Friday, May 29, 2015

RED ALERT! RED ALERT! RED ALERT!

#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.

 *********************************************************************

RED ALERT! RED ALERT! RED ALERT!



CALL 202-224-3121  AND EMAIL SENATOR PATTY MURRAY, DEM. WA. AND YOUR SENATORS AND ASK THEM TO VOTE NO ON SENATOR MURRAY'S BILL S.1380.
Contact Me - United States Senator Patty Murray 

S.1380 : A bill to support early learning.
Sponsor: Sen Murray, Patty [WA] (introduced 5/19/2015) Cosponsors (21)


EARLY LEARNING: Murray Introduces Strong Start for America’s Children Act
(S.1380) (Birth to age Five) Tuesday, May 19, 2015


(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee introduced the  Strong Start for America’s Children Act, legislation that would expand quality preschool programs. The Strong Start for America's Children Act is a 10-year innovative federal-state partnership to expand and improve early learning opportunities for children from birth to age five.


EducationCounsel E-Update for May 22, 2015

Strong Start for America's Children Act Reintroduced in the House and Senate:

In the House of Representatives, U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) and U.S. Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-VA) introduced the Strong Start for America's Children Act. In the Senate, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced the bill. The legislation would establish a 10-year federal-state partnership for four-year old preschool, with formula funding to states based on each state’s proportion of four-year olds under 200 percent of the federal poverty level. The bill would encourage states to spend state funds to support preschool for young children with family incomes above that income level. The bill also authorizes the new Early Head Start partnership with child care to improve the quality of care for infants and toddlers. May 19, 2015

CALL AND EMAIL THE FOLLOWING HOUSE REPS:  REP. RICHARD HANNAH, REPUBLICAN, NY (202-225-3665)  and ROBERT "BOBBY" SCOTT, VA (202-225-8351) AND YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES AND ASK THEM TO VOTE NO ON THE HOUSE BILL.

DEMOCRAT SENATOR MURRAY'S BILL AND THE HANNAH AND SCOTT HOUSE OF REPS. COMPANION BILL ARE YET MORE OF THE SAME COMMUNIST (SOVIET PRESCHOOL EDUCATION) LEGISLATION SIMILAR TO SENATOR ALEXANDER'S S1177 WHICH  MURRAY, AS RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, CO-SPONSORED.

COMMUNIST PRE-SCHOOL EDUCATION ON STEROIDS

Thursday, May 28, 2015

CRIMINALIZING PARENTS ?!?

#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.
 

 *********************************************************************

Louisiana Legislator Assists State in Criminalizing Parental Authority
WHAT IS HE THINKING?

By The People LLC




The amendment provided by the department also included that parents will be provided access under the watchful eye of a DOE administrator and the threat of up to a $10,000 fine & 6 months in prison should the parent dare to "photocopy ophotograph any assessment item or question or make handwritten or typed notes that identify an assessment item or question."   

We found it shocking that not one elected representative present in the House Education Committee had a problem with the addition of  making it a criminal offense for a parent to take notes on any test item - not one!

REP. SCHRODER'S THEATER OF THE ABSURD FEATURING YOUR CHILD'S TEST AS THE HOLY GRAIL!

In 2014, The People, LLC drafted and Rep. Schroder sponsored Act 436 which acknowledges parents' authority to have access to anything their children come into contact with at school.  "Secure assessments" were excluded from this access (although they were included in our original draft), because the Dept. of Ed. (DOE) would not agree to that provision and we were told that the Dept. has the votes lined up on the committee to kill any bill.

This was a win for parents, because schools can no longer prevent them from accessing and copying anything that their children come into contact with other than secure assessments. Being able to view and copy such materials gives parents the ability to gather necessary evidence to protect their children should the need arise.

What a difference a year makes!


A couple of weeks prior to the bill being scheduled for House Ed. Committee, Rep. Schroder received a "compromise" in the form of an amendment from the Dept. which instituted a process providing for a "review period" which:  

"begins at the latest 10 days after parents receive results and will last for 10 consecutive business days during which time parents who can travel to Baton Rouge may view for 2 hours and during regular business hours the assessment their child took along with their child's answers and results or a sample assessment.  They will have to notify the department of which they choose to see prior to their visit."


These provisions were not satisfactory to us and, by the time the bill was presented by Rep. Schroder to the House Ed. Committee, it became apparent that the "compromise" amendment from the Department of Education, actually involved quite a bit more:

--"'Assessment' does not include a national assessment that the state Dept. of Education is prohibited by the assessment vendor from providing to a parent for review."


Since it is exactly these assessments (and similar state assessments) that parents want and need to see, a bill claiming to provide Parental Access should instead prevent the Department from utilizing any assessment whereby the vendor prohibits the Department from providing such assessment to a parent for review.

The amendment provided by the department also included that parents will be provided access under the watchful eye of a DOE administrator and the threat of up to a $10,000 fine & 6 months in prison should the parent dare to "photocopy or photograph any assessment item or question or make handwritten or typed notes that identify an assessment item or question."   (emph. added)



When the bill went to the House floor May 20, Rep. Schroder did amend it to remove prison time from the criminal penalties parents may face.  As the bill stands today, parents who attempt to gather information they feel is necessary for them to take actions to protect their children will still face fines of up to $10,000 and the bogus cost of item replacement should it be determined that the test items are "no longer secure" due to the "actions of the parent".

We found it shocking that not one elected representative present in the House Education Committee had a problem with the addition of making it a criminal offense for a parent to take notes on any test item - not one!

If this bill becomes law, how will parents that believe the state has overstepped its bounds in relation to an assessment item come to their children's defense with no evidence? 

These are the same penalties applied to criminals who steal our children's personally identifiable information! Why did Rep. Schroder agree that parents should be treated as criminals for acting in defense of their children?!?  

Rep. Schroder gave "credit to the dept. for doing something" and the Dept. thanked Rep. Schroder "for working with us".


While all their patting each other on the back continues, Louisiana's Parental Access Law is being amended to take parents out of the driver's seat and placed firmly back under the thumb of the state while criminalizing parental authority.

The bill passed the House Floor unanimously on May 20, 2015 and moves onto the Senate where it is also expected to pass.  If you believe as we do that these changes are NOT better than nothing, our only recourse may be at the voting booth this November. In the meantime, you can contact the Senate Ed. Committee members regarding HB 648.





Wednesday, May 27, 2015

HR 5 REP. KLINE COZIES UP TO "TRANSATLANTIC ALLIES"‏

#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.

*********************************************************************

REPUBLIKAN INTERNATIONALIST REP. KLINE SPONSOR OF HR 5 - COZIES UP TO  "TRANSATLANTIC ALLIES"

Kline Leads Congressional Delegation to Discuss Education and Workforce Policies with Transatlantic Allies

“Our nations are wrestling with many of the same challenges,” said Chairman Kline, “and it was a pleasure to speak directly with our transatlantic allies about important issues facing our schools and workplaces. Our bipartisan delegation is grateful for the frank discussions and a robust exchange of ideas, and we hope this visit will strengthen our relationship with these vital friends and allies in Northern Europe.”

(Doesn't "transatlantic allies" sound nice?  This blog calls them "European socialists and communists")

ABCs of DumbDown: EURO-FEDERALISTS FINANCED BY US SPY CHIEFS

ABCs of DumbDown: ALERT: HR 5, the Student Success Act of 2015

Education and the Workforce Committee
Congressman John Kline, Chairman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 27, 2015
CONTACT: Press Office
(202) 226-9440

Kline Leads Congressional Delegation to Discuss Education and Workforce Policies with
Transatlantic Allies

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) and a bipartisan delegation of House members are traveling through Northern Europe to exchange ideas on ways to improve education and workforce competitiveness. In recent days, the congressional delegation participated in a number of meetings with senior government officials, education and business leaders, and others in Norway and Sweden. Members of the congressional delegation reaffirmed the strong relationship between the United States and its transatlantic allies and discussed a broad range of policies affecting schools and workplaces.

Among other events in Norway and Sweden, the delegation:

  • Met with members of the Labor and Social Affairs committee of the Norwegian parliament. Members of the delegation discussed with their Norwegian counterparts challenges regarding the country’s rising unemployment, immigration, and regulatory climate, as well as the importance of the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP). The meeting also discussed the need to raise the stature of vocational education and ensure students are obtaining skills for industry-demand jobs.
                                                              
  • Joined a working lunch with the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO) and Norwegian Educators. A representative from NHO discussed the need to deliver educational resources that are relevant to the demands of area businesses. The representative also described the country’s “two plus two” initiative, which provides students two years of educational instruction followed by two years of apprenticeship training. A representative for Norwegian Educators provided a brief overview of the Norwegian education system and the challenges it faces.
                                       
  • Visited the Fryshuset youth center and gymnasium in Stockholm, Sweden. Founded in 1984, Fryshuset provides creative and constructive activities to help youth develop into productive members of society. The center offers a number of sports and music-related activities and innovative educational programs. Members of the delegation discussed with Fryshuset leaders and participating youth the successes and struggles confronting the center.
                                       
  • Participated in a roundtable discussion with members of the Swedish parliament’s education and labor committees. Members of the delegation and their parliamentary counterparts addressed Sweden’s recent decline in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the difficulties Sweden faces reversing the decline. The discussion touched on a broad range of education issues, including teacher quality, school choice, and STEM education.
                       
  • Held separate meetings with members of the American Chamber of Commerce in Sweden and representatives from Sweden’s government, business, and labor sectors. These meetings focused on the importance of the proposed T-TIP as a way to boost economic growth and job creation by providing greater access to free and fair trade.  
The congressional delegation also participated in a number of meetings with senior leaders in the Norwegian and Swedish ministries of foreign affairs and defense, and joined a working dinner hosted by the speaker of the Swedish parliament. These discussions focused on the threat posed by Islamic extremism, as well as the significant challenges stemming from Russian aggression and provocation in the region.

“Our nations are wrestling with many of the same challenges,” said Chairman Kline, “and it was a pleasure to speak directly with our transatlantic allies about important issues facing our schools and workplaces. Our bipartisan delegation is grateful for the frank discussions and a robust exchange of ideas, and we hope this visit will strengthen our relationship with these vital friends and allies in Northern Europe.”

     
Members attend a working dinner hosted by the speaker of the Swedish parliament, Urban Ahlin, and other members of parliament and the Swedish foreign service.
 
                               
Congressional delegation meet with members of the Labor & Social Affairs committee of the Norwegian parliament.
The bipartisan delegation includes the following members:                                                  
  • Rep. John Kline (R-MN), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and member of the House Armed Services Committee;
                                                                                                                  
  • Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), chairman of the House Committee on the Budget and member of the House Committee on Ways and Means;
                              
  • Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Secretary of the Republican Conference, member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, chairwoman of the Higher Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee, and member of the House Committee on Rules;
                               
  • Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, and member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform;
                             
  • Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL), member of the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology;
                         
  • Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Environment; and
                                               
  • Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA), member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and House Committee on Agriculture.
To see more photos from Norway and Sweden, click here.
# # #

 

RED ALERT FROM ANITA HOGE REGARDING YOUR CHILDREN'S PRIVACY!

#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 Privacybill.
 
(Scroll down to end of this post for  comparison graph).
 
EXCERPTS:
 
The Pennsylvania state longitudinal data system is completebirth 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 seriouswhich it appears he is notabout 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 familys 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."
 
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”.
 
Please study the comparisons in the Part 2 graph that shows the contrast between the PPRA and Sen. Vitter's so-called No Privacybill.

*********************************************************************

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 recordin the Family Education Rights in Privacy Act (FERPA) to student datathroughout 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 evaluationthe affective domainthat requires permission, and Vitter then allows the special education teams to implement the entire affective domain list. Third party contractors and the defined school officialsSTILL have access to datain 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 dataand 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 officialsstill have access to data because of written agreements in the original version of FERPA. Pres. Obamas 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 individuals 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 students 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 completebirth 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 seriouswhich it appears he is notabout 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 familys 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.
 
Vitters 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 concerning8 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.

Obamas 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 DATABASENothing 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 concerning8 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 CHILDRENWITHOUT 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 Vitters 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 SEAs 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.