary. I am ready to defend that position before a Justice once again. I however will do what the people would prefer. The accusations against me mean nothing, as I and those who know me, know they have no truth to them, so I don't need to clear my name in court. (Although I would be ok if it were officially cleared. I'm good either way.)

I'm posting to put it to a vote. To you the people. On Monday, if the vote is in favour, I will file at the Court of Queens Bench once again. If I file, a 'speak to' date will be set by the Clerk. At which a justice will weigh the merrits of the appeal, and will determine if I have sufficient grounds to appeal. So, by filing on Monday, it does not confirm that it will go to appeal. It may get thrown out. (Looking through the transcript, I find that highly unlikely.) If it isn't thrown out, I believe we have a very strong case.

Given that the election is mere weeks away, and we might have a different Board after October 16, I want to give everyone the opportunity to state if they think court would be a worth while endeavor. As I've done from the beginning, I will do what the people wish for me to do.

In summary:

  • The submission on July 7th was sufficient.
  • The submission on July 21 was a correction asked for by the Secretary, and it brought the submission an additional 71 signatures further over the minimum.
  • The Secretary says a copy is not acceptable.
  • The Secretary gave a deadline, and says the signatures have expired.
  • The Justice said a copy WAS acceptable.
  • The Justice said he would not be happy if a copy wasn't accepted.
  • The Secretary's Legal council told the Justice that the signatures did not expire.

Votes will be closed 8pm Sunday August 27th, 2017.


The voting is closed. Results will be posted tomorrow.