Dear Mayor Ruais, Superintendent Gillis, and Members of the Board of School Committee,
My name is Ann Marie Banfield, and I am a parental rights advocate in New Hampshire focused on excellence in education. Today I am writing to you regarding the Power and Privilege DEI assignment given to students at McLaughlin Middle School.
After reviewing the questions on the survey, and then noting the source of this assignment and the internal communication indicating this assignment should be kept secret, I was reminded of the following laws that may have been violated. This is why I am calling on state and federal officials to review all of this assignment for possible statute violations.
1) This survey appears to be a psychological assessment on the students in Manchester. *(see attached files)
Section 4002 of Every Student Succeeds Act requires “prior written, informed consent from the parent of each child who is under 18 years of age to participate in any mental-health assessment or service…”
It is my understanding that parents did not consent to this assessment.
2) Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) governs the administration to students of a survey, analysis, or evaluation that concerns eight protected areas. Schools must obtain parental consent when a required survey, analysis, or examination is funded in whole or in part by the US Department of Education.
3) NH Rev Stat § 186:11
IX-d.
Require School Districts to Adopt a Policy Governing the Administration of Non-academic Surveys or Questionnaires to Students. The policy shall require school districts to notify a parent or legal guardian of a non-academic survey or questionnaire and its purpose. The policy shall provide that no student shall be required to volunteer for or submit to a non-academic survey or questionnaire, as defined in this paragraph, without written consent of a parent or legal guardian unless the student is an adult or an emancipated minor……… In this paragraph, “non-academic survey or questionnaire” means surveys, questionnaires, or other documents designed to elicit information about a student’s social behavior, family life, religion, politics, sexual orientation, sexual activity, drug use, or any other information not related to a student’s academics.
4) The internal communication from Amadou Hamady Sy, appears to be an effort to hide training materials, and other resources. This information should be readily available per RSA Chapter 91-A which states: “Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussion and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people.”
5) The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA): provides certain rights for parents regarding their children’s education records.
6) President Trump eliminated divisive DEI programs in classrooms to foster unity and focus on academic excellence.
The residents and parents in Manchester deserve direct, honest and transparent public schools.
It is my understanding that an investigation is underway, which is a good first step. However, this kind of action, and revelation has caused many parents to lose trust in the leadership of this school district.
Here is a list of questions I’ve compiled by listening and talking to residents and parents in Manchester. I urge you to communicate your findings, and institute reforms that will show the public what they can expect going forward.
Questions:
1) Has Manchester administrators and school board members officially decided to forgo federal funding for this school district based on their commitment to DEI?
2) Will the actions of those involved in this assignment, and those working to hide this assessment from the public resign or be fired?
3) Provide a plan going forward that will ensure a commitment to transparency.
4) Did you make superficial changes to give the impression that the district is complying with the executive order by changing titles, or by hiding DEI training and materials?
5) Who made the decision to move forward with this psych assessment/survey ?
6) Were those involved with this decision fully trained on all of the current laws surrounding DEI, non-academic surveys and psychological assessments? If not, why not?
7) Will you make public any consequences directed towards those who were involved?
8) If there are no consequences, will you make that public?
9) Who are all of the people involved in this decision to use this as a training resource, give it to students, and then hide it from the public?
10) Will you be making all DEI assignments public so that everything is transparent now?
11) Who is making the decisions to include psych. evaluations on students when they are supposed to be learning about the Holocaust?
12) Where is the privacy policy for the online vendor if answers were entered into a computer device?
13) What has become of these surveys? Have they been destroyed? Can parents ask for their child’s to be destroyed? If this went to an online vendor, can a parent ask that their child’s survey be destroyed? How do they go about doing that?
14) Who had access to all of this information collected on students?
15) Will all of these questions be answered, and placed on the Manchester Website for those who are interested in the answers?
16) Did anyone take time to research, Great Schools Partnership, the organization responsible for this assessment?
17) What is the total cost to taxpayers for any training, materials or cost for this assignment ?
18) Who is conducting the investigation? Is this an independent investigator?
MORE on Great Schools Partnership
The New England Secondary Schools Consortium (NESSC) has the same address as the Great Schools Partnership, and is staffed by GSP employees. GSP is funded by Nellie Mae.
Here are some quick facts on the NELLIE MAE EDUCATION FOUNDATION and its affiliated organization GREAT SCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP:
1.) Nellie Mae became the Nellie Mae Education Foundation in 2001. Their website designates ‘”our future” being identified in 2008-2010 as “education systems change.”
As of 2010 they fine tuned their purpose by “promoting the integration ofstudent-centered” approaches . This is where the grant foundation decides what pedagogy will be used in the classroom, not local community members. Student-centered learning marginalizes the role of the teacher as an instructor, and in many studies, direct instruction is more effective. Are you selling your authority for poor quality teaching methods?
2.) Financials showed that the President of the Nellie Mae Foundation made about $425,000 as a salary.
3.) The Great Schools Partnership was founded in 2008 to “redesign public education.” This means a move away from a focus on academics via liberal arts, to a dumbed-down workforce model. Local communities did not decide this, education reformers with no history of success did.
4.) Between 2010-2017…Nellie Mae awarded between $7-8 Million in grants to Great Schools Partnership, most of which is devoted to developing and assisting schools with proficiency/competency based learning initiatives. No independent peer-reviewed studies have shown any improvement to academic outcomes since New Hampshire changed to this workforce model.
5.) Much of the grant money given to Nellie Mae was focused on the New England Secondary School Consortium (NESSC), which has the same address as Great Schools Partnership. This was all set up for the purpose of effecting the “redesign.”
6.) Nellie Mae prioritizes “community organizing” as a priority for students vs literacy and academic excellence.
The children in Manchester deserve better than a fad that divides students instead of uniting them.
