Check out the "issues" section. The point of SHAC, was to look at FACTS. Only then, could they begin to objectively look at what contributed to Sandy Hook. Over the course of 30 meetings, SHAC never had the complete facts. Proceeding beyond this point was negligence.
In this August interview, SHAC recognized lack of facts, what's changed?
"Jackson and other members have sought access to more information on Lanza before issuing a report...Jackson said his panel was waiting on a report from the Office of the Child Advocate, which he hoped provide the group with an accurate picture of the shooter...On Friday (March 6, 2015), Jackson said the panel never received the information it was seeking regarding Lanza and would release its final report without that information...some members said they would prefer not to finalize the report until more details about the shooter were released in the Child Advocate’s report...Jackson said ...the panel could try to get a timeline from the Child Advocate’s office and he was open to revising the commission’s report to include new information when it is released. ..Jackson told reporters it was time to start setting expectations for the report..."
"The devil is in the details" and the details of the final SHAC report are insidious.
A usurping of parental rights, medical privacy and disregard for our children's' welfare. The verbiage of the report leaves us with many questions. These (and the negligent omission of FACTS, dereliction of law and verbiage of their report, leave us with many questions and an urging to our legislators....
DO NOT CONSIDER THE SHAC REPORT FOR THE BASIS OF PROPOSING LAW.
Would mental health assessments be mandatory?
Would children be compelled to participate in mental health assessments?
Whom would choose the specific assessments used?
If a "representative" is used, what is the process for choosing this "representative"
How much authority over the child would the "representative's" have versus the parent?
What is the proces fore the state choosing an IEP team?
If the parent does not approve of state chosen IEP team, is the parent compelled to use it?
What happens if the parent does not agree with the findings of the state appointed IEP team?
What happens if the state chooses a "remediation" that the parent does not agree with, must the parents comply?
Could any adverse action be taken against the parent if they do not comply?
Could any medical treatments be compelled?
Exactly what data would be collected on the child?
With whom would the data be provided, made accessible, shared, sold or otherwise made available?
What are the limitations on what data can be collected?
Could the home school child be compelled to participate in or attend the public school or its programs? We can assume that the standardized government education would be common core:
-violates the US Constitution
-usurps congress, legislation
-not properly vetted, validated, tested
-no empirical evidence
-not internationally standardized
-not developmentally appropriate
-ebedded with religious, political, psychological conditioning and data mining
-no k-12 public school classroom teachers,
-has overwhelming conflicts of interest and affiliation