The Federal Government is going through UNH to distribute money for Community Schools in New Hampshire. That money has been distributed to Manchester, Seabrook, Ringe, and Concord. Parents and taxpayers in those communities better pay close attention to what is happening in your school district.
Dear Superintendent Nadeau,
After scanning through the documentation you provided regarding the Community Schools Grant for Seabrook, I wanted to follow up with you on some concerns and questions.
I have lost confidence in any mental health services being provided in our public schools. There have been too many serious privacy violations and other problems that have come to light. The Community Schools Grant will only exacerbate these problems down the road. I’ll begin by explaining some of the problems that have occurred in New Hampshire that deserve your attention and the attention of the school board members.
To fulfill the requirements to receive Project Aware grant money for the MTSS-B program, Keene State BHII must develop a report and return that information to the federal government. The report looks more like a marketing brochure for MTSS-B than any in-depth independent or peer-reviewed study.
The biggest problem that has arisen out of this grant process is the personal mental health data that has been collected on students and shared with Keene State BHII. This was done without the students’ or parents’ knowledge or consent. This is a gross violation of the students’ privacy rights and violates the School Counselors’ Code of Ethics. (See attached File under Confidentiality.) I wonder if this will eventually lead to a lawsuit.
Due to regulatory changes to FERPA, there are now “exceptions” that allow for data sharing. However, I’m not sure how all of this does not violate a student’s privacy rights under 2-b of the New Hampshire Constitution: [Right of Privacy.] An individual’s right to live free from governmental intrusion in private or personal information is natural, essential, and inherent. This might have to be litigated, but I think it’s important for you and the board to analyze the legality of all of this and how this is unethical.
The documentation you provided to me includes a link to the U.S. Department of Education’s video titled “Full Service Community School Technical Assistance: Logic Models Video Guide.” The short video describes what schools must do to fulfill the requirements of the federal government when implementing the Community School model.
At the 12:00 minute mark, it describes how the U.S. Department of Education will be collecting data and tracking students throughout their lives. This appears to be something that will be done for every child in a Community School without any way to opt-out or refuse.
You can also watch this video from an attorney, and colleague of mine, who described to the U.S. Commission on Evidence Based Policymaking in Washington D.C. that this kind of data mining by the federal government can have an intimidating effect on the individual, even if that data is never used. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbM-09PAAzo
This Wall Street Journal Article, written by a Physician in New Hampshire, “Have You Seen Junior’s Psych Profile,” describes the importance of protecting sensitive mental health information on students. I will paste the entire article below in case you do not have a subscription to the WSJ. Parents need to know if you are committed to protecting their child’s personal data, and how that can be accomplished, given the terms of these agreements.
Parents in Hopkinton are now questioning how Portrait of a Learner will be used to collect and track information on their children. At their last school board meeting, the Vice Chair talked about how Portrait of a Learner will track the characteristics of students from preschool to 12 grade. At 45:00 https://www.youtube.com/live/9cVjHatufm0.
Many parents are now questioning, and pushing back on collecting and tracking their child’s characteristics:
How have you described the data-mining, and sharing that is now taking place in the district? Both through Portrait of a Learner, and as required by the US Dept of Education’s Community School Grant? Where is the data stored, and who has access to this sensitive personal information? How does a parent opt out of all of this?
Families deserve to know all of the details on their child’s personal data, and who will be accessing all of it. In the last board meeting, Mr. Hobbs talked about Portrait of a Learner, but didn’t mention anything about data that would be collected or shared.
PRESCHOOL
The Community School Grant included a plan to expand preschool access. It appears as if this was done to improve academic outcomes. How will expanding preschools accomplish that goal? Are there preschool standards that are part of the preschool program?
You may not be aware of the government study that was conducted during the Obama administration on Head Start. Head Start is a comprehensive preschool program for 3- and 4-year-olds to narrow the education gap between low‐income students and their middle‐ and upper‐income peers. In that study, it found that, by the end of the first grade, children who attended Head Start were essentially indistinguishable from a control group of students who didn’t. Head Start showed no lasting value to children. Education researchers pointed to the need to focus on elementary and secondary schools.
What was going to happen once the Community School Grant money ran out? That’s one of the biggest problems with grant money; eventually, it stops, and those expenses are added to the school budget. Would SAU21 be using tax dollars on preschool without any evidence it would improve academic outcomes? And then, eventually, would local taxpayers have to shoulder that tax burden? “Free” money from the Feds should be scrutinized just the same as if it was money coming from SAU21 taxpayers.
If you provided details about the data-mining and sharing, along with evidence on long-term academic outcomes by expanding preschool to the SAU21 school board, would you please share that information with me.
New Hampshire legislators passed a law requiring play-based kindergarten a few years ago to ensure students were receiving an education that was also age appropriate for young children. There have been concerns raised about how the New Preschool Is Crushing Kids. And a study out of Stanford University that showed Danish kids, who postponed kindergarten for up to one year, showed dramatically higher levels of self-control.
“We found that delaying kindergarten for one year reduced inattention and hyperactivity by 73% for an average child at age 11.” Professor Thomas Dee, one of the co-authors and a Stanford Graduate School of Education.
While I support efforts to improve academic outcomes for the students in SAU21, that should not be at the expense of their emotional well being.
What exactly is the goal from this push for preschool–especially in light of the fact that the push for academics in young children has shown to negatively impact their behavior, and had no real long-term impact on academic outcomes?
—
Ann Marie Banfield
TRUST REQUIRES TRANSPARENCY
https://www.wsj.com/articles/have-you-seen-juniors-psych-profile-1494286467
Have You Seen Junior’s Psych Profile?
By Dr. Aida Cerundolo
Imagine bringing your child in for a sore throat and having the doctor administer a psychological screening test—without your knowledge—while you are out of the room. I believe most parents would be uncomfortable with this scenario. Something similar is happening in schools around the country, with many parents unaware it’s happening, let alone consenting to it.
Educators and administrators increasingly are using psychological screening tools to identify children who are at risk for social and emotional issues, and to assess programs geared toward improving social and emotional skills. One such tool, the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment, covers eight domains: self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, goal-directed behavior, relationship skills, personal responsibility, decision making, and optimistic thinking. The Kaplan Early Learning Company distributes the test and
boasts that it was co-authored by two psychologists and a social worker in an effort to “have a scientifically sound and user-friendly means of assessing each student’s social-emotional competencies.”
Rooted in what’s called “resilience theory,” the test comprises 72 questions that teachers answer about each student every month. They range from “How often did the child carry himself with confidence?” to “Does he cope well with insults and mean comments?” Answers are rated on a five-point scale from “never” to “very frequently.” A student’s composite score “provides an overall indication of the strength of the child’s social-emotional competence.” This information is tracked over time.
The justification for blanket screening of all students is noble—to identify those who may benefit from intervention before their social and emotional issues become a problem that impedes success in school and life. But aren’t we really creating psychological profilesthat in other settings would be deemed confidential? If so, what is the privacy cost to students who are not at risk for a psychological imbalance yet whose mental health information is being documented by teachers and tracked over time?
In the medical field, patients and legal guardians of minors must give consent for treatment, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations protect any information that is collected. HIPAA prohibits doctors like me from sharing medical and mental health information with unauthorized sources. In fact, even for critically ill patients, a medical release signed by the patient or a representative is required before an outside healthcare facility can transmit potentially lifesaving medical information.
Health information collected by schools receiving federal money that do not offer healthcare services is protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. FERPA can be more lenient than HIPAA, with allowances made for schools to disclose records without consent for such vague reasons as “legitimate educational interest” or “for audit or evaluation purposes.” HIPAA is more stringent and applies to “covered entities,” such as hospitals and insurance companies, which are involved in the delivery and billing of healthcare services.
Schools have an obligation to students and their families to protect the privacy of the information collected in the educational setting. The mental-health information teachers are now obtaining, storing and tracking with tools like the Devereux test is equally as sensitive as that which is collected in a pediatrician’s office. It deserves the same protections.
Dr. Cerundolo is an emergency physician and mother in Greenland, N.H.
