[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 9 (Friday, February 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I will now propound a unanimous-
consent request. After I complete the request, but prior to action on
that request by the Chair, I would like to make a brief explanatory
comment and then invite the comments of the minority leader in that
regard.
Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed
to the consideration of S. 1361, the school-to-work bill, no later than
10 a.m. on Monday, February 7, and that it be considered under the
following limitation:
That there be 1 hour for debate on the bill equally divided in the
usual form, with an additional 20 minutes for debate under Senator
Gregg's control; that the only first-degree floor amendments in order
be the following, and that they be subject to second-degree amendments
if they are relevant to the first-degree amendment, and limited to the
following time limitations if applicable:
An amendment by Senator Kassebaum that is relevant; an amendment by
Senator Kassebaum that is relevant;
An amendment by Senator Simpson regarding vocational education;
An amendment by Senator Coverdell that no new programs be funded
until the earthquake supplemental is paid for;
An amendment by Senator Nickles regarding funding, 2 hours equally
divided in the usual form;
An amendment by Senator Gorton regarding privatization, 2 hours
equally divided in the usual form;
An amendment by Senator Dole that is relevant;
An amendment by Senator Thurmond that is relevant;
An amendment by Senator Pressler that is relevant;
An amendment by Senator Thurmond that is relevant;
An amendment by Senator Chafee that is relevant;
An amendment by Senator Kerry of Massachusetts that is relevant;
An amendment by Senator Lautenberg that is relevant;
An amendment by Senator Kennedy that is relevant;
An amendment by Senator Kennedy that is relevant;
That all first-degree amendments must be offered by 6 p.m. on Monday,
February 7; that all time is to be equally divided in the usual form;
that upon the disposition of the above amendments and the committee
substitute, the bill be read a third time; the Senate then proceed to
the House companion H.R. 2884, as amended; that all after the enacting
clause be stricken and the text of S. 1361, as amended, be substituted
in lieu thereof, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of H.R.
2884; that the Senate then insist on its amendment, request a
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses,
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees, with the preceding
all occurring without any intervening action or debate; and that upon
the disposition of H.R. 2884, S. 1361 be indefinitely postponed;
further, that the second-degree amendments, if offered to a first-
degree amendment which had a time limitation, be under the same time
limitation as the first-degree amendment.
Madam President, that concludes the request. Before I ask the Chair
to act on it, I would like to put it in context.
We are now on the Goals 2000 education bill. This agreement deals
with the school-to-work education bill and, as stated, it contemplates
proceeding to the consideration of the school-to-work education bill by
no later than Monday, February 7. That means, obviously, that we have
to complete action on the Goals 2000 bill now pending before we go to
the school-to-work bill.
We are now working to try to get an agreement that would permit us to
do that by completing action on the pending amendments today, with
votes on those amendments to occur on Tuesday.
If we get that agreement, then we will proceed today to the school-
to-work bill and begin consideration of it because the agreement states
no later than 10 a.m. Monday, leaving open the possibility of
proceeding to it today. If we are unable to get that agreement, then we
will remain in session with amendments and voting in an attempt to
complete action through final passage of the Goals 2000 education bill
today.
It is my hope and my intention that the latter course of action not
occur; that is to say, that we not be required to continue and have the
votes on amendments and final passage today but, rather, that we reach
an agreement that will permit us to complete consideration of the
amendments, but have the votes set over until Tuesday with final
passage on that.
That is the context in which we are operating. We do not yet have a
final agreement. We are awaiting a response from one Senator, but as
soon as that occurs, I hope we can get an agreement of the type and of
the content I have just described with respect to the Goals 2000
legislation.
I ask, before the Chair acts on the pending unanimous-consent
request, that the minority leader be recognized for any comments he may
wish to make.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I think the majority leader stated it
correctly. I just urge my colleagues to cooperate. We are trying to
accommodate colleagues on both sides who are on official business in
some cases, and in other cases have serious illnesses in their family
or family in the hospital.
So it is going to depend on cooperation today and, as I said, it is
also going to depend on cooperation on Monday.
I see some of these amendments have a couple hours to complete. I
guess as long as they are offered before 6 p.m., they can be debated
after 6 p.m. So I guess that will not be a problem.
I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to try to cooperate
with the managers. They have done an excellent job. Both of these are
very important pieces of legislation.
It is my hope that we can work out the agreement on the pending bill,
Goals 2000.
As I add it up, that may mean as many as 10 votes on Tuesday. But
that would at least give us the agreement today, give us the agreement
Monday, and move these bills out of here as we go to the supplemental.
I assume that will take a day or two next week.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, if I
may, I would just ask what the intention of the majority leader will be
with this particular amendment, 1386, on which the time will be
expiring in 15 or 20 minutes. Is he desirous to go ahead with the vote
on that at this time?
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, if we can reach an agreement that will
permit us to complete action on the Goals 2000 bill today and set the
votes over until Tuesday, I am prepared to include the vote on the
pending amendment as one of those that will be set over to Tuesday.
That would accommodate the maximum number of Senators.
I want to repeat and make it clear so there can be no
misunderstanding: If we cannot reach such an agreement, then we will
vote on this amendment today, and we will stay here until we finish
this bill today, including votes on all pending amendments and voting
on final passage.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I guess my question is, should we defer voting on this
in a half hour or so, or until we have an opportunity to do so, so that
we do not inconvenience those who are not here?
Mr. MITCHELL. My answer is yes. My hope and understanding is we are
just waiting for a response from one Senator.
My hope is, in the remaining time of debate on this amendment, we
will get that response so we will then be able to get the agreement on
the Goals 2000 prior to the time when the vote would otherwise be
scheduled.
If that does not occur, then I will consult with the managers and the
Republican leader prior to the time the vote occurs.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I withdraw my reservation.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I would like to modify the request to
add two amendments by Senator Byrd that are relevant.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. I hope we
do not disadvantage the Senator from Massachusetts, who as usual has
demonstrated his leadership and legislative skill in handling these
education bills, and the Senator from Vermont likewise has been of
tremendous assistance.
We are now continuing debate on this amendment, and then hopefully we
will have a response and be able to make a decision and announcement
with respect to the rest of the day.
But, Madam President, I want to make clear so there can be no
misunderstanding on anyone's part, any Senator who leaves here now
leaves at his or her risk. If we do not reach an agreement, as I have
described, and there are going to be votes today, Senators should be
aware of that until such time as we reach an agreement.
I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, if I could address the majority leader,
has the unanimous-consent request been approved with regard to the
school-to-work program?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request has been approved.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, first, I want to state that I
understand very clearly what the majority leader has said, and it is
our intention to finish this bill today. Anyone who does leave leaves
at his or her peril, to offer amendments as well as to such votes as
may occur.
Mr. DODD. I yield myself 5 minutes.
Madam President, let me begin by saying to my colleague from Indiana,
who I have worked on many issues with, and my colleague from
Connecticut, for whom I have the highest regard and respect, that I do
not have any disagreement with their comments about the value of
private or parochial education. I am a product of St. Thomas the
Apostle, a Jesuit boys' school. I am very proud of the fact that my
parents made this choice. However, they never felt, in making that
choice, that public schools did not deserve their support or that they
should have been subsidized by the Federal Government. And that is
really what we are talking about here.
There is a fundamental difference of view as to whether or not we
ought to be in the business of funding a dual system of education,
whether it is a pilot program in 1 district or in 10 or in 100. My view
is this is fundamentally a bad idea, and bad ideas do not need to be
demonstrated.
One might suggest that perhaps we ought to increase the speed limit.
Why not try out a 100 miles-per-hour speed limit in certain districts
to see how it works? Or others might wonder if people who said they
were damaged by nuclear testing were really damaged and test again? I
think this notion of taking $30 million to test something which we know
is detrimental to our primary responsibility, public education, is
simply a bad idea and needs no demonstration.
Our primary responsibility is and must be to public education. That
has been a common commitment of Republicans and Democrats alike for a
century. We have worked to support education and we must continue to
work to improve the quality of public education in this country. We
must not pit one system against another. We made a decision long ago
that we had limited resources and we had to allocate those resources as
effectively as we could.
What we are asked by this amendment to do is to take $30 million out
of a fund that would otherwise go to public education and test an
idea--the idea that we can support two school systems.
In 1980, 9.1 percent of the money spent on elementary and secondary
education in this country came from the Federal Government. That was 14
years ago. Last year, only 5.6 percent was contributed by the Federal
Government. We have nearly halved our responsibility. At a time, when
it is clear that the cost of education has not gone down. They have
gone up.
And, who is bearing the larger costs? Our States and our local
communities.
Yesterday, I offered an amendment here, which was carried by a
unanimous vote, to put $20 million into making our schools safer. We
all know, and the Senator from West Virginia articulated it very
clearly, of the violence in our schools--130,000 kids with guns and
knives coming to school everyday. And yet, all we could come up with
was $20 million for every school district in this country to try to
grapple with the problem of violence.
The amendment we are considering now asks us to spend $30 million in
six school districts to test funding of private and parochial
education. I would like to get that $30 million and spend it in
communities in my State and across this country to stem the tide of
violence. I cannot get that kind of money. Yet we are being asked to
spend $30 million in six school districts.
Where are our priorities? The Senator from West Virginia is
absolutely correct. We all sense the frustration of what is going on in
our public school systems. It is angering to see our schools struggling
simply to keep children safe, when learning is what they should be
about.
I have a sister who teaches in the largest inner-city elementary
school in my State. To listen to her week after week talk about what is
going on with these children and infants who are just starting school.
It is frightening what happens in their homes.
The Senator from West Virginia is once again correct. It begins with
parents. That is where discipline begins. It should not be the job of
my sister or some other teacher to become a police officer, a religious
leader, or a psychologist. That should happen at home. Unfortunately,
there has been a tremendous breakdown there.
But to say now, because our schools are struggling to keep up with
the problems of the 21st century, we are going to wipe our hands, walk
away, and start funding private education with public taxpayer money.
This is ridiculous.
Now a number of States have examined this idea. The most recent was
the State of California. It was overwhelmingly defeated. Seventy-three
percent of the voters in that State said, ``Absolutely not. You are not
going to use my hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize private schools.''
Oregon has said the same; Colorado has said the same. In every State
where this idea has been brought to a by referendum, it has been
soundly defeated, because people honestly believe that we have to do a
better job in public education.
So my plea here is that I admire tremendously what private and
parochial education does. These schools provide an important
alternative to parents. And we must continue to be supportive of
private education.
But, with limited, scarce dollars--dollars that have been halved
effectively in a decade--we cannot allow six school districts in
America to try an idea that has been tried and brought up in other
places and has been rejected.
So I urge my colleagues, when this vote come up, to reject this
amendment. It was rejected 2 years ago, when offered by Senator Hatch,
by a vote of 57 to 36, I believe the vote was. My hope is this
amendment would be rejected, as well, when the vote occurs.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. How much time is remaining on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 9 minutes remaining for the
proponents of the amendment and 18 minutes remaining for the opponents
of the amendment.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I ask for 5 minutes.
Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes and the Senator from Rhode Island for 3 minutes.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I thank my colleague from
Connecticut. I commend him for his very stirring and very explicit and
very well thought-out speech. I think it was very persuasive.
I join him in strong opposition to this amendment. I, frankly, am
dismayed that we must once again consider an effort to shift scarce
Federal fund from our public schools to private and religious schools.
We are talking about taking $30 million away from our public schools to
spend on private school voucher programs in six school districts.
I want to remind my colleagues that the House and Senate have
recently gone on record against this ill-conceived policy.
In the last Congress, during consideration of the Neighborhood
Schools Improvement Act, the Senate soundly defeated, by a vote of 57
to 36, a similar amendment which would have provided vouchers for
students attending private and religious schools.
And, just last October, by a decisive vote of 300 to 130, the House
rejected an amendment to their Goals 2000 legislation which would have
earmarked funds for choice programs which could include private
schools.
Now we are faced once again with a proposal to benefit private and
religious schools at the expense of our public school system.
This Senator is a product of the public school system. This Senator
believes very strongly in the public school system and believes that we
can take no action on the floor of the Senate or in the Congress in
order to deter that battle that is being made in this country to bring
about a decent and effective public school system.
There are problems that exist in the public school system. There is
just no argument about that. But because we have those problems, do we
take $30 million away from the public school system and put it into the
private school system? This Senator very strongly thinks not.
And once again, Mr. President, this is the nose under the tent
amendment. While this proposal may be limited in scope, make no
mistake, passage of this amendment would set a dangerous precedent and
open the door to unlimited expansion of funding for private and
religious schools.
I cannot say too strongly that passage of this amendment would be a
terrible mistake, which would unwisely break down the barrier between
church and state and distract our attention from the real needs of our
public schools.
This amendment would divert scarce Federal resources to private and
religious schools at a time when public schools throughout our Nation
are facing serious financial problems.
In every region of the country, we have urban school districts which
lack the funds to make desperately needed building repairs. Class sizes
grow as budget crunches force teacher layoffs.
Many schools have had to eliminate sports and physical education
programs, art and music, and even essential counseling programs for at
risk children. Students lack access to computers and science labs, and
even basic textbooks, while teachers have to buy paper and pencils out
of their own pockets.
Many public school systems have great problems with violence in the
schools and guns in the schools. Are we going to be taking the money
away from those schools which face such challenges and put it into the
separate private and religious school system?
When we are asking our schools to deal with the increasingly
difficult problems caused by a rise in child poverty and other ills of
the society at large, it simply does not make sense for the Federal
Government to shift support from public education to private schools.
Supporters of vouchers argue that somehow competition will lead to
overall school improvement. Yet the competition is inherently unfair,
since it will not be conducted on a level playing field. Why? Because
private schools do not have to meet all the requirements imposed on
public schools.
Public schools are accountable to the community and must accept and
keep all children who want to attend, including those with behavior
problems, low achievement levels, severe disabilities, lack of English
skills, or lack of motivation. The public schools must accept all those
children, and rightfully so. They should. Private schools can select
students based on virtually any criteria they wish. In fact, although
proponents claim that private school voucher plans offer parental
choice, this is misleading. In reality, it is the private schools which
ultimately make the choice about admission, not the parents.
Under a voucher plan, private schools will be able to skim the best
students, and the dollars to support them, leaving those with the most
severe problems for the public schools to deal with. This is likely to
lead to even greater inequity between rich and poor, and encourage
further divisions in our society along religious, racial, and economic
lines.
I would like to know how this can be considered a fair competition,
or how it will lead to public school improvement.
And that, President, is the bottom line. This amendment will do
nothing to improve our public schools, which the majority of American
students attend.
Throughout our Nation's history, public schools have played a
fundamental role in preparing children from diverse backgrounds to take
their place in our democracy. And never before have we asked as much of
our schools as we do at this moment.
We ask schools to deal with all the problems of our society--poverty,
drugs, violence, teen pregnancy, and disintegrating families. And, at
the same time, we expect our schools to turn out students with the
advanced skills they will need to compete in the high tech, global
economy of the future.
Is it any wonder that despite heroic efforts, some of our schools are
in crisis and are not doing as well as they should by our children?
But the solution is not to abandon them. The solution is to commit
the support and the resources necessary to help those schools improve
so that all our Nation's schools are worth choosing, rather than
provide $30 million to the private and parochial school system.
That is the approach taken by President Clinton's Goals 2000: Educate
America Act. The Goals 2000 legislation demonstrates our commitment to
the national education goals and establishes a program to help all our
public schools achieve those goals. Instead of quick fixes and easy
answers like vouchers, the President has proposed a sustained
commitment to helping our public schools improve through comprehensive,
systemic reform. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act will help all our
schools to become worthy of choice, so that all American children have
access to an excellent education.
This amendment, by contrast, proposes to save our schools by
abandoning them. It will do nothing to help our public schools or to
solve our education crisis.
And the American people apparently agree that choice is not the magic
bullet which will solve our education problems. When given the
opportunity to vote on the question, Americans have consistently turned
down proposals to establish voucher programs in their States.
Just last November, 70 percent of California voters said no to a
school voucher proposal. Referenda on vouchers were defeated in
Colorado in 1992 and in Oregon in 1990, both by 2-to-1 margins. In
1991, the voters of Portsmouth, NH, turned down a voucher proposal by a
margin of almost 5 to 1.
This amendment is opposed by the Clinton administration and by a
broad coalition of education and religious groups. A partial list of
these groups includes: the American Association of School
Administrators, the American Association of University Women, the
American Federation of Teachers, the American Jewish Committee, the
American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public
Affairs, the Council of Great City Schools, the General Board of
Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, the General
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, the National Association of
Elementary School Principals, the National Association of State Boards
of Education, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National
Education Association, the National PTA, the National School Boards
Association, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and the
Unitarian Universalist Association.
The American voters, the administration, and these respected
organizations are exactly right on this issue. If we want to remain
competitive as a Nation and give all our children the tools they need
to succeed in life, we must direct all our resources and efforts toward
improving our system of public education. We must not allow ourselves
to be diverted by voucher amendments which will ultimately do nothing
to help our Nation reach its education goals.
I believe very strongly that, if we believe in our public school
system we cannot, here, today, do anything to detract or deter the
public school system from doing the job we so much want it to do. It
calls upon all of us, whether we think it is right or wrong to help the
private and parochial school systems, to first concern ourselves about
the public schools. That is our primary responsibility, our primary
obligation. I do hope this amendment will be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Madam President, as we all know, the Federal Government is
not the major player in education. That is a role played by State and
local government. The Federal role is a small but highly targeted one,
providing assistance primarily in areas of clearly defined needs.
Because of that, I believe our emphasis should be upon those schools
that serve the vast number of students in our Nation, namely the public
schools.
Basically, I am of the mind that the way to achieve educational
excellence nationwide is to have the schools that are open to all
students be second to none in the world. The investment we make in
public education will unqestionably determine our future strength as a
nation.
Make no mistake about it, our public schools are in trouble; they
need our help. Teachers are overburdened with large classes and need
opportunities to upgrade their skills. Many schools lack adequate
science facilities. Students go without updated textbooks and a safe
environment in which to learn. These are the needs where we should be
directing Federal resources to make our schools the best in the world.
There are some who say that competition with private schools will
cause public schools to become more responsive to parents and more
likely to make needed improvements. Unfortunately, public and private
schools do not compete on a level playing field.
Public schools must serve all students. Private schools choose who
they serve and may ask students to leave if they have behavior problems
or other difficulties. Public schools often do not have that luxury,
and must deal directly with problems that private schools do not.
Private schools, as we all know, make extremely valuable
contributions to American education. They give a quality of excellence
that is truly needed and important to the Nation. But precisely because
the Federal role is a small and targeted one, the public schools should
be our first concern, and to make them schools of excellence must be
our first responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, how much time remains in opposition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has
approximately 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. Three minutes? Madam President, I will yield--how much
time does the Senator from Indiana have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the amendment have 18
minutes remaining. The opponents of the amendment have approximately 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield such time as the Senator from Washington
requires--the remaining time to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Would it be
possible at all for the opponents to request additional time?
Mr. COATS. This agreement was worked out over a period of 2 days. If
the Senator from Washington wants to go speak to the majority leader--I
think he is insistent we move forward today. We have an hour of time of
which we have used--most of it. I cannot make that decision.
Mr. KENNEDY. Can we ask consent that 5 minutes more be added for the
Senator from Indiana and an additional 5 minutes for the Senator from
Washington?
Mr. COATS. I have no objection to that. But I do not know----
Mr. MACK. Reserving the right to object. It really is not my
intention to object, but I am interested in being able to offer an
amendment myself and, like many of my colleagues, I have other demands
at my State later on in the day.
Mr. KENNEDY. Objection has been heard. I yield the remaining time to
the Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise to speak about the amendment
before us, offered by Senators Coats and Lieberman, which provides for
private school vouchers.
There has been so much talk recently about the need to improve public
education. Our President pro tempore spoke eloquently just a few
moments ago. I know from firsthand experience the challenges our
schools face today. There is no doubt that our public schools are in
need of help. Many are overcrowded and underfunded. Many must deal with
violence, drugs, and health issues. They need our help and to abandon
them now with the passage of this amendment is the wrong message. We
should be sending a message to our youth that we are committed to
quality education for all Americans.
Some of my colleagues believe that private school choice is the
solution to many of our problems in education. Some are not certain
what private school choice would do to our education system but have
somehow decided it is all right to spend some of our precious education
dollars on this to see what happens. As a former school board member, I
have always had serious reservations about private school choice,
particularly from a Federal standpoint, and am convinced that choice
would not improve our current system. It will do more harm than good.
Let me tell you why.
Choice is based on the idea that competition between public and
private schools is healthy and can weed out the weaker schools. I agree
that competition is healthy when it is based on an even playing field.
The problem is that public and private schools are not equal because
they follow two very different sets of rules and regulations.
Public schools must take all children, private schools can select who
they want. Public schools must obey due process and public disclosure
rules when they need to suspend or expel their students; private
schools are under no such obligations. Public schools must obey
Federal, State, or local regulations pertaining to health and safety,
civil rights, bilingual and special education, curriculum and
textbooks, and credentials of staff. Private schools are either wholly
or largely exempt from such regulations. Private and public schools are
not, nor should they be considered equals.
As for the argument that choice would increase accountability in
education, again we must realize that private schools follow different
rules. Private schools do not have to account to the public. They do
not have to account for their admissions procedures, the nature and
quality of their educational programs, or the source of their funds or
how they spend them. Our tax money under the voucher system could go to
building hot tubs at private schools or to schools teaching bizarre
rituals and there would be no school board or constituents or taxpayers
who could do a thing about it. Is that what we want? At a time when we
are understandably looking for more accountability in education, there
is justification for giving public funds to schools that are not
accountable to the public.
We also must recognize the potential impact such legislation would
have on States, such as Washington, that constitutionally prohibit
public funds from going to sectarian institutions or public funds for
private use which would prohibit funds from going to academies and
nonsectarian schools. We could be opening our States to lengthy and
expensive legal battles they can ill afford.
Transportation costs, costs of educating parents on the choices they
have, concerns over the possibility that choice would create segregated
schools, and administrative problems, the list is endless of the issues
we would be concerned with if this amendment were to pass
I believe in our public schools. As a product of Washington State
public schools and as a mother of two public school students, I am
proud of what our schools are doing today. This amendment undermines
our public schools by diverting scarce public resources to private
schools. This amendment I believe takes us away from what we are really
here to do and that is to improve our public schools. I urge my
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
To charge that public schools have no control over discipline is to
forget that discipline and control begins at home.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Madam
President, it seems the argument we are hearing from those who oppose
the amendment that Senator Lieberman and I are offering is that we have
to save the system. I do not hear anybody saying we have to save the
student. The purpose of this amendment is to test an idea that is
directed toward giving the student a better opportunity, giving low-
income students on opportunity that others have because they have the
financial means to opt out of a school that is not meeting their
children's educational needs or other needs. What is a low-income
parent do to, in an inner-city location where there is only one public
school available if that school is not teaching their child
sufficiently; if that school jeopardizes their health and safety
because of violence or because of lack of discipline, if that school
lacked the kind of things the Senator from West Virginia talked about?
Parents of means can do what Senator Dodd's parents have done, and
many other parents have done, by saying, ``We're going to send our
child to a school that we feel gives them a better education.''
But low-income parents, parents from the inner city, do not have that
choice. Why should that choice be available to those who have the funds
to make that decision but not available to those who do not? Why should
a mother from an inner city who is scared to death about her child's
health and safety and is convinced that her child is not getting one
whit of education or cannot begin to compete with other children who
have options of going elsewhere because the particular school in that
area is simply not doing the job, why should that mother not have the
same choice that other parents have?
I do not understand this idea that we have to save the system. The
system is broken in some places and needs to be changed. I am saying
this as a parent who sent all three of his children to public schools,
and as one who has benefited from and supported public schools.
Mr. MACK. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COATS. For goodness sake, for those who are not happy with their
schools, can we not give them a choice? I think it makes the public
schools better. I think it gives the parent a choice. We must decide
what is in the best interest of the student, not the system.
I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. MACK. Madam President, I want to make a point with respect to
saving the system. I met an educator out in California by the name of
Anyim Palmer who was a public schoolteacher and became so angry because
everyone was interested in protecting the system and not in providing
an education to the children that he quit and several years later
started his own private school to give the benefits that you have been
talking about to those who so desperately need them.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator from Florida.
Madam President, we are not talking about an amendment which
eliminates the public school system or mandates choice for anybody. We
are talking about an amendment that sets up a pilot program on a
voluntary basis for six school systems in this country--six. A $30
million program to be administered by the Secretary of Education to try
and see if it makes a difference, to see if it works.
All I am saying to the opponents of this measure, for those who are
coming down here like Horatio at the bridge and defending the public
school system is, it is an idea that some people think has merit. Why
do we not try it to see if it does? What are you afraid of? The
results? If the results come in and they are positive, should we not
then use it as a basis to make some changes? After all, it is going to
benefit the students who are the recipients of those changes.
Our goal here should not be to save some system. Our goal should be
to ask the question: How can we improve education for our young people
in this country? Why not try some innovative programs on an
experimental basis to see if they work? I think our attention and focus
ought to be on the students and what is best for them, not on the
system and what might preserve it when I think unanimously, or almost
unanimously, most acknowledge that system is in dire need of some
repair.
I yield back--I do not know if I used my 5 minutes or not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has just expired.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Will the Senator yield me 5 minutes?
Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield whatever time the Senator from
Connecticut needs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Indiana. I think the Senator from Indiana has really put his finger on
the appropriate focus. Too often when people talk about choice--and it
has happened here again this morning--they talk about a battle between
the public schools and the private and parochial schools. That really
is not and should not be the issue.
In the first place, that battle is settled. Our primary
responsibility is to public schools. It is not the time nor the reason
to discuss it here, but I have spent a lot of my public career
supporting public schools, and I intend to continue to do so. That
issue is decided.
But when you get into that kind of conflict, it masks what the
Senator from Indiana has correctly said should be our primary focus,
which is the children; what is the best way to reach and educate our
children.
Again, this amendment is totally within the spirit of the underlying
bill, Goals 2000, which sets some goals about how to educate our
children and then I think not only suggests some paths but provides
some money to local school systems around the country to try to
innovate, to try to reform because everyone knows--and the bill accepts
the premise--that the current system of education is failing too many
of our children. It is in that spirit that Senator Coats and I have
offered this as an amendment.
Some say that school choice is the solution to our problems. We are
not saying that. We are saying that this is a positive, creative idea;
that there seems to be some very good things happening in the private
and parochial schools and let us test it, let us see how choice works.
Let us see how a true choice system in only six communities in our
country--incidentally, again, it is only $30 million out of the
hundreds of billions that are spent every year--Federal, State, and
local--on the public schools, let us test and see what works, let us
see how the choice affects the children, let us see how the choice
affects their parents, let us see how the choice affects the public
schools and then let us come back and make a reasoned judgment.
Madam President, on the question of the money, again, it is a small
amount of money that we are investing in this test which could have
enormous implications positively for our children. But let us remember
also that every boy or girl educated in a private or parochial school
is one less child educated in the public school system and, therefore,
in that sense reduces the cost of public school education. And every
time a parochial or other religious-sponsored-based school system
closes, as I said before, as they have with alarming frequency in my
State because they do not have the money to go forward, then by and
large, those children, particularly the poorest of them go to the
public schools and that costs the public school more money.
So I say that an investment in the private and parochial school
system, as we are going to test here, really could be not a subtraction
of an enormous amount of money available for the public schools but in
fact make more money available to them because of this.
The question was raised about, OK, the private and parochial schools
are doing a good job but why should the public support them? I think we
have spoken to that. Let me add a few more points on that. One is that
there are significant Federal, State, and local programs of education
support that do go now to children at the private and parochial
schools. Chapter One, a special program in the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, is aimed at helping children and it helps children who
qualify at private and parochial schools. Unfortunately, there was a
Supreme Court decision, a ridiculous one, in my opinion, that said the
money can go to the kids at the parochial schools so long as they were
not inside the parochial school buildings when they receive the special
assistance that poor children are eligible for. So schools have had to
buy or lease trailers which they put alongside the parochial school and
take the kids out for that special education. But the fact is that this
is not a precedent creator. This exists now.
Let us take the GI bill which is just about the most popular and
admired program the Federal Government has had for education.
Nobody told the recipients of the GI bill they could only go to a
public school of higher education. They went to wherever they wanted to
go, including the religiously sponsored colleges and private colleges.
Why? Because the aim of that program was to educate people, not to
support a particular set of institutions. This is another way to do the
same.
Finally, reference was made to California and the rejection of a
school choice proposal initiative there. I wish to say, very briefly,
that was a big proposal that was controversial and it went much further
than this proposal.
This amendment is modest, both in scope and in dollars committed to
it, and it is again just a way to test. Incidentally, the test will be
evaluated by the Department of Education of the United States of
America--to put it mildly, not biased in favor of school choice
perhaps. I do not say that to denigrate the Department. I do it to say
the evaluation of the test under this program will be an extremely
impartial one.
So let us not be defensive about what exists now. Let us acknowledge
in the spirit of the Goals 2000 bill that we have a long way to go to
see that our kids are better educated. We ought not worry so much about
the camel's nose under the tent, but we ought to be anxious to open the
door of the tent a little bit to let some fresh light in to see whether
it can better educate our children. That is what our goal is in
submitting this amendment.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COATS. May I inquire, Madam President, how much time is
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. COATS. I do not know whether we need to use all that time. Let me
summarize the amendment, and then if there is time remaining we can
yield it back.
I wish to make sure my colleagues understand what we are talking
about here is a pilot program. It is a test concept that has been
discussed at great length across the country in educational circles.
Many believe, as do I, that it is an option that all parents ought to
have; that it should not be reserved just for the wealthy; that low-
income parents, if they are unhappy with the education their child is
receiving at the local public school, ought to have an option to secure
an education for their child at the school of their choice as wealthy
parents have the opportunity to do.
This amendment is modest. It is $30 million. It goes to six
demonstration projects around the country. Those projects have to be
directed toward low-income students. This money is not going to go to
anyone except those who qualify for subsidies under the school lunch
program. There are even directions that the Secretary favor those
applications which have a considerable number of the lowest income
students.
It is strictly a voluntary program. No educational agency or parent
will have to participate in this program if they do not want to apply
for this program. So if a community is applying, it simply means that
the public educators in that community have decided they want to
participate in the program.
As I mentioned, there are public and private school educators in
Indiana who have met and begun to discuss the idea. The public schools
should not be afraid of it. In many instances public and private
schools exist side by side and are complementary to each other rather
than one pulling the other one down.
I also want to point out that there are civil rights and racial
discrimination and desegregation protections built in our amendment.
There is also a very specific prohibition protecting any public school
that participates in this project from being denied one cent of money
that is otherwise available to it from the Secretary of Education.
Because some of their students opt out of the school, the amount of
funds going to that school from the Federal Government may not be
reduced by a penny. So nobody is going to be hurt by this project.
What we will do is end up with some information that will allow us to
evaluate the concept to enable us, as a body, to decide how we may want
to build on the results. It will also provide information and a good
test to all those other educational systems and State educational
agencies around the country that may be wondering if some of the fears
that are raised about choice valid or not. Similarly, are the claims
about the benefits of choice valid or not valid? It will give them an
opportunity to evaluate these questions.
This amendment has bipartisan support. I hope we can make a decision
not on the basis of what saves the system, because the system, I think
everybody agrees, needs to be modified and changed if we are going to
provide better educational opportunities for our children. Rather, we
should make a decision based on what is in the best interest of
children and, in this case, what is in the best interest of low-income
children from primarily urban areas that simply do not have the choice
as many of the rest of us.
So with that, I hope we could at least give this a test and support
this amendment when it comes up for a vote on Tuesday.
Madam President, I yield back whatever time I have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 45 seconds remaining.
The time is yielded.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Right to the point, we are again considering a proposal
to add private schools to the public tab. We considered this issue in
the Senate in 1978, in 1983, and again in 1992. Each time we rejected
it in a bipartisan manner.
But we are back at it. This drumbeat for vouchers, tuition tax
credits, and privatization comes from an economic theory that we have
an equal duty to give taxpayer dollars to public schools and private
schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government's duty
to the public is to provide public schools. The duty of the Government
toward private schools is to leave them alone. That way we guarantee
all our children a school system and keep government out of private
education and religion.
Again, we hear the drumbeat for ``competition.'' First, let us look
at the unfair playing field on which this competition would take place.
Your public school is required by law to take all comers. It must
educate every child. It takes the rich, the poor, the smart, the slow,
the one that has an attention deficit, the one that speaks Spanish.
This makes sense because we want every child in this country to have
access to elementary and secondary education. We invest every child.
The alternative is to have a system that chooses winners and losers
from the start, that chooses who will rule and who will serve. That is
the importance of universal education. It is why we have dedicated
ourselves in this country to a system that provides free, public
education to all children.
The private school, however, does not take all comers. It supports
itself and makes its own policies. For example, 71 percent of Catholic
high schools require an entrance exam, as do 43 percent of other
religious schools and 66 percent of independent private schools. Those
who can't get past these exams are accepted into the public school. I
am not speaking about theory here. In the Milwaukee voucher experiment,
40 percent of the poor children seeking to participate could not find a
private school that would accept them. So a voucher system would have
parents paying for schools that could reject their children. It would
have children not accepted into school in the first place. And it would
have the public school that takes all children competing against the
private school that can limit access to a select group of bright, well-
balanced, motivated children.
These different admissions policies--and, of course, tuition and
religious convictions--produce different student bodies. The parents of
a public school child are more than twice as likely to have less than a
high school education. The parents of a private church school are half-
again as likely to have a college education as the parents of a public
school child. Parents at nonsectarian private schools, are three times
more likely to have a college education.
The public school parent is about three times as likely as the
private school parent to have an income below $15,000. The private
school parent is more than twice as likely to have an income above
$50,000. We hear about Catholic schools doing good work in cities, and
that is true. However, only 2 percent of Catholic schools overall fall
in the lowest income quartile for students, and in the urban areas
where nearly a fifth do, the public schools are twice as poor.
The amazing thing is that these stark differences do not result in
significantly different education outcomes. On our National Assessment
for Educational Progress, high school seniors in private schools were
only 7 points higher on a 500-point scale in math. And a larger
percentage of the public school seniors actually scored at the top
achievement level. This slight overall private school edge disappears
completely when you control for the education levels of the parents.
Even Chester Finn--President Reagan's Assistant Secretary for
Education--said ``With differences that large in parent education, it
is conceivable that there is no (private) school effect showing up here
at all.'' This man is a voucher advocate, and the National Assessment
of Educational Progress results are backed up by another national test:
The Federal High School and Beyond survey.
These general findings are driven home in the Milwaukee experiment.
After evaluating the program for 3 years, Professor John Witte writes
that ``When we controlled for other relevant variables, however, the
effect of being in a choice school was insignificant.''
So two aspects of this call for competition have become clear. One is
that public schools take all comers while private schools pick and
choose. The other is that public schools and private schools achieve
much the same results, though I would add that neither is doing well
enough. We can never do well enough, but the idea that we will improve
the system by draining funds from public schools to fund private
schools that aren't any better is ridiculous. It also is obviously a
direct threat to the public schools that give most people in this
country opportunity.
Then, there is the issue of religion. Eighty-one percent of private
schools are religious schools. You can argue about whether the aid goes
to the parent or the child or the school, but this is an obvious
constitutional concern when millions of dollars flow to pervasively
sectarian institutions that will then lobby this Congress for yet more
funding.
Again, you can consider not only the theory, but also our experience
in Milwaukee. The Milwaukee program does not allow sectarian religious
schools to participate. So one school dropped its religious emphasis in
order to join the voucher program. Then the school's parents rebelled,
so it reinstated religious instruction and backed out of the voucher
program. Sixty-three voucher children were returned to the public
schools. Then the school went bankrupt.
This example shows why we have safeguards for the public through
regulations that require public decisionmaking. The academic planning
and financial soundness is on the table for public debate and
development. But we cannot implement similar safeguards on a private
school sector that is 81 percent religious without risking dangerous
entanglement of church and State. We either spend taxpayers' money
without accountability, or we have accountability that interferes with
religion, or we entice the private schools to choose between money and
their beliefs. Mr. President, this voucher movement invites the snake
into the garden--not just of public schools--but of private schools
too.
Finally, we can't ignore the fact that no voucher plan I know of
covers transportation. Tuition is not the whole story by a longshot.
Ask any State legislator what the perennial issues are in education,
and you will hear ``the bus fleet.'' We worry about quality drivers,
aging buses, and adequate routes. This massive effort ensures that the
children--particularly of parents with full work schedules, who may
work an early morning or night shift, or who may live miles from a
rural school--can get the public education to which they are entitled.
Tuition grants usually are not proposed to cover all of tuition, much
less transportation. Particularly in a State like South Carolina,
transportation is essential.
On that note, what have the States said about this private school
voucher idea? Well, while the U.S. Senate has said ``no'' to the
private school lobby three times, but the States have said ``no'' 19
times. In 19 of the 20 times private school funding has been considered
statewide since 1966 it has been defeated. It has been defeated twice
since we last considered it in the Senate--in Colorado and most
recently in California. In both places it lost 2-to-1. Mr. President,
we have a lot of needs out there and scarce funds. I don't know why we
at the Federal level continue to consider providing tax money to States
for something they don't want and parents don't want. The only poll
that counts is the ballot box, and private school funding is a
significant loser there.
Mr. President, the States have the primary responsibility, but I am
proud to say that the Federal Government has not been idle. Go down to
The Mall and read the wall of the memorial to Thomas Jefferson: He
urged his colleagues to ``Establish the law for educating the common
people * * *. That it is the business of the State to effect and on a
general plan.'' And what was his proudest achievement? His epitaph
reads: ``Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of
American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious
Freedom, and father of the University of Virginia.'' Becoming President
of the United States was left off, founding a public university was
left in.
We have James Garfield, accepting his nomination to be President:
Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular
education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be
permanently maintained.
We have President Kennedy:
Education is the keystone in the arch of freedom and
progress. Nothing has contributed more to the nation's
strength and opportunities than our traditional system of
free, universal elementary and secondary education, coupled
with widespread availability of college education.
We have President Johnson:
The American people, among their notable contributions to
the arts and crafts of civilization have insisted that
education not be the prized possession of the few.
We have the Federal judiciary, in interpreting the law: ``Today,
education is perhaps the most important function of State and local
government,'' said Chief Justice Warren. ``The public school was the
true melting pot * * *'' said Justice Douglas. ``The public school is
at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for
promoting our common destiny,'' said Justice Felix Frankfurter.''
And we have the Congress, encouraging the establishment of public
schools, colleges, and universities through the Northwest Ordinance of
1787, and the First and Second Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890.
Mr. President, after the Federal Government has spent 200 years
urging States to build, maintain, and improve a public school system,
let's not put termites in the foundation. There are always those, who
when a public commitment runs into problems, say ``let's privatize
it.'' But we would not have built a public school system in the first
place if it were not fundamental to our democracy.
My colleagues know that history often repeats itself. In the
Dictionary of American Biography that Horace Mann became Secretary of
the Massachusetts Board of Education in 1837. At that time, the public
schools had ``a multitude of evils, including disastrous
decentralizations, a decline in public interest, and a decrease of
financial support.'' We read that ``Free schools, the one-time glory of
colonial Massachusetts, were now regarded with contempt by the well-to-
do-classes, who more and more patronized private schools * * * One-
sixth of the children of the State were being educated in private
schools and academies and one third were without any educational
opportunities whatsoever.'' We read that ``His first task was to arouse
and to educate public opinion with reference to the purpose, value, and
needs of public education.''
By the time he left, standards and salaries were raised, numerous
improvements were made, the budget was doubled, and ``fifty new high
schools were established * * * opportunities for free public secondary
education became widely distributed throughout the State.'' State after
State sought his advice to follow suit.
Mr. President, Horace Mann is not remembered in history for
abandoning the commitment to a free education for all children. We
should not be either. I hope today that we will agree with the
taxpayers, the voters, and the parents to keep our commitment to public
schools and leave private schools alone.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment for many
reasons: Public school dollars should not support private schools.
It is wrong to shift money from public schools which serve the common
good--all children in all communities--to pay for a few to go to
private or parochial schools. This is especially true in these times of
fiscal stress and shrinking budgets.
Basic education has a greater impact on social progress, economic
productivity, and political participation than any other public
service. We need a strong common school, reflecting the values of the
Nation, to provide a quality education--for any student, regardless of
race, class, or ethnic background--and to be accountable to the public.
We should reform our public schools, not abandon them. Private school
choice undermines our much-needed commitment to improving the public
schools and replicating successful State and local initiatives all
across the United States.
The Federal Government has a limited but important role to play in
school reform: to encourage public school reform through proven
strategies. We know what good schools contain. The task at hand is to
produce more exemplary schools. In schools like the Mason School in
Roxbury, MA, every student in the school, no matter what his or her
background, is learning and making progress. Now it's time to encourage
and support the replication of schools like the Mason School.
Critics are right when they say that educational bureaucracy and top-
down management contribute to the present difficulties. The solution
lies in encouraging the characteristics which distinguish good public
schools: excellent local leadership, a sense of purpose shared by the
principal and staff, teacher professionalism, and the use of proven,
effective teaching practices.
We should also support strategies like charter schools, magnet
schools, and interdistrict public school choice plans that encourage
creativity and innovation.
The best available evidence suggests that private school choice
neither improves student achievement nor stimulates school renewal.
In 1992, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
after a yearlong study in which they visited schools nationwide,
studied the literature, and conducted a survey of 1,000 parents,
published a comprehensive and substantive report on choice. They found
that there is no evidence that either competition or vouchers improves
education. The educational impact of school choice is ambiguous at
best.
Choice is based on a flawed assumption that schools are like markets,
and that markets ensure quality.
In the first place, education is not a commodity. It is a uniquely
human experience, influenced by dozens of factors besides the threat of
being overcome by competitors.
In the second place, lots of junk survives the consumers' taste test.
Proponents of this legislation assume that schools are like cars: bound
to improve under competitive pressure. But people don't always go for
quality. For instance, in the limited choice system in Fall River, MA,
a 1990 survey revealed that the main reason parents select their first-
choice school is proximity to home. Others give reasons such as
convenience, social atmosphere, or family tradition. Competitive sports
programs are also a big draw. But high academic standards actually send
kids running; students in one Minnesota district transferred to another
school with easier graduation requirements.
Private schools do not have to accept all students who choose them.
Public schools take all comers. Private schools don't. Private
schools may choose whom to admit and they may discard students who
misbehave or who have learning disabilities. Private schools may not
admit a child unless he or she is a member of the right socioeconomic
class, ethnic group, religion, or has the right combination of
intellectual, athletic, and creative abilities or otherwise fits into
the market niche the private school has established. We should not
subsidize education which is only available to the lucky ones who fit
this niche.
The most recent poll shows that most Americans oppose school choice.
In the 1993 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes
toward public schools, 74 percent of Americans opposed allowing
students and parents to choose a private school at public expense.
In the referendum on vouchers in California last November, the public
rejected vouchers by over 73 percent.
For all these reasons, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject
this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see our colleague, the Senator from
Iowa, in the Chamber at this time, so I would ask unanimous consent
that the Senator's amendment be temporarily set aside. We are prepared
to move ahead on a vote, but following the recommendation of the
leader, we will temporarily hold on that request, although we expect to
continue the debate on various amendments.
The Senator from Iowa has an amendment we will consider. Following
that, the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack, has an amendment. Then
possibly Senator Gregg. We are moving along and, hopefully, that issue
can be resolved. Then, quite frankly, we are very close to--I
understand at the present time Senator Helms might be considering
additional amendments. There are others who have amendments that are
very important and we have had the opportunity to talk about. They want
to make some kind of statement or expression.
But I give that kind of update of where we are. As the leader said,
we will remain here during the course of the day and then after the
discussion on this legislation we may begin the debate on the school-
to-work program. I know Senator Coverdell has an amendment he may want
to address.
That is at least our hope about the way we proceed. That judgment
will ultimately be made by the leaders.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry?
Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the Coats amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I would ask for the yeas and nays on the Coats
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. I have asked unanimous consent that the Coats amendment
be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. If it is okay with the managers of the bill, I would
defer for 4 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas--if it is okay with
the managers.
Mr. KENNEDY. It is always okay with the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Amendment No. 1387
(Purpose: To provide for intergenerational mentoring programs)
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, the graciousness of my colleague from
Iowa and my colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, I deeply appreciate.
Today, Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of
myself, Senators Levin, Pell, Feingold, and Reid.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], for himself, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Pell, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Reid, proposes an
amendment numbered 1387.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 6, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
(6) the term ``intergenerational mentoring program'' means
a program that--
(A) matches adult mentors, with a particular emphasis on
older mentors, with elementary and secondary school age
children for the purposes of sharing experience and skills;
(B) is operated by a nonprofit organization or governmental
agency;
(C) provides opportunities for older individuals to be
involved in the design and operation of the program; and
(D) has established, written mechanisms for screening
mentors, orienting mentors and proteges, matching mentors and
proteges, and monitoring mentoring relationships;
On page 7, line 4, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
On page 7, line 9, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
On page 7, line 15, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
On page 7, line 20, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(11)''.
On page 7, line 23, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(12)''.
On page 8, line 3, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(13)''.
On page 8, line 5, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(14)''.
On page 8, line 8, strike ``(14)'' and insert ``(15)''.
On page 80, line 2, insert ``integenerational mentoring
programs,'' after ``agencies,''.
On page 90, line 10, strike ``and''.
On page 90, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
(I) supporting intergenerational mentoring programs; and
On page 90, line 11, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(J)''.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I understand this amendment has been
cleared on both sides of the aisle. I wish to thank the Chair and
ranking minority member and also the distinguished manager of this bill
for allowing this amendment to be accepted.
This amendment is going to pave the way for an exciting new thing to
happen in Goals 2000. It will mean that for the first time schools are
going to be able to tap into the vast pool of resources represented by
our older citizens. It is the very first step toward creating a
National Mentor Corps that will place trained, mature adults into the
public school system. It will match the needs of the young with the
talents of seniors in the effort to revitalize education in America.
Last spring, I introduced the National Mentor Corps Act with 29
cosponsors, to encourage our schools to use the experience and wisdom
of our mature adults in the classroom. By making the National Mentor
Corps a part of Goals 2000, we can provide our schools with an
important tool in their efforts to provide our young people with the
day-to-day guidance they need from us.
Growing up has always been hard. Growing up in America today is
especially hard.
Today's children are less likely to finish high school, and more
likely to get pregnant, die violently, or be arrested for violent
crimes. When our children leave the classroom at the end of the school
day, they are likely to encounter an empty home. In the fifties, 11
percent of America's children found no one home at the end of the day.
Today, 65 percent of our children go home to an empty house.
The job of being a parent today is also hard. Many of our parents are
struggling to raise their children, hold down a job, be active in their
community--in many cases, without the help and support of a spouse.
Is it any wonder that many of them find they have less time than they
would like to pass along to their children the special skills and
values they need to make it in this world?
As the Goals 2000 effort acknowledges, today's schools also face
special challenges. The individuals on the very front lines of this
uphill battle to educate America's students are the teachers, who have
some of the most difficult jobs imaginable.
If our schools are to succeed in turning out young adults who will
meet the challenges they face in the work force, they must be supported
in every way possible. This includes being able to supplement their
efforts in the classroom, and perhaps before and after school, with
help from individuals who have so much to offer--our older adults.
The purpose of Goals 2000 is to give our Nation's schools standards
to live up to so they can produce students who are prepared to enter
the work force, and to give them the tools they need to meet these
standards. I can think of no better way to strengthen their arsenal for
this fight than to give them the National Mentor Corps.
The intent of this amendment is to encourage States to use
intergenerational mentoring for State educational improvements. First,
it would ask States, in developing State improvement plans, to describe
strategies for utilizing programs such as intergenerational mentoring
in helping students meet State standards. Second, it authorizes that
funds be used for State activities designed to implement the State
improvement plan that would include programs such as intergenerational
mentoring.
These provisions encourage, but do not require, States to take
advantage of intergenerational mentoring as an important part of their
strategy to revitalize the educational process.
This action is not meant to replace current mentoring programs but to
encourage others like them to develop and to grow. Intergenerational
mentors are already playing important roles in the educational process
by serving as special math and science mentors, listener mentors for
pupils in the primary grades, oral historians, and tutors. They work
with our children in schools, community centers, Head Start facilities,
and even in homes.
I urge you to support this amendment that will encourage our schools
to tap into the rich pool of resources our older adults offer.
Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I
thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the
distinguished managers for allowing me to send the amendment to the
desk and have it considered at this moment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a moment,
I want to commend the Senator for this amendment. Many of us have
witnessed mentoring programs in the schools. I mentioned earlier in the
debate how teachers in Dade County are mentoring young students to
interest them in pursuing careers in teaching. They are making a very
powerful impact. They have been able to gain many of the most gifted
students in their classes, who continue their educations and then
return to teach in their communities.
We have seen a variety of different mentoring programs for individual
students conducted by the schools, the communities, and by the private
sector as well. The cost incurred is a very small expense for what has
been demonstrated as a very effective program.
I welcome these recommendations, and the opportunity to support
effective mentoring programs.
I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I can say no more than the Senator
from Massachusetts has already said.
I want to thank the Senator for bringing this to us. I look forward
to working with him.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I thank my colleagues from Massachusetts
and Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1387) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PRYOR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I think we are prepared to consider the
amendment of the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, and then
following that, the amendment of the Senator from Florida, who has been
willing to enter into a time agreement of 40 minutes. I will propound
that time agreement when we address the amendment. But we are thinking
of 40 minutes equally divided. We are moving along. If it is the desire
of the Senator from Iowa to offer his amendment, I will be glad to
proceed.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank the Senator and the
distinguished managers of the bill. These two managers are very good
about being efficient and making those of us who are sponsoring
amendments toe the line, get down to work, and expedite the process of
the Senate.
Even though I may disagree with exactly how they approach that job,
they do a very good job of being good taskmasters. I want to compliment
them on it. We need more of that leadership in the Senate.
I have a very simple amendment from some standpoints, but a very
complicated amendment from others, dealing with the use of Goals 2000
money. But it also goes beyond that, quite frankly and candidly, to how
a school district might operate from the standpoint of testing for
values and eliciting information from children. So I want to be very up
front with my colleagues.
Yet, it goes back to a very basic problem that Senator Hatch tried to
deal with in 1978. I think at the time it did deal with the issue very
effectively, on some of the misuse of Federal money as it involved or
did not involve parents in the education of their children, and parents
as an interested party in what their children might be exposed to in
their local schools. In 1978, Senator Hatch was able to have passed a
very good amendment that required the consent of parents for certain
psychological and aptitudinal testing in schools that would be of a
nonscholastic nature.
But what we have found happen since that time is that there is a lot
of bureaucratic red tape and regulations that make the Hatch amendment
very ineffective from the original intent of Senator Hatch.
His amendment was an amendment requiring parental consent for
nonscholastic and nonachievement-oriented testing. He pointed out in
that debate on August 23, 1978, that most of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act money was going for very worthwhile and
necessary forms of tests, surveys, and other scholastic and aptitude
examinations which he said were above reproach.
But then he mentioned some parent concerns at that time:
Parents have serious reservations about some of the
nonscholastic or aptitude tests, the psychiatric probing and
other nongermane, often mind-bending surveys, being conducted
in elementary and secondary schools without the knowledge,
much less the consent, of the parents or guardians.
He pointed out that he had nothing to argue about regarding the use
of these surveys in the school. He was only dealing with whether or not
there was parental knowledge of their use and parental consent about
their use. His amendment dealt with seeing that parents were informed,
able to consent to their child's participation. Because he said that:
Simply stated, our amendment requires that before any
elementary or secondary age child is subjected to psychiatric
behavior, probing, or other nonscholastic and nonaptitude
testing, there must first be obtained the written consent of
the respective child or parent.
He went on to express some problems in the school at that time. He
said:
The whole problem came about when schools started becoming
more concerned with children's attitudes, beliefs, and
emotions rather than providing them with basic education--
Remember, this is 1978, I might add parenthetically.
in the schools, a situation where dramatically fewer young
children can read, write, or count but who become worldly
wise to stories about sex and drugs and violence. This does
not speak well of the long-term emotional stability of the
child and such implicit value changes which attend teaching
very young children about drugs or sex, and which challenge
their faith in their parents, constitutes the most vile
threat to the American family.
That was 1978. He went on to say that this is a distortion of the
purpose and legislative intent of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. ``It is not what Congress intended when this legislation
was first enacted, and I am sure that is not on the minds of my
colleagues.''
Well, his amendment was accepted by Senator Pell at that time, who
was managing that legislation. As I said, the regulations drafted to
implement the amendment kept Senator Hatch's intent from being
accomplished. But there are other problems that evolve with those
regulations that make it very difficult for a family to appeal to the
Secretary of Education and to get, what they hope to get, some
satisfaction.
In the 10 years since the regulations were drafted, Madam President,
only 17 cases have successfully gotten through all the hoops and loops
that a parent has to go through just to get an investigation by the
Family Compliance Office. Only 17 cases.
I want to say to you, Madam President, that I start with a very basic
principle: Parents are primarily responsible for the upbringing and
education of their children, and our Supreme Court recognizes that.
They recognized it beginning in the 1920's, and they recognized it as
late as 1972, and they recognize it later than that, as recently as
last year in a lower court of our system, which cited the Pierce case
and the Yoder case.
There is a series of three Supreme Court decisions that are the
foundation for the constitutional right of parents to be primarily
responsible for the upbringing and education of their children. It was
firmly established very early in some of these cases that parents
retain the primary control over a child's education.
In Meyer versus Nebraska, 1923, the State of Nebraska had forbidden
the teaching of all languages other than English in the schools.
Apparently, the law at that time resulted from some antiforeign
sentiment flourishing because of World War I. A private school teacher
was convicted for teaching German to one of his pupils. The Supreme
Court reversed the conviction. According to the Supreme Court, parents
have a right to engage someone to teach their children as they think
appropriate without interference from the State.
This doctrine was further strengthened in the Pierce case of 1925,
which held that a State cannot prohibit all education outside the
public schools. Equivalent private schooling is a satisfactory
alternative. Parental rights today are largely dependent on this case
for their foundation. The court said that parents have a right to
direct, first, the upbringing and, second, the education of their
children.
Additionally, the Supreme Court held in Farrington versus Tokushige
in 1927 that parents have a liberty interest in choosing their
children's teachers, curriculum, and textbooks without unreasonable
interference from the State.
This doctrine was affirmed most recently in Wisconsin versus Yoder in
1972. That is an Amish case regarding the right of parents to conduct
the education of their children separate and apart from the mandatory
school attendance laws of a particular State. The Supreme Court said:
``The primary role of parents in the upbringing of their children is
now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.''
Let me remind some people about the picture of Amish children in
Iowa. The case involves Wisconsin, but it is very similar in Iowa.
During the tenure in our State of Governor Harold Hughes--who went on
to become a very outstanding Member of this body from 1968 to 1974,
until he voluntarily retired--we had a truant officer going to a rural
school of Amish children. You had these children, on the front pages of
every major newspaper in the State of Iowa, running to the cornfield to
hide from the truant officer. Well, that sparked a lot of attention to
the cause of the education of Amish children in America and the
constitutional rights of their parents to be involved in their
education.
I was in the legislature under Governor Harold Hughes' leadership. We
passed a law that solved the problem for the Amish people of the State
of Iowa. But it did not solve the problems for the Amish in a lot of
other States, including Wisconsin. That is why we ended up with the
Yoder case. But, very definitely, the Yoder case just 22 years old now
and still legal precedent with the Supreme Court, establishes the
primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children. The
Court goes beyond the cases of the 1920's which I mentioned earlier. It
says that parental authority in the upbringing of their children is now
established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.
Finally, in December of 1993, the supreme court of the State of New
York, appellate division, in the matter of Alfonzo versus Fernandez,
stated that ``The petitioners enjoy a well-recognized liberty interest
in rearing and educating their children in accord with their own
views,'' and cited both the Pierce and Yoder cases.
The Alfonzo case involved a lot more controversial stuff today than
with the Amish in 1972. It involved the distribution of condoms without
parental consent, and that involves a lot of controversial stuff today
that people are trying to deal with, and, quite frankly, you know there
is a lot of disagreement over the issue. A lot of people with good
intent say it should be done.
But here the court deals with the issue--not whether or not it is
right or wrong to distribute condoms in the schools and the schools'
good-faith efforts to do that to solve a social problem or a medical
problem as well, but it involves whether or not parents ought to have
something to say about that. The court, very clearly, said,
The petitioner parents are being compelled by State
authority to send their children into an environment where
they will be permitted, even encouraged, to obtain a
contraceptive device which the parents disfavor as a matter
of private belief. Because the Constitution gives parents the
rights to regulate their children's sexual behavior as best
they can, not only must a compelling State interest be found
supporting the need for the policy at issue, but that policy
must be essential to serving the interest as well.
So you have the test of compelling State interest. You have the test
of it being essential to what the State wants to accomplish.
The court went on to say that it did not find the compelling State
interest, and it reiterated the Pierce and Yoder doctrines. So clearly
this is still the foundation of our U.S. Supreme Court. While Alfonzo
is not a Supreme Court case, it is a recent appellate court decision
which affirms the doctrines established by Pierce in 1927 in the
Supreme Court and by Yoder in 1972 by the Supreme Court.
Thus it is clear that the basis for my amendment is the
constitutional right of parents to be primarily responsible for the
upbringing and education of their children.
Together these cases guarantee that parents have certain rights with
respect to their children's education. While a State government has an
interest in the proper education of children within its borders, and we
do not deny that interest, parents are primarily responsible for this
education.
Thus the State not unreasonably interfere with this parental right.
Absent a showing of abuse or neglect the parental right to direct and
control the upbringing and development of their minor children remains
very substantial and may be subject to governmental interference only
when such interference is supported by a significant government
interest.
I raise this balance of parental and State rights because, as my
colleagues are fully aware, I have been a defender of State and local
control of education. This has been a principle over time that I have
advanced and protected, not only in the State legislature but, here as
well.
However, what happens when States and localities are not fulfilling
their responsibility to protect another basic constitutional foundation
of our society? Then I think we can raise questions, and Congress ought
to be concerned.
Obviously, we ought to have a concern in the same way of whether or
not the door is open in a public school to all children regardless of
race or religion.
What happens when parents' rights are being trampled and State and
local government, through its public schools, is the one trampling
those rights? Well, Congress ought to be just as concerned about the
violation of constitutional rights of parents in the schools as it is
concerned about other sorts of constitutional violations which occur in
that school.
I firmly believe that education should be controlled on the State and
local level. However, I also firmly believe that the parents' right to
control the upbringing and education of their children is paramount and
the courts have declared it. Congress should protect this right as much
as they protect the civil rights of students access to the school door.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield to the manager as long as I do not lose my
right to the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator be willing just to permit us an
opportunity to counsel with him on the Senator's amendment? There are a
number of provisions. The basic thrust of the proposal we are in great
sympathy with and Senator Kassebaum is in great sympathy with.
I was just wondering whether at this time the Senator would be
willing to just withhold for a brief period of time and temporarily set
aside that amendment and permit to accommodate the schedule of the
Senator from Florida, and have an opportunity to visit with the
Senator, and we can proceed with the debate on the amendment of the
Senator from Florida?
We think we can expedite the Senator's amendment, and the Senator
from Florida is willing to enter into a time agreement.
Mr. GRASSLEY. What is that time agreement?
Mr. KENNEDY. Forty minutes evenly divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts should be
advised the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa has not been
sent to the desk yet.
Mr. KENNEDY. Fine.
We are in the process of consulting with Senator Kassebaum, and we
believe we have a proposal for the Senator which I think would
certainly reach his goal.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Are they some very simple changes? Is the Senator
talking about changing a few words or a complete rewrite of the
amendment?
Mr. KENNEDY. No. Basically, I think it carries the thrust of the
Senator's purpose. We will be glad to share that language with the
Senator. We believe that it would. We believe that we would accomplish
the objective the Senator would like to do. I quite frankly think we
might be able to achieve the Senator's objective in a more expeditious
way. I am not interested in leaving. I plan to be here for whatever
period of time it takes. I thought we might be able to accommodate the
Senator's schedule first and then come right back to the Senator's
amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I might address where I understand the
suggestion to the Senator of Iowa would be to amend existing law which
would make it much more simple rather than the language that the
Senator presently has.
Mr. GRASSLEY. That will not. I have heard about that approach. That
will not solve the basic problem with the 1978 statute.
Mr. JEFFORDS. If the Senator is amending the 1978 statute, would that
not solve the basic problem with it?
Mr. GRASSLEY. No, because of the inability to satisfy the Department
of Education that there is a direct relationship between the problem in
the local school and a Federal dollar being spent.
I will make that very clear. I am in the process now. I know it takes
a long time to get to the point that the Senator raises because of a
very key element, and I have an answer for that.
But I needed to establish the constitutional basis of the right of
the parents in the education of their kids. I have done that now, and I
wish to move on. I thought the Senator from Florida was satisfied with
how long it was going to take my amendment because it would have been
better for me to accommodate him at 11:30 a.m. than now. I spoke to the
fact that Senator Kennedy asked me to do this Thursday and I was
responding to Senator Kennedy. I wanted to be able to go through this
and do it without any problem.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Time runs on, and I defer at this point. I think the
suggested amendment might meet the Senator's requirements. However, I
suggest he proceed so we do not lose any more time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, in essence, the epitome of local
control, the control by the most basic institutions of our society, is
parental control.
Recent studies show that many of society's problems, such as drug
abuse, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, low self-esteem, and low
academic achievement to some extent is the result of the breakdown of
the family.
With this in mind, should we not be taking steps to strengthen
parents and the family? Should we not be protecting their rights and
responsibilities as outlined by the Supreme Court cases that I
discussed?
Schools are taking on activities traditionally in the purview of the
family. Because schools are taking on these additional activities, they
have less time to teach the basics.
I would like to give some examples. As Senators, we live very busy
lives, and I suppose for most of us we do not have young children still
in school, but most of us have staff members who still have children in
school.
Madam President, some of us are a lot older than you are.
I would like to have my colleagues consider the following in terms of
their own relationship with their children or that of the children of
staff because we are one big happy family. We have to be in each
separate office here, staff and Member alike. The questions to my
colleagues:
Have you ever driven too fast? Have you ever neglected to complete a
child's school form? Have you ever let your child stay overnight at a
friend's house without speaking with the parents? Have you ever worked
so much that you do not have time to spend with your children? Have you
ever refused to let your child participate in outside activities of the
school because it was inconvenient? Have you ever missed a parent-
teacher conference or other school activity?
The point about these questions is that if any of my colleagues, or
any other busy parent that might be listening, have done any of these
things you might be guilty of what is called ``passive child abuse.''
I ask unanimous consent to print the full questionnaire that those
few questions were taken from and the letters from the mother who sent
it to me and the child who took the questionnaire in the Record at this
point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Davenport, IA,
January 26, 1994.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: Thank you so much for your efforts
to guide the education system in our country in a direction
that will benefit our children. I have become increasingly
concerned as I see the results of Goals 2000 and outcome-
based education come home each day in my childrens backpacks.
The attached ``Passive Child Abuse'' listing was, in fact,
distributed and discussed in my daughter's seventh grade
Health class last spring (1993). She attends Walcott Junior
High School, which is in the Davenport Community School
District, Davenport, Iowa. The students were instructed to
leave the copies on their desks when they left the room at
the end of class. My daughter is aware of my concerns and
chose to bring her copy home to me instead.
Needless to say, I was shocked and quite upset at the
message being sent to our children through this lesson. As
you read through the list, you can see that virtually every
parent has violated at least one of these criteria! I see
this as a clear attempt to dissolve parent rights and usurp
parental authority in the child's mind. The fact that this
was presented ``in secret'' from the parent only adds to the
suspicions being raised in the child's mind.
I see this as psychological testing (for responses) and
treatment of my daughter. Since this was completed without
prior informed written consent by my husband or myself, I
feel our own rights have been violated.
Please be diligent in your efforts to insure that parents
and families are protected from this breach of our rights as
you debate ``Goals 2000''. I appreciate your thoughtful
consideration.
Sincerely,
Rita S. Peterson.
Enclosures.
January 26, 1994.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am glad that you have taken this
position regarding education. Before I start, I will tell you
about myself. I am thirteen years old and I am in the eighth
grade at Walcott Jr. High. My school is in the Davenport
School District, Iowa.
I was the student that obtained this sheet titled ``Passive
Child Abuse''. I took it out of my seventh grade health class
last year. There was class discussion about the list. We were
instructed not to take it out of the classroom, but, I
thought that it was probably not something we should be
looking at in a health class.
This isn't the only example of psychological testing and
attitude-changing. In the same health class, we took a
questionnaire twice (once at the beginning of the course,
once at the end of the course). Our teacher said it was to
see if our attitudes had changed over the length of the
course. Though we did not put our name on it, we wrote on it
our age, gender, race, parental status, etc. It had multiple
choice questions like ``Do you often feel depressed?'',
``What would you do if a friend was contemplating suicide?'',
``How do you feel about your current weight?'', and, How do
you feel about yourself now?''
Also, all of a sudden our schools can't have anything to do
with religion. In our Spanish and chorus class, we can't sing
Christmas songs. We can't go caroling to different classes in
our school because, as we were told, caroling is a Catholic
tradition. My American studies teacher says that Puritans
were ``always constipated trying to think their high, good
thoughts.'' They are trying to change out attitudes about
religion.
I am editor of my school paper, and in the last issue I
wrote an editorial about how I was against a grade
restructuring plan that was approved by our school board. My
principal called me into his office and intimidated me. He
tried to tell me that all of my opinions were wrong. Even
though all of the facts I used in my editorial were true and
well checked, he told me those were wrong, too. One of the
facts was told to me and my class by a teacher and he still
insisted it was wrong. I think it is wrong for a principal to
intimidate a student and tell the student her opinions are
wrong.
I think it is wrong that they are trying to change and
monitor our attitudes. I want to go to school to learn facts
and not learn what opinions my school administration wants me
to know. I want to form my own opinions. I urge Congress to
help make sure kids can form their own opinions.
Sincerely,
Michelle Petersen.
____
Passive Child Abuse*
There are many ways to abuse children other than actively
hitting, pushing, pinching, and name-calling them. The
following is a list of ways in which children may be
passively abused.
1. Allowing children to stay up late watching TV on school
nights.
2. Failure to have children's Classes fixed or teeth
repaired.
3. Failure to have a will made or to designate a guardian
for your children.
4. Staying with a partner who is an active and abusive
alcohol or drug user.
5. Dating or living with someone who hates and is abusive
to children.
6. Driving too fast, carelessly, or under the influence of
alcohol or drugs.
7. Not fastening children into automobile child restraints,
seat belts, and shoulder harnesses when driving.
8. Abusing alcohol or drugs or selling illegal drugs.
9. Being very critical of mate and talking against him or
her to children.
10. Neglecting to fill out or sign children's school forms.
11. Having no idea who your children's friends are or where
your children hang out.
12. Sending children to school when ill or letting them
fake illness to avoid school.
13. Not providing clean clothes and a clean home.
14. Not having children immunized.
15. Never following through on punishments given to
children.
16. Letting children stay overnight at a friend's home
without talking to the parents.
17. Bringing one partner after another into your life.
18. Never doing anything alone with your children.
19. Working so much that there is no time to spend with
children.
20. Promising to do something with your children and then
canceling out because you have lost interest.
21. Treating yourself to new things but expecting children
to make do with what they have.
22. Refusing to allow children to participate in outside
activities because it's inconvenient.
23. Allowing children to watch adult (sex and violence)
movies.
24. Smoking cigarettes.
25. Never taking children's side against a teacher or
always taking children's side against a teacher.
26. Never attending parent-teacher conferences or other
school activities.
27. Making children late to school by not getting up in the
morning.
28. Having extremely high or low expectations of children.
29. Allowing your children to skip school because you want
their company or because you do not feel like getting them
dressed.
*Adapted from ``Are You A (Passive) Child Abuser?'' an
article in the April 29, 1991, Quad-City Times by Doris Wild
Helmering of the Scripps Howard News Service.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President this questionnaire was discussed in a
Davenport, IA, seventh grade health class, and children were
specifically told not to take a copy out of the classroom or discuss
this exercise with their parents. Fortunately, this mom has trained her
kids that when this kind of thing happens, it is exactly the kind of
thing that a parent ought to know about and the child took the
questionnaire home.
Another mother wrote me a letter from which I will quote directly.
Last year, my 15-year-old daughter, who was a student in
Colorado School District 11, came home from school one day
and told me about a survey she had been given instructions to
complete during algebra class. I would not have known about
this survey if she hadn't mentioned it since the school did
not notify parents they were administering it. The survey was
unrelated to the subject of mathematics; instead, questions
were asked about students' emotions and out-of-school
behavior, attitudes about parents, home life (including
behavior of parents and siblings), and a variety of other
invasive inquiries. The purpose of this survey, the students
were told, was to identify those students who would
``benefit'' from a therapeutic support group. My daughter who
was reluctant to submit to this type of non-academic
exercise, refused to respond to the survey. She wrote ``none
of your business'' across the questionnaire and signed her
name to the incomplete form.
Two weeks later, she was told to leave at the end of her
first period class and go to another room; she was not given
the reason for this order. When she arrived, she was told to
sit down and participate in a ``support group,'' for which
she had been selected, based on her ``responses'' to the
above-mentioned survey. By way of introduction, the students
were told to state their name and their favorite season of
the year. When it was my daughter's turn, she said, ``My name
is Sara and I have better things to do than to sit here and
let you analyze me.'' She then rose from her seat and
returned to her civics class.
But the mother goes on to ask in her letter that the Senate please
ensure that this type of psychological manipulation will not continue
to be a part of the school system.
I ask unanimous consent to have the full text of that letter be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record as follows:
Allen, TX, October 30, 1993.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing to express my intense
concern about the non-academic subjects, invasive
questionnaires, and psychological therapy being forced upon
students in our public schools without either the permission
or knowledge of parents--a subject in which, I believe, you
are also interested. Please allow me to give you an example.
Last year, my 15-year-old daughter, who was a student in
Colorado School District 11, came home from school one day
and told me about a survey she had been given instructions to
complete during algebra class. I would not have known about
this survey if she hadn't mentioned it since the school did
not notify parents they were administering it. The survey was
unrelated to the subject of mathematics; instead, questions
were asked about students' emotions and out-of-school
behavior, attitudes about parents, home life (including
behavior of parents and siblings), and a variety or other
invasive inquiries. The purpose of this survey, the students
were told, was to identify those students who would
``benefit'' from a therapeutic support group. My daughter who
was reluctant to submit to this type of non-academic
exercise, refused to respond to the survey. She wrote ``none
of your business'' across the questionnaire and signed her
name to the incomplete form.
Two weeks later, she was told to leave at the end of her
first period class and go to another room; she was not given
the reason for this order. When she arrived, she was told to
sit down and participate in a ``support group,'' for which
she had been selected, based on her ``responses'' to the
above-mentioned survey. By way of introduction, the students
were told to state their name and their favorite season of
the year. When it was my daughter's turn, she said, ``My name
is Sara and I have better things to do than to sit here and
let you analyze me.'' She then rose from her seat and
returned to her civics class.
When she told me about this incident, I was proud of her
willingness to stand up for her beliefs, in spite of
potential disciplinary action by her school. I have instilled
in my children the meaning of the Bill of Rights and what
these rights mean to us as citizens. Our family does not
necessarily subscribe to the tenets of popular psychology,
and as citizens of the United States, our family should be
allowed to choose not to participate in coerced support group
therapy in a public school.
After my daughter's refusal to participate in this support
group occurred, she was treated differently by some of her
teachers--they viewed her as disrespectful and
uncooperative--and I was finally forced to remove her from
the Colorado state school system. Please ensure that this
psychological manipulation will not continue to be part of
our public school system, or added to the new education
strategy, Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
Sincerely,
Susan L. Gabriel.
(Mrs. MURRAY assumed the chair.)
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, these things simply should not happen
without parental knowledge or consent.
Let me clarify here that my amendment does not deal with the right of
the school districts to conduct these sorts of surveys or support
groups. That decision is up to the local school district. My amendment
only deals with the parents' right to know that their child might be
involved in that activity and consent to the activity.
Some will argue that there is really not much wrong with Senator
Hatch's amendment of 1978, the protection of pupil rights amendment--
section 439 of the General Education Provisions Act. They will argue
that we can manipulate that law a little bit to solve the problem.
Well, I think that is a very reasonable place to start. What I want
the managers of the bill, Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords, to be
concerned about are the problems that we have with that approach; and
that their attempts to change that law, as legitimate as it might be,
will not solve the problem because of the inability to show the direct
relationship between Federal funding and the activity in question.
I checked into the 1978 law. If it is not working, why is it not
working? We just ran into this terrible regulatory black hole, let me
call it.
So I wrote a letter to Secretary Riley at the Department of Education
and raised some questions to clarify the 1978 law and its implications
for parents.
Remember, in 10 years, since the regulations were promulgated, we
have only had 17 cases reach the threshold of an investigation. Many
other parents have not been able to get through all the burdensome
hoops.
The law, as introduced by my colleague, Senator Hatch, in 1978 has
two major provisions. First, to ensure that schools allow parents to
review instructional materials used in Department of Education funded
research or experimentation programs or projects; and, second, to
ensure that parents give written permission before Department-funded
psychological and psychiatric testing or treatment is undertaken
involving minor children who are thereby required to provide elements
of personal information listed in the law.
Let me explain why the 1978 law usually proves ineffective in
practice. The regulations drafted to effectuate the purposes of the
protection of pupil rights amendment simply place an undue burden on
parents. First, parents must prove that they attempted a resolution at
the local level. They must prove that the development and/or
administration of the program is supported by the U.S. Department of
Education funds.
They must prove that the activity that they find offensive meets the
definition of a research or experimentation program or project under
the regulations.
There is nothing wrong with going to local people to solve this, but
a terrible burden when you have to prove that you have attempted to
resolve the conflict locally.
If the conditions appear to exist that are spelled out in the law,
then parents must get through each and every one of the following hoops
for the Family Compliance Office at the Department of Education to
investigate.
Parents must prove that the specific activity that they find
offensive is funded with Department of Education funds. They must prove
that their child is directly affected by the activity in question. They
must prove that the activity meets the definition of psychiatric or
psychological testing or treatment in the regulation. They must prove
that the primary purpose of the activity is to reveal private
information protected under the act.
They must prove that the school has not received their written
consent. They must prove that they attempted to resolve the conflict at
the appropriate State and local levels before filing a complaint with
the Family Compliance Office at the Department of Education in
Washington.
Madam President, with all due respect to the spirit and the intent of
this 1978 law, unfortunately, the burden on parents is so heavy, so
terribly heavy, that they understandably feel powerless to protect
their children.
I ask unanimous consent that the portion of Secretary Riley's letter
dealing with the protection of pupil rights amendment be printed in the
Record at this time.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of Education,
The Secretary,
October 7, 1993.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: Thank you for your letter of August
9. In response to your questions, my staff has prepared the
enclosed set of responses. I hope you will find this
information useful and will contact me if I may be of further
assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley.
Enclosure.
Pupil Protection Act
The Family Policy Compliance Office also administers the
Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) and is
responsible for investigating alleged violations of PPRA and
its implementing regulations, the Student Rights in Research,
Experimental Activities, and Testing Regulations. Section 439
of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C.
Sec. 1232h. See also 34 CFR Part 98.
The law has two major purposes. These are:
To ensure that schools allow parents to review
instructional materials used in U.S. Department of Education
funded research or experimentation programs or projects (34
CFR Sec. 98.3); and
To ensure that parents give written permission before
Department-funded psychological and psychiatric testing or
treatment is undertaken involving minor children who are
thereby required to provide elements of personal information
listed in the regulations (34 CFR Sec. 98.4).
The specific questions you raised with regard to PPRA are
addressed below.
Issue: What must a parent do to trigger enforcement under
the Act?
Response: Parents who believe that their rights under PPRA
may have been violated may file a complaint with the
Department by writing the Family Policy Compliance Office.
Complaints must contain specific allegations of fact giving
reasonable cause to believe that a violation of PPRA
occurred. The regulations require the Family Policy
Compliance Office to undertake a review of a complaint
alleging a violation of Sec. 98.3 if the following conditions
appear to exist:
(1) The development and/or administration of the program is
supported with funds, in whole or in part, provided by the
U.S. Department of Education.
(2) The complainant is a parent or guardian of a student
directly affected by the activity;
(3) The activity meets the definition of research or
experimentation program or project found in Sec. 98.3(b);
(4) The complainant has attempted to resolve the apparent
conflict at the appropriate local and State levels (if a
State complaint procedure exists) before filing the compliant
with the Department.
For complaints alleging violation of Sec. 98.4, the
Department is required to investigate a complaint only if all
of the following conditions appear to exist:
(1) The activity that is the subject of the complaint is
supported with funds supplied, in whole or in part, by the
U.S. Department of Education.
(2) The complainant is either a parent or guardian of a
student, or the student if an adult or emancipated minor, who
is directly affected by the activity.
(3) The activity meets the definition of psychiatric or
psychological examination, test, or treatment in
Sec. 98.4(c)(1) and Sec. 98.4(c)(2) of the regulations.
(4) The primary purpose of the activity is to reveal any of
the information listed in Sec. 98.4(a)(1)-(7).
(5) The school district or other recipient of funds has not
obtained prior written consent of the student's parent.
(6) The complainant has attempted to resolve the apparent
conflict at the appropriate local and State levels (if a
State complaint procedure exists) before filing the complaint
with the Department.
Once the Department receives a valid complaint--one that
meets the conditions described above--the Family Policy
Compliance Office provides written notice to the educational
agency that includes the substance of the alleged violation.
The written notice also informs the educational agency that
the Office will investigate the complaint and that the agency
may submit a written response to the allegation(s). The
Office will provide the educational agency with a ``response
form'' that, when completed, will aid in the investigation.
If the agency does not submit a written response to the
allegation(s) presented, the Office may at that point make a
determination based on the available information as provided
by the complainant.
Following the receipt of the complaint and the notice to
the educational agency, the parties may submit further
written or oral arguments. The evidence received by the
parties will be examined in light of the criteria explained
above to determine whether a PPRA violation has occurred.
The Family Policy Compliance Office provides the
complainant and the educational agency a written notice of
the findings and the basis for the findings. If a violation
has occurred, that office will provide the agency with a
statement setting forth the specific steps that it must take
to come into compliance with the law. The educational agency
is given a reasonable amount of time to achieve voluntary
compliance.
If the educational agency does not comply during the period
of time set by the Family Policy Compliance Office, the
Department may, at its discretion, initiate one of the
following actions: (1) withhold further payments; (2)
issue a complaint to compel compliance through a cease-
and-desist order; or (3) terminate eligibility to receive
funding under an applicable program. However, as in the
Department's experience in administering FERPA, we have
never had to take such action because voluntary compliance
has always been secured.
Issue: What is the standard of proof required under the
Act? How does a parent meet the necessary standards of proof?
How is a parent protected if he or she cannot meet the
necessary standard of proof?
Response: As explained above, complaints must contain
specific allegations of fact giving reasonable cause to
believe that a violation of PPRA occurred and must appear to
meet the conditions listed above before an investigation is
initiated by the Department. Following its investigation, the
Family Policy Compliance Office provides to the complainant
and the educational agency a written notice of its findings
and the basis for its findings. 34 CFR Sec. 98.9(b). The
regulations provide that ``[i]f the Office finds that the
recipient . . . has not complied with [PPRA]'' it notifies
the recipient of the specific steps that it must take to
comply. 34 CFR Sec. 98.9(c) (emphasis added). There is no
other ``standard of proof'' set forth in the statute or
regulations, and the Department interprets this as equivalent
to the ordinary ``preponderance of the evidence'' (more
likely than not) standard used in civil litigation. That is,
the Office will determine whether it is more likely than not
that the educational agency has not complied with PPRA's
requirements. If the ``standard of proof'' has not been met,
it means that the Department has found that PPRA was not
violated.
Issue: How many cases have been filed since passage of the
Act?
Response: The Family Policy Compliance Office has received
numerous requests for investigation of allegations of
violation since the regulations were promulgated. However,
valid complaints are restricted to those programs, projects,
and testing that meet the above criteria. ``Complaints''
received in writing that do not meet the above delineated
criteria are treated as inquiries for information about PPRA
requirements. Additionally, the Family Policy Compliance
Office responds to numerous calls of concern and requests for
information by telephone from parents regarding the
applicability of PPRA to certain programs and for information
regarding our investigation procedures. The Department has
initiated investigation into 17 formal complaints alleging
violation of PPRA.
However, no school district or State educational agency has
had funding withdrawn as a result of our investigations. The
school districts or State educational agencies in question
voluntarily brought their activities into compliance with
PPRA. Additionally, some of the complaints investigated
were later found to be invalid because no Department funds
were found to be involved in the activities in question,
although it may have been initially believed by the parent
that Department funds were involved. As a matter of note,
the last three investigations conducted by the Family
Policy Compliance Office resulted in two State departments
of education and one local school district adopting
agreements with the Department to implement policies in
compliance with PPRA.
Issue: How many cases were deemed inconclusive because the
parents were unable to meet the necessary standard of proof?
Response: We understand your question to be how many
allegations of violation of PPRA have been deemed
inconclusive because we determined the conditions necessary
for an investigation were not satisfied. Our records are not
kept in such a way that we can provide this information.
Issue: Are there other federal educational laws, beyond the
Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, which grant protection
to specific parties? (Such as, but not limited to, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.) If so, what is
the standard of proof under those laws?
Response: It would take us additional time to review all
the education laws in order to provide you with a summary of
the statutes that grant protection to specific parties.
Issue: How are the funds tracked so that it is possible to
know which activities are federally funded and thus, must
follow the notice requirements of the Protection of Pupil
Rights Amendment?
Response: PPRA and the implementing regulations apply to
programs, projects, and testing if Department funds are
involved in either their development or implementation. The
Department maintains information about the award of grants
(discretionary and formula) and contracts to States and local
educational agencies. However, the Department does not
maintain a listing of specific programs, projects, or other
activities conducted with these funds. The Department relies
on the States to account for the use of such funds. In
conducting a PPRA investigation, we work with the school
district and/or State department of education to make this
determination.
As noted above, complaints filed with the Department under
PPRA must include evidence of attempted resolution at the
local level--and at the State level if a State resolution
process exists. Should the above conditions exist, however,
parents may file a complaint with the Family Policy
Compliance Office, providing adequate information to
substantiate their allegation that a violation of PPRA has
occurred.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, one mother attempting to come under
the protections of the Pupil Protection Act, wrote a letter to her
local school district superintendent asking that her child not be
involved in any school activity listed under the Pupil Protection Act
unless she was first given access to the relevant materials and her
written consent was obtained.
In other words, this parent was doing exactly what she thought the
1978 law gave her a right to do. Her letter describes the
superintendent's answer as follows:
Both the Mentor Board and staff are committed to full
compliance with all applicable laws governing the District.
However, we [meaning the school superintendent and the school
district] cannot and will not modify our entire approach to
education in the District based upon a Federal statute which
has only limited application to our program.
I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record at
this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
November 2, 1993.
Hon. Senator Grassley,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing you to express my
frustration with the present condition of our education
system. There was a time, not so long ago, when our
communities and schools were very close * * * functioning as
one and benefiting all. We sent our children off to school
where they could acquire all of the tools necessary to
function as a responsible and contributing adult. They
learned of the academics * * * English, Math, Science,
Geography * * * etc. from textbooks. They learned social
graces * * * fairness, politeness, compassion, civic duty,
etc. through participation in activities with other children
and by following examples set by fine teachers. That was
their environment * * * a kind, compassionate, knowledgeable
teacher leading by example and focused on rigorous academics.
Parents worked hand-in-hand with teachers, reinforcing what
they had learned that day in school * * * trusting their
children's schools and teachers. This system built, and will
continue to build, America * * * or so we were taught.
Early this century ``social engineering'' utilizing the
tools of the psychologist's trade began to find it's way into
our classrooms. It was harmless enough at it's inception * *
* just a way of more formally instructing the social skills.
Time spent in this area was minimal. But as the decades
rolled by, it began to ``eat into'' the time set aside for
academics * * * the primary reason for the children being
there. True academics moved further and further into the
background while psychological assessments and later,
manipulations, moved to the foreground. It happened so
gradually * * * most parents were lulled to sleep * * *
comfortable in their trusting relationship with the schools.
This, after all, was a better way to build America * * * or
so we were told.
Today * * * our students, teachers and administrators alike
* * * spend the overwhelming majority of time pursuing the
psychology of it all. Our schools, once the place of
academics, are now devoting most time, energy and money to
the ``feel-good'' curriculum. I would wager that it is for
this reason alone that our schools have deteriorated in their
ability to teach. Our schools are producing illiterate adults
* * * but ones that feel good about being so.
School administrators were quick to see this as a wonderful
way to run the schools * * * a reduction in measurable
academics, accompanied by an increase in unmeasurable
psychological assessments and counseling. Remember, these are
not just measurable and unmeasurable as it applies to the
student, but also as it applies to the schools * * * who all
the time demand (and get) larger budgets. It is by their
implicit design that there is no real means of accounting
when our school administrators fail. We parents can no longer
measure the successes and failures of our school systems * *
* all we're to do is feed it more money and more children.
All this has come to a head recently throughout the country
and it has driven a powerful wedge between the schools and
the community. No longer can the schools be given our trust
``Carte Blanche'', and for good reason * * * our privacy and
the sanctity of our families have been breached by the
psychological assessing and the recording of these
assessments in computer databases throughout the nation.
Technology has made it a snap.
Who knows what future uses (or misuses) of this information
will be * * * who knew of what use (or misuse) the recording
of information in Germany would bring to the world? Much of
that data was collected by documenting the results of
harmless ``mental'' testing (currently referred to as
``counseling'') done in the 1920's and 30's. Can what
followed there happen here? Probably not, thankfully * * *
but none of us can answer definitely not. A decade ago it
would have been ridiculous to presume that the Berlin wall
would no longer stand * * * that the USSR would disassemble
itself. Who knows for certain what our future is? What will
the seemingly innocent aspects of this ``classroom
psychology'' mutate into in the coming years?
Many parents have recently submitted ``Hatch'' letters (a
copy of which is enclosed) to their children's schools in an
effort to combat this problem. The response that my husband
and I received from our district superintendent includes the
following paragraph, which pretty well sums up their lack of
respect for the parents of those students entrusted to them:
``Both the Mentor Board and staff are committed to full
compliance with all applicable laws governing the District.
However, we cannot and will not modify our entire approach to
education in the District based upon a federal statute which
has only limited application to our program.''
What a reply. We express our genuine concerns and
respectfully request a review of curriculum, and this guy
crawls into a legal shell. Perhaps that shell is one of our
problems. Imagine the frustration and mistrust that this kind
of response breeds in our community. I know how it affected
us * * * I can only imagine how it affected those with
religious convictions, who take very seriously many of the
items on the list that my husband and I had no problem with.
Is this all only a mistrust of the schools by the parents?
Is this a one-way street? No * * * as parents have awakened
to what's happened, they are increasingly viewed as threats
to school budgets. We see the schools' mistrust of parents
demonstrated through actions like the earmarking of $10
million by the NEA for campaigning in opposition to the
``voucher'' initiative in California. What does the NEA fear?
If parents choose another school for their child, won't the
child's new teachers be members of the NEA, as well? Or do
they fear that new schools will spring up dedicated to
measurable academics? Is that perhaps more work? Is it too
measurable? Do they fear that a precedence is being set by
the upward-spiraling numbers of ``home schoolers''?
The mistrust, in both directions, is the destructive force
that needs to be dealt with. One way of dealing with it is to
strengthen one of the core philosophies of America * * * our
rights to privacy. What harm can come of creating laws that
enhance the sanctity of the family * * * that reaffirm our
rights * * * that secure further our freedoms? This will be
the first step in healing the division between community and
school * * * we could once again hand over our most treasured
gifts * * * our children * * * to go and learn to love
learning * * * secure in knowing that the right to privacy
within our family unit is protected by ``We, the people * * *
This is the way America was built * * * this we know.
We must enact much stronger legislation at the local, State
and Federal levels of our country to halt this invasion of
our homes. Will the passing of new laws, or the strengthening
of existing ones, stop the sapping of time from true
``academics''? Will it stop the foolish waste of money? No *
* * but what it can do is to stop the erosion of our rights
and freedoms, the rest of what ails the learning community
will be taken care of in the home, at local board meetings
and at the polls * * * perhaps that's why I decided to write
this on election day. We, the parents, are taking our schools
back. But we need help from those legislators who still truly
believe that serving the public's interest is an honor.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Jane F. Ponn,
Parent.
____
The Rights of Parents and Students Regarding Public and Private School
Education
Considering the diversity of curricular matters being
discussed in both public and private school today, it is of
vital importance that parents know their rights and the
rights of their children under law. It is equally important
that parents inform the school authorities, in the
institution where their child attends, that they desire to
have access to and opportunity to approve or disapprove of
the curricula their child will be taught before the child is
subjected to the material in class.
It does not go without saying that much of what is being
taught as ``truth'' and ``fact'' in schools today is directly
contrary to measurable scientific thought and traditional
family values.
The recent upsurge of parents in New York City regarding
materials of a perverted sexual orientation that were being
thrust upon their children at the first grade level, is
itself only the tip of the iceberg.
Educational institutions are not a law unto themselves.
They are accountable to local school boards, which in turn,
are accountable to parents and the public-at-large. Given the
overall mobility of our society, whether a student in one
state is correctly taught ought to be the concern of the rest
of us. Thus, New York's problems are ours as well.
The following letter is a model by which you may legally
inform your school officials of your rightful desires with
respect to the education of your child. Read it carefully;
then copy and submit it to your local school officials. Be
certain that they not be allowed to ignore your request for a
copy of their ``policy statement on procedures for parental
permission requirements.''
This is your right under the law.
The original letter was reprinted from How Good is Your
School? by Sally D. Reed. National Council for Better
Education, Capital Headquarters, Washington, DC 20070-0158
Some minor modifications were made to the original letter
by the SYSOP of the OHPIN BBS. These changes were additions
to the original text, and were included to eliminate what we
considered to be potential loopholes.
Parents' Name(s):
Date:
Street Address, City, State, Zip:
I am the parent of , who attends school. Under
U.S. legislation and court decision, parents have the primary
responsibility for their children's education, and pupils
have certain right which the schools may not deny.
Parents have the right to be assured that their children's
beliefs and moral values are not undermined by the schools.
Pupils have their right to have and to hold their values and
moral standards without direct or indirect manipulations by
the schools supplementary assignments.
Under the Hatch Amendment, I hereby request that my child
not be involved in any school activities or material listed
below unless I have first reviewed all the relevant materials
and have given my prior written consent for their use:
Psychological and psychiatric treatment or testing that is
designed to affect behavioral, emotional or attitudinal
characteristics of an individual or designed to elicit
information about attitudes, habits, traits, opinions,
beliefs or feelings of an individual or group;
Values clarification, use of moral dilemmas, discussion of
religious or moral standards, role-playing or open-ended
discussions of situations involving moral issues, and
survival games including life/death decision exercises;
Contrived incidents for self-revelation; sensitivity
training, group encounter sessions, talk-in, magic circle
techniques, self-evaluation and auto-criticism; strategies
designed for self-disclosure including the keeping of a diary
or a journal or a log book;
Sociograms, sociodrama; psychodrama; blindfolded walks;
isolation techniques; Death education, including abortion,
euthanasia, suicide, use of violence, and discussions of
death and dying;
Curricula pertaining to drugs and alcohol;
Nuclear war, nuclear policy and nuclear classroom games;
Globalism, one-word government or anti-nationalistic
curricula;
Discussion and testing on interpersonal relationships;
discussions of attitudes towards parents and parenting;
Educating in human sexuality, including pre-marital sex,
extra-marital sex, contraception, abortion, homosexuality,
group sex and marriages, prostitution, incest, bestiality,
masturbation, divorce, population control, and roles of males
and females; sex behavior and attitudes of student and
family;
Pornography and any materials containing profanity and/or
sexual explicitness;
Guided fantasy techniques; hypnotic techniques; imagery and
suggestology;
Discussions of witchcraft, occultism, the supernatural, and
Eastern mysticism;
Political and/or religious affiliations of student or
family;
Income of family;
Non-academic personality tests; questionnaires on personal
and family life attitudes.
The purpose of this letter is to preserve my child's rights
under the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (The Hatch
Amendment) to the General Education Provision Act, and under
its regulations as published in the Federal Register of
September 6, 1984, which became effective November 12, 1984.
These regulations provide a procedure for filing complaints
first at the local level, and then when the U.S. Department
of Education. If a voluntary remedy fails, federal funds can
be withdrawn from those in violation of the law.
I respectfully ask you to send me a substitute written
response to this letter, attaching a copy of your policy
statement on procedures for parental permission requirements,
to notify all my child's teachers, and to keep a copy of this
letter in my child's permanent file.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Note, please, what the superintendent said. He said
that the Pupil Protection Act had only limited application to his
programs.
Secretary Riley's response to my questions about the protection of
the pupil rights amendment, combined with Mrs. Ponn's letter about the
response from her local school superintendent, confirms my belief that
this law provides little practical protection for parents. And my
statistical proof that in 10 years since the regulations were
promulgated, only 17 requests have gotten through all these hoops to
even be investigated. Only 17 cases have been investigated since the
regulations were completed in 1984.
However, I have received more than 17 letters of complaint in just
the last 10 days, since my amendment has been out for public
discussion.
So, turning then, to my amendment, it takes a more concrete approach.
It says that a Goals-2000-funded school cannot do activities involving
surveying, analyzing, or evaluating the personal values, attitudes,
beliefs, or sexual behavior of a student unless it gets prior written
consent of the student, if emancipated, or parent if the student is not
emancipated. It further requires that the parent or guardian have
access to curriculum materials or information regarding activities
relevant to the development or assessment of personal values,
attitudes, beliefs, or sexual behavior of a student before the
implementation of such curriculum, use of such materials, or occurrence
of such activity.
The school districts can do anything they want to with Federal money
or their own money. They can offer all these approaches that they want.
I would not presume to interfere in a school district's right to do
that.
I only say--based upon the constitutional rights which the Supreme
Court has stated for parents to be chiefly responsible for the
upbringing and education of their children--that the parent has a right
to know about these activities and look at the material.
I would like my colleagues to note what my amendment does not
require. Some of this will be for purposes of emphasis because I have
stated it before. It does not require that parents prove the activity
in question is federally funded or what the primary purpose of the
activity is. That is a very major stumbling block to getting the relief
that Senator Hatch meant to get for parents in the 1978 law.
It does not require that the parent prove that the activity is
research or experimental in nature. That is a very difficult thing for
a parent to show to get relief. All the parent has to demonstrate is
that the activity in question involves personal values, attitudes,
beliefs, or sexual behavior of their child and that their written
consent was not obtained. As a parent, do you think that you ought to
have the right to know that your child is being questioned about their
personal values, about their attitudes, and about their beliefs about
their sexual behavior? I think most parents would want to know that.
Actually, I think most parents think they would have that right now.
Madam President, it is not my intent to unduly burden school
districts. Note that my amendment does not tell school districts how
they are to gain written consent from parents. Some school districts
will probably simply add a form at the beginning of the year for
parents to sign, telling them that their children will be involved in
these kinds of activities at times. Most parents would probably sign
such a form carte blanche. But for parents who truly want to be
involved on a daily basis in their child's educational activities, the
school would need to contact them before this particular activity took
place.
The latest social science research shows what many of us have
believed all along, that the family is the best available institution
to foster healthy, happy and well-adjusted children. These children are
best able and most likely to excel in every area of life, including
school. True education reform must foster the family as the most basic
unit of our society. In fostering the family, children will learn and
become fruitful citizens. When schools are acting behind the backs of
parents to influence the values, attitudes, beliefs, or sexual behavior
of their children, that does not foster the family. And that would be
true even if there is no ill intent. And I do not know that there is
any ill intent on the part of schools to do that.
So I urge my colleagues to join me in providing this needed
information for parents and families. I have received additional
letters from parents in Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, my home State of
Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington, who have had
activities of this nature take place without their knowledge or
consent.
I thought I would go into just one survey that was being given in my
State, just to point out some of the things that parents might have
some concern about. I am not going to go through all the questions.
There were questions like:
Do you regard yourself as a bigot?
Do you think homosexuality is a problem society must deal
with as strictly as possible?
Do you think people are born homosexual or do you think
they choose to be homosexual?
Do you think the United States was stolen from Native
Americans or do you think that it was rightfully colonized by
Europeans?
Have you ever rolled up your car windows in a predominantly
minority neighborhood?
Have you ever rolled up your windows in a predominantly
poor white neighborhood?
How would you feel about having a minority as a physician?
Then it lists a whole bunch of nationalities and religions: Irish-
Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Italian-Americans, African-Americans,
Eastern-Indian-Americans, British-Americans, French-Americans, Polish-
Americans, German-Americans, Eastern-European-Americans, Nordic-
Americans, Japanese-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans, native Americans,
Middle-Eastern-Americans, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and then, last,
``Others--Please specify.''
Then it asks a whole series of questions where you are supposed to
put down the number from these nationalities or religious groups.
I wonder what the purpose of this questionnaire is in a school
system? You know, the American school system is the greatest
institution of the democratization of American society that exists. It
is even more basic than our churches. That should not be, but there is
more democratization of American society that goes on in the schools
than even in the churches of America.
So schools ought to be pulling American society together, not leading
to the Balkanization of American society. It seems to me the questions
I am going to read emphasizing whether you are an Irish-American, a
Hispanic-American, an Italian-American, an African-American, or whether
you are a Jew or a Catholic do not send the right signals to our
schoolchildren. The questions are:
Which of the above--
Meaning all these divisions of American society based on
nationalities and religion--
Which of the above do you think is responsible for the
decline of the U.S. economy?
When are we in the business, Madam President, of making a case that a
particular subdivision of America is responsible for the economic
decline or for a depression?
Which of the above do you think is more susceptible to
alcoholism?
When I was in school, there was not a teacher who tried to lead me to
believe that one division of America, based on nationality or religion,
was more prone to alcoholism than another one. Is that the sort of
signal we are supposed to be sending through our educational system,
that we ought to look for certain nationalities that might be more
prone to alcoholism than others?
Which of the above do you think is the most likely to raise
a large family?
Is that geared toward Catholics, maybe? Is there something bad about
Catholicism? Or is that geared toward Italians? Or would that be geared
toward African-Americans? Is that not a nice attitude to put in the
minds of our young people? Is that going to bring America together, or
is that going to tear America apart?
Which of the above do you think is most subject to
suspicion of criminal activity?
I will let you guess what that is geared toward.
Which of the above are you most likely to assume does not
speak fluent English?
Which of the above do you think is most likely to have any
connection to organized crime?
Think about that one. We all know where that one is geared.
Which of the above do you think is most likely to have
incomes over $50,000?
I do not know whether that necessarily implies hatred or not.
Which of the above do you think would be most likely to
eliminate an entire race?
Here we have kids in school being asked to think in terms of what
division of America--Irish-American, Hispanic-American, Italian-
American, African-American, Eastern-Indian-American, British-American,
French-American, Polish-American, German-American, Eastern-European-
American, Nordic-American, Japanese-American, Vietnamese-American,
native American, Middle-Eastern-American, Jews, Catholics, or
Protestants--would want to eliminate an entire race.
Do I raise any questions about the school being able to test this way
if they want to? No. Under my amendment, the school can test this way
if they want to. All I say as a parent, Madam President, is you have a
right to know that the school is asking these questions of your child.
If you do not want to know that, then you do not have enough concern
about your kids and you do not have to exercise your rights.
Then the questionnaire goes on to ask:
Who has most influenced the way you feel about other races?
With whose influence have you most strongly disagreed?
Here is a question:
If you could eliminate an entire race, would you?
Do we want our kids to think in terms of the possibility of
eliminating an entire race, to indicate that it is a good thing to be
doing? What I would want to teach in my school is that it was wrong,
absolutely wrong, for a guy like Adolf Hitler to do what he did to the
Jewish population of Europe. No question about it.
If we are concerned about racism in our schools, do you want our kids
to think about the elimination of an entire race? We want to teach
people to get along with each other. I hope it is not constitutionally
impermissible to say that it is wrong not to love a person that is a
little bit different than you. Agape love, meaning that you have an
intense interest in the well-being of your fellow man or woman. That is
what we should be teaching in school.
We had an amendment before us earlier today about violence in
schools. We are going to adopt an amendment, I believe, that will say
that there cannot be any Federal rule or regulation that keeps a
teacher from protecting himself or herself from criminal activity that
might be going on in a school.
If we start using our schools to bring people together as opposed to
emphasizing the things that this questionnaire emphasizes, we might not
have the problems of criminal activity in our schools. We in America
have to pull together, cooperate, work together, love each other, and
be tolerant toward each other.
Then it goes on to ask after the question, ``If you could eliminate
an entire race, would you? If yes, which one?''
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire survey be
printed in the Record, along with a letter from the mother who sent it
to me.
There being no objection, the survey was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
January 31, 1994.
Dear Senator Grassley: I have been asked to submit a letter
stating my experience with the Assessment Test given in the
Bettendorf Schools.
In the school year of 1991-1992 my sophomore son was
administered the test in his Social Studies class. as I
understand it, the test was not always administered in any
one certain class. My son informed me that he only chose a
certain few questions to answer. After reviewing the
questions on the test and becoming totally upset about the
kind of questions being asked of our youth I would have
definitely requested that my son not partake in the test
taking process had I known this was to be given. In the
future I will request my children going through the system be
excluded from this testing.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Susan Gruenhagen.
____
Bettendorf Survey
Note: This poll is entirely anonymous except for your sex
and graduation year. Please answer as honestly as you can.
Are you male or female?
What year are you?
Do you regard yourself as a bigot?
Do you think homosexuality is a problem society must deal
with as strictly as possible?
Do you think people are born homosexual or do you think
they choose to be homosexual?
Do you think everyone who wishes to become a United States
citizen should be made to speak a minimal/function amount of
the English language?
Do you think the United States was stolen from native
Americans or do you think it was rightfully colonized by
Europeans?
Have you ever rolled up your car windows in a predominantly
minority neighborhood?
Have you ever rolled up your windows in a predominantly
poor white neighborhood?
How would you feel about having a minority as your
Physician?
Nationalities and religions:
(1) Irish-Americans
(2) Hispanic-Americans
(3) Italian-Americans
(4) African-Americans
(5) Eastern-Indian-Americans
(6) British-Americans
(7) French-Americans
(8) Polish-Americans
(9) German-Americans
(10) Eastern-European-Americans
(11) Nordic-Americans
(12) Japanese-Americans
(13) Viet Namese-Americans
(14) Native-Americans
(15) Middle-Eastern-Americans
(16) Jews
(17) Catholics
(18) Protestants
(19) Other (please name)
All ``Which of the above'' questions should be answered
with the numbers of the nationality or religion:
Which of the above do you think is responsible for the
decline of the U.S.'s economy?
Which of the above do you think is more susceptible to
alcoholism?
Which of the above do you think is the most likely to raise
a large family (8 or more children)?
Which of the above do you think is most subject to
suspicion of criminal activity?
Which of the above are you most likely to assume does not
speak fluent English?
Which of the above do you think is most likely to have any
connection to organized crime?
Which of the above do you think is the most likely to have
an income of over $50,000?
Which of the above do you think would be most likely to
eliminate an entire race?
Who has most influenced the way you feel about other races?
With whose influence have you most strongly disagreed?
If you could eliminate an entire race, would you?
If yes, which one? (Responses will not be published.)
Have you ever put someone down because they were of a
different religion than you?
Have you or would you ever physically assault someone
because of their sexual preference?
Would you ever associate with someone of the same sex who
was either rumored or a self-declared homosexual?
Why or why not?
What do you think about racism in general?
What do you think about individuals who use violence to
support their bigoted beliefs?
Would someone else regard you as a bigot?
amendment no. 1388
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of certain funds for activities related
to a student's personal values, attitudes, beliefs, or sexual behavior
without certain consent, notification, access to information, and an
opportunity for a hearing; to provide for enforcement of such
prohibition; and to require the Secretary of Education to designate or
establish an office and review board within the Department of
Education)
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I send my amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration. Then I am about to yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for himself, Mr.
Thurmond, Mr. Burns, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Mack, Mr. Nickles, Mr.
Faircloth, and Mr. Helms, proposed an amendment numbered
1388.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title IV, insert the following:
SEC. . PROHIBITION.
(a) In General.--No funds shall be made available under
this Act to any State educational agency, local educational
agency, or school--
(1) that directly or indirectly engages in surveying,
analyzing, evaluating, or any other activity relating to, the
personal values, attitudes, beliefs, or sexual behavior of a
student without the written consent of--
(A) in the case of a student who is an adult or an
emancipated minor, such student (hereafter in this section
referred to as an ``adult student''); or
(B) in the case of a student who is an unemancipated minor,
such student's parent or guardian (hereafter in this section
referred to as a ``parent'' or ``guardian'').
after such adult student, parent, or guardian has been
informed of the purpose of such survey, analysis, evaluation
or activity;
(2) unless the parent or guardian is given access to any
curriculum, materials, or information regarding activities
relevant to the development or assessment of personal values,
attitudes, beliefs, or sexual behavior of a student prior to
the implementation of such curriculum, use of such materials,
or occurrence of such activities;
(3) that fails to ensure that an adult student, parent or
guardian--
(A) is given written notice of their rights under this
section; and
(B) is provided with an opportunity for a hearing, in
accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary, to
enforce paragraph (1) or (2).
(b) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall take such action as
the Secretary determines appropriate to enforce this section,
except that action to terminate assistance provided under
this Act shall be taken only if the Secretary determines
that--
(1) there has been a failure to comply with such section;
and
(2) compliance with such section cannot be secured by
voluntary means.
(c) Office and Review Board.--The Secretary shall establish
or designate an office and review board within the Department
of Education to investigate, process, review, and adjudicate
violations of the rights established under this section.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to put the additional letters
in support of my amendment in the Record and then I would like to yield
the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Davenport, IA, January 26, 1994.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: Thank you so much for your efforts
to guide the education system in our country in a direction
that will benefit our children. I have become increasingly
concerned as I see the results of ``Goals 2000'' and outcome-
based education come home each day in my childrens'
backpacks.
The attached ``Passive Child Abuse'' listing was, in fact,
distributed and discussed in my daughter's seventh grade
Health class last spring (1993). She attends Walcott Junior
High School, which is in the Davenport Community School
District, Davenport, Iowa. The students were instructed to
leave the copies on their desks when they left the room at
the end of class. My daughter is aware of my concerns and
chose to bring her copy home to me instead.
Needless to say, I was shocked and quite upset at the
message being sent to our children through this lesson. As
you read through the list, you can see that virtually every
parent has violated at least one of these criteria! I see
that as a clear attempt to dissolve parent rights and usurp
parental authority in the child's mind. The fact that this
was presented ``in secret'' from the parent only adds to the
suspicious being raised in the child's mind.
I see this as psychological testing (for responses) and
treatment of my daughter. Since this was completed without
prior informed written consent by my husband or myself, I
feel our own rights have been violated.
Please be diligent in your efforts to insure that parents
and families are protected from this breach of our rights as
you debate ``Goals 2000''. I appreciate your thoughtful
consideration.
Sincerely,
Rita S. Petersen.
Enclosures.
January 26, 1994.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am glad that you have taken this
position regarding education. Before I start, I will tell you
about myself. I am thirteen years old and I am in eighth
grade at Walcott Jr. High. My school is in the Davenport
School District, Iowa.
I was the student that obtained this sheet titled ``Passive
Child Abuse''. I took it out of my seventh grade health class
last year. There was class discussion about the list. We were
instructed not to take it out of the classroom, but, I
through that it was probably not something we should be
looking at in a health class.
This isn't the only example of psychological testing and
attitude-changing. In the same health class, we took a
questionnaire twice (once at the beginning of the course,
once at the end of the course). Our teacher said it was to
see if our attitudes had changed over the length of the
course. Though we did not put our name on it, we wrote on it
our age, gender, race, parental status, etc. It had multiple
choice questions like ``Do you often feel depressed?'',
``What would you do if a friend was contemplating suicide?'',
``How do you feel about your current weight?'', and, ``How do
you feel about yourself now?''
Also, all of a sudden our schools can't have anything to do
with religion. In our Spanish and chorus class, we can't sing
Christmas songs. We can't go caroling to different classes in
our school because, as we were told, caroling is a Catholic
tradition. My American studies teacher says that Puritans
were ``always constipated trying to think their high, good
thoughts.'' They are trying to change our attitudes about
religion.
I am editor of my school paper, and in the last issue I
wrote an editorial about how I was against a grade
restructuring plan that was approved by our school board. My
principal called me into his office and intimidated me. He
tried to tell me that all of my opinions were wrong. Even
through all of the facts I used in my editorial were true and
well checked, he told me those were wrong, too. One of the
facts was told to me and my class by a teacher and he still
insisted it was wrong. I think it is wrong for a principal to
intimidate a student and tell the student her opinions are
wrong.
I think it is wrong that they are trying to change and
monitor our attitudes. I want to go to school to learn facts
and not learn what opinions my school administration wants me
to know. I want to form my own opinions. I urge Congress to
help make sure kids can form their own opinions.
Sincerely,
Michelle Petersen.
____
Passive Child Abuse*
There are many ways to abuse children other than actively
hitting, pushing, pinching, and name-calling them. The
following is a list of ways in which children may be
passively abused.
1. Allowing children to stay up late watching TV on school
nights.
2. Failure to have children's glasses fixed or teeth
repaired.
3. Failure to have a will made or to designate a guardian
for your children.
4. Staying with a partner who is an active and abusive
alcohol or drug user.
5. Dating or living with someone who hates and is abusive
to children.
6. Driving too fast, carelessly, or under the influence of
alcohol or drugs.
7. Not fastening children into automobile child restraints,
seat belts, and shoulder harnesses when driving.
8. Abusing alcohol or drugs or selling illegal drugs.
9. Being very critical or mute and talking against him or
her to children.
10. Neglecting to fill out or sign children's school forms.
11. Having do idea who your children's friends are or where
your children hang out.
12. Sending children to school when ill or letting them
fake illness to avoid school.
13. Not providing clean clothes and a clean home.
14. Not having children immunized.
15. Never following through on punishments given to
children.
16. Letting children stay overnight at a friend's home
without talking to the parents.
17. Bringing one partner after another into your life.
18. Never doing anything alone with your children.
19. Working so much that there is not time to spend with
children.
20. Promising to do something with your children and then
canceling out because you have lost interest.
21. Treating yourself to new things but expecting children
to make do with what they have.
22. Refusing to allow children to participate in outside
activities because it's inconvenient.
23. Allowing children to watch adult (sex and violence)
movies.
24. Smoking cigarettes.
25. Never taking children's side against a teacher or
always taking children's side against a teacher.
26. Never attending parent-teacher conferences or other
school activities.
27. Making children late to school by not getting up in the
morning.
28. Having extremely high or low expectations of children.
29. Allowing your children to skip school because you want
their company or because you do not feel like getting them
dressed.
*Adapted from ``Are You A (Passive) Child Abuser?'' an
article in the April 29, 1991 Quad-City Times by Doris Wild
Helmering of the Scripps Howard News Service.
____
January 25, 1994.
During the first semester of my daughter's eighth grade
year she was asked to fill out a series of questions for her
Career Orientation Class. She brought these papers home and
upon reviewing them, we found questions which were an
invasion of her privacy. We wrote her teacher relating our
concerns and informing her that our daughter would not be
filling this out. The teacher had told the students they
would not be graded but she wrote us that she would have to
adjust my daughter's grade if she didn't fill it out. This to
me constitutes grading. The papers to be filled out were
``Self Awareness'', ``Identifying Values'' and ``Occupational
Exercise.'' This happened last year 1993.
Rebecca Garrison,
Arkansas.
____
Activity 2-1 Identifying Your Values
The purpose of this activity is to help you identify and
rate the importance of your values so that you can select a
career goal that matches well with your values.
As you know from reading Chapter 2, values are those things
that you feel are important in your life. You need to know
what your values are when it comes time to select a long-
range career goal. Otherwise, you might choose a career that
conflicts with your values.
Below and on the next few pages are one hundred statements
that deal with the ten values discussed in Chapter 2. Read
each statement carefully. Then rate the statement as it
applies to you.
Values Statements
1. I have a physical checkup every year.
2. I will take my children to church services regularly.
3. I enjoy attending musical concerts.
4. It is important to me to have a lot of friends.
5. I donate to charities that I feel are worthwhile.
6. I envy the way movie stars are recognized wherever they
go.
7. I would like to have enough money to retire at fifty.
8. I would rather spend an evening at home with my family
than out with friends.
9. I enjoy making decisions that involve other people.
10. If I had the talent, I would like to write songs.
11. I have a close relationship with at least one of my
parents.
12. I have taught a Sunday school class or have otherwise
taken an active part in my church.
13. I am willing to spend time helping fellow students who
are having difficulty with their studies.
14. Even at the same salary. I would rather be the boss
than just another worker.
15. I have a special appreciation for beautiful things.
16. If I had the talent, I would like to appear regularly
on television.
17. I would like to counsel people and help them with their
problems.
18. I would enjoy associating with movie stars and other
celebrities.
19. I have a dental checkup at least once a year.
20. I enjoy writing short stories.
21. I would rather spend a summer working than going on a
paid vacation.
22. I like to go to parties.
23. I think it would be fun to write a play for television.
24. I believe in a Supreme Being.
25. I would rather be an officer than just a club member.
26. I would rather spend my last $100 for needed dental
work than for a vacation at my favorite resort.
27. I enjoy giving presents to members of my family.
28. If I were a teacher, I would rather teach poetry than
math.
29. I often have daydreams about things that I would like
to do if I had the money.
30. I enjoy giving parties.
31. I am willing to write letters for old or sick people.
32. It would be very satisfying to receive a lot of
publicity for acting in movies or television.
33. When I feel ill, I usually call a doctor.
34. I believe that it is important to support a church by
giving time and/or money.
35. I enjoy taking part in discussions at the family dinner
table.
36. I enjoy visiting art museums.
37. I like to write poetry.
38. I like to be around other people most of the time.
39. I like to be the one who decides what we will do or
where we will go when I'm out with friends.
40. Someday I would like to live in a large, expensive
house.
41. Each day I try to set aside some time for worship.
42. If I knew a family that had no food for Christmas
dinner, I would try to provide it.
43. I like to spend holidays with my family.
44. I like to see my name in print (in the newspaper).
45. I would rather take a class in freehand drawing than a
class in math.
46. I do not like to spend an entire evening alone.
47. If the salary were the same, I would rather be a school
principal than a classroom teacher.
48. I have expensive tastes.
49. I can tell the difference between a really fine
painting or drawing and an ordinary one.
50. If I had regular headaches, I would consult a doctor
even if aspirin seemed to lessen the pain.
51. I have several very close friends.
52. I expect to provide music lessons for my children.
53. It is important to me that grace be said before meals.
54. I sometimes miss sleep to visit late with company.
55. I usually get at least eight hours of sleep each night.
56. I like to design things.
57. I would rather be well-known throughout the country
than highly respected by my co-workers.
58. I would get a sense of satisfaction from nursing a sick
person back to health.
59. I care what my parents think about the things I do.
60. I daydream about making a lot of money.
61. I like to be the chairperson at meetings.
62. It is thrilling to come up with an original idea and
put it to use.
63. I believe there is life after death.
64. If someone is hard to get along with, I try to be
understanding.
65. If I were in the television field, I would rather be a
celebrated actor than a scriptwriter.
66. I enjoy decorating my room at home.
67. I enjoy a picnic with my family.
68. As an adult, I want to earn a much higher salary than
the average worker.
69. I am careful to have a balanced diet each day.
70. I often influence other students concerning the classes
they enroll in.
71. I would like to be written up in Who's Who.
72. I read the Bible or other religious writings regularly.
73. If I were in the clothing industry, I would enjoy
creating new styles.
74. I look forward to an evening out with a group of
friends.
75. When I am with a group of people, I like to be the one
in charge.
76. I dislike being financially dependent on others.
77. When a friend is in trouble, I feel I must comfort him
or her.
78. I love my parents.
79. I almost never skip meals.
80. I have a collection of phonograph records.
81. I have a particular friend with whom I discuss
problems.
82. I am interested in and respect others' religious
beliefs.
83. I enjoy buying clothes for members of my family.
84. I would enjoy having people recognize me wherever I go.
85. I like planning activities for others.
86. I do not smoke.
87. I feel good when I do things that help others.
88. Someday I would like to write a novel.
89. I would put up with undesirable living conditions in
order to work at a job that paid extremely well.
90. I belong to several clubs and organizations.
91. I believe in the power of prayer and
meditation.
92. I would enjoy having my picture in the school yearbook
more than it has been in the past.
93. I often organize group activities.
94. When I see a newly constructed building, I consider its
beauty as much as its practical use.
95. I respect my father and mother.
96. I like to design or make things that have not been made
before.
97. Some of the hobbies I would like to have are quite
expensive.
98. I enjoy classical music.
99. I would never use potentially harmful drugs because of
what they might do to my body.
100. I am kind to animals.
This unit on cartooning was introduced by the `Search'
teacher to the 8th grade talent-proof at Bartlett Middle
School in October of 1992.
Upon our conference Diane Saturday showed me the Benchmark
Orientation and Fall Testing guide. She used page 12,
comprehension section-line on stereotypes and bias as the
basis for the cartooning segment.
The cartoons were duplicated, handed out and discussed and
taken back up. My daughter was the only child to keep a copy.
(She asked permission.) Because of our strong stand on one of
the issues and our family discussions she knew we would be
interested.
Let me emphasize this is 8th grade and I question the
material because of its bias, (pg 30, 31, 32, 33) age
appropriate level and because of its very detailed discussion
questions. Who would lead the discussion, control the
discussion or dominate their opinions during it. I consider
this an attempt to undermine the values of our religious
faith and that more personally, of our family.
I especially concentrated my disapproval of the `Memo to
the Apostle Paul.' My Bible is sacred and I consider the
authors men of God.
The booklet was purchased and ordered by the teacher with
funds the county made available to her.
Concerned parent.
Sarah M. Middleton, Georgia.
____
Dilemma Debate No. 15: The Nature of Prejudice
In the last problem we observed that prejudice and
discrimination usually go hand-in-hand. But they can occur
independently of each other. For example, a person may retain
his or her belief that all Spanish-speaking people are drug
dealers. If, in spite of this belief, that person lets
Spanish-speaking people move into his or her neighborhood
without interference, s/he is displaying prejudice without
discrimination. Any effort to block them from moving into the
neighborhood would be prejudice with discrimination. On the
other hand, a person may think that his/her neighbors are
ridiculous for believing such slanderous things about
Spanish-speaking people. Because one does not, however, want
the neighbors as enemies, s/he freely signs a petition to
keep them out of the neighborhood. This is discrimination
without prejudice.
In general, prejudice and discrimination are mutually
reinforcing. Most prejudices among people are acted on either
personally or institutionally--they are put into the
religious, educational, or legal system of the society. This
result is discrimination. Today, most forms of discrimination
have been legally abolished, but because many people have
deep-seated prejudices, they have discovered ways to avoid
full compliance with the law and thus, discrimination still
flourishes among us.
cartoons
In the first cartoon, a man (Senator Jesse Helms of North
Carolina) demonstrates the inconsistencies which can arise
because of conflicting prejudices. In the struggle over the
issues of abortion and welfare, the result of his strident
opposition to welfare and to abortion is contradictory for
the unborn children. He is concerned to protect the right to
life of the unborn child but will not do anything to help
ensure the fetus is healthy, is properly cared for, or has
adequate nourishment. Is there prejudice toward women in this
position? what should we do as a nation which professes the
highest degree of morality about women's rights?
In the second cartoon, we bumped head-on into two major
fallacies in our reasoning processes, inconsistency (self-
contradiction) and name calling (attacking the person rather
than the argument). Are the attitudes expressed in this
cartoon consistent with Christian ethics? Do they show
prejudice? What we seem to need is a method for retaining our
consistency in argumentation and a way of keeping our
emotions in check as the debates begin to heat up.
activity
When we focus on equal rights for women, two major issues
often come to the top of our thinking: abortion and salary
discrimination. Using problem-solving strategies outlined in
Section One of this book, choose one of these issues, divide
the class into research teams, and seek a solution to these
problems. As you reach your final solutions and bring into
the class of discussion, refer to the section in this book
entitled ``Planning For Classroom Discussion.'' Following the
steps and idea provided for you in these sections will help
you avoid fallacious arguments and discover more useful and
acceptable solutions.
When you have finished with this activity, answer the
following questions.
1. In your research, did you carefully seek out factual
information from your ``doctor'' the facts to suit your
preconceived purposes?
2. While debating with other members of the class, did you
keep emotions in check? That is, did you avoid name calling,
screaming and the like?
3. Did you follow the problem-solving method outlined in
Section * * * of this book? Did you document each step along
the way? Did * * * for you?
4. Was the class solution a compromise of differing
positions or did the group dominate? Explain your answer to
this question.
5. Were you personally satisfied with the solution agreed
upon by the class? If not, what changes would you make in it?
mind builder who should be spared?
The purpose of this exercise is to have students think
about the values and beliefs about what is desirable for a
person to do and be in American society.
Ten people are trapped on the top of a skyscraper which is
on fire. There is only one possible escape route: a small
tunnel leading to safety. Only one person at a time can enter
the tunnel and crawl to safety. Not very much time is left
for the group to escape.
The task of the students is to arrange the people below in
the order they would have them escape. Remember that at any
time the escape route may be closed.
Let the students work individually on the problem. Have
them carefully and systematically record their thoughts about
why they lined the people up as they did.
Arrange the students in groups to discuss their solution
and the reasons for their choices.
Are some people consistently at the front of the line and
others at the end of the line?
Discuss what might be the reasons for this.
What does this tell us about status and prestige in
American society?
What, if any, were the assumptions made about these people?
People on Top of the Skyscraper: Television preacher, Small
child, Businessman, Policeman, Famous poet, Pregnant female,
Congressman, Professional athlete, Engineer, Medical doctor.
____
Huntington, IN,
January 24, 1994.
Dear Senator Grassley: I'm pleased to hear of your concern
for our children. Please find attached an in class assignment
for home room for my sixth grade middle school daughter.
There have been many others similar to this that the teacher
keeps in her possession. All involving feelings and emotions.
It seems that the schools through curricula have appointed
themselves as surrogate parents for all children because of a
lack of parental concern by a few irresponsible parents.
Teachers have no business being involved in the intentional
formation of my child's emotions, feelings and values.
Teachers have no business conditioning my child's emotions
and feelings.
Teachers have no business attempting to talk to my child in
a parent like manner in which trusting parent like bonds
would be encouraged and nurtured.
This child was placed in my trust and I will protect my
child from any threat to covertly transfer that trust to any
other. So help me God!
Teachers are to be academic educators. Not parents. Not
psychological conditioners. Not values evaluators. Not
emotion guides.
Please help protect our children from the New World Order.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Bailey.
____
This Is Me
1. I am happiest when?
2. I get angry when?
3. I am frightened by?
4. I feel love when?
5. I feel sad about?
6. I get excited when?
7. I am bored when I?
8. I am most proud of?
9. I get satisfaction out of?
10. I put trust in?
11. I get ``hung up'' over?
12. I feel safe when?
13. I feel peaceful when?
14. I feel hurt when?
15. Things that make me happy are?
16. I am annoyed when?
17. When I'm by myself I like to?
____
Glasgow, KY,
January 20, 1994.
Dear Senator Grassley: Your office has requested examples
of tests involving values, attitudes, and beliefs given
students without parental knowledge.
Enclosed is a computer lab writing assignment for a two-day
class period given by a computer aide to my eighth-grade
daughter. She realized the very personal nature of these
completions and that her responses were being recorded on her
computer file, so she brought the worksheet home to ask me
about it. (Please note the margin type which reads 1990 by
the Center for Applied Research in Education.)
I contacted the principal the next morning and asked him to
exempt her from the second day of writing on this assignment
and erase her first day of responses. I asked that an
assignment of a more academic nature be substituted.
To justify my request, I showed him statements proving
sentence completions to be psychological tests which should
only be administered by the professional psychologist. I also
knew from local newspaper articles that this new middle
school is already 90% compliant with KERA (Kentucky Education
Reform Act) in computer technology which means there is the
potential to store such personal student material as this.
The principal was cooperative and said since this was not
for a grade it could be erased. He was also defensive and
said it was not meant as a psychological test nor were her
responses being stored on file.
My daughter found her whole file erased upon getting to
class and the teacher ``was really ticked off with me.'' She
did touch typing practice that period as did everyone else in
her class.
I also remarked to the principal on the very personal
nature of the journal and portfolio entries for the year thus
far. After recording each assigned topic, there appears to be
a pattern toward eliciting personal data. (See second
enclosure.) He responded that students could write best about
personal topics as they would be most familiar with
themselves. I suggested that academic research which leads a
student beyond himself should be the purpose of regular
school writing assignments.
I hope this information will be helpful toward
documentation of your amendment to Goals 2000. Please let
your fellow senators know that Kentucky students are being
dumbed down by current mandated state education reform which
is a mini-version of the national reform proposed.
The financially-backed cheerleading which has accompanied
the implementation of KERA has suppressed voices of
opposition from students, parents, and teachers. We need help
in Kentucky to uncover the truth about KERA and to make it
known. Please don't let our hands be further tied with the
passage of Goals 2000. America may never recover if we give
up our children's rights and minds.
Sincerely,
Martha Hodum.
____
[Grade 8, Glasgow, Ky Middle School, Dec. 14, 1993]
I'll Never Forget
Part One--Getting in Touch: When something happens that
makes you have strong feelings, you probably remember that
event for a long time--perhaps forever! This activity will
help you recall some of these times, even if you think you've
forgotten them.
All you have to do is fill in the blanks in the sentences
below: You'll be surprised at how much you'll begin to
remember.
1. I'll never forget the first time I
2. I remember how angry I was when my father
3. No one knew that I cried when
4. I was so surprised when my friend
5. Once, when I was alone in my house, I
6. I was so ashamed when
7. I was really scared when
8. My happiest day of the past year was when
9. I'll never tell anyone about the time
Part Two: Choose one of the events in the list above and
write about it in your journal. Use lots of details as to
where it happened, who was there, how they looked, what was
said, how you felt, etc. The more details you use, the more
you will remember.
Journal and Portfolio Assigned Topics:
8-93--Things I Fear Most. My Most Memorable Experience.
9-28-93--I Get Angry When . . . Makes Me Sad . . . Makes Me
Happy.
If I knew I had only one day to live, I would . . .
A Major Decision You've Dealt With in Your Life.
10-18-93--A person who made an impression on me. My Idea of
a Perfect Person.
10-25-93--I knew I wasn't supposed to, but . . .
10-26-93--Teacher instructions: ``An opinion is a belief
that you hold about something. Example--Cheating is
dishonest.'' Write an opinion of your own. Give 3-5 reasons
for holding this belief.
(Parent Note--from Webster's Dictionary--``Cheating is the
act of fraudulently deceiving; an intentional active
distortion of the truth.'' The teacher did not give an
example of an opinion. Cheating is dishonest by definition.
A Long Period with No Journal Writing.
12-13-93--A Christmas Memory.
Social Studies Portfolio Assignment:
10-93--You go back in time in an H.G. Wells machine. Write
what would be different today if an historical event had
turned out differently. This should be done in first person
as if you changed history.
(Parent Note--My child chose to write on George
Washington's divine protection during the French and Indian
Battles and what our country would have missed if Washington
had not been protected. The teacher instructed that this
should be written in first person as if ``she'' killed
Washington. *``Imagine telling a child to kill someone (even
in a story) when the child is trying to lift him up as a
hero,'' I commented to the principal. He does not comment.
Math Portfolio Explanation:
Teacher: You must record use of a tool such as calculator,
charts, or graphs used to help solve the problem.
The problem does not have to obtain the correct answer to
score well but must show good documentation.
____
Mt. Airy, MD.
As of September, 1992 my first wife and I had been
separated for two years. We have two sons, ages 6 and 9, at
New Market Elementary School. Without my prior knowledge or
approval the school included my youngest son in a discussion
group for children of broken homes.
The purpose of the group was to allow the children to
discuss their problems, if any, and vent whatever negative
feelings they had. I found out about this group one year
later when they tried to include my son in the next session--
when he got into 2nd grade. I spoke with the individual in
charge of this program. I told her my son would not attend
and that neither me nor his teachers felt he had any
problems. Both my sons do very well in school--all A's and
B's, they work hard and are well liked by their classmates
and teachers.
I have no idea how my son was chosen for this group nor do
I know why I wasn't advised prior to the first session.
Richard H. Allen.
____
Maryland, January 28, 1994.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: This is the sixth year my children
have been in Maryland's public schools. In that time, I have
often been disappointed in some of the teaching methods and
materials used. Some have taught or encouraged attitudes and
ideas for real-life problemsolving which conflict with what I
have taught at home. This undermines the parent/child
relationship in our home, as values and attitudes have been
taught without my knowledge and certainly without my consent,
and I have witnessed the despair, sadness and confusion that
some of the teaching has put in my children's minds.
At times I only became aware of what was being taught by
listening to my child express concern and by questioning my
child or the teachers. Information was not given to me in
advance concerning the nature of the lessons. I had to
aggressively seek information, and have withdrawn my child
from certain exercises, sometimes risking that my child would
not receive a grade in the subject (science or social
studies).
Enclosed are some examples of programs which I find
offensive:
``Chase Your Monsters'' from the drug awareness program
``Here's Looking at You 2000:'' My second grade son was
taught that monsters greet him at school trying to tear down
his opinion of himself and make him feel like a failure. He
was to learn how to talk back to those monsters in order to
cope with life, so that he would feel good about himself and
become successful. My child should not be taught to believe
in monsters or any other imaginative creature at all, much
less as a strategy for dealing with life. And I, as a parent,
was not advised by the school of what my child would be
taught to believe.
``Galleon:'' I thought this to be social studies. By
comments my daughter made concerning the daily ``Galleon''
experiences, I realized that collaborative decision-making,
team effort (which encouraged cheating and compromise for the
best outcomes of the crew), and critical thinking skills were
integral parts of ``Galleon.'' The class had advanced far
into the program before I realized my child was being called
upon to creatively evaluate the scenarios, which included
life and death situations, potential starvation, Fate
Bulletins, and other hazards filled with despair and
hopelessness. She was also to tell how she would handle some
of the situations, causing her to make value judgements based
on what she was being taught in the classroom. (Fifth Grade)
In our elementary school, the guidance counselor has met in
group sessions as well as individually with students, without
advising the parents. I discovered that she was planning to
counsel my first-grade son periodically in a group with three
to five other boys. When I questioned her about this, she
said she does not tell parents about this because that would
be a breech of confidentiality (toward my seven-year-old
son). She said she would help them deal with their feelings
about themselves. I should be advised prior to any such
meetings, and should have the opportunity to refuse the
counseling if I disagree with the attitudes taught.
Presently, the same guidance counselor is meeting with
another student periodically, and refuses to notify the
parents, again stating to me that it will breach the
confidentiality she has with the student.
Parents should have the right to know about the values and
attitudes which are being taught to their children, as well
as the right to decide who will teach beliefs, values, and
attitudes to their children. I believe this personally, as a
parent and a PTA member who serves on the Legislative
Committee of our local PTA unit.
Sincerely,
Cynthia L. Sharretts.
____
Liberty, MO,
January 24, 1994.
I am a seventeen-year-old junior in high school. The summer
before my freshman year at Liberty, MO, I was chosen to
attend a leadership conference sponsored by the school. I
arrived at the conference excited. I had heard good things
about it from upperclassmen who had attended in previous
years. However, the conference that year was very different.
To start things off, we had a meeting and the leaders
introduced themselves. They said they were citizens of the
world first and citizens of America second. We were
instructed to recite a pledge to the world flag before we
said the Pledge of Allegiance. I was disgusted, but decided
not to say anything. We were then divided into groups that
were to be our ``families'' for the two days. We had a father
figure and a mother figure. I did not like that either
because I already have a father and mother. During one of the
breaks the man running the conference came to talk to me. He
had heard that I was a Christian and wanted to know what I
believed. I was perplexed because I did not think my faith
had anything to do with a school-run function. They put us on
a diet that eliminated sugar, salt, meat, and caffeine. That
was a little weird, but I did not mind too much. We did not
get to bed until late that night and we had to get up very
early the next day. Many of us were very tired during the
next day.
The teacher who was my ``father'' had to leave about noon
on the second day. He was replaced with the teacher who was
the head of the program sponsoring the conference. That
afternoon we were brought into the theater that was our big
meeting room. Everyone was there except for the teacher who
had left. Everyone received a piece of paper and a pencil.
The man in charge put a tape on and told everyone to close
their eyes. On this day he told us to hypnotize ourselves
(the day before the had taught us how this is done), listen
to the tape, and do what it said. I sat in my seat, listened
to the tape and took notes on what it said. I did not
participate. The tape instructed us to pretend we were a
stream, a tree stump, and a cabin. It was guided imagery or
transcendental meditation. After the tape was over, we were
told to write a story about what had happened and how we felt
when we were the different objects. We then broke up into our
``families''. I waited until the theater was empty and then
went to talk to the teacher in charge. I asked her if I could
call home. I wanted my parents to know what was going on
before they came that night. She said that she did not know
if I could, that she would have to ask the man in charge.
When he heard what I wanted to do, he started asking why. I
answered him repeatedly that I only wanted to talk with my
mother. This man and the teacher were not satisfied with that
answer. They harassed me so much I started to cry. After that
they relented. When I told my mother what had happened, she
was upset because I was at a school sponsored function and
the people in charge did not want me to talk to my parents.
After I spoke to my mother, the teacher asked to speak to
her. The teacher told my mother that everything we had done
in the two days would be explained to the parents when they
came for the ending program. That night nothing was said
about transcendental meditation or anything else that had
happened.
My parents rights were ignored as were mine. I was very
offended with what happened at this conference. A teacher of
the district got away with the harassment of a student
because nothing was ever done about it despite repeated
letters from my parents to the superintendent and the school
board trying to get them to address the issue.
Sincerely,
Rebekah Anderson.
____
Liberty, MO,
January 23, 1994.
My children are in first and third grade at Manor Hill
Elementary in Liberty, Missouri. When my oldest son started
kindergarten, I became very involved at the school. I worked
in his classroom every week, served on PTA, and read every
paper that came home. I have continued this involvement over
the years. Therefore, I was shocked to find out last year
that my children were involved in ``counseling club.'' During
``counseling club,'' district counselors come to the
classroom on a regular basis. They sit with the children and
discuss feelings, issues related to self-esteem, and decision
making. This is a regular part of the district's elementary
curriculum, but this fact is not included in any of the
information that is given parents regarding curriculum. In
fact, there has been no effort on the district's part to
inform parents about this aspect of their children's
education. Most parents have no idea this is happening.
Further, I have learned that children can request a visit
with the counselor, and be taken out of the class to see the
counselor one on one without prior parental consent or
knowledge. As a parent, I feel that my child's emotional well
being is my responsibility, therefore when the school
involves my children on this type of counseling, they have
infringed on my rights by assuming a role that I have not
authorized.
Lori Elliott.
____
Deming, NM,
January 20, 1994.
Re amendment to America 2000.
Dear Senator Grassley: I was excited to hear about your
amendment. I support you completely. I am a divorced mother
of two young daughters. Motherhood is my top priority and
then my job. I have taken my children to work with me for
nine years now and it is not easy, but God put me here to
raise them, not anyone else. That leads me to our concern.
The Deming Public School system has decided it can counsel
our children on any subject without our permission. I have
been told personally if they feel my girls need counselling
about divorce, they will do it, without contacting me. Or
about death or any other subject they see fit. They are even
going so far as to counselling a whole classroom. In my
daughter's kindergarten class, they are using the horrifying
DUSO program, and have been without the parents' permission
or even passing the curriculum through the school board.
It has been an ongoing battle here. I have even shown the
school officials some laws the New Mexico State Senate have
passed, but they still refuse to listen and continue doing
what is desperately wrong. I hope and pray your amendment
will help solve this matter.
Sincerely,
Becky Allen.
____
Dayton, OH, January 19, 1994.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am deeply concerned with the Goals
2000 proposal now up for a vote. Frequently in the public
school system my children have been ask and required to
submit personal information regarding their beliefs,
feelings, attitudes, and values. Having done consider
research into the Goals 2000 proposal, it is my belief that
these actions on the part of the public schools will
escalate.
Two years ago when my oldest daughter was 13, she was
required to fill out a ``Values Questionnaire'' (enclosed) by
her Health teacher. The children did not have to put their
names on them however, each questionnaire was numbered so
that the teacher was aware of how each student had answered.
When I contacted the proper officials about what had
happened, the only response I received was from the principal
who ask me not to tell anyone as we wouldn't want to blacken
the eye of the school. I proceeded to contact every parent
who had a child in the class to ask them if they were aware
of what had taken place. It led to one of the biggest school
board meetings in the schools history, however because of my
involvement in making the parents aware, I was immediately
labeled a troublemaker and accused of belonging to some right
wing organization that was attempting to take over the
schools. These labels came after 7 years of being in the
district and volunteering on committees, PTO, and being a
head home room mother for several classes. I have since
learned that this is quite common if you protest anything
that the system does.
Due to this incident I decided that I must become deeply
involved in what was happening in the classroom with regards
to my children. I found that these type of things were
happening all over the country and began to keep an account
of what was taking place in my system.
The following year my daughter again received another
survey to fill out ``Symptoms of Stress'' (enclosed) that ask
her if she became frigid or impotent or had a loss of sex
drive when she was under stress. She was 14 years old at the
time and had never had a boyfriend.
During that same year, my daughter was given a journal
assignment that ask what I considered very personal
information regarding our family and home life. The
English teacher told her students (in writing) that these
were their journals and that she would not be reading
them. I had my daughter write down all of the questions
that she was ask that she considered an invasion of
privacy along with the date they were posted on the board.
At the end of the semester the teacher collected these
journals to be graded. I cannot claim that the teacher
read through these journals. I do however find it suspect
that she felt the need to collect and grade them after she
promised the students she would not read them. I have
enclosed a list of the questions and the date they were
posted on the board for the students to answer.
Senator, that same year my twins (age 9) entered the second
grade of school in this same system. A mandatory guidance
program was started. A guidance counselor come to each
classroom on a regular basis to discuss their feelings. I
obtained a copy of the curriculum from the district so that I
would be aware of what this program entailed. The curriculum
guide stated that they would be discussing their attitudes
and beliefs. It also stated that they would be using
experimentation in this program and keeping files on the
children. I applied in writing to have my children excused
from this program, and my request was granted. However,
unless I came up to the school during that period and
physically removed my children from the classroom they were
made to sit in the office. The school would not allow them to
go to the library or participate in an extra art or phys. ed.
class at that time. I would come up to the school and remove
the children and spend 40 minutes reading with them or
working on Math. A place was not provided for me to go and
often times I had to sit on the front porch of the school
with them. I have enclosed some of the papers that were
handed out in guidance to be filed out by the children, along
with a letter from another parent in the district. Senator, I
removed my children from this class because of what the
curriculum guide stated was going to take place. I did not
send my children to school for counseling, but for a factual
academic education. In October of this year, my husband and I
made the decision to pull our twins from the public school
system because of the emphasis being put on ``affective
education'' rather than academics. It was one of the toughest
decisions we ever had to make. I am currently Home Schooling
our children with the hopes of being able to afford private
school in the near future.
Senator in closing, I would like to state that I do not
live in a ``poor, inner city area'' but supposedly am
supporting one of the finest schools in the State with my tax
dollars. Three months ago when I pulled my twins from the
system my son could hardly read and could not subtract. In
the past three months with Home Education, he is reading on
grade level and this past week competed three 200 page books.
Both of my twins have gone from barely understanding
subtracting to comprehending that along with multiplication,
division with remainders, and small equations. I am not a
certified teacher. I am aware however that being smart
``feels good'' to these children.
I am deeply concerned that the Goals 2000 proposal will
only further invade the privacy of families and fail to
educate our children. It is time for the public schools to
get back to the job of educating our children in the
classroom and stop the attempts at coming though my front
door.
Anything you can do to help would be deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Christy D. Helm.
Enclosures.
Values Questionnaire
Okay or not okay:
Sex before marriage.
Having sex so I will be popular.
Having sex so I won't be lonely.
Having sex so I won't be unhappy.
Having sex because ``I got carried away.'' (Lost control.)
Thinking about sex.
Having sex because ``everybody's doing it.''
Waiting to have sex until I'm married.
Masturbation (touching yourself for sexual pleasure).
Not having sex because I'm not ready for that yet.
Having sex because it's ``right for me.''
Having sex when I am in love.
Having sex for fun.
Having sex to repay a favor.
Bragging about having sex with someone.
Getting pregnant so my boyfriend knows I really love him.
Using birth control.
After completing this exercise, I learned ------.
____
Symptoms of Stress
It's important to learn to recognize your own signs of
stress. If you are experiencing some or any of the symptoms
below you should heed the warnings that your body may be
giving you. Of course, stress is only one of the possible
causes of these symptoms.
Nervous tic.
Muscular aches (especially the neck, shoulders, back, or
legs).
Increased appetite or loss of appetite (or overeating or
not eating).
Increased smoking or chain-smoking.
Inability to sleep or nightmares.
Increased sweating.
Stuttering.
Nausea or stomach pain.
Grinding teeth.
Headache, dizziness.
Low-grade infections.
Rash or acne (especially on face or back).
Desire to cry or crying.
Constipation or diarrhea.
Frigidity or impotence.
Loss of sex drive.
High blood pressure.
Dry mouth or throat.
Irritability or bad temper.
Lethargy or inability to work.
Cold, clammy, or clenched hands.
Sudden bursts of energy.
Finger-tapping, foot-tapping, pencil tapping.
Depression.
Fear, panic, or anxiety.
Hives.
Coughing.
Excessive snacking.
Nagging.
Fatigue.
Pacing.
Frowning, wrinkling forehead.
Restlessness.
Unnecessary hand-waving, making wild gestures.
Other Symptoms:------.
Given to a 9th grade health class. Students were to fill
out and return.
____
Journal Questions for 9th Grade English
09/08/92 Describe your most perfect day
09/09/92 Looking into the future where can you see yourself
in 15 years?
09/14/92 What remembrance of your past has made a
significant change in your life?
09/16/92 Pick one word that bests describes yourself. How
does the word reflect your personality? Would your best
friends and your parents pick the same word?
09/17/92 What makes you happy?
09/18/92 What does the word family mean to you? Is there
such a thing as a typical family? What do you consider your
family?
09/21/92 What was the most embarrassing moment you have
ever experienced? How did it make you feel?
09/30/92 Here's your chance to gripe! What do your parents
or parent do that drives you crazy?
10/02/92 If a physician told you that in one year that you
would be dead, what would you want to be remembered for? What
would you want your surviving friends and family to say about
you?
10/08/92 You're planning a year long trip to another
galaxy. What items would you take with you? If only one
person was allowed to travel with you, who would you bring?
10/09/92 Why do you dress the way you do? Do your friends
influence your style?
10/12/92 Pretend you believe in reincarnation; who were you
in a past life? Were you famous? Were you of the same sex? Is
your life better now?
10/15/92 Music has a very therapeutic effect on many
people. What kind of music do you listen to? Why do you like
it? Is it a sort of therapy for you?
____
Kittanning, PA, January 26, 1994.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am very concerned about the
increasing invasion of privacy issues that I see in our
educational system. I am concerned about interference by some
teachers in our parenting and family relationships.
My wife and I have seven children each three years apart.
The oldest just graduated from college and the youngest will
start kindergarten this Fall. Over the last fifteen years we
have been able to observe differences in educational
philosophy in the various age groups. Despite the laws
against psychological testing and invading the privacy of
students I have seen education turn away from cognitive
learning to a strong focus on affective education. I'm told
by teachers that affective learning is more successful--they
must get the students involved at an emotional level or they
will not choose to learn. As a pastor and religious teacher I
use affective education and I know that those who choose to
view the Bible simply from a cognitive level will not learn
to use what they know. The major difference is that people
come to me or my church on a voluntary basis and I am free to
use the foundations, morals, and values that I believe are
true to engage others in affective learning. Public education
is different. My child is a captive audience held by an
authority figure who is increasingly undermining my values,
for example, the concept of parental authority. Allow me to
offer several illustrations. Here are two incidents from our
local school district during last school year, one from the
1992-93 Iowa test, and one from the 1992 Pennsylvania TELLS
test.
1. During the two school weeks of October 12-23, 1992, Miss
Smail, 7th grade English teacher in Kittanning--Armstrong
School District, gave a series of writing assignments to her
class. One of her students was Ryan Schwartz, son of Mr. and
Mrs. James Schwartz of RD #2 Box 75A Kittanning, PA 16201.
The writing prompts were assigned one day and the essay was
to be completed the next day in class. Among the writing
prompts were these statements: (1) ``Write about something
your parents did to embarrass you or that you did to
embarrass your parents.'' (2) ``Write about something weird
your parents do that you will probably do some day.'' (3)
``Write about a change that has happened in your family,
something that you do now that you didn't do when you were
smaller.'' After writing similar essays for nine days the
last writing prompt was assigned: ``What don't you like about
yourself and why.'' Ryan struggled with what he would write
about. However the greatest injustice was about to occur.
That Friday in class after these last absurd essays were
written, Miss Smail instructed the students to exchange their
papers with their classmates and then she had the essays read
aloud to the class. I can only wish that I had been there.
7th graders, at the most emotionally fragile time of their
life, being subjected to the abuse of their teacher and
classmates! All this while we are spending huge dollars for
programs that we need to ``build the student's self-esteem.''
I wish I could tell you that this teacher was disciplined
or better relieved from her responsibilities so that she
could pursue something she is more suited for. The sad
fact is that these parents felt intimidated and therefore
were unwilling to approach the teacher or principal with
their concerns for fear their son would be adversely
affected. I did communicate this situation to the
Superintendent of the school district, but no official
action has been taken.
2. During early October, 1992, Mrs. Brewer, 9th grade
English teacher in Ford City-Armstrong School District, gave
a writing prompt to her students. One of her students was
Kendra Neale, daughter of Rev. and Mrs. James Neale of RD #8
Kittanning, PA 16201. The writing prompt was: ``Write an
essay about the lie you told your parents.'' Again in this
case the teacher was not confronted for fear of retribution.
3. On October 23, 1992, I went to our elementary school to
preview the Iowa Test my son was to receive. This test for
fifth grade contained a writing prompt that I did not approve
of. I was not permitted to copy the prompt verbatim so I must
paraphrase: ``There is something that you would like to do
which your parents will not allow. Write an essay explaining
how you are going to be able to do this thing.'' I removed my
son from this testing and complained to the school
administration who said they had no control over the test
questions.
4. My last illustration is a little different, but again
points to what I believe is a spirit of rebellion and
antagonism being promoted among our students. Pennsylvania
puts together an assessment test which they call TELLS and
added a ``Health'' section for the Spring 1992 test. Later we
would find seven or eight versions for each age group, with
variations in the controversial questions, but the edition my
fourth grade son was to take contained this question: ``What
do you think about our country's laws on marijuana?'' I
believe my fourth grader needs to learn what the law is and
why it is illegal, rather than asking him for an opinion when
he is not mature enough to have an opinion based on the
facts.
I sincerely desire the freedom to guide my children's
education and instill values in them without this type of
interference. As President Clinton said toward the end of his
State of the Union address, ``Government doesn't raise
children, parents raise children.''
Respectfully,
Ronald and Linda Lithgow.
____
Today's Families--11th Grade Home Economics Test From November 2, 1992
Answer the following questions as directed--true or false:
In order to be part of a family, you have to be related to
other people by blood, marriage, or adoption.
You're not part of a family unless you and the other
members live in the same house.
A couple isn't really a family unless they have children.
College roommates (two people of the same sex) could be
considered a family.
If a young person is living with his parents and sister but
doesn't feel the group shares love, trust; and respect, then
according to our definition, he doesn't really have a family.
A family is a group of people who work together solve
problems and who never argue.
Couples today are spending fewer years having children than
couples did in the past because they're having fewer
children.
Today, it's likely that couples will easily have thirty or
more years to spend together as a couple after the children
leave home.
The family of the 1890's commonly lived on the farm,
producing what it needed to survive. Today's family has moved
off the farm and buys most of what it needs to survive.
One hundred years ago, few women worked outside the home
for pay.
(Source: Jamestown HS, Jamestown, PA.)
____
Harleysville, PA, January 26, 1994.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate Post Office,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: As parents of three public school
children, ages seven, eleven and fourteen, we have learned
through personal experiences that there is a strong need for
more effective parental rights legislation. Such legislation
would serve to protect the integrity of our children's
learning environment and also to elevate parent confidence.
While this sentiment has evolved from many experiences, we
would like to specifically relay to you some details
regarding a particular counseling program that ignored some
very basic parental rights.
Parents discovered that the federally funded Lincoln Center
program was administered to our children long after the fact.
In June of 1992, we came across several worksheets used in
this program during the 1991-1992 school year. When we
discovered the Group Guidance Rules, our son was reluctant to
talk to us because of his concern that he was breaking the
rules. These rules stated, ``What is said in the group stays
in the group.'' and ``I will not talk with anyone outside of
my group about what other members have shared.'' This written
agreement was signed by our child and the counselor. We also
came across a worksheet where the children had to rate their
stress on a scale from one through five: The children
answered: ``Fear of parents' divorcing. Not getting enough
attention, Other family members hurting me, Fighting between
parents, Having so little supervision that it is easy to get
in trouble, etc.'' The children that circled a five (the
highest rating) were asked to raise their hands and tell the
class what it was they were stressed about.
The counselor from this outside agency, Lincoln Center,
came into the children's English. Math, Science, Social
Studies, and Reading classes to administer this program for
the entire North Penn 6th grade student body. Through talking
with our child about this outside group guidance program, we
discovered that a school counselor had come routinely into
his classrooms for the last 3 years.
It was also discovered at this time, that the Lincoln
Center program was funded by federal grant money for Drug-
Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 (DFSCA). This
Lincoln Center program was approved by the school directors
to give ``drug and alcohol services'' for ``at risk students
and those returning from treatment.'' Contrary to this formal
approval of school directors, it was given to the entire six
grade student body. Then, the administrators sent home a
letter to parents, by way of the children, describing the
program to be ``Curriculum-based Group Guidance'' not ``Drug
and Alcohol Services.''
Points that are worthy of noting are:
1. The parental notification letter was distributed, by way
of students, after the program began without approval from
parents. This parent letter is not in accordance with the
DFSCA terms (pg. 12, II) that requires all announcements to
clearly identify DFSCA programs.
2. During this program, eleven and twelve year old children
signed a contract/agreement with an adult counselor without
parents knowledge or permission.
3. Children were encouraged to have discussions in the
group. These discussions invaded the privacy of a family's
home life. (When we asked our child what was discussed, he
told us about families that were having marital problems.)
4. It is stated on page five (5) of the DFSCA application,
that such programs must ``clearly'' teach our children that
drugs and alcohol are illegal. Nowhere within this Lincoln
Center program or the counselor's outlined objectives is this
stated. (The children received a ``Certificate of Completion
for Group Guidance Lessons'', not for ``Saying No to
Drugs,'')
While the personal and legal violations of this program,
were many, it has nonetheless been delivered with taxpayers'
dollars with impunity. Clearly, stronger and more concise
legislation is needed to give parents their right to secure a
family's right to privacy, protect children from entrapment,
and to safeguard the quality of education curriculum.
Sincerely,
Gary and Janet L. Volpe.
____
Tarentum, PA, January 26, 1994.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing in regards to my
children and the future of their education in ``Goals 2000''.
Thank you so much for what you are trying to do with your
amendment.
There are several things that I am very concerned about.
For one, I have great concern as to the lax enforcement of
the Hatch amendment. I am sending you a copy of a test done
on my child last year without my knowledge. I only was able
to find out because my son came home to my wife saying,
``What a strange test I had today.'' My wife then went to the
school asking for this test and why it was done. Shouldn't we
as parents be able to decide whether our children should be
subject to these kinds of questions.
Another matter of concern that I have is children being
told, by the teachers, not to mention various things going on
at school. These children are our responsibilities, not the
state's or the nation's. We would like to see them brought up
to trust and respect us as parents. I realize some children
are subjected to parents who don't care and appreciate them,
and the option should be there for those children to talk and
discuss things with counselors who care. Yet, my children
should not be forced to give information about personal
feelings.
I hope you can use some of the information from this letter
and the copy of this test. Thanks for what you are doing to
support better quality education in the United States.
Sincerely,
David M. Smith.
1. I spend a lot of time daydreaming.
2. Boys and girls like to play with me.
3. I like to spend most of my time alone.
4. I am satisfied with my school work.
5. I have lots of fun with my mother.
6. My parents never get angry at me.
7. I wish I were younger.
8. I have only a few friends.
9. I usually quit when my school work is too hard.
10. I have lots of fun with my father.
11. I am happy most of the time.
12. I am never shy.
13. I have very little trust in myself.
14. Most boys and girls play games better than I do.
15. I like being a boy/I like being a girl.
16. I am doing as well in school as I would like to.
17. I have lots of fun with both of my parents.
18. I usually fail when I try to do important things.
19. I have never taken anything that did not belong to me.
20. I often feel ashamed of myself.
21. Boys and girls usually chose me to be the leader.
22. I usually can take care of myself.
23. I am a failure at school.
24. I find it hard to make up my mind and stick to it.
25. My parents make me feel that I am not good enough.
26. I never get angry.
27. I often feel that I am no good at all.
28. I have many friends about my own age.
29. Most boys and girls are smarter than I am.
30. Most boys and girls are better than I am.
31. My parents dislike me because I am not good enough.
32. I like everyone I know.
33. Children pick on me very often.
34. I like to play with children younger than I am.
35. I like to be called on by my teacher to answer
questions.
36. I would change many things about myself if I could.
37. There are many times when I would like to run away from
home.
38. I am as happy as most boys and girls.
39. I can do things as well as other boys and girls.
40. I often feel like quitting school.
41. I worry a lot.
42. My parents understand how I feel.
43. When I have something to say, I usually say it.
44. I never worry about anything.
45. I am as nice looking as most boys and girls.
46. Other boys and girls are mean to me.
47. I know myself very well.
48. I am doing the best school work that I can.
49. People can depend on me to keep my promises.
50. My parents thing I am a failure.
51. I always tell the truth.
52. I need more friends.
53. I always know what to say to people.
54. My teacher feels that I am not good enough.
55. My parents love me.
56. I never do anything wrong.
57. Most boys and girls are stronger than I am.
58. I am proud of my school work.
59. I often get upset at home.
60. I am never unhappy.
____
Tarentum, PA, January 26, 1994.
Dear Senator Grassley: Thank you so much for the amendment
you are proposing for ``Goals 2000'' because parent's rights
need to be protected.
I am a mother of three boys, ages 14, 11, and 5. I have
lived in my area all of my life and I have never questioned
my children's education until last year. I always believed
that my children were being properly served by my district,
until a question arose from one of my sons. I decided to look
into the matter and ask if I could review the curriculum
(which was granted). To my dismay, I found questionable
material throughout two different courses. One being Guidance
and the other being Advisory (Lions Quest). There were
several questions pertaining to cigarette smoking, drugs,
sex, suicide, and most puzzling of all were questions
undermining parental authority.
After gathering information on the curriculum, I approached
the Administration with several questions. (never did I
approach them in a threatening manner, but that of a
concerned parent.) Through the process of several written
letters to the Superintendent, I was told that they would
take these courses, even though various information was
presented to them as to the harm that this could cause my
sons. As a mother, I wonder what ``Goals 2000'' will bring.
It seems as if we are losing our rights to our children with
the exception of caring for their material needs. I believe
that we should have the right to teach our children values,
and not have them undermined by questions such as ``Ask
students to think about a families rights to privacy vs.
society's right to intervene?'' or another example ``Ask
students how they feel when they do what they are told, even
though they don't want to''. Point out that Holly does this
with just about everything, and ask them to imagine how this
would feel. Note: Holly tries to commit suicide, in this
material.
I was told that if my children didn't participate, they
would not be graded on as favorably. Should my children have
to discern what questions they can and cannot answer, so
young in life, to protect their own privacy. The ``Hatch
Amendment'' was made as a protection for our children. I
would like to see it enforced.
I will enclose several pieces of information that I have
compiled, as examples for you. Thank you for what you are
trying to do to better our children's education.
Sincerely,
Nancy Jean Smith.
____
Tarentum, PA, May 18, 1993.
Highlands School District,
Natrona Heights, PA.
Dear Dr. Baldassare: We are writing in regards to the
matter of our sons taking the Advisory and Guidance courses.
We have discussed this with various administrators throughout
the district. As you know, we feel that both of these courses
could be harmful to our children, and we would like to have
our children opted out completely.
From information we have obtained the whole non-
judgemental, non-directive approach has been proven to be
ineffective. We are not against drug education in the
directive form, but these classes are clearly non-directive
in every subject matter including suicide. Since when is it
legally right for a minor to do drugs, drink alcohol, smoke
cigarettes or commit sucide? Our laws cleary state that these
practices are illegal; thus, we would like our children to be
directed in this way.
Another contention we have with this program is the fact
that many of the questions asked are of a personal nature.
Even though some of the questions are implied for someone the
child knows, a child in 6th grade knows of no other
experiences other than his or her own. In our view this is a
violation of our rights as parents to consent to any
psychological or personal questioning and can be, as a
result, in direct violation of the Hatch amendment.
As we have stated before, we want nothing more then to have
our children challenged academically. They are good students
in the district and we want them to have a sound and positive
education, with this, the things they will learn at home and
in school can be applied later on in their lives. We are
sorry for any inconvenience this may cause; however, we feel
these courses could lead our children to make the wrong
decisions morally and spiritually.
We won't go into details over the curriculum specifically
since we had to return it. Also, we do not wish to
inconvenience you anymore than we already have. I will attach
the information I have already provided concerning some of
the most offensive sections of Mill River in particular.
Please remember we were unable to receive the student guides
to evaluate them individually. We only obtained two lessons
and the teachers guide.
In closing we ask you to review the information we have
already delivered to you concerning Quest and Mill River and
the whole non-directive approach. We are not asking you to
change anything you are now doing but we are asking you to
consider the research we have provided to the district as a
whole. We have not solely cited the views of one researcher,
but that of several sources. Research done particularly on
Quest has not been favorable. Please understand, we do not
want to cause the district undue grief, we are merely
attempting to look out for our children's best interests.
Thank you for the time you have set aside to read this. We
ask you again to please opt our children out completely from
Advisory and Guidance. We feel if they are not opted out
completely they may have to endure undue peer pressure from
those who know that they are being opted out for sections.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
David M. and Nancy Jean Smith,
(Parents of Jonathon and Daniel Smith.)
Enclosure.
Mill River
Episode 2: Just average.
Suggested activity--have student write a classified ad
[mostly positive and including a price] for selling or buying
one of their siblings.
Episode 3: My summer vacation
Worksheet--4. Ask students to think about a family's right
to privacy versus society's right to intervene.
Episode 8: The baddest and the best.
Worksheet--ask students if they would rather be known for
something bad than not known at all
Episode 9: I see you see
Worksheet--6. Ask students how they feel when they do what
they are told, even though they don't want to. Point out that
Holly does this with just about everything, and ask them to
imagine how this would feel.
Episode 10: A choice in the matter.
Suggested activity--have students write their own
obituaries. They should include their accomplishments, and
how they achieved them.
Episode 12: All's fair.
Champ believed he had an obligation to Rhett as a friend in
his dispute with Tony. But Jack felt no obligation to Champ.
Have students discuss the extent of their obligations to
others.
1. In discussion, ask if Jack can be excused because of his
drunkenness. If Tony had missed with the bottle, do students
think Jack should still have warned Champ?
2. Similar to question 1, with two exceptions: Champ and
Rhett are friends while Jack and Champ are not going to use a
bottle to fight. Ask students if it would be all right for
Tony to stick up for Rocko if Champ had picked a fight with
Rocko. Ask them if Champ had a ``right'' to intervene on
Rhett's part, since he had a score to settle with Tony from
the football game.
3. Have students discuss whether ``anything goes'' in a
fight. Should Champ have jumped on Tony once he knocked him
down?
4. There is not necessarily a right answer. Point out that
this is not unusual. That kids often don't like something
about their parents, but as they get older they are likely to
do the same thing.
5. Holly and Gina seem to have a very superficial
relationship.
Episode 15: Court's in session.
Worksheet--1. Those who agree with this question probably
have a great deal of difficulty trusting others. Adults often
say that students must do things they don't want to do
because it is ``good for them.'' Let students debate the
question. Acknowledge the truth that people sometimes do
trust others and get hurt as a result. Also, recognize that
sometimes adults use the ``best for you'' statement when they
are trying to control kids.
Episode 17: Hot stuff.
____
Greenville, PA.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing to you in relationship
to a situation that occurred in our school system concerning
my forester-boy Richard Smith.
Rich was a sophomore at Greenville High School. Every
sophomore is enrolled in a class that is run by the guidance
counselor entitled ``Life Skills''. It was in this class that
an incident took place without the prior knowledge or consent
of parents.
On a Friday evening Rich came home after a night out roller
skating with friends. Everything seemed fine. We both went to
bed. Twenty minutes later I had an uneasy feeling. I wanted
to check up on Rich. I went downstairs because I noticed some
lights on that I had previously turned out. I went back
upstairs to turn out the bathroom light when I found Rich's
note. ``Please don't be mad at me, I just took all the rest
of my medication.'' Rich was on medication for depression.
To make a long story short, I got Rich to the emergency
room where they pumped his stomach and kept him overnight for
observation. I didn't think anything unusual about this
because we were told that Rich may have tendencies to attempt
suicide due to his depression.
However, on Monday afternoon my wife received a phone call
from another sophomore who was a friend. She informed her
that she might know why Rich had attempted suicide on Friday.
That day in Life Skills class they had shown a movie on
suicide entitled ``Why did Jenny have to die?'' In tears she
described for my wife what a depressing movie it had been.
You can imagine how shocked we were! And as much as I felt
for Rich, I couldn't help but think how I would feel if this
had been one of my own boys. My emotions ranged from shock to
fear to anger! Todays teenager doesn't need much of a reason
to attempt suicide. Especially after seeing a movie which
truly romantisizes suicide. (I have since viewed the movie)
And again, without any prior knowledge or consent of the
parents.
This kind of situation does not belong in our school
systems and is something that should be handled by a
profesional. I thank you and encourage you to do all you can
to remove this kind psychological counselling from our
schools.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Coleman.
____
Dry Fork, VA,
January 22, 1994.
Re amendment to President Clinton's education Goals 2000.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Grassley: Although many in the education field are
sincere in their efforts to educate and help children, there
are still many others within the system who are clearly
moving away from respecting parental rights. We have
experienced the supremacy of the home being replaced by the
school as more and more within education endeavor to attend
to the needs of the psychological development of school
children without seeking nor acknowledging the importance of
parental involvement. It is this thinking that has America on
a slippery slope and is the antithesis of true freedom and
liberty.
My husband and I have twice experienced the blatant
disregard of our authority and legal responsibility for our
child, Michael, within the first two years he was in school.
In 1990, approximately four months after the death of our
infant daughter, our son entered Kindergarten. It was during
this year (the 90/91 school year) that he was counseled
against my expressed wishes on the topic of Death & Dying.
Not only was he counseled privately on more than one
occasion, but the entire classroom was lead into discussions
to sharing their feelings and emotions on the deaths of their
family members and other loved ones and not one single parent
had prior knowledge or given any consent to this form of
counseling. Not one single parent was told of this form of
counseling ever taking place until after I discovered it
myself.
When I did, my son's teacher was moved to tears as she
shared with me what it was like to hear all these children's
stories. I couldn't help but wonder what emotions were
aroused in the hearts of those young five-year olds. Our son
had told the class about how his little sister had died.
Although our entire family had coped with the losses of other
family members over the previous years and had managed to
cope quite well without psychiatric intervention, this death
was more difficult for our little son because he came to the
realization that sometimes children die. I wondered how many
of his classmates suddenly came to that realization
themselves as he shared his experiences before the classroom,
and how many of those children went home more fearful than
when they came to class that day. I also wondered how the
teacher and counselor responded to any of their comments
and questions without the infusion of religion or their
own religious beliefs. And again, no note was sent home to
as much as express to the parents, ``You may need to talk
with your child about death and dying this evening as it
was the topic of discussion this afternoon.''
I thought this was just an isolated instance. I was angry
and disturbed, but kept telling myself the school was just
trying to help.
In the following weeks, however, my son began having
nightmares. Thinking these were probably to be expected
considering the grief he was experiencing, we simply became
more careful with what we permitted him to watch on TV or
read in books. Never in our wildest dreams did we expect to
discover the source of his nightmares would turn out to be
directly from the counseling he had received in school--but
they were. I would later discover our school used a program
which delved very deeply into psychotherapy specifically
geared to help children cope with their feelings, fears, and
emotions regarding Divorce/Separation, and Death/Dying. His
nightmares matched detail-for-detail the last story written
in the Counseling program entitled ``Bright Beginnings''
written by Jill Anderson.
The last story is about a monster visiting a little girl
six nights in a row. Finally on the 6th night the little girl
overcomes her fears and speaks to the monster only to find
out he wants to be her friend and learn how to dance. Isn't
that delightful?! This horror story is purported to be
helpful in assisting young children (of Kindergarten age) how
to distinguish warnings to be sure the children know the
difference between good fears and bad fears as confusion in
this area can be psychologically damaging as they get older!
In the 91/92 school year, we discovered once again our son
(then in 1st grade) being counseled without our prior
knowledge or consent in a program using coercive thought
reform techniques.
A curriculum expert's review of this program describes the
methods as a ``form of indoctrination''. I contacted several
psychiatrists as well. Two leading psychiatrists in the field
of hypnotherapy have critiqued this program and have issued
strong warnings against its use within schools because it
goes so deeply into psychotherapy, and they went as far as to
identifying the guided imagery exercises within the program
as being indicative of self-hypnosis which could induce an
altered-state-of-consciousness in young children.
We lead parents in our country forcing the removal of this
program after our local school superintendent refused to
offer written protective guidelines or restrictions
concerning the techniques we found in this program. (He
offered to remove the techniques, but would not put this in
the form of a written policy statement.) Since then we
have discovered multiple programs with the same
manipulative methods and guided imagery/hypnotic
techniques--and we are very alarmed at the indifference of
some within the education field. And please note we say
``some,'' because we have found many teachers objecting to
the infusion of psychotherapy into the classrooms as well.
But we no longer have trust in our schools as they have
since labeled us and other concerned parents as ``book
censors.'' We are now working statewide with parents and
concerned education personnel, trying to obtain protective
restrictions as more aggressive forms of psychotherapy are
becoming more commonplace in the classroom. And we have the
documentation to verify this for anyone desiring to see it.
Please do everything you can, everything within your power,
to re-establish our trust in public education. The courts in
our nation still recognize the supremacy of parents in the
upbringing and nurturing of their children, but our schools
are in desperate need of strong reminding of this fact today.
My husband and I will not be as naive again. If necessary
we will have our rights upheld through the legal process if
we ever encounter a similar circumstance again. Except for it
exposing our children to potential harm, we would almost
relish the opportunity taking place.
You have my sincere regards, and appreciation for your
efforts in having at least some restrictions implemented in
this area of education.
Sincerely,
Michael and Judy C. Rominger.
____
Mountain Home, AR, January 22, 1994.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: I have recently learned of your amendment
regarding parental approval prior to obtaining some types of
personal information from schools receiving America 2000
funding. My husband and I are in full support of this
legislation and would like to provide some examples of the
need for it.
When my son was in the 6th grade, he was registered for a
mandatory class entitled ``Skills for Adolescence''. Upon
inquiry, I was told by the principal that this was a ``study
skills'' class. Many parents became concerned when their
children reported class discussions on their personal family
situations, i.e., alcoholism and abuse. Parental discipline
techniques were critiqued and the positive aspects of
shoplifting were taught. I obtained the student text and was
disgusted with the anti-family values portrayed. Parents were
depicted in a negative way consistently while students were
urged to seek counsel apart from the family structure. I felt
the curriculum undermined the values we were instilling in
our children. When 40 parents objected to the material, an
alternative was offered but not without some intimidation.
Enclosed you will find a copy of a Health Track Survey.
During my son's 7th grade year, he was part of a ``health
awareness week'' that featured blood testing and other health
care services along with this survey. Many citizens objected
to the personal nature of the questions and the fact that the
responses were elicited at school without their prior
knowledge.
We hold traditional Judeo-Christian values and send our
children to school to get an education rather than be
psychoanalyzed or screened for potential health problems. We
object to these invasions of privacy and parental rights and
feel it is only reasonable to at least obtain parental
permission before performing these non-traditional functions.
I will be in touch with my Senators regarding this issue
and hope to appreciate the protection this amendment offers
in the future. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Jones.
Enclosure.
Junior High School Health Risk Inventory
This questionnaire asks about your health habits and will
give you a computer printout based on your answers.
It is completely confidential, so don't put your name
anywhere on the questionnaire or answer card.
Before beginning--you must darken in the Junior H.S. circle
at the top of the answer card.
D1. Which are you? (1) male; (2) female.
D2. What is your race? (1) White (non-Hispanic); (2) Black
(Afro-American); (3) Hispanic/Puerto Rican/Latin; (4) Asian;
(5) Other.
D3. Which adults do you live with now? (1) 2 parents; (2) 1
parent/1 step parent; (3) 1 parent only; (4) other.
D4. Compared to other students in your school, how are your
grades? (1) the best grades; (2) above average grades; (3)
average grades; (4) below average grades.
D5. How old are you now? (1) twelve or younger; (2) 13; (3)
14; (4) 15; (5) 16; (6) 17 or older.
D6. How many brothers and sisters do you have? (1) none
(only child); (2) 1; (3) 2; (4) 3; (5) 4 or more.
D7. What is the highest grade you plan to reach in school?
(1) may not finish HS; (2) plan to finish HS but not go to
college; (3) plan to go to college; (4) other.
Grade: What grade are you in now?
Height: How tall are you (without shoes).
Weight: How much do you weigh (without clothes).
Answer the rest of the questions on the bottom portion of
the answer card.
1. How often do you brush your teeth? (1) more than once a
day; (2) once a day; (3) 3 to 6 days a week; (4) less than 3
days a week.
2. Have you been to the dentist or dental clinic in the
last year? (1) yes; (2) no.
3. Are you now on a diet to lose weight? (1) yes; (2) no.
4. How many days a week do you usually eat breakfast? (1)
almost every day; (2) 3 times a week; (3) 1-2 times a week;
94) almost never.
5. How often do you eat ``junk-food'' (chips, candy, snack
foods, etc.)? (1) almost every day; (2) 3 times a week; (3)
1-2 times a week; (4) almost never.
6. How often do you eat fruits and vegetables? (1) almost
every day; (2) 3 times a week; (3) 1-2 times a week; (4)
almost never.
7. How often do you play or exercise hard enough to sweat
and breathe heavily for at least 30 minutes at a time? (1)
almost every day; (2) 3 times a week; (3) 1-2 times a week;
(4) almost never.
8. How often do you join in recreational activities--such
as basketball, baseball, tennis, bowling, bike riding,
swimming, etc.? (1) almost every day; (2) 3 times a week; (3)
1-2 times a week; (4) almost never.
9. How many cigarettes have you smoked in your life? (1)
none; (2) less than 100 (5 packs); (3) 100 or more.
10. Do you smoke cigarettes now? (1) no; (2) yes, but not
every day; (3) yes, every day.
11. Do you use ``smokeless tobacco'' (snuff or chewing
tobacco)? (1) I never have (or only tried it); (2) I did, but
quit; (3) I do but not every day; (4) I do every day--once or
twice; (5) I do every day--3 or more times.
12. Do you drink beer, wine, wine coolers, or other
alcoholic drinks (other than for religious reasons)? (1) no,
I don't (or only tried it); (2) yes, but not often; (3) yes,
but not every week; (4) yes, 1 or 2 days a week; (5) yes, 3
or more days a week.
13. About how many alcoholic drinks do you drink in a week?
(1) none, or less than 1 a week; (2) 1 or 2 drinks a week;
(3) 3 to 5 times a week; (4) 6 to 12 drinks a week; (5) more
than 12 drinks a week.
14. In the past 2 months, how many times have you been
drunk? (1) I don't drink; (2) none in the last two months;
(3) once or twice in last 2 months; (4) three or more times
in last 2 months.
15. Has anyone ever asked you to try a drug such as
marijuana, cocaine, or crack? (1) no; (2) yes; (3) not sure.
16. Have you ever smoked marijuana? (1) no, I never tried
it; (2) yes, but only to try it; (3) yes, I used to, but
quit; (4) yes I do now, less than once a week; (5) yes I do
now, more than once a week.
17. Have you ever used cocaine (other than crack? (1) no, I
never tried it; (2) yes, but only to try it; (3) yes, I used
to, but quit; (4) yes I do now, less than once a week; (5)
yes I do now, more than once a week.
18. Have you ever used crack? (1) no, I never tried it; (2)
yes, but only to try it; (3) yes, I used to, but quit; (4)
yes I do now, less than once a week; (5) yes I do now, more
than once a week.
19. Have you ever used a drug other than marijuana,
cocaine, or crack to get high? (1) no, I never tried it; (2)
yes, but only to try it; (3) yes, I used to, but quit; (4)
yes I do now, less than once a week; (5) yes I do now, more
than once a week.
20. What is the main reason you think people your age might
try a drug such as marijuana, cocaine, or crack (mark only
one answer)? (1) to feel older; (2) to have a good time; (3)
to get over feeling bad; (4) to fit in with their friends;
(5) some other reason.
21. Do you ever ride with a driver who has been drinking or
using drugs? (1) no, never; (2) yes, once or twice in 6
months; (3) yes, less than once a week; (4) yes, once a week
or more.
22. How often do you use seatbelts when you drive or ride
in a car? (1) always; (2) most of the time; (3) sometimes;
(4) never.
23. Do you ever carry a gun, knife or other weapon for
protection? (1) yes; (2) no.
24. In the past year, how many times have you hit or beat
up anyone? (1) never; (2) once in the last year; (3) 2 or 3
times in the last year; (4) 4 or more times in the last year.
25. Do you turn to friends or relatives when something is
troubling you? (1) yes, almost always; (2) yes, sometimes;
(3) no, not usually; (4) no, never.
26. In the past six months, have you had feelings that life
wasn't worth living? (1) yes, often; (2) yes, sometimes; (3)
yes, but rarely; (4) no, never.
27. Are you under much stress because of pressures at
school? (1) yes, a lot; (2) yes, sometimes; (3) no, not much;
(4) not at all.
28. Are you under much stress because of pressures at home?
(1) yes, a lot; (2) yes, sometimes; (3) no, not much; (4) no,
not at all.
29. Do you ever worry that one of your parents will hit you
or hurt you? (1) yes, often; (2) yes, sometimes; (3) no,
never.
30. Are you under much stress because of a boyfriend or
girlfriend pressures? (1) yes, a lot; (2) yes, sometimes; (3)
no, not much; (4) no, not at all.
31. In the past six months, have you had long periods (2
weeks or more) when you were depressed or felt really
unhappy? (1) no, not really; (2) yes, but I feel OK now; (3)
yes, but things are getting better; (4) yes, and I still feel
depressed and unhappy.
32. How many friends do you have? (1) No close friends-I'm
a loner; (2) I have one close friend; (3) I have a few close
friends; (4) I have many close friends.
33. In the past six months, have you had any serious
personal losses (broke up with boy/girl friend, your parents
got divorced, someone close to you died, etc.)? (1) no; (2)
yes, one serious loss; (3) yes, two or more serious losses.
34. Have you ever had a friend or classmate who killed
himself or herself? (1) yes; (2) no.
35. In the last year, have you thought about or tried to
kill yourself? (1) no; (2) yes, but not seriously; (3) I've
thought about it seriously once or twice; (4) I've thought
about it seriously often; (5) I've made an attempt at
suicide.
36. Do you feel pressure on you to be sexually active (have
sexual intercourse)? (1) yes, a lot; (2) yes, a little; (3)
no; (4) I don't know.
37. Do you every have questions about sex that you don't
know who to ask? (1) no; (2) yes, a few questions; (3) yes, a
lot of questions.
38. Do you know the ways a person can protect him/herself
from getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases
(VD)? (1) no; (2) yes, I think so; (3) yes, I'm sure.
39. Do you worry about whether your body is developing
(growing and changing) in a normal way? (1) yes, I worry
about that a lot; (2) yes, I worry about that sometimes; (3)
I worry about that a little; (4) I don't worry about that at
all.
40. In general, how honest have you been in filling out
this questionnaire? (1) very honest; (2) mostly honest; (3)
somewhat honest; (4) not very honest at all.
Special Questions: Do you have a first degree relative: Mom
Dad Brother Sister with Diabetes? With High Blood Pressure?
With heart disease before age sixty?
____
Fairfield, IA, November 26, 1993.
Charles E. Grassley,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am a concerned parent writing to
inform you of something which has happened in our local Iowa
school district, which may be of interest to you. This may
have something to do with an upcoming discussion on ``Goals:
2000'' coming up after the January recess.
I am enclosing a copy of the ``IOWA YOUTH SURVEY'' which
was distributed this November to sixth, eighth, and tenth
graders in the Fairfield School District. I was told by the
local administration that not all students in those three
grades were given the survey.
Students were asked not to put their name on the survey and
they were also (supposedly) told it was purely voluntary.
Notes were supposed to have been sent home to inform
parents this was happening, not to ask their permission in
any way. However, many parents I have spoken with knew
nothing about the survey, and upon further investigation
found out that indeed their children did complete the survey
without their knowledge or consent. Some parents did receive
the notice, but the survey had already been completed by
their children.
After reading thru the survey, I personally feel these are
very private and inappropriate questions to ask your average
teenager! A child in a private counselling session
(professional, not through the school) may need to be asked
these questions, but not the average teenager.
I question the motive behind any type of survey--especially
when parents are not informed or even asked for their
approval.
Senator Grassley, please consider this issue as you discuss
``GOALS: 2000'' after the January recess; especially when the
point of PARENTAL KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT is brought forward.
For some reason our wonderful Iowa schools are getting
further and further away from teaching the basics and getting
closer and closer to trying to raise our children for us!!
Please, Senator Grassley, re-read the ``GOALS: 2000'' Plan.
Does Iowa want to buy into this? Does Iowa have to buy into
this?
Most sincerely,
Victoria L. Eastburn.
Enclosure.
Iowa Youth Survey
This survey is designed to help educators understand the
behaviors and attitudes of students in your area and in the
state of Iowa. DO NOT put your name on this survey. Your
answers are strictly confidential, and no one will be able to
find out how you or anyone else answered. The reports that
are issued will combine many students' answers together and
will help educators plan effective programs.
Thank you very much for the time and attention you give to
completing these questions honestly and thoughtfully.
Part A. This first section of the survey asks some general
questions about you.
1. In what grade are you? 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th,
12th.
2. Are you male or female? Male, Female.
3. How do you describe yourself? American Indian; Asian or
Pacific Islander; Black or African American; Latino or
Hispanic; White or Caucasian; Other/Mixed race.
4. With whom do you live most of the time? Both birth
parents; Adoptive parent(s); Mother only; Father only; Mother
and step-father; Father and step-mother; Relatives other than
the above; Guardian/foster parents; Other.
5. Are your birth parents divorced or separated? Yes, No,
I'm not sure.
During an average week, how many hours do you spend . . .?
6. In band, choir, orchestra, music lessons, or practicing
voice or a musical instrument.
7. Playing sports on a school team.
8. In clubs or organizations at school, such as student
government, debate or drama, science clubs, language clubs,
chess clubs, journalism.
9. In clubs or organizations outside of school.
10. At church or synagogue worship services, programs, or
activities.
11. Doing homework.
12. During an average week, on how many evenings do you go
out for fun and recreation? None, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, 6 or 7.
Part B. The questions in this section ask about your
attitudes and feelings regarding school, self, and others.
How much do you agree or disagree with each of the
following?
13. At school I try as hard as I can to do my best work.
14. My teachers really care about me.
15. It bothers me when I don't do something well.
16. I don't care how I do in school.
17. My teachers don't pay much attention to me.
18. I get a lot of encouragement at my school.
19. How long do you expect to go to school?
Would like to quit school as soon as I can.
Plan to finish high school but don't think I'll go to
college.
Would like to go to some kind of trade school or vocational
school after high school.
Would like to go to college after high school.
Would like to go to college and then go on after college to
study to be something like a lawyer, professor, or doctor.
20. Compared with others your age, how well do you do in
school?
Much above average.
Above average.
Average.
Below average.
Much below average.
21. Have you felt you were under any strain, stress, or
pressure during the past month?
Yes, almost more than I could take.
Yes, quite a bit of pressure.
Yes, some/more than usual.
Yes, a little/about usual.
No, none at all.
22. How often have you felt anxious, worried, or upset
during the past month:
All the time.
Most of the time.
Some of the time.
Once in a while.
Not at all.
How much do you agree or disagree with each of the
following statements?
23. I have a number of good qualities.
24. My neighborhood is a safe place to live.
25. At times, I think I am no good at all.
26. I care about people's feelings.
27. All in all, I am glad I am me.
28. My parents often tell me they love me.
29. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
30. It is against my values to have sex while I am a
teenager.
31. My family life is happy.
32. On the whole, I like myself.
33. There is a lot of love in my family.
34. I get along well with my parents.
35. If I break one of my parents' rules, I usually get
punished.
36. My family has enough money to meet our basic needs for
food and clothing.
37. My parents give me help and support when I need it.
How often have you felt sad or depressed during the past
month?
All the time.
Most of the time.
Some of the time.
Once in a while.
Not at all.
39. In the last year, how often, if at all, have you
thought about killing yourself?
Never.
Once.
Twice
3-5 times.
6 or more times.
40. Have you ever tried to kill yourself?
No.
Yes, once.
Yes, twice.
Yes, more than 2 times.
Part C. In this section, the questions deal with the use
and non-use of alcohol and other drugs.
In questions below, a ``drink'' is defined as a glass of
wine, a bottle or can of beer, a shot glass of liquor, or a
mixed drink.
41. In an average month, how often (if ever) do you drink
beer, wine, ``coolers,'' or liquor?
I never drink alcoholic beverages.
I used to drink but don't now.
Less than once a month.
About once a month.
2-3 times a month.
About once a week.
2-4 times a week.
About once or more each day.
42. When you drink alcoholic beverages, how many drinks do
you usually have at any one time?
I don't drink.
Less than 1 drink.
1-2 drinks.
3-4 drinks.
5-6 drinks.
More than 6 drinks.
43. Think back over the last two weeks. How many times have
you had five or more drinks in a row?
None, Once, Twice, 3-5 times, 6-9 times, 10 or more times.
44. How old were you the first time (if ever) you had your
own glass of beer, wine, shot of liquor, or a mixed drink?
I have never used alcohol, 8 or younger, 9 or 10, 11 or 12,
13 or 14, 15 or 16, 17 or 18, I don't remember.
45. In an average week, how often (if ever) do you usually
smoke tobacco (cigarettes, pipes, cigars)?
I never smoke tobacco.
I have smoked but don't now.
1-6 times a week.
7-25 times a week.
4-10 times a day.
More than 10 times each day.
46. How old were you the first time (if ever) you tried
tobacco?
I have never tried tobacco, 8 or younger, 9 or 10, 11 or
12, 13 or 14, 15 or 16, 17 or 18, I don't remember.
47. How often (if ever) do you use smokeless tobacco
(snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)?
I never use smokeless tobacco.
I have used smokeless tobacco but don't now.
1-5 times a month.
6-20 times a month.
About once or more each day.
48. In an average month, how often (if ever) do you usually
use any amount of marijuana (pot, grass, hash)?
I never use marijuana.
I have used marijuana but don't now.
Less than once a month.
About one a month.
2-3 times a month.
About once a week.
2-4 times a week.
About once or more each day.
49. How old were you the first time (if ever) you tried
marijuana (pot, grass, hash)?
I have never tried marijuana, 8 or younger, 9 or 10, 11 or
12, 13 or 14, 15 or 16, 17 or 18, I don't remember.
50. In an average month, how often (if ever) do you usually
use any amount of cocaine (coke, rock, crack)?
I never use cocaine.
I have used cocaine but don't now.
Less than once a month.
About one a month.
2-3 times a month.
About once a week.
2-4 times a week.
About once or more each day.
51. In an average month, how often (if ever) do you usually
use any amount of amphetamines (speed, meth, crank)?
I never use amphetamines.
I have used amphetamines but don't now.
Less than once a month.
About one a month.
2-3 times a month.
About once a week.
2-4 times a week.
About once or more each day.
52. In an average month, how often (if ever) do you usually
use any amount of other drugs such as hallucinogens (LSD),
heroin, or barbiturates.
I never use other drugs.
I have used other drugs but don't now.
Less than once a month.
About one a month.
2-3 times a month.
About once a week.
2-4 times a week.
About once or more each day.
53. How old were you the first time (if ever) you tried
drugs other than alcohol or marijuana?
I have never tried other drugs, 8 or younger, 9 or 10, 11
or 12, 13 or 14, 15 or 16, 17 or 18, I don't remember.
54. In the last month, how many times, if any, have you
sniffed glue, breathed the contents of aerosol spray cans, or
inhaled any other gases or sprays in order to get high?
0 times, 1 or 2 times, 3-5 times, 6-9 times, 10 or more
times.
55. In the last month, how many times have you driven a car
or other motor vehicle after using any amount of alcohol or
other drugs?
I don't drive, 0 times, 1 or 2 times, 3-5 times, 6 or more
times.
56. In the last month, how many times have you ridden in a
car or other motor vehicle whose driver had been using
alcohol or other drugs?
0 times, 1 or 2 times, 3-5 times, 6 or more times.
In the past year, how many times have you?
57. Drunk alcohol (wine, beer, or liquor) at home with your
parents or other adult family members (such as having wine
with a meal).
58. Been to a party where other kids your age were
drinking.
59. Taken steroid pills or shots without a doctor's
prescription.
60. Have you ever used alcohol or other drugs so much that
the next day you could not remember what you had said or
done?
61. Do you find that you use more alcohol or other drugs
now than you used to, without feeling the same effects?
62. Have you ever hit anyone or become violent while
drinking or using other drugs?
63. Have you ever wanted to stop drinking or using drugs
but could not?
64. Have you ever lost any friends because they didn't
approve of your alcohol or other drug use?
65. In the past year, how often (if ever) did you use
alcohol or other drugs at school or on school property?
Never, 1 or 2 times, 3-5 times, 6 or more times.
66. In the past year, how often (if ever) were you
disciplined at school for breaking school rules about alcohol
or other drugs?
Never, 1 or 2 times, 3-5 times, 6 or more times.
How much do you think people risk harming themselves
(physically or otherwise) if they . . .?
67. Take 1 or 2 drinks of alcohol nearly every day.
68. Smoke marijuana regularly.
69. Smoke one or more packs of cigarettes a day.
70. Take amphetamines regularly.
71. Take 4 or 5 drinks of alcohol nearly every day.
Part D. The next questions are about other experiences you
may have had.
How often in the past 12 months have you:
72. Had your things (clothing, books, bike, car) stolen or
deliberately damaged on school property.
73. Been threatened or injured by someone with a weapon
(such as a gun knife, or club) on school property.
74. Been involved in a service project at school that
helped make life better for other people.
75. Given money or time to a charity or organization that
helps people.
76. Been disciplined at school for fighting, theft, or
damaging property.
77. Used a weapon, force, or threats to get money of things
from someone.
78. Bet on the outcome of sports events, card games, or
horse/dog races.
79. Spent time helping people who are poor, hungry, sick,
or unable to care for themselves.
80. Beaten up on someone or fought someone physically
because he/she made you angry.
81. Bought lottery tickets, pull tabs, or scratch-off
tickets.
82. When you gamble, (if ever,) how much money do you
usually bet?
I never gamble, Less than $5, $5-$10, $11-$25, $26-$50,
More than $50.
83. About how often in the last month have any of your
classroom teachers had to stop teaching in order to deal with
a major student disruption or behavior problem?
0 times, 1 or 2 times, 3-5 times, 6-9 times, 10 or more
times.
84. Have you ever had a course on peer helping or peer
counseling?
Yes, at school; Yes, outside of school; No.
85. Have you ever been physically abused by an adult (that
is, where an adult caused you to have a scar, black and blue
marks, welts, bleeding, or a broken bone)?
Never, Once, 2-3 times, 4-10 times, More than 10 times.
86. Have you ever been sexually abused by someone (that is,
someone in your family or someone else did sexual things to
you that you did not want or forced you to touch them
sexually)?
Never, Once, 2-3 times, 4-10 times, More than 10 times.
87. On the average, about how many hours per week do you
spend doing volunteer work to help other people (such as
helping out at a hospital, day care center or nursery, food
shelf, youth program, community service agency, etc.)?
None, 1-2 hours, 3-5 hours, 6-9 hours, 10 or more hours.
Part E. In this final section, the questions relate to
peers, parents, and other resources.
Among the people you consider friends, how many would you
say...?
88. Do well in school.
89. Drink alcoholic beverages (liquor, beer, wine).
90. Smoke cigarettes.
91. Help other people.
92. Smoke marijuana (pot, grass) or hashish.
93. Get drunk at least once a week.
94. Are involved in band, choir, or other musical
activities.
95. Are involved in clubs, organizations, or sports
programs outside of school.
96. Get into trouble at school.
97. Really care about you and your feelings.
98. Do you think your mother, father, or step-parent has a
serious problem with alcohol or other drugs? Yes, No, Maybe;
I'm not sure.
99. Do you think another member of your family such as a
brother, sister, or grandparent has a serious problem with
alcohol or other drugs? Yes, No, Maybe; I'm not sure.
100. Do you think one of your friends has a serious problem
with alcohol or other drugs? Yes, No, Maybe; I'm not sure.
101. How upset do you think your parents would be if you
came home from a party and they found out you had been
drinking? Not at all upset, A little upset, Somewhat upset,
Very upset, Extremely upset.
102. How upset do you think your parents would be if you
came home from a party and they found out you had been using
illegal drugs (such as marijuana or cocaine)? Not at all
upset, A little upset, Somewhat upset, Very upset, Extremely
upset.
103. If you had an important question or concern about
alcohol, other drugs, sex, or some other serious issue, would
you talk to your parent(s) about it? Yes, Probably, I'm not
sure, Probably not, No.
104. How often does one of your parents ask you where you
are going or with whom you will be? Practically never,
Seldom, Sometimes, Often, Very often.
105. How often does one of your parents talk to you about
what you are doing in school? Practically never, Seldom,
Sometimes, Often, Very often.
106. About how often in the last month have you had a good
conversation with one of your parents that lasted 10 minutes
or more? 0 times, Once, Twice, 3 times, 4 or more times.
107. If you were having a problem with alcohol or other
drugs and you wanted to talk with someone about it, where
would you most likely go first for help?
Close friend.
Parent(s) or guardian.
Brother, sister, or other young relative.
School counselor or teacher.
Minister, priest, rabbi, or other religious leader.
Family doctor.
Crisis line or alcohol/drug treatment center.
Trusted adult (other than those named above).
Please rate the following in terms of how helpful they have
been as sources of information about alcohol and other drug
issues.
108. Parent(s).
109. Friends.
110. School classroom teacher.
111. School counselor.
112. Someone who is now using alcohol or other drugs.
113. Police or other law enforcement person.
114. Counselor at an alcoholism/drug treatment center.
115. Person from an alcohol/drug abuse prevention program.
Now rate these additional factors in terms of how helpful
they are as sources of information about alcohol and other
drug issues.
116. TV or radio.
117. Telephone ``hotline.''
118. Books, magazines, or pamphlets.
119. Instruction or a course in a class such as health.
120. School assembly.
121. Personal experience.
Danville, KY,
October 12, 1993.
Dear Senator Grassley: The attached ``Piers-Harris
Children's Self Concept Scale'' was administered to the 6th
graders in Danville's Bate Middle School during the week of
October 4, 1993. It was administered without the notification
or permission of the parents. In addition, the results were
not sent to the parents.
Although the students were told that this was not a test,
expected scores for successful outcomes were posted on the
board during the exercise. After the exercise, the students
reviewed the results with the counselor, who told them what
the correct answers were. Many students, realizing that their
answers did not match the ones that the counselor said were
correct, changed answers for fear of failure. This created a
dilemma in many of the student's minds. They felt that
despite what they knew to be true about themselves, they had
to lie to get a successful score.
The scale was not administered by a trained psychologist.
This is evidenced by its poor administration. Posting scoring
ranges on the board during the exercise, using self grading,
and describing answers as right or wrong are extremely
questionable testing procedures which, without doubt,
invalidate any conclusions that could be drawn.
I also do not know if this scale was even designed for the
6th grade age group. Many of the questions do not appear
appropriate for 6th graders and others seem to link self
esteem directly to physical beauty. The following yes/no
questions are examples: I am popular with boys, I have pretty
eyes, I am good looking, and I have a good figure. I do not
understand how the answers to these questions have a right or
wrong answer, nor do I see how this information is important
to the education of our children.
I hope that you find this information helpful and I would
be happy to discuss this matter with you personally.
Sincerely,
Victoria and Walt Nyzio.
____
The Piers-Harris Children's Self Concept Scale--The Way I Feel About
Myself
Here are a set of statements. Some of them are true of you
and so you will circle the yes. Some are not true of you and
so you will circle the no. Answer every question even if some
are hard to decide, but no not circle both yes and no.
Remember, circle the yes if the statement is generally like
you, or circle the no if the statement is generally not like
you. There are no right or wrong answers. Only you can tell
us how you feel about yourself, so we hope you will mark the
way you really feel inside.
1. My classmates make fun of me.
2. I am a happy person.
3. It is hard for me to make friends.
4. I am often sad.
5. I am smart.
6. I am shy.
7. I get nervous when the teacher calls on me.
8. My looks bother me.
9. When I grow up, I will be an important person.
10. I get worried when we have tests in school.
11. I am unpopular.
12. I am well behaved in school.
13. It is usually my fault when something goes wrong.
14. I cause trouble to my family.
15. I am strong.
16. I have good ideas.
17. I am an important member of my family.
18. I usually want my own way.
19. I am good at making things with my hands.
20. I give up easily.
21. I am good in my school work.
22. I do many bad things.
23. I can draw well.
24. I am good in music.
25. I behave badly at home.
26. I am slow in finishing my school work.
27. I am an important member of my class.
28. I am nervous.
29. I have pretty eyes.
30. I can give a good report in front of the class.
31. In school I am a dreamer.
32. I pick on my brother(s) and sister(s)
33. My friends like my ideas.
34. I often get into trouble.
35. I am obedient at home.
36. I am lucky.
37. I worry a lot.
38. My parents expect too much of me.
39. I like being the way I am.
40. I feel left out of things.
41. I have nice hair.
42. I often volunteer in school.
43. I wish I were different.
44. I sleep well at night.
45. I hate school
46. I am among the last to be chosen for games.
47. I am sick a lot.
48. I am often mean to other people.
49. My classmates in school think I have good ideas.
50. I am unhappy.
51. I have many friends.
52. I am cheerful.
53. I am dumb about most things.
54. I am good looking.
55. I have lots of pep.
56. I get into a lot of fights.
57. I am popular with boys
58. People pick on me.
59. My family is disappointed in me.
60. I have a pleasant face.
61. When I try to make something, everything seems to go
wrong.
62. I am picked on at home.
63. I am a leader in games and sports.
64. I am clumsy.
65. In games and sports, I watch instead of play.
66. I forget what I learn.
67. I am easy to get along with.
68. I lose my temper easily.
69. I am popular with girls.
70. I am a good reader.
71. I would rather work alone than with a group.
72. I like my brother (sister).
73. I have a good figure.
74. I am often afraid.
75. I am always dropping or breaking things.
76. I can be trusted.
77. I am different from other people.
78. I think bad thoughts.
79. I cry easily.
80. I am a good person.
Tulsa, OK,
January 4, 1994.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: Thank you for your interest in protecting
students and families from the ever persistent involvement of
government in personal lives. May you succeed in including
the ``Parental Rights Restoration Amendment'' philosophy into
the Goals 2000 push.
Enclosed is a copy of ``Computer Daze Questionnaire'' taken
last year by my son and essentially all other students at
Jenks High School, Jenks, Oklahoma. This ``Questionnaire''
was not shown to parents before being taken, was officially
sponsored by a student group, but strongly pushed by High
School staff and faculty providing time for all students to
participate as specifically scheduled event. When I found out
my son had taken the Questionnaire as a Freshman, I wrote the
school to complain and requested my son's form to be returned
and not submitted for whatever analysis is done. If not
possible to retrieve his form, I requested they provide me
any and all data from his profile so obtained. I received
nothing for my request . . . too late, already submitted . .
. you've heard the line.
Last year my same son took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, a
standardized norm-referenced, academic test, right? One of
his questions on that test was basically this: ``Teenagers
like to wear different kinds of clothes. Who influences what
you wear? A. Parents, B. Church, C. School, or D. Peers.''
What is the correct answer if this is academic? If it is a
personal profile question, what right does the testing
company have to intersperse this underhanded probe into a
required ``academic'' test, and to whom does the information
go, and why do they need it, and what do they plan to do with
it?
Thank you for your concerns in this area and may your
efforts be blessed.
Sincerely,
Wayne K. Taylor.
Enclosure.
Computer Daze Questionnaire
Complete this survey so that you will have a chance to
obtain a list of your best matches in this school.
1. I am: (1) Male; (2) Female.
2. At amusement parks or carnivals, I have the most fun
with: (1) the rides; (2) just hanging out with friends; (3)
the games to win prizes and stuffed animals.
3. If I were invited to a costume party I'd: (1) turn down
the invitation; (2) plan my costume carefully; (3) go
absolutely wild.
4. You're out with friends when you realize there is no way
you'll make it home on time. You'd: (1) call home and tell
them you'll be late; (2) call home and beg for more time; (3)
try to sneak in the house.
5. You hand the checkout person $5 for a purchase. She
gives you change for $20. You'd: (1) gently point out the
error; (2) quickly pocket the mistake; (3) quickly pocket the
mistake but feel pretty rotten.
6. When it comes to giving speeches or reports in front of
class: (1) I don't mind it as long as I'm prepared; (2) I
enjoy it; (3) It scares me; (4) I hate it.
7. Driving to school, you run into the mailbox on the
corner. You would: (1) skip school and get the car fixed; (2)
trust that your parents will understand; (3) tell everyone
the car got dented in the parking lot.
8. To me, love is: (1) a bad joke; (2) an emotional high;
(3) a reason for much confusion; (4) nice with the right
person.
9. If you walked out of the house and saw a beautiful duck
with a badly injured wing, you would: (1) take it home and
nurse it back to health; (2) leave it alone; (3) have roast
duck for dinner.
10. If your friends were looking for you after school, they
would probably find you: (1) at practice; (2) at your job;
(3) shopping at the mall; (4) at home.
11. If I end up very successful in life, the ONE most
important factor I would attribute it to would be: (1) I'm
smart; (2) I'm competitive; (3) I work hard; (4) I'm lucky.
12. When I have the TV remote I: (1) flick through the
channels often; (2) use it once in a while; (3) hardly even
touch it.
13. If you found out that your friend got the best grade on
a test because he saw the questions ahead of time, you'd: (1)
let the teacher know someone cheated; (2) express your anger
to your friend; (3) pay no attention to the matter; (4)
convince your friend to share the questions with you next
time.
14. If I had a long way to go on a major assignment due
tomorrow I'd: (1) stay up all night and get it done; (2) do
as much as I can and turn it in; (3) ask for an extension;
(4) call in sick.
15. If I said something really dumb in class and everyone
laughed I'd: (1) die of embarrassment; (2) shrug it off; (3)
laugh with everyone else.
16. When a lot of people try to change my mind about
something I feel strongly about I usually: (1) Get more
stubborn; (2) Listen and consider their opinion; (3) Often
end up agreeing with them.
17. If I saw a new girl/guy in the hall that I would like
to meet I would: (1) Go right up and introduce myself; (2)
Get one of my friends to do it; (3) Walk nearby and hope he/
she notices me.
18. When I go out to eat with friends, I prefer to: (1) pay
exactly what I owe; (2) throw in a few dollars and estimate;
(3) split the bill evenly among each person.
19. Recycling is: (1) too much trouble for me; (2)
something I'll do if convenient; (3) something I'm totally in
to.
20. I will go to a teacher for help in a class: (1) only
when I realize I'm totally lost; (2) rarely because I don't
want to seem dumb; (3) I never have to; (4) at any stumbling
block.
21. At the movies you pick the best seat until Miss Big
Hair sits down right in front of you. You'd: (1) move to
another seat; (2) ask her to sink down in her seat; (3) flick
popcorn at the back of her head.
22. Suppose you made the team and felt that your good
friend deserved to make it too, but didn't. What would you
do? (1) do your best to console your friend; (2) plead with
the coach to change his mind; (3) quit the team; (4) nothing,
that's life.
23. When told a secret I usually end up: (1) letting
everyone else in on it; (2) telling one other friend; (3)
keeping it.
24. The worst thing a teacher can do is: (1) accuse an
innocent person of cheating; (2) put down a student in front
of the class; (3) play favorites; (4) waste my time.
25. Whether it is sports or a project, I prefer: (1) to be
involved in a team or group activity; (2) one that depends on
my own performance; (3) no preference--depends on the
activity.
26. Busted. You get your first traffic ticket. You would:
(1) pay it quickly before anyone finds out; (2) show up at
court alone and try to beat it; (3) tell your parents and ask
for their help getting it taken care of.
Answer questions 27-33 with: (1) Always (2) Sometimes (3)
Rarely (4) Never.
27. I exercise.
28. I keep informed about current events.
29. I get bored during summer vacation.
30. I play jokes on my friends.
31. I eat at fast food places.
32. I watch music videos.
Simpsonville, SC.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing as a concerned parent
of children in Public School. The trend of education in the
last several years seems to be a shift away from academics to
focusing on what my child thinks and feels about personal and
social issues.
I am enclosing two surveys that were given to students,
here in Greenville, S.C. One of the surveys was given to my
son, the other to my nephew. On the personality Questionnaire
that was given to my son notice question number 5. In
general, how do you feel about your family? 1. I love them to
death 2. They're nice. 3. I can put up with them. 4. I hate
them. Why are schools asking such personal questions to my
children? The questionnaire also asks for the child's name
and other identifying information, this is not an anonymous
questionnaire.
My question is, who has access to this information, and
where is this tabulated and is this part of student's
personal records. I was told that this information was
tabulated at a local college by their ``super'' computer. I
am concerned about the capability that computers have to
store such information and make is available to unidentified
people or organizations.
My question is, what are parents rights and is it legal to
do these types of surveys without parents knowledge or
consent. Thank you for addressing these issues.
Sincerely,
Patty Stoner.
Enclosure.
Personality Questionnaire
1. You think that in the future the world will be: (1)
Better; (2) Worse; (3) About the same.
2. What do you look for in a friend? (1) someone to have
fun with; (2) some I can talk to; (3) someone who shares my
interests.
3. In school, your favorite nonphysical) subject area is:
(1) math/science; (2) English/literature; (3) social
sciences; (4) art; (5) none of the above.
4. Your favorite activities are: (1) Adventurous,
dangerous; (2) Physical, such as sports; (3) Intellectual.
5. In general, how do you feel about your family? (1) I
love them to death; (2) They're nice; (3) I can put up with
them; (4) I hate them.
6. In your opinion, which is the biggest problem facing the
world? (1) global warming; (2) hunger; (3) class barriers;
(4) minority problems (5) none of these.
7. The first thing you look for in a girlfriend/boyfriend
is: (1) Appearance; (2) Intelligence; (3) Status.
8. Your favorite pet would be: (1) a cat; (2) a dog; (3) a
fish; (4) something else; (5) I hate pets.
9. You think that modern society, with all its high
technology, is: (1) terrific--I love all the conveniences;
(2) too impersonal and insensitive.
10. How large a problem is pollution today? (1) It is a
major problem that needs to be addressed immediately; (2) It
is a problem, but we'll be fine for a long time;; (3) It is
not a big problem; (4) It is not a problem.
11. How fast is the environment deteriorating? (1)
Extremely fast; (2) Slowly; (3) It's not deteriorating; (4)
It's improving.
12. What do you consider the ideal age for marriage? (1)
less than 20 years; (2) 20-25; (3) 26-35; (4) 36-45; (5) more
than 45.
13. Should it be legal to give a prayer at school
gatherings? (1) Absolutely; (2) Yes, but only for prayers
that apply to all religions; (3) No.
14. Which do you think know best how to improve our
country? (1) Republicans; (2) Democrats; (3) Independents.
15. You are happiest when you are in groups of size: (1) 2-
4 people; (2) 5-10 people; (3) 11-15 people; (4) 15 or more
people.
16. What kind of watch do you usually wear? (1) Digital;
(2) Analog; (3) Both; (4) I don't wear a watch.
17. If you could live anywhere in the world, you would
live: (1) on a beach; (2) in a city; (3) in the mountains;
(4) in a rural area; (5) somewhere else.
18. The most oppressed group in America is: (1) Negroes;
(2) women; (3) Native Americans; (4) the poor; (5) none of
the above.
19. You think of big business as: (1) corrupt and
impersonal; (2) a necessity that is put up with; (3)
wonderful--free enterprise in action.
20. Which of the following is the most important in your
life? (1) school; (2) your career; (3) your relationships
with others; (4) the world's problems.
21. How are you with money? (1) I spend it right when I get
it; (2) I keep it shortly, then spend it on something nice;
(3) I save it for long periods of time.
22. What do you think about killing animals? (1) no big
deal; (2) It's OK if you eat them; (3) I don't like it at
all.
23. When is it OK to say something that is not true? (1)
any time you can get away with it; (2) if it's a ``white
lie''; (3) It is never acceptable to lie.
24. What kind of music do you like best? (1) Rock; (2)
Alternative; (3) Soul or Gospel; (4) Classical; (5) Something
else.
25. On the average, how much TV do you watch in a week? (1)
0-5 hours; (2) 6-10 hours; (3) 11-20 hours; (4) 21-35 hours;
(5) more than 35 hours.
26. How many children would you like to eventually have?
(1) 1; (2) 2; (3) 3-4; (4) five or more; (5) none.
27. Do you think that drugs should be legalized? (1) Yes;
(2) No.
28. Should women be allowed into the military? (1) Yes; (2)
Yes, but only in non-combative positions; (3) No.
29. When you leave high school, you plan to: (1) go
straight to college; (2) get a job; (3) take a year off.
30. Which do you prefer? (1) Coca-Cola; (2) Pepsi; (3) RC;
(4) They are all the same; (5) I despise all three.
(Note: Given to high school students at Southside High,
Greenville, SC, on December 8, 1993.)
Kennewick, WA,
January 17, 1994.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: From November 1991 to February 1992,
my school district participated in a program designed to
identify ``at-risk'' children in our district. The program,
sponsored by a local psychiatric center and our district,
required behavioral risk assessments to be completed on
kindergarten through 4th grade children. After elementary
school teachers completed the assessments, the originals were
given to the psychiatric center without parental knowledge or
consent. Please note that all children, regardless of their
risk score were identified by name on the assessments.
I and over 200 parents (from a wide variety of backgrounds)
viewed this action as a violation of our privacy and civil
rights. It was only after public outrage erupted that our
district took steps to modify the program. To my knowledge,
however, no party was held accountable for these infractions
nor were any legal or written guarantees created (outside of
this particular program) that would protect parents from
future violations of their privacy rights. I was personally
devastated when I became aware that my school, which I trust
with my children up to 6 hours per day, had violated my right
to privacy. Because of my intimate involvement in this
controversy, I am convinced we do not have adequate
protection of our Constitutional rights within our public
school system.
I have enclosed copies of supporting documents for your
review. If you have any further questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your commitment to protecting parental rights
in Iowa and nationwide.
Sincerely,
Beth J. Smith.
Enclosures.
Kennewick, WA,
February 4, 1993.
Re Desert Quest Program.
Greg Fancher,
Principal,
Canyon View Elementary.
Dear Greg: Recently I became aware of Canyon View's
participation in the Desert Quest program sponsored by
Kennewick and Richland School Districts, Benton-Franklin
County Head Start and Carondelet Psychiatric Center.
I am concerned that a child's behavior can be assessed,
without parental knowledge or permission, and subsequent
assessments are being released to a third party outside the
district. I feel this is a serious breach of privacy and
confidentiality. I am in the process of researching this and
would like to request the following information:
When was the testing done?
Was a release ever sent to the parents which gave
permission to assess the child's behavior? If not, why not?
Why are you reassuring parents the original assessments
were destroyed when I have personally seen them?
Was there a policy regarding the handling of the documents?
When was the policy adopted? If there is a policy, I would
like to see it.
How many people or agencies have had access to these
assessments and in what capacity and for what reasons?
I would like to have a full and complete listing of the
Desert Quest donors, both corporate and individual.
Was the Kennewick school district or Paul Pigulski advised
that this program could result in such a severe privacy
breach?
What is going to be done to correct this situation and
ensure the privacy of past assessments and future sensitive
student information?
This is just a short list of several questions and concerns
I have regarding this severe privacy breach. Please answer
any questions and supply me with the requested information as
soon as possible. I would appreciate the information prior to
the February 10th school board meeting.
My intend is not to cause a deluge of lawsuits or create a
disabling distraction for the Kennewick School District from
it's primary focus of education. However, there is a serious
problem I plan to pursue until my concerns are addressed to
my satisfaction.
Sincerely,
Beth J. Smith.
____
Canyon View Elementary School,
Kennewick, WA, February 8, 1993.
Beth Smith,
Kennewick, WA
Dear Beth: In this letter you will find your questions from
your letter of February 4. It is my sincere hope that this
letter provides the information you have requested.
1. When was the testing done?
The students were not given a test. The teachers were asked
to complete a screening instrument to determine if students
from their classroom might qualify for the Special Friends
Program. This was done in October.
2. Was a release ever sent to parents which gave permission
to assess the child's behavior? If not, why not?
No, a release was not sent home. The screening instrument
is simply a tool to determine eligibility. If a student is
eligible for the Special Friends program, then parents are
contacted.
3. Why are you reassuring parents that the original
assessments have been destroyed when I have seen them?
I was under the impression that the screening instruments
were destroyed after the data had been entered into the
computer. I was wrong. Each school now has the original
screening tools at the school site.
4. Was there a policy regarding the handling of documents?
When was the policy adopted? If there is a policy, I would
like to see it.
The school district has a letter of agreement with
Carondelet. A copy of the letter is attached.
5. How many people or agencies have had access to these
assessments and in what capacity and for what reasons?
The information in the screening tools can be accessed by
Paul Pigulski, the Desert Quest supervisor. Desert Quest
specialists may only access information from the school(s)
they serve. These are the only people who have access to the
information.
6. I would like to have full and complete listing of the
Desert Quest donors, both corporate and individual. Please
contact Paul Pigulski at Carondelet for this information.
7. Was the Kennewick School District or Paul Pigulski
advised that this program could result in severe privacy
breach?
I would again refer you to the attached letter of
agreement.
8. What is going to be done to correct this situation and
to insure the privacy of past assessments and future
sensitive student information?
At this time all documents are being returned to their home
schools. In the future when the screening tools are used,
parents will be notified and the information will be given to
Cardondelet in coded form. Only the home schools will have
information with student names.
I hope this information addresses at least some of your
concerns. I am willing to sit down with you at any time to
discuss this program, its benefits, pitfalls, and its future
development at Canyon View. Please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Greg Fancher,
Principal.
Enclosure.
Desert Quest Carondelet Psychiatric Care Center Letter of Agreement
Carondelet Psychiatric Care Center and the Kennewick School
District agree to cooperate in the installation and
administration of the early intervention program known as
Desert Quest. Specifically, they agree as follows:
Carondelet agrees to provide intervention services to
identified children to the fullest practical extent.
Carondelet agrees not to bill any child, parent, school, or
the Kennewick School District for any of these services,
while reserving the right to bill any insurance companies,
Title XIX, etc. (while waiving any/all deductibles,
coinsurance, etc.). Carondelet agrees to serve children based
on need and without any financial considerations whatever.
Carondelet agrees to furnish all supplies--clinical and
administrative--necessary to execute the Program. Carondelet
agrees to respect the privacy/confidentiality of all
students, families, and Kennewick School District employees.
Carondelet agrees to provide unlimited professional
consultation regarding identified children and/or Program
dissemination.
Kennewick School District agrees to provide a site
coordinator at each school to function as a liaison between
that school and Carondelet. Kennewick School District agrees
to provide dedicated space at each school for Desert Quest
sessions to be held. Kennewick School District agrees to
assist each participating school in meeting the $80 (one-
time) match contribution for the furnishing of this room.
Kennewick School District further agrees to cooperate in the
screening, staffing, and statistical representation of data
collected, and to being recognized as a participating school
district.
Marlin M. Lendbloom,
For Kennewick School District.
Paul Pigulski,
For Carondelet Psychiatric Care Center.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I wanted to ask the Senator from Iowa a couple of
questions if I might. I will be very brief, because Senator Mack is
waiting and has a commitment in Florida, and I know he wants to offer
his amendment.
I just say to the Senator from Iowa that I am very sensitive to what
he is trying to address regarding parental rights, and we have talked
back and forth. I would not want to answer the questionnaire the
Senator read myself.
Was that a Federal questionnaire?
Mr. GRASSLEY. No, it was not. That is one of the problems for us, to
guarantee the U.S. constitutional established right of a parent to be
involved in their education. If they want to exercise the statutory
fulfillment of that through Senator Hatch's amendment, they are not
able to do it because they cannot show a direct correlation. But money,
being fungible as it is, you surely know that it is very difficult to
prove that and, so consequently, the parent cannot exercise their
right.
Then what that means is where we have $1 of Federal money, where we
have $1 of Federal money in a school system, we are going to apply all
civil rights laws to that institution and let people get relief under
the civil rights laws. Then a parent has the same constitutional right
under the Constitution for parental rights, and unless they can show a
direct relationship they are not going to be able to exercise that
right, and so that direct relationship in the regulations is the
problem that I am trying to overcome with my amendment.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I realize that. Let me just ask, or restate it again.
I think it has been stated. But as the Senator knows, under the
protection of pupil rights in the law, it says all Federal material is
available for inspection and no student is required to participate in
the survey or activity.
So I guess what I am asking the Senator is whether he really wants to
apply to the States this same prohibition. There are many drug-free
school programs, for instance, with both Federal money and State money.
Many of these things, such as the drug-free school initiative have a
mix of Federal and State moneys. Unless the Senator is wishing to tell
the States as well that they adopt these same practices as apply to
Federal programs, it is going to be very difficult.
As I mentioned to the Senator, in the example where the student was
told not to discuss the questionnaire with their parents, those parents
should have gone right to the school and said, yes, indeed, we want to
see that questionnaire.
That is where I personally believe this should be addressed. I have
some difficulty--and I know we are discussing it and maybe we can find
some way to get at this, but we have to be careful we are not going to
dictate to the States what they do. We have always had a very fine line
to walk between Federal and State jurisdiction.
Mr. GRASSLEY. If the Senator from Kansas will yield, the Senator
would not use the argument on this floor on a civil rights debate that
we are not going to dictate to the States the protection of a
constitutional civil right. If there is $1 involved, the institution is
covered. So why would she make that argument that we are not going to
tell the States when a parent wants their constitutional rights
protected, parental rights to be involved in education?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. That was a constitutional decision of the courts in
the civil rights case.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I also say that I hope I have established with the
Yoder case, the other cases that I have cited--the Yoder case as
recently as 1972--that the parents have a constitutional right to be
involved in the education of their kids. It is a liberty right, the
same as what people would have under their civil rights.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I say to the Senator from Iowa, because I know the
Senator from Florida wants to offer his amendment, it is a concern to
both of us. The Senator cares about education. I care about education.
We all care about education. But how do we best get at this in such a
way that we are not trying to say to the Iowa schools as well as
perhaps the Kansas schools what they can or cannot do?
I think we have to think it through very carefully. I am certainly
willing to work on this. I do not think students should be forced to be
involved and every parent should be able to see material that they
consider important to their understanding of what is taking place in
their school. And I believe that most school boards honor that. But how
we put it into legislative language is I think what we are struggling
with. I hope perhaps between now and Tuesday when we vote we can find
some way to work this out. But I just wanted to raise the question
before yielding.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I want the Senator to know that along the lines of what
the Senator just stated, I wish to acknowledge that the Senator has
talked to me about that and has worked to do that. Earlier today I had
some conversations with my colleague from the State of Iowa, Senator
Harkin, who is also on the parent committee involved here in which he
suggested certain changes. If he is a leader in the direction of
bringing about some of this change, I think it is a very reasonable
starting point.
But I wish to make sure that that is the direction we are headed
because I think it has to deal with a very definite problem we have
under the regulations of showing a direct relationship because you can
imagine, only 17 cases in the 10 years since the regulations have been
out just is not very many with all the concerns we have had expressed.
I have already listed 11, 12, or 13 States where, just since this
amendment is up, I have had parents tell me they have had problems with
the regulations.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I say to the Senator from Iowa, I very much
appreciate what he is trying to say. It is a great concern to parents,
and I hope we might find some language we can work out. I thank the
Senator.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I emphasize for the Senator from Kansas, and then I
will yield the floor, we are only talking about the rights of parents
to have access to the information to know what information is being
used and to know that it is being done. There is nothing in my
amendment that is going to tell a school that they cannot do this.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senator from Iowa.
I believe I had the floor, Madam President. I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support of the
Grassley amendment.
I am an original cosponsor of this important amendment because I feel
strongly that the rights of parents should not be overlooked or taken
for granted by schools.
Many, many concerned parents have called me to express their concern
about educational philosophies that focus more on attitudes, feelings,
and values than academics.
I have heard of examples of extreme forms of this philosophy where
students are rated on their sense of self, appreciation of change, and
the like instead of receiving letter grades on the 3R's.
And I am concerned, like these parents are, to hear that some school
systems have been introducing values clarification surveys into the
classroom. With some of these surveys, children are being asked
questions about their home life and personal values.
These parents believe, as I do, that the teaching of values belongs
in the home, and that the teaching of academics belongs to schools.
This amendment will prohibit the use of Goals 2000 funds for values--
related activities without parental notification, consent, and access
to the relevant information.
Parents have the right to know that their children will be taking
part in surveys or activities that may run counter to their beliefs or
values.
I also believe that parents have the right to remove their children
from participating if they choose to.
I urge my colleagues' support for this amendment.
____________________