Parents are attending the SD 212 Board Meetings questioning why the Board of Education failed to opt out of the new Illinois sex education standards, as well as questioning safety issues with girls in boys’ bathrooms and locker rooms and boys in girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms throughout both Leyden campuses.

With only the bare minimum number of votes to pass a bill in the Illinois House, the Legislature has approved the controversial National Sex Education Standards as the basis for all sex education classes in Illinois.
Many school officials and parents in Illinois want no part of new standards of teaching sexual education in the classroom.
Illinois lawmakers passed a bill that aligned the state’s standards with a national model. School districts were given the option to opt-out, and they have in droves.
According to the website Awake-Illinois, only 20 school districts have decided to fully follow the standards, with 534 opting out.
Now Leyden High School SD 212 parents are attending meetings and are asking why the Leyden SD 212 Board of Education failed to opt out of this controversial new sex education.
Illinois schools are not required to teach sex education, and thus can opt out of teaching these obscene standards. Local school boards have the authority to establish their own curriculum guidelines, and are not required to comply with the standards. Yet the Leyden SD 212 Board did not even consider opting out of the controversial new sex education. That has become clear as a growing number of parents are attending SD 212 Board Meetings questioning why the Board did not even consider. At one point based upon the blank looks of the Board of Education members it was clear that the School Administration had never provided that option for consideration of the Board of Education.
At the May 18, 2023, Board Meeting for the SD 212 Board of Education, the administrators tried to “white wash” their lack of transparency to the Board of Education and the community in general by paying for an attorney to “brief” the Board of Education and parents present for the meeting on the law regarding bathroom usage by both sexes as a distraction. The lawyer from Franczek failed to address or answer questions about the authority of the Board of Education to opt out of the sex education legislation, placing the burden on the parents to provide their own opt out.
Parents at the Board meeting continued to express concern as well as outrage about boys identifying as girls in the girls bathrooms and locker rooms and girls identifying as boys in boys bathrooms and locker rooms.
The legislation has now become law and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) has filed new rules with the secretary of state on the adoption of the National Sex Education Standards. As part of the checklist of things to do before instruction begins, school officials are advised to “Review and become familiar with the National Sex Education Standards.”
This begs the question: What are the standards all about?
Here are examples: According to the National Sex Education Standards, one of the learning goals for kids beginning in kindergarten is to “Define Consent,” and “Define gender, gender identity, and gender-role stereotypes.”
Beginning in the third grade, kids are expected to be able to “Explain common human sexual development and the role of hormones (e.g., romantic, and sexual feelings, masturbation, mood swings, timing of pubertal onset).”
Another goal for third through fifth graders is to be able to “Describe the role hormones play in the physical, social, cognitive, and emotional changes during adolescence and the potential role of hormone blockers on young people who identify as transgender.”
The standards also expect sixth through eighth graders to be able to “Define vaginal, oral, and anal sex.”
In other words, the standards go far beyond biology and seek to teach kids at young ages material that is clearly not age-appropriate.
The good news is that Illinois schools are not required to teach sex education, and thus can opt out of teaching these obscene standards. Local school boards have the authority to establish their own curriculum guidelines, and are not required to comply with the standards.
I have been sounding the alarm and urging parents to get involved and stop this curriculum from taking hold in their local schools. Numerous districts across the state are opting out.
Meanwhile, parents are asking how schools can justify teaching a radical sex education curriculum when so many of our students, across the state, are not meeting basic standards of learning in core subjects.










Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Student In Special Ed Case
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a student with a disability in a case with significant implications for families and schools entangled in special education disputes.
In an opinion issued Tuesday, the high court sided with Miguel Luna Perez, a deaf student who sued the Sturgis Public Schools in Michigan for failing to provide him a qualified sign language interpreter for 12 years.
Perez’s family was led to believe that he was on track to receive a high school diploma, but found out just months before graduation that he would be getting a certificate of completion instead.
The family reached a settlement with the school district to resolve claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but subsequently sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act seeking monetary damages. A lower court ruled against Perez in the ADA case indicating that because the family accepted the IDEA settlement, they did not fully exhaust all options under IDEA.
With the ruling this week, however, the Supreme Court reversed that decision. The justices unanimously determined that since compensatory damages are not available under IDEA, Perez is entitled to pursue such a claim under the ADA.
IDEA’s “administrative exhaustion requirement applies only to suits that ‘see(k) relief … also available under’ IDEA,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in an eight-page opinion for the court. “And that condition simply is not met in situations like ours, where a plaintiff brings a suit under another federal law for compensatory damages — a form of relief everyone agrees IDEA does not provide.”
Gorsuch noted in the ruling that since lower courts have differed on this issue, the decision “holds consequences not just for Mr. Perez but for a great many children with disabilities and their parents.”
Lawyers for Perez had warned that a ruling in favor of the school district would tie the hands of students with disabilities and their families by essentially requiring them to turn down even the best IDEA settlements in order to maintain their ability to seek claims under other laws.
“Miguel Perez is just one of millions of students with disabilities who face a multitude of barriers in getting the supports and services they need to thrive in school and to build the future they desire,” said Shira Wakschlag, senior director of legal advocacy and general counsel at The Arc, one of several disability groups that filed amicus briefs supporting Perez. “Consistent with the language of the ADA and IDEA, today’s unanimous decision in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools removes unnecessary burdens from families seeking relief and helps ensure that students with disabilities and their parents are able to pursue every avenue of justice available to them when their civil rights are violated.”
Share this: