Re: one more reason!!!!
mrstar
How is this for one more reason to avoid the government insitution called
school?!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From PARENTS NATIONAL NETWORK
July article. The following can be found at:
http://www.paul-revere.org/pr/holgate/ar990701.shtml
Expanding School-Based Health Clinics: A Bad Idea
by Karen Holgate, President, PNN
It wasn�t that long ago that opponents fought against establishing health
clinics on school campuses. These opponents argued that once clinics were
established, clinic supporters would not be content with offering limited
services to the poor.
They argued that like all government entities clinics would seek to expand
services and encourage greater dependence on the services offered.
Those early opponents were right. Many states, and now some members of
Congress, believe school-based health clinics should offer not only
"comprehensive" primary health care, but also include a full range of mental
health services.
In California, AB 1363 (Davis, D-SD), is making its way through the
legislature. This bill seeks to drastically alter and expand the scope of
services offered by school health centers. The original version of this bill
"required" school boards to provide "school-based health centers as
traditional and safety net providers." The amended version altered this
mandate by saying:
"This bill would �authorize� the board to include school-based health
centers
as traditional and safety net providers that �meet certain requirements.�"
(Reality: schools that now have centers will be greatly expanding services;
those that don�t have clinics will be implementing them. If some school
boards try to hold-out, you can be sure they will be pressured into
implementing these full-service clinics.)
AB 1363 will include comprehensive primary medical and mental health,
including:
Prescribing and dispensing "prescriptions" (drugs)
Counseling�individual, group and family
Examinations
Mental health assessment
Reproductive services that will include:
pelvic exams
information on sex
diagnosis and treatment
prescribing, dispensing and referrals for birth control, "including condoms"
Substance abuse treatment
Weight control
Acne
You name it; the proposed new clinics will cover it.
Davis� bill continues by saying that these clinics must be "easily
accessible" and must be open during classroom hours as well as limited
before
and after school hours. It says that local providers will decide their own
"parental consent policy."
As a parent, does that give you a warm and fuzzy feeling that you will have
control over your child�s health? Do you feel confident that your school
will
protect your rights? Do you believe your child�s school should be allowed to
determine the extent of your participation in, and "parental consent" of,
your own child�s basic health needs? AB 1363 mandates that clinics "shall"
be
"user-friendly" (for students), "private," and "confidential" and should
involve parents as is "age appropriate" for the student AND only with the
student�s consent.
(Do you still feel in control?)
AB 1363 continues by saying that the clinics are to "encourage" students to
use them. It makes it clear that the clinics will recognize the rights of
the
child (not the parents). Children will be able to participate in the
"decisionmaking" process for their own health care (not parents). The bill
repeatedly reiterates the students� need for privacy; it then states that
students "shall be" provided with a written statement about the hours and
services offered by the clinic. (not parents). Of course the bill mandates
that extensive data will be collected on each child. This "consistent and
complete" data is to include, but not be limited to:
name and ID number,
personal and biographical information,
"all significant illness and medical conditions �shall� be on a problem
list,"
"�use of cigarette, alcohol, illegal substances, or other high-risk
behaviors
�as determined by each school health center,"
�history and physical examination records shall document �appropriate
SUBJECTIVE and objective information," etc., etc., etc.
And finally, students�not parents�are given the right to approve or
disapprove of the release of their records.
This is not just a California phenomenon. In Minnesota, Dr. Karen Effrem,
MD,
says that school-based clinics allow mental health screening, tracking, and
referrals without parental knowledge or consent. She says that parents
and/or
the parents� insurance is often billed for these services�again without
parental permission or even review of records. Dr. Effrem points out that
the guidelines for diagnosing mental health are extremely broad and vague.
This mounting absurdity is not just occurring within individual states;
Congress has entered into the debate. Some members now believe that using
school-based health centers to treat "depression" in children will help
reduce the chances of another Littleton disaster.[1] Before engaging in
feel
good "knee-jerk" reactions to the Littleton tragedy; or before authorizing
massive expansion of school-based mental health services, issues of privacy,
confidentiality, parental rights, funding, and the proper role of government
(and public schools) in the lives of citizens must be addressed.
Psychological evaluations are already being conducted on children in
classrooms across America�often without parental notification or permission.
Teachers often administer surveys that ask children whether their parents
treat "other children" in the family better than they treat them, whether
their parents are headed for a divorce, about their personal use of alcohol,
drugs or other substances, about their thoughts, feelings and attitudes,
about how they feel about mom and dad, etc. Most of these surveys are given
without parent notification or permission.
Sometimes teachers (not trained psychologists) are asked to evaluate
students. A survey given to third grade teachers in Ohio [2] asks teachers
to subjectively measure and record students� behaviors. Some of these
questions ask the teacher to judge whether the student
1) "appropriately questions rules that may be fair,
2) appropriately tells you when he or she thinks you have treated him or her
unfairly,
3) gets along with people who are different,
4) fidgets or moves excessively, disturbs ongoing activities,
5) has low self-esteem,
6) appears lonely,
7) gives compliments to peers�"
Notice the subjective nature of the questions. Who determines what is
"appropriate"? What does it mean to "fidget or move excessively"?
(We�re talking 3rd graders!)
If your child doesn�t give enough compliments to his/her peers, does that
mean your child is not normal? In this particular survey teachers are
actually instructed that if they don�t observe one of the behaviors listed
they are to "estimate" what they think the child would do.
Can you imagine the scope of subjective evaluations of your child�s "mental
health" if school-based health clinics decide they can and should start
screening every child for potential "mental health" problems? The
opportunity
for wide-scale abuse is staggering. Parents are already complaining about
the
abuse of current school practices. For example:
Twelve 3rd graders were sent to the school psychologist. After being asked
numerous personal questions about their families, the children were told not
to talk to anyone outside the classroom about the "counseling group."
Parents who gave permission for an educational aptitude test for their 4th
grade twin daughters were shocked when the girls told them they were grilled
about possible sexual abuse and whether their parents yelled.
A single mom learned her 7th grade son had been seeing a school psychologist
for six weeks. The school labeled him at-risk because she was divorced. In
the note, her son told her he hadn�t realized he was such a "burden" until
the counselor told him. She found him several hours later wandering the
streets in the dark�crying.
Curriculum that teaches elementary students that "any form of punishment or
permissiveness is disrespectful and discouraging to children" and then asks
young children to share times when they have been punished.
If you find it hard to believe that this can happen, consider the following:
In California, current law requires that parents be notified at the
beginning
of each year that they have the right to be told they have no rights�that
their child may be removed from campus for "confidential medical services"
without their consent.[3]
In addition to the concerns over parental rights, concerns over the growing
cost to maintain these clinics should be considered. For instance, while AB
1363 is gaining legislative support, [4] SB 468, [5] will change current
California law and allow mental health parity insurance coverage. For
parents
of school-age children, this means that SB 468 will allow their insurance to
be used to pay for mental health services administered by the school-based
health clinics. All too often these services will be administered, and
payment made, without parental knowledge, consent or involvement.
But the cost doesn�t stop there. Another bill, AB 920, was also introduced
this year. Designed to provide $35,000,000 in "seed" money to kick-off the
implementation of these centers, the bill didn�t make it out of committee
this year. However, a call to the author�s office verified that the bill
will
resurface in January, 2000.
The cost to the taxpayer doesn�t stop at "seed money". Pennsylvania State
Representative Sam Rohrer has strong words about the cost of this movement
to
install comprehensive health care into our school system. Rep. Rohrer says:
"What is involved in the �Medicalization of the Schools�? At issue is
Medicaid. Once the government sponsored health insurance program for the
poor, Medicaid has now moved mainstream into our schools. It is paying
salaries, funding multiple programs that boldly intrude into the sanctity of
the home, and is the cause of escalating federal and state budgets. If this
weren�t objectionable enough, the Medicaid component is but one spoke on the
wheel of the larger societal restructuring movement that clearly
orchestrates
a number of large federal entitlement programs to produce what the Clinton
administration calls a �safety net�." [6]
Rep. Rohrer is right. The burden of supporting the "medicalization" of
schools will fall on the taxpayer. Health care doesn�t come cheap. And at a
time when many families and older Americans can�t afford decent health care,
the government now wants to use highly questionable tactics to create a
massive bureaucracy that will violate the sanctity of the family and drain
America�s workers of personal income. Taxpayers will be paying higher taxes
and increased insurance premiums to cover the costs of a government run, and
staffed, comprehensive, full-service health care system in schools.
Rather than enact legislation that would lower taxes and insurance premiums,
thus making it easier for America�s families, and seniors, to afford medical
care, the government�s answer is to force Americans into paying increased
taxes and premiums thus forcing more and more of them to rely on the
government to provide these services.
This is nothing more than Hillary Clinton�s original�and failed�health plan
now being implemented in schools across the country. It is the fulfillment
of
the "village school" concept.
What is a "village school?" In 1996, Pomona, California established an
"Education Village at Plaza Azteca." This new "village school" includes "a
seamless flow of services from preschool to university," [7] health services
for students and their families, and a full range of services that includes
social and family support systems. "Village schools" allow the
centralization
of government services. They have a captive audience.
At the opening ceremony of Pomona�s "village," Superintendent Patrick Leier
said that he expected the new facility to cost $10 million. He said the
district had budgeted $5 million and anticipated an additional $4 to $5
million from the state in matching funds. This, of course, is just the
beginning. Initial costs pale in relation to ongoing operational expenses.
Expanding school-based health clinic services to include mental health and
"comprehensive primary health care" for students is nothing more than a
blatant attempt to wrest control away from parents and place the
decisionmaking for their child�s health in the hands of the state run health
center. Clinic employees will decide what services are needed; whether a
child is "depressed" and whether a child needs a pelvic examination,
medication, etc. And remember, the parent is NOT considered a necessity in
this process.
There are already ample procedures and agencies in place to aid children and
parents�whether the problem be mental or physical. Expanding school-based
health centers and their services are totally unnecessary. The cost is
prohibitive and the potential for abuse far outweighs any imagined benefits.
Increasing government intrusion into the private lives of families is
something that should be taken very seriously.
###
Note: To find out what you can do to fight AB 1363 and SB 468, contact
Parents National Network.
Footnotes:
1. See May, �99 article on Conflict Resolution and death education in
Littleton.
2. Published by American Guidance Service, Inc. 1990
3. CA Ed Code 46010.1
4. AB 1363 has passed the Assembly and the first of three committees in
the Senate.
5. SB 468 has passed the Senate and is currently in the Assembly Health
Committee.
6. Speech: "THE MEDICALIZATION OF THE SCHOOLS," Sept.19, 1997 Presented
to the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (Chicago, IL)
7. Jerry Livesay, assistanct superintendent for pupil resources.
school?!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From PARENTS NATIONAL NETWORK
July article. The following can be found at:
http://www.paul-revere.org/pr/holgate/ar990701.shtml
Expanding School-Based Health Clinics: A Bad Idea
by Karen Holgate, President, PNN
It wasn�t that long ago that opponents fought against establishing health
clinics on school campuses. These opponents argued that once clinics were
established, clinic supporters would not be content with offering limited
services to the poor.
They argued that like all government entities clinics would seek to expand
services and encourage greater dependence on the services offered.
Those early opponents were right. Many states, and now some members of
Congress, believe school-based health clinics should offer not only
"comprehensive" primary health care, but also include a full range of mental
health services.
In California, AB 1363 (Davis, D-SD), is making its way through the
legislature. This bill seeks to drastically alter and expand the scope of
services offered by school health centers. The original version of this bill
"required" school boards to provide "school-based health centers as
traditional and safety net providers." The amended version altered this
mandate by saying:
"This bill would �authorize� the board to include school-based health
centers
as traditional and safety net providers that �meet certain requirements.�"
(Reality: schools that now have centers will be greatly expanding services;
those that don�t have clinics will be implementing them. If some school
boards try to hold-out, you can be sure they will be pressured into
implementing these full-service clinics.)
AB 1363 will include comprehensive primary medical and mental health,
including:
Prescribing and dispensing "prescriptions" (drugs)
Counseling�individual, group and family
Examinations
Mental health assessment
Reproductive services that will include:
pelvic exams
information on sex
diagnosis and treatment
prescribing, dispensing and referrals for birth control, "including condoms"
Substance abuse treatment
Weight control
Acne
You name it; the proposed new clinics will cover it.
Davis� bill continues by saying that these clinics must be "easily
accessible" and must be open during classroom hours as well as limited
before
and after school hours. It says that local providers will decide their own
"parental consent policy."
As a parent, does that give you a warm and fuzzy feeling that you will have
control over your child�s health? Do you feel confident that your school
will
protect your rights? Do you believe your child�s school should be allowed to
determine the extent of your participation in, and "parental consent" of,
your own child�s basic health needs? AB 1363 mandates that clinics "shall"
be
"user-friendly" (for students), "private," and "confidential" and should
involve parents as is "age appropriate" for the student AND only with the
student�s consent.
(Do you still feel in control?)
AB 1363 continues by saying that the clinics are to "encourage" students to
use them. It makes it clear that the clinics will recognize the rights of
the
child (not the parents). Children will be able to participate in the
"decisionmaking" process for their own health care (not parents). The bill
repeatedly reiterates the students� need for privacy; it then states that
students "shall be" provided with a written statement about the hours and
services offered by the clinic. (not parents). Of course the bill mandates
that extensive data will be collected on each child. This "consistent and
complete" data is to include, but not be limited to:
name and ID number,
personal and biographical information,
"all significant illness and medical conditions �shall� be on a problem
list,"
"�use of cigarette, alcohol, illegal substances, or other high-risk
behaviors
�as determined by each school health center,"
�history and physical examination records shall document �appropriate
SUBJECTIVE and objective information," etc., etc., etc.
And finally, students�not parents�are given the right to approve or
disapprove of the release of their records.
This is not just a California phenomenon. In Minnesota, Dr. Karen Effrem,
MD,
says that school-based clinics allow mental health screening, tracking, and
referrals without parental knowledge or consent. She says that parents
and/or
the parents� insurance is often billed for these services�again without
parental permission or even review of records. Dr. Effrem points out that
the guidelines for diagnosing mental health are extremely broad and vague.
This mounting absurdity is not just occurring within individual states;
Congress has entered into the debate. Some members now believe that using
school-based health centers to treat "depression" in children will help
reduce the chances of another Littleton disaster.[1] Before engaging in
feel
good "knee-jerk" reactions to the Littleton tragedy; or before authorizing
massive expansion of school-based mental health services, issues of privacy,
confidentiality, parental rights, funding, and the proper role of government
(and public schools) in the lives of citizens must be addressed.
Psychological evaluations are already being conducted on children in
classrooms across America�often without parental notification or permission.
Teachers often administer surveys that ask children whether their parents
treat "other children" in the family better than they treat them, whether
their parents are headed for a divorce, about their personal use of alcohol,
drugs or other substances, about their thoughts, feelings and attitudes,
about how they feel about mom and dad, etc. Most of these surveys are given
without parent notification or permission.
Sometimes teachers (not trained psychologists) are asked to evaluate
students. A survey given to third grade teachers in Ohio [2] asks teachers
to subjectively measure and record students� behaviors. Some of these
questions ask the teacher to judge whether the student
1) "appropriately questions rules that may be fair,
2) appropriately tells you when he or she thinks you have treated him or her
unfairly,
3) gets along with people who are different,
4) fidgets or moves excessively, disturbs ongoing activities,
5) has low self-esteem,
6) appears lonely,
7) gives compliments to peers�"
Notice the subjective nature of the questions. Who determines what is
"appropriate"? What does it mean to "fidget or move excessively"?
(We�re talking 3rd graders!)
If your child doesn�t give enough compliments to his/her peers, does that
mean your child is not normal? In this particular survey teachers are
actually instructed that if they don�t observe one of the behaviors listed
they are to "estimate" what they think the child would do.
Can you imagine the scope of subjective evaluations of your child�s "mental
health" if school-based health clinics decide they can and should start
screening every child for potential "mental health" problems? The
opportunity
for wide-scale abuse is staggering. Parents are already complaining about
the
abuse of current school practices. For example:
Twelve 3rd graders were sent to the school psychologist. After being asked
numerous personal questions about their families, the children were told not
to talk to anyone outside the classroom about the "counseling group."
Parents who gave permission for an educational aptitude test for their 4th
grade twin daughters were shocked when the girls told them they were grilled
about possible sexual abuse and whether their parents yelled.
A single mom learned her 7th grade son had been seeing a school psychologist
for six weeks. The school labeled him at-risk because she was divorced. In
the note, her son told her he hadn�t realized he was such a "burden" until
the counselor told him. She found him several hours later wandering the
streets in the dark�crying.
Curriculum that teaches elementary students that "any form of punishment or
permissiveness is disrespectful and discouraging to children" and then asks
young children to share times when they have been punished.
If you find it hard to believe that this can happen, consider the following:
In California, current law requires that parents be notified at the
beginning
of each year that they have the right to be told they have no rights�that
their child may be removed from campus for "confidential medical services"
without their consent.[3]
In addition to the concerns over parental rights, concerns over the growing
cost to maintain these clinics should be considered. For instance, while AB
1363 is gaining legislative support, [4] SB 468, [5] will change current
California law and allow mental health parity insurance coverage. For
parents
of school-age children, this means that SB 468 will allow their insurance to
be used to pay for mental health services administered by the school-based
health clinics. All too often these services will be administered, and
payment made, without parental knowledge, consent or involvement.
But the cost doesn�t stop there. Another bill, AB 920, was also introduced
this year. Designed to provide $35,000,000 in "seed" money to kick-off the
implementation of these centers, the bill didn�t make it out of committee
this year. However, a call to the author�s office verified that the bill
will
resurface in January, 2000.
The cost to the taxpayer doesn�t stop at "seed money". Pennsylvania State
Representative Sam Rohrer has strong words about the cost of this movement
to
install comprehensive health care into our school system. Rep. Rohrer says:
"What is involved in the �Medicalization of the Schools�? At issue is
Medicaid. Once the government sponsored health insurance program for the
poor, Medicaid has now moved mainstream into our schools. It is paying
salaries, funding multiple programs that boldly intrude into the sanctity of
the home, and is the cause of escalating federal and state budgets. If this
weren�t objectionable enough, the Medicaid component is but one spoke on the
wheel of the larger societal restructuring movement that clearly
orchestrates
a number of large federal entitlement programs to produce what the Clinton
administration calls a �safety net�." [6]
Rep. Rohrer is right. The burden of supporting the "medicalization" of
schools will fall on the taxpayer. Health care doesn�t come cheap. And at a
time when many families and older Americans can�t afford decent health care,
the government now wants to use highly questionable tactics to create a
massive bureaucracy that will violate the sanctity of the family and drain
America�s workers of personal income. Taxpayers will be paying higher taxes
and increased insurance premiums to cover the costs of a government run, and
staffed, comprehensive, full-service health care system in schools.
Rather than enact legislation that would lower taxes and insurance premiums,
thus making it easier for America�s families, and seniors, to afford medical
care, the government�s answer is to force Americans into paying increased
taxes and premiums thus forcing more and more of them to rely on the
government to provide these services.
This is nothing more than Hillary Clinton�s original�and failed�health plan
now being implemented in schools across the country. It is the fulfillment
of
the "village school" concept.
What is a "village school?" In 1996, Pomona, California established an
"Education Village at Plaza Azteca." This new "village school" includes "a
seamless flow of services from preschool to university," [7] health services
for students and their families, and a full range of services that includes
social and family support systems. "Village schools" allow the
centralization
of government services. They have a captive audience.
At the opening ceremony of Pomona�s "village," Superintendent Patrick Leier
said that he expected the new facility to cost $10 million. He said the
district had budgeted $5 million and anticipated an additional $4 to $5
million from the state in matching funds. This, of course, is just the
beginning. Initial costs pale in relation to ongoing operational expenses.
Expanding school-based health clinic services to include mental health and
"comprehensive primary health care" for students is nothing more than a
blatant attempt to wrest control away from parents and place the
decisionmaking for their child�s health in the hands of the state run health
center. Clinic employees will decide what services are needed; whether a
child is "depressed" and whether a child needs a pelvic examination,
medication, etc. And remember, the parent is NOT considered a necessity in
this process.
There are already ample procedures and agencies in place to aid children and
parents�whether the problem be mental or physical. Expanding school-based
health centers and their services are totally unnecessary. The cost is
prohibitive and the potential for abuse far outweighs any imagined benefits.
Increasing government intrusion into the private lives of families is
something that should be taken very seriously.
###
Note: To find out what you can do to fight AB 1363 and SB 468, contact
Parents National Network.
Footnotes:
1. See May, �99 article on Conflict Resolution and death education in
Littleton.
2. Published by American Guidance Service, Inc. 1990
3. CA Ed Code 46010.1
4. AB 1363 has passed the Assembly and the first of three committees in
the Senate.
5. SB 468 has passed the Senate and is currently in the Assembly Health
Committee.
6. Speech: "THE MEDICALIZATION OF THE SCHOOLS," Sept.19, 1997 Presented
to the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (Chicago, IL)
7. Jerry Livesay, assistanct superintendent for pupil resources.