GSPs 2016-2022
GSPs 2016-2022

Public Records Show Gender Support Plans Explode up to 467% in SoCal School District

7 minutes, 12 seconds Read

A recent Public Records Act (PRA) response by the Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) shows that the number of students in the district that had Gender Support Plans (GSP) increased up to 467% after the COVID, lockdowns in the spring of 2020. DSUSD is located in the desert communities within the Coachella Valley of Southern California.

The original PRA request, placed on October 14, 2022, asked for statistics on the number of students under GSPs, broken down by years and school level, as seen in the image below. It was made clear in the PRA that no identifying information was being sought, just statistics. The district was unable to locate any responsive documents.

Excerpt of PRA request Oct 2022

The PRA request was resubmitted on November 29, 2022, and asked for all GSPs in the district for the years 2016 through 2022. All emails, throughout the district, that mentioned GSPs were also requested.

Amended PRA Nov 2022

On January 12, 2023, the Public Information Officer for the DSUSD, Mary Perry, informed that the counseling office of each school generates GSPs, not the office of Welfare and Attendance.

Clarification on GSPs

On January 25, 2023, the PRA was adjusted to exclude the emails due to the exorbitant costs. The district located approximately 10,000 responsive documents and the cost to print and redact them would be about $1,000. A logical conclusion would be that there were approximately 10,000 emails flying back and forth between district personnel regarding the gender identity of children between 2016 and 2022. Feeling a bit uncomfortable? Perhaps ill? Steady.

Responsive documents to the remaining request, all GSPs in the district from 2016 to 2022, were received on March 14, 2023. There were 192 responsive documents. To say the documents were heavily redacted would be a gross understatement, as the district even saw fit to redact the dates and its own name. There are four pages to the sample GSP below.

To be fair, the district’s contact did warn that the documents would be heavily redacted and the district offered a sample document to preview before purchase (the cost was about $76.00). Still, redacting the dates and the schools appears to be withholding vital information from the parents. Parents that might be able to make informed decisions, especially if certain schools, or classrooms, tended to generate more GSPs than others. Do these GSPs tend to come from particular schools or classrooms? If so, would it indicate that there are “activist” teachers and counselors, perhaps with ulterior motives? Wouldn’t you like to know? Ask the DSUSD directly, just keep in mind that they are directed to lie to parents in some cases.

A closer look at the GSP shows the information that the DSUSD collects, and may even keep from the parents knowledge. Questions like: “Are the guardian(s)… aware?” “Specify the adult staff members that will know.” “Who will the student’s ‘go to adult’ be on campus?” Other pertinent issue that every parent should know, like the name the student is using, and what restrooms and “facilities” the student will utilize and how they will dress, are also contained in the GSPs. Is this some kind of parent replacement?

The image below shows two GSP plans aligned to the question asking if guardians are aware of the situation. It is clear that the top redacted answer is “yes”, while the bottom one is “no” due to the size of the redaction. Again, seems like vital information for parents!

Are guardian(s) aware Yes and No

An analysis of the responsive documents reveals several facts. First and foremost, there are no dates, which at first glance would seem to inhibit organizing the 192 documents by years in order to compile data. Secondly, that 192 number, which appears to equate to how many students in the district were under GSPs between January 1, 2016 and November 28, 2022. Thirdly, although dates are redacted, the DSUSD jumped on the “branding” wagon (que South Park episode) which does enable the grouping of documents into approximate time-chunks through the tracking of logo and letterhead changes. Fourthly, much information is to be gleamed by the actual form and the information sought. Fifthly, an estimation of how many parents were aware their child was/is under a GSP is possible due the differences in redaction size to that particular question.

Firstly, the branding and re-branding. There are seven distinct logos and letterheads in the gallery below, titled “logos1-7” for expediencies sake. This is not an exact science, although the DSUSD could clear everything up releasing their own comprehensive, and honest list.

Logo 1 looks to be an older DSUSD logo. A reasonable guess is that this was form was created in 2016, when the California Healthy Youth Act (CHYA), which took effect on January 1, 2016 and a form was quickly needed. Logo 2 appears to be a more formalized version of the first, and logo 3, with the inclusion of “username”, suggests that the GSP form was put into an app. Notice also, that all three are “Intake” forms and the title changes from “Transgender” to “Gender Support”. Not much more can be ascertained from these documents aside from the fact that they differ from from latter groups, thus are probably from early 2016-2017.

Logo 4 is the first instance of a re-branding assist, since the DSUSD proudly lists those responsible on the form, i.e. the board members and the superintendent in the letterhead. Using district agendas, we learn that Scott Baily was appointed superintendent on February 21, 2017, thus this group probably is from after that date.

Re-branding lends another assist in Logo 5, which shows a change in the DSUSD logo from a lighthouse to three vertical targets (the district also uses a horizontal version of this logo). The first time the target logo appears in DSUSD documentation is from the board meeting of August 20, 2019. The logical conclusion is that this group is from after that date.

Logo 6 shows that board member Tomak was replaced by board member Pearce, which occurred on December 15, 2020, according to district records. Logo 7 shows three new board members (Alvarez, Duran, and Watson) who were sworn into office on December 13, 2022.

From the logo/letterhead observations we can reasonably divide the GSPs into chunks of time. Again, the DSUSD could verify this themselves anytime they wanted, without divulging any private information.

  • Broken down then:
  • GSPs found in logos 1, 2, and 3 are between January 1, 2016 and February 21, 2017, a period of 1 year and 1 month. There were 37 GSPs in this group and it appears the fact was kept from the parents in 13 cases.
  • GSPs found in logo 4 are between February 21, 2017 and and August 20, 2019, a period of 2 years and 6 months. There were 15 GSPs in this group, a fact withheld from the parents of four students.
  • GSPs found in logo 5 are between August 20, 2019 and December, 15, 2020, a period of 1 year and four months. There were 21 GSPs in this group, knowledge of which was withheld from the parents of six.
  • GSPs found in logo 6 are between December 15, 2020 and November 28, 2022 (end date for PRA), a period of nearly two years. There were 109 GSPs in this group and that information was kept from the parents of 35 students.
  • GSPs found in logo 7 is difficult. The new board members were not sworn in until December 13, 2022, the PRA end date was November 28, 2022, and the Riverside Registrar’s office took weeks to call the election. This appears to be just one week. There were ten Gender Support Plans in the group. Ten! In about a week.

Now we can get an idea of how things changed. If we compared the time period of logo 5 to the time period of logo 6 and logo 7, we see an increase in Gender Support Plans of 467%! The logo 5 time period started right before the China Virus hysteria, lasted through the entire lockdowns, and ended five months after the return to in-person learning. The time period of logo 6 and 7 is all after the totalitarianism dry run of mask and vaccine mandates; the time when children are the most susceptible to influence by bad actors.

How does anything increase that much without concerted advertising and a culture push? Would gender surgical clinics and other activists organizations sponsorship of “Pride Proms” be like advertising? Would such organizations, not to mention Pharma, increase their wealth if “transgenderism” became more “popular”?

Perhaps these numbers are off and the district could clarify. Perhaps GSPs only increased 200% year over year. If you do go to the district looking for answers, keep in mind that they denied (lied) CRT was in the district for years. DSUSD now has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) office at the district level, and DEI coordinators at some school sites. DEI experts claim that DEI is CRT on steroids.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *