Active support of an idea or cause etc.; especially the act of pleading or arguing for something!

About: anissaw

Below is a letter that was sent to as many LSL parents in Utah as there were emails for. If you are a parent of an LSL child and would like to be added to the email list please use the contact form on this site or leave a comment with your email and that you want to be added to the list.

Dear Parents,
As you may know, the State Office of Education is planning to hire a new Supt for the Utah Schools for the Deaf & Blind.In March there was a meeting to gather nominations from the public for the application selection committee (that will aid in reviewing applicants for USDB Superintendent). An email went out to all Utah Association for the Deaf members (UAD) which included the following:

Ellen O’Hara Hanna made a short video to keep the ASL community update with what is happening with USDB Superintendent Search.

Her video is this link –

It talks about the finalists being announced in Salt Lake Tribute and there will be the final interview with the Utah State of Education on June 6. Public is welcomed to watch.

The article can be found in this link –

UAD’s monthly newsletter also has a write up that you may be interested in as well, it can be found on pg 4 here:

There will be many ASL who will be in attendance tomorrow, it would be extremely powerful if as many of you as can would email Lorraine Austin (her info is at the end of this email) and ask her to put your emails/letters in the boards packet for tomorrow. Please, if you email Lorraine or the whole board, cc or bcc me on that email.

As we know, one of the most vocal deaf groups is the ASL community. They have every right to be vocal and advocate for their children. The Oral (Listening & Spoken Language) group as well as the Blind should ALSO BE VOCAL!

The majority of children being served by USDB for hearing related services are the ORAL or LSL children. We need to make sure that ALL OF OUR VOICES are HEARD. There is no way we can complain if we do not speak up for our children.

As ORAL parents and advocates, we are concerned about the applicants who will be part of the final interview process for the position of Superintendent.

The state school board has named as finalists for the position: Joel Coleman, a state school board member, chairman of the board’s committee on the school and a charter school founder and trustee; Larry S. Taub, executive director of the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf & Center for Community and Professional Services in Philadelphia; and Karl A. Wilson, Utah director of Title I and federal programs at the state office and former state director of special education. (here is a link to the SLTrib article:

The ASL community has been trying for years to create changes that would make our oral/lsl children HAVE to learn to sign before getting oral services, thus wasting precious developmental years.

If I were to make suggestions to USOE this is what I would suggest:

1. All groups served by USDB should have equal representation or representation equal to the number of children enrolled in each area.

2. Applicants should be properly vetted and be credentialed for Special Needs Education. There ought to be work experience, schooling, etc.

3. Applicants should be non-biased and believe strongly in the rights of parents to determine the correct path for the child and no one else!

Glenna Gallo at USOE has agreed to accept letters of complaint on behalf of the Utah Association for the Deaf. If you would like to send your letter to her, I would bet she would accept yours as well. I do also know that Lorraine Austin is the contact that we have used in the past and she has always been glad to help. In the subject line, you will want to identify what the email/letter is regarding. You could use the following as the subject line: “USDB Superintendent”.

Her contact info is:

Lorraine Austin
Secretary to the Board
Phone: (801) 538-7517
Fax: (801) 538-7768

I know many of you have championed valiantly in the past for the rights of our children in the Oral (LSL) Deaf Education & Special Needs arena. I’m hoping that we can all come together again and make sure that we watch out for our kids in the program now and for those who will be in the future.

With a new USDB Superintendent to hire, the State Office of Education needs the input from the ORAL/LSL perspective. Please take time to write a short and to the point email to the state school board and the Superintendent of USOE (Martell Menlove). Below is a sample.

USOE needs to hear from more than just the ASL community. Make the letter your own and be sure to sign it so that it is counted as a valid letter.

Please do this TODAY! USOE does not expect to hear from us parents & advocates but the NEED to hear from YOU!

Dear Superintendent & School Board,

As a parent/advocate of a hearing impaired/deaf/blind child I am writing to ask that you take a few things into consideration when discussing the applicants and their ability to lead USDB.

There is much concern regarding the applicants and the only one Deaf person on this committee. This is unacceptable. The Oral parents are greatly concerned and invested in USDB. Oral children make up the largest group of children served at USDB whether served at a USDB school or via the Outreach program and should at least have an equal position on any committee discussing changes to USDB of any nature.

I respectfully ask the board to consider the needs of each group that makes up USDB and the percentages of the children served in each area (currently over 3/4′s of students are in the oral program). There is great opposition in this group and it is important to make sure that we not only meet the needs of the children today but also in the future. Please consider the needs and wishes of all parents when hiring the next USDB Superintendent. The children need someone who will allow parents to be the expert of their child’s needs.


(stakeholder position:whichever you are)
Deaf/Blind/Hearing Impaired/Oral adult

Here are the state school board and superintendent’s emails (minus Joel Coleman’s):,

Please write and tell USOE that we care and we want a qualified Superintendent that will allow Parent Choice! Please email me with any questions.

Thank you!

Anissa Wardell
Concerned Parent & Advocate


Iris Scans – Angel Clark Show

Three Polk County, Florida schools subjected their students to iris scans without their parents’ permission. A high school, middle school and even an elementary school were involved in the iris scans. It looks like a child told a parent what had happened, and the parent blew the whistle on the whole thing.

It was confirmed Wednesday that Daniel Jenkins Academy, (high school), Davenport School of the Arts (middle school), and Bethune Academy (elementary school), planned a pilot scan program with a security program and the schools allowed officials from Stanley Convergent Security Solutions to take iris scans of an unknown number of students. Parents of the students were sent a letter on Friday, May 24, although the letters were dated for delivery the day before. The letters stated that the scanning program would begin on May 20, and allow for students to opt out. However, all students were scanned before any letters were sent home.

This Facebook post from one of the parents states:

    I have been in touch with the principal at my son’s school this morning regarding the iris scans. She verified everything my son told me, she says the scans were completed on May 22. She said that she was following instructions from the Polk County School Board (PCSB), and that she knew very little, if anything, about this before it occurred, she just did as she was told. She gave me the name and number for her two contacts at the PCSB whom she said were pulling these strings on this “security pilot program”.

    By the time we were able to make a phone call to PCSB (a time span of about 1 hour), the secretary told us that this pilot program had been suspended. When we did get a return call from one contact, she reiterated that the program has been suspended, like this should appease us. My husband continued to ask where our son’s private scans were, and she said the company was instructed to destroy the information. When we asked how do we know this has happened, there was no answer.

    It is interesting that this letter went home on Friday afternoon at 3pm. Like I told you originally, everyone was gone by 4pm when I tried to make calls. So when exactly did this program get suspended? As of Friday afternoon, it was still in effect. Are they trying to say that somehow it was suspended by Tuesday morning (Monday being a holiday)? It seems like they are mostly focused on this program, like the program was the problem. It’s not, it’s the invasion of my family’s Constitutional right to privacy that is the problem, as well as the school allowing a private company access to my child without my consent or permission. This is stolen information, and we cannot retrieve it.

Last September in Park City Utah, DNA samples were taken from high school students. The High School has apparently agreed to participate in a study where students will give DNA samples to a lab as an outbreak drill to test new lab equipment. The purpose is that in the future, they may want to determine how new H1N1 type diseases are spreading. The teens were bribed with a chance to win an iPad, then earlier this year they had the teens wearing biometric bracelets and bribed them with $15 iTunes gift cards.

In other disturbing yet similar news, look at what technology will soon be available. Can we say, Too Invasive?!

Motorola has announced it is looking at alternatives to traditional passwords in a bid to make logging into online sites, or accessing mobile phones, more secure.

Among the ideas discussed are electronic tattoos and authentication pills that people swallow.

The tattoos, developed by Massachusetts-based engineering firm MC10, contain flexible electronic circuits that are attached to the wearer’s skin using a rubber stamp.


The mobile devices could then be used to confirm the owner’s identity and log them in to accounts automatically.


Once swallowed the ‘vitamin authentication pill’ creates an 18-bit ECG-like signal inside the wearer’s body that can be picked up by mobile devices and authentication hardware outside.

This could be used verify the wearer is the correct owner of the device or account.

Dugan continued that the pill could be taken every day for 30 days, if necessary, without any problems.

Woodside added Motorola would not be shipping these ‘right away’ but they have ‘tested it authenticating a phone, and it works.’

He continued: ‘Having the boldness to think differently about problems that everybody has every day is really important for Motorola now.’

Dugan, who used to be head of the US Pentagon’s Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, explained that each signal emitted by the pill could be unique to each user.

Both these ideas move away from traditional passwords and towards technology that turns the user into a physical authentication token.

Explaining the reasons behind the plans, Dugan said: ‘Authentication is irritating. In fact its so irritating only about half the people do it.

Why you need to be paying more attention to what your child is being taught in school!

There has been much debate from the academic and parent views about Common Core. Honestly, I have so much to cover that in this post I am going to focus on Health/Sex Ed. It was brought to my attention last fall that the Department of Health and Human Services had a website and guides devoted to sexuality that might end up becoming the curriculum for schools. This deeply concerned me as a parent because what might be valid and good in one area of the country may not be in another. In Utah, the majority of the state has a similar if not same view on these types of topics and how they ought to be dealt with in education.

I began researching what the Federal Dept of HHS had to say about sexuality. What I found was that there was a great deal if not all of the information that was devoted to the research of Alfred Kinsey.

Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting law professor at Liberty University School of Law, has focused on pornography as a pandemic, addicting men, women and children and upon exposing Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey’s fraudulent sex science research and education. Dr. Reisman has served as scientific consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She is a world renowned expert on the discredited research of bug doctor turned “sexologist,” Alfred Kinsey.

Although Kinsey is married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, Kinsey was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and 1960s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”

It is unbelievable that even today, most people are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science.

Among so many other things, Kinsey asserted that children are “sexual from birth.” He further concluded, based upon experiments he directed and documented in his infamous Table 34, that adult-child sex is harmless, even beneficial…I will leave it at that as it becomes more detailed and horrifying to read. You are welcome to read the article at GodFatherPolitics to see the light version which is still disgusting.

It’s little wonder that Dr. Reisman identifies Kinsey as a “sexual psychopath.” These children were as young as 2 months old.

Disturbing though that may be, what’s equally disturbing is that nearly all of today’s liberal “comprehensive sex education” curricula – such as that pushed by groups like the National Education Association (NEA), Planned Parenthood and the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) – is derived entirely from the criminally fraudulent research of Alfred Kinsey.

But even more troubling is a recent discovery by Dr. Reisman. She found that the Obama administration, which fully embraces the debunked Kinsey sex-education model, has begun pushing a curriculum that, in many ways, eerily mirrors the “FBI Molester Grooming Paradigm.”

In short, she found that both Obama’s HHS and many public sex-education programs are doing to children, constructively, what pedophiles do to “groom” them for sex:

According to the FBI, child molesters:

  • Demonstrate sex acts to children. Offenders commonly use pornography to teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.
  • Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.
  • Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.
  • Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.


During her lecture, Dr. Reisman shocked the 50-plus in attendance by illustrating that today’s Kinseyan-based sex education – as promoted by Obama’s HHS – does much of what the FBI describes above.

Graphic sexual images and explicit “values neutral” talk of sex and sexuality are rampant throughout classrooms across America, effectively desensitizing children and numbing their natural inhibitions. These inhibitions help protect children from potential predators.

According to Dr. Reisman, “the brain data fully support [the] finding” that such “sex education” literally changes the neural pathways of a child’s brain.” There is mounting scientific evidence to support this hypothesis.

Whatever its motive, the Obama administration is guilty of employing these grooming techniques on children.

Consider, for instance, that just last year, the Department of Health and Human Services’ “Questions and Answers About Sex” website provided a “Quick Guide to Healthy Living” section which, like Kinsey, outrageously claimed that “Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings … which is healthy and normal.”

Get the implication? And what do “sexual beings” do? Well, they have sex, of course. “It’s hard for parents to acknowledge this,” admitted the page.

You think?

The HHS link then suggested that youth “may also experiment with sexual experiences, including those with members of the same sex, during the years they are exploring their own sexuality.”

Sound familiar? Remember, the FBI indicates that pedophiles will “teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.”

Who needs pedophiles when we have today’s “comprehensive sex education”? It does all that and more.

 In light of this information, what are Utah Schools teaching? We have heard all kinds of things lately, but do you really know what is being taught? Have you ever wondered what the waivers are that you sign each year about “core curriculum”? Did you know that the schools do not have to inform you of what or when they teach core curriculum? There is no requirement for an optin or optout paper to go home with your child. You do have the right by state law to review all curriculum, however, if you do not ask, you likely won’t be told.

The Utah Health Core Curriculum states that students: Understand, appreciate, and accept individual differences in people.

In light of a talk given by Boyd K. Packer on April 7, 2013, warning about the slippery slope of tolerance, it’s interesting to see this example, “The Utah Health Core Curriculum states that students: Understand, appreciate, and accept individual differences in people” in Utah’s Sex Ed curriculum.

This phrase is focusing not on respecting people, but “differences,” and requiring that students actually go from understanding, to “appreciation”, to full-on acceptance.

“Respect the sexuality of others.” Not “respect others,” [i.e., people] but respect their sexuality [i.e., specific behaviors].

Does it matter? Or is appreciating and accepting people the same thing as appreciating and accepting their behaviors?

Fielding Elementary in Box Elder County had announced their Sex Ed curriculum for Kindergartners this fall. The secretary at the school confirmed it but had no info. The secretary said the principal was out, and that she did not know much about it, but that this was a statewide program that was just passed. The secretary said that parents can come and review the curriculum from the teacher before it is presented. However, at the time they did not have information about it or what would be taught. I was able to get ahold of the principal and made notes about what was said, you can read more by clicking on What Is Being Taught to Your Children?


Has anyone else noticed this is curriculum passed down by the state? Do we NOT have local control over curriculum? Isn’t the State only supposed to give us standards? While the curriculum linked here is from 2009 (and is Utah’s curriculum), while likely still relevant, I’m sure a much newer version (if this isn’t the newest) will have even more information for much younger children, especially with the state and feds trying to bring in more preschool programs. Again, President Obama has already made the statement that sex education should start in kindergarten.


The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is offering advice to parents and teens about sex education, including assurances that teens may “experiment” with homosexuality as part of “exploring their own sexuality,” and that masturbation should be of concern only “if a child seems preoccupied with it to the exclusion of other activities.”

The information, located on a “Questions and Answers About Sex” link on the “Quick Guide to Healthy Living” portion of the HHS Web site, also describes children and infants as “sexual beings.”

Under the question “When Do Kids Start Becoming Curious About Sex?” the answer notes that infants have curiosity about their bodies.

“Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings,” the Q&A Web page says. “It’s hard for parents to acknowledge this, just as it’s hard for kids to think of their parents as sexually active. But even infants have curiosity about their own bodies, which is healthy and normal.”

To read more about the groups that are trying to influence our children please read about how Planned Parenthood and UNESCO plan to teach your child from as early as birth about sex.

I have been getting many concerned mothers ask about sex ed curriculum here in the state, and mostly for the K-8th graders. Because of a few remarks that have been made locally and nationally, I decided to check into what is happening with Sex Ed or Health as some like to call it. I spoke to o different individuals in two different school districts who are in two different counties in Utah. I spoke with Ms. Sievertsen at TIS (an intermediate school counselor) and with Principal Mr. Hunsaker at Fielding Elementary. In discussing concerns and asking some questions of these two individuals the district nor school is required to send out an optin or optout form to parents.

Wasatch School District policy states that Peace House comes in for K, 2nd, 4th, 6th, & 8th grade. TIS has put a note in their online version (parents are emailed a link at the beginning of the month) stating that during April they will have the presentation for 6th graders. Ms. Sievertsen said that I was welcome to come see the presentation that will be given to the other classes, they run throughout the month of April. Betsy Ricks through Peace House gives the presentation which is state curriculum from Child Abuse Utah. I have gone to Peace House and Child Abuse Utah’s sites, and am not impressed with the donors, but, haven’t found anything glaringly wrong. The curriculum is supposed to be approved Core material via USOE.

Fielding Elementary (Box Elder District) only informs parents in a letter at the beginning of the year that a Safe Touch Program will be given in K, 2nd, 4th, & 6th grade, but they do not tell parents at any other time. Principal Hunsaker said that they purposely do not tell parents because, and I quote: “we don’t like parents to come, because some parents will keep their kids home, especially abused kids will be kept home. There have been cases of abuse found through this program.” This is a semi loose quote, but darn close to the exact wording. Principal Hunsaker said that the New Hope Crisis Center in Brigham City is who does the presentation (Mrs. Allen I believe is the presenter), and that it is a random thing throughout the year. No optin or optout form will be given to parents. The safe touch program is basically where it is appropriate to touch and where it is not appropriate to touch. Basically wherever the swim suit area is or covers is private, safe and unsafe touching is discussed as well as boundaries and bugging touch which is apparently poking or obnoxious touching, and then outside touch.

This is what I got from talking to these two individuals. What I would like to know is exactly what the curriculum says, who vets these organizations, who vets the presenters, and why are parents not informed the same way in every district?

I will be adding more information about Sex Education in schools, check back for more info.

My friend Christel wrote about a local school district meeting that several moms attended and her experience. I back up Christel 100% on what happened.


I was completely ticked when I saw Jane’s reply. At every turn parents are being marginalized. I will no longer stand for it!



I wanted to email you about a comment that you made on Facebook and about actions at the Monday SAGE meeting. I saw your comments today on Facebook from a post about the SAGE meeting. I was at that meeting as well, as you know. Your comment on fb is misleading to those who were not in attendance.

This “other side” that you mention in your comment shows that there is a divide between parents and schools and also tells us parents that we should just trust the admin and not question. Christel Swasey’s questions and comments were perfectly right for the conversation that evening. If you have read the legislation from the state of Utah and from the federal government you would understand why the questions asked are completely valid. I know, because I have studied these and with a special needs child I understand it even better because of the risks it poses for my children.

I agree the technology that is available is great, and will be helpful, but what administrators fail to see or care about is the big picture. As a mother I want ALL the questions that were asked to be answered. If you understood what Common Core involves and how everything is entangled, you would understand why it is so important to so many parents. Parents want proof!

I was very disappointed at how some of the women who were there were treated. I also was very disappointed with our administrators and teachers who were vocally unkind any time a question was asked. I was also highly disappointed with the very back row when questions were asked. I feel very strongly that parents here in the district are being discredited more and more if their thoughts are not in line with the administrations. I lost a great deal of respect for several people on Monday night.

As public servants, which all teachers and admin are, it is your duty to carefully teach and lead. We still have a voice as local taxpayers and residents, and until we lose that control the taxpayers have the right to question what is being done with our tax dollars. I expect more from this district and the people who are supposed to be examples and teachers to my children.

Planned Parenthood’s intention to dominate the national sex education agenda has begun.

Planned Parenthood announced their intent to launch a nationwide “social change initiative” to end the “stigma and shame about sex” in American culture.

The project aims to teach parents and caregivers how to educate children about sex — from birth.

The “Real Life. Real Talk” initiative began as a pilot program in communities in Maine, New York, Connecticut, and Arizona between 2004 and 2008. “Real Life. Real Talk” is based on the belief that reducing the shame and stigma attached to sex also reduces a barrier to sexual and reproductive health services, eventually reducing the rates of sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, and unintended pregnancies.

The initiative is geared to parents and caregivers of children. The “Real Life. Real Talk” guide, offered in English and Spanish, is tailored to specific groups of parents and caregivers, including grandparents raising their grandchildren, “queer parents,” and parents of children in elementary school.”

A “Parent Tips” section of the “Real Life. Real Talk” Web site says children are never too young to learn about sex. It  states, in part:

“A child’s sexuality, sexual feelings, and sexual attitudes develop from the moment of Birth — even before a child can speak. In fact, children start learning about sexuality through observation of family interaction and surroundings. When you don’t talk with your children about sexuality, you may give them the message that there is something wrong with sexuality and that it is not a topic you’re willing to discuss.”

This same belief is the one that the United States Department of Health & Human Services is promoting. Both the U.S. Dept of HHS and Planned Parenthood share and teach the same ideas that Alfred Kinsey, a sadomasochistic, bi/homosexual masturbation and pornography addict, a psychopath who employed pedophiles to sodomize hundreds of little boys, taught for so many years.

Planned Parenthood’s website has a tab entitled “Teen Reality” which includes videos, like the one named “Don’t Dance with Death”. It features a “witch” giving young girls a potion and a condom before they go to a high school dance. One of the girls then gives the condom to the boy with whom she is dancing.

According to its annual report for Fiscal Year 2008-2009, Planned Parenthood’s income from government grants and contracts totaled $363.2 million, up for $349.6 million for the previous fiscal year.

Why is Planned Parenthood so enthralled with Alfred Kinsey? One can only wonder…

After reading more about Kinsey and his time at Indiana University, it won’t be much of a shock as to why America went from a relatively safe and Christian nation to a nation full of selfish and immoral people. Mr. Kinsey’s damage to children is more than extensive, the adults he lured made their choices, but these children and infants had no choice. Planned Parenthood celebrates this disgusting filth and promotes it to our children.

The Planned Parenthood falsehoods are so bizarre that the one must ask how far off the sanity grid can Planned Parenthood (PP) “sex science” mavens fall?

Such outrageous ignorance is pandered as PP “sex science” for adults and kiddies! PP adds that Kinsey got all of his information from “spoken interviews with 18,000 women and men.”
For that nonsense, PP needs to explain how “spoken” interviews produced Table 34 (over 200 children, all under age 12) and similar tables in Kinsey’s Male volume. Pinto’s new documentary The Kinsey Syndrome proves that these were sexual assaults, not chats. PP concludes with the additional (“sex science”) pabulum, boasting that Kinsey, a sexual predator, “sped our way to understanding a core belief that we hold dearly [sic] today.” Pray, what is that “core belief”? Why that sex is part of our “being human.” We learned that from Kinsey?! That sexuality is “lifelong,” meaning that it starts in the womb? That sex should be “celebrated with respect, openness, and mutuality.”

Well, until Kinsey, past generations didn’t know all that, of course! They didn’t feel “respect” for sex? They were closed to sex? There was no “mutuality” for the Greatest Generation that won WWII? They didn’t know that? And now, living according to Kinsey and PP’s “core belief” are women and children, marriage and love, healthier and safer? Do children play alone in our parks in the day? Do women stroll alone our streets at night?

No, Mr. President. Your idea that PP should educate anyone in “sex science,” or that Big Pornography lawyers will protect the equal rights of women and children are misguided in the extreme. Kinsey, Planned Parenthood, and Big Pornography have pulled off America’s Morality Heist. {blue text from Dr. Judith Reisman’s report on the Morality Heist.}

During the 2008 presidential campaign, a then-Sen. Barack Obama spoke about teaching “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners: “It’s the right thing to do … to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools,” he said. And by “science-based,” of course, he meant “Kinsey-based.”

So, what is age appropriate, science-based sex education?

United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) suggests children of all countries and cultures are entitled to sexual and reproductive education beginning at age five.

The report, called International Guidelines on Sexual Education, was released in June in conjunction with the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization which works for universal access to “reproductive health care.”

In its rationale for creating the guidelines, the UNESCO report said it is “essential to recognize the need and entitlement of all young people to sexuality education.” An appendix backed that claim by pointing to a 2008 report from the International Planned Parenthood Federation that argued governments “are obligated to guarantee sexual rights,” and that “sexuality education is an integral component to human rights.”

The guidelines are designed, according to the report, to be “age-appropriate” and break down the suggested curriculum into four age groups: 5- to 8-year-olds, 9- to 12-year-olds, 12- to 15-year-olds and 15- to 18-year-olds.

SIECUS and Sex Ed

The authors of the report consulted the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) in building their curriculum framework. One of the two authors, Nanette Ecker, is a former SIECUS employee.

Like the UNFPA, SIECUS advocates for ensuring that “every person has the right and access to sexual and reproductive health, so that humanity and the natural environment can exist in balance and fewer people live in poverty,” according to the organization Web site. Their stated concern is the “depletion of natural resources” – which is reduced through access to abortions. (This SCREAMS Agenda 21!!!)

The founding director of SIECUS, Mary S. Calderone, was a director of Planned Parenthood. SIECUS currently belongs to the National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education, alongside groups like NARAL (The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) and The Human Rights Campaign.

The U.N. justifies their guidelines by stating in their report that “supporting traditional values on marriage and sex are faulty”.

“Abstinence is only one of a range of choices available to young people,” the authors wrote, describing abstinence-only programs as “fear-based” and “designed to control young people’s sexual behavior by instilling fear, shame, and guilt.”

It is not justifiable to entitle children to sex education starting from a young age and labeling abortion as a human “right.”

Is UNESCO has a bias against traditional marriage and sexual values? Read the caveat on page 60 of the report: “It should be noted that abstinence is often taught as one option for safer sex as part of a comprehensive sexuality education programmes.”

UNFPA is widely known as “one of the original population-control groups, so most of the things they do stem from that lens.” UNESCO has 193 member nations around the world, including the United States.

I’d expect such “educational” grooming tactics and opinions from Alfred Kinsey but not from public educators – not from the U.S. government.

1. Loss of Local Control: The Common Core Standards siphon power away from families and local schools and give it to the government and business leaders. Keeping the power at the federal level will result in our schools changing their standards each time a new administration steps into office. The authority for our schools should stay with us, the taxpayers, not in Washington DC.

2. Reform that Relies on Standardized Tests: The Department of Education has committed 300 million dollars to the creation of these new tests, developed by two consortia (PARCC and SBAC). High stakes testing will ensure that there will be little effort to teach skills that are not tested.

3. Loss of Great Literature: The Common Core Standards recommends that older students spend 15% of their time in literature and 85% of their time reading informational text. Instead of reading the classics our children will be reading the riveting tome, “The Evolution of the Grocery Bag.”

4. Can We Afford All This Change?: The state checkbook is struggling with money during these difficult economic times. How can we afford all the new text books, all the testing, the training, the new resources, etc. The ongoing costs of Common Core assessments are projected at $177.2 million per year. Three guesses where all the money will come from!

5. Data Collecting: Records of physical and mental health, inappropriate behavior, disciplinary actions, test scores, personal information, etc. will follow your child starting in pre-school to age 20. The information will be shared among government agencies and other private agencies. This distribution of information will be done without your consent or knowledge.


Chief of Staff Joanne Weiss at the Dept. of Education has been publicly quoted saying that “data-mashing” is a good idea.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan gives speeches calling for ”more robust data.” And at the recent White House Datapalooza, the CEO of eScholar stated that without Common Core tests being “the glue” for open data, this data movement would be impossible.

What kind of tests or surveys are you or your child’s teacher given to take on behalf of your child that will be collected as data for their student record? Just about every thing you say, type, or show will be in the child’s permanent record.


Data that can be collected for students permanent record:


Birth certificate (full copy!!)

Attendance records

Immunization record (every update)

Medical history


Special transportation needs (wheelchair, oxygen, other medical equip)




Dietary needs


Tests schools use (these are some, but certainly not all):

Connors – Social/Behavioral Functioning 3rd Edition

UNIT – Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test

Behavioral Intervention Plans

SIB-R-SF  — Scales of Independent Behavior Revised Early Development Form

BASC-2-PRS –Behavior Assessment System for Children Second Edition

Battelle Developmental Inventory 2nd Edition

Student Assessment Reports by CTB/McGraw-Hill


More assessments that collect data for kids birth to 3 years old:

This manual contains the SKI-HI Language Development Scale which is a parent observation scale listing the receptive and expressive language skills of children ages birth to five. It is specifically designed for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. The manual contains the rationale and development of the scale, reliability and validity information, instructions for administering and scoring, and the scale (test form) itself.

This is not a complete list by any means. Please comment and add your findings!

If you take a look through your IFSP (for 0-3 yrs) there will also be a great deal of personal info, medical info, and lots of tests or assessments that are done and should be listed in the sheet the IFSP coordinator leave with you each time. Need more info on IFSP’s?

The following info is about ELAP’s. Information gathered from CHTOP and other sites for reference. This is just another data collector for early childhood programs. There may be value to some extent with these evaluations, however, all info you give to service providers ends up in your child’s permanent record.

Here is the definition from CHTOP’s website:

Early Learning Accomplishment Profile (E-LAP) provides a systematic method for observing the skill development of children functioning in the birth to 36 month age- range. The purpose of this criterion-referenced assessment is to assist teachers, clinicians, and parents in assessing individual development. The Early LAP contains a hierarchy of 414 developmental skills arranged in chronological sequence in six domains of development:

  • gross motor (90 items) Infants and toddlers
  • fine motor (73 items)
  • cognition (105 items)
  • language (59 items)
  • self-help (49 items)
  • social-emotional (38 items)
  • The results of the E-LAP provide a complete picture of a child’s developmental progress so that individualized, developmentally appropriate, activities can be planned, implemented and monitored. This assessment can be used with any infant and toddler, including children with disabilities who are functioning below the 36-month age range. The E-LAP is not a “normed” or “standardized” instrument, so, therefore, its results should not be used in isolation to determine eligibility for special services or for other purposes that require standardized instruments. However, E-LAP results are often used in combination with standardized instruments to determine developmental levels of functioning and eligibility for special services. Professionals often choose the E-LAP because it gives a much more complete assessment of a child’s acquired skills and emerging skills than most standardized instruments.
    Infants and toddlers
  • For a visual representation of the child’s developmental skills, use the profile form on the back of the Early-LAP Manual or Scoring Booklet. The profile is often used to show child progress to parents and caregivers.
    Infants and toddlers
    Assessment and observation summary forms are provided to summarize the progress of individual children at the beginning, middle, and end of the program year. Each form contains space to indicate skills the child has achieved, emerging skills, and strategies for supporting skill development at home.