From Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations,
Inc.
Website: http://ctact.org/
email: fctopresident@ctact.org
860-524-6501
May 15, 2006
WELCOME TO THE 75th EDITION OF
TAX TALK
PUBLIC EDUCATION IN AMERICA
(With a Focus on Connecticut)
Click and Listen to Judy Aron’s
interview with
Kevin Shannon,WCAA, California
re the Impact of
Subjects Being Taught in Public Schools
http://yardtv.gotdns.com/kcaa-podcasts/welch/
Issues of Concern:
- Escalating costs,
- Diminished returns in student
achievement,
- Proposed public financing for
educating 3 and 4 year olds,
- Mental health testing of students
Tax Talk 75 Contains the following:
- Newsweek America’s Best High Schools
2006
- School Choice
- Television glimpse of John Stossel’s – Are Teachers Underpaid
- Issue of Teacher Qualification in CT
under the NCLB Act
- Recognition and comments by Theresa
McGrath and Judy Aron on CT Education Issues
- Rotten Applies by Wall Street Journal
- New Jersey
re Education says Enough is Enough
******
America's Best High Schools,
2006
Newsweek - Sunday April 30, 12:14
pm ET
Newsweek Ranks Public High Schools Across America; Talented and Gifted in Dallas
Scores Top Spot; Florida Has Three in Top Ten
and Most in Top 100 (20); New York (17); D.C.
Metro (14); Texas
(9)
Schools Ranked by Number of AP and IB Tests Taken, Divided by
Number of Graduating Seniors; List Recognizes Those Schools That Do Best Job of
Preparing Average Students for College
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060430/nysu011.html?.v=53&printer=1
******
School Choice
*****
Click on and Listen to the Program on
A
special thanks to Scott Coleman of Rocky Hill for providing us with this link!
*****
Stupid
in America
Why your kids are
probably dumber than Belgians
John
Stossel
http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306.shtml and http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/7/150122.shtml
******
Teacher deadline looming
Progress reviewed under federal law
May 13, 2006, Connecticut Post
http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_3818831
******
March, 2006
Monitoring Report
Qualified Teachers
Connecticut Department of Education
http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/hqt/ct.doc
******
This Tax Talk publication is dedicated to Judy
Aron and Theresa McGrath of West Hartford in their
pursuit of improving educational standards in Connecticut while concurrently looking to
enforce fiscal responsibility and budget discipline. As Judy and Theresa have offered
testimony at the State on educational issues, they have kept FCTO informed of
their challenges and the impact proposed state and federal legislation can have
upon our children, local educational
costs and our property taxes.
******
The following two recent communications are from Theresa
McGrath, Executive Director FACE, Family Alliance for Children in
Education, (860) 570-1203, FACE0203@comcast.net
NCLB promotes states to test children for mental illness..here's only one
example...there are many...
I am pro NCLB for reasons of forcing socialist public
schools to promote high expectations of all children and get spanked when they
flat out refused to do so, while demanding more money from the taxpayers.
I am anti mental health screening and government funding of such
programs, among many other issues I have with NCLB; such
as Government tracking of personal information of children which includes
their social security numbers and socializing government control of these children. Here's just one example:
Subpart 14 — Grants to Improve the Mental Health of Children
Sec. 5541. GRANTS FOR THE INTEGRATION OF SCHOOLS AND
MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS.
Sec. 5542. PROMOTION OF SCHOOL READINESS THROUGH
EARLY CHILDHOOD EMOTIONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
This must be stopped at the Federal level. If it does
not get nipped in the bud at the Federal level, the states will not be able to
resist, along with private organizations, to access
such grant funding to implement such devilish programs on our children.
******
TEENSCREEN
IS COMING TO CONNECTICUT
- FAST AND FURIOUSLY!
An Op Ed written by Theresa McGrath and Judy Aron…..
Current efforts on both the federal and state
level are promoting the implementation of widespread mental health screening of
children, particularly within the public schools. While the public and private interests that
are behind these efforts portray them as a means to reduce suicide and to help
young people with mental health issues by identifying their needs at an earlier
age, it is important for us to consider what exactly we are getting ourselves
into.
On the federal level, both the President and
members of Congress have promoted implementation of widespread mental health
screening. In April, 2002, President
Bush issued an executive order creating the President’s New Freedom Commission
on Mental Health. The commission’s final
report, issued in July, 2003, identified implementation of universal mental
health screening of schoolchildren as a primary goal. This year, the federal Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration awarded 37 grants totaling $9.7 million,
some of which is being used to start screening projects in various states. In recent years, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro
(D-CT) and Senator Christopher Dodd have introduced bills seeking to fund
screening programs.
Here in Connecticut,
Governor Rell developed a Blue Ribbon Commission on
Mental Health which established a Comprehensive Suicide Prevention Plan. Lieutenant Governor Kevin Sullivan developed
his own Mental Health Cabinet which advocates for an overhaul of the entire
mental health system in our state. In
its recent report it focused on early intervention as a goal. Out of this have come plans to provide
increased mental health services through the HUSKY Medicaid program. Lt. Governor Sullivan has also worked closely
with NAMI-CT, the local branch of the National Association for Mental Illness,
which is a strong advocate for widespread mental health screening.
It must be noted that to a large degree, the
programs being funded by the various federal and state initiatives are really
the same thing, a controversial program called TeenScreen. TeenScreen is
promoted by a non-profit organization affiliated with Columbia University
and funded in part by contributions from pharmaceutical companies that produce
psychotropic drugs used to treat depression and other mental health
conditions. The stated goal of TeenScreen is to implement universal mental health
screening for all children in America. Over the last few years, TeenScreen
has opened sites throughout the country, but has also raised significant
concerns about its methods and effectiveness.
The TeenScreen.org website notes that they
currently have sites in Watertown, Westport and Wilton
but they invite anyone who logs on to consider starting a program in your town,
no experience required. They provide
tips on how to get started, who to get on board, and where to get funds. Grants are available, perhaps from
foundations created by the same pharmaceutical companies that have profited so
much from the growing use of medications to treat our children’s mental health
needs. The impression it gives is closer
to setting up a fast-food pizza franchise than a mental health facility.
While early diagnosis and treatment of any
health issue, physical or mental, is probably always a good thing, the
implementation of universal mental health screening is a major step that
carries tremendous concerns that must be fully addressed. These programs have to be carefully
scrutinized to determine their value and the risks involved in having the
government, or a government contractor, accumulate this type of information on
the entire school-age population.
Mental health assessment necessarily involves
asking questions of a highly personal and private nature. Until TeenScreen,
this type of analysis usually occurred only in a private session with a highly
trained mental health professional.
However, in order to implement widespread screening of an entire school,
TeenScreen relies on volunteer clinicians reviewing responses to a brief
questionnaire. It makes you wonder why
all those psychologists and psychiatrists bothered going to school at all. With a short training session, you too can
provide mental health services.
One of the major issues that people have with TeenScreen has to do with whether the students and their
parents are properly informed about what the program is, and also whether they
give informed consent to allow TeenScreen to have
access to their children. The New Freedom
Commission stressed that screening requires parental consent. However, since parents are understandably
reluctant to allow their children to be asked highly personal questions by a
volunteer with little training, TeenScreen has begun
to implement methods that allow it to circumvent the need for parental
consent. A recent edition of The TeenScreen
News noted that if the local board of education approves TeenScreen as an “educational program” or if it is made a
part of the education curriculum, parental consent is not required.
Another major issue with TeenScreen
and programs like it is the whole question of whether the screening process is
effective in identifying mental health disorders. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the
leading source of recommendations and guidelines for screening tests, looked
into the issue of whether physicians
should routinely screen their patients to detect suicide risk, and determined,
in a report published in 2004, that the available evidence was insufficient to
recommend for or against routine screening.
The issue of whether universal screening by volunteer clinicians was worthwhile was not reviewed.
As technology permits the accumulation of more
and more personal information, it becomes even more important to safeguard
information of a particularly sensitive nature.
As the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers
Connecticut, recently opined in O’Connor
v. Pierson, mental health information is particularly “intimate” and is
protected by the Constitutional right to privacy. The state can mandate disclosure of this kind
of information only upon a showing of a substantial government interest, and
even then it should only be disclosed and analyzed by professionals.
There is no doubt that early diagnosis and
treatment of mental health conditions would greatly benefit people in need, but
before we start on the path of mandating that our children participate in
mental health screening, it is crucially important that we understand how such
programs work, who is behind them, who benefits from them, and what happens to
the information that is produced.
******
The following are Judy Aron’s and Theresa McGrath’s comments on a Bill which had
been proposed in the legislature to force local taxpayers to pay to educate all
3 and 4 year olds. This Bill did not
pass as written and instead has become a study. The following will provide insight into the
Bill as it was proposed. FCTO will keep
you apprised of when the Study is released and the possibility of the Bill
being raised in the next Legislative session.
Here is an excerpt of
Theresa’s comments on the Universal Preschool bill:
1.
This bill is a mandate. The language incorporated into the
bill that was presented at the time clearly stated that it would be a mandate
on towns. All towns "Shall" (meaning, should + will) apply for
grant funding provided by the state to implement a preschool program for all 4
year olds by the year 2007 and a preschool program for all 3 year olds by the
year 2009. The intention of the State Department of Education and the
Education Committee of our State Legislature is to force mandatory public
preschool for all children, at the expense of our state tax dollars and local
tax dollars.
2.
Mandatory public preschool will close the doors of private
preschools which are already an option for poor children through the Care for
Kids voucher funding program; funded by the Federal government. This
money is now under the control of the United
Way, who is redirecting the money into the
universal, mandatory public preschool initiative.
3.
Under NCLB there is a grant incentive to provide preschool to all
children; which is spearheading the universal public preschool
initiative. This program is a dangling carrot for our state, which is not
fully funded. Our state has accepted the terms to implement preschool
programs, but they choose to implement them through the public school system;
where the taxpayer must kick in state and local funding; where other states, such
as Florida are simply dividing this money equally to provide all parents a
voucher to seek whatever pre-school they choose.
4.
Our state currently spends $6.8 billion on education (as of 2005 -
State DOE records). Do the math. Multiply every 4 year old by
$10,000 in the year 2007 and then every 3 year old by the year 2009. We
will go bankrupt in tax expenditures alone.
5.
Last I looked, Kindergarten is not mandatory and now parents will
be mandated to have to put there children in preschool. There are as many
studies against children being institutionalized in education at such an early
age as there are for children receiving an early education.
Here are Judy’s remarks made in March when the
Bill was being discussed …..
Tonight there was a live call in show on
our local cable TV with Fleischmann, Farr, Harris, McClusky
on it and I asked about the preschool bill and how do they think taxpayers will
be able to fund all of these new public schoolers, at
$10,000 a pop..
Fleischmann said the bill has been turned
into a study
to find out the costs associated with doing this - but he thought that it
will eventually be done because every state in the nation is moving towards
preschool. They cited Illinois and California
initiatives. Fleischmann said that since 85% (a number I threw out in my
question) of preschoolers in West Hartford already attend a preschool and
parents are paying for that out of pocket - that they would be paying roughly
the same in their taxes to fund it anyway.. (convoluted
thinking if you ask me). Interesting
though, that this bill will be turned into a study .. Judy Aron
AN ACT CONCERNING UNIVERSAL PRESCHOOL.
To require school districts to offer preschool to all three
and four year olds.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1.
(NEW) (Effective July 1, 2006)
(a) For the school year commencing in 2007,
and for each school year thereafter, each town, in cooperation with its local
or regional board of education, shall provide spaces in preschool programs for
all four year olds who reside in such town and who are not participants in the
school readiness program established pursuant to section 10-16p of the 2006
supplement to the general statutes.
(b) For the school year commencing in 2009,
and for each school year thereafter, each town, in cooperation with its local
or regional board of education, shall provide spaces in preschool programs for
all three year olds who reside in such town and who are not participants in the
school readiness program established pursuant to said section 10-16p.
(c) The Department of Education shall
develop standards for preschool programs pursuant to this section that require
the same level of instruction as the school readiness program established
pursuant to said section 10-16p, except that preschool programs provided
pursuant to this section shall be at least two and one-half hours per day for
at least one hundred eighty days per year.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/CGAPBTS.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB05517
******
So What Has Your Government Been Doing Lately?
By Judy Aron
I have heard it said that once you bring
the name of Hitler into an argument that you have lost the argument. The notion is that his regime was so horrible
and so extreme, that one could never make an accurate comparison. I am sorry, but I disagree with that
theory. I do believe that those who do
not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Hitler’s government serves us
well as an example of how not to do things.
Bad repressive government is always bad repressive government, no matter
who is at the helm.
Coming from a family comprised of some
Holocaust survivors, I have heard repeatedly in my life what warning signs to
look for and how easily people can be propagandized, as well as how easily
government can be taken over and people can be suppressed.
That being said, some of the laws coming
out of Congress and our States are getting pretty scary. Some have evolved over
the course of many administrations, some come as a result of legislators who
are really clueless, and others come from a purposeful agenda. Sometimes that agenda may come from corporate
America,
as evidenced by heavy campaign financing and lobbying of their interests. I am
not talking about any kind of conspiracy to enslave us all, but perhaps it is
time for our legislators to re-read our Constitution and stop relying on the
judiciary to tell them when something is wrong, unethical, or
unconstitutional. Unfortunately, people
are asleep enough and busy dealing with their own problems that they don’t have
time to see what’s going on, or even check up on the people they voted for, if
they voted at all.
It is necessary to recognize that there are
very real socialist and fascist factions working in our government, and they
can take a miserable idea and make it look like a really good one. It’s easy
enough to build a socialist infrastructure if you lay the groundwork under the
guise of helping those in need. After
all, programs designed to help the sick and needy could benefit us all, right?
Propaganda done well can push any agenda, especially if there is money behind
it. Taking a look at even a few things
like eminent domain, education, immigration, surveillance, and censorship, and
a picture begins to unfold that is not very pretty, and it certainly doesn’t
come close to what our founding fathers intended.
Just examining education and its relation
to healthcare, we ought to be very mindful of the path we are traveling in this
country. As we speak, legislatures around the country are considering
legislation
1. that
establishes health center and clinics in our schools
2. that deals with
“early intervention” of mental health issues of children – utilizing screening
programs for all
3. that deals
with “school readiness” and universal
pre-school, which is government run/funded education and institutionalization
of 3 and 4 year olds
4. that places more psychologists,
therapists and other “psych” professionals in our schools
5. that removes
certain authority and rights of parents
6. that places
more government mandates on education
On top of this, the federal government is
exercising the power of the purse to mandate how education should be run
overall.
Let’s take a look at some examples based on
a paper describing the Third Reich http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/r/rogow.sally//hitlers-unwanted-children
”Even during the war, there was so much unrest and so many appeals
that in 1941, Hitler intervened with an edict that prohibited parents from
bringing charges against hospitals and asylums.”
Are we not seeing “middle of the night legislation” inserted to protect
pharmaceutical companies and institutions from lawsuits for autism”, etc? Parents are being forced to medicate their
kids in some cases, and then they can’t turn around and do anything when the
drugs damage their child.
”Nazi bioscience and racialism were woven into all aspects of the
social, health, and educational policies.”
Are we not seeing states like Illinois instituting
Social/Emotional Learning
Standards for the purpose of having children be "school ready"? Who decides these Social/Emotional Learning
Standards? What studies are they based on?
Is anyone interested in the conflict of interest and questionable ethics
of these studies, some of which were funded by pharmaceutical companies?
”In 1934, 181 Genetic Health courts and appellate Genetic Health Courts were
created for the sole purpose of enforcing Nazi health laws and decrees (Peukert, 1987). These courts were attached to local civil
courts and presided over by two physicians and a lawyer. All physicians were
required to register every case of genetic pathology with the courts and failure
to do so was punishable. The reports were filed in specially created data banks
(Burleigh, 1994). Public health officials, teachers, and social workers were
also required to report children suspected of having a disability or emotional
problem. The search for people with hereditary illnesses was relentless; every
large institution became a regional catchment area
and sent officials to the homes of every person reported to have a hereditary
illness (Burleigh, 1994). “
Does the program/mandate of Child Find fit
this description? The inter-agency
networking of government entities per the New Freedom Commission, and No Child
Left Behind legislation offers up some very unsavory comparisons here. Schools
are implementing screening tools like Wested, and TeenScreen and a host of other programs to identify kids
with problems.. even if they
don’t really have one. And no one seems
to take notice that these programs were funded in part by the pharmaceutical
industry in order to get more customers and sell more medication. Additionally, databases are being set up to
keep track of information. Parents are being coerced into putting their
children into treatment. Some lose
custody and their children become wards of the state.
“Public health officials, responsible for
enforcing the institutionalization of children with disabilities, persuaded
dubious parents with promises that their children would receive the most
advanced and expert therapy on open wards ((Heiniansberg
and Schmidt, 1993). Parents who refused
to put their children into institutions were accused by these same officials of
neglecting and depriving their children of needed treatment. Persistent refusal
often resulted in threats; parents were told that if they did not
institutionalize their children they would lose their guardianship rights
(Burleigh, 1994). Single mothers who refused to part with their children found
themselves assigned to contractual labor, which in the end, forced them to
surrender their children (Freidlander, 1994).”
Parental rights and guardianship have been
removed from many parents by the courts in this country for similar
charges. IDEA legislation allows the
school districts and State departments of Children and Family Services to
coerce parents into treating children, despite clauses regarding parental
consent. In this country a parent does
not necessarily have the last word, and they are usually dragged through court
in “due process hearings” with little financial resources behind them to
sustain them through relentless charges.
Of course school districts and state agencies have enormous financial
resources, your tax dollar, at their disposal to pay for ongoing legal
fees. Parents will most likely succumb
to school and DCF demands and hope for the best for their child. Unfortunately that doesn’t always happen and
children end up drugged, institutionalized, or both. We are constantly reminded that the “experts”
know best.
”Under the Nazis schools were a primary
target for control and their administration was placed in the hands of the
party faithful. By 1938, the German school system was brought under the total
control of the central government and removed from the jurisdiction of the
individual states or Lander (Huebner, 1962). “
One cannot ignore No Child Left Behind and the
pervasiveness of federal mandates on state and local schools. We may say that we still have states rights
in this country, but what state is willing to give up the hundreds of millions
of dollars in federal Title 1 money and not institute the federal mandates? There is no freedom here for states as long
as they are being coerced and bribed to put federal mandates in place. Now states are so sucked into the flow of
money that they cannot give it up even if they wanted to without an extreme cut
in their operations. They have become
slaves to the federal government.
”Comprehensive schools that included
classes for children with learning problems were closed, parent-teacher
associations were made powerless, corporal punishment was reintroduced and progressive
teaching methods were discouraged. Early childhood and kindergarten systems
were also brought under government control and church and privately sponsored
kindergartens were banned. The Froebel Association
which pioneered early childhood education in Germany was forced to disband (Tietze, Rossback and Ufemann, 1989). It was a common sight to see three year
olds marching and waving
flags in a military parade. “
Universal preschool and efforts to have state sponsored, taxpayer funded,
public education for 3 and 4 year olds, in addition to state funded birth to
three programs, are now being pushed nationally. You might be interested as to what is
included in the curriculum planned for these kids. It isn’t just crayon drawings and how to hold
a scissor. While we may not be banning church and privately sponsored programs,
we will be mandating that they possess certain credentials through the National
Association for the Education of Young Children. The fact that the state is
feeding, and in some instances clothing and caring for these kids the majority
of the day, is of concern. Where is
parental control and responsibility? Why is the state becoming so involved in
taking care of our young? Have we really
embraced outsourcing our parenting to the government?
Oh yeah, maybe they are unfounded
comparisons and way too extreme, or maybe they aren’t, but lets check the
roadmap and see where we are headed. Are
legislators looking to pass laws based on their campaign contributions or
because of ideology, or because of a vision of how things should work? Are we passing laws to control people, or
help people? Perhaps we are passing laws to control people under the guise of
helping them. Should we be passing these
kinds of laws at all? When is government “help”
voluntarily received and when is it forced upon us? Should we allow laws that
will dictate screening, recording and even perhaps micro-chipping of our
population? How does that measure up to
what our founders intended in the name of freedom? You decide.
******
Many Interesting Articles on Education at this
website: http://www.edspresso.com/2006/05/new_jersey_cries_uncle.htm
******
New
Jersey cries uncle
New Jersey is saying enough is enough on education spending:
New Jersey's 31 neediest school districts want too much
money, and the state can no longer afford their increasingly high demands, the
state attorney general told New
Jersey's Supreme Court yesterday. Continued at this website: http://www.edspresso.com/2006/05/new_jersey_cries_uncle.htm
Schools pay price for voters' discontent
Tax worries are blamed for broad budget defeats.
By Kristen A. Graham and Kaitlin
Gurney
The Philadelphia
Inquirer Staff Writers, April 20, 2006
The message came loud and clear in the soundest trouncing of
school budgets in years: New Jersey
voters' wallets have been hit too hard, and they struck back in the only way
available to them.
Just 53 percent of school budgets statewide passed Tuesday,
a steep drop from last year's 71 percent and the lowest approval rate since
1994. Continued at the following
website: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/education/14384046.htm
******
Rotten
Apples
Wall Street Journal
May 4, 2006
If there were lingering doubts that teachers unions are the
worms in the apple of the American education system, take a look at the
monumental setback for school reform in Florida this week.
On Monday the unions in Tallahassee bullied all but one Democrat and
four Republicans in the state senate to kill a school voucher bill that has
already had a sterling record of success for thousands of children in districts
with failing public schools. If that decision isn't reversed by Friday, one of
the most heralded school reform measures anywhere in the country will be
dismantled, and 775 school kids, 90% of whom are minorities, will be returned
to the warehouses that are failed inner-city schools. A related voucher program
that serves 18,000 learning disabled kids is also in jeopardy.
The program at issue is Governor Jeb
Bush's seven-year-old "Florida
A+ School Accountability and Choice Program." For the first time, schools
have been graded on the reading, writing and math progress made by the children
they are supposed to be teaching. (Imagine that.) Any school that received an F
in two of four years is deemed a failure, and the kids then get a voucher to
attend another school, public or private.
One immediate impact -- according to
researchers at Harvard, Florida State, and the James Madison
Institute -- has been that the mere threat of competition caused many
inner-city school districts to improve. The percentage of African Americans who
are now performing at or above grade level surged to 66% last year, from 23% in
1999. No union-backed school "reform" has had that rate of success --
not more funding, not higher teacher pay, not smaller class sizes, and so on.
Two school districts in the state failed the program and the families were
given vouchers. Those children have since made big academic gains.
But in one of the most absurd legal decisions in modern
times, the Florida
Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the voucher program violated the "uniformity
clause" of the state constitution guaranteeing a high-quality system of
public schools. Because the performance of the voucher kids was superior
to those in public schools, the court ruled that education was not uniform --
or in this case not uniformly miserable. As they used to say in the Soviet Union, everyone gets to share their poverty
equally.
Governor Bush and minority families throughout the state
were so enraged that they vowed to change the state constitution through a vote
of the people to allow the A+ Program to go forward. But the state senate this
week failed by one vote to allow that referendum to take place. Union pressure
was so intense that the GOP state senate majority leader broke with his own
party, his own governor and the pleas of parents and voted to topple the
measure; he was removed from leadership by his fellow Republicans on Tuesday.
We're not sure whom to hold in highest contempt here: the
four Republicans who buckled to union pressure, the Democrats who voted en
masse against the interests of their own constituents, or the unions that
pretend their political actions are in the interests of "the
children" -- except when that conflicts with their own economic self
interest.
The senate Republican president says he will force one more
vote before Friday. The lone Democrat to vote for the measure, state senator Al
Lawson, charged that his fellow party representatives, including other black
members, put their fealty to the unions ahead of what's best for poor children.
"Don't their parents have a right, when they pay taxes, to have their kids
get the best education?" he asked.
In Florida,
at least for now, the sad answer is no. And what is worse is that this week the
unions and their Democratic allies -- who claim to represent these black and
Hispanic families -- are celebrating their triumph in relegating another
generation of children to their educational ghetto.
******