Many people contacted the Executive Council to ask them to turn down a half million dollar grant that would be used to further support the Multi Tiered System of Support for Behavior in our public schools. The MTSS-B is a framework focused on a child’s behavior and mental health. Now that the MTSS-B has been implemented in New Hampshire Schools, we are discovering all kinds of problems.
This article in Granite Grok explains some of this here.
The Executive Councilors voted to support the grant. Here’s how they voted:
Cindy Warmington (YES)
Janet Stevens (YES)
Ted Gatsas (YES)
Dave Wheeler (NO)
Joe Kenney (NO)
The Commissioner did clarify that the $9k grant would cover MTSS-B, and the rest would be used for substance abuse. One would think this would be an easy vote. They could vote NO on this and then support another grant that would fund substance abuse measures in the schools. Unfortunately, the four councilors still voted for the grant.
Progressives who believe in a cradle-to-grave government system will be thrilled. This is all part of the CDC community school model they want in all public schools.
Dear Commissioner Edelblut,
After listening to the Executive Council meeting on July 10th and your statement on the MTSS-B framework, I wanted to follow up with you on some information you provided to the Council members. I appreciate that you were able to break down the amount of the grant that would be applied to MTSS-B and how the rest of the grant would be distributed.
The concerns that I have raised, along with teachers and other parents, center around the mental health aspect coming from how MTSS-B is being implemented in NH schools. In addition, we also know what Transformative SEL looks like because of how it is presented in SEL programs like Second Step. Transformative SEL will focus on racial injustice through the political ideology of anti-racism. This is a call to political activism through SEL in the classroom. We know that Second Step is used in Merrimack.
Since you cannot be in each school throughout the state, you would not be able to give a firsthand account of exactly how this program is being implemented. We can only go by what the SEL vendors share.
In addition, when districts like Merrimack tell parents that the teacher will be discussing anxiety with students, again, you are not in the classroom where this information will be provided. I’m attaching a file that teachers sent home to parents in Merrimack, where they would be discussing how to control anxiety. This could be why a young student then self-diagnosed herself with depression. She came home from school, claiming to her mother that she believed she was depressed. Those who know this child best would describe her as well-adjusted and happy. Planting seeds of anxiety or depression in a child is not a healthy way to promote good mental health. Providing expert mental health care to a child who is experiencing anxiety in a clinical setting, may be a more appropriate way to address anxiety in a child.
Two young NH boys were playing with swords in the lunchroom with their plastic knives. One accidentally scraped his friend, who then needed a bandaid. The boy who scraped his friend was then given a Psych evaluation against the wishes of his parents. A normal childhood interaction was enough for the school to perform a psych evaluation. I immediately referred the father to an attorney, but today, parents sign all kinds of consent forms at the beginning of the year without realizing that their child could be evaluated for doing what normal boys do.
Now that a psych evaluation has been conducted on a child in a public school, how exactly will that information be used against that child if he wants to become an officer in the military or apply for a job in law enforcement? No one seems to be considering the ramifications of this new experiment on children in public schools. If Medicaid is used to reimburse the district for these services, they must code the child. There is no code for normal.
You also mentioned that this sensitive personal information is FERPA-protected, but you didn’t mention to the Councilors that FERPA was gutted during the Obama administration. The changes now make personal student data available to a list of those who are considered “exceptions.” Prior to the gutting of FERPA, there were no exceptions, and parents would be required to consent before this personal information was shared. This is why privacy experts continue to call for closing the FERPA loophole. We are seeing all kinds of personal information shared without the knowledge or consent of the student or their parents.
Let’s be honest: FERPA doesn’t protect the personal information of students anymore. I think you should have at least explained that to the Councilors. Most parents are misled into thinking FERPA protects their child’s private information, but prior to that change to the law, Keene State wouldn’t have been able to access that personal mental health information on students in our schools.
Keene State BHII accessed personally identifiable mental health information from school counselors as an “exception.”
But what I have a hard time reconciling is how they managed to do this without IRB approval. FERPA allows this personally identifiable information to be shared with “researchers” but IRB is needed when conducting research on children. What we are seeing unfold in our schools is disturbing, and needs to be addressed honestly.
We have schools that are struggling to teach kids to read by 3rd grade, and now they are tasked with providing mental health services. We are seeing unethical practices that violate a student’s right to privacy, guaranteed in the New Hampshire Constitution. This needs to be resolved. If you continue this program in our schools, parents need to be confident that their child’s personal information on behavior or their mental health isn’t shared with anyone without the knowledge or consent of parents. The only exceptions should be those identified by mental health ethicists who make exceptions when a child is in danger to themselves or others.
During the Zoom meeting, the NH LEAs discussed sharing this information among the staff to work as a team. Once again, they have no right to access this sensitive data without the consent of parents, yet here they are talking about how the school’s team should be able to access this private information.
Where specifically are the protections for students in our schools? FERPA is no longer adequate. While I believe those involved would like to provide mental health services to children, the implementation shows us that schools are not set up to do this in a lawful and ethical way.
How much money is being spent on MTSS-B Coordinators while children sit in our local hospitals for sometimes up to a week, waiting for a bed to open at the one mental health facility for children in our state? This program is not only fiscally irresponsible, it’s fraught with numerous problems.
—
Ann Marie Banfield
TRUST REQUIRES TRANSPARENCY