Academic Standards Rulemakings are required to have a Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR), which is a document that purportedly must justify the rule

General practice is that the SONAR will address public concerns about comments about the benchmarks, individually, but the presumably expensive consultants brought in to advise how the Agency should deal with the massive concern and outcry about Draft 2 asked the question, can we simply stop talking about the benchmarks, make it look like there will not be any gender, etc., mandates, and

If their Agency were to be dropping its imposition of its radical beliefs in mandating extreme dogmas of imaginary genders, that would clearly be a win for Minnesotans and Minnesota's kids, and in line with federal law and the best recent science and medicine on these matters. However, the Agency is not suggesting that the radical re-imagining of an elementary program centered around minority identities, including gender identities, in this SONAR, to the extent it loosely discusses changes to the benchmarks as if it is now really none of the public's business.

Thus, and particularly as the Agency is likely unlawfully seeking to exclude the Draft 2 public outcry and comments from the Rulemaking record, which collectively have a binding effect in relation to the boundaries of the legal authority established in the Rulemaking process, it is essential to reiterate, repeat, and strengthen Draft 2 comments.

In Draft 3, the Agency will not have their pretext and the Agency will have to have some accounting of public comment received. Law and governing practices establish the Agency must respond to all substantive concerns, so please add your voice and concerns...as well as your suggestion that would be good and that kids do need.