#NO WAY ESEA #NO WAY ESEA #NO WAY ESEA
KEEP CALLING (202-224-3121) AND EMAILING YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES!!!
S1177 (the Reauthorization of ESEA...the old No Child Left Behind Act) is a combination of Republican Congressman John Kline's HR5 Student Success Act and Republican Senator Lamar Alexander's Every Child Achieves Act 2015 (S1177)
You, members of Grassroots America, killed HR5 last February. You can kill its companion bill S1177, which is coming up for a full vote in the Senate any day now.
*********************************************************************
Vitter's Bitter Bill Joins the "No Privacy Club”
The Student Privacy Protection Act
By Anita B. Hoge
STOP Senator Vitter's Student Privacy Protection Act that amends both FERPA and the PPRA!
Call! Call! Call!
(Conservatives are supporting this dangerous legislation, so get on the phones and shut down the Senate switchboards with millions of calls from angry parents!)
We have stopped bills like this in the past and we can do it again.
EXCERPTS DIRECTLY BELOW, BUT PLEASE TAKE TIME TO READ ENTIRE 3-PAGE ALERT and to also study the comparisons in the Part 2 graph that shows the contrast between the PPRA and Sen.Vitter's so-called “No Privacy” bill.
(Scroll down to end of this post for comparison graph).
EXCERPTS:
The Pennsylvania state longitudinal data system is complete—birth through workplace. Sen.Vitter's bill will not change anything that is happening to collect data from the local level into federal collection data warehouses. Our children are being treated as commodities to be siphoned off as freebies.
If Senator Vitter were serious—which it appears he is not—about stopping the data tracking and trafficking of our children, he would shut down the National Center of Education Statistics and the Institute for Educational Sciences. But he hasn't. He has expanded the affective (attitudes, values, beliefs, dispositions) domain record keeping of our children. Conservative groups are collaborating on this legislation, but they have no idea how dangerous these "Vitter words" are.
The only protection that parents need to guard their child and their child's data is to eliminate the unique national ID given to them by the state and opt out of Directory Information. A local school district must provide a separate ID for each child developed by the local school that is not shared with anyone. Aggregated, anonymized, and de-identified data from the local level could be sent for federal reporting requirements so that the NCES and IES could not use PII and give away your family’s personal information.
The differences in protection are monumental.
Sen.Vitter is not protecting your child!
These are the definitions in the original Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment when I filed my federal complaint against the Pennsylvania Department of Education (date of resolution April, 1990) that found Pennsylvania in violation of federal law:
Protection of students' privacy in assessment, testing, intervention, or treatment:
No student shall be required, as part of any program, to submit without written prior consent to psychiatric examination, testing, interventions, or treatment, or psychological examination, testing, screening, interventions, or treatment, in which the purpose is to reveal information concerning one or more of the following 7 protected areas:
Federal PPRA includes the following 7 protected areas:
"Political affiliations; mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student or his or her family; sex behavior and attitudes; illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior; critical appraisals of other individuals with whom the student has close family relationships; legally recognized privileged and analagous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student's parent; or income, other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under a program."
Federal PPRA includes the following 7 protected areas:
"Political affiliations; mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student or his or her family; sex behavior and attitudes; illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior; critical appraisals of other individuals with whom the student has close family relationships; legally recognized privileged and analagous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student's parent; or income, other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under a program."
Definition: Psychiatric or psychological examination or test
*********************************************************************
Full text from Anita Hoge's Red Alert follows:
Vitter's Bitter Bill Joins the "No Privacy Club”
The Student Privacy Protection Act
By Anita B. Hoge
Let's ask the question, Senator Vitter (R-LA):
Why have you changed a student “education record” in the Family Education Rights in Privacy Act (FERPA) to “student data” throughout your bill, the Student Privacy Protection Act?
The answer is clear.
Your bill is not meant to protect student privacy.
Sen. Vitter carefully crafts his legislation to ignore the national data tracking and trafficking of student education records collected by the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) and the Institute for Educational Sciences (IES) for which grants were given to each state to develop State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS). Vitter defines in great detail every aspect of psychological testing, treatment, analysis, and evaluation—the affective domain—that requires permission, and Vitter then allows the special education teams to implement the entire affective domain list. Third party contractors and the defined “school officials” STILL have access to “data” in WRITTEN AGREEMENTS in the original FERPA. President Obama's Executive Order 12866 still exists that allows 3rd party contractors to access “data” by cross-referencing directory information and unique IDs to identify individuals.
The Vitter Act contains the affective domain list, including affective computing, interpersonal resources or interpersonal skills, intrapersonal resources and intrapersonal skills, predictive modeling, processing, and psychological resources. In general, processes to measure the affective, non-cognitive domain. But then Vitter exempts the entire list in Special Education (p.19) as follows:
(3) SPECIAL RULE.—Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an applicable program carried out or funded under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act if the data collection is required under such Act. [Emphasis added]
Realize that Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS), Response to Interventions (RTI), Specialized Student Instructional Support, and Early Intervening Supports are carried out by Special Education teams to implement these techniques in the regular classroom. They do not require parental consent for social, emotional, and behavioral interventions.
[WARNING: See the white paper titled “Consent and Notification in a Multilevel System of Support (Response to Intervention)” by Wisconsin State Superintendent Tony Evers which shows, in question and answer format, that the schools do not need parental consent to psychologically treat the child in the areas indicated above: http://rti.dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sped/pdf/rti-consent.pdf]
When referring to Personally Identifiable Information (PII), Sen. Vitter appears to create protections for “student data” and then aligns to the definition already listed in FERPA for PII that allows directory information to be cross matched and is used to identify the individual. Third party contractors and the defined “school officials” still have access to data because of written agreements in the original version of FERPA. Pres. Obama’s Executive Order 12866 still exists, allowing third party contractors to access data by cross-referencing directory information and unique IDs to identify individuals.
Data is flowing! To understand what Sen. Vitter is doing, study Pennsylvania's contract with EScholar to create a unique National ID for every person in Pennsylvania. Remember, Pennsylvania is the national model for a national unique ID. Cross matching is completely simplified by collecting directory information on your child. Computer experts will agree, data is flowing. See the following source:
eScholar Uniq-ID® for Students assigns a unique numeric identifier to each student and maintains that ID with that individual’s data across time, location and institution. The identifiers are randomly assigned, never duplicated and not constructed based on any algorithm related to the student identification attributes. The system utilizes student directory information (First Name, Last Name, Date of Birth, etc.) for matching. Since these student attributes are often similar to those of other students, the system will provide a list of registered students who potentially match the attributes and allow an authorized user to choose an existing ID or to create a new ID.
Pennsylvania E-Scholar Case Study:
http://www.escholar.com/documents/pennsylvania_casestudy.pdf
School districts and state education agencies have long understood the importance of ensuring unique student record identification across time, location and source, but have struggled to achieve and then maintain unique identities of students. The eScholar Uniq-ID® for Students system delivers a fully developed and proven system to collect student identification data, match, de-duplicate and assign identifiers. This includes identifying and managing identifiers throughout a student’s academic career across schools, districts, and states. eScholar Uniq-ID® for Students is the most widely deployed state-wide student identification system and the only product which enables tracking of student identifiers on an interstate basis.
Psychiatric or psychological examination or test means a method of obtaining information, including a group activity, that is not directly related to academic instruction and that is designed to elicit information about attitudes, habits, traits, opinions, beliefs or feelings, if the primary purpose of the examination or test is to reveal information in one or more of the following areas: 7 protected areas.
Definition: Psychiatric or psychological treatment
Psychiatric or psychological treatment means an activity involving the planned, systematic use of methods or techniques that is not directly related to academic instruction and that is designed to affect behavioral, emotional, or attitudinal characteristics of an individual or group, if the primary purpose of the treatment is to reveal information in one or more of the following areas: 7 protected areas.
Be aware that in Pennsylvania Interpersonal skills were listed as “academic”.
Please study the comparisons in the Part 2 graph that shows the contrast between the PPRA and Sen. Vitter's so-called “No Privacy” bill.
*********************************************************************
Full text from Anita Hoge's Red Alert follows:
Vitter's Bitter Bill Joins the "No Privacy Club”
The Student Privacy Protection Act
By Anita B. Hoge
Let's ask the question, Senator Vitter (R-LA):
Why have you changed a student “education record” in the Family Education Rights in Privacy Act (FERPA) to “student data” throughout your bill, the Student Privacy Protection Act?
The answer is clear.
Your bill is not meant to protect student privacy.
Sen. Vitter carefully crafts his legislation to ignore the national data tracking and trafficking of student education records collected by the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES) and the Institute for Educational Sciences (IES) for which grants were given to each state to develop State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS). Vitter defines in great detail every aspect of psychological testing, treatment, analysis, and evaluation—the affective domain—that requires permission, and Vitter then allows the special education teams to implement the entire affective domain list. Third party contractors and the defined “school officials” STILL have access to “data” in WRITTEN AGREEMENTS in the original FERPA. President Obama's Executive Order 12866 still exists that allows 3rd party contractors to access “data” by cross-referencing directory information and unique IDs to identify individuals.
The Vitter Act contains the affective domain list, including affective computing, interpersonal resources or interpersonal skills, intrapersonal resources and intrapersonal skills, predictive modeling, processing, and psychological resources. In general, processes to measure the affective, non-cognitive domain. But then Vitter exempts the entire list in Special Education (p.19) as follows:
(3) SPECIAL RULE.—Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an applicable program carried out or funded under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act if the data collection is required under such Act. [Emphasis added]
Realize that Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS), Response to Interventions (RTI), Specialized Student Instructional Support, and Early Intervening Supports are carried out by Special Education teams to implement these techniques in the regular classroom. They do not require parental consent for social, emotional, and behavioral interventions.
[WARNING: See the white paper titled “Consent and Notification in a Multilevel System of Support (Response to Intervention)” by Wisconsin State Superintendent Tony Evers which shows, in question and answer format, that the schools do not need parental consent to psychologically treat the child in the areas indicated above: http://rti.dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sped/pdf/rti-consent.pdf]
When referring to Personally Identifiable Information (PII), Sen. Vitter appears to create protections for “student data” and then aligns to the definition already listed in FERPA for PII that allows directory information to be cross matched and is used to identify the individual. Third party contractors and the defined “school officials” still have access to data because of written agreements in the original version of FERPA. Pres. Obama’s Executive Order 12866 still exists, allowing third party contractors to access data by cross-referencing directory information and unique IDs to identify individuals.
Data is flowing! To understand what Sen. Vitter is doing, study Pennsylvania's contract with EScholar to create a unique National ID for every person in Pennsylvania. Remember, Pennsylvania is the national model for a national unique ID. Cross matching is completely simplified by collecting directory information on your child. Computer experts will agree, data is flowing. See the following source:
eScholar Uniq-ID® for Students assigns a unique numeric identifier to each student and maintains that ID with that individual’s data across time, location and institution. The identifiers are randomly assigned, never duplicated and not constructed based on any algorithm related to the student identification attributes. The system utilizes student directory information (First Name, Last Name, Date of Birth, etc.) for matching. Since these student attributes are often similar to those of other students, the system will provide a list of registered students who potentially match the attributes and allow an authorized user to choose an existing ID or to create a new ID.
Pennsylvania E-Scholar Case Study:
http://www.escholar.com/documents/pennsylvania_casestudy.pdf
School districts and state education agencies have long understood the importance of ensuring unique student record identification across time, location and source, but have struggled to achieve and then maintain unique identities of students. The eScholar Uniq-ID® for Students system delivers a fully developed and proven system to collect student identification data, match, de-duplicate and assign identifiers. This includes identifying and managing identifiers throughout a student’s academic career across schools, districts, and states. eScholar Uniq-ID® for Students is the most widely deployed state-wide student identification system and the only product which enables tracking of student identifiers on an interstate basis.
http://www.escholar.com/documents/UID%20Students%20v8.0%20ps20100922.pdf
The Pennsylvania state longitudinal data system is complete—birth through workplace. Sen. Vitter's bill will not change anything that is happening to collect data from the local level into federal collection data warehouses. Our children are being treated as commodities to be siphoned off as freebies.
If Senator Vitter were serious—which it appears he is not—about stopping the data tracking and trafficking of our children, he would shut down the National Center of Education Statistics and the Institute for Educational Sciences. But he hasn't. He has expanded the affective domain record keeping of our children. Conservative groups are collaborating on this legislation, but they have no idea how dangerous these "Vitter words" are.
The only protection that parents need to guard their child and their child's data is to eliminate the unique national ID given to them by the state and opt out of Directory Information. A local school district must provide a separate ID for each child developed by the local school that is not shared with anyone. Aggregated, anonymized, and de-identified data from the local level could be sent for federal reporting requirements so that the NCES and IES could not use PII and give away your family’s personal information.
The differences in protection are monumental. Sen.Vitter is not protecting your child!
These are the definitions in the original Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment when I filed my federal complaint against the Pennsylvania Department of Education (date of resolution April, 1990) that found Pennsylvania in violation of federal law:
Protection of students' privacy in assessment, testing, intervention, or treatment.: No student shall be required, as part of any program, to submit without written prior consent to psychiatric examination, testing, interventions, or treatment, or psychological examination, testing, screening, Interventions, or treatment, in which the purpose is to reveal information concerning one or more of the following in the 7 protected areas:
Federal PPRA includes the following 7 protected areas:
"Political affiliations; mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student or his or her family; sex behavior and attitudes; illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior; critical appraisals of other individuals with whom the student has close family relationships; legally recognized privileged and analagous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student's parent; or income, other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under a program."
Definition: Psychiatric or psychological examination or test
Psychiatric or psychological examination or test means a method of obtaining information, including a group activity, that is not directly related to academic instruction and that is designed to elicit information about attitudes, habits, traits, opinions, beliefs or feelings, if the primary purpose of the examination or test is to reveal information in one or more of the following areas: 7 protected areas.
Definition: Psychiatric or psychological treatment
Psychiatric or psychological treatment means an activity involving the planned, systematic use of methods or techniques that is not directly related to academic instruction and that is designed to affect behavioral, emotional, or attitudinal characteristics of an individual or group, if the primary purpose of the treatment is to reveal information in one or more of the following areas: 7 protected areas.
Be aware that in Pennsylvania Interpersonal skills were listed as “academic.”
STOP Vitter's Student Privacy Protection Act that amends both FERPA and the PPRA!
FAMILY EDUCATION RIGHTS IN PRIVACY ACT
(FERPA)
PROTECTION OF PUPIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
(PPRA)
|
SENATOR VITTER'S BITTER “NO PRIVACY” Ac
The Student Privacy Protection Act
|
TRUE PROTECTION
|
FALSE PROTECTION
|
Definition of student “education record”—FERPA: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g (a)(3))
“Education Records”
(a) The term means those records that are:
(1) Directly related to a student; and
(2) Maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency or institution.”
|
Replaces FERPA's definition of "education record" over to “student data,” including 3rd party vendors who CAN access PII (personally identifiable information) of students.
Page 2: “(4)(A) For the purposes of this section, the term ‘student data’ means information about a student collected and maintained by an educational agency or institution, by a person or third party collecting or maintaining such information through the active intervention, facilitation, or authorization of such agency or institution, or by a person or third party acting for such agency or institution.”
Vitter’s bill uses the term “student data,” except where education records are exchanged in longitudinal systems. Third party contractors are included in these definitions. See pp. 3, 4, & 5 which state 3rd party vendors receive “data.”
|
PPRA covers any activity in the 8 protected areas funded with federal dollars.
THE PROTECTION OF PUPIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT STATES:
(b) Limits on survey, analysis or evaluations: No student shall be required, as part of any applicable program, to submit to a survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning—8 protected areas:
See page 4 for the 8 protected areas in the PPRA.
|
VITTER'S BILL exempts teachers and local education personnel who collect the PII, personally identifiable information defined and collected in a student education RECORD.
‘‘(B) The term ‘student data’ does not include—
"(i) RECORDS of instructional, supervisory, and administrative personnel and educational personnel ancillary thereto which are in the sole possession of the maker thereof and which are not accessible or revealed to any other person except a substitute;”
This exemption applies to teachers, special education facilitators, administrative personnel who perform: Response to Intervention (RTI), Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS), Specialized System of Instructional Support, Early Intervening Services)
[Note: Most of these activities would be carried out under Title I (schoolwide) or IDEA.]
|
FERPA defines “Directory Information”:
“c) Directory information includes a student ID number, user ID, or other unique personal identifier used by the student for purposes of accessing or communicating in electronic systems, but only if the identifier cannot be used to gain access to education records except when used in conjunction with one or more factors that authenticate the user's identity, such as a personal identification number (PIN), password, or other factor known or possessed only by the authorized user.”
|
VITTER'S BILL exempts “Directory Information” from the definition of “student data,” thus allowing cross-matching of unique national student IDs by authorized users.
“Sec.3 (p. 6) (i)(Release of PII, Personally Identifiable Information; any student data, including personally identifiable information (OTHER THAN DIRECTORY INFORMATION) that is not first aggregated, anonymized, and de-identified’’
See page 6 (i). Student data includes “Directory Information” and a unique national ID for matching records.
|
THIRD PARTY VENDORS, defined as “school officials,” get the data for free without prior consent, BUT the ownership is maintained by the local district.
Ҥ 99.31 Under what conditions is prior consent not required to disclose information?
(a) An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an education record of a student without the consent required by § 99.30 if the disclosure meets one or more of the following conditions:
“(1)(i)(A) The disclosure is to other school officials, including teachers, within the agency or institution whom the agency or institution has determined to have legitimate educational interests.
“(B) A contractor, consultant, volunteer, or other party to whom an agency or institution has outsourced institutional services or functions may be considered a school official under this paragraph provided that the outside party—
“(1) Performs an institutional service or function for which the agency or institution would otherwise use employees;
“(2) Is under the direct control of the agency or institution with respect to the use and maintenance of education records; …”
|
VITTER'S BILL does NOT stop data from flowing to Third Party Vendors that are defined as a “school official,” who still get the data for free, but the data is NOW the property of the state DOE OR 3rd party institution.
Page 8: “(8) LIMITATIONS ON THIRD PARTY USE.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or any other provision of this section (not including paragraph (6)“ [Note: paragraph (6) in FERPA excludes cooperative agreements, contracts, sub grants, or subcontracts.)
“(1) Are provided to the agency or institution by grant, cooperative agreement, contract, subgrant, or subcontract;”
PP. 8-9 “Limitations on 3rd Party Use: forbids FUNDS to be provided......”
[Note: Data is received through “written agreements” FOR FREE. Restricting funds doesn't stop data from flowing to 3rd party vendors!]
P. 10 (D) ” ..student data remain the property of the agency or institution…”
The Vitter bill does not stop data from flowing to 3rd party vendors defined as a “school official” but only restricts FUNDS, which vendors are not paid for the use and access of data. Parental consent is NOT required for "school officials" to access PII.
|
President Obama's Executive Order 12866 “unlocked FERPA” and went into effect Jan. 2012, permitting 3rd party vendors named “SCHOOL OFFICIALS” to enter into “written agreements” with state departments of education.
Ҥ 99.33
(C)(ii) Nothing in the Act or this part prevents a State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section from ENTERING INTO AGREEMENTS with organizations conducting studies under paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section and redisclosing personally identifiable information from education records on behalf of educational agencies and institutions that disclosed the information to the State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section in accordance with the requirements of § 99.33(b).”
|
Vitter's Bill does NOT rescind Pres. Obama's Executive Order 12866 that “unlocked FERPA” and went into effect Jan. 2012, thereby weakening FERPA. VITTERS BILL codifies EO 12866.
VITTER'S BILL does NOT stop written agreements through the state departments of education in each state which allow 3rd party contractors access to student personally identifiable information.
VITTER'S BILL allows PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION to flow to outside 3rd party vendors. NCES/IES established a national data warehouse through state longitudinal data systems in each state feeding into the system. Student data can be matched with a unique national ID and “Directory Information” in EVERY STATE.
|
Obama’s EO 12866 voided the HANSEN MEMORANDUM.* (See footnote in this column at the bottom of the last page of this chart.) Internet and data exchange is STILL FREE, BUT tracking is done through the use of a Unique National ID which is included in the definition of “directory information” with an authorized user.
NCES/IES Common Core of Data is the national student database “birth to workplace” with common data elements, records, and a psychometric dossier on each individual student and teacher, aligned to NCES Student Handbooks through a unique national ID.
Note that in VITTER'S BILL "student data" does not include a student “educational record” —only VITTER-defined student data is aggregated, anonymized, and de-identified, but matched to directory information and unique national ID. Therefore, a student “education record” CAN be linked to the state longitudinal data system that would include the entire student record and OTHER STATE AGENCIES (labor, health, unemployment insurance.)
|
VITTER'S BILL states that no funds will be provided to track. This does NOT stop state longitudinal data systems from collecting “education records” from the local level and/or cross referencing “Directory Information” to “student data” on individual students. VITTER'S BILL does not abolish the state longitudinal data system or the national Common Core of data, the NCES or the IES.
Under the title, page 11:
“(9) No Tracking of Students (A) no FUNDS PROVIDED to track
“(B) ...Student data shall not be used for or from a state longitudinal data program. [Note: “Education Records” can be tracked.]
Page 11-12 (C) NO NATIONAL DATABASE—“Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the collection, storage, sharing, or use, in any manner, of student data, including personally identifiable information, to support or inform a national or interstate database of student data or the linking of State longitudinal databases, UNLESS the student data has been aggregated, anonymized, and de-identified.”
|
THE PROTECTION OF PUPIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT WHICH STATES:
“(b) Limits on survey, analysis or evaluations:
No student shall be required, as part of any applicable program, to submit to a survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning—8 protected areas:
(1) Political affiliations;
(2) Mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student or his or her family;
(3) Sex behavior and attitudes;
(4) Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior;
(5) Critical self appraisals or appraisals with other individuals with whom the student has close family relationships;
(6) Legally recognized privileged and analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; or
(7) Religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or parents.
(8) Income, other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under a program.”
|
VITTER'S BILL allows all programs funded or carried out by IDEA, (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act) to proceed business as usual. This means all techniques and interventions by special education teams are permitted to do the psychological manipulation (A-F) of the SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL, AND BEHAVIORAL ASPECTS OF ALL CHILDREN—WITHOUT INFORMED WRITTEN PARENTAL CONSENT.
Page 16: “Sec. 6 Prohibition of Psychological Testing
(1) All definitions A-F (affective domain/non-cognitive techniques) are exempt because of (D)(3) Special Rule which states paragraph (2) shall NOT apply to a program carried out or funded by IDEA if data collection is required under such act. (This means that special education teams CAN perform psychological or behavioral screening. p.19 (E) Special Rule states that no Department or federal funds will be used EXCEPT IDEA.)”
THERE WILL BE NO PROHIBITION FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION TEAMS (IDEA) TO SCREEN & PERFORM INTERVENTIONS ON EVERY STUDENT IN THE CLASSROOM. All definitions to be able to treat or screen your child A through F are PERMITTED including RTI, Response to Intervention, MTSS, Multi-Tiered Student Support, PBIS, Positive Behavior Intervention and Support, Functional Behavioral Assessments, Early Intervening Services, or Specialized Student Instructional Support Teams including Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Social Workers, etc.
|
PPRA Gives Parents the Right to Opt Out of activities which states:
"No student shall be required, as part of any applicable program, to submit to a survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning the 8 protected areas:" (See above)
PPRA currently gives parents the right to opt their child out of psychological testing, surveys, interventions, or treatment including those conducted through IDEA, INDIVIDUALS FOR DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT. Note: IDEA INTERVENTIONS APPLY TO EVERY STUDENT.
IMPORTANT CONTEXT:
VITTER'S 'BITTER' BILL WEAKENS FERPA FURTHER, CODIFYING OBAMA'S EXECUTIVE ORDER 12866, and NULLIFIES THE PROTECTION OF PUPIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT. Thus Vitter’s bill DOES NOT PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN NOR RECOGNIZE PARENT'S RIGHTS.
*FOOTNOTE: The Hansen Memorandum was rescinded with Obama's EO 12866, which required that under the “audit or evaluation exception,” an authorized representative of a State educational authority must be a party under the direct control of that authority, e.g., an employee or a contractor. Under the Hansen Memorandum, an SEA or other State educational authority could not disclose PII without consent from education records to other State agencies, such as a State health and human services department, a State unemployment insurance department, or a State department of labor because these State agencies were not under the SEA’s direct control. SOURCE: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/030130.html
|
VITTER'S BILL DOES NOT ADDRESS PARENTS RIGHTS AT ALL. VITTER'S BILL prohibits using FUNDS for the Secretary of Education, or an education agency or institution, to ADMINISTER surveys, assessments, analysis, or evaluations.
Page 22. “Sec. 7 Prohibition on Collection of Certain Private Information (b) Neither the Secretary nor Education agency or institution RECEIVING ASSISTANCE under any applicable program SHALL ADMINISTER any student survey, assessment, analysis, evaluation. Or similar instrument that solicits information about a student or a student's family in the 9 protected areas:…” [Note: this adds gun ownership as 9th area.]
Remember that IDEA HAS BEEN EXEMPTED. Teachers, principals, support teams, and special ed teams administer surveys, screening, and evaluations. Will information about gun ownership be collected under IDEA? VITTER'S BILL WEAKENS THE PPRA!
IMPORTANT CONTEXT:
VITTER'S BILL is needed to implement Senator Alexander's Bill, S 1177, and Congressman Kline's Bill, HR 5, the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which labels every child as disabled in school for failure to meet Common Core standards as specified, including attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions, thus making interventions apply under IDEA.
The School Based Mental Health expansion in ESEA CREATES AN ABUSIVE IDENTIFICATION AND TREATMENT OF NORMAL CHILDREN AND DOES NOT RECOGNIZE ANY PROTECTIONS FOR YOUR CHILDREN.
|
