Mental Health Merged With NCLB Standards/Tests

Sadly, the state of Illinois has rapidly proven EdWatch’s prediction true
that mental health would be used as the enforcement mechanism for the
psychosocial, non-academic standards and aligned assessments of the federal
curriculum required in No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Goals 2000, and the 1994
version of NCLB. (See
http://www.edwatch.org/updates/071404.htm)

 
The state of Illinois held a series of public hearings beginning July 18th
on implementing the Children’s Mental Health Act that passed the legislature
nearly unanimously in 2003.  This law requires mental health screening for
all Illinois children through age 18 and all pregnant women.  The mental
health assessments will be tied to assessments of their academic standards
required by NCLB.  (See
http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17748)

 
The new law and the draft implementation plan require the Illinois
Children’s Mental Health Partnership (ICMHP) to “work with ISBE [Illinois
State Board of Education] in drafting social and emotional
development standards for incorporation into the Illinois Learning Standards.”
These two entities are to “develop a framework and developmental
scope and sequence of social and emotional competencies as a
basis for developing social and emotional development learning standards,”
and “… develop[ing] assessments to measure children’s progress
against social and emotional development standards.”  These
assessments are to include “performance assessments for
measuring student progress on mastering social and emotional skills.”
(Emphasis added.)
 
With the help of federal education and mental health mandates, the state of
Illinois has managed to destroy knowledge based academic education, freedom
of thought, and parental control of their children’s education and health in
one fell swoop.
 
DESTROYING ACADEMIC EDUCATION:  This Orwellian state
law is based on the findings and recommendations of the New Freedom in
Mental Health Commission described in our recent alert (see link in the
first paragraph of this alert.), as clearly stated in the draft
implementation plan (http://www.isbe.state.il.us/iicc/pdf/icmhp_preliminary_plan.pdf)
and the state report that was the foundation for this law (http://www.ivpa.org/childrensmhtf/ICMHTF_FinalReport2003_1.pdf). 
As we also pointed out, there are plenty of mental health programs that fit
with the ideas in the New Freedom report and this law, including screening,
in No Child Left Behind (NCLB), particularly in the Safe and Drug Free
Schools section. 
 
It is important to remember, however, that the idea of mental health
screening is a bipartisan disaster, and reared its ugly head in the Safe and
Drug Free Schools section of Goals 2000 legislation of 1994 when the White
House and Congress were all controlled by Democrats.  Despite congressional
protestations to the contrary, the structure, ideas and consequences of
Goals 2000, as explained below, continued in NCLB even though the references
were gone.  (See
http://www.edaction.org/2001/011211.htm and
http://www.edaction.org/2001/010925.htm.)
 
It was in Goals 2000 and the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), NCLB’s predecessor, that federal
interference with local education began in earnest, by demanding the
imposition of state standards based on the eight goals of Goals 2000. 

 
Goal number one of Goals 2000 says, “All children will start school
ready to learn.”  As we have documented, this mandate, disguised
as a goal, has given rise to the metastatic growth of early childhood
programs across the country.  In these programs, “ready to learn” has little
or nothing to do with preparing young children to learn academic subjects
and much to do with indoctrination of our very youngest and most vulnerable
children in the most radical of ideologies.  Even if accepted by some
parents, it is completely wrong to teach ideology to three, four and five
year old children. The ideas being promoted include: earth worshiping
environmentalism, radical feminism, engendering fear and hatred of our
military, and acceptance of homosexuality. (See
http://www.edaction.org/2002/020208.htm).
It is these principles that
are taught to young children and considered part of  “social and emotional”
development.
 
Social and emotional development is a large part of another mandate within
Goals 2000.  Goal eight says, “Every school will promote
partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in
promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children.” 
Notice that academic growth is the lowest priority on that list.  That
relegation of academics to such a low priority has resulted in an emphasis
on work based and service learning out of the classroom, group projects,
whole language, fuzzy math, and civics that undermine the principles of
freedom within the Declaration of Independence. 
 
The merger of the social and emotional with the academic has elevated vague,
subjective psychosocial concepts to an equal or even higher plane than
academic knowledge. It has also confused what is academic and what standard
must be met to succeed in school.  Is learning that if 4 birds are in a nest
and 2 fly away that 2 are left more important or is learning how to
empathize with the birds that are left in the nest? Is it more important to
learn tolerance for all lifestyles and behaviors or that certain behaviors
have serious physical and emotional consequences?
 
Since social and emotional growth has now been defined for preschoolers as
acceptance of the radical ideologies described above, how can we prevent
social and emotional definitions from including the other tenets of the
federal curriculum taught in K-12, such as are taught in the We the
People civics curriculum? For example, the Declaration principles of
national sovereignty and unalienable rights are already considered
irrelevant or outmoded in the national civics standards. 
 

Acceptance of these un-American ideas is considered academic success, as
evidenced by their incorporation into state standards and assessments and
the NAEP. What is to prevent educational architects from defining acceptance
of “world citizenship” or income redistribution as normal social and
emotional development?
 
It could be argued that this has already begun.  One of the ten learning
areas under Minnesota’s old Profile of Learning was called Diverse
Perspectives.  The proponents of this radical system might well see it as
reasonable to equate having “diverse perspectives” with having normal social
and emotional development.
 
The Big Lake, Minnesota high school syllabus for this course said, “Diverse
Perspectives is a study of oppression and social justice which completes the
Diverse Perspectives Graduation Standard.”  The textbook for this course,
Oppression and Social Justice: Critical Frameworks, contains many of the
themes of the federal curriculum, as well as those in the preschool
standards discussed above.  According to parents who were able to review the
textbook and some classroom activities, Columbus was portrayed as a rapist
and murderer, a pillager and a terrorist.  The textbook was reported to
contain anti-military, anti-gun and anti-big business themes, as well as
endorsements of United Nations policies, gay and bisexual agendas, and group
rights.  (See
http://www.edwatch.org/updates/042502.htm)    

 
We are headed down a steep and slippery slope.  Academic, knowledge-based
education is already being replaced with education to transform students’
values and involve them in advocacy and political action. In the mental
health approach, social and emotional development becomes a major tenet of
academic success. It results in the complete destruction of knowledge-based
education. 
 
OBLITERATING FREEDOM OF THOUGHT:  Accurately assessing
the mental health of children, especially young ones, is already difficult
enough because they are experiencing numerous and rapid developmental
changes.  But merging academic concepts with mental health in the standards
that have been required since 1994 and continued in NCLB will allow mental
illness diagnoses to be used as an enforcement mechanism for the political
orthodoxy contained in the standards and / or pushed by the schools in
general.
 
Lest one think that the last statement was political hyperbole, here are
several examples:

 — “School officials in Ithaca, N.Y., are
requiring that first-and second-graders there be graded on their tolerance,reports the Cornell Review. The kids will
get grades based on how well they ‘respect others of varying cultures, genders, experiences, and
abilities.’ The grade will appear on report cards under the heading ‘Lifelong Learning Skills.’  It appears well
before social studies, science, reading, or writing.”(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42242,00.html) 

Lifelong Learning is part of Goals 2000, a program
said to be repealed at the time this incident took
place.

—  A unit on the Muslim religion taught in thousands
of American classrooms requires students to say
Muslim prayers and recite verses of the Quran in
class.  A California district judge threw out a
lawsuit challenging that curriculum, declaring that
the unit does not promote religion and therefore
does not violate the establishment clause.  This
is the same state where saying the words “under
God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was declared
unconstitutional.
(http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38345)

— “Using funds provided through the Department of Education, Safe and Drug Free Schools program [formerly part of Goals 2000 and now part of NCLB], middle school students can now be taught how to spy on classmates and turn them in to the local
police. …students will be trained to observe, monitor, and report other students based on their
words and actions…Comprised of three students and two faculty advisors, the teams will report
incidents of ‘racial, ethnic, sexual, religious, and
homophobic slurs.’” (David Bresnahan
www.investigativejournal.com
7/22/02)

— Another school violence prevention program
funded by the federal government called Early Warning, Timely Response lists “intolerance for

others and prejudicial attitudes” as an early warning sign for violence and mental instability,
saying, “All children have likes and dislikes. However, an intense prejudice toward others
based on racial, ethnic, religious, language, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and physical

appearance ­ when coupled with other factors ­may lead to violent assaults against those
who are perceived to be different.”  

MAKING PARENTS IRRELEVANT:  The report that serves as
the foundation for the Illinois law recommends on page 33 to “change the
state mental health code to increase to twelve the number of times
adolescents age 12-18 years can receive mental health services
without parental consent.” (Emphasis added.)   That this state
allows any time for mental health services such as screening, using
subjective criteria, stigmatizing labels, and the initiation of drug therapy
with dangerous and ineffective drugs, all without parental consent, is
outrageous enough.  Increasing the number of those times is simply
ridiculous.
 
And what of parents’ rights to refuse this government benevolence of
screening and treatment?  Nothing is mentioned of informed consent,
protection from having consent overridden, or protection from child abuse
and neglect charges.
 
The implementation plan reveals the true status of parents in this system,
demoting them to mere partners in the education and health care of their
children.  It says that the state should “develop a mental health system for
all children ages 0-18 years that respects, supports and treats families and
caregivers as partners.”
 
This same tired, unconstitutional rhetoric is found throughout the old Goals
2000 and the current NCLB laws. These laws ignore or merely pay lip service
to hundreds of years of legal tradition and many Supreme Court cases that
clearly state that it is the parents who are in charge of their children’s
education and health care decisions.  The Supreme Court decision in Pierce
vs. Society of Sisters sums up the situation quite well, saying, “The child
is not the mere creature of the State: those who nurture him and direct his
destiny have the right coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare
him for additional obligations.”  Both Illinois and the federal government
would do well to learn and remember this concept.
 
In addition, since the Illinois statute involves using federal dollars, its
screening and assessment sections violate the Protection of Pupil Rights
Amendment (PPRA), which was one of the very few freedom affirming parts of
NCLB. PPRA states that any survey or non-emergency examination that asks
about, among other things, “mental or psychological problems of the student
or the student’s family;” “illegal, anti-social, or demeaning behavior;” or
“critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close
family relationships.”  Mental health screening by its very nature does one
or more of these as a matter of course. Illinois’ blatant violation of PPRA
should result in revocation of their federal funding..
 

OTHER ISSUES:  The lack of accuracy of diagnoses, the
dangers and ineffectiveness of psychiatric medication, and the failure of
screening to prevent suicide are other key flaws in this legislation.  They
are described in detail at the following links:
http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17952 and
http://www.edaction.org/2003/030827.htm.
 
WHAT TO DO:
1)      If you are an Illinois resident, let your state
legislators know your extreme displeasure at this abrogation of freedom and
parental rights. Inform them that your support for them in the next election
will depend on whether they pledge to repeal this monstrosity at the first
opportunity.  Work with like-minded groups in Illinois to bring this
political pressure to bear, groups like Illinois Eagle Forum (see
http://www.illinoisleader.com/opinion/opinionview.asp?c=17950) and the
Illinois chapter of Concerned Women for America (see
http://www.illinoisleader.com/opinion/opinionview.asp?c=17908).

2)      Outside of the state of Illinois, please make it perfectly clear to
your state legislators that you will not tolerate this outrage in your own
state.  Speak to your Members of Congress during the August recess and
suggest congressional hearings and repeal of funds for the New Freedom
Commission and defunding of mental health screening in the Safe and Drug
Free Schools section of NCLB.  Remind them that the HR 4799/S 2634, the
Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act for suicide prevention is full of the same
kind of mandates and should be stopped or significantly changed.   

---

Copyright 2004 Karen R. Effrem, M.D.. (Biography) Posted with permission.

Permission to distribute, but not sell, with proper reference to author
and

www.edwatch.org