Life's Silver Linings, Inc.

Promoting the positive values of life from the womb to the tomb.

CHAPTER 1
THE PARADIGM SHIFT

Education’s Paradigm Shift:
Academics, Health, and Social Services

Education is generally thought of in terms of academics. This concept of schools is changing to “see” schools as centers of one-stop-shopping for health and social services. The rally cry is “It takes a village to raise a child.”

r. Joycelyn Elders, then Director of the Arkansas Department of Health, wrote an article titled “School-Based Clinics To The Rescue,” printed in the September 1992 issue of The School Administrator. It stated that, “Common barriers school leaders encounter are:--failure to get the community involved in the project and have them adopt it as their idea.”
The slogan “It takes a village to raise a child” is often used by school social workers and other good people who wish only the best for children. The vision is that ALL of us in the community have a responsibility for setting a good example, providing for, and accepting responsibility for the good of everyone else in the neighborhood. What a beautiful concept. This is what the Christian community is all about. The only problem is, the slogan “It takes a village to raise a child” is used in government-funded programs to reach government goals and outcomes as defined by the government whose values are more reflective of the religion of Secular Humanism than Christianity. Persons who are most active in the community are invited to participate on advisory councils. This is an attempt by those organizing the advisory council to avoid the “barrier” of “failure to get the community involved--and have them adopt it (the predetermined outcomes) as their idea.”[2]

What Is a Paradigm Shift‌

ebster’s Second College Edition of the New World Dictionary of the American Language defines paradigm as “a pattern, example, or model.” Definitions for “shift” include “to change position, to get along, a change in direction.”
The paradigm shift is a psychological technique used to change attitudes, feelings, and behaviors. The technique works by suggesting an alternative way to view an issue, feeling, attitude, or behavior, in the hope that the alternative view will be adopted and conformed to by another. This technique may also be used in consensus building.
The black and white picture on the opposite page illustrates the paradigm shift: one person may see the profile of an old woman with a large elongated nose, a recessed mouth, an eye which resembles the blank-looking, round, wrinkled eye of an elephant, a long thin prominent chin buried deep in a fur collar of a coat, and a scarf covering her head but showing dark bangs. A feather-like object is astray from the other side of her head, implying a “bad hair day,” which doesn’t seem to “fit” the picture.
Another person viewing this same picture may see the arrangement of the black and white inking differently. This person sees the profile of a beautiful, classy-looking young lady. Whereas the previous person saw a large, long nose the second person sees a jaw line and cheek. The mouth is now a necklace. The eye becomes a dainty ear. The long chin is now seen as a slender neck drowned in the nap of her rich fur coat. The old woman’s bangs become the young lady’s short black hair. The scarf is now a veil which flows down to the collar of the fur coat, between the turned-up sides of a riding hat. The veil is attached to the front of the hat with a feather, which portrays all the elegance of aristocracy.
To my understanding, psychologists use similar pictures to better understand their patients’/clients’ perceptions. What one thinks one observes, affects how one feels and behaves. Mental health and psychology are “affective,” meaning they arise from the areas of attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and emotions, which are generally manifested in one’s behavior.
An appropriate behavior change may be brought about in some who “act out,” by providing a positive role model, or a simple explanation of what others consider “appropriate.” This is called positive peer pressure. There is also negative peer pressure. What one considers appropriate (“good” or positive) or inappropriate (“bad” or negative) depends on one’s own value system.
Let’s compare two different belief systems:
- Judeo-Christian = God = absolute truth = predictable = peace
- Secular Humanism = Self = truth changes = unpredictable = chaos
To change behavior one needs to change attitudes, feelings, and habits. To change attitudes and feelings, one needs to change beliefs. To change beliefs, one needs to doubt one’s beliefs, or one’s source(s).
Brock Chisholm, known to be a Humanist, served as president of the World Federation for Mental Health from 1957-58. In October 1945, he delivered a lecture to prominent psychiatrists and top government officials in Washington, D.C. He is quoted as saying:
“What basic psychological distortion can be found in every civilization of which we know anything‌ The only psychological force capable of producing these perversions is morality-the concept of right and wrong. The reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong are the belated objectives of nearly all psychotherapy. If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.” [3]
The paradigm shift has been exercised in classrooms since the beginning of education. The difference is that today, our nation is no longer committed to the Judeo-Christian ethic. How are the following topics addressed in education today‌ Is it:
1. Critical thinking or an exercise in reevaluating a family’s values‌
2. Conflict resolution or sacrificing closely held convictions‌
3. Self-esteem or arrogance‌
4. Reducing teen pregnancy or population control‌
5. Health and education reform or socialism‌
6. Collaboration and partnerships or trading individualism for collectivism‌
7. Taking a village to raise a child, or a family to raise a child‌
8. Advisory councils or unelected representation‌
One person may look at the “picture” of information documented in this book and see only the good that may come from a school and its community working together. Another may see how schools are being restructured as a vehicle to provide socialistic, universal health care, population control, and global curricula. One can understand the positive value of setting national and state mini­mum standards for health and academics. Others feel this is better accomplished through free enterprise without government interfer­ence. Taxpayers see more and more of their paychecks disappear­ing into government coffers for redistribution. This form of gov­ernment is academically known as socialism. Others simply see it as providing for those in “need.” Some see the role of schools as centers for academics, while others see schools as community centers for one-stop shopping. One person may think of “values” in terms of the Judeo-Christian ethic, while another may think of “values” in terms of their own definition of right and wrong. A paradigm is how one sees information, which affects one’s decision-making and behavior.
The paradigm shift works for good or evil. Use it with love to accomplish good as defined by the One True God.

Teaching Religion Through Critical Thinking,
Problem-Solving, and Decision-Making

ecisions are made, and problems solved using some basis from which to begin, basis of what is and is not acceptable. The foundation for this basis is called morality and/or religion.
For instance, is it okay to starve someone to death if one’s quality of life is limited‌ What ethical criteria is used to define quality of life‌ Missouri students are expected to “master” the Core Competencies and Key Skills of Missouri’s Comprehensive Health program. These include being able to “Identify and critique health issues caused by advancing medical science (i.e., genetic engineering, euthanasia, other medical/ethical issues.”) [4]
What competency or “outcome” does the state expect students to master on such issues‌ Does it matter, as long as students are able to defend their position‌ Is the state supporting decision-making and problem solving based on values that made this nation great, and upon which it was founded, or is it based on the religion of Secular Humanism that says there is no absolute truth‌
The purposes and goals of the Secular Humanistic religion are best served by an education that deals with values relative to life issues, sexuality, and non-directive education where the teacher acts as a guide on the side, coach or facilitator. This is so because it teaches that whatever answer and/or solution the student comes to is not so important as the process used to come to that answer. In other words, as long as the student can explain and defend his/her answer, it’s “correct.” This teaches that truth only lies within oneself, and that whatever answer or solution best serves them (rather than God who is seen as the source of absolute truth) is the “right” one for them.
Some say we cannot legislate morality, but we do so EVERY time we vote, since EVERY law is based on someone’s morals. Some say we cannot teach religion in schools, but EVERY teacher teaches religion of some sort, since it’s impossible to teach in a moral vacuum, and EVERY moral is based on SOMEONE’S religion. The question is, WHOSE morals and/or virtues, WHAT morals and/or virtues, based on WHICH religion(s) will be taught or “caught‌”
It is the responsibility of EVERY parent and taxpayer to vote and to be active in their child’s education and community. No school board member, teacher, nor administrator can protect Judeo-Christian virtues and values without the active support from parents and the community.

Thank Heaven for Honest Teachers
(True Story)

he paradigm shift is manifested in the following true story. Some “see” the purpose of education as a means through which to teach children and adolescents what is academically and formationally true. Others “see” education as a vehicle through which to share ideas, true or false, without providing students with direction.
At the beginning of each school year one family provides its children’s teachers with a letter listing areas of affective education they have chosen not to delegate to the school. At first the teachers may be somewhat uncomfortable because they aren’t quite sure what to expect from the parents. When the teachers finally understand and experience that the intention of the parents is to support him/her, and that the parents are calm, sincere, and polite, the teachers relax and everyone works together in a constructive way in the best interest of the student. A mutual respect is built.
One can “feel” or “sense” when a teacher doesn’t share the same values, but nonetheless is trying to cooperate. There was an instance where the teacher did not share the same values as the family and neglected to respond to the parent’s request for copies of worksheets used in class. One particular handout to students stated that “From biology we learned that we weren’t specially created by God but evolved along with millions of other species.” This incident provided the parents with an opportunity to explain to the teacher the Humanist religion, and to donate a copy of the Humanist Manifesto I and II.
It’s surprising to find that many intelligent teachers do not understand what Secular Humanism is. They do not realize that it is a religion whose faith they may be innocently and unknowingly teaching.
One senior had chosen classes carefully and worked hard toward a College Preparatory Certificate in addition to the Scholastic Diploma. In order to do this a minimum of four units in English were necessary. A week before school started, the Senior Honors Composition and Literature teacher called to say there may be a problem. (It seems that honors classes may be more likely to put traditional values “at-risk.”)
When the teacher received a letter from the student’s parents explaining topics they had chosen not to delegate, the teacher telephoned the family to say there was a problem. The parent asked “what kind of problem‌” The teacher responded that the letter from the family listed critical thinking, problem solving, and decision-making that made up over two-thirds of the class time. The parent explained that they did not have a problem with the issue of critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making since they did a lot of that in their own home, but explained that the question was: What approach was being used‌ Is the approach taken that whatever a student thinks is right or wrong for him or her is in fact right or wrong, or is the directive approach used which says “this is right, this is wrong, and this is why”‌ The teacher replied “the former.” The parent replied, “Yes, then we have a problem.” The teacher explained that students are not told what to think. The parent explained that while they understood this sentiment, their concern dealt with the responsibility of educators to provide direction to those students who are out in “left field.”
The parent explained to the teacher that their children were taught to respect teachers, as well as what was taught to them. In addition, the parent explained to the teacher that their children were also taught that if what they had been taught at school was not consistent with what was taught at home, that school was wrong and home was right. The parent went on to explain to the teacher that even so, one child responded, “The teachers have degrees” (and you don’t, so the teachers MUST be right).
The parent expressed to the teacher what a tremendous influence, opportunity, and responsibility teachers have in providing direction to young students, and the dangers of teaching that which is not consistent with a child’s family’s values.
The teacher suggested, and a joint decision was made that their senior should drop the class. Alternative courses were considered. The teacher offered one possibility, but added that the other teachers used the same approach.
Thankfully their Senior had enough English classes to accommodate the four units necessary for the College Certificate. However, one of the English credits may not transfer depending on the college attended.
The next morning it was necessary to telephone the person in charge of scheduling classes who happened to be a very patient soul. The Senior’s schedule had just been reworked due to a scheduling conflict so it was embarrassing to request an additional change. Thank heaven for computers and kind, patient people.
The following is a follow-up letter sent to the teacher:
“Dear (N,)
“Thank you so much for your call the night before last regarding (N’s) class schedule. Your honesty in explaining that your class would not be consistent with the values of our home was truly appreciated.
“Critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making are things we each do each day. I find these topics fascinating since they take in the areas of psychology, philosophy, biology, sociology, theology, and more. As parents and educators I feel there is an obligation to direct children and students towards truth, even while being exposed to all forms of thought and opinions.
“To be non-directive indicates that we may either not know what is true, or not be committed to it. This may confuse those who are most in need of direction. On the other hand, we want others to exercise their free will. It is the parent’s job to train the child so that the child will exercise his free will in such a way as to choose to defend and live that which is true. Teachers need to support the home and vice versa. Hopefully, what the student hears at school and home are consistently the same messages. Realistically, we know this doesn’t happen since one teacher cannot be all things to all students, and the values of students and their families vary.
“ The age old question is `what is truth‌’ This is where our conversation turned to the issue of Humanism vs. the Judeo-Christian ethic. Enclosed is a copy of the Humanist Manifesto I and II which we spoke of, along with a couple of articles that do a pretty good job of explaining what Humanism is. There is no need to return them, and they may be of future use to you.
“ Would you please send me a copy of the syllabus and goals or outcomes for the Honors Senior Composition and Literature course and the list of books to be read‌ I would like to purchase them so that in our spare time, our family may read and discuss them in our home.
“ Thanks again for calling, and taking our values into consideration!
(Signature)”
Enclosures included:
- Humanist Manifesto I and II
- The Ethical Society of St. Louis, “Deed, Not Creed-The Ethical Society Preaches a Different Kind of Religion” The Riverfront Times.
- The New York Times on the Humanist Manifesto
(August 26, 1973)
- “Ask Me A Question” Our Sunday Visitor (Dec. 20, 1987)
- “Preachers’ Concern About Humanism” Gospel Advocate (November, 1992)
It’s unfortunate that this same class is not offered from a directive perspective. It’s little wonder that crime and violence of all types have increased. Some teaching methods support the thinking that as long as a student thinks something is right for them, then it is right. They are taught that the “correct answer” (if there is one) isn’t as important as the process used to arrive at the answer, and the student’s ability to defend the “answer” at which they have arrived.
While there is merit to such an approach, much depends on what it is that the student is defending, and if an absolute does indeed exist.
When was the last time you read of a murderer who didn’t think he/she was “justified” in committing the act‌ For how much longer must our nation suffer before we return to providing our students with the direction they need, and upon which our nation was founded‌

CHAPTER 2
DEFINITION OF TERMS

Lexicon Is Lingo - What’s In a Word‌

onfucius, the ancient Chinese philosopher, was asked what he would do to set the world right. He responded, “I would insist on the exact definition of words.”
This quote echoed in my ears during the 1993 hearing on HB564, Missouri’s universal health care reform bill.
In remarks addressed to the House Committee conducting the hearing, Ms. Judith Widdicombe -- the bill’s key author and founder of Missouri’s largest abortion clinic -- stated that she supported parental involvement. However, when a committee member asked if she supported parental consent, she responded “NO.” (Parents often assume that parental involvement means, or at least includes, parental consent!)
Another prime example of the importance of the definition of terms is displayed in a presentation prepared by Dr. Willard Cates, Jr., M.D., M.P.H. and two colleagues titled “Abortion As A Treatment For Unwanted Pregnancy: The Number Two Sexually- Transmitted “Disease.” Dr. Willard Cates spoke on behalf of:
- the U.S. Department of Health Education, and Welfare (now the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services).
- Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control Bureau of Epidemiology.
- Family Planning Evaluation Division located in Atlanta, Georgia.
The presentation was made during the 14th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians in Miami Beach, Florida, on November 11, 1976.
In May 1993, Missouri passed SB380, the Missouri Outstanding Schools Act (OBE) and the health care reform bill, HB564. However, long before this, Missouri had begun promoting public and private schools as centers for one-stop shopping which includes health and social services. How does the government define “health”‌ According to the Missouri Department of Health (DOH), the definition now includes “pre-pregnancy risk prevention,” referrals, and follow-up in an effort to achieve federal health goals including “increasing to at least 90% the proportion of--people aged 19 and younger who use contraception.” [5]
The World Health Organization (WHO) redefined health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” [6] Brock Chisholm was WHO’s director from 1948-1953. In a lecture to psychiatrists and top government officials entitled “The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress--Re-establishment of Peacetime Society,” Chisholm stated, “--If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.” [7] In an age when reforms are constantly redefining the fields of education and health, it is imperative that parents insist on the exact definition of words. The following glossary is an effort to clarify definitions in the social revisionists’ lexicon. It is crucial that parents understand the meaning of terms that have reformed the fields of education and health. They mean more than they sound.
Unless otherwise footnoted, the source for these terms is the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Adolescent Health Vol. I Summary and Policy Options:
Abstinence Education: “(A)n educational or motivational program which
A. Has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
B. Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
C. Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
D. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
E. Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
F. Teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
G. Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
H. Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.”[8]
Adolescent Health: “--A fully realized view of adolescent health would also consider the impact of social (e.g., families, schools, communities, policies) and physical (e.g., fluoridation, automobile and highway design and construction) influences on health and would be sensitive to developmental changes that occur during adolescence.”
Adult: For purposes of consent to hospitalization or medical, surgical or other treatment or procedures, any person eighteen years of age or older.[9]
Advocacy: “Refers to support, coordination, and linkage to experts, individuals, groups, and institutions who may help adolescents. May be provided by parents or others known to an adolescent.”
Agenda: “Program of things to be done, a list of things to be dealt with at a meeting.”[10]
At-Risk: “A phrase used to describe an adolescent in an environment, having an existing health problem, or exhibiting behavior, that may result in a poor health outcome.” “(A) student who, because of limited English proficiency, poverty, race, geographic location, or economic disadvantage, faces a greater risk of low educational achievement or reduced academic expectation.”[11]
Broad-Based Programs: “Typically, programs that take a comprehensive rather than a narrow approach to addressing a single health problem, such as by involving multiple service systems or strategies (e.g., a pregnancy prevention intervention that would involve teaching of life skills and vocational training, as well as provide sexuality education) and possibly by measuring multiple theoretically and practically related outcomes (e.g., avoidance of school dropout as well as pregnancy prevention).”
Case Management: “Identification, referral, follow-up, and outreach for physical, emotional, psychological, academic, transportation, counseling, or other “health” care related “needs” reimbursed by Medicaid.[12]
Communism: “1. Any economic theory or system based on the ownership of all property by the community as a whole 2. a) a hypothetical stage of socialism, as formulated by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and others, to be characterized by a classless and stateless society and the equal distribution of economic goods and to be achieved by revolutionary and dictatorial, rather than gradualistic, means b) the form of government in the U.S.S.R., China, and other socialist states, professing to be working toward this stage by means of state planning and control of the economy, a one-party political structure, and an emphasis on the requirements of the state rather than on individual liberties.”[13]
Community 2000: “--Blend federal, state, and local resources with community leadership, volunteers, private and public service providers, families, and schools. The Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, as the lead agency, acts as a catalyst. “It takes a village to raise a child--” [14]
Comprehensive Services for Adolescents: “The elements of comprehensive health and related services for adolescents are not entirely agreed upon. They include, at a minimum, care for acute physical illnesses, general medical examinations in preparation for involvement in athletics, mental health counseling, laboratory tests, reproductive health care, family counseling, prescriptions, advocacy, and coordination of care, the more comprehensive may include educational services, vocational services, legal assistance, recreational opportunities, child care services and parenting education for adolescent parents. Not all services are available at all centers, but a well-functioning, comprehensive services center would provide for the coordinated delivery of care both within the center and between the center and outside agencies and providers.” (Centers are considered to be anywhere children may be found such as schools, child care facilities, preschools, churches, private, public or parochial schools, learning centers, common community gathering places, etc. Also see page 62 of Missouri HB564).
Conduct Disorder: “--A mental disorder--displays at least 3 of 13 specified behavioral symptoms (e.g., truancy, lying, stealing, fighting).”
Confidentiality (of the physician/patient relationship): “The state or quality of being confidential, that is intended to be held in confidence or kept secret. --By and large, the confidentiality of the relationship between health service providers and minors and the disclosure of confidential information by health service providers to the parents of minors or other third parties are not addressed in case or statutory law. See also parental consent requirement and parental notification.”
“The school records may include, by state statute, ‘school health records,’ but these are not the school-based clinic records--the school records are subject to the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, known as the Buckley Amendments--School-based clinic records are not school records and therefore are not governed by the Buckley Amendments.” [15]
Contraception: “The prevention of conception or impregnation by any of a variety of means, including--prevention of implantation--and sterilization of the male or female partner.” (Editor’s note: another term for “failed contraception” is “baby.”)
Core Competencies: “Content specific areas of knowledge, skills and values prepared by the Missouri State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education”.[16]
Disease: “--Largely socially defined. Thus, criminality and drug dependence are presently seen by some as diseases, when they were previously considered to be moral or legal problems. (See also Health).” [17]
Dropout Prevention (includes pregnancy prevention): “A major education study, ‘Dropout Rates in the United States: 1988’ cites only two behavioral factors significantly associated with dropping out of school: marriage and/or pregnancy--Forty-three percent of the females who drop out do so because of pregnancy, parenthood, or marriage.” [18]
EPSDT (Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment Program is the same as HCY ‘Healthy Children and Youth’ program):
“State and federally funded, state-administered program under Medicaid--to provide preventive screening exams and follow up services--to Medicaid-eligible children under age 21.
“EPSDT is a comprehensive health care program for children which includes--screening--pregnancy testing would be covered.”[19]
“EPSDT can link at-risk adolescents to pre-pregnancy risk education, [and] family planning--” [20]
Educational Neglect: “As defined by DHHS’s [Department of Health and Human Services] National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect--can take several forms--(e.g., refusal to allow or failure to obtain recommended remedial educational services.”)
Emancipated Minor: Any person eighteen years or older
Emotional Neglect: “As defined by DHHS’s National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect,--refusal of recommended, needed, and available psychological care, delay in psychological care, and other emotional neglect (e.g., other inattention to the child’s developmental/emotional needs not classifiable under any of the above forms of emotional neglect, such as inappropriate application of expectations or restrictions.”)
Exit Learner Outcome “(ELO) a statement describing the knowledge, skills, and values which build gradually and are ultimately possessed by students who graduate.” [21]
Family: “A family is a group of persons who share values, goals, resources, and have a commitment to one another over time and space.”[22] Types of families listed included “Unmarried couples with or without children, and gay and lesbian couples.” Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “family” to be “a social unit consisting of parents and the children that they rear; the children of the same parents; a group of people related by ancestry or marriage.”
Family Planning: “The regulation, by birth control methods, of the number of children that a woman will have.”[23]
Family Planning Programs Authorized by Title X of the Public Health Service Act: “--Contraceptives may be distributed without parental consent or notification--low-income individuals are targeted--they are required to offer a broad range of family planning services to all who want them, including adolescents.”
“Those requesting information on options for the management of an unintended pregnancy are to be given non-directive counseling on the following alternative courses of action, and referral upon request:
- prenatal care and delivery
- infant care, foster care, or adoption
- pregnancy termination.”[24]
Fascism: “A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc.: first instituted in Italy in 1922. See also NAZI.”[25]
Free Enterprise: “The economic doctrine or practice of permitting private industry to operate under freely competitive conditions with a minimum of governmental control.”[26]
Health (as defined by the World Health Organization in 1948): “--A state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, it includes not only the more conventional fields of activity but also mental health, housing, nutrition, economic or working conditions, and administrative and social techniques affecting public health.”
Juvenile Justice System: “--Includes law enforcement officers and others who refer juveniles to the courts--which--oversee the execution of child protective services--and less frequently, agencies that provide protective services and care (e.g., foster care) for juvenile victims of abuse and neglect--agencies intersect with the child welfare or social services system.”
Key Skills: “Descriptors for the Core Competencies that result in an accumulation of knowledge, skills, and values over time.”[27]
One-Stop Shopping: “A setting for health care services that delivers an entire set of comprehensive health (and, often, related services.”)
“Statewide areas of critical need for learning and development shall include: establishing family schools, whereby such schools adopt proven models of one-stop state services for children and families.”[28]
Parental Authority: “--Parental authority to control their children’s access to medical treatment for which they can legally give their own consent has been limited. Parents may not have a right to limit access to medically necessary services where the minor’s right to consent to the service is established by statute or is constitutionally protected.”[29]
Parental Consent: “--Courts and legislatures have carved out a variety of exceptions to this requirement--”
“A parent is not required to consent for services such as family planning, sexually-transmitted diseases or prenatal care.”[30]
“--It would be inappropriate to list any service, particularly with any procedure for parents to ‘check off’ or refuse consent for the service, if it will ever be provided based on the minor student’s own consent.” [31]
“State law permits treatment of minors for the conditions of pregnancy--Family planning care includes screening for pregnancy--and if appropriate the prescription of birth control methods--includ[ing] pill, injection or implants--Laws which cover the right to privacy and the prevention of discrimination due to age have been used in defending the provision of care to minors without parental consent.” [32]
SEE ALSO: FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS.
Prenatal Care Services: Include “coordinating pre-pregnancy risk prevention activities--arranging for transportation--link[ing] at-risk adolescents to--family planning--”
Primary Care: “General or family practice, internal medicine, pediatric or obstetric and gynecological care as provided to the general public by physicians licensed and registered pursuant to chapter 334, RSMo;”[33]
Problem Behaviors: “Those behaviors that have been deemed socially unacceptable or that lead to poor health outcomes (e.g., unprotected sexual intercourse).”
Related Intervention: “A preventive or other service that may enhance health (e.g., social services, vocational training, educational services, food, housing, mentoring).”
Reproductive Health Care: “A wide range of services--including--(i.e., examination and treatment of the female reproductive organs,) and preventive services--(e.g., counseling, prescribing contraceptive methods, dispensing contraceptives.”)
School-Linked Health Centers: “--School health center for students (and sometimes the family members of students--) that provides a wide range of medical and counseling services and is located on or near school grounds and is associated with the school--”
Sexually Active: “Denotes ever having had sexual intercourse (as opposed to currently being sexually active.)”
Skills: “The abilities to think critically about, apply, and communicate to others the knowledge one possesses.” [34]
Socialism: “The ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products. 3. The stage of society, in Marxist doctrine, coming between the capitalist stage and the communist stage, in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated.” [35]
Strands: “The divisions of a particular subject matter into knowledge, skills, and values.” [36]
Unintended Pregnancy: “All abortions plus live births and fetal deaths to females younger than 18 plus live births and fetal deaths with spacing less than 12 months for females ages 18-34, plus out-of-wedlock births to females with less than a college education.” [37]
Values: “The attitudes one has about the knowledge and skills one possesses.” [38]

CHAPTER 3
HEALTH and EDUCATION REFORM
TOP DOWN


THE UNITED NATIONS

The World Book Encyclopedia defines the United Nations (U.N.) as an organization of nations that works for world peace and security and the betterment of humanity--It seeks the causes of war and tries to find ways to eliminate them.
However, topics chosen by the U.N. for its world conferences paints a broader and disconcerting picture. The U.N. supports a one world government, world core curriculum, global economy, biodiversity, and sustainable development which includes coercive family planning tactics. (See this book's chapter titled “Are You ‘Nuts’ If You Think It's About Population Control‌”.) Time and again the U.N. has associated itself with tyranny.

ccording to the May 1996 issue of the Readersí Digest Cuban President Fidel Castro, an admitted Marxist-Leninist, received thunderous applause from the diplomats gathered inside the U.N. General Assembly. “--Castro was invited to dine at the Rockefeller family estate--by Peggy Rockefeller Dulany, daughter of David Rockefeller, retired chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank.” This made Cuban-Americans furious so the “get-together was promptly switched to the private Council on Foreign Relations--in Manhattan.”
“(A) high-ranking defector--of the DGI, the Cuban Intelligence service, claims that Castro wanted to flood the United States with drugs to hasten the social decay here.”[39]
“(T)he U.N. appears willing to starve people to advance its beliefs. Catherine Bertini, executive director of the U.N.’s World Food Program, said in a speech in Beijing that her organization would use the problem of hunger in developing nations to its advantage. ‘Food is power’ she said. ‘We use it to change behavior. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize.’”[40]
“The one-child family [comes] not out of Draconian thinking, but out of well-being thinking,’ claims Sai. Sai is president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) His comments on China’s one-child-per-family policy were delivered in September at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing--The United Nations and IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) share a simple belief: The world would be better off with fewer people in it. Both agencies help finance China’s cruel ‘family planning’ policies that are often carried out through forced abortions and sterilizations.’”[41]
The United Nations has long been involved in population control measures throughout the world. It has not been above linking food, village wells, and funding to compliance with their desired population “outcomes.” Less coercive measures include encouraging expanded female education, increasing female employment and integrating health, nutrition and family planning services.[42]
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child mandates that “States--ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right to--health care services. To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services.”[43] This U.N. mandate is reflected in Goals 2000: Educate America Act that mandates state and local school improvement plans to adopt strategies to provide comprehensive health. Comprehensive health is defined to include “reproductive health care” (i.e. Contraception and population control).
U.N. and federal mandates embodied in national comprehensive health standards is passed on to the states through the New Standards Project operated in tandem by the National Center on Education and the Economy (Marc Tucker) and the Learning Center at the University of Pittsburgh (Lauren Resnick). States implement the standards at the local level through education, health, mental health and social service programs in schools and communities.
Many have difficulty seeing the tangible impact of the United Nations in the classroom, and on federal mandates to restructure education. One tangible consequence is school-based and school/community-linked services. Another tangible but less obvious consequence is biased classroom resources.
It’s interesting to note that the bundles of CDs containing 3D Atlas by Electronic Arts, and the U.N.’s bias against large families, was distributed to schools as an Apple Computer package. Apple Computer, Inc. was one of the partners associated with the National Center on Education and the Economy which presented a proposal to the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC) called “The National Alliance For Restructuring Education.” (Marc Tucker, President of the National Center on Education and the Economy, signed an education reform agreement with Missouri Education Commissioner Bartman). Apple Computer donated the “bundles” of educational computer CDs to elementary and secondary schools. The bibliography of The Teacher’s Guide lists resources from “World Resources Institute in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Program and United Nations Development Program”. Other sources include national organizations who authored national standards for Social Studies, History, Civics, Geography, Economics and Mathematics.
The Teacher’s Guide provides a description of suggested uses of information contained on the CD. One such suggestion is to “Check the relationship between such statistics as Female-Education Levels and the Population Growth Rate.” (Is the purpose to demonstrate that expanded female education results in lower birth rates‌)
When a student chooses “contents” and then “statistics” from the menu, and changes the “Y Axis” to “people,” the student is provided a list of the various forms of birth control and abortion along with the percentage of the population in that nation which has access. NOT listed are abstinence and natural family planning.
When a child chooses “contents” from the menu and then “stories-population,” the multi-media program brainwashes the student with the tired and untrue myth of overpopulation. Information the program does NOT provide is the mathematical fact that each and every man, woman, and child in the world (5,613,064,000)[44] can be given 1,300 square feet of property, and fit into the state of Texas (7,301,743,257,600 square feet), with room to spare for an additional 3,661,582 people. While the world may have political and distribution problems, the world is NOT overpopulated.
The Teacher’s Guide also provides opening questions and extension questions such as “What impact does population growth have on an environment‌” The applicable subject areas listed for the topic titled “Human Time Bomb‌” are math, geography and economics.
The curriculum standards listed in The Teacher’s Guide include constructs and draws inferences from charts, tables, and graphs that summarize data from real-world situations; recognizes equivalent representations of the same concept; knows and understands the characteristics and distribution of human populations on Earth’s surface; knows and understands patterns and networks of economic interdependence on Earth’s surface.”
The Teacher’s Guide credits excerpts in 3D Atlas to World Resources and World Resources Institute, which include “BioDiversity: Teaching Strategy to Identify Trends on Deforestation and Population” and “Population, Poverty, and Land Degradation: How Many Children.”
Politically correct CDs such as this may not be as accessible to parents for review as are school textbooks. The United Nations has managed to visit your child’s school and influence his/her education to meet U.N. goals without the slightest bit of parental objection-because parents didn’t receive the slightest bit of notice.
Robert Muller a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, is the author of The Robert Muller School World Core Curriculum Manual. The curriculum is religiously humanistic, and has been available through the United Nations Book Store for $20. It plants false fears of overpopulation, and espouses the ideologies of a warm and fuzzy global education, world environmentalism, world managers and caretakers, the provision of comprehensive health through schools, numerous references to New Age studies, life-long learning and etc.[45]

The National Center on Education
and the Economy
(School-to-Work)

“One of the mistakes we made in the late 1980s and early 1990s was to handle economic development, workforce skills and education reform separately. What we are doing now is trying to change that, and get the three things looked at holistically.”[46]
The “machine” built to reform America's education, health, and labor functions regardless of who is President. The “machine” is manned by a public/private (government and business) partnership. Parents are told participation is voluntary. School-to-Work documents indicate otherwise.

oals 2000ís, Title III admits that “simultaneous top-down and bottom-up education reform is necessary to spur creative and innovative approaches by individual schools to help all students achieve internationally competitive standards” (emphasis added).
Well-meaning, sincere teachers and administrators tell parents that School-to-Work is voluntary. They explain that they are simply providing career information so as to spark thought among students about their future plans. This is to encourage students to choose their high school courses with thought and consideration relative to their future plans following high school.
Schools have had partnerships with local businesses for years, so what is so “bad” about School-to-Work‌ Missouri’s School-to-Work federal grant proposal explains that it is “integrating existing successful programs into the School-to-Work System.”[47] This indicates that there is something “bigger” into which what schools have done in the past are fitting into. Career programs currently provided by schools will be merged, “integrating existing programs and resources to fulfill School-to-Work System needs.”[48] What is a School-to-Work System, and what are its needs‌ A large part of the answer may be found in the state’s labor market system, and its Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (MOICC).
The School-to-Work grant states that ALL students are to participate, and “barriers” to this goal will be identified and overcome.[49] “Radical changes in attitudes, values and beliefs are required to move any combination of these agendas.”[50] If you asked how your student may “opt out” of choosing a career path, you would learn that the general education track has been, or is scheduled to be eliminated.
In June 1990, the National Center on Education and the Economy’s Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce published America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages. The Commission’s recommendations included “A new educational performance standard set for all students to be met by age 16. This standard should be established nationally and benchmarked to the highest in the world--Students passing a series of performance based assessments that incorporate the standard would be awarded a Certificate of Initial Mastery--Through the new local Employment and Training Boards, states, with federal assistance, should create and fund alternative learning environments for those who cannot attain the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) in regular schools.”[51]
Americaís Choice High Skills or Low Wages! defends educational reforms and a cumulative assessment system in this way:
“A Cumulative Assessment System: The assessment system should allow students to collect credentials over a period of years, perhaps beginning as early as entrance into the middle school. This kind of cumulative assessment has several advantages over a single series of examinations:
- It would help to organize and motivate students over an extended period of time. Rather than preparing for a far-off examination, students could begin early to collect specific certifications.
- It would provide multiple opportunities for success rather than a single high-stakes moment of possible failure. Cumulative certificates would greatly enhance the opportunity for the undereducated and unmotivated to achieve high educational standards. All could earn credentials at their own pace, as the criteria for any specific credential would not vary, regardless of the student’s age.
- It would allow students who are not performing well in the mainstream education system to earn their credentials under other institutional auspices.
To set the assessment standards and certification procedures, we recommend the establishment of an independent national examination organization that broadly represents educators, employers and the citizenry at large.
The organization should be authorized to convene working commissions in a variety of knowledge and skill areas to help train judges, set and assess standards and conduct examinations. The organization should be independent of schools and school systems and protected from political pressures.”[52] [Be sure to read about SCANS later in this chapter.]
Will the Certificate of Initial Mastery replace the traditional diploma‌ According to the schematics found on pages 87 and 88 of Americaís Choice: High Skills or Low Wages! (which represents the Commission’s proposals), only those bound for college will receive a high school diploma after obtaining the Certificate of Initial Mastery. Those obtaining the Certificate of Initial Mastery may go directly into the workforce.
Following elementary and middle school, students move on to either a secondary school or a youth center. Either alternative provides the Certificate of Initial Mastery. From there the student chooses between either entering into a college preparatory or a combined work-and-study program. If the student chooses college preparatory the next step is college before entering the workforce. Students who choose the combined work and study program then moves on to earn technical and professional certificates and may then go on to college or enter the workforce. The schematic shows that the Local Employment and Training Board funnels people from the workforce into where they may obtain a Certificate of Initial Mastery or the combined work-and-study programs.
The schematic provides the following examples: A 45-year-old hotel attendant with a fifth-grade education will go to the Local Employment and Training Board, obtain his Certificate of Initial Mastery, enter a combined work and study program, receive a certificate of Retail Sales, be a sales clerk, and earn an advanced Certificate of Retail Sales, before becoming a fashion department manager. A ninth-grade drop out who is in a youth center will earn a Certificate of Initial Mastery go through a combined work-and-study program, may earn an Electronics Technician Certificate, take a combined work and study program with college credit, earn an Electrical Engineering Certificate, take the last two years of college, earn an engineering degree, and become an industrial process control engineer. A kindergartner will go through elementary and middle school, enter secondary school, obtain the Certificate of Initial Mastery, enter the Army, then enter a combined work and study program, earn a Technical and Professional Certificate in Manufacturing, and become a skilled manufacturing worker. The last example is a tenth-grader who obtains a Certificate of Initial Mastery, then finishes the Junior and Senior years of high school, receives the high school diploma, attends four years of college, and earns a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism before entering the workforce as a newspaper journalist.
Page 90 of Americaís Choice: High Skills or Low Wages! states that “Underlying this proposed structure is a philosophical change in the way we as a nation view human resources policies--It is a bold, new agenda which necessitates the creation of a more uniform system to replace the existing variety of agencies.”[53]
It seems that what is meant by “life-long learning” is that throughout one’s life and working career, they will be tested through performance-based assessments such as the American College of Testing’s (ACT) Work Keys, for work-related competencies in knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Those found lacking in competencies will be “recycled” through work-and-study programs by the local Employment and Training Board or its cohorts. Read more on Work Keys at the end of this chapter.
Members of the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce included:
- Ira Magaziner, President, SJS, Inc. (also Clinton’s “front” man on health care reform.)
- William Brock, Senior Partner, The Brock Group; Former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor
- Ray Marshall, Chair in Economics and Public Affairs L.B.J. School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin; Former Secretary U.S. Department of Labor
- Robert Atkinson, Director of Academic Programs School of Business and Industry, Florida A&M University
- Owen Bieber, President, United Automobile Workers
- Edward Carlough, General President, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association
- Anthony Carnevale, Vice President of National Affairs and Chief Economist, American Society for Training & Development.
- Paul Choquette, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, Gilbane Building Company
- Richard Cohon, President, C.N. Burman Company
- Badi Foster, President, AEtna Institute for Corporate Education
- Thomas Gonzales, Chancellor, Seattle Community College District VI
- Rear Admiral W.J. Holland, Jr., USN (retired) President, Educational Foundation Armed Forces Communications and Education Association
- James Houghton, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Corning Incorporated
- James Hunt, Partner, Poyner & Spruill; Former Governor State of North Carolina
- John Hurley, Vice President and Director, Corporate Training and Educational Resources, The Chase Manhattan Bank
- John Jacob, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Urban League, Inc.
- Thomas Kean, President, Drew University; Former Governor State of New Jersey
- William Kolberg, President, National Alliance of Business
- William Lucy, International Secretary/Treasurer, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
- Margaret L.A. MacVicar, Dean for Undergraduate Education and Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Eleanor Holmes Norton, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Former Chairwoman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Karen Nussbaum, Executive Director 9to5, National Association of Working Women
- Peter Pestillo, Vice President, Corporate Relations and Diversified Businesses, Ford Motor Company
- Philip Power, Chairman, Suburban Communications Corporation
- Lauren Resnick, Director, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh
- Kjell-Jon Rye, Teacher, Bellevue (WA) Public Schools
- Howard Samuel, President, Industrial Union Department AFL-CIO
- John Sculley, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Apple Computer, Inc.
- William Spring, Vice President, District Community Affairs, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
- Anthony Trujillo, Superintendent, Sweetwater Union (CA) High School District
- Marc Tucker, President, National Center on Education and the Economy
- Laura D’Andrea Tyson, Director of Research, Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, University of California at Berkeley
- Kay Whitmore, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Eastman Kodak Company
- Alan Wurtzel, Chairman of the Board, Circuit City Stores, Inc.
It is NO accident that Magaziner, Whitmore, Sculley, Hunt, Tucker, Carnevale, Marshall, Power, and Resnick are ALSO members on the Board of Trustees of the National Center on Education and the Economy as reiterated later in this chapter.
A letter dated August 2, 1991, was written by Lamar Alexander, Secretary of the United States Department of Education in the Bush administration at the time, to “Dear Friends.” Mr. Alexander writes to provide highlights of President Bush’s education strategy called AMERICA 2000 that had been released a few months earlier. Following are the highlights he speaks of:
- President’s proposal to create the American Achievement Tests.
- An AMERICAN 2000 Hotline (1-800-USA-LEARN) set up in April (1991)
_ AMERICA 2000 offers a framework for action
- President’s education team was confirmed by the Senate in May (1991).
- President’s education team includes:
* David Kearns as the Deputy Secretary of Education. David was the Chairman of Xerox.
* Diane Ravitch, an education historian from Columbia University was sworn in as the Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.
- Colorado 2000 kicking off Colorado 2000 on June 17 (1991). President Bush, I [Lamar Alexander], Colorado Governor Roy Romer, and legislative leaders Ted Strickland and Chuck Berry joined on the first day of the initiative to create over 175 Colorado 2000 communities.
- Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley is--becoming an AMERICAN 2000 community--launched Memphis 2000.
- July 8 (1991), the President announced the formation of the New American Schools Development Corporation [NASDC]
- NASDC, a “private, nonprofit corporation is chaired by Drew University president Tom Kean, the former Governor of New Jersey.
- NASDC Board of Directors “is made up of some of the nation’s top chief executive officers:
* AT&T loaned Frank Blount, senior executive to serve as President and Chief Executive Officer.
* Saul Cooperman, former New Jersey Commissioner of Education, chairs the Education Advisory Panel of distinguished educators who are advising the New Schools Corporation on policy issues.
- Before fundraising officially began, board members contributed over $30 million, including a $10-million “challenge grant” from the Annenberg Foundation. The RAND Corporation has agreed to work closely with the New Schools Corporation, and will provide invaluable research and analysis over the months ahead.
- Two design conferences: Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles for those who may be interested in participating in the design team competition.
- In May (1991) President Bush sent the AMERICA 2000 Excellence in Education Act to the Hill.
- Already, Congress has passed and the President signed a bill creating both the National Council on Standards and Testing and the National Commission on Time and Learning.
- The Council on Standards and Testing has until the end of this year to make recommendations, including ways to develop both World Class Standards in English, math, science, history and geography, and a voluntary national examination system, the American Achievement Tests” (emphasis added).[54]
A now-famous eighteen page letter dated November 11, 1992, was written by Marc Tucker, President of the National Center on Education and the Economy, to Hillary Clinton. (Mr. Tucker, Laura Resnick, and Missouri Education Commissioner Bartman signed the “Memorandum of Understanding” which brought Tucker’s New Standards Project to Missouri. See the chapter titled “Local Accreditation Reflects National Standards and Assessment.”) Tucker’s letter was addressed to Hillary at the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion shortly after her husband, Governor Bill Clinton, won the November, 1992, presidential election. The letter makes the following statements:
- “We have a system that rewards students who meet the national standards with further education and good jobs, providing them a strong incentive to work hard in school (page 3).
- All students are guaranteed that they will have a fair shot at reaching the standards; that is, that whether they make it or not depends on the effort they are willing to make, and nothing else (page 4).
- All students who meet the new national standards for general education are entitled to the equivalent of three more years of free additional education. We would have the federal and state governments match funds to guarantee one free year of college education to everyone who meets the new national standards for general education. So a student who meets the standard at 16 would be entitled to two free years of high school and one of college. Loans, which can be forgiven for public service, are available for additional education beyond that (page 4).
- Loan defaults are reduced to a level close to zero, both because programs that do not deliver what they promise are not selected by prospective students and because the new postsecondary loan system uses the IRS to collect what is owed from salaries and wages as they are earned (page 6).
- Achieving that standard is the prerequisite for enrollment in all professional and technical degree programs (page 6).
- Employed people can access the system through the requirement that their employers spend an amount equal to 1-1/2 percent of their salary and wage bill on training leading to national skill certification” (page 6).
- Page 7 addresses the Labor Market System stating “The system is fully computerized as described later in this chapter.”
- Our assumption is that the system we are proposing will be managed so as to encourage the states to combine the last two years of high school and the first two years of community college into three year programs leading to college degrees and certificates (page 9).
- The object is to create a single comprehensive system for professional and technical education that meets the requirements of everyone from high school students to skilled dislocated workers, from the hard core unemployed to employed adults who want to improve their prospects. Creating such a system means sweeping aside countless programs, building new ones, combining funding authorities, changing deeply embedded institutional structures, and so on. Trying to ram it down everyone’s throat would engender overwhelming opposition (page 10).
- Our idea is to draft legislation that would offer an opportunity for those states-and selected large cities-that are excited about this set of ideas to come forward and join with each other and with the federal government in an alliance to do the necessary design work and actually deliver the needed services on a fast track. The legislation would require the executive branch to establish a competitive grant program for these states and cities and to engage a group of organizations to offer technical assistance to the expanding set of states and cities engaged in designing and implementing the new system. This is not the usual large scale experiment, nor is it a demonstration program. A highly regarded precedent exists for this approach in the National Science Foundation’s SSI program. As soon as the first set of states is engaged, another set would be invited to participate, until most or all the states are involved. It is a collaborative design, roll out and scale-up program. It is intended to parallel the work of the National Board for College Professional and Technical Standards, so that the states and cities and all their partners would be able to implement the new standards as soon as they became available, although they would be delivering services on a large scale before that happened. Thus, major parts of the whole system would be in operation in a majority of the states within three years from the passage of the initial legislation. Inclusion of selected large cities in this design is not an afterthought (page 10).
- Develop uniform reporting system for providers, requiring them to provide information in that format on characteristics of clients, their success rates by program, and the costs of those programs. Develop computer-based system for combining this data at local labor market board offices with employment data from the state so that counselors and clients can look at programs offered by colleges and other vendors in terms of cost, client characteristics, program design, and outcomes, including subsequent employment histories for graduates (pages 11 and 12).
- Everything we have heard indicates virtually universal opposition in the employer community to the proposal for a 1-1/2 levy on employers for training to support the costs associated with employed workers gaining these skills, whatever the levy is called. We propose that Bill [Clinton] take a leaf out of the German book (emphasis added). One of the most important reasons that large German employers offer apprenticeship slots to German youngsters is that they fear, with good reason, that if they don’t volunteer to do so, the law will require it. Bill could gather a group of leading executives and business organization leaders, and tell them straight out that he will hold back on submitting legislation to require a training levy, provided that they commit themselves to a drive to get employers to get their average expenditures on front-line employee training up to 2% of front-line employee salaries and wages within two years. If they have not done so within that time, then he will expect their support when he submits legislation requiring the training levy. He could do the same thing with respect to slots for structured on-the-job training” (page 13).
- As you know very well, the High Skill: Competitive Workforce Act sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Hatfield and Congressmen Gephardt and Regula provides a ready-made vehicle for advancing many of the ideas we have outlined. To foster a good working relationship with the Congress, we suggest that, to the extent possible, the framework of these companion bills be used to frame the President’s proposals. You may not know that we have put together a large group of representatives of Washington-based organizations to come to a consensus around the ideas in America’s Choice. They are full of energy and very committed to this joint effort. If they are made part of the process of framing the legislative proposals, they can be expected to be strong support for them when they arrive on the Hill. As you think about the assembly of these ideas into specific legislative proposals, you may also want to take into account the packaging ideas that come later in this letter (page 14).
- So we confine ourselves here to describing some of those activities that can be used to launch the Clinton education program:
Standard Setting: Legislation to accelerate the process of national standard setting in education was contained in the conference report on S.2 and HR 4323 that was defeated on a recent cloture vote. While some of us would quarrel with a few of the details, we think the new administration should support the early reintroduction of this legislation with whatever changes it thinks fit. This legislation does not establish a national body to create a national examination system. We think that is the right choice for now (emphasis added).
Systemic Change in Public Education: The conference report on S.2 and HR4323 also contained a comprehensive program to support systemic change in public education. Here again--we believe that the administration’s objectives would be well served by endorsing the resubmission of this legislation, modified as it sees fit.
Federal Programs for the Disadvantaged: Federal programs need to be overhauled to reflect an emphasis on results for the students rather than compliance with the regulations. A national commission on Chapter 1, the largest of these programs, chaired by David Hornbeck, has designed a radically new version of this legislation, with the active participation of many of the advocacy groups.
Public Choice, Technology, Integrated Health and Human Services, Curriculum Resources, High Performance Management, Professional Development and Research and Development: One of the most cost-effective things the federal government could do is to provide support for research, development and technical assistance to the schools on these topics. Existing programs of research, development and assistance should be examined as possible sources of funds for these purposes. Professional development is a special case. To build the restructured system will require an enormous amount of professional development and the time in which professionals can take advantage of such a resource. Both cost a lot of money--But here, as elsewhere, there are some existing problems in the Department of Education whose funds can be redirected for this purpose--Much of what we have in mind here can be accomplished through the reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Early Childhood Education: The president-elect has committed himself to a great expansion in the funding of Head Start. We agree. But the design of the program should be changed--The quality of professional preparation for the people who staff these programs is very low and there are no standards that apply to their employment. The same kind of standard setting we have called for in the rest of this plan should inform the approach to this program. Early childhood education should be combined with quality day care to provide wraparound programs that enable working parents to drop off their children at the beginning of the work day and pick them up at the end. Full funding for the very poor should be combined with matching funds to extend the tuition paid by middle class parents to make sure that these programs are not officially segregated by income. The growth of the program should be phased in--(pages 15 and 16).
- Putting the package together: We propose that you assemble the ideas just described into four high priority packages that will enable you to move quickly on the campaign promises:
1. (U)se your proposal for an apprenticeship system as the keystone of the strategy for putting the whole new postsecondary training system in place--
2. (C)ombine the initiatives on dislocated workers, the rebuilt employment service and the new system of labor market boards as the Clinton administration’s employment security program--
3. (C)ombine most of the elements of the first and second packages into a special program to greatly raise the work-related skills of the people trapped in the core of our cities.
4. (T)ake advantage of the legislation on which Congress has already been working to advance the elementary and secondary reform agenda (incorporating the systemic reforms agenda and the board for student performance standards), with the proposal for revamping Chapter 1” (pages 16 and 17).
- Organizing the Executive Branch for Human Resources Development: Organize the federal government to make sure that the new system is actually built as a seamless web in the field--and that programs get a fast start with a first-rate team behind it. We propose:
1. That the President appoint a National Council on Human Resources Development. It would consist of the relevant key White House officials, cabinet members and members of Congress. It would also include a small number of governors, educators, business executives, labor leaders and advocates for minorities and the poor. It would be established in such a way as to assure continuity of membership across administrations, so that the consensus it forges will outlast any one administration. It would be charged with recommending broad policy on a national system of human resources development to the President and the Congress, assessing the effectiveness and promise of current programs and proposing new ones. It would be staffed by senior officials on the Domestic Policy Council staff of the President.
2. We propose a new agency be created, the National Institute for Learning, Work and Service. Would--put the continuing education and training of the ‘forgotten half’ on a par with the preparation of those who have historically been given the resources to go to college and to integrate the two systems--to make good on the promise that everyone will have access to the kind of education that only a small minority have had access to up to now. To this agency would be assigned the functions now performed by the assistant secretary for employment and training, the assistant secretary for vocational education and the assistant secretary for higher education. The staff would be small, high powered and able to move quickly to implement the policy initiatives of the new President in the field of human resources development. The closest existing model to what we have in mind is the National Science Board and the National Science Foundation--In this scheme, the Department of Education would be free to focus on putting the new student performance standards in place and managing the programs that will take the leadership in the national restructuring of the schools. Much of the financing and disbursement functions of the higher education program would move to the Treasury Department, leaving the higher education staff in the new institute to focus on matters of substance. In any case, as you can see, we believe that some extraordinary measure well short of actually merging the departments of labor and education is required to move the new agenda with dispatch (pages 17 and 18).
- Radical changes in attitudes, values and beliefs are required to move any combination of these agendas. The federal government will have little direct leverage on many of the actors involved. For much of what must be done, a new, broad consensus will be required” (page 18 emphasis added).
- (T)he agenda cannot be moved unless there is agreement among the governors, the President and the Congress (page 18).
Another document of the National Center on Education and the Economy is A Human Resources Development Plan for the United States. Page nine is devoted to the Labor Market Systems and says:
“The Employment Service is greatly upgraded, and separated from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. All available front-line jobs-whether public or private-must be listed in it by law [this provision must be carefully designed to make sure that employers will not be subject to employment suits based on the data produced by this system-if they are subject to such suits, they will not participate]. All trainees in the system looking for work are entitled to be listed in it without a fee. So it is no longer a system just for the poor and unskilled, but for everyone. The system is fully computerized. It lists not only job openings and job seekers (with their qualifications) but also all the institutions in the labor market area offering programs leading to the general education certificate and those offering programs leading to the professional and technical college degrees and certificates, along with all the relevant data about the costs, characteristics and performance of those programs-for everyone and for special populations. Counselors are available to any citizen to help them assess their needs, plan a program and finance it, and, once they are trained, to locate available jobs.
A system of labor market boards is established at the local, state and federal levels to coordinate the systems for job training, postsecondary professional and technical education, adult basic education, job matching and counseling. The rebuilt Employment Service is supervised by these boards. The system’s clients no longer have to go from agency to agency filling out separate applications for separate programs. It is all taken care of at the local labor market board office by one counselor accessing the integrated computer-based program, which makes it possible for the counselor to determine eligibility for all relevant programs at once, plan a program with the client and assemble the necessary funding from all the available sources. The same system will enable counselor and client to array all the relevant program providers side by side, assess their relative costs and performance records and determine which providers are best able to meet the client’s needs based on performance.”
A Human Resources Development Plan for the United States says that the components to remold the entire American system for human resources development were put in place before World War II. The National Center on Education and the Economy has two visions. The first is to “create a seamless web of opportunities to develop one’s skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone-young and old, poor and rich, worker and full-time student.”[55] The second vision is a legislative agenda to implement this vision. Four high-priority packages are proposed which is to enable the federal government to move quickly:
1. President Clinton’s proposal for an apprenticeship system for putting a whole new post-secondary training system in place. That system would incorporate his [Clinton’s] proposal for postsecondary standards, the Collaborative Design and Development Proposal, the technical assistance proposal and the postsecondary education finance proposal [author’s note: such as that found in Missouri’s A+ Schools Program.]
2. Combine initiatives on dislocated workers, a rebuilt employment service and a new system of labor market boards in a single employment security program.
3. Combine elements of the first and second packages into a special program to raise the work-related skills of the people trapped in the core of our cities.
4. The fourth would enable the new administration [Clinton] to take advantage of legislation on which Congress has already been working to advance the elementary and secondary reform agenda. It would combine the successor to HR 4323 and S2 (incorporating the systemic reform agenda and the board for student performance standards) with the proposal for revamping Chapter 1.[56]
The Board of Trustees for the National Center on Education and the Economy include:
- Mario Cuomo, then Governor of New York
- John Sculley, Chairman and CEO, Apple Computer, Inc.
- James Hunt, Governor-Elect of North Carolina
- Carlos R. Carballada, CEO of First National Bank, Rochester, New York
- Marc Tucker, President of the National Center on Education and the Economy
- Anthony Carnevale, President of Institute for Workplace Learning, American Society for Training & Development
- Sarah Cleveland, Law Clerk, U.S. District Court, Washington, DC
- Thomas Cole, Jr., President, Clark Atlanta University
- VanBuren Hansford, Jr., CEO and Chairman, Hansford Manufacturing Corp., Rochester, New York
- Louis Harris, Chairman, LH Research, New York, New York
- Guilbert Hentschke, Dean, School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
- Vera Katz, Mayor-Elect, Portland, Oregon
- Arturo Madrid, President, The Tomas Rivera Center, Claremont, California
- Ira Magaziner, President, SJS, Inc., Providence, Rhode Island (and Clinton’s “front man” on health care reform)
- Shirley Malcom, Head, Directorate for Education and Human Resources Programs, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.
- Ray Marshall, Audre and Bernard Rapoport Centennial Chair in Economics & Public Affairs, L.B.J. School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin
- Richard Mills, Commissioner of Education, Vermont Department of Education, , Montpelier, Vermont
- Philip Power, Chairman, Suburban Communications Corporation, Ann Arbor, Michigan
- Lauren Resnick, Director, Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (see this book’s chapter titled Local Accreditation Reflects National Standards and Assessments).
- Manuel Rivera, Superintendent, Rochester City School District, Rochester, New York
- David Rockefeller, Jr., Chairman, Rockefeller Financial Services, Inc. New York, New York
- Adam Urbanski, President, Rochester Teachers Association, Rochester, New York
- Kay Whitmore, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, New York
It is NO coincidence that Ira Magaziner, Marc Tucker, Lauren Resnick, John Sculley, Kay Whitmore, James Hunt, Anthony Carnevale, Ray Marshall, and Philip Power, were ALSO members of the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce which wrote America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages! addressed earlier in this chapter.
It should be understood that “human resources” are you-the American people. Does being referred to as a “resource” make you feel like something to be used‌ Does it bring back memories of historical facts surrounding the misuse of people in Germany who were also seen as mere “resources”‌ Some may ask whether this “new agenda” is a new system through which those who do not display, possess, or comply with politically correct values, attitudes, and behavior are to be rehabilitated. Others may ask whether we are trading a free-market system for a command economy which has proven to fail in other countries. It appears suspiciously so.
It is no accident then that appendix IV of Missouri’s 1995 federal grant proposal for state implementation of Missouri’s School-to-Work system (called Missouri’s Roadway to Success) contains a map showing how Missouri is broken down into eleven Labor Market Areas and states:
“The Missouri Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (MOICC) uses these geographic areas to organize labor market information collected by local, state and federal government agencies. The Committee will provide state and substate labor market information to the local partnerships to identify projected employment needs. Information on all industries and occupations will be included. Current and projected employment estimates through the year 2000 will be provided for over 400 detailed industries (e.g. hospitals, residential construction, etc.) and over 700 detailed occupations (e.g. nurses, carpenters, etc.).
This labor market information will be used by a local partnership if it, for example, identifies health services as a career path and is seeking information on potential employment for occupations and industries within the health field. In this case, reports will be provided which show growth rates for health-related industries and occupations and which industries customarily utilize which occupations. This information will assist the partnership in identifying local employers for job sites suited to the individual’s career path. Information will also be provided to assist in determining if an adequate supply of trained workers is being prepared or if additional skilled workers will be needed. Occupational supply-demand reports are available for those skill areas which require significant training and education.”
The following are member agencies of the Missouri Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (MOICC)
Department of Higher Education
Council on Vocational Education
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Division of Job Development and Training
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Division of Health Resources
Division of Budget and Planning
Division of Employment Security
Department of Economic Development
Division of Vocational and Adult Education
MOICC provides data coordination, information for human resources planning, and information for career decision-making. MOICC’s Microcomputer Occupational Information System (MICRO-OIS) is a collaborative effort to share data among the MOICC member agencies and to make this data available across the State of Missouri. The MOICC Occupational Data Book provides printed reports and definitions used in the Missouri OIS. Using the OIS you may answer questions such as: (1) Do we need to increase the number of persons being trained as aircraft mechanics in the Kansas City area‌ (2) Which school(s) conduct training programs for truck drivers in SDA 7‌ (3) What is the entry-level wage for welders in Cape Girardeau County‌ (4) Which industries are growing or declining in the St. Louis Metropolitan area‌[57]
MOICC’s 56-page newspaper called Missouri Career Guide Preparing Missourians for the New Global Economy lists six career paths with which occupations are associated. These same six career paths are listed in Exploring Career Paths A Guide for Students and Their Families produced by the University of Missouri’s Instructional Materials Laboratory. This document states that it was “adopted from a model developed by the state of Oregon.”
The manual explains to students that different career paths require different levels of education and training, and provides the student with an area of focus. The stated intent is not to decide on a specific occupation for the rest of one’s life, but to select a career path into which energies can be directed towards. Students who decide to later change their career path are advised to discuss it with their counselor and adjust future course selections accordingly. The manual doesn’t say whether the number of opportunities to change career paths are or will be limited.
The manual contains pages to help students develop a course plan from 9th through the 14th grades. This necessitates students making some sort of a decision about their life’s career path before leaving middle school. Page 20 of Exploring Career Paths states, “More than 70 percent of the jobs in America will not require a college education (bachelor’s degree) by the year 2000.” The footnote next to this statement identifies it as a quote from Americaís Choice: High Skills or Low Wages!, National Center on Education and the Economy, June 1990.
The six career paths include:
1. Arts and Communications: related to humanities and performing arts, visual, literary, and media arts. Architecture, interior design, creative writing, fashion design, film, fine arts, graphic design and production, journalism, languages, radio, television, advertising, and public relations.
2. Business, Management, and Technology: related to the business environment. Entrepreneurship, sales, marketing, computer/information systems, finance, accounting, personnel, economics, and management.
3. Health Services: related to the promotion of health and the treatment of disease. May include research, prevention, treatment, and related technologies.
4. Human Services: related to economic, political, and social systems. Education, government, law and law enforcement, leisure and recreation, delivery, military, religion, child care, social services, and personal services. (The manual defines religion to include pastors.)
5. Industrial and Engineering Technology: related to agriculture, the environment, and natural resources. Agricultural sciences, earth sciences, environmental sciences, fisheries, forestry, horticulture, and wildlife.
Goals 2000 says, “If a State has received Federal assistance for the purpose of planning for, expanding, or establishing a school-to-work program, then a State shall include in the State Improvement Plan a description of how (the) school-to-work program will be incorporated into the school reform efforts of the State.”[58]
Missouri’s School Improvement Plan includes a State funded reform called the A+ Program. School districts compete for the A+ grants. “A+ Candidate High Schools [are those which] have been promoting career pathways, STW [School-to-Work] activities, and the elimination of the ‘general education track.”[59] An A+ School is to ensure that ALL students graduate from high school, complete a selection of high school study that is challenging and has identified learner expectations (outcomes), and ensure that ALL students proceed from high school graduation to a college or post-secondary vocational or technical school, or high wage job with workplace skill development opportunities.
It would be beneficial to obtain your State's School Improvement Plan and School-to-Work grant from your U.S. Congressman or State Department of Education. Also beneficial would be a copy of your school district's School Improvement Plan and School-to-Work grant available through your local school district or State Department of Education.
Missouri’s School-to-Work program became law through Governor Carnahan’s Executive Order 95-11. Missouri’s legislative process and representative government were not allowed to function in this endeavor.
Missouri’s 1995 federal grant proposal for state implementation of the School-to-Work System was titled Missouri’s Roadway to Success which included:
- “Goal 4: developing career and education plans for each student (page 3)
- (E)xpanding career education and planning into all elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational institutions (page 3)
- (D)eveloping skill certificates (page 3)
- (E)valuating barriers to equal opportunity for ALL learners and identifying techniques to overcome them (page 3)
- Criterion 3: Participation of All Students: The Partnership resolved to make serving ALL learners an integral part of the School-to-Work System, not an addendum. Therefore, there is not a separate section on how each ‘special’ group will be served. Rather, local partnerships will be required to incorporate service for ALL (with assistance from the state as needed) into their local plans, and the State Evaluation Team will confirm that this is accomplished--In addition, state-level barriers created by regulations or legislation will be identified and strategies will be developed to overcome any such barriers (pages 19 and 20).
- The department directors will establish an interagency team to look at the integration of School-to-Work, Goals 2000, Missouri’s Outstanding Schools Act [SB380], Missouri’s Caring Community Project, Tech-Prep, and other programs. The team will--make recommendations on how to ensure that the programs are integrated at the local level (page 33).
(See this book’s chapter titled “Together We Can” Socialize “Caring Communities.”)
- The initial focus will be on the integration of School-to-Work and Goals 2000 (page 34)
- The Business Contact Team (BCT) will be working with businesses to identify barriers to their participation in School-to-Work. The team will look at all potential barriers including any created by insurance, liability, legislative, or other concerns. The BCT will then work with businesses to develop recommendations for changes to overcome any barriers found (page 43).
- A major part of the marketing plan for the Missouri School-to-Work Opportunities System will be an ‘Excellence in School-to-Work Award’--The award process will provide recognition only to those programs and partnerships which can objectively demonstrate the achievement of desired outcomes and thus demonstrate accountability--Award categories and criteria will be closely linked to the federal School-to-Work Opportunities legislation requirements. Within each category, criteria will be established to address such as follows:
1. Geographic Areas/Expansion: Does the program address the needs of the local labor market‌
2. Collaboration/Involvement: The active and continued involvement of employers, locally elected officials, secondary schools, postsecondary educational institutions, business associations, industrial extension centers, personnel, students, parents, community-based organizations, teachers, rehabilitation agencies and organizations, registered apprenticeship agencies, local vocational education schools, vocational student organizations, state or regional cooperative education associations, and human service agencies.
3. Coordination/Integration: Coordinate or integrate program into local School-to-Work Opportunities programs that were in existence prior to this program. How does the program support the goals of the state School-to-Work Opportunities system‌
4. Training Strategy: Provide training for teachers, employers, mentors, counselors, related service personnel and others including specialized training and technical support for the counseling and training of women, minorities, and individuals with disabilities for high-skill, high-wage careers in nontraditional employment.
5. Model Curricula/Innovative Instructional Methodologies: Elementary and/or secondary grades integrate academic and vocational learning and promote career awareness and are consistent with academic and skill standards established pursuant to Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the National Skill Standards Act of 1994.
6. Counseling: Expand and improve career and academic counseling in the elementary and secondary grades, including any linkages to career counseling and labor market information services outside of the school system.
7. Funding: Funded to be self-sufficient
8. Experience/Meaningful Opportunities: Provide for paid high-quality, work-based learning experiences, and generate paid experiences. Ensure effective and meaningful opportunities for all students to participate.
9. Awareness/Outreach: Provide for awareness and outreach to ensure opportunities for young women to participate, including nontraditional employment. Goals to ensure an environment free from racial and sexual harassment. Ensure opportunities for low achieving students, students with disabilities, school drop-outs, and academically talented students to participate.
10. Skill Certificates: Assess the skills and knowledge required in career majors and the process for awarding skill certificates consistent with the skills standards certification systems endorsed by the National Skill Standards Act of 1994.
11. Flexibility/Lifelong Learning: Ensure that students are given flexibility to develop new career goals over time and to change career majors. Foster lifelong learning through facilitating entry of students into additional training for postsecondary education programs, and through the transfer of students between education and training programs.
12. Performance Standards: Relate programs performance standards to those established by the state-wide system (Appendix II).
- All learners include students currently involved in general education as well as dropouts, learners with disabilities, gifted and at-risk students, and those in need of special education and/or rehabilitation (page 3).
- To encourage the small businesses that are the backbone of Missouri’s economy, we must teach Entrepreneurship, beginning in kindergarten (Appendix V).
- Currently, eight companies have contracts with three community colleges to provide training to employees needed for new or expanding industries. Training certificates are sold by the community colleges and a portion of the new employees’ taxes is deposited into a special fund to repay the certificates (Appendix V).
- Missouri’s Outstanding Schools Act requires the State Board of Education to develop performance-based assessments to identify what students know as well as what they are able to do. These assessments will measure student success in achieving the academic performance standards. Our goal is to ensure that the performance-based assessments include assessment of work-place skills and competencies (Appendix V).
- On August 25, 1994, Missouri was approved to receive a planning grant under the Goals 2000 Act. Among other things, [the state educational improvement plan] must include procedures for incorporating the School-to-Work Opportunities System into school reform efforts in Missouri (Appendix V).
- (I)mplementation of both the Goals 2000 Act and the Outstanding Schools Act--have involved and will continue to involve business, educators, parents, elected officials, state departments, and many other groups (Appendix V).
- Comprehensive Guidance Programs are essential and central partners in education and the School-to-Work Opportunities process. Comprehensive Guidance programs provide important benefits for all students by addressing their career, personal-social, and educational needs in relationship to the needs of society and the development of a quality United States work force for the 21st century. Comprehensive Guidance Programs are developmental and include sequentially organized activities and experiences designed to assist all students, K-12, to acquire knowledge and skills in career planning and exploration, knowledge of self and others, and educational and vocational development. They are implemented in each school by counselors in close collaboration with teachers, parents or guardians, administrators, community members, students, and representatives of business, industry, and labor (Appendix V).
- Parents as Teachers program will be revised to include career information; parents will be actively involved in the development of their child’s individual career and education plan” (page 16).
Missouri’s Roadway to Success identifies the following barriers to School-to-Work on page 48 and in Appendix III:
- Businesses may be reluctant to offer students paid work experience.
- Child labor laws may keep students out of the workplace. Missouri’s child labor laws prohibit the employment of children under the age of 14, and bans 14- and 15-year-olds from high-risk occupations. Allowable working hours for 14- and 15-year-olds are limited, depending on the time of year. Workers under the age of 18 may not use certain dangerous equipment. [Author’s note: Is the intention of the School-to-Work program to alter child labor laws to have children UNDER 14 working at high-risk occupations, and children under the age of 18 using dangerous equipment‌]
- Employers may be reluctant to assume liability of having students in the workplace. There also may be increased benefits for an injured employee who is under the age of 21.
- Some students may have difficulty securing transportation to and from the work-based learning site.
- Parents, students, and others may perceive School-to-Work as a program for non-college bound students.
- Some locally-controlled school boards may refuse to cooperate with any local partnership.
- Educators may see School-to-Work as a distraction from and dilution of necessary basic academics.
- Educators already have ‘plates full,’ can’t take on additional responsibilities.”
Missouriís Roadway to Success’s 1995 budget provides the following “list of potential resources for use by communities as leveraged and/or matching funds in the development of their local partnerships:
“STATE FUNDS
Caring Communities.................................. $ 24,500,000
Community College Work Force Preparation..... $9,432,463
A+ Schools....................................................... 7,500,000
Incentives for School Excellence........................ 6,000,000
State Vocational Education.............................. 43,852,528
Vocational Enhancement Grants....................... 6,000,000
Technology State Funds ................................. 10,500,000
Outstanding Schools Line 14......................... 129,259,647
Outstanding Schools Regional Training............ 12,000,000
Foundation Formula................................... 1,116,845,283
VIDEO Grants.................................................. 3,824,663
Parents as Teachers........................................ 21,204,651
LOCAL FUNDS
Local Tax Funds....................................... $1,392,049,653
Outstanding Schools Local Professional Development 12,000,000
FEDERAL FUNDS
Even Start...................................................... $1,562,366
Homeless.............................................................. 48,510
Emergency Immigrant............................................ 97,000
Migrant Education............................................... 812,257
IASA Title I School-wide................................. 106,000,000
IASA Title I Targeted............................................ 560,000
IASA Title II...................................................... 3,350,000
IASA Title VI..................................................... 7,000,000
Drug-Free......................................................... 3,000,000
Goals 2000....................................................... 4,900,000
Carl Perkins Basic Grant................................. 19,596,633
Tech Prep......................................................... 2,241,409
JTPA II B/C.................................................... 20,385,872
Vocational Rehabilitation Title I....................... 50,761,833
Vocational Rehabilitation Title VIC........................ 573,000
Adult Basic Education....................................... 8,381,013
Learn and Serve America..................................... 355,619
IDEA (P.L. 94-142).......................................... 36,340,000
Wagner-Peyser................................................ 13,000,000
.............................................. Total $3,073,936,398
This list DOES NOT include donations from business, in the form of cash, time and services which is expected to be substantial.”[60] Note that Caring Communities includes the “Medicaid program for schools.”[61]
Missouri’s federal School-to-Work grant dated August 1996 was titled Missouri’s Community Careers System and provided the following table titled Available Funds and/or Matching Funds for Fiscal Year 1995.
“STATE FUNDS
Caring Communities.................................. $ 24,857,405
Community College Work Force Preparation....... 3,980,392
A+ Schools...................................................... 7,500,000
Incentives for School Excellence........................ 6,000,000
State Vocational Education.............................. 38,334,741
Vocational Enhancement Grants....................... 6,000,000
Technology State Funds.................................. 10,500,000
Outstanding Schools Line 14....................... 129,259,647
Outstanding Schools Regional Training............ 12,000,000
Outstanding Schools Local Professional Development
................................................................. 12,000,000
Foundation Formula................................. 1,116,845,283
VIDEO Grants.................................................. 3,824,663
LOCAL FUNDS
Local Tax Funds....................................... $1,427,648,866
FEDERAL FUNDS
Even Start...................................................... $1,562,366
Homeless............................................................ 337,372
Emergency Immigrant.......................................... 115,584
Migrant Education............................................... 812,072
IASA Title I................................................... 113,093,564
IASA Title II...................................................... 3,821,126
IASA Title VI..................................................... 6,048,203
Drug-Free......................................................... 6,296,310
Goals 2000....................................................... 6,534,148
Carl Perkins Basic Grant................................. 19,596,633
Tech Prep......................................................... 2,241,409
JTPA II B/C.................................................... 10,766,714
Vocational Rehabilitation Title I....................... 42,001,432
Adult Basic Education & Futures....................... 8,183,354
Learn and Serve America..................................... 355,000
IDEA (P.L. 94-142).......................................... 48,751,983
Wagner-Peyser................................................ 15,000,000
............................................... Total $3,085,307,267
This list DOES NOT include donations from business, in the form of cash, time and services which is expected to be substantial. The state will require a significant local match for STW funding from all STW Partnerships. The goal of the State of Missouri is to have all STW activities self-supporting within five years.”[62]
In just two years School-to-Work has cost Missouri taxpayers $6,159,243,665 PLUS the donations from businesses in the form of cash, time and services, which the State says was expected to be substantial. THANK YOU, MR. TAXPAYER!
“Work Keys is a national system focused on workplace skills that are used in a wide range of jobs, are teachable in a reasonable period of time, and can be defined for purposes of job analysis. Work Keys provides a continuous structure for documenting and improving such skills. When developing the Work Keys system, American College Testing (ACT) consulted with educators, national organizations, and representatives from more than 150 large, medium, and small businesses throughout the nation. The Work Keys system has two factors: (1) the ability to compare an individual’s workplace skills to the requirements of a particular job, and (2) instructional support materials that enable individuals to improve their skills. With these, schools can determine how to prepare students more completely for the workplace, and employers can measure the qualifications of potential employees and design job-training programs that will help current employees meet the demands of their jobs. The Work Keys system consists of four integrated components: assessment, job profiling, instructional support, and reporting. Four standard reports are generated by this component, and customized reports may be generated upon request.”[63]
Work Keys, a product of American College Testing (ACT) is referred to in Teaching The SCANS Competencies which is published by the U.S. Department of Labor and its Secretary’s Commission On Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS).
“SCANS was formed “to encourage a high-performance economy characterized by high-skills, high-wage employment--SCANS defines the know-how American students and workers need for workplace success and in the applications of its principles in communities across the United States. Supporting the mission are the SCANS reports: Learning a Living; What Work Requires of Schools, the Commission’s first report; Skills and Tasks for Jobs, a tracing of the relationship between the SCANS competencies and skills and 50 common occupations; and Teaching the SCANS Competencies, uniting six articles that give education and training practitioners practical suggestions for applying SCANS in classroom [into curricula and instruction] and workplace.”[64]
SCANS is an assessment and tracking system of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors associated with the workplace. Be sure to note information on “tracking” in this book’s chapter titled “’Together We Can’ Socialize ‘Caring Communities’.”
The following information is taken from Teaching the SCANS Competencies:
“The know-how identified by SCANS is made up of five competencies and a three-part foundation of skills and personal qualities needed for solid job performance (emphasis added). These include:
“COMPETENCIES. Effective workers can productively use:
- Resources: allocating time (time management, setting priorities), money, materials, space, staff;
- Interpersonal Skills: working on teams [the “good” of the team is more important than the individual‌], teaching others, serving customers, leading, negotiating (stress and conflict management), and working well with people from culturally diverse backgrounds; [note: Will those who are not “politically correct” fail this competency‌]
- Information: acquiring and evaluating data, organizing and maintaining files, interpreting and communicating, and using computers to process information;
- Systems: understanding social, organizational, and technological systems, monitoring and correcting performance, and designing or improving systems;
- Technology: selecting equipment and tools, applying technology to specific tasks, and maintaining and troubleshooting technologies.
“THE FOUNDATION. Competence requires:
- Basic Skills: reading, writing, arithmetic and mathematics, speaking and listening;
- Thinking Skills: thinking creatively, making decisions, solving problems, seeing things in the mind’s eye, knowing how to learn, and reasoning;
- Personal Qualities: individual responsibility, self-esteem, sociability, self-management and integrity.” [Is responsibility defined to include family planning‌]
“Although a new course or two (e.g. Principles of Technology) might be designed at some schools, the primary place to teach SCANS skills is within existing curricula. SCANS skills can and should be integrated into each subject in the core curriculum.
“The New Standards Project is a national effort managed by the National Center on Education and the Economy in collaboration with the Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh, plans to articulate world-class standards and then develop a national assessment system based on these standards. The assessment system is likely to include timed performance examinations, student projects, and portfolios of student work.”[65]
Michael Schmidt and Arnold Packer wrote a paper titled Technology and High-Performance Schools: A SCANS Survey. Michael Schmidt, served as a staff member for SCANS and has written several articles on workforce policy and human resources development. Arnold Packer, chairman of Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies SCANS/2000 Program, served as Executive Director of SCANS and co-authored the seminal study Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century. The article explains the four-step process in adapting their technology plan for schools:
“STEP 1: Preparing for Technology Acquisition
- Establish a planning committee
- Agree on purposes of educational technology
- Hold a technology conference
STEP 2: Investing in Hardware
- Classroom workstations (computer linked to a large-screen TV display.
- Laptop computers for teachers/administrators
- Classroom workstations for students
- Classroom laser printers
- Integrated Learning Systems (ILS) Labs
- Compact-disk (CD/ROM) players
- Computer file servers (machines that link computers into Local Area Networks (LANs).
- Electrical wiring
- Technology Resource Center
STEP 3: Investing in Software and Support
- Educational software:
1. Teachers’ Aids (attendance, record grades, design lesson plans, write curricula, and monitor student progress.
2. Instructional Aids (drill students in basic skills, instructional programs that provide students with information about a variety of issues, and programs that develop such higher-order skills as creative thinking and problem-solving.
3. Multi-Media software blend computer, video, and audio technology into one integrated system.
4. Application/work-related software include word-processing, database, and spreadsheet programs.
- Software for classroom and technology center
1. Teachers’ organizational aids-grading, attendance, etc.
2. Software for teachers to fully integrate technology into the curriculum.
3. Media/technology resource center
4. Software for students (word processing, database, and spreadsheet programs that properly prepare them for work.
- Maintenance, repair, and replacement of equipment
Allocate five to seven percent of the hardware budget.
STEP 4: Investing in Staff Development
- Recommend an initial training program of 10 days for staff with ongoing training of five days per year.
- Recommend hiring at least one full-time computer specialist to provide on-site faculty support and to oversee the ILS lab.
- Suggest that $300 per student be allocated on an ongoing basis for training and development of staff based on a school with 1,400 students.
- Staff members must also receive training in new ways of thinking and teaching and in taking on new responsibilities.”[66]
This may sound all well and good, but, does it work‌ Has the SCANS assessment been assessed‌
“John Wirt, an independent consultant on skills standards and other job-assessment issues, was formerly Deputy Director of SCANS. Prior to that, he directed the Congressionally-mandated National Assessment of Vocational Education and was a policy analyst for the Rand Corporation.
“The SCANS competencies present challenging problems for assessment. One potential difficulty is determining the level of students’ general competency when their prior knowledge of the specific contexts of assessment exercises may vary significantly. Several of the competencies also involve social skills, and some assessment experts doubt that social skills can be reliably and validly assessed on a large scale. A third potential problem is that the thinking inherent in many of the competencies, such as improving systems and allocating resources is much more complex and open-ended than generally can be assessed using conventional testing methods.
“A considerable amount of experience with teaching the SCANS competencies in education and training programs, coupled with research, will need to occur before methods for assessing the SCANS competencies can be firmly established. The Department of Labor, in cooperation with the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management, has taken a first step toward such an outcome by launching a sizable project to develop techniques for assessing the SCANS competencies in a large-scale survey or on an individual basis. Project officer is Bill Showler, OSPPD, Rm. N-5637, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone number (202) 219-5677.”[67]
Following are the national testing organizations involved with assessing SCANS:
“Hay/McBer’s Behavioral Event Interview (job competency generally), Educational Testing Service (interpersonal skills), Maryland Education Department (allocation of resources), Wilson Learning Corporation (interpersonal skills), American College Testing (using information-acquiring and evaluating data)--Two groups are developing performance assessments for SCANS or SCANS-like competencies: The Work Readiness Group of the New Standards Project at the University of Pittsburgh, and the State Assessments Program of the Council of Chief State School Officers.”[68]
Included among the 32 members of the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) working under Lynn Martin, U.S. Secretary of Labor (listed on page 127 of Teaching the SCANS Competencies), were William Brock, Dr. Badi Foster, and Dr. Lauren Resnick, all of whom are associated with the National Center on Education and the Economy.
As you may have noticed earlier in this chapter, the same names keep coming up in various documents and programs associated with education, health, or labor reforms. Interestingly enough, it seems that one way or another, at least one or more in the list are associated with the National Center on Education and the Economy.
National Computer Systems, Inc. (NCS) manufactures: computer software for scoring and reporting test results to better monitor student progress, optical scanning equipment, computer forms, application software, optical scanning, and testing and systems integration services. One such product manufactured by NCS is called ABACUS. ABACUS is a complete instructional management system with one component that includes a test bank of items, test scoring, test analysis and test reporting. It has the capability of using a bar code that may decrease paperwork for teachers. A computer system may also be referred to as an MIS or Manage-ment Information System. There is more information on National Computer System, Inc. in this book’s section titled Tracking in the chapter titled “‘Together We Can’ Socialize ‘Caring Communities.’ ”
Families have concerns: that students will become workers for the state; that this will shift the emphasis away from academics toward career preparation or vocational training (Tech Prep); about their privacy relative to the centralized databank system which links national, state, and local data bases. As is documented above, these databases will be the depository through which the Labor Market Information System will plan, administer, and evaluate vast personal data in an effort to match employers with employees. Centralizing this data sets up an enormous potential for abuse should it ever be used to discriminate against individuals. Establishing local workforce development areas and one-stop career centers adds another layer of bureaucracy.
States not participating will be denied eligibility for federal funds. Employers will be pressured to hire only those who have acquired a skills certificate, or require current employees to obtain one.
A command economy destroys the incentive to produce. When a government takes the challenge, fun, variety, and technicolor of free enterprise and turns it into the stark, black and white of socialism, there is no reason to do more than the bare minimum.
As a little girl I used to lie on my back in the grass of our backyard and watch the sky as airplanes left streaks of white marks on a blue background. Earthbound, I would daydream about exotic places and vacations I imagined the passengers were bound for. How I longed for the far-away adventures that lay beyond our yard, but I was too young. In the late 1960s when I was in seventh and eighth grades, our teacher gave us an assignment to create a career notebook. Because of my wonder of aircraft and travel, I chose to do my career notebook on the airline industry. I doubt that it was very detailed. Then came the high school years. Our school had a program called COE. It was a program where a student went to school for part of the day and held a job the rest of the day. Even though I was an honor-roll student, this was an opportunity to “get out of school early, ” and into the world of paychecks. Sooo, I traded my grade-school dreams of a career in the airline industry for something more secure and “realistic” which would be arranged through school. Then there was a major catastrophe. The summer before my senior year in which I was to participate in the COE program, I endured an eight-hour surgery for pancreatic cancer and a five-week hospital stay. My surgeon said I could not participate in the COE program. I had just survived one major setback, and now the rest of my “life’s plans” were derailed! I was as devastated as any teenager anxious to experience the grown-up “real-world” of work could be.
What I didn’t realize at the time, was what a disguised blessing this would turn out to really be. Mom and dad found a newspaper ad for an airline school’s correspondence course, and I was enrolled. Since the doctor said I couldn’t take gym, I spent gym class in the gym teacher’s office working on the correspondence course. What a joy it was to learn about the latest aircraft, city codes, and the inner workings of an industry I had fallen in love with as a child. The tests were all open-book, so it was a breeze to make straight “A”s. This led to a month of intense resident training in Kansas City. Within two months I was employed with an airline. I couldn’t believe my childhood dreams had come true!! What pride I took in my employer, the work I did in the accounting office, then reservations, and finally in Central Reservations Control! I was actually working in the career I had always dreamed of because Providence forced me to believe in myself rather than the institutionalized school-to-career mold!

Local Accreditation Reflects
National Standards and Assessments

If a state voluntarily chooses to implement Goals 2000, it receives additional federal funding. It's the state’s responsibility to ensure the implementation of Goals 2000 throughout the state. If a school district “voluntarily” chooses not to implement the reforms, the school district looses its accreditation and funding, and is dissolved. District taxpayers are forced to pay the tuition and transportation of students wishing to attend an accredited district. See this book's chapter titled the National Center on Education and the Economy.

hrough Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the federal government has legislatively created a National Educational Goals Panel, known as the “Goals Panel.” Its purpose is to report to the President, the Secretary, and Congress as to the progress of states that are implementing standards and strategies (set by a consortium of national organizations) to help all students meet “state” content standards and “state” student performance standards.[69] While this may sound like local control, it is not.
The New Standards Project (NSP) is a “project” of the National Center on Education and the Economy, and the Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh. “The National Center on Education and the Economy is a not-for-profit organization created to develop proposals for building the world class education and training system that the United States must have if it is to have a world-class economy. The Center engages in policy analysis and development and works collaboratively with others at local, state and national levels to advance its proposals in the policy arena.”[70] The National Center on Education and the Economy is essentially part of the “pipeline” which transmits federal education, health, and labor reforms to the state and local levels.
“New Standards has published a three-volume set of student performance standards in four subjects at the elementary, middle and high school levels--New Standards drew on the work of several organizations: the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the National Council of Teachers of English, the International Reading Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Research Council and the National Science Teachers Association, as well as that of states, school districts and other countries--Scholastic, Inc., helped New Standards design and produce the portfolio system, which is available from the Rochester Office of the National Center on Education and the Economy-- Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement is producing, distributing and scoring the New Standards’ reference exams-the nation’s leading, large-scale performance assessment-- New Standards is working to train the scorers at Harcourt Brace. New Standards developed the scoring rubrics and scoring training--New Standards is a grassroots partnership of states and urban school districts that is adopting a set of very high national education standards and developing a new kind of assessment system designed to gauge student progress toward those standards.”[71]
Marc Tucker, President of the National Center on Education and the Economy listed the following “partners” in his 1992 proposal to the New American Schools Development Corporation
- Apple Computer, Inc.
- Center for the Study of Social Policy
- Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce
- Harvard Project on Effective Services
- Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh
- National Alliance of Business
- National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
- New Standards Project
- Public Agenda Foundation
- Xerox Corporation
- States of: Arkansas, Kentucky, New York, Vermont, and Washington
- Cities of: Pittsburgh, PA; Rochester, NY; San Diego, CA; and White Plains, NY
The March 1996 issue of The New Standard states that “the New Standards is jointly run by the National Center on Education and the Economy and the Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh. The partners are the states of: California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont and the school districts in Fort Worth (TX), New York City, Pittsburgh, Rochester (NY), San Diego and White Plains (NY). The partners collectively teach more than half of the public school students in the United States.”
See also this book’s chapter titled the National Center on Education and the Economy regarding the National Center on Education and the Economy’s Americaís Choice: High Skills or Low Wages! and the Certificate of Initial Mastery.
State standards are guaranteed to be consistent with those of the New Standards Project which are implemented state by state. Local participation and input are welcomed and necessary, since it is at the local level where NSP goals and objectives are implemented.
The New Standards Project entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (contract) with Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education on January 12, 1993. Each state’s annual partnership dues is set by the Governing Board. “The amount will be based upon Missouri’s public school enroll­ment in grades K through 12. For the fiscal year July 1, 1993, through June 30, 1994, Missouri’s dues will be $250,000 [1st. year)--Missouri will work--committing time and resources to the realization of the New Standards Project.” The length of Missouri’s contract is from July 1, 1993 through June 30, 1995.
The Director of the Missouri Division of Assessment explained that a state’s dues for participation in the New Standards Project are based on the size of the state. Missouri is considered a medium-sized state. The State explained to me that as long as the state legislature annually appropriates funds for the $250,000 yearly dues, the New Standards Project’s “Memorandum of Understanding” is self-perpetuating. When Missouri stops paying the dues, Missouri will no longer participate. When asked how this was so, since no contract-type instrument had been signed since 1995, the Director said he really did not know.
According to the June/July 1996 issue of The New Standard “When the New Standards Project started we were supported solely by foundation grants. Then, to accomplish all the work on our plate, we began charging membership dues to our state and local partners. We will stop collecting dues in June 1997, and our foundation grants will terminate a year later. New Standards will now enter the marketplace to receive the value for our products that will allow our work to continue. We have begun to develop joint ventures with private organizations. The most notable to date is our partnership with Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement, which is marketing, distributing and scoring (under New Standards supervision) our reference examination, and is publishing the version of the standards to be released in September.”
The “benefits” listed in this “Understanding” include:
“3.1 Development of an assessment system including the use of all standards and assessments devised by the New Standards Project, as these materials become available
3.2 Certification of validity of the New Standards assessment system as it is implemented in Missouri
3.3 Certification of comparability between Missouri’s standards and assessments and those of the New Standards Project
3.4 Assistance in the development and implementation of on-site training programs for teachers and other professionals with regard to New Standards initiatives
3.5 Certification of lead teachers with skills in such areas as task development and scoring
3.6 Incorporation of equity concerns in all New Standards work, and consultation concerning the equity implications of Missouri’s own standards and assessments
3.7 Assistance in developing a public engagement program to help parents and the general public understand the New Standards agenda and provide opportunities for public comment.
3.8 Participation in piloting and special studies conducted by New Standards Project
3.9 Participation in national and regional assemblies
3.10 Representation on the Governing Board of the New Standards Project, with each partner receiving an equal number of votes.”
The “contract” lists Missouri’s responsibilities to include participation in the following:
“4.1 National and regional New Standards conferences, such as the annual summer institute
4.2 Development of standards and assessments in conjunction with other New Standards partners
4.3 Piloting of New Standards assessments including adminis­tration of the assessments and completion of related evaluations
4.4 Development and implementation of a roll out plan for the dissemination of New Standards approaches within Missouri, including professional development for teachers and other educators
4.5 Development of guidelines which will ensure that all students are treated equitably in the use of standards and assessments
4.6 Meetings of the Governing Board of the New Standards Project
4.7 Other initiatives which may be agreed upon from time to time by Missouri and the New Standards Project.”[72]
Missouri’s “Memorandum of Understanding” was signed by the following three people: Robert E. Bartman, Missouri’s Commissioner of Education; Lauren Resnick, Director of the Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh; and Marc Tucker, President of the National Center on Education and the Economy.
It’s interesting to note that a man named Michael A. Resnick is the Senior Associate Executive Director of the National School Boards Association as well as Editor-in-Chief of School Board News, the Association’s national publication.
Missouri’s new performance-based assessment [OBE] is called the Missouri Assessment Project 2000 (MAP 2000). An informational booklet is available through the Assessment Section of the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education at 1-800-845-3545. “NSP (New Standards Project is a RESOURCE for use in Missouri’s new instructional and assessment method or system. NSP is providing--assessments and professional development. Missouri will be using tasks designed by NSP, as well as tasks developed by Missouri teachers--Performance assessment is too expensive and time consuming to use for everything--Six work groups, each with a maximum of 25 members, were appointed by the State Board of Education to work on what will be assessed. The work groups include communication, fine arts, health, math, science and social studies--The new assessment system will begin to be phased in during the 1995-96 school year. In 1996-97, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will start phasing out the MMAT (Missouri Mastery and Achievement Test). The new assessment system must be considered as part of the accreditation process beginning in 1998.”[73]
“The State-developed performance assessment will eventually replace the Missouri Mastery and Achievement Tests. As each subject-area test in the new assessment system is implemented and required for school district use, the corresponding subtest of the MMAT will not be required. However, some districts may elect to use portions of the MMAT along with the performance-based assessments, in order to obtain the data needed to meet state accreditation standards (under the Missouri School Improvement Program). During the first year of implementation, the math, communication arts and science assessments will be voluntary on the part of school districts. Districts will be required to administer the math assessment in 1998. Communication arts and science will be required in 1999. The remaining subject areas will be required in 2000.”
“The following timeline is the implementation schedule for developing the performance assessment, based on current funding levels:
* Math, Spring 1997
* Communication Arts, Spring 1998
* Science, Spring 1998
* Social Studies, Spring 1999
* Fine Arts, Spring 2000
* Health/P.E. Spring 2000”
“Three types of test instruments will be used in evaluating student achievement in each subject area-the familiar multiple-choice test, a short-answer or constructed-response test, and performance events. State-level assessments are being developed for students in grades 4, 8, and 10. In some subjects, testing in grade 11 (instead of grade 10) is being considered.”[74]
Every citizen should obtain a copy of The Show-Me Plan Revised Benchmarks Mapping a Brighter Future dated January 1997. This document provides a more specific explanation of what the State’s reforms include. For example, Goal V-Adult Literacy and Lifelong Learning includes that “A ‘Best Practice Program’ is identified and catalogued for each labor market area in the state (15). At least one additional program will be initiated and catalogued each year thereafter until services are available for every learner (45 Total).” Other goals include “825 businesses are participating in school-to-work partnerships or activities; 60 local partnerships are operating School-to-Work programs; 150 One-Stop Career Centers are in operation.”[75]
You can see how the infrastructure is government-oriented rather than free enterprise from top to bottom. This is the infrastructure that will ensure that government health and education goals are met. School districts which do not comply will lose their accreditation and be lapsed (dissolved).
Missouri has nine regional professional development centers (RPDC). The nine regional centers are located at: Southeast Missouri State University; the University of Missouri-Columbia; the University of Missouri-Kansas City; Truman State University in Kirksville; Northwest Missouri State University in Maryville; the University of Missouri-Rolla; Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield; the Network for Educational Development at the University of Missouri-St. Louis; and Central Missouri State University in Warrensburg.”[76] “These centers will be the site of professional development activities as they relate to school-to-work”[77] (see this book’s chapter titled National Center on Education and the Economy).
The RPDCs are a “convenient resource to school districts throughout the state--providing timely assistance, research, training and other programs in such areas as technology, curriculum development and assessment.”[78] This structure provides “natural connections with colleges and the departments of education which, in turn, will be able to establish close working ties with school districts and other educational organizations within their region. Another idea that the Department is exploring would be to house some or all of the Area Supervisors of Instruction (DESE’s employees) at these regional centers.
See the chapter titled Locally Implementing Federal Goals regarding the nationalization of teacher certification.

“VOLUNTARILY” COMPLY OR DIE

“More than 20 states have passed legislation allowing their state departments of education to step in and take control of local districts identified as being in trouble academically, financially, or both.”[79]

any would agree that schools which do not produce a quality education for its students should not be rewarded. The question to ask is: should the definition of what a quality education is, and what local citizens want for their children be decided by the local community or the state‌
There’s an old adage that says whoever pays the piper calls the tune. This means that whoever pays the bills makes the decisions. Even though the lion’s share of a school district’s funds come from local sources, as long as the school district’s existence depends on state accreditation, there is no local control. Local decisions are limited to choosing between “voluntarily” complying or allowing the state to “legally lapse” the school district and merge it with one that is state accredited.
Since the federal and state goals and standards are worded to be so vague, school administrators assume there is a wide latitude in how the goals are to be implemented. They have been lulled to complacency about the seriousness of the situation. What those in the teaching trenches don’t seem to understand is that since the goals are written so vaguely, they mean whatever the state (which is implementing federal goals in order to receive federal money) wants them to mean. For example, how many administrators know that the goal that “every child will start to school ready to learn” includes that every child will be planned and wanted‌ A school district’s very existence is based on compliance with how the government is defining these broad and vaguely worded goals.
The December 16, 1996, minutes from the State Board of Education’s monthly board meeting give a great example of how involuntary the “voluntary” state curriculum frameworks are. In reference to the curriculum frameworks the minutes state: “These guides are to serve as ‘models,’ not requirements, to assist school districts in reviewing and revising their curriculum.” The very next paragraph states: “The frameworks are a very large document-about 500 printed pages in a 3-ring binder. (T)he significance of the frameworks is that they establish a benchmark that ALL districts MUST observe. The law provides that, within one year of the State Board’s adoption of the curriculum frameworks, ALL school districts MUST review their curriculum to ASSURE that it reflects and INCORPORATES the statewide Show-Me Standards. Districts may use the new curriculum frameworks to assist that process, but they may use whatever approach works best for them. We recognize that it may not be possible for many districts to conduct a thorough review of their curriculum in the six areas covered by the Show-Me Standards, so we have approved a process by which school districts will be expected to develop a plan for reviewing their curriculum over the next four years. This process has been outlined to all superintendents and will be checked through the Missouri School Improvement Program review process” (Emphasis added).
What this says is that school districts may use whatever approach they wish as long as the result matches the state-dictated frameworks. Since the state doesn’t trust school districts to do this on their own, the State has implemented the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) Review Procedures to force compliance.
Since the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education holds the purse strings in one hand and the accreditation in the other, they hold a tremendous amount of power. This power is a hammer held over local school districts which ensures compliance with govern­ment “mandates.” If a district doesn’t comply, it loses its accreditation, is eventually lapsed (dissolved), and is no longer funded. To me this is more coercive than voluntary.
In the past, school district accreditation was based on the school district’s provision of a minimum number of school days per year and the hiring of accredited teachers. This changed in May 1993 with the passage of Missouri’s Outstanding Schools (SB380). For a school district to be funded, it must be fully or provisionally accredited by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education through its Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP). If a school is provisionally accredited, it has two years to become fully accredited before losing its accreditation and funding. In order to be accredited through the MSIP a district is to offer not only a certain caliber of academics, but also comprehensive health education, services, follow-ups, counseling, and referrals.[80] School districts which do NOT become accredited or provisionally accredited within two years lapse (are dissolved,) and are attached to another school district, which need not necessarily be an adjacent district. Taxpayers in the lapsed school district must then pay both the tuition and transportation of students wishing to attend an accred­ited school district.[81]
“Following a decision that a school is academically deficient, the state board of education shall, within sixty days, appoint a management team of at least ten persons to conduct any necessary investigations and make any recommendations the team believes are appropriate for the administration and management of the school--The management team report may also include recom­mendations for one or more of the following: conducting a recall election for each member of the district school board, suspension of indefinite contracts for certificated staff in the school, and a one-year maximum length for new or renewal of contracts for the superintendent or the principal of the school. The education audit team shall reevaluate the school two years after the filing of the management team report.” [82] So much for local control!!!
The Missouri School Boards Association (MSBA) is an affiliate of the National School Boards Association (NSBA). The MSBA assists local school boards and school districts across the state by providing many valuable services including:
- “Full Maintenance Policy Service to help ensure that [the] district complies with the latest state and federal policy requirements (emphasis added)
- Advocacy
- Board development
- Legal services
- A quarterly magazine
- A variety of business services such as helping schools finance the construction, rehabilitation or acquisition of buildings and equipment
- Cash management services which helps districts cover cash flow deficits in their funds, and the MOSIP program which allows districts to invest money on a daily basis
- Errors and omissions insurance
- A health insurance program for district employees
- Superintendent searches
- Student services such as a scholarship program
- Education satellite network as a resource for school districts that want access to the variety of educational programming available via satellite
- Technology services such as local area network installation, administrative software, computer and network hardware and consulting services
- Missouri School Boards Educational Foundation which will support MSBA initiatives, programs and services through tax-deductible gifts.”[83]
The Missouri School Boards Association (MSBA) also provides the 16 hours of training for school board member certification mandated by Missouri’s education reform bill (SB380). The “tab” is paid by taxpayers. There is much worthwhile information obtained through this training, and it’s a great way to network. On the other hand, MSBA is using the certification training sessions to promote the Department of Education’s politically correct comprehensive school health initiatives. The National School Boards Association which supports SIECUS’ liberal philosophy on comprehensive sexuality education, influences the direction of the state school board associations. It appears that the mandated school board certification teaches school board members how to serve the bureaucracy.
While 20 percent of MSBA’s income is from membership dues, the other 80 percent comes from services provided to school districts. Both are paid for with public funds through school districts.
While the MSBA is not a governmental entity, it serves the goals of the state’s education department. Since the educational reforms of Goals 2000 and SB380 have been implemented, there is a fine line if any, between serving community, taxpayer-elected school board members, and serving the state.
“In the fall of 1991, the Missouri School Boards Association joined with the Missouri Association of School Administrators (MASA) and the Missouri Association of Elementary School Principals (MAESP) to form a political action committee entitled the Missouri School Alliance PAC (MSAPAC). The purpose of MSAPAC is to support candidates for statewide and legislative offices who advance the legislative goals of the member organizations and to promote statewide issues that will further the cause of elementary and secondary education.
“During the last two election cycles, MSAPAC endorsed 81 candidates and contributed over $21,000 to their campaigns. In 73 of these contests, MSAPAC-endorsed candidates prevailed--.” [84].
The addresses for MSAPAC and the Missouri School Boards Association are the same. While school board members receive no pay, the paychecks of public school administrators and principals are paid with public funds. Money from these publicly funded paychecks is then donated to a PAC (political action committee) to elect politicians who support raising the cost of taxes.
Should those whose salary, health benefits, retirement benefits, vacation pay, and such, which are paid from public taxes be allowed to lobby for higher taxes‌ Increasing numbers of taxpayers are finding it necessary to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. How does one balance the rights of all to participate in government without taking unfair advantage of those taxpayers who do not have, and cannot afford, a special PAC to lobby for them‌
In 1994, the education establishment used public funds to defeat Hancock II, a measure that would have allowed taxpayers to vote on certain tax increases. The MSBA was instrumental in assisting the state education establishment in defeating this grassroots initiative. In the interest of preserving local control, perhaps the taxpayers who pay the state’s bills should have been allowed to have made this decision for themselves by being allowed to vote on this matter as Governor Carnahan had promised them.
It appears that some state education administrators may “see” the MSBA as a vehicle to promote state programs such as politically correct comprehensive school health. The state’s health consultant to the Department of Education spoke of plans to request the MSBA to include a section on comprehensive school health in the 16 hours of state-mandated training for school board members. The 16 hours of training are already filled with sessions on leadership, finances, goal setting, policy, board operations, relationships, personnel, finance, business, operations, the board’s relationship to curriculum and instruction, and school law.
The school board is meant to be the voice and advocate of the community taxpayer. A school board member who portrays this role is greatly challenged by an educational infrastructure designed to implement government mandates. Board members who do not cooperate put the accreditation, funding and continued existence of the school district at-risk of being dissolved by the State.
The “American Association of School Administrators in cooperation with the National School Boards Association, the Missouri Council of School Administrators (MCSA), and the Missouri School Boards Association, with support from the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention” presented Building Bridges Not Battles: Strategies For Developing Support for School Health Efforts. This day-long workshop offered skills to become a local consensus builder. Among the opportunities provided to colleagues was that of examining “key programs that have demonstrated success in reducing youth risk-taking behavior related to AIDS, pregnancy, and substance abuse.”[85] MCSA is the umbrella organization of the Missouri Association of Elementary School Principals and the Missouri Association of School Administrators.
The state PTA was promoting this workshop that was canceled due to lack of interest, but was later rescheduled.
Note that once again, pregnancy is a component. Recall that the American Association of School Administrators, the National School Boards Association and the Center for Disease Control are ALL associated with SIECUS!

Locally Implementing Federal Goals

The United Nations, federal government, and national consortiums set the mandates. States provide administration and legislation based on those mandates. The local community and school districts are responsible for implementing federal and state legislated mandates. Money is the “carrot.” Be sure to also see this book's chapter titled the “National Center on Education and the Economy.” Also, take note of the ultra-liberal organizations and agencies listed among the members of the SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States) Coalition to Support Sexuality Education, which are likely to be active in your local community.

ederal dollars (your tax dollars) are available to states willing to implement mandates found in Goals 2000 which include comprehensive health. These mandates are implemented through schools and local communities.[86]
The following is an example of how long this modus operandi has been in operation: In June and July 1978, hearings took place before the U.S. Senate Committee on Human Resources. The bill was “(T)o establish a program for developing networks of community-based services to prevent initial and repeat pregnancies among adolescents, to provide care to pregnant adolescents, and to help adolescents become productive independent contributors to family and community life.”[87] Among those who spoke at the hearing was Dr. Peter Scales. Dr. Scales has quite a resume. His numerous articles on adolescent sexuality have appeared in many major health publications. Among the CDC funded (your tax dollars) projects Dr. Scales participated in was the 1979 project titled “Barriers to Sex Education.” The project was explicitly aimed at “overcoming” parental and community opposition to sex education. In 1983 he was director of education for Planned Parenthood Federation of America in New York. In 1990 he was the deputy director of the Center for Early Adolescence, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In 1992 he was the director of National Initiatives, Center for Early Adolescence, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a visiting scholar at the St. Louis University School of Public Health. His article titled “Just Say Yes to Sex Education” appeared in the February 1993 issue of “Press,” a publication of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region whose Community Education Committee he is a member. How has Dr. Scales managed to affiliate himself with this Catholic University when he champions tenets that fly in the face of the Catholic faith‌‌ During the 1978 hearing Dr. Scales said:
“--(L)inkage among Government organizations and private organizations, the Office of Education (OE), in an advisory capacity, and CDC’s Bureau of Health Education, in the funding role, are supporting an ambitious PTA pilot project to establish comprehensive health education programs in six States.
“Included with OE on the Advisory Board are the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States, the American Council of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association’s Health Education Department. In this project, now in its third year, the PTA, the ‘lay’ group, acts as the fulcrum in the linkage between governmental set-up support and private resource expertise--If we are to affect the ‘state of the art’ nationwide, however--We must more adequately define what should be included in sex and family life education. Government should not dictate to local communities precisely what they should include in a curriculum, yet it can support the development of guidelines. Whether a community substantially reflects those guidelines might be one criterion for its eligibility for community-linkage funds. A first step would be for an appropriate government unit, such as OE, to work with groups such as SIECUS, the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists, the American Home Economics Association, the American School Health Association, and others in synthesizing the literally thousands of curriculum plans with which they are familiar. From these, a more uniform set of minimum standards for the ‘basic skill’ of sex and family life decision-making can be drafted. These guidelines might then be used, with some modifications perhaps, by States in the regulation of their education.” One of the suggestions Dr. Scales suggested to improve the bill was that “funds should be available for abortion--there should be a recognition that society in many ways fails to enable young people who wish to avoid a pregnancy to avoid that pregnancy. There is little recognition in the language of the bill that society has a responsibility to help those people whom it has failed through the sexual health care system to avoid a pregnancy, to resolve that pregnancy in a manner that is effective for them. At least, counseling and referral should be included in any prevention effort.”[88]
What Scales proposed has now been accomplished as detailed in this book and its chapter titled “SIECUS, the CDC and State Health Curricula.”
National organizations active at the federal level have state and local affiliations. Some examples would include the NEA, the National School Boards Association (includes a representative from each state’s association of local school boards), and the National Association of State Boards of Education (includes a representative from each state’s state school board). The list of such agencies goes on and on. Since money and power talk, the direction generally provided is top down as opposed to bottom up. Such national organizations and agencies are members of the public (government)/private partnerships which are implementing federal health (Healthy People 2000) and education (Goals 2000) goals.
Missouri’s Show-Me Plan, that was approved by the Missouri State Board of Education in 1995 is the state plan for implementing Goals 2000. A copy is provided in the state’s 1996 federal grant proposal of Missouri’s School-to-Work system. The State Plan lays out how the state will implement education, health, and School-to-Work reforms to comply with the federal mandates of Goals 2000 which also includes School-to-Work and Healthy People 2000. Everyone should obtain a copy of their own state’s state plan. The state plan provides the entire map for the state’s reforms for ages “prebirth through adulthood.”
“Voluntary” means that a state may choose whether or not it wishes to become a Goals 2000 state. States choosing to implement the mandated programs of Goals 2000 receive additional federal funding to do so. As explained earlier in this book, when a state becomes a Goals 2000 state, the state’s school districts’ survival depends on compliance. If a school district does not comply, it loses its accreditation and funding, and is dissolved.
In May 1993, Missouri passed an education bill to comply with Goals 2000 called the Outstanding Schools Act (SB380). SB380 wrote into law a program that the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education had already been implementing, called the Missouri School Improvement Program or MSIP.
Historically, Missouri schools had been rated “AAA,” “AA,” or “unclassified” by an independent company called the North Central Accreditation. This system is being phased out and replaced with the Missouri School Improvement Program whose accreditation process rates schools as “accredited,” “provisionally accredited,” or “unaccredited” by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education whose decision is then approved by the State Board of Education.
A school district must be accredited in order to be eligible for funding. In order to be accredited, the student support services department of the district must offer comprehensive health education, programs, screenings, services, follow-up, counseling, and referrals. See page 62, section 15.1 of the Missouri School Improvement Program Review Procedures.
In one week’s time Missouri passed both the universal health care reform bill (HB564) which allows schools to become Medicaid providers, as well as the school reform bill (SB380) which contained the vehicle (MSIP) which mandates that schools offer health education, keeping of health records, services, follow-ups, referrals, etc. The two dovetail nicely for bureaucrats who wish to control universal health care by using our nation’s schools and the educational infrastructure to reach students, their families, and the community.
SB380 mandated school health education, services, and referrals. HB564 supplied the vehicle by which to do so — Medicaid funding with which to implement school-based clinics and school/community-linked services.
State testing can indicate whether the government’s goals for change in a student’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors are being met. Some questions that should be asked are: What academic and health goals are to be mastered‌ What attitudes, behaviors, and feelings are to be internalized and tested‌ The Missouri Mastery Achievement Test (MMAT) measures for mastery of overpopulation and sexually-transmitted diseases at the 10th grade level. What value system must a student adopt to “master” these areas‌ This is further explained in following chapters.
Schools are the perfect vehicle through which to implement government goals and mandates since they work with people at the grassroots level. Government agencies can effectively ensure that federal health and education goals will be met since continued school district funding and accreditation is dependent on doing so. The state department of education (a governmental body) is now accrediting school districts as opposed to the independent, non-governmental accrediting agency used in the past. Since accreditation is based on compliance and implementation of nationally mandated state standards, school districts sacrifice local autonomy in order to survive financially.
The National Diffusion Network (NDN) is a program of the U.S. Department of Education, and is funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). The NDN “is a nationwide program that helps teachers implement successful programs and practices in their schools and classrooms. Each program has proved its effectiveness to a panel of experts before the program is available for local use. There is a facilitator in each state to help school districts match NDN programs to local needs.”
Missouri’s National Diffusion Network facilitator is (or was) located at 555 Vandiver, Suite A, Columbia, Missouri 65202.[89] This address is EXACTLY the same as the Missouri Education Center. “The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education utilizes the Missouri Education Center as a dissemination center for most materials.” [90] The Missouri National Diffusion Network is currently being decen­tralized, relocating to nine universities within the state, to allow a closer working relationship with local school districts. In many cases across the country, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Diffusion Network contact is located within the state’s department of education at a state university.[91]
Another federal program titled Caring Communities is explained in this book’s chapter titled “Together We Can” Socialize “Caring Communities.” It is a joint program of the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, which promotes the delivery of health care services to everyone in the community through the infrastructure of the local school system. Interestingly enough, this program is another piece to the Medicaid-funded universal health care puzzle.
The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education happens to have a Caring Communities Section. This section receives diskettes from school districts which contain “school enrollment files [which] must be updated by the school district quarterly and submitted to DESE [Department of Elementary and Secondary Education prior to billing ACM [Administrative Case Management, a Medicaid-funded program.] The diskette must have a return label with the district name and address clearly marked. Diskettes [are] processed as soon as possible upon receipt and returned within approximately 10 days of processing. The returned diskette will include the same file data as submitted but with the Medicaid number appended to each record matched by the state’s Medicaid file.” [92] The address to which Missouri school districts are to send their diskettes is:
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
The Division of Special Education
Caring Communities Section
P.O. Box 480
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(573) 751-7953.
Federal “health” goals are implemented at the local level through state comprehensive school health programs. State documents verify that the state was already implementing health and education reforms prior to passage of the state reform laws of 1993. In July 1990 the Missouri State Board of Education wrote Missourians Prepared-Success for Every Student. This document provides the following information:
- “Prevention. We must continue to expand our investment in early childhood and parent education and other prevention-oriented programs during the preschool and primary years. The Parents as Teachers program should be available to every Missouri family that wishes to participate--By 1995, school districts must be able to serve 50 percent of all eligible families and preschoolers.
- Shifting from `the Carnegie Unit’ as the primary organizing factor in schools--Reliance on the Carnegie Unit contributes to the fragmentation of our present curriculum and school structure. We need to find alternatives which permit schools to focus on student outcomes and performance--To gain flexibility in meeting the needs of individual students, schools should move away from the Carnegie Unit as the sole basis for scheduling instruction and awarding academic credit--it will require that students’ progress be measured in terms of specific outcomes, not just by grade completion at the elementary level or by the number of courses completed at the secondary level. Achieving this end also will require schools to develop and use new assessment techniques (essays, portfolios, interviews, etc.) which go beyond traditional paper-and-pencil testing methods.
- By the end of the decade, all school districts will adopt outcome-based education practices. This effort should include widespread adoption of mastery learning strategies, greater use of information from the MMAT and other sources to assess strengths, weaknesses and trends in student performance, and reduced dependence on textbooks as the primary basis for organizing instruction.
- The school year will be extended to 200 days. Schools will be open year-round to provide certain programs and services.
- Interaction between schools and communities and community-service options for students will be expanded.
- All school districts will provide adequate health services and comprehensive health education programs.
- Schools will become `one-stop centers for education, health, child care and other family support services.
- Schools, colleges and state education officials should actively promote the concept of teachers as `coaches’ who are expected to become well-acquainted with and responsible for certain numbers of students.
- The requirement that school districts obtain a two-thirds majority approval from patrons for school tax levies above $3.75 must be changed--A four-sevenths majority requirement for school tax levies in excess of $3.75 should be enacted.
- State education officials will refine the current data-collection system to provide better educational trends, student performance and schools’ funding needs.”[93]
The State Board of Education’s follow-up report three years later by the same name [Success for Every Student-Missourians Prepared] makes the following statements in addition to a report on the above listed items:
“Teacher certification standards and procedures will be strengthened by evaluating current requirements for all certificates and revising certification policies to meet the changing needs of schools and teachers. In developing new certification policies, competency-based standards in subject matter and professional areas will be emphasized. Reciprocal certification agreements with neighboring states, designed to provide greater flexibility for teachers and school districts, also will be instituted and evaluated.
- Ultimately, classroom teachers are responsible for `delivering’ education, and they will be expected to carry out any future school-reform initiatives.
- The State Board has two ways to influence the training of future teachers. First, the board is responsible for evaluating and approving all professional education programs offered by Missouri’s colleges and universities (both public and private). This program-approval system involves on-site evaluation by teams of educators, including local school district personnel as well as officials from other teacher-education programs. Over the past five years, this process has prompted several institutions to discontinue weak programs and to upgrade specific programs that were evaluated and found to be unsatisfactory. The Outstanding Schools Act also includes a significant provision that requires the Board to evaluate teacher-education programs on the basis of how well they prepare teachers to use ‘performance-based’ instruction and assessment techniques.
- The law includes new taxes and other provisions expected to generate about $400 million in new revenues for local schools over the next four years (1993-94 through 1997-98).
- In addition, the law sets realistic funding goals and provides earmarked funds to support--initiatives--recommended by the State Board of Education: Parents as Teachers, services for at-risk youth, reduce pupil-teacher ratios in the primary grades, creating a $5 million state fund beginning in 1994-95, to provide special grants to school districts to expand the use of instructional technology.”[94]
Relative to the teacher certification and training mentioned above, the minutes of the Missouri State Board of Education dated January 21, 1997, state: “Missouri is one of seven states to receive funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation to support a state-level study in connection with the work being done by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.”
Does this mean that Missouri is participating in a pilot for national teacher certification headed and funded by Rockefeller and Carnegie‌ Could it be that only those who are willing and able to mold students to meet government goals relative to academics, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors will survive the screenings for teaching positions‌
“For more information about the National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, see its World Wide Web site at: http://www.tc.columbia.edu/~teachcom or contact them at: Teachers College, Columbia University; Box 117; 525 West 120th Street; New York, NY 10027; (202) 678-3204.”[95]
Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution is a report of the National Association of Secondary School Principals in partnership with the Carnegie Foundation. This book states that “(E)very student will have a personal adult advocate; the Carnegie unit must be replaced or redefined--.”[96]
Section 306, page 108 of Goals 2000 Educate America Act is titled “State Improvement Plan.” This is the federal mandate Missouri implemented with the passage of SB380 in May 1993. SB380 (Outstanding Schools Act) legislates Missouri’s School Improvement Program (MSIP) through which Missouri schools are accredited. SB380 is known as Missouri’s OBE (outcome based education) bill.
States base their academic standards on those produced at the national level by national NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) associated with the federal government or its subsidiaries. One such example is the National Health Education Standards. The inside front cover states: “Individuals are encouraged to copy and disseminate all or parts of this document to further enhance the quality and scope of school health education. Any copies should cite this document by including the following statement: `This represents the work of the Joint Committee on National Health Education Standards. Copies of National Health (sic) Education Standards: Achieving Health Literacy can be obtained through the American School Health Association, Association for the Advancement of Health Education or the American Cancer Society.’ ” [97]
This document contains a copy of the “Joint Statement on School Health” signed by the joint Secretaries and quoted in this book’s chapter titled “Merging Federal Health and Education Goals.” The National Health Education Standards’ “Glossary of Terms” defines “Adolescent Risk Behaviors identified by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention to include--sexual behaviors that result in HIV infection/other STDs and unintended pregnancy.” Starting on page 43 and continuing through page 50, this document lists the “Opportunity-to-Learn Standards for Health Education” which are all encompassing. It lists health standards to be provided by local education agencies, the community, and state education agency. Also listed are health standards for the state department of health, preparation standards for institutions for higher education, and standards for national organizations. [98] The reference list of key documents listed in National Health Education Standards reads like the footnotes found throughout the book you are now reading. Members of the Joint Committee which helped develop this document included the Association for the Advancement of Health Education, the American School Health Association, and the American Public Health Association. Note that ALL four of these organizations are members of SIECUS’ National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education. What SIECUS and its National Coalition promotes is explained in this book’s chapter titled “SIECUS, the CDC, and State Health Curricula.”
Healthy Students 2000 is another national document. This one is also published by the American School Health Association and was recommended to teachers during a state comprehensive school health conference. Like so many others, this document is based on Healthy People 2000 from beginning to end, and explains how to implement health promotion, and “prevention” services, as well as surveillance and data systems. Like all the other documents, it promotes the use of condoms, contraceptives, school-based and school-linked clinics. National Health Standards states: “Students at-risk are a prime target for intervention. However, valid reasons exist for including all students, parents, faculty, and staff as targets for the intervention.”
Healthy Students 2000 contains sample action plans, educational strategies, sample forms, coping styles for dealing with resistance, information on interdisciplinary teams within the school, total quality management, drug and alcohol, disease and injury prevention, adolescent pregnancy prevention and management (condoms and contraceptives), reproductive health (more of the same) and much more.
One tidbit referenced on page 125 of Healthy Students 2000 states, “Research indicates about one-fourth of male adolescents have experienced orgasm through homosexual contact.” Page 131 displays a chart titled “HIV/AIDS Prevention Strategies” which includes the following: “display and openly promote condom distribution in community clinics, use the school as an information broker for dissemination of HIV/AIDS information, use the following community resources for instructional support: public health department, local physicians, nurses, social workers, gay groups, and AIDS task forces, coordinate inservice programming which examines--management of AIDS hysteria, cooperate with health teachers and nurses in the development of an informational exchange network between school and community, use teachable moments to reinforce AIDS educational message, refer students at-risk to appropriate support network, facilitate self-referral of high-risk students for intervention programming, integrate easily accessed pamphlets about the location of STD clinics and anonymous testing sites, integrate counseling role into primary health care clinic, develop crisis management procedures for students faced with HIV/AIDS issues in self, teachers or significant others, such as: HIV positive tests, death and dying, homophobia, and homosexuality, develop task force/coalition for HIV/AIDS policy development if not present.”[99]
Healthy Students 2000, Appendix A, includes 23 pages of assessments for every aspect of comprehensive school health. The assessments range from food and health services to school environment (which includes a student assistance program-see the chapter titled “What Is A ‘SAP’‌”), instruction, and counseling. A Youth Risk Behavior Survey is provided in Appendix C, and Appendix D contains Comprehensive School Health Program Worksheets.
A state document titled Opening Doors to Improved Health for Missouri's School-Age Children is the state’s version of the national documents listed above. It was published by the State Department of Health. Once again, listings in the bibliography and references include documents quoted throughout this book such as Healthy People 2000, Healthy Missourians 2000, Volume II, Adolescent Health from The Office of Technology Assessment of the Congress of the United States. The three-page bibliography includes sources like: the state’s 1994 Manual for School Health Programs (page 52 includes family planning), Medicaid EPSDT Administrative Case Management, Procedures for Missouri Schools (the billing instructions include unclothed physicals and family planning), Children’s Trust Fund, a grant application to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation from the Missouri Department of Health dated September 1993, and Robert Wood Johnson’s The Answer Is at School: Bringing Health Care to our Students, The School-Based Adolescent Health Care Program.
The purpose of Opening Doors was to provide the framework for local implementation of national health and education reforms and standards through school-based clinics. Opening Doors references Missouri’s health reform law (HB564) which encourages schools to become Medicaid providers. Medicaid funds finance the school-based clinics and school/community-linked services, which are necessary to comply with the state educational reform law (SB380) which mandates school health. As in the national documents, student assistance programs and/or activities are used to identify and refer students.
It’s fascinating to watch how the state and its cohorts work to bring about their goal of using schools to provide universal access to family planning. You’ve just read about the connection between those listed in the references and bibliography of Opening Doors with family planning, and school-based clinics. Also referenced in Opening Doors' bibliography is 2000 and Beyond: A Report on the Status of Missouri's Children written by the Missouri Children’s Services Commission in 1991. In 1987 Missouri statute 191.597 “created within the children’s services commission the ‘Coordin­ating Council for Health Education of Missouri’s Children and Adolescents.” Statute 191.599 states “(T)he scope of the council shall not include abortion, family planning or school-based clinics.” It seems the intent of the law is no barrier to those who are adamant about using the schools to implement the govern­ment’s population control programs.
Be sure to read this book’s chapter titled “The Sugar Coated Machine” for more examples of how the naive are manipulated to implement health goals they wouldn’t generally support.
The FY95 Budget Summary shows a total of $5,695,000 for the Missouri School Children’s Health Services Program. As funds are used to expand school health, taxpayers may expect taxes which are to support “education” to increasingly rise.
While sincere and unsuspecting school nurses, teachers, and administrators tell parents that family planning is NOT a part of the health services, Opening Doors honestly states and admits otherwise. Schools which offer the primary care program (HB564) are to provide “assessments, diagnostic and treatment services for common childhood and adolescent health conditions with referral for follow-up care.” Services listed in Opening Doors for second­ary students includes “reproductive health services, e.g., pregnancy testing, referral for care.” Please NOTE that the references listed include “Adolescent Health, The Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, 1991.” That document DEFINES “reproductive health care” to include “counseling, prescribing contraceptive methods, (and) dispensing contraceptives”![100]
For the most part, classroom teachers and administrators may not be familiar with these documents. They would not dream of implementing what you have read about here-at least not until they were forced to. Since each teacher does not generally “see” the whole picture, they do not comprehend the gravity and enormity of what they may be, or are, participating in. For the most part, all they know is that whatever they have been trained to do, “has” to be done in order to fulfill the requirements for district accreditation. Recall chapter three of this book and the National Education Standards and Improvement Council which certifies state content and student performance standards!
How is compliance and implementation of federal reforms guaranteed at the local level‌ As we read earlier, teacher recertification depends on being able to implement the reforms! The very purpose of the reforms is to implement the health and education goals mandated in Goals 2000.
Local schools are assessed for compliance with health and education reforms through the state’s School Improvement Program (MSIP) on which district accreditation and financing depend.
Another way compliance is assured, is the monitoring of districts which receive federal grants such as the Title II Eisenhower Grant, Title IV Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Grant and Title VI Programs under the Improving America’s Schools Act. School districts are monitored by the Director of Federal Programs in the state Department of Education’s Division of Instruction, Instructional Improvement and Resources Section. This is done by visiting the school district and checking to insure that the district’s actions have been in compliance with the measures set forth in the grants they are receiving. The “General Compliance” form includes the following items to be judged for compliance:
- “Project Planning and Advisory Requirements: Evidence that the LEA [local education agency] has convened and trained a school/community violence and drug abuse prevention advisory council--minutes of the meetings containing date, participants/roles, and items discussed and approved are readily available.
- Data Collection: To measure the extent to which the measurable objective is being met for each activity.
- Nonpublic Participation: Evidence that all eligible nonpublic schools participated in the project from the planning stage, evidence that an equitable share of project funds is being expended for the benefit of participating nonpublic schools.
- Purchase of Services: Purchase of service agreements are in writing and match the service described in the activity descriptions.
- Documentation Related to Payment of District Staff: Stipends, payment of hourly rates for out-of-contract time, and salaries for full or partial FTEs are being expended from object code 6100.
- Congruence With Approved Plan: Activities were observed being conducted as described in the district’s application.
- Program-Specific Compliance: The district has readily available, on-going records showing the ratio of females and other historically underrepresented who elect advanced level mathematics and science classes, as compared to their ratio in the student body, evidence to show that all materials purchased were essential in order to conduct professional development, and were not designed for student use.
- Has a component for all grade levels served by the LEA (from early childhood through grade 12) and for all employees.
- Has specific goals for all grades, including 11 and 12, that are implemented in a mandatory and systematic manner, aligned to the district’s needs assessment, and part of a comprehensive health education curriculum.
- Evidence that the LEA collaborates and coordinates efforts with appropriate community-based agencies (such as health and law enforcement).
- Evidence to show that all funds were spent specifically for violence and drug abuse education/prevention/intervention and that no funds were spent for give-away items for students.
- If allowable activity number 1,2, or 3 is being implemented, a copy of the district’s reform plan is included in the program file, and it can be shown that the activity is directly related to the reform plan.
- Library resources purchased with Title VI funds have been properly cataloged and designated in the shelf list as Title VI purchases.”[101]
Any federal funds a school district receives has “strings” attached. The grants are awarded for a specific purpose, and those districts that receive the grants are expected to be accountable for accomplishing that for which the grant was provided. Some of those “strings” include reaching into nonpublic schools, implementing advisory councils and student assistance programs, school collaboration with community health agencies, “prevention” and intervention programs, and comprehensive health reform.
For every grant received some autonomy is lost.

Merging Health and Education Goals

“In a part of the health care reform bill there is a piece called The Youth Initiative and there’s money in there for comprehensive health education from K-12, and there’s money in there for over 5,000 school-based clinics for schools that have a high percentage of high risk students in their school.”[102]

t is no accident that both health and education reforms are taking place at the same time. Health and education reform go hand-in-hand since schools are part of the infrastructure through which universal health care is to be distributed.
The federal legislation for national education reform, called Goals 2000: Educate America Act, or public law 103-227 passed on March 31, 1994.
“Goals 2000 schools are those which participate in the programs described under Title III of this act [State and Local Education Systemic Improvement].
“One of the programs described under Title III is a federal assistance program called Grants for Local Reform. These grants are awarded to school districts on a competitive basis based upon a peer review process. The purpose of these grants is to provide federal assistance for districts to develop or refine a local school improvement plan and to initiate implementation of the goals outlined in this plan at the individual school building level. Schools in a district with reform activities being implemented that are funded in part or whole with Goals 2000 funds are referred to as Goals 2000 schools.
“Districts may select one of six systems on which to focus their reform efforts; governance, preservice-professional development, curriculum and assessment, community outreach and participation, health and human services”[103] (emphasis added).
Request a copy of your school district’s Local Improvement Plan from your State Department of Education. You may find that a large part of it is devoted to forming school/community linked partnerships, whether it be for purposes of health, social services, or labor. The School Improvement Plan will also be embodied in the district’s five-year plan. The Goals 2000 School Improvement Plan is generally phased in over a number of years by concentrating on one or a small number of schools within the district each year.
A School Improvement Committee (panel), and an advisory council are formed. The advisory council conducts a “needs assessment (surveys) conducted to identify strengths, weaknesses, “needs,” and community agencies with whom collaborative agreements can be made in order to provide services. The advisory council makes recommendations to the School Improvement Panel regarding the comparison and possible partnerships. The end result will most likely include a school-based clinic or a school/community linked partnership with one or more community health care providers. You can bet it will be a Medicaid provider. See the chapter titled “Schools As Medicaid Providers.”
Federal health goals are found in documents such as Healthy People 2000 and the National Health Education Standards -Achieving Health Literacy. This second document contains a copy of “The Joint Statement on School Health” signed by the secretaries of Education [Richard W. Riley] and Health and Human Services [Donna E. Shalala] issued on April 7, 1994. It states in part:
Health and education are joined in fundamental ways with each other and with the destinies of the Nation’s children. Because of our national leadership responsibilities for education and health, we have initiated unprecedented cooperative efforts between our Departments. In support of comprehensive school health programs, we affirm the following:
- America’s children face many compelling educational and health and developmental challenges that affect their lives and their futures. These challenges include--unintended pregnancy.
- To help children meet these challenges, education and health must be linked in partnership.
- School health programs support the education process, integrate services for disadvantaged and disabled children, and improve children’s health prospects.
- Reforms in health care and in education offer opportunities to forge the partnerships needed for our children in the 1990s. The benefits of integrated health and education services can be achieved by working together to create a ‘seamless’ network of services, both through the school setting and through linkages with other community resources.
- Goals 2000 and Healthy People 2000 provide complementary visions that, together, can support our joint efforts in pursuit of a healthier, better educated Nation for the next century. In support of Goals 2000 and Healthy People 2000, we have established the Interagency Committee on School Health co-chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education and the Assistant Secretary for Health, and we have convened the National Coordinating Committee on School Health to bring together representatives of major national education and health organizations to work with us. We call upon professionals in the fields of education and health and concerned citizens across the Nation to join with us in a renewed effort and a reaffirmation of our mutual responsibility to our Nation’s children.” [104]
This author believes this consortium of politically correct professionals, organizations, philanthropies, and individuals is the consortium involved in “establishing valid and reliable mechanisms for building a broad national consensus on American education reform.” [105]
“In establishing the academic standards and statewide assessment system, the State Board of Education shall adopt the work that has been done by consortia of other states, and subject to appropriations, may contract with such consortia to implement the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of this act.” [106] (See information on the New Standards Project in the chapter titled Local Accreditation Reflects National Standards and Assessments.)
Goals 2000: Educate America Act contains three primary topics:
1. Education Goals Standards and Assessment
a. National Education Goals Panel
b. National Education Standards and Improvement Council
c. Opportunity To Learn Standards
The purpose of the National Education Standards and Improvement Council is to:
- Certify and--review voluntary national content standards and--national student performance standards
- Certify State content standards and state student performance standards submitted by States
- “Certify and--review--national opportunity-to-learn standards.
- “Certify opportunity-to-learn standards submitted by States, and
- Certify State assessments submitted by States or group of States--” [107]
2. State and Local Reform- “State and Local School Improvement Plans”
a. The “plan must provide for the adoption of--strategies to provide comprehensive educational, social, health, and other services to meet the needs of all students.”
3. Workforce Standards
a. National Skill Standards Board [108]
Schools and communities will be expected to meet “family planning” and pregnancy goals and objectives found in federal documents such as Healthy Communities 2000, the Comprehensive School Health section of Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Healthy People 2000, and the President’s Health Security Plan.
Page 211 of President Clinton’s Health Security Plan states that the “Adolescent and School-Aged Youth Initiative supports the delivery of clinical services through school-based or school-linked sites (consistent with health reform goals and Goals 2000) and comprehensive health education--[whose] curriculum is linked to Healthy People 2000 objectives.”
Clinton’s Health Security Plan targets “low-income groups” and “adolescents” up to age 21. Low-income is defined as comparable to a family of four making $28,700.[109] Dr. Joycelyn Elders acknowledged that Medicaid is to become the health insurance coverage for ALL of us. She publicly nodded “yes” when an individual speaking to her from the floor microphone stated to her, “As I see it, the infrastructure is in place for Medicaid to become the universal health insurance coverage.” [110]
The Health Security Plan guarantees “family planning and pregnancy-related services” as national benefits. Such “services” include contraceptives and abortion referrals to minors without parental consent through school-based clinics and school/ community-linked services which are Medicaid funded.

One of many quotes painted over the doorways
in the basement of our nation’s capitol is —

SIECUS, the CDC, and State Health Curricula

The Sex Information Education Council of the United States, the Center for Disease Control and agencies and organizations working with them, are influencing health education curriculum state by state. Their comprehensive sexuality education guidelines undermine the values and rights that have long been the fabric of strong American families.

he Center for Disease Control’s Division of Adolescent and School Health has entered into a New Cooperative Agreement with SIECUS (Sex Information Education Council of the United States).
The June/July 1994 issue of SIECUS Report states:
“SIECUS will be developing several projects designed to promote comprehensive sexuality and HIV/AIDS education as a priority in the nation’s schools--SIECUS will hold regional conferences for state and local education and health leadership--Ideally, state AIDS education coordinators and the professionals responsible for health education, sexuality education, drug abuse prevention, and multicultural education will all come to the table to discuss sexuality education as it relates to their particular areas--These regional conferences will provide an opportunity for professionals to develop the skills necessary to effectively integrate sexuality into substance abuse prevention, multicultural education, and HIV/AIDS education--SIECUS maintains extensive information about state curricula and guidelines--SIECUS will develop an individualized summary of each state program. These summaries will address both the HIV/AIDS prevention and the sexuality curricula/guidelines, as well as the state infrastructure to support these programs--and will offer specific recommendations and strategies for improvement--SIECUS will develop guidelines for states in the curricular areas that are most frequently omitted. Based on research SIECUS has done, these topics will include presenting balanced messages about abstinence and safer sex, condoms and other STD/HIV prevention methods, alternatives to intercourse and low-risk noncoital sexual behaviors, sexual orientation.” [111]
“Balanced” according to whose values‌ According to the 10th Revised Edition of a book titled Contraceptive Technology 1980-1981 “Sex without intercourse encompasses a broad continuum of activities from holding hands, hugging, kissing, petting, and dancing to mutual masturbation, oral-genital sex, and the use of stimulating devices such as vibrators.”[112]
The following is a sampling of quotes from SIECUS’ Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education K-12
For ages 5-8:
“Both girls and boys have body parts that feel good when touched (page 11), sexual intercourse occurs when a man and a woman place the penis inside the vagina (page 12), touching and rubbing one’s own genitals is called masturbation (page 32), masturbation should be done in a private place (page 32), individuals and families have different values (page 25).”
For ages 9-12:
“Homosexual love relationships can be as fulfilling as heterosexual relationships (page 15), sexual intercourse provides pleasure (page 12), a legal abortion is very safe (page 39).”
For children ages 12-15:
“All states, except Utah, allow minors to obtain contraception without parental consent (page 47). People should use contraception during sexual intercourse unless they want to have a child (page 12). The local health department can usually refer people to agencies for help with specific problems and issues (page 30). Homosexual couples behave sexually in many of the same ways as heterosexual couples (page 15). Masturbation, either alone or with a partner, is one way a person can enjoy and express their sexuality without risking pregnancy or an STD/HIV (page 33). Values should be freely chosen after the alternatives and their consequences are evaluated (page 25).”
For children ages 15-18:
“Some people use erotic photographs, movies, or literature to enhance their sexual fantasies when alone or with a partner (page 35). For most people, sharing a sexual experience with a partner is the most satisfying way to express sexuality (page 33). Some common sexual behaviors shared by partners include kissing, touching, caressing, massage, sharing erotic literature or art, bathing/showering together, and oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse (page 33). Some people continue to respect their religious teachings and traditions but believe the same views are not personally relevant (page 48). Affirm one’s own sexual orientation and respect the sexual orientation of others (page 11). The telephone number of the gay and lesbian switchboard is 1-212-777-1800 (page 16). There is no evidence that erotic images in the arts cause inappropriate sexual behavior (page 49).” [113]
(Remember Mr. Bundy‌ He was the man executed by Florida for sex crimes. He said he started out reading erotic magazines and progressed from there.)
One member of the SIECUS National Guidelines Task Force who authored SIECUS’ Comprehensive Guidelines for Sexuality Education was a St. Louis teacher. This same teacher was also a member of Missouri’s Comprehensive Health Writing Committee who authored Comprehensive Health Competencies and Key Skills for Missouri Schools K-12. [114]
Additional authors of SIECUS’ Guidelines For Comprehensive Sexuality Education K-12 included representatives from the following entities:
- “Three representatives from Planned Parenthood
- March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
- Nation School Boards Association
- Two representatives from SIECUS
- New York University
- Three Independent Sexuality Education Consultants
- Centers for Disease Control
- New Jersey Medical School
- Irvington, New Jersey Public Schools
- Westport, Connecticut Public Schools
- American School Health Association
- American Medical Association
- National Education Association’s Health Information Network
- Indiana University”
SIECUS’ National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education is a coalition of national organizations which have joined together to assure that children and youth receive comprehensive sexuality education. The New Cooperative Agreement between SIECUS and the Center for Disease Control’s Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH) will fund the activities of the National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education.[115]
SIECUS’ position statement on sexually explicit materials states “When sensitively used in a manner appropriate to the viewer’s age and developmental level, sexually explicit visual, printed, or on-line materials can be valuable educational or personal aids, helping to reduce ignorance and confusion and contributing to a wholesome concept of sexuality.”
Through SIECUS’ five-year Cooperative Agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH) it will develop several projects designed to promote comprehensive sexuality and HIV/AIDS education as a priority in the nation’s schools. These projects include regional conferences, state curricula and guidelines for HIV/AIDS education, state infrastructure to support these programs, recognition of model programs, and teacher preparation and training. SIECUS is developing state curricular guidelines to include areas that SIECUS research has shown to be most frequently omitted. These include safer sex, condoms and other prevention methods, low-risk noncoital sexual behaviors and sexual orientation, and alternatives to intercourse. [116] “Sex without intercourse encompasses a broad continuum of activities from holding hands, hugging, kissing, petting, and dancing to mutual masturbation, oral-genital sex, and the use of stimulating devices such as vibrators.”[117]
SIECUS expects to have its goals implemented by 1999. The grant states that the Teacher Preparation Report was reviewed by William Yarber Ph.D., incoming president of the SIECUS Board of Directors and professor of Health Education at Indiana University. SIECUS is the educational arm of the Kinsey Institute housed at Indiana University. Our nation’s sex education is based on Kinsey’s research detailed in a book titled Kinsey, Sex and Fraud by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel. This book reveals Kinsey’s use of pedophiles who manually manipulated children, measuring how many orgasms they would have in a 24-hour period. He also performed other criminal acts during his “research.”
The Readers' Digest carried a revealing article titled “Sex, Lies and the Kinsey Reports.” The article states that “American culture shifted under the impact of the Kinsey Reports. Many of Kinsey’s findings were based on flawed methods, and some are outright false.”[118]
The SIECUS/CDC grant states that with the support of the CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health, a gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth working group met to discuss ways of disseminating information on gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth to DASH grantees (one of which is Missouri’s State Department of Education) and other interested youth service workers and educators. The grant also lists “seventeen DASH-funded nationals” which are providing ample opportunity for this collaborative effort.[119]
There are four CDC/DASH HIV/AIDS curriculums that target different populations as “Programs That Work.” They emphasize learning about contraceptive products, researching prices and descriptions, avoiding unprotected sex, locating and contacting clinics, etc. Abstinence is given a patronizing pat. These programs are implemented locally through the Center for Disease Control’s Cooperative Agreement (grant) with the State Department of Education (DESE) which implements SIECUS’ goals at the state and school district level through the State Department of Education’s HIV/AIDS office.
Missouri’s New Cooperative Agreement between the State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and the CDC mirrors the federal grant between the CDC and SIECUS. DESE’s grant makes reference to an HIV/AIDS training center called Health Adventure Center, Project AIDS Memorial Quilt, the Missouri School Improvement Program, Missouri Students At-Risk (MOSTAR) Conference, Comprehensive School Health Conference, Missouri Peer Helper Association, Caring Communities initiative, the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Grant, University Extension, Early Childhood, Missouri Department of Health, Missouri Education Center, Programs That Work (Reducing the Risk by ETR), Missouri Comprehensive School Health Coalition, state collaboration on assessment, and the Student Standards Health Education Project. “DESE anticipates a round of regional workshops with the Missouri School Boards Association” to promote the programs associated with the DESE/CDC AIDS (sex education) grant.
During one State Comprehensive School Health Conference the CDC approved program called Reducing the Risk (RTR) was shown to be successful in increasing the use of condoms and contra­ceptives in teens OTHER THAN those ALREADY SEXUALLY ACTIVE-so much for “success.”
It would be worthwhile to read the Washington Times October 9, 1995, article titled “Teen Pregnancies Higher In States That Teach Condom Use.”
Peggy Brick, a SIECUS president, wrote “Healthy Foundations” a sexuality education program for preschools and child day care centers. The “Healthy Foundations” video titled “Teachable Moments” was/is provided through the University of Missouri/St. Louis’ Continuing Education-Extension. The trainers were Planned Parenthood employees. The “Crucial Early Years” early childhood annual conference is participated in by many including area colleges, hospitals, school districts, child care providers, parents, clergy, etc.
SIECUS is reaching ALL of us. Grassroots families and schools are at the mercy of those who do not share the classical traditional family values on which our nation was founded, but who are instrumental in the “health” standards schools and families are to meet. The values embodied in SIECUS and The Kinsey Institute are being imposed through Goals 2000, the national health standards, the New Standards Project and state assessments. Students must meet certain health outcomes to graduate. School districts must meet “health” standards and outcomes in order to be accredited and funded.
One member of the National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education is the National School Boards Association (NSBA). The NSBA was asked, “How does the NSBA view its affiliation with SIECUS and its Guidelines‌” and “Does the NSBA feel its association with SIECUS’ Guidelines is representative of school boards across the nation‌” The National School Boards Association’s response was:
“The benefit of the guidelines is that they can stimulate broad-based community discussion and result in consensus about the scope of the school district’s sexuality education program that reflects community needs and values.
“Regarding the National Coalition, NSBA believes that the very diversity of the Coalition membership is beneficial because it enables the perspective of local school boards to be shared beyond the traditional education audience.” [120]
Members of the National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education reads like Who’s Who in health and education reform, the radical population controllers, and the homosexual movement. Membership includes:
The Alan Guttmacher Institute
American Counseling Association
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
American Association of School Administrators
American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists
American Association on Mental Retardation
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American Home Economics Association
American Library Association
American Medical Association
American Nurses Association
The American Orthopsychiatric Association, Inc.
American Psychological Association
American Public Health Association
American School Health Association
American Social Health Association
Association for the Advancement of Health Education
Association for Sexuality Education and Training
Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals
Association of State and Territorial Directors of Public Health Education
Astraea National Lesbian Action Foundation
Blacks Educating Blacks About Sexual Health Issues
B’Nai B’rith Women
Catholics for a Free Choice
Center for Population Options
Child Welfare League of America
Children’s Defense Fund
Coalition on Sexuality and Disability, Inc.
Commission on Family Ministries and Human Sexuality
National Council of the Churches.
ETR Associates
Girls, Inc.
Getrick-Martin Institute for Gay and Lesbian Youth
The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality Alumni Association
The Latina Roundtable on Health and Reproductive Rights
Midwest School Social Work Council
National Abortion Rights Action League
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
National Association of Counties
National Association of County Health Officials
National Association of School Psychologists
National Coalition of Advocates for Students
National Council on Family Relations
National Council of State Consultants for School Social Work Services
National Education Association Health Information Network
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities
National League for Nursing
National Lesbian and Gay Health Foundation
National Medical Association
National Mental Health Association
National Native American AIDS Prevention Center
National Network of Runaway and Youth Services
National School Boards Association
National Urban League
National Women’s Law Center
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S.
Society for Adolescent Medicine
Society for Behavioral Pediatrics
Society for Public Health Education, Inc.
Society for the Scientific Study of Sex
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Church Board for Homeland Ministries
United States Conference of Local Health Officers
United States Conference of Mayors
University of Pennsylvania
Y.W.C.A. of the U.S.A.” [121]
SIECUS’ guidelines and goals are reflected in the state’s HIV/AIDS program. This program is funded through the New Cooperative Agreement between the State Department of Education and the CDC. The SIECUS philosophy is also implemented in school districts through the State Department of Education’s school reform efforts. School improvement plans implement Part G of Goals 2000 titled “Office of Comprehensive School Health Education.” This section allows the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to act as a liaison for related activities of the Department of Health and Human Services to expand school health education research grant programs.
School reform (also referred to as a School Improvement Plan) is implemented with tax dollars (public funds) as well as funds from partnerships created with businesses, and philanthropies at the federal, state and local school district levels. These moneys for which we are so eager, is the “applesauce” that helps to swallow the “pills” (programs) distributed by the members of SIECUS’ Coalition to Support Sexuality Education and include: contraception to minors without parental consent, socialistic health reform, family planning (population control), and comprehensive health guidelines we would otherwise reject. What was “voluntary” yesterday has become mandatory today in order to obtain or retain the funding school districts have become accustomed to receiving.
The American Red Cross has also entered into a “Cooperative Agreement” with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention relative to HIV/AIDS education and prevention.[122]
The Minnesota Department of Education produced a booklet titled “Alone No More Developing a School Support System for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Youth.” It did so “through a grant to the Minnesota Department of Education AIDS/HIV/ STD/UP Prevention Program from the US DHHS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Comprehensive School Health Education to Prevent the Transmission of AIDS/HIV.
“This resource is recommended for use in school settings by teachers, school boards, school administrators and student service personnel. This resource has been reviewed and approved by the Minnesota Department of Education Federal Review Panel for HIV prevention in the school settings.”[123]
Alone No More quotes Minnesota Statute 363.12 as stating “It is the public policy of this state to secure for persons in this state, freedom from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, public services and education--because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, and age.”
Alone No More suggests that curriculum “Outline the essential concepts to be included across subject areas such as sexual identity development, list topics in all subject areas in the current curriculum where concepts need to be modified so they are inclusive of the issues pertaining to gay, lesbian and bisexual youth, for example dating relationships, family members, advocacy hotlines. Determine which subject areas should integrate essential concepts and specific accurate information about sexual orientation-health education, personal and family life sciences, social studies/civics. Determine opportunities in all subject areas to contradict negative messages and integrate the contributions of gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, such as in English literature, science, art, music, social studies, etc. (See appendix E.”)
The book continues with the following quotes:
- Be clear that learning information about sexual orientation in the classroom - specifically homosexuality - is not recruitment or permission for experimentation.
- Use inclusive language. Talk about friendships or partners, not exclusively boyfriend/girlfriend inferring only heterosexual relationships.
- Encourage positive learning opportunities about homosexuality.
- Let gay, lesbian and bisexual teenagers know that they are ‘okay’.
- Know the referral agencies and counselors in your area.
- Gay/lesbian hotlines can provide access to professional persons and agencies that are qualified to help.
- Examine your own biases. You need to remain a neutral source of information and support.
- Be informed. Most of us are products of a heterosexist/homophobic society that has been paralyzed by misinformation and fear. You cannot be free of it by just deciding to be free, read reliable resources and talk to qualified persons.”
The book goes on to provide a “Checklist for Assessing Workplace Homophobia/Heterosexism.” The checklist lists 19 areas to be rated yes, no, or unsure. Included are:
- Whether sexual orientation is included in an antidiscrimination policy, staff orientation and volunteer training, advertising services and job openings in the gay/lesbian media,
- Forms for student/client completion which take into account “diversity of households, including homes with partners of the same gender,”
- Referring to “partners” rather than husband, wife, spouse, or boyfriend and girlfriend,
- Inservices on gay/lesbian issues,
- We have gay/lesbian material such as magazines and newspapers in our waiting room or school library,
- We have contacts and make referrals within the gay, lesbian and bisexual community,
- If the organization makes financial or in-kind donations, some of them are to gay/lesbian/bisexual causes and organizations
- If I were a gay, lesbian or bisexual student, I would choose to be open about my sexual orientation at this school/agency.”
Appendix H lists library materials on gay, lesbian, bisexual issues for children, adolescents and for educators and student service staff on counseling issues relative to homosexuality.
Is there any doubt that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Center for Disease Control is using your tax dollars to support homosexuality‌
Imagine the “outcome” of lawsuits filed for “hate crimes” against those who have the audacity to celebrate their Judeo-Christian cultural diversity which considers homosexuality to be an abomination before their God‌ How is the safe passage of these families’ children (who also pay school taxes) protected in school and the workplace‌

CHAPTER 4
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH

Comprehensive School Health

“The elements of comprehensive health and related services for adolescents--include at a minimum, care for acute physical illnesses, general medical examinations in preparation for involvement in athletics, mental health counseling, laboratory tests, reproductive health care, family counseling, prescriptions, advocacy, and coordination of care, the more comprehensive may include educational services, vocational services, legal assistance, recreational opportunities, child care services, and parenting education for adolescent parents.”[124]

omprehensive health includes one’s physical, emotional, psychological, financial, recreational, medical, and academic well being.
Schools no longer offer only health education regarding nutrition, diseases, first aid, human biology, sex education, etc. School districts are now expected to also provide comprehensive screening, cumulative health records, follow-up, counseling, and referral services.
According to the Missouri Department of Education, “(K)ey elements of comprehensive school health education programs--kindergarten through twelve--includes activities to help young people develop the skills to avoid unintended pregnancies.[125] Such “skills” include being able to “identify and describe ways of accessing local and state health services.”[126] Keep in mind that some state and local health resources distribute contraceptive drugs and devices to minors without parental consent!
Missouri’s new school district accreditation process through the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MSIP) is outlined in the MSIP Review Procedures -1993-94 (Revised). Page 62 of the MSIP Review Procedure lists items the state expects of a school district’s Support Services Department in order to be accredited. Student Support Services is the department that oversees school nurses, counselors, and social workers.
A district’s accreditation and funding depends on its MSIP review (inspection) and compliance with educational standards detailed in the Missouri School Improvement Program’s (MSIP) Review Procedures which addresses support services and lists eleven items to be included in school health services.
School student support services are to include: “child abuse reporting,” but it doesn’t define “abuse.” (As of this writing Missouri law does not prohibit spanking). “The health services program includes follow-up, counseling, and referral services for students with identified health problems and continuous monitoring of students with chronic physical or emotional conditions and medical needs which affect their educational progress. Direct communication to professional medical assistance is readily available.” [127]
The Manual for School Health Programs was written to fully complement and comply with the Missouri School Improvement Program that was published in January 1994 by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in cooperation with the Department of Health. It reflects both Missouri’s education (SB380) and universal health care reform statutes (HB564). The Manual states:
“A report of the Joint Committee on Health Education Terminology (Association for the Advancement of Health Education, 1990) has defined the Comprehensive School Health Program as:
...an organized set of policies, procedures and activities designed to protect and promote the health and well-being of students and staff, which has traditionally included health services, healthful school environment and health education. It should also include, but not be limited to, guidance and counseling, physical education, food service, social work, psychological services and employee health promotion.”
The Manual for School Health (hereafter referred to as “the Manual”) includes the following items for ALL grades, K-12:
- disease prevention and control
- family life and sex education
- mental health
- tobacco, alcohol and other drugs
- nutrition
- personal health
- injury prevention
- environmental and community health
- and consumer health.
“Direct [health] services should be provided to promote the health of students through prevention, case finding, early intervention and remediation of specific health problems, provision of first aid and triage of illness and injuries, provision of direct services for students with disabilities, provision of health counseling and health instruction for faculty, staff and students.”
This same quote may be found in an article titled School-Based Clinics To The Rescue printed in the September, 1992 issue of The School Administrator. The article was authored by Dr. Joycelyn Elders then director of the Arkansas Department of Health!
Funding sources listed include:
- “Drug Free Schools and Communities funds
- special education funds
- incentive grants
- Chapter II money for staff development/teacher training
- Healthy Children and Youth (formerly EPSDT) which utilizes Medicaid funding for services to eligible children
- community resources such as school and business partnerships
- grants from foundations and other sources.”
The Manual lists “lower teenage pregnancy rates” as one of the areas identified by the National School Boards Association as “the most frequent changes occurring as a result of comprehensive programming. A program manager may be a school nurse, a health educator or personnel from the local health department who may be contracting for desired health services.” [128]
Is the lower pregnancy rate due to promoting abstinence, or to dispensing contraception to minors without parental consent and to providing abortion referrals‌
A brochure of the St. Louis County Health Department titled the Teen Clinic states, “For teens aged 12-18--A parent is not required to consent for services such as family planning.”[129]
The Manual’s section on suggested steps in writing a Comprehensive School Health Services Plan refers the reader to Appendix A that is titled “Assessment Tool for Schools/Comprehensive School Health.” Among the survey questions are:
“Component 1: School Health Instruction:
- How does your school/district implement health instruction‌
- Is health a separate subject, or integrated into science, physical education, home economics, or other‌
- Does your school/district require a health education course that must be successfully completed before students graduate from high school‌
-Is there a mechanism in place in your school/district to evaluate the impact of health curriculum changes in knowledge, changes in attitude, changes in behavior‌”
The question to ask is: what knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors is the state wanting students to internalize‌
Among those listed as possible instructors for health instruction is the “community health nurse.”
A chart listing grades K-3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 asks if the school/district is offering the following family life education programs: pregnancy and infant health, parenting skills, and family planning!!! [130]
Keep in mind that the “screening” services provided by schools for which they may receive Medicaid money includes: unclothed physical examination and laboratory procedures.[131] An unclothed physical may include examination of the external genitals according to the Medicaid Case Management Billing Instructions. Beginning with age 11, this same source states “PAP if sexually active” under LAB/Immunizations. Family planning services and contraception are listed under “anticipatory guidance.”
Newspaper articles tell of the trauma experienced by about 50 sixth-grade girls at J.T. Lambert Intermediate School in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, who were given genital exams. Headlines and quotes from these articles include:
* “Doctor, School Officials Deny Physicals Were Inappropriate,” Pocono Record March 22, 1996, page B-1. “School officials, as well as the East Stroudsburg pediatrician who performed the exams, say there was only an external examination of the genitalia-with some touching-which is within parameters set by the State Department of Health--Some parents who acknowledge that their daughters were given an external genital exam said even that went too far in school--Parents who called the paper told a similar story: Girls were asked to wait while partially clothed; some asked not to have their genitals examined, but were told they had to; some started to cry, and at least one was denied a call home. Dr. Ramiah Vahanvaty, who performed the exams said, ‘What it involved is an external examination of the labia to see if there were any warts or vaginal lesions. You can’t see these if you don’t retract the (labia)’. Later, (Dr. Ramiah Vahanvaty) said ‘even a parent doesn’t have the right to say what’s appropriate for a physician to do when they’re doing an exam. Parents were sent letters home saying they could be there. Few chose to show.”
* “Anger Mounts On Exams Of Genitals,” Pocono Record March 26, 1996. “The state Department of Health lists an examination of genitals as part of its guidelines for the physicals, mandated for all sixth graders who have not seen their own doctor--Several sixth-grade girls told the crowd Monday that they asked not to have their genitals examined, but were told the exam had to be done. Some also said they were denied a call home. Sushi Tucker, 11, broke down before Monday’s crowd while describing the fear many girls felt while waiting half-clothed for the exam. Vahanvaty, a graduate of East Stroudsburg High School, said the allegations upset her because she had only been trying to ‘do a good deed for the students involved. Things are being completely bent and twisted out of their intention and portrayed as improper.”
* “Genital Exams At School Irk Parents,” The Washington Times, April 27, 1996. “(A)bout 50 girls in all were examined, and that, while notification papers were sent home, many parents said they had not received them or didn’t realize it included a genital exam--School officials could not be reached for comment yesterday--State health officials did not return phone calls yesterday. According to state health guidelines obtained by The Washington Times, public schools are required to obtain a ‘medical examination and comprehensive appraisal of the health’ of children at certain grades. The guidelines, which do not specifically call for genital exams, say parents are to be notified and are urged to attend the exams. An exam may be waived if the child is seen by a family physician and the school is so notified. Doctors have defended the pediatrician who performed the exams. The genital exam is a ‘very important part of the physical’ eight area doctors wrote in a letter, according to the March 28 edition of the Pocono Record newspaper.
Component 5 of Appendix A is School Psychological/Counseling Services. Among questions asked are topics of counselor/student ratio, peer counseling, and a Student Assistance Program or SAP. Be sure to read this book’s chapter titled “What Is a ‘SAP’‌” - you’ll be surprised! The “web” of school/community-linked health services includes identification, referral, treatment, follow-up, and school-community partnerships for academic, health, physical, emotional, mental, psychological, and social services. It also includes the provision of prevention, intervention, aftercare programs, and services “which reaches students, regardless of the level of need.”[132]
During a workshop at the state “Healthy Students 2000” Comprehensive School Health Conference, a worksheet titled “School Health Services” was distributed. The sheet asked “What school health services does your school provide‌” Attendees were to indicate on a scale of 1 to 7 how well “established” (1 meaning “not” and 7 meaning “well”) the following were in their school district:
“Secures a health status profile on each student entering school.
Maintains a current up-to-date health record on all enrolled students.
Ensures childhood immunization for admittance to school.
Provides for routine vision and hearing screening for all students.
Provides for mental health evaluations, counseling and referral.
Provides for dental health screening and referral.
Provides fluoridated dental rinse, toothbrushes, toothpaste, and dental floss for students.
Ensures that all students have access to physical and mental health and dental care.
Provides emergency care for injury and sudden illness.
Systematically alerts teachers regarding student health issues that may require special educational considerations.
Provides assistance to all teachers in preparing individual educational programs to meet unique health needs of students.
Coordinates management of special health needs of students during school hours.
Provides speech therapy for students.
Ensures rapid health and legal response in cases of possible child abuse.
Has a system for teachers’ referral of suspected health problems.
Has a system for diagnosis, referral treatment and rehabilitation of student health problems.
Provides inservice for teachers and staff to help them identify, refer and manage students with special health needs.
Has a mechanism established for routinely meeting with community health care providers to discuss health care for children.
Encourages abstinence and provides family planning counseling and services for students [emphasis added.]
Has a mechanism for securing health care for families of students.
All students can secure routine health care services.
Total School Health Services Score: /147” [133]
Funding to implement such programs has caused taxes at both the state and federal levels to SKYROCKET. The infrastructure for universal, government health care (socialism) is already created, and is being implemented through local schools as a vehicle to reach the grassroots community. Family planning (population control) is a vital component of comprehensive health, as is documented in this chapter as well as the chapter titled “Are You “Nuts” If You Think It’s About Population Control‌.”
Does the responsibility of teaching children about sexuality lie with the parents, teachers, community health providers, the population controllers, all of the above or who‌ Should the topic be publicly taught at all‌ It’s been said that schools must provide sex education because parents don’t, or won’t do it (perhaps the population controllers HOPE the parents won’t do it, so as to provide them with a reason to access the children through schools).
Parents are the natural teachers of their children about sexuality since it cannot be separated from family life. Sex is about relationships, life, and the responsibilities it creates.
It’s difficult to understand how anyone who has managed to overcome their shyness enough to accomplish that which is necessary to conceive, would be to shy to talk to their own children. If nothing else, there are excellent and sensitive books on the issue which parents may provide their children to read in private. Parents should always let their children know that they are available to answer any questions they may have.
The most important sex education children receive is that which is “caught” from the example they receive from parents, as well as what they see and experience in their environment. Do mom and/or dad have a live-in lover‌ Do mom and/or dad stay out all night with someone of the opposite sex other than each other‌ Do mom and dad “fight fair” or participate in destructive, and unresolved conflict that results in an environment of fear and insecurity for the children‌ Do mom and dad expect their children to abstain, or do they encourage the children to use contraception‌ Do mom and dad accept children lovingly from God or are children perceived as a “contraceptive failure”‌ What kind of language is allowed at home‌ Do the parents subscribe to magazines like Playboy and Penthouse‌ Do mom and dad teach their children a high standard of morals, and pray with their children for the grace to overcome impure temptations‌
Professional health and education organizations who are nationally recognized, as well as the population controllers, are teaching children that sex and babies are two different things. Teaching children that they may be sexually active with little or no “risk” of accepting the responsibilities of family life is a disservice. Today’s society is reaping the results of this type of education through the increased numbers of abandoned children, sexually-transmitted diseases AIDS, death, broken relationships, abortion, broken hearts, broken commitments, depression, substance abuse, and suicide.
I feel that whether schools should teach sex education or not depends on: whether the parents have provided permission for their child to “opt in” the class after having reviewed the content of the instruction, the age and maturity of the students, and the values of the instructor. Instruction of a class of mixed boys and girls, who are taught in such a way that they become sexually aroused, and who have accepted the “safe-sex” fallacy, is a recipe for disaster.
Sex education of this type desensitizes the natural modesty of young people, and makes them more vulnerable to disease, death and being “used.” A wise and holy man, loved and respected by all the world once said, “Modesty is the guardian of chastity.”
Our elementary parochial school had a parents’ meeting regarding the school’s sex education program. During this meeting I explained my personal grade school experience with sex education: I explained how appreciative I was of the discussions Sister had with us girls after sending the boys to the playground. I found the topic interesting, educational, and fascinating. Then one day ALL of the 7th and 8th graders, including the boys, were put together in the cafeteria to watch a film on sex. I remember being so mortified that all I wanted to do was disappear. Our children’s principal responded, “these children won’t be embarrassed because they’ll be together from little up.” The principal hadn’t comprehended my concern-it was this natural sense of modesty our children possessed which we did not want destroyed. We transferred our children into the local public elementary school when we learned that the sex education program considered by our parochial school was authored by two dissenters from the church’s teachings regarding sexuality and human life, We felt that our children were “safer” in an environment where we could teach our children to expect and recognize error. The formation of our children’s faith was too precious to risk putting them into a parochial school that was less than meticulous about the faithfulness of its sex education curriculum to the teachings of the Church.
To no surprise, the elementary public school was also doing sex education, but at least it wasn’t as explicit. As parents, we preferred, and felt it was important that our children receive this instruction from us before hearing it from the teacher. Therefore, on the previous day before the class, I dutifully sat our second and fourth graders on the sofa and matter-of-factly explained to them the facts of life.
Up to this time, I believed our child’s parochial school principal who told me that I had been embarrassed when my eighth-grade class received this information in mixed company simply because I had been “sheltered.” I went along with the mindless thinking that giving this information to our very young children wouldn’t be any “big deal” since facts are facts, facts never hurt anyone (in fact it could protect them from school yard “yarns”), and since I was comfortable talking to our children about sex, they would be comfortable with it too. I believed all the reasons (excuses) the “sexperts” give. The result is forever painfully emblazoned into my memory. I still clearly remember the incident that took place in our kitchen as if it happened yesterday. Our (then) fourth grader taught me how important it is not to desensitize children by robbing them of their innocence and modesty.
After breakfast the following morning, as our fourth grader was kneeling on the kitchen floor with his lunch box beside him as he curled over his shoes, his little fingers struggling to tie the laces in time to catch the bus, I asked him a question. I felt it was necessary to make sure he had “mastered” the “outcome” of the previous day’s lesson on sex. When I asked him to explain to me what intercourse was, he did not answer. I asked again. He refused to answer. I asked him again. He replied, “Don’t make me tell you, mom.” I then explained to him that if he couldn’t answer me, I had to assume he didn’t know. As he worked on tying those shoe laces, he finally looked up at me with tears streaming from his big, brown, innocent eyes and said, “Please, mommy, don’t make me tell you, mommy.”
Our child’s innocent and tearful plea hit me like a ton of bricks. Every fiber within me ached at the reality of what had been done. To attain the desired “outcome” meant invading and undermining our child’s sense of modesty to the point of tears. He didn’t know it, but as he boarded the school bus that day, I cried too. What had happened couldn’t be undone. I felt he had been abused.
As a parent I resented being made to feel “rushed” to teach our children about this sensitive issue before they were emotionally mature enough for it. We were rushed to teach our children about an issue they weren’t ready for in order that we as parents could teach it to them before they would learn it in their “health/family life/sex education” class!
It’s demeaning to parents to be told that since “they” (when in reality it is only “some”) don’t teach their children about sex, it is “necessary” to academically institutionalize it from preschool-12th grade. Even if the curriculum is perfect, there is no guarantee that value-laden questions will be answered in school the way they would be answered in each child’s home.
It is only natural that as one’s modesty becomes increasingly eroded through desensitization, they are jettisoned down the “time line” of sexual behavior toward sexual intercourse.
In addition to the biology of the male and female reproductive system, should sex education include decision-making‌ If so, which and whose values will be infused in the instruction‌ The only way to make sure that the values of the family are taught is for the parents to educate their own children in this subject. Parents who choose to delegate this responsibility to the school have an obligation to be informed about, and involved in the content and direction of the sex education curriculum provided by the school. This includes knowing about any guest speakers and handouts.
Is your school’s sex education class teaching children where in the community they may go for “help” (such as the County Health Department’s Teen Clinic which distributes contraceptives to minors without parental consent), or are children referred to their parents or a guardian when such questions arise‌

Health Credit Through Correspondence

t would be helpful if school districts would inform parents prior to students entering high school that students may take a correspondence course through the state university as an alternative to attending a classroom health course for credit toward graduation.
A student’s advisor or counselor can help arrange the enroll­ment. There is a charge for the course and its text. The state of Missouri recognizes health correspondence courses from three different universities, including the University of Missouri’s Center for Independent Study. A correspondence course may be taken over the summer that allows time during the school year for an additional course.
In the past, the state of Missouri did not require a credit in health for a diploma. However, SB380 and its School Improvement Program now require health education, services, follow-up, referrals, and record keeping to be provided by districts.
Health education is chockfull of values training. Values training has always taken place at school, and it always will. The questions to ask are:
- What values, and whose values‌
- Is your student being taught: to accept homosexual practices under the guise of cultural diversity‌
- To accept abortion for reasons of population control or under a false sense of compassion‌
- To accept the myth of “safe sex” which can kill him/her as a consequence of a false sense of security‌
- The false statement that the side effects of contraceptives are less than pregnancy (rhetoric perpetrated by Planned Parenthood and population controllers).
- Is abstinence getting only a patronizing “pat,” while contraception is promoted as the “realistic” choice even though contraceptive pills offer no protection from life-altering sexually-transmitted diseases and possible death‌
- How do you measure the outcome‌
- How is that outcome scored or what is the standard‌
- Who decides what the standard will be‌
- How will my child be remediated‌
- What if parent and state disagree on the standard or how it is measured in the classroom‌
- Who has the ultimate authority over the child--parents or the state‌
Classroom sex education may desensitize students breaking down the natural sense of modesty they possess which protects them from premature sexual activity, especially at a time when their hormones are working “overtime.”
While opting out of particular portions of health class is possible, a correspondence course relieves the pressure of possible questions from peers who may be inquisitive about why the student is leaving class during the “good parts.” An “opt-in” policy is more conducive to a school environment of safe passage, and creates a more harmonious school/home/community relationship.
If the correspondence text undermines a family’s values, parents have the opportunity to compensate since they will know exactly what their student is being exposed to. Classroom guest speakers, over whom parents have no control, may unintentionally undermine closely held family values.

An Alternative to Health Class
(True Story)

orrespondence courses in health are a viable alternative to the classroom health classes in which parents have little or no control over who is telling their students what.
Missouri students are expected to take one-half unit of health in order to graduate. The Competencies and Key Skills for Comprehensive Health contain issues that are values-laden such as controversial issues like medical ethics, euthanasia, eugenics, “life-styles,” family planning, and over-population.
One family chose not to delegate their responsibility in teaching about these issues. Before their children entered high school, a meeting was arranged with school administrators to discuss how they could work together. When administration was asked what was needed in order for the child to acquire the half-credit of health to graduate, they said they didn’t know, but would check and they would meet again. Concerns regarding the effects of non-directive education, and its humanistic nature which public schools teach by default, were discussed. Each administrator kindly accepted copies of the Humanist Manifestos I and II provided for them.
During the second meeting, the school nurse was also present. It was important to the parents to know the content of discussions, as well as the content of the textbook and handouts. They felt the only way to accomplish this was either to attend the class or to record it. The parent was told that to attend class each day would be disruptive. There was concern that taping the class would make the other students in the class feel uncomfortable. There would be a need to obtain signed releases. The parents explained that this virtually removed a parent from the classroom. The parents were asked if their student took good notes, to which the parents responded “no.” The parents explained that notes would not reflect verbatim what was said. The health teacher explained that the students keep a journal, and they discussed the personal nature of journals which contain personal thoughts and insights into a student’s sense of self-worth. They also discussed self-esteem and the fact that the real source of one’s self-esteem stems from being created in the image and likeness of God. The teacher (nurse) was very supportive about the need for students to realize that there is a spiritual aspect to health, and therefore, teaches its importance during the class.
The administration explained that while all present were coming from a common direction, they needed to be very careful, since it is necessary that the district respect the beliefs of everyone. The parent understood this and this was the very reason why the family found it necessary not to delegate their responsibility in this area of education. Schools are asked to do the impossible. By default they avoid acknowledging absolute truth in a sincere effort to avoid offending others.
The family decided that it would be less complicated to homeschool their child in health, rather than worry about who would be invited in as guest speakers or what was being handed out in class. Also, there was no guarantee that whatever questions came up in class would be answered in the same way they would be answered in their home.
Administration felt that the situation could be resolved if the parents would meet with the teacher to go over all the materials, obtain a copy of the health curriculum to see what it contained, and go over the lesson plans. It was agreed that the teacher would call the family to set a date to go over the curriculum and materials. Numerous attempts to obtain the curriculum and meet with the teacher were unsuccessful due to various logistic complications.
In the meantime the family contacted the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education regarding their options. The state suggested the child take a correspondence course as an option. The family was thrilled to learn of this option, and informed the district in writing of their decision to proceed with the correspondence course.
They learned that it was necessary to choose a correspondence course that was approved by the board of education and accredited by the state. This meant they had to return the home school health course they had ordered.
Before spending the nearly $100 fee for the state approved correspondence course and book, the parents wished to review the text to see if it undermined the values of their family. This task proved to be more complicated than expected. The University of Missouri-Columbia’s Independent Study Department explained that the parents would need to travel two-and-one-half hours by car to the university in order to review the text, even though the University of Missouri in St. Louis, an extension of the University, was just a twenty minute drive away. The reason given was that while the St. Louis location had an independent study department, it did not have a correspondence department.
Through a friend, it was learned that the text may be available for loan through the local university’s bookstore. As it worked out, the family was able to review the book without leaving town. Overall, the parents were favorably impressed with the text. There were a couple of areas in the text that were not consistent with the family’s values. Those instances were used to reinforce the reasoning behind the values of their home.
There are those who ask why this whole process was made so difficult‌ It would be helpful if middle school students and parents were informed about the option of a correspondence health course prior to registering for freshmen-year courses and arranging their four-year plan.

What Is a “SAP” ‌

A Student Assistance Program identifies “at-risk” students and refers them for prevention, intervention, and aftercare programs. Each school building has a team of personnel referred to as a CARE team, CORE team, TAT or Teacher Assistance Team, or something similar. These teams identify and refer students with “behaviors of concern” to programs within the school, the community, or Special School District.

AP is not intended to be a synonym for TAXPAYER in this context. It stands for Student Assistance Program. SAPs are being implemented in school districts all over the country.
Missouri’s Student Assistance Program (MOSAP) was written by the Progressive Youth Center in St. Louis with a $100,000 contract from the Missouri Department of Mental Health, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Progressive Youth Center also wrote a controversial little directory called the Youth Yellow Pages which is described in the preceding chapter.
The MOSAP Handbook explains that students can be “referred” by any counselor, social worker, teacher, fellow student, the student himself, bus driver, cafeteria worker, or maintenance person. All aspects of a student’s well-being are referable, whether physical, academic, emotional, psychological, or familial.
Students may be referred either verbally or in writing. Students who have been referred are evaluated by a “core team” for further testing and/or a referral to a school/community-linked prevention, intervention, aftercare program(s,) or Special School District. Programs may be internal (within the school) or external (through a community organization or agency). A “case manager” coordinates services between the student, the school and the community. Parents are included if appropriate.[134] Who determines what is “appropriate”‌!
Students who have exhibited “behaviors of concern” may also be referred. Behaviors of concern include those that would give grounds for legitimate concern, while others could describe any student walking down the hall. Listed behaviors include: “lack of motivation, apathy, short attention span, excessive movement, mood swings, sleeping in class, shy/timid, unusually quiet, dislikes being touched, fears of obesity, shows little enjoyment, exaggerated rambling, often alone, unwillingness to speak, exhibits nervousness, picks on/teases others, picked on/teased by others (emphasis added), unusually passive with others, bruises, constantly tired, poor loser, visible weight loss or gain, family problems (please specify), speaks of family problems (please specify), dis­liked/rejected by peers, has few friends” [135] (emphasis added).
While the intent may be innocent and sincerely positive, such interference into family life places a wedge between parents and their children, as well as between parents and schools.
Page 10 of the MOSAP Handbook states, “Health education and wellness programs, prevention programs, and identification and response systems provide a continuum which REACHES STUDENTS, REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF NEED.” [136]
The intent is to develop an infrastructure which uses the schools as a vehicle to refer children and families into a socialized system of universal “health” care.
The Evaluation chapter of the MOSAP Handbook explains that pregnancy is one factor evaluated in order to justify further program funding!
Chapter nine titled “Ready, Set--GO! Preparing School and Community,” speaks of School/Community Teams Training programs such as STAR, and IMPACT. “The SAP office (Missouri Institute for Prevention Services) is able to link schools to training which include identification and referral processes, chemical dependency, support groups, peer helpers, prevention philosophy, and enabling. Understanding family systems, when to involve parents, how to handle difficult parents, and other related topics should be covered in this training.” [137]
The Missouri Department of Mental Health, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse paid a total of $300,000 per year to six Missouri regional offices which offer prevention programs of their choice.
The six state regional offices through which the Missouri Student Assistance Program is implemented are listed on page 54 of the Missouri Student Assistance Program Handbook:
- Transitional Care Center in Kirksville
- National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse in Kansas City
- Family Counseling Center of Missouri in Columbia
- National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse in St. Louis
- Ozarks National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence in Springfield
- Southeast Missouri Community Treatment Center in Farmington
The Missouri Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse is also working with the Community 2000 program. Missouri is divided into four area offices. Each area office heads one or more regions within the state. Each region has a Community 2000 Support Center. Support Centers include:
- Community Counseling Consultants in Clinton
- Family Counseling Center of MO, Inc. in Columbia
- Preferred Family Healthcare in Kirksville
- Quality Prevention Services in Unionville
- The National Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse in St. Louis and Kansas City
- Tri-County Community Mental Health Services in North Kansas City
- Family Counseling Center, Inc. in Kennett
- Ozarks Fighting Back in Springfield, MO
- Support centers in Rolla: MO ADA, and Prevention Consultants of MO, Inc.[138]
The slogan used by those implementing this program is “It takes a village to raise a child” (note: “village” NOT “family.”) The perception is that EVERY family needs help, and some families need more help than others. The presumption is that every family is in need of either a prevention, intervention, or after-care program(s) provided through school-based clinics or through school/community-linked services.
School/community-link services are collaborations between the school and agencies in the community. One aspect of MOSAP is a peer-helping program called the “Teenage Health Consultant Program” which is sponsored by the St. Louis County Health Department. A small pocket-sized card is distributed by fellow students (minors) involved in the school “Peer Helping” program. Crisis telephone numbers include sections titled Family Planning Information/Clinics as well as Pregnancy Information/Clinics. A counselor writes that these telephone numbers gave her abortion referrals.
Teen pregnancy is one topic for which programs may be designed for small group participation. The key question is: Are teens being referred to resources like the County Health Department’s Teen Clinic which provides contraceptives to minors without parental consent‌ Since the St. Louis County Health Department receives federal family planning funds called Title X, it is mandated to provide “non directive” counseling which is to include information on resources for abortion to minors without parental consent when requested. The St. Louis County Health Department offers their Teenage Health Consultant Program to schools and trains students to identify peers who may be “at-risk” and in “need” of such services or referrals. Funds from the Drug Free Schools and Communities Grant have been used by schools to purchase the County Health Department’s Teenage Health Consultant program.
Social service programs that are not an academic necessity may be implemented in a school district without great notice. Such programs may be originally funded by private grants. When such grants expire, school districts turn to area businesses for funds and/or a tax increase is “needed.”
The community is told that if the tax increase isn’t received, academic classes will be enlarged, special classes for the gifted and academically challenged will be deleted, teachers will lose their contracts, there won’t be books or computers for the students, athletics will be canceled, the busses will no longer run, etc.
Taxpayers are made to feel that if they don’t vote in favor of school tax increases, or universal health care, they do not care about the community, its schools, or the children. Students are taken to the state capitol on a “field trip” to voice support for additional school taxes, and are encouraged to promote the tax increase to their parents.
If the community doesn’t understand what percent of the district’s budget is used to purchase social programs that are less essential to academics, the community is likely to vote in favor of increased taxes, to avoid “hurting the kids.”
The question is: Do we want to be responsible for and raise our own children‌ Or do we want to give our children and our earnings to the government to raise our children for us while we do something “more important”‌

Caring Counselor
(True Story)

ne Tuesday morning about ten o’clock a seventh-grade counselor called a student’s home. He asked how everything was at the home. The parent responded “fine,” and politely inquired about the counselor’s family.
The counselor proceeded to explain that one of the teachers had said that their child had been tired since early in the week (since this was only Tuesday morning, the parent considered that it still was early in the week). The parent explained that since the kids had just started back to school the day before from Easter break, they were still trying to “get in the groove” of school, and that their child liked to stay up late reading. The counselor said the same was true with their children.
After returning home from school that afternoon, the parent shared the telephone call with the child, and asked if anyone at school had said anything to him about being tired. The child said that a teacher had asked if he was tired, and the child replied that he had told the teacher that the parents had kept him up late the night before praying. (Whether the counselor had been told this or not is not known, since the counselor hadn’t mentioned it to the parent during that morning’s telephone call).
The family’s home routine included nightly family prayers before going to bed, usually after the homework has been finished. Sometimes it got pretty late. The night before the phone call, the younger child was still doing homework at 11:00 P.M. The older one (the “tired” one) announced he was going to lie across his bed and read. The parents asked him not to do so since he might fall asleep and miss family prayers (again). The parents offered to say their night prayers right away before the younger child finished doing homework but he replied, “No, I’ll just sit in here and read where you can see me.”
It was explained to the child that the school may be thinking that the parents were barring him from his room until all hours of the night praying, so he needed to explain to school that he was up late reading. He reluctantly agreed. When he came home the next afternoon and was asked if he explained that he had been up late reading he said, “I told them I was up readin’ and prayin’.’”
The whole thing was kind of funny but also worrisome since the Missouri Student Assistance Program (MOSAP) lists being “tired” as a behavior of concern for which students may be “referred.” See the chapter titled “What Is a ‘SAP’‌”
School “care teams” observe children, looking for “behaviors of concern.” Such children may be referred for “prevention” programs or recommended to the special school district. These children may be “screened” or tested to see if they are eligible for funding and programs through the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The parents felt certain that the counselor was simply following-up on a student who had been “referred” for a “behavior of concern” which may indicate a problem at home which could effect the student’s academic success.
The child’s father, who is especially calm and unshakable, was concerned when he read “constantly tired” among the list of behaviors in the MOSAP Handbook. For the first time he began to understand his wife’s watchful concern. The parents provided the school with a written request for a copy of their child’s file, and asked a written response as to whether or not their son was still tired in class. The counselor was very cooperative, and apologized for the need to fill out a form for which there was a $1 charge.
The parents felt the counselor was a genuinely good man and thought very well of him. However, since the telephone call had dealt with what was happening in the privacy of their home, they didn’t know whether to be thankfully impressed with his thoughtfulness, or worried that he was obligated by some law to send the Division of Family Services to their home.
While the intent was sincere, such interventions invade one’s home life. This places a tense and non-productive wedge between school and home, as well as between child and parents.
While schools are doing what they can to help families build “healthy” and “non-dysfunctional” homes, how are such terms defined‌ Who defines these terms‌ There is a wide range of “normal,” and “normal” may differ from family to family. A family may consider such practices an insult and an invasion of privacy, making it difficult for schools to be perceived in a positive light even when their intentions are sincere.

Conning the Clergy
to Collaborate With Comprehensive Health

Unfortunately, HB564 became law due to the support of Missouri Catholic Conference. The week prior to the passage of Missouri’s universal health care reform bill, an abortion advocate who helped author the bill stated “Missouri Catholic Conference supports HB564--we did a divide and conquer, and it was a success.” [139] The May 28, 1993 issue of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, in an article titled Schools’ Health Services May Grow quoted Missouri Catholic Conference’s executive director in regards to the effects of HB564 as stating “--Those parents who choose contraceptive referral are free to do so.”
In an effort to obtain more health care for those in need, good people who meant well, stepped into the trap of the population controllers. It is my opinion that Missouri Catholic Conference sacrificed our fertility to the god of Medicaid on the altar of universal health care.

or the most part, pastors are among the most compassionate persons in a community. Pastors only support programs and services that are positive. A community depends on its pastors for guidance, leadership, and direction. If the religious community supports an endeavor, one can rest assured they will not be “led astray”... or can they‌
Churches are being used to funnel children and families into socialistic, government-funded health and education programs which are designed to meet the goals and outcomes contained in Healthy People 2000 and Goals 2000.
Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders spoke of the importance of involving churches in partnerships with the government.
Much of what SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S.) supports is in opposition to the Judeo-Christian ethic. SIECUS’ book titled Winning the Battle: Developing Support for Sexuality and HIV/AIDS Education states, “Religious leaders can be called upon for their help. Ask the clergy of your community to develop a letter of support for your program. This letter can be widely circulated to their members, the school board, and the local newspaper.” [140]
School districts create community partnerships, collaborating with state agencies, community churches, and organizations for referrals and the provision of prevention, intervention, aftercare programs, and/or services, implementing the MOSAP model.
The Missouri Department of Mental Health, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse funded the writing of Missouri’s Student Assistance Program (MOSAP model).
The chapter in the MOSAP Handbook titled “Preparing the Community” says to “enlist churches to promote and distribute Student Assistance Program information.” The MO SAP Handbook states that issues to be addressed include “prejudice, violence, death, and teen pregnancy.”
The question is: Are pregnant teens being referred to agencies like Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Birthright, or to Planned Parenthood, abortion clinics, and government-funded family planning clinics which provide contraceptives to minors without parental consent and which refer for abortion‌
Women who have experienced abortion speak of turning to drugs, alcohol, and suicide attempts as an escape from the emotional and psychological consequences of their abortion(s).
When we send children to contraceptive clinics, we may be contributing to the drug problem.
The summary of U.S. H.R. 1800 written by the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues states that the law “will expand the list of preferred uses for funding under the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act--.”
Section III of the Drug Free Schools and Communities Grant Application is titled “Assurances.” It states that “the applying school district assures that--This program is part of a comprehensive health education curriculum.”
See the chapter titled “Lexicon Is Lingo” for the BROAD definition of comprehensive health for adolescents. It includes “family planning services” and “reproductive health care” which may include contraception, abortion, and sterilization.
Federal grants, such as the Drug-Free Schools and Communities, and Title I, mandate that public schools assure they “provide services to eligible children attending private elementary and secondary schools, and timely and meaningful consultation with private school officials regarding those services (except in those districts where the By-Pass exists). Services include health and social services.”[141]
Federal programs offered to nonpublic (parochial) schools through local public school districts “hoodwink” clergy and private schools into participating in prevention programs which may promote contraception. This happens because prevention programs, including substance abuse prevention programs like the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Grant, have been re-allocated to include “broad-brushed prevention” which is defined to include pregnancy prevention (i.e. contraception).
It would be wise if parochial agencies would not become dependent on federal funds. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Federal “strings” are always attached to federal dollars, but the strings are not always obvious.
The administration of a public school district recommended that its school board authorize the superintendent to increase the total compensation to a parochial family services agency for consulting services from $6,500 to $16,900 with funds from the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Grant. The number of nonpublic students served by the parochial family service agency within this particular public school district was only 51. The purpose of the large increase in compensation was for the expansion of services. However, based on the number of children served the previous year, the average amount collected per child would increase from $127.45 to approximately $331.37.
The system works like this: When a student aged kindergarten through high school who attends a parochial school within the boundaries of the public school district, or a member of their family, has been identified (screened) as being in need of counseling, the child or family is referred to the parochial family service agency. The parochial family service agency provides the counseling services and bills the local public school district. The local public school district pays the parochial family service agency from Drug-Free Schools and Communities Grant funds.
Article 5 of the agreement between the public school district and the parochial family services agency is titled Ownership of Documents. It states, “All reports and other documents prepared by the consultant [parochial family service agency]--shall be the property of the District. The consultant shall not release such reports and other documents to others without written permission of the District”[142] (emphasis added). The following year it was learned that the standard consultant contract had been used which was not correctly worded. The wording in the consultant contract was then amended to read “--shall be the property of the non-public school--.”
The lure of services and funding gains government access to children, families, and information (data) from the parochial segment of society. Such partnerships are used to assist in implementing government health and education reform goals.
The district’s compensation to the parochial family services agency was at the rate of $45 per hour for counseling and assessment services, and $150 per inservice and orientation with staff. The parochial family services agency has similar agreements for additional Drug-Free Schools and Communities Grant funds from various other public school districts for services to nonpublic.
Private schools and churches may also become Medicaid providers, or may become partners with local hospitals and health providers who are Medicaid providers. The state Medicaid agency is REQUIRED to provide or refer for ALL MANDATORY Medicaid services, including “family planning services and supplies.” EVERY Medicaid recipient has a case manager who is OBLIGATED, regardless of personal beliefs to make sure the Medicaid recipient is referred for ALL services available through Medicaid. Medicaid includes coverage for Norplant as well as abortions for rape and incest without the proof of a police report.
Population controllers used the clergy to pass the state health reform bill which allows the government to use schools to reach children and families in order to implement government health goals. Remember that one such goal is to have 90 percent of “sexually active” teens on combination contraceptives.
During the hearing on HB564, Judith Widdicombe (a key author of the bill,) testified that “this is a good bill, it’s not only for public schools but private and parochial schools.” During this hearing she stated that she supported parental involvement. When a member of the committee asked her if she supported parental consent, she simply responded, “No.”
A number of Catholic clergy traveled to the state capitol and successfully lobbied for the passage of this bill. It was no surprise when a representative of the Archdiocese appeared before a public school board with members of the district’s Medicaid panel to encourage the board to vote in favor of being a Medicaid provider.
The reason the government and the population controllers are so eager for the church and its schools to become a Medicaid provider is because the government has something to gain: a vehicle through which to gain access to the grassroots people in order to implement socialized medicine and its goals of reducing unintended pregnancies as defined by the government. See the chapter titled “Every Child a Planned and Wanted Child By Whom‌‌‌” When the church becomes an extension of the state, one no longer hears the cry “separation of church and state” from the government nor its consortium of non-governmental agencies.
Once a church is dependent on government funds and programs, its freedom and autonomy are compromised. Look at how being tax-exempt has neutralized the activity of our churches. Churches become timid about doing or saying that which politically and spiritually needs to be said and done, in order to be obedient to government regulations so as to retain their tax-exempt status.
Pastors become “bent out of shape” when they find pro-life fliers on car windshields in their church parking lots which inform voters of who the good guys are before going to the polls. Since the media is so biased, and postage is more expensive than can be afforded, putting fliers on cars in church parking lots is an excellent way to reach God’s people. Pastors whose churches are tax exempt may not give direct permission for this activity, but they can surely ALLOW it to happen by not running people off! What happened to free speech‌
Generally speaking, there is great danger of being blinded by government money which may cause “weak knees” at least, and at worst an erosion of commitment to principle.

CHAPTER 5
CURRICULUM, ASSESSMENT and VALUES

Mastering STDs and Overpopulation
(True Story)

MAT is the Missouri Mastery Achievement Test given students in grades 3,6,8, and 10. This assessment tool is used to test the student’s mastery of the Core Competencies and Key Skills for Missouri Schools. “A key skill is determined to be mastered when the student has correctly answered at least three of the four items measuring that objective.” [143] The state is in the process of replacing the MMAT with the Missouri Assessment Program 2000 (MAP 2000).
At the beginning of each school year, one family routinely sends a letter to each of their children’s teachers listing those topics they have chosen not to delegate. Among the list is “family planning surveys, questions, services, referrals and/or programs, sex education, population (bias against large families,) and population control/environmentalism.”
The parents were surprised when their student’s sophomore MMAT Individual Student Report showed that in the area of science, “overpopulation problems” had been mastered. The test showed that all four questions on over-population had been answered correctly, and “sexually-transmitted diseases” had been mastered by answering three out of four questions correctly.
As parents they had questions like:
- Why had their student been tested in topics they had formally and specifically put in writing that they had chosen NOT to delegate to anyone else‌
- What were the questions on the test‌
- What was considered to be the “right” answer‌
- What does “mastery” mean in these topics‌
- Does one have to be “politically correct” to master these topics‌
- If their student “mastered” these topics, did it mean that what had been taught at home had not been internalized‌
- Did the test undermine or support the values of their home‌
The parents asked the administration if they could see the test so as to understand what their student had mastered. It was explained that if they were allowed to see the test, thousands of dollars would have to be spent to have the test rewritten to protect its integrity. The parents were informed that in order to protect the integrity of the test they could not be allowed to see the test which had already been given and graded.
Since the school district was unable to help, the parents wrote to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Assessment Department and explained that they had chosen not to delegate their parental responsibility of education and assessment in value-laden subject areas to the local education agency. In order to evaluate the possible need for their student’s remediation, they requested a list of the MMAT questions pertaining to the subject areas of overpopulation and sexually-transmitted diseases and a copy of any other test questions necessitating values-based decision-making.
The state Director of Assessment wrote back saying, “The MMAT is a secure assessment instrument--Of course, if parents would like to review the items, they are encouraged to contact their local school district and arrange an opportunity to review the test.” He wrote that if that wasn’t convenient, the test may be viewed by the public either at the Center for Educational Assessment, located at the University of Missouri in Columbia or at the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in Jefferson City, both of which were a two-and-one-half hour drive away.
A copy of the letter was sent to the school district requesting suggested dates for viewing the test. The family was telephoned with dates and an explanation that others would be present during the review. Those present included the school board president, the science curriculum coordinator, an assistant superintendent, and a district community specialist. The science curriculum director instructed the parent to look at and read aloud only those questions that were pointed to, and requested that the parent not look at the surrounding questions on the page(s). Before beginning to view the questions, the parent was required to sign and date a document titled Permission To Examine Documents Protected Under Procedures For Test Security which stated, “I will not--communicate to any other person the exact content--.” The parent was instructed that no one could be told what had been observed in the test. Even though all in the room could hear the questions that were read aloud, only the parent was asked to sign such a document.
Two months later, the school board was asked to approve a revision to the district’s testing policy. Additions to the policy included:
1) Standardized test items would be available for parent/guardian access when approved by the agency which developed the test.
2) Test results and items could only be obtained if:
a) The request, including the reason for the review, was in writing
b) The test items may be viewed ONLY AFTER the administration of the test
c) The parent/guardian must sign a disclaimer stating that test items will not be shared with anyone, and results will be shared only as provided by law and applicable policies.
d) Additional provisions understandably prohibited the copying, recording, or distribution of testing information.
e) Information would be available under supervision of the district’s test coordinator during business hours.
Concerned about the excessive provisions required of parents, a school board member spoke with the state assessment department. It was learned that the state office allowed parents to freely view the test in the presence of a proctor without being shown which questions parents could or couldn’t look at.
The school board member was interested in insuring that the rights of taxpaying parents would not be infringed upon and that parents not be unduly burdened when trying to follow up in the interest of their child(ren’s) academic progress. The average parent does not have a photographic memory. There was concern that by making it so difficult for parents to obtain information, the community may wonder what the district was possibly “hiding.”
While concern for the integrity of tests is legitimate, most parents who are concerned about their child’s education are not likely to be the type to “sell” test answers. The board member felt that since the district works for the parents, parents should have access to information regarding their child’s education without undue burden.
Respecting these concerns, the district’s administration requested the state assessment department to appoint a task force to review the suggested policy changes. As far as is known, no further information has been received about the progress of the task force.
Parents may choose to have their student not participate in taking the MMAT, or have their student not answer certain test questions. There are four test questions per item, such as four questions dealing with overpopulation, and four on sexually-transmitted diseases. Parents or guardians may meet with the principal or counselor before the test is given, to review the test and select those questions that the parent finds to be offensive or invasive. Together, the parent and counselor or principal can make arrangements to identify those questions the student is not to answer.

Who Is Assessing Whom for What‌

The knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of students are assessed by the state through testing tools designed to measure mastery of specific desired outcomes. Some tools may include surveys containing questions regarding activities of the home.

he Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) did not become law until 1993. However, note that already in January, 1990, a document titled Our Children, Our Health, Our Future stated that the MSIP “is the new school accreditation system being implemented by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) as one of the strategies to achieve comprehensive school health goals--health concepts should be integrated into current subjects tested by the Missouri Mastery Achievement Test (MMAT) and health should be integrated into subject matter areas such as social studies, reading, civics, and physical education. These should be phased in as revisions are made by DESE, and eventually comprise 10-20 percent of this exam.” Our Children, Our Health, Our Future went on to “encourage schools to use the DESE health education test item bank to assess student acquisition of health knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors,” and to state that DESE and the Department of Health should collaborate to replicate the CDC (Center for Disease Control) National Adolescent School Health Survey in Missouri beginning in 1990 to formally assess statewide status of student health knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.” [144]
The MMAT was developed to satisfy the testing provision in the federal Excellence in Education Act of 1985 and Goals 2000: Educate America Act. This law requires the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to identify key skills or learner outcomes. These outcomes were then published in the Core Competencies and Key Skills Schools in 1986. Comprehensive Health Competencies and Key Skills for Missouri Schools includes “comparing alternative lifestyle choices, analyzing the major choices concerning responsible sexual behavior, assess the effect of overpopulation--, identify and critique health issues caused by advancing medical science (i.e., genetic engineering, euthanasia, other medical/ethical issues.)” [145] Two areas tested for mastery in Form F of the Sophomore MMAT are overpopulation and sexually-transmitted diseases. The MMAT was designed in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.” [146]
The question is not whether these issues should be taught but rather what is the value or outcome the state is wanting students to internalize about these issues‌ Are values which students bring to class from home and church regarding life and death being undermined during class time‌ Are state and community outcomes supporting or undermining the values of the family‌ Are community values the SAME values as each student’s family‌ If not, how does the school protect a student’s and family’s values‌
Another assessment tool is the drug and alcohol questionnaire. A representative of The Center for Educational Assessment located at the University of Missouri in Columbia explained that the federal government provides such a survey distributed through schools. Students answer the surveys that are then sent to the University of Missouri in Columbia for processing. The results (without the names) are sent to the federal government. However, the cover sheet requests the student’s name, school, birthdate, home address, what school is to be attended the next year, and the name and address of the “person who will always be able to locate you.”
One such questionnaire for use in schools asks questions about race, gender, with whom the student lived with most of the past year, how the student feels about him/herself, drinking, television, drugs, police officers, school, their neighborhood, peer pressure, whether class time has been used to talk about drugs, alcohol, or cigarette use (are they checking on the teachers‌) and etc. The following questions were also listed in the questionnaire:
- “During the last 12 months, how often have you: argued or had a fight with either of your parents‌
- Has anyone in your household drunk beer, wine, or other alcoholic beverages in the past month‌
- Has anyone in your household smoked a cigarette in the past month‌
- Are alcoholic beverages kept in your home‌
- Are cigarettes kept in your home‌
- Overall, how stressful have things been for your family in the last year‌
- How likely are you to go to your parent(s) or guardian(s) with your problems‌
- “Please tell whether you strongly agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each [following] statement:
- Family members are supportive of each other during difficult times.
- Our family does many things together.
- There are many conflicts in our family.
- Discipline in our family is fair.
- Family members feel very close to each other.
- Each family member has input into family decisions.
- It’s OK for family members to have different opinions.
- When I am punished at home, I usually deserve it.
- One person makes most of the major decisions in my family.
- My family is strict about what I can and can’t do.
- When I get caught doing something wrong I can usually predict what my family will do about it.”
The survey ends with the following statement in bold, capitalized letters “THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS. NOW PLEASE PUT YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENVELOPE AT THE FRONT OF THE ROOM.” [147]
Such surveys/questionnaires help the government know whether its health and education goals are being met. Is this a “bad” thing‌ It depends on how you feel about your autonomy and how much freedom you would like to have. Keep in mind that government health goals include “reducing unintended pregnancies” as defined by the government (i.e. population control).
Regarding knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, “lifestyles,” and “prevention,” to be mastered in the area of school health, refer to this book’s chapter titled “SIECUS, the CDC, and State Health Curricula.”
Materials and goals created by national consortiums such as SIECUS, the CDC, the American School Health Association, and many others are being imposed on school districts through state acceptance of federal programs and funding.
The Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) 2000 is Missouri’s new performance-based testing program. It has been implemented in compliance with Goals 2000 and the New Standards Project. What activities will students be asked to “perform” in order to “demonstrate” that they have “mastered” outcomes/goals dealing with “lifestyles,” “prevention,” and other sensitive and value-laden topics, such as over-population and sexually-transmitted diseases‌
Parents need to know how their child(ren) are being assessed, and for what they are being assessed. Parents also need to know why and for whom the assessments are being performed. Parents also need to know who will have access to this information. Is this information shared with the student’s teachers the following year so they know where the student stands academically‌ How are the results shared with the federal government’s National Education Goals Panel, and the National Education Standards and Improvement Council created by Goals 2000‌
Parents need to start asking more questions, and documenting the answers for themselves and their neighbors.

Textbooks and Values

s children may not always bring their textbooks and handouts home, parents need to take the initiative to ask for them and review them. What does one look for‌ Check the index, table of contents, glossary, and page numbers related to issues such as: overpopulation, abortion, “lifestyles,” “prevention,” family planning, AIDS, sexually-transmitted diseases, pollution, contraception, current issues, China, evolution, Creationism, or issues of personal interest and concern. Also ask the teacher for an opportunity to review the Core Competencies and Key Skills manual and a copy of the class goals/outcomes, syllabus, reading and video lists.
Does the text address issues in such a way as to support or undermine the values of your faith and family‌ Is the information factual‌ What documentation can you provide which shows the information is inaccurate or incomplete‌ How do you obtain it‌ Do you know of agencies or organizations that can help locate and/or supply the needed documentation‌
Good educators appreciate calm, kind parents who are backed with documentation. Educators are the employees of tax-paying parents, and the goals of both are the correct and appropriate instruction of children.
Following are some examples of concerns found in some school textbooks:
1. The third edition of Addison-Wesley’s Sophomore Chemistry text states: “The world population is increasing more rapidly than the food supply.” [148] (This statement does not appear in the fifth edition.) However The War Against Population, authored by Dr. Jacqueline Kasun an economics professor from Humbolt University in California, states: “--World food production has increased considerably faster than population in recent decades.” [149] This documentation was sent to Addison-Wesley regarding the inaccuracy in their text.
Addison-Wesley responded, “We agree with you that the statement is no longer true. However, there is certainly truth in the fact that the food supply, while keeping pace with population, is not distributed evenly among the world’s peoples--[T]his statement does not appear in the most recent fifth edition of Addison-Wesley Chemistry.”[150]
2. Glencoe’s World Geography, 3rd Edition contains a picture whose caption identifies the picture’s building as: “The Family Planning Center and Red Cross Hospital in Darima, India. The sign [on the building] reads, ‘A small family is a happy family. For free advice and help, go to the nearest family planning center.’” [151]
A biased prejudice against large families, generally associated with population controllers, is obvious in that caption. There exists a pervasive anti-child mentality from the pill peddlers and abortion profiteers to the environmental wackos who see people as a form of pollution.
Glencoe’s response was, “The textbook in no way makes a value judgment on the appropriateness of family size. It does, however, indicate the fact that the nation of India has an official policy of encouraging small families, and uses a photograph to illustrate India’s policy.”
Glencoe’s textbook doesn’t explain that India’s population control policy is brutal, coercive, and compulsory, in order to meet population reduction and sterilization goals imposed by the United States’ Agency for International Development as a condition for continued funding! “In one case, villagers in India were offered cash payments on condition that 75 percent of all men in the village submit to vasectomy. In another Indian village, 100 percent of eligible couples accepted family planning, mostly vasectomy, in exchange for a new village well.” [152]
3. The Story of America is an eighth grade Social Studies text published by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Regarding the 1973 Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade abortion decision, page 1,112 states, “--Roe v Wade ruled that a woman’s constitutional right to privacy included the right to have an abortion done the first three months of pregnancy.”
The text is incomplete and misleading. An abortion may be obtained during all nine months of pregnancy. The Library of Congress’ Abortion: Judicial and Legislative Control, issue brief number IB74019, documents what Roe vs. Wade said:
a) In months 1-3 the decision to abort is left to the woman and her doctor. (Fathers have no legal standing to protect their unborn child.}
b) In months 4-6 the state may, if it chooses, regulate abortion.
c) In months 7-9 the state may, if it chooses, regulate and even prohibit abortion except for reasons of health.
In Doe vs. Bolton, health was defined as “all factors physical, emotional, psychological, familial--” In effect, this allowed abortion from conception to birth for any reason.
4. The World Today a seventh-grade Social Studies text published by Heath states: “The Chinese government wants couples to have only one child.” China’s one-child policy was reinforced in a positive light in a classroom handout worksheet.
China’s one-family-one-child policy is held up as a world model to students while facts regarding the brutality of China’s policy are being withheld from students. Mothers pregnant with a child for whom they have no government “permission” or certificate to bear are forcibly aborted anytime prior to birth, and sterilized.
“Fines equivalent to hundreds or even thousands of dollars--are imposed--homes are routinely knocked down if the fine is not paid--Li Qiuliang spends her time lying in bed, emotionally crushed and physically crippled. The baby died because under China’s complex quota system for births, local family planning officials wanted Ms. Li to give birth in 1992 rather that 1993--so when she was seven months pregnant, they took her--and ordered the doctor to induce labor. Ms. Li’s family pleaded, the doctor protested. But the family planning workers insisted. The result: the baby died after nine hours, and 23-year-old Ms. Li is incapacitated.” [153]
Some school textbooks provide the false impression that the world is overpopulated and unable to produce enough food to feed the masses. One seventh-grade Social Studies text states, “The Chinese government wants couples to have only one child. Not only does China have a large population, it also has a shortage of good farm land.” [154]
Students are not provided facts that document that such fears are unfounded. One such fact is that the total population of the world is 5,613,064,000. [155] The state of Texas is 261,914 square miles, or 7,301,743,257,600 square feet in size. This means that each person on the face of the earth could be placed within the state of Texas, placed on 1,300 square feet apiece, with room left over for an additional 3,661,582 people!! The world is NOT overpopulated. Hunger exists because of poor distribution, politics, and greed.
Textbooks and the education establishment may be unwittingly partaking in the conditioning of students to believe that child bearing is not a right of parents, but a privilege to be bestowed by the government. (See the chapter titled “Are You “Nuts” If You Think It’s About Population Control‌”)
If you find discrepancies in textbooks or curricula, be sure to bring it to the attention of the publisher and your school district’s curriculum director. A copy of the documentation that supports your position is generally appreciated. Those who have the best interest of education and children at heart appreciate constructive input.
School districts have a curriculum committee that reviews texts prior to purchase. Contact your superintendent’s office to ask how you may become a member of this committee.
If we wish to remain free, we must not educate our children to sacrifice their individual sovereignty in favor of governmental collectivism (Socialism). It is through the virtues and values of the Judeo-Christian ethic and lifestyle that we voluntarily reach out and assist those in need without governmental dictates.
For additional documentation and information on curriculum critiques, contact Educational Research Analysts, P.O. Box 7518, Longview, Texas 75607, telephone: (903) 753-5993.

CHAPTER 6
SCHOOLS AS MEDICAID PROVIDERS

Medicaid-Funded School-Based Clinics, School/Community-Linked Services, and
Parental Consent

The only difference between a school-based clinic and school/community-linked services is the location. Both obtain the same end of accessing children and families to implement socialized universal health care. If schools choose not to provide certain services such as family planning, the case manager is obligated to refer to a Medicaid provider who will provide the service.

well known and respected pastor explained to me that in 1989, Missouri’s Governor at the time, John Ashcroft, was the chairman of the Governor’s Conference from which came President Bush’s Goals 2000. The Conference included then-Governor, and now-President Clinton from Arkansas, then-governor Robert Riley (presently President Clinton’s Director of Education), and then-governor Lamar Alexander from Tennessee (who later became Director of Education under President Bush). How could they NOT see the infrastructure being created that allows schools to funnel families and minors into government health clinics for contraceptive chemicals and devices without parental consent‌
The March/April, 1985 issue of Planned Parenthood’s “Family Planning Perspectives” carried an article by Joy Dryfoos titled “School-Based Health Clinics: A New Approach to Preventing Adolescent Pregnancy‌” The following are quotes from that article: “School-based clinics provide comprehensive health care, including family planning; they also generally employ social and educational approaches--Each provides individual counseling about sexuality, gynecologic examinations and follow-up examinations for family planning patients. They either offer contraceptive prescriptions in the clinic or refer students to off-site birth control clinics. In addition, they perform laboratory tests, screen for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), provide nutrition education and refer students with other problems to social service agencies--Most school-based clinics began by offering comprehensive health care, then added family planning services later, at least partly in order to avoid local controversy” (emphasis added). “Organizing a school-based clinic has proved to be a long and arduous task. It generally takes from six months to one year to develop a program, find funding, recruit staff and obtain the necessary approval from the school and local health and community groups--The school nurse usually is not allowed to dispense medications-even aspirin. One advantage of the school-based clinics, then, is that because they are run by an outside agency, their medical practice is not covered by school law--(I)n most clinics new patients (whether male or female) are asked at their initial visit if they are sexually active. If they are or plan to be soon, they are encouraged to practice contraception. If a young woman is interested in obtaining a birth control method, she is given a pelvic examination and a Pap smear as part of her physical examination. Contraceptives are generally prescribed following counseling. In a few schools, prescriptions are filled on the premises; in most, students are referred either to a collaborating clinic or hospital or to a local physician to have their prescription filled. Several programs provide only family planning information, counseling and referral--It is also important to gain the acceptance of parents, so that parents will permit their children to be treated in the school clinic. School-based clinics generally require parental consent before they will provide medical services to teenagers. In some clinics, parents are asked to sign a blanket consent form unrelated to any specific clinic visit. In others, the form lists each service, including family planning, and a student may receive only the services that have been checked. Most consent procedures apply for the entire period of the student’s enrollment-- In one school-based program, noncomplying parents were called, and their verbal permission was recorded” (emphasis added). “The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded 20 diverse programs in needy areas in 1982 through its Program to Consolidate Services for High-Risk Young People--Under the conditions of the grant, recipients are to collaborate with existing efforts, use community resources and train physicians in adolescent medicine. Thus, placing an adolescent multiservice unit in a high school and staffing it with university physicians fits the grantor’s guidelines well--Family planning and health education in several school programs are covered by grants from Title X of the Public Health Service Act, with funds granted through state or local health departments or Planned Parenthood affiliates--Medicaid reimbursement can be claimed by school-based clinics that are certified by the state as providers of medical services. Some physical examinations are charged to the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program, a state-administered effort to screen and treat Medicaid-eligible children up to age 21. These data indicate that school-based clinics are called upon most often to treat injuries and accidents, do physical examinations, offer general health care and provide family planning services, either on site or by referral. Improved attendance and lower dropout rates have been attributed to school-based clinics. No actual data have been presented to confirm these claims--School-based programs allow health education and promotion in the classroom to be combined with medical care and treatment in the clinic.”[156]
Schools providing “one-stop shopping” offer comprehensive health education, services, referrals, and follow-up through school/community-linked services, or school-based clinics. The clinic may be located on school grounds, or a school district may enter into a contract with local health care providers like the County Health Department for services. The end results are the same. Schools which provide Medicaid-funded administrative case management arrange transportation and appointments as well as provide “anticipatory guidance” which the Medicaid forms say includes “family planning services and contraception.” (See the chapter titled “Medicaid, Family Planning, and a ‘Health Care Home.’”) Referrals to a community health provider may result in the provision of contraceptive drugs, devices, and abortion referrals to minors without parental consent.[157],[158],[159]
Pages 69 and 70 of Missouri’s health care reform bill (HB564) states, “Contraceptive devices or contraceptive drugs shall not be provided by school personnel or their agents. When a child seeks contraceptive devices or contraceptive drugs, the child shall be referred to the previously designated family practitioner.”
Page 69 of the bill says: “The fact that a family practitioner has a contractual relationship with the public school or school district shall not prohibit the family practitioner from being selected by the parent, guardian, or legal custodian to be the designated family practitioner for his child.”
Poorer families typically go to public health departments and family planning centers for care. Such facilities which receive federal family planning funds called Title X, are not to discriminate against minors regarding the distribution of contraceptives, and may do so without parental consent.
The St. Louis County Health Department’s Teen Clinic brochure states, “For teens aged 12-18, a parent/legal guardian is required to come for visits for general medical concerns (physical exams, colds, asthma, etc.). A parent is NOT required to consent for services such as family planning, sexually-transmitted diseases or prenatal care” (emphasis added). In other words, CONTRACEPTIVES ARE DISTRIBUTED TO MINORS WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT.
Chemical Laboratories which produce contraceptives seize every opportunity to distribute their little booklets on pregnancy through schools and to “health care professionals as an aid in counseling patients.” Statements such as those found in Ross Laboratories’ booklet Teenaged and Pregnant include “Don’t feel you have to follow the advice your friends or family gives you. They mean well but are not the best source of information.”
Regarding “Consent to surgical or medical treatment--.” Missouri State Statute 431.061 states:
“--Any one of the following persons if otherwise competent to contract, is authorized and empowered to consent, either orally or otherwise, to any surgical, medical, or other treatment or procedures not prohibited by law:
(1) Any adult eighteen years of age or older for himself;
(2) Any parent for his minor child in his legal custody;
(3) Any minor who has been lawfully married and any minor parent or legal custodian of a child for himself, his child and any child in his legal custody;
(4) Any minor for himself in case of:
(a) Pregnancy, but excluding abortions;
(b) Venereal disease;
(c) Drug or substance abuse including those referred to in chapter 195, RSMo;
(5) Any adult standing in loco parentis, whether serving formally or not, for his minor charge in case of emergency as defined in section 431.063;
(6) Any guardian of the person for his ward;
(7) During the absence of a parent so authorized and empowered, any adult for his minor brother or sister;
(8) During the absence of a parent so authorized and empowered, any grandparent for his minor grandchild;
What this says is that ALL minors can be provided services regarding pregnancy, venereal (sexually transmitted) diseases, and substance abuse WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT by State law! “Any adult standing in loco parentis, whether serving formally or not” could be any counselor, teacher, social worker, school nurse, etc. Be sure to obtain a copy of this legislation from your State Representative. For purposes of consent to hospitalization or medical, surgical or other treatment, the state considers any person 18 years of age or older an adult. Any person under 18 years of age is considered a minor, and may not be provided medical care without parental consent (except for pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and substance abuse as explained above). An emancipated minor is a person under the age of 18 who has been lawfully married, has a child, or has otherwise been legally granted the status of an adult. An unemancipated minor is a person under the age of 18 for who medical care cannot be provided without parental consent EXCEPT in the areas of pregnancy, venereal disease (sexually transmitted disease), and substance abuse as explained above.
Title X providers are to give “non-directive” counseling, and referrals for “prenatal development, infant care, foster care or adoption, and pregnancy termination” i.e., abortion (emphasis added).
The following question was asked of Missouri’s Department of Health director: “Since providers which receive federal Title X family planning funds must give abortion as an option, are they disqualified from collaboration with schools‌” The response was: “The many programs which the St. Louis County Health Department provides, including Title X family planning services, in no way preclude them from working with local schools to provide services under HB564.” [160]
Shouldn’t parents be told that comprehensive health care offered through school/community-linked services may provide and/or refer our children for contraception without parental consent‌ Parental rights and responsibilities are being undermined.
National organizations such as the National Center for Youth Law and The Center for Population Options have projects which include working state by state to change state laws on public funding, emancipation of minors, informed consent, confidentiality, and child abuse reporting.[161]
It is interesting to note that the same names of individuals involved in such endeavors crop up in numerous places. For instance, the name of Abigail English, J.D. appears on two key documents: School-Based Clinics: Legal Issues, written jointly by the National Center for Youth Law and the Center for Population Options, as well as in a federal document titled Adolescent Health Volume I: Summary and Policy Options by the Congress of the United States Office Of Technology Assessment as a member of its Adolescent Health Advisory Panel. Review the chapter titled “Lexicon Is Lingo - What’s in a Word‌”
In November 1988 the Center for Population Options and the National Center for Youth Law published School-Based Health Clinic: Legal Issues. They propose to legally emancipate minors from parental consent. “It would be inappropriate to list any service, particularly with any procedure for parents to ‘check off’ or refuse consent for the service, if it will ever be provided based on the minor student’s own consent.” Page 28 says: “Parents may not have a right to limit access to medically necessary services where the minor’s right to consent to the service is established by statute or is constitutionally protected.”
The Missouri Department of Mental Health writes that “--There is a conflict between two federal statutes. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974 states that parents have the right to obtain information about their child’s participation in a school-based alcohol and drug abuse program. The federal confidentiality statute, on the other hand, safeguards the confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse records. It would be in the best interest of all parties for the school-based programs to seek to comply with both federal laws. Whenever a parent requests program records, the program should ask the minor student if he/she will sign a consent form, allowing the information to be disclosed to the parent.” [162]
Since the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Grant has been expanded to include comprehensive health programs, parents may not have access to information regarding their child’s activities in programs funded through substance abuse grants without the student’s permission.
The Missouri Departments of Social Services and Education address “points of concern” in a document related to school Medicaid case management. It states: “Another major concern of staff may involve accessing and sharing confidential student information, such as social security numbers, health care information, etc. An appropriate response to such questions is that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and other related statutes which apply to educational organizations and the records they maintain, including student health records, provide for the collection and dissemination of data for educational purposes. These statutes support the disclosure of such records to appropriate officials and agents of the district who are charged with the carrying out of its purposes.” [163]
During the hearing on HB564, Judith Widdicombe (key author of the bill and foundress of Missouri’s largest abortion clinic) said that collaborative practice (an agreement between the school and local health care providers for health services through the school) was the benchmark of HB564. She also stated that she supports parental involvement, but when asked by a committee member if she supported parental consent, her one word response was “NO.”
HB564 mandates a “checklist” to be sent to parents to check off “services,” such as contraceptives, that they do not wish provided to their child(ren). The checklist is MEANINGLESS since contraceptives may legally be provided to minors WITHOUT parental consent through health clinics which receive federal Title X family planning funds, such as the St. Louis County Health Department, to which schools may refer children and their families. “Courts and legislatures have carved out a variety of exceptions to (parental consent) requirement(s).” [164],[165] Areas of exception to parental consent include family planning, sexually transmitted diseases, and substance abuse, even for unemancipated minors! An unemancipated minor is a child who is not on his/her own, and for whom it is necessary to obtain parental consent for all other general health services! Goals 2000 says, “The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education shall ensure that all federally funded programs which provide for the distribution of contraceptive devices to unemancipated minors develop procedures to encourage, to the extent practical, family participation in such programs.” [166] Goals 2000 does NOT say it will develop procedures to guarantee or even encourage parental consent.
In a letter dated June 30, 1993, the Missouri Department of Health stated,
“--I assure you that the Department of Health strongly supports open communication between parent and child. When possible, they are encouraged to discuss their health needs with each other. Where this is not possible, state law permits treatment of minors for the conditions of pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases and drug and substance abuse--Again, I assure you that the Department of Health actively promotes communication between parents and teens for responsible decision-making, in all areas related to health and healthy life styles.” This SAME letter stated, “Laws which cover the right to privacy and the prevention of discrimination due to age have been used in defending the provision of care to minors without parental consent .”
Have schools considered the liability of such services‌ The state has considered it. Page two of HB564 created a State Legal Expense Fund which “provides malpractice liability coverage for physicians under contract to local health departments for pregnancy, delivery, and child health services when those services are provided for no compensation or compensation only from a government source. The Attorney General’s staff litigates any claims and any judgment is paid from state funds. The physician’s personal assets cannot be used to pay claims nor can his personal malpractice insurance. Physicians employed by federally funded Community Health Centers are also covered for up to a one million dollar cap. The Legal Expense Fund was expanded to cover volunteer physicians, nurses, and other health professionals who receive no compensation for providing non invasive primary care services in nonprofit local health clinics and public schools.” [167]
Page 6 of HB564 states that in the case of any claim or judgment that arises under this paragraph against health care providers providing treatment to public, private, or parochial elementary or secondary students, “the aggregate of payments from the state legal expense fund shall be limited to a maximum of five hundred thousand dollars, for all claims arising out of and judg­ments based upon the same act or acts alleged in a single cause and shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars for any one claimant--” Is this the value of a life‌ One wonders how much taxes will increase due to health-related lawsuits‌ But then, Widdicombe says, “poor people don’t sue.” [168]
Children who are sent to school are “committed to the temporary custody of the State as schoolmaster. In that capacity, the State may exercise a degree of supervision and control greater than it could exercise over adults.” [169]

The Day We Went for Measles Immunization
(True Story)

n 1994 Missouri passed a law mandating that all children receive a second measles immunization. We received a notice from school that our freshman needed a second measles immunization, so we went to the County Health Department to get it.
As the nurse was preparing the injection, I said to her, “I understand you have a Teen Clinic here.” She replied, “Yes.”
I said, “I understand they give contraceptives to minors without parental consent.” She replied, “Yes.” I said, “That’s unfortunate.” She replied, “Yes.” She then proceeded to tell me of her own experience there.
While she does not work in the Teen Clinic itself, and this nurse does not approve of giving contraceptives to minors without parental consent, she does work in the facility where the Teen Clinic is located. She explained how the older of her daughters brought the younger two to that very location, and had them put on contraceptives without her consent. She explained that the girls had used another entrance to the clinic.
See the chapter titled “School-Based Clinics, School-Community-Linked Services, and Parental Consent.”

Medicaid, Family Planning and
a “Health Care Home”

“The traditional health insurance industry will ‘disappear’--Medicaid, the tax-supported insurance program for the poor would merge into the main health care system--[Ira] Magaziner said.” [170]
“The key elements of the Missouri plan would: --allow people who now make too much money to qualify for Medicaid to buy into the system, essentially turning Medicaid into a state insurance plan.” [171]
“Each school will keep health records for each student and will ‘case manage' each student, not just those who are Medicaid eligible.” [172]

t least 16 states: Arizona, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, have taken advantage of congressional waivers. In 1989, OBRA (Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act lifted Medicaid income eligibility requirements (for)--youths aged 11-20.”[173]
Missouri’s Committee on Legislative Research Oversight Division wrote the Performance Audit: Schools Becoming Medicaid Providers. It explains that a component of OBRA “outlined new and increased goals for the number of Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) screenings per year. States are expected to adhere to these new goals within a particular time frame, or risk having their Medicaid funding capped.”
In some cases, such as I’ve found in researching the issue of school/community-linked services and school Medicaid, the earlier version of some government documents are more obvious about their intent and purpose. As debate, concern, and objections are raised, the document is reworded to delete the “troubling” wording but done in such a way so as not to change the original document’s intent and purpose. Citizens seem to be kind of like the frogs that will jump out of a pan of boiling water, but if you put them in water that is tolerable, and gradually raise the temperature, they will boil to death without attempting to jump out.
Such is the case with the family planning component of the school Medicaid Agreement. The 1994 version of the Agreement specifically stated, “prenatal care services--this activity includes the provision of outreach coordination and prevention services--” among those activities the school agreed to provide. The 1995 version of the Agreement no longer lists this activity. However it DOES state that the school agrees to coordinate--“referral to ANY needed services” as well as “arrange and coordinate prenatal, post-partum, and newborn medical services, making referrals to providers of targeted prenatal case management.” State documents define “prenatal care services” to include “coordinating prepregnancy risk prevention activities.” The only prepregnancy risk prevention activities I know of are abstinence and contraception, and Medicaid doesn’t reimburse for abstinence. (See the chapter titled “Medicaid Questions and Answers.”)
A federal Medicaid chart from the United States Department of Health and Human Services titled Medicaid Services State by State says that EVERY Medicaid recipient in the country who receives federally-supported financial assistance must receive, at least, the ten following services: inpatient hospital services, outpatient hospital services, rural health clinic services, other laboratory and x-ray services, nurse practitioners’ services, nursing facility services, and home health services for individuals age 21 and older, early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment (EPSDT) for individuals under age 21, family planning services and supplies, physicians’ services, medical and surgical services of a dentist, and nurse-midwife services.[174] Each state may choose additional health services to provide under Medicaid.
Vision, hearing, and scoliosis screenings are included in the Early, Periodic Screening and Diagnostic Tests (EPSDT) and have traditionally been provided by school nurses who already receive a salary. The EPSDT, also called Healthy Children and Youth (HCY reimbursable program for children from aged birth to age 21. The Medicaid
Manual states that the EPSDT program includes “prenatal care” which is defined to include “pre-pregnancy risk education activities and family planning.” [175] Missouri’s Medicaid program has added reimbursement for Norplant due to the lobbying efforts of Judith Widdicombe, foundress of Missouri’s largest abortion clinic and director of Health Policy Institute.[176] Health Policy Institute was a major player in the formation of Missouri’s universal health care reform legislation and policies.
Schools may enter into a Medicaid Interagency Agreement with the state Department of Social Services. The Interagency Agreement “does not vary from school to school. A school does not write their own agreement. Schools may not necessarily provide services, but will make arrangements for linking the student to an appropriate Medicaid provider for the service.”[177]
“The program in non-public schools will be operated in much the same manner as the program described in the administrative case management manual ...”[178]
“Schools participate in Medicaid through three major options:
1. Administrative Case Management which centers on the process of identification of children with health care needs, making and following up on referrals, and completing the loop of identifica­tion-examination-diagnosis-treatment. Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services (DMS processes the invoices for the program. School districts submit invoices quarterly, billing is based on percentage of staff time spent, percentage of Medicaid eligible students, and an applicable percentage of 50% or 75%, depending upon whether the administrative function was performed by a skilled or a non-skilled employee.
2. Direct Service can be provided through the EPSDT (HCY) pro­gram. Occupational, physical and speech therapies, as well as psychological counseling and social worker services, are the treatment categories for which reimbursement can be sought. Services must be medically necessary. To process payment of claims for direct service, DMS contracts with a fiscal agent, GTE Data Services. Once a therapist has enrolled and has been approved by DMS as a Medicaid provider, the therapist/provider receives a packet of various billing forms from GTE Data Services. GTE Data Services processes all Medicaid claims for various programs. The therapy services provided in the school districts comprise less than one percent of the total Medicaid claims processed by GTE Data Services.
3. Primary Care relates to a clinic located on-site at the school. As of this audit, only one school district, Independence [MO], has such a clinic.”[179]
Schools, hospitals, health care providers, etc. who are Medicaid providers, may choose not to provide FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES if it violates their conscience. However, they ARE OBLIGATED to provide REFERRALS to Medicaid recipients for ALL services for which the recipient is eligible, INCLUDING FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND SUPPLIES, even if providing referrals also violates their con­science (per this author’s conversation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding Catholic hospitals and others not wishing to provide Medicaid family planning services and/or referrals for reasons of conscience and morality).
This policy could be referred to as the “Pontius Pilate Syndrome” which says in effect that, “I wash my hands of the affair. I haven’t, don’t, and would never provide family planning services or supplies. HOWEVER, in exchange for Medicaid dollars, I WILL REFER you to a Medicaid provider who WILL provide family planning services and supplies, who then ALSO collects Medicaid reimbursement.” This is an undue tax burden!
Medicaid providers such as Catholic institutions should choose NOT to be Medicaid providers, and should choose not to allow those working for the state in their institutions to provide contraceptive services and/or referrals used for population control purposes, based on grounds of morality, conscience, and health. See the chapter titled “Is Family Planning ‘User-Friendly’‌”
Father Dennis Brodeur, stewardship vice president for the Sister of St. Mary Health Care System in St. Louis, “discussed government Medicaid contracts as a special problem for Catholic hospitals because they involve care of the poor. Hospitals who enter into these contracts must agree to provide contraceptive services and in certain cases abortions, he said. Since Catholic hospitals do not perform these procedures, administrators of the Catholic facilities must think through the way this will be handled to minimize cooperation with immoral actions. For some, any arrangement may be viewed as ‘cause for scandal’ and present a problem for the local bishop. Father Brodeur said physicians and others working in Catholic hospitals sign contracts agreeing to abide by the ‘Ethical and Religious Directives’ issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Courts had ruled these contracts could not be used to control what physicians did at other locations.”[180]
The Medicaid Interagency Agreement between schools and the Missouri Department of Social Services also includes locating a “health care home” for every child in the district. A “health care home” is defined as, “a primary care provider who manages a coordinated, comprehensive, continuous health care program to address the child’s primary health needs. The health care home should provide or make arrangements for after hours care, and coordinate the child’s specialty needs. The health care home should follow the screening periodicity schedule and perform interperiodic screens when medically necessary.”[181],[182] “A health care home is a primary care provider such as a private physician or medical clinic. At this time there is no computer program developed by the government for statewide use among schools and health care providers to track children’s screenings, services, and referrals. However, individual schools and health care providers have developed their own computer programs to track this data or are utilizing commercial computer programs--Each school will keep records for each student and will ‘case manage’ each student, not just those who are Medicaid eligible (emphasis added). As students are linked to a health care home and referrals for services are made, the school will provide that link to the medical community. That information would be kept in the school health records as well as in the records of the ‘health care home’.”[183]
Hasn’t this traditionally been the private responsibility of parents‌ The government need not become a surrogate parent.
Pages 3-6 of the Medicaid Interagency Agreement lists activities the school district agrees to provide as an extension of the Department of Social Services. These activities are referred to as Administrative Case Management or ACM. As explained earlier, the agreement is between the school/district and the state Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services. The following are additional services the Interagency Agreement lists:
1. Providing EPSDT Administrative Case Management as an instrument for the Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services to aid in assuring the availability, accessibility, and coordination of required health care resources to Medicaid eligible children and their families residing within the district’s boundaries. EPSDT Administrative Case Management consists of:
a. Assisting children and families to establish Medicaid eligibility by making referrals to the Division of Family Services for eligibility determination, assisting the applicant in the completion of the Medicaid application forms, collecting information, and assisting in reporting any required changes affecting eligibility.
b. Outreach Activities:
(1) informing foster care providers of all Title IV-E eligible children enrolled in DESE [Department of Elementary and Secondary Education] operated programs of the HCY/EPSDT program.
(2) informing Medicaid eligible students who are pregnant or who are parents and attending DESE operated programs about the availability of HCY/EPSDT services for children under the age of 21, and
(3) Outreach activities directed toward providers, recruiting them to become Medicaid providers, and to accept Medicaid referrals.
c. Coordination of HCY/EPSDT Screens and Evaluations:
Assistance will be provided to eligible children and their families in establishing a medical care home--The health care home should provide or make arrangements for after-hours care, and coordinate a child’s specialty needs. Coordination activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) making referrals and providing related activities for EPSDT/HCY screens--screens include comprehensive health and development, mental health, vision, hearing and dental screens.
(2) making referrals and providing related activities for evaluations that may be required as a result of a condition identified during the child’s screen.
d. Case Planning and Coordination:
This activity includes assistance to the client and the family in developing and carrying out a case or service plan. Activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) identifying and arranging for medically necessary services to correct or ameliorate conditions identified in the child’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) or Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)
(2) identifying and providing assistance for medically necessary and educationally relevant services required as the result of any regular, interperiodic, or partial EPSDT/HCY screen.
(3) developing and coordinating the meetings of any interdisciplinary teams that may be able to assist in the development and periodic review of the case plan, (IEP or ISFP)[sic]
(4) coordinating the closure of the case, to any needed services, and realignment of the case plan (IEP or ISFP)[sic] (“Any needed services” may include family planning. See the chapter titled “Medicaid Questions and Answers.”)
(5) assisting children and families in accessing immunization services and scheduling appointments.
(6) arranging and coordinating prenatal, post-partum, and newborn medical services, making referrals to providers of targeted prenatal case management.
“Examples of prenatal care services are given on page 39 of the Medicaid EPSDT Administrative Case Management Manual draft. In this instance, prevention refers to coordinating pre-pregnancy risk prevention activities.”[184]
“Just as it can provide enhanced services for at-risk infants, EPSDT can link at-risk adolescents to pre-pregnancy risk education, family planning, pregnancy testing, and prenatal care.”[185]
In English, this means that schools agree to link adolescents to health care providers and schedule transportation arrangements to obtain prevention services; i.e., family planning and contraception. The County Health Department, which is a Medicaid provider, has a Teen Clinic which provides contraceptives to minors without parental consent. Schools which state they work ONLY with parents, may be providing parents with referrals to be passed on to their minor children. See Healthy Missourians 2000 for information regarding the state’s use of schools to implement and meet government population control goals.
The agreement continues with:
“(7) arranging and coordination dietary counseling or medical services for children with medical needs including, but not limited to, gross obesity, diabetes, anorexia, or bulimia, and
(8) arranging for and coordinating transportation for children and families to obtain medical screenings and services.
e. Anticipatory guidance to caretakers relating to specific medical needs of a child.” (Medicaid forms provided in the Case Management Billing Instructions manual states that anticipatory guidance includes “family planning services, and contraceptives!”)
The state document titled Case Management Billing Instructions includes various Missouri Medicaid Bulletins. Attachments dated 7/93 contain the Medicaid Healthy Children and Youth Screening forms for children ages newborn-2 weeks, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 9 months, 12 months, 15 months, 18 months, 24 months, 3-4 years, 5-6 years, 7-10 years, 11-14 years, 16 years, 18 years and 20 years of age. Each form for children aged birth through age 20 has numerous categories including “unclothed physical exam,” LAB/Immunizations, and “anticipatory guidance.” The anticipatory guidance section of the form for newborns-2 weeks includes “family planning.” The form for 24 months includes “masturbation” under anticipatory guidance. Beginning with the form for 7-10 year olds, and the forms for every age group thereafter through age 20, the anticipatory guidance section includes “values, sex education, family planning SERVICES, contraception, STDs suicide, firearms/homicide,” etc. Beginning with the form for 11-14 year olds, the Lab/Immunization portion of the form includes “PAP if sexually active.” At all ages the unclothed physical exam includes examination of “external genitals”[186] (emphasis added). Many aspects of family life are included in these forms.
The 1994 version of the Medicaid Manual included health education that was deleted in the 1995 version. Health education included child care and development, safety, accident and disease prevention (read condoms, safe sex, and contraceptives), and healthy lifestyles and practices (read abstinence is best but if your lifestyle includes sex, be sure to use condoms and contraceptives.)
The 1994 and 1995 versions of the Medicaid Interagency Agreement between the state and school district continue with:
2. Account for the activities of staff providing EPSDT Case Management. Develop and submit time study methodology with initial invoice.
3. Provide as requested by the Division of Medical Services the information necessary to request federal funds available under the state Medicaid match rates.
4. Maintain the confidentiality of client records and eligibility information received from DSS (Division of Social Services) and use that information only in the administrative, technical assistance, and coordination. [Editorial note: agencies participating through an interdisciplinary team may have access to these records.]
5. Certify to DSS the provisions of the non-federal share for HCY Administrative Case Management via completion of DMS “Certification of General Revenue” form.
6. Accept responsibility for disallowances and incur the penalties of same resulting from the activities associated with this agreement. Return to DSS any federal funds which are deferred and/or ultimately disallowed arising from the administrative claims submitted by DSS behalf of the [school district.]
7. Consult with the Division of Medical Services [DMS] on issues arising out of this agreement.
8. Conduct all activities recognizing the authority of the state Medicaid agency in the administration of state Medicaid Plan on issues, policies, rules, and regulations on program matters.
9. Maintain all necessary information for a minimum of five (5) years to support the claims and provide HCFA [Health Care Financing Administration i.e. Region VII office] any necessary data for auditing purposes.
10. Submit claims on a quarterly basis.[187]
Page three of the Medicaid Interagency Agreement states the school district “will develop and submit within 90 days of the signing of this agreement, for approval by DMS, an internal process for measuring the progress of the district toward attainment of the ACM Program goals.”
While page two of the Interagency Agreement lists some ACM goals under “Mutual Objectives,” there are two more documents of detailed instruction from the Division of Medical Services. They are called “Administrative Case Management Task Force Goals/ Outcomes” and the “ACM Program Evaluation Plan” which also includes a “Medicaid Suggested Program Evaluation Plan Format” on the back. These are “guidelines districts may use to measure progress toward goals. Schools have some flexibility in establishing an internal process for measuring progress.”[188]
The ACM Program Evaluation Plan states that “Each school district that participates in the Medicaid Administrative Case Management Program must submit a program evaluation plan (PEP) to the Division of Medical Services within 90 days of signing an Interagency Agreement. This plan should provide district specific--goals and measurable outcomes--This plan is important to the Division of Medical Services in that the Division will use its content to determine if the Interagency Agreement should be continued or renewed.
“The purpose of the evaluation is to allow DMS to evaluate your district’s program development, successes, and future direction--It is important for districts to realize that even though DMS has required that specific goals and related outcomes be included in the report, each district should present goals specific to their area:
“For example, your district may have a high teenage pregnancy rate. By assessing your district’s areas of need, you can identify ways to address these problems, develop goals, and establish outcomes you wish to achieve. Your district’s internal environment should also be included. This portion should measure how the ACM program has been implemented and developed within your district. Is the entire staff aware of the program‌ Who is involved‌ Do staff know who to refer children to for assistance‌ Next, your district’s external environment should be included in the PEP. This portion should include your community outreach efforts and how the district interacts with the providers in the area. Specific barriers to care should be addressed, such as transportation and lack of providers. A section on health capacity efforts should be included next and the summary section should include the district’s overall impression of success.
“Because the PEP will be updated and submitted annually, subsequent PEPs will look different than the initial plan. Subsequent PEPs should include a description of how your district has accomplished its goals established in the previous PEP and the identification of any additional goals. The Division of Medical Services will be evaluating the foundation, overall development and success of the ACM program and the health capacity building efforts of the district”[189] (emphasis added). The Health Capacity Building section of the Medicaid Suggested Program Evaluation Plan Format includes “Report[ing) health capacity building efforts. Include a plan to reach all the children in your district (public, parochial, private, home-schooled)”[190] (emphasis added). The Administrative Case Management Task Force Goals/Outcomes consists of four pages which provides schools with a list of goals to meet, and activities through which to meet them. Page two lists a goal of “Establish(ing) a medical care home and link(ing) (the) child to a primary care provider for those Medicaid eligible children receiving EPSDT/HCY service coordination activities.” The activities listed to accomplish this goal include: “Establish partnerships with community groups, both medical and social, Increase collaborative relationships with private and public health agencies, ESTABLISH A SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CLINIC” (emphasis added).
Page four of this document lists a goal of “Encourag(ing) a healthier lifestyle for children by teaching them to become their own case manager.” Among the activities are: “Incorporate health education for preschool through grade 12 into school’s curriculum, Provide reproductive information to adolescent students. Record data regarding teen pregnancy and outcome. Get students actively involved with the process of finding health care services.” The outcomes listed include: “Decline in teenage pregnancies, and (i)ncreased number/percentage of children receiving preventive health care”[191] (emphasis added).
Does this include keeping records about the number of teens using contraception, the number of pregnancies, miscarriages, abortions, live births, whether or not the teen gave birth to a low birth weight baby, and whether or not the teen went on to college‌ IS THERE ANY DOUBT SCHOOLS ARE BEING RESTRUCTURED TO IMPLEMENT GOVERNMENT HEALTH GOALS THAT INCLUDE FAMILY PLANNING FOR MINORS AND POPULATION CONTROL‌
For those who have difficulty reading between the lines, this means implementing a SIECUS-style comprehensive sexuality education program from preschool through 12th grade. It means students are to be taught about contraceptives and where in the community they can get them. This may include the health department’s Teen Clinic which provides contraceptives to minors without parental consent.
In at least one district, documented proof was provided to school board members and administrators in an effort to inform them of what was taking place. All except two failed to see “the pill” which was hidden in the “applesauce.” See also the chapter titled “Church Convinces Public School District To Become A Medicaid Provider.”
The following is a letter sent to school board members:
“Dear (Board President),
Enclosed is a copy of two responses (to one letter and one telephone call) regarding Medicaid for distribution to fellow board members.
1. The first is a reply from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, stating, ‘The answer to [my] question concerning school district [Medicaid] agreements with the Missouri Department of Social Services is yes.’
A copy of my original letter is attached in which I asked whether it is necessary for a school district which enters into a Medicaid Interagency Agreement to provide required Medicaid services, such as family planning services and supplies (or referrals for Medicaid services they choose not to provide).
2. The August 31, 1995 letter from the Department of Social Services Division of Medical Services is in response to a telephone call, therefore no letter of request is enclosed.
The enclosure from the DSS includes pages from the 1995 Medicare and Medicaid Guide regarding Family Planning Services. It states that ‘State Medicaid programs must offer family planning services and supplies directly, or under arrangements with others, to individuals of childbearing age (including minors who can be considered to be sexually active) who desire such services and supplies ...’
The August 17, 1995 letter from the Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services (page two, number 6) explains that determination of who is considered to be sexually active takes place when an individual visits the clinic as part of the individual student’s evaluation and assessment during an exam.
Page 2 of the “Administrative Case Management Task Force Goals/Outcomes” from DSS lists ‘establish[ing] a school-based health clinic’ as an activity associated with establishing a medical care home. The school-based clinic is to examine, evaluate, and assess students, determining whether or not they are sexually active. The August 17th letter from DSS then explains that ‘The findings of the exam may result in counseling and/or treatment (i.e. referrals and/or services). Another activity listed on page 4 of the ‘Administrative Case Management Task/Force Goals/Outcomes” is to ‘encourage a healthier lifestyle’ through activities such as ‘provid[ing] reproductive information to adolescent students.’ The listed outcome from this activity is ‘increased number/percentage of children receiving preventive health care.’ Since this outcome is in relation to ‘reproductive information,’ it is obvious that preventive health care means contraception.
This is how the school district will comply with providing services and/or referrals for the basic required Medicaid service of family planning services and supplies to individuals of childbearing age including minors who can be considered sexually active as mandated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on which the state plan is based.
This would indicate that information provided to the district by its legal source(s) and the state may not be consistent with the Supremacy Clause as indicated on page 6273 of the Medicare and Medicaid Guide.
If the board chooses to believe these documents, it may wish to reconsider approval for our district’s participation in the Interagency Medicaid Agreement.
Thank you,”
Missouri is located in Region VII. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Region VII office may be contacted via:
Mr. Richard Brummel, Director
Region VII Medicaid room 227
Health Care Financing Administration
Federal Office Building
601 East 12th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
In an effort to be credible and accurate, it is important to document information to be shared with others. One way to do that is to communicate in writing.

12 REASONS NOT TO BE A MEDICAID PROVIDER:
1. Parents ALREADY pay:
a. Health insurance premiums for private insurance.
b. Health care benefits taken from salary through employment.
c. State taxes = school foundation formula = school support staff.
d. Federal taxes to provide health care for those in need.
2. Undue tax burden:
a. Creative financing = school foundation formula used to draw down matching Medicaid funds for schools. This RAISES TAXES.
b. Schools collect Medicaid reimbursement for providing referrals, the service provider ALSO collects Medicaid reimbursement.
c. Medicaid funds are used for “each school (to) keep health records for each student and will ‘case manage’ each student, not just those who are Medicaid eligible.”
3. No need for schools to provide immunizations since students are not allowed to START school unless immunizations are current.
4. Public health care for those in need is readily accessible.
5. Medicaid funds may NOT be used for educational purposes.
6. Students too sick to learn should not come to school.
7. It is not the government’s responsibility to do for others what they should do for themselves, to absorb the responsibility of parents, nor to be a surrogate parent.
8. Schools should not be used to implement the government’s universal health care plan--especially family planning and population control goals. (See Healthy Missourians 2000).
9. Schools should not be used to access children for contraceptive referrals (See Teen Clinic brochure).
10. Socialized medicine undermines free enterprise.
11. Encourages dependency on government programs/funds
12. “A family of four could make $28,700 and be eligible.” (Quote taken from the St. Louis Post Dispatch, June 1993.)

Medicaid Questions and Answers

“I don’t feel that a district who selectively engages in only parts of Medicaid administration, or makes referrals for some services and not others, can successfully meet program goals.
“We will contact our regional office and will request clarification of the differences between requirements of a service provider and those of an agency providing Medicaid administration, and will notify you of the response.”[192]

he machine which would eventually restructure schools to reach students for contraception and population control has been in the making for decades. A 1976 news release from the Family Planning Council, Inc. of St. Louis states:
“A call for the schools to join with health agencies in providing teenagers with birth control services was made today by (N,) Deputy Assistant Health Commissioner, and Project Director of the City’s Family Planning Project.
“(N) was one of three noted panelists presenting their prescriptions for the problem of teenage pregnancy, to the National Alliance Concerned With School Age Parents--which convened in Dallas, Texas, today.
“The concept of dispensing contraceptives through the schools makes a lot of sense,’ (N) said. ‘We at health agencies have contraceptive supplies and expertise, but we don’t have direct access to the teens who need them. Public schools have access to the teens but not to the supplies and medical services.
“Yesterday at the Council’s Sixth Annual Meeting, its Executive Director, (N,) pointed out that the Council’s number one priority patient is the one under 19 years old.”[193]
It is difficult to obtain consistent responses from government officials on the issue of family planning services and referrals relative to schools who provide Medicaid Administrative Case Management. It seems they say one thing and then say the opposite in the next breath.
Questions were asked of state and federal officials on this topic.
The following correspondence was with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Region VII office in Kansas City, Missouri:
Question asked on July 19, 1995:
“--I received a chart from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services titled Medicaid Services State by State. It listed ten basic required Medicaid Services and states ‘Medicaid recipients receiving federally-supported financial assistance must receive at least these services.’
“It is my understanding that:
1. The state must financially cover these ten services
provided to those who are Medicaid eligible.
2. Medicaid providers may provide only those services
they choose to provide.
3. Medicaid providers must provide referrals for those
services they choose not to provide.
“If a school district chooses to become a Medicaid provider, is it obligated to refer for those services it chooses not to provide‌”
Answer dated July 25, 1995:
“You are essentially correct in your understanding of the services and providers. Individual state programs may impact on the providers and referrals for services not provided. A school district provides services as outlined between the school district and the state agency through contractual agreements. Further information regarding school-based services provided under the Medicaid program can be obtained from the Missouri State Medicaid Agency at:
Division of Medical Services
Department of Social Services
615 Howerton Court (65109)
P.O. Box 6500
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102”
Question asked on August 24, 1995: “Among the ten basic required Medicaid services to be provided is family planning services and supplies.
“Is it necessary for a school district which enters into a Medicaid Interagency Agreement with the Missouri Department of Social Services to provide required Medicaid services (or referrals for Medicaid services they choose not to provide), in order that the State Plan be properly and efficiently administered‌”
Answer dated September 1, 1995: “The answer to your question concerning school district agreements with the Missouri Department of Social Services is yes.
“Enclosed are copies of that portion of Missouri’s State Medicaid Plan which describes services available to children under the category of Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment.” (The document that was enclosed listed “case management” as a service available under the category of Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Services).
Questions asked on September 20, 1995 were responded to in comment form on October 12, 1995:
“--Regarding school districts which enter into a Medicaid Interagency Agreement with the Missouri Division of Social Services to provide case management services:
“1. Is Case Management considered a Medicaid service‌”
COMMENT: Under the agreements, case management is an administrative service, not a medical service such as physician, hospital, or radiology. This can be confusing because case management can be provided either as a medical service or an administrative service. States usually treat case management as an administrative service because it is easier to keep records and does not require individual billing that a medical service does. Individual billing requires a separate bill for each service identifying the recipient by name and number, date of service, unit of service, and type of service. Under administrative services, only the overall costs are documented.
“2. Is a school district which receives Medicaid reimbursement for providing case management services through the Medicaid Interagency Agreement with the Missouri Division of Social Services considered a Medicaid provider‌
COMMENT: Generally speaking, the school district is another government unit providing administrative services under the agreement. They are not a Medicaid provider, like a hospital, physician, laboratory, or home health agency.
“In some instances where the school district employs physical therapists, speech therapists, or other medical professionals, they may serve as a Medicaid provider that provides individual professional services and bills the program for specific services provided to specific individuals.
“3. It is my understanding that Medicaid providers are to provide, at least, the ten basic required Medicaid services one of which is ‘family planning services and supplies’ or referrals for those services they choose not to provide. Does this also apply to schools/districts who have entered into a Medicaid Interagency Agreement to provide Case Management‌”
COMMENT: The statement regarding individual providers being required to provide ten basic services is incorrect. It is the state that is required to provide certain basic ‘mandatory’ services if the State chooses to join the Medicaid program. As indicated above, most schools provide administrative services and some may bill for individual professional services provided to individual recipients.
“As you may know, in the St. Louis metropolitan area, Missouri is initiating the Medicaid managed care program, called MC+. Each of the seven managed care providers have agreed to provide most of the services covered under the Missouri Medicaid program. This list of required services applies only to the managed care providers. It does not apply to schools.”
(Editor’s note: The Medicaid Interagency Agreement is a negotiated document between the Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services with the U. S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Region VII office in Kansas City. “The Interagency agreement--does not vary from school to school. A school does not write their own agreement.”[194] The final page of the agreement states that the school/district agrees to “conduct all activities recognizing the authority of the state Medicaid agency in the administration of [the] state Medicaid Plan on issues, policies, rules, and regulations on program matters.” ALL state Medicaid Plans MUST include the ten basic required Medicaid services which includes family planning services and supplies!)
The following questions were asked of the Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services in a letter dated July 14, 1995. The response was dated August 17, 1995:
Q #1: “Page 4 of the Medicaid Interagency Agreement lists ‘comprehensive health’ as a service for which schools will be ‘making referrals.’ Adolescent Health Vol. I Summary and Policy Options by the Congress of the United States Office of Technology Assessment defines comprehensive health services to include ‘care for acute physical illnesses, general medical examinations in preparation for involvement in athletics, mental health counseling, laboratory tests, reproductive health care, family counseling, prescriptions, advocacy, and coordination of care ...’ Is this definition accurate‌ If not, what is included in comprehensive health as used in the Medicaid Interagency Agreement‌”
A: “For information about what the Missouri Medicaid program considers comprehensive health, see Section 9 of the Medicaid provider manual, about Healthy Children and Youth.”
Q #2: “Does ‘refer’ mean to refer orally, in writing, or either/or‌”
A: “Refer can mean orally or in writing.”
Q #3: “Who decides to whom referrals are made‌”
A: “Referrals are made by involving the parent or guardian of the child. In some instances a parent may already be linked to appropriate healthcare providers, and may need little or no assistance in choosing a provider and scheduling appointments to obtain medical care. In other instances, the parent may request assistance in locating a health care provider and accessing treatment. When the child is Medicaid eligible, families may require assistance in locating providers who accept Medicaid.”
Q #4: “Page 3 of the Medicaid Interagency Agreement states the school district will ‘develop and submit within 90 days of the signing of this agreement, for approval by DMS, an internal process for measuring the progress of the district toward attainment of the ACM Program goals.’ What are the ACM Program goals‌ What is the recommended internal process for measuring progress‌”
A: “The ACM program goals are listed on page two of the interagency agreement between DSS and a school district under ‘Mutual Objectives.’ A copy of this agreement--is contained in the administrative case management manual for schools. Enclosed is a copy of guidelines districts may use to measure progress toward goals. Schools have some flexibility in establishing an internal process for measuring progress.”
Q #5: “Page 7 of the Medicaid Interagency Agreement states that the agreement shall be from October 1, 1994. Why is the agreement predated by 9 months‌”
A: “When schools do not sign and return interagency agreements within several months, we recommend they request another when they are ready to sign, so that a more recently dated agreement may be signed. When a school district does sign the agreement and it is approved by HCFA [HHS’s Health Care Finance Administration Region VII headquarters in Kansas City, MO),] Medicaid reimbursement for administrative activities is not available for any time period prior to the time the written methodology is approved.”
Q #6: “Family Planning Services 14,553 of the Medicare and Medicaid Guide says, ‘State Medicaid programs must offer family planning services and supplies directly or under arrangements with others to categorically needy individuals of childbearing age (including minors who can be considered to be sexually active) who desire such services and supplies and may offer them to comparable medically needy individuals (see ‘Mandatory and Optional Services’: at 14,511.) [Soc. Sec. Act 1905(a)(4)(C); Reg. 440.40(c) and 440.250(c).]
- “Does this Medicaid law and regulation compel schools which sign the Medicaid Interagency Agreement to refer Medicaid eligible children and their families for family planning, even though the school/district may wish NOT to provide such referrals‌ If not, Why‌
- How is ‘categorically needy’ defined‌
- How is the determination for ‘considered to be sexually active’ made‌”
A: “While Medicaid agencies (the Department of Social Services in Missouri) are required to provide those services described in the documents you cite, school districts are not required to make referrals for such services. [Editor’s note: the ten basic required Medicaid services include family planning services and supplies.] School personnel must follow their own district’s procedures for such referrals, which are established locally by the governing body of the district.
“ ‘Categorically needy’ refers to the manner in which the Division of Family Services determines eligibility for Medicaid.
“Determination of who is considered to be sexually active takes place when an individual voluntarily seeks clinic services. As part of the evaluation of the individual’s needs, the provider may assess the sexual activity of age appropriate individuals. The findings of the exam may result in counseling and/or treatment.” [Emphasis added. Counseling and/or treatment may include contraception.]
Q #7: “Family Planning Services 14,553; B. Scope of Services on page 6273 of the Medicare and Medicaid Guide says, ‘the state is free to determine the specific services and supplies which will be covered as Medicaid family planning--‘It must also establish procedures for identifying individuals who are sexually active and eligible for family planning services.’
- “What family planning services and supplies are included in Missouri’s Medicaid family planning‌
- What are the procedures for identifying individuals who are sexually active‌
- What are the procedures for identifying those eligible for family planning services‌”
A: “Family planning is defined as any medically approved diagnosis, treatment, counseling, drugs, supplies, or devices which are prescribed or furnished by a provider to individuals of child-bearing age for purposes of enabling such individual to freely determine the number and spacing of their children. Such services include:
“a) Physician office visits for family planning services, which may include medical history, PAP, pelvic exam, breast exam, bacterial smear, etc.
“b) IUD, oral contraception, diaphragms. PLEASE NOTE: spermicidal jellies, foams, condoms, and devices or supplies available as non-prescribed, over-the-counter products, are not covered by Medicaid.
“c) Elective sterilization.”
Q #8: “Please send me a copy of Mandatory and Optional Services 14,511, EPSDT 14,551; Other Diagnostic Screening, Preventive, and Rehabilitative Services 14,595; and Case-Management Services 14,604C as listed in the Medicare and Medicaid Guide 699 6-92.
A: “Enclosed are copies of Sections 14,511; 14,551; 14,595; and 14,604C from the 1994 Commerce Clearing House Medicare and Medicaid Guide.”
The following questions were asked of the Missouri Division of Medical Services in a series of letters dated August 8, 14, and 24, 1995. Each was responded to in a letter dated September 29, 1995:
Questions dated August 8: “Does a district which does not provide referrals, or has a policy stating it will not provide family planning services and/or referrals violate the school Medicaid Interagency Agreement‌”
A: “Our opinion is that school districts are not required to provide family planning services and/or referrals. The purpose of the interagency agreement is not to permit schools to become providers of services. The purpose is to provide Medicaid administration and to reach the mutual goals identified in that agreement. A school district bills according to the costs of staff performing administrative activities, and if a particular activity is not engaged in by anyone at the school, then the school does not bill for it.
“[W]e do feel that in order to completely meet the goals and objectives, the school district should be prepared to make referrals and assist in coordination of any needed medical service. (See also response to questions of August 24 letter.”)
Q: “Does a district policy stating that family planning services and/or referrals will not be provided violate federal Medicaid confidentiality mandates and protections‌”
A: “We do not believe so.”
Q: “Under the school Medicaid Interagency Agreement, is the school district obligated to provide referrals for family planning to the parents of students‌”
A: “--Each school district would establish its own procedures and protocols for making referrals.”
Q: “Page 9-2 of Section 9 of the Medicaid Manual regarding a health care home, speaks of a health care home being a child’s primary care provider. Is the intent here to identify the child’s doctor, or the child’s caretaker‌”
A: “The ‘health care home’ is the child’s primary medical care provider.”
Questions dated August 14: “Please send me a copy of the State Plan which shows how Missouri will comply with federal Medicaid program mandates, including confidentiality.”
A: “There is a 50-cent per page charge. Two pages of material are enclosed. Send payment to--.”
Q: “Please send me a copy of the Nurses Procedures Manual referred to on page 2 of the methodology.”
A: “This document is not known to us. Please clarify.”
Q: “Please send a copy of Guidelines for Special Health Care Procedures in Missouri Schools referred to on page 2 of the methodology.”
A: “Please clarify, the document you referenced is not known to us.”
Q: “Please send me a copy of (N) school district’s Cost Allocation Plan referred to on page 7 of the methodology.”
A: “This office does not have copies of school districts’ cost allocation plans. This should be obtained directly from the district. The following will briefly explain how reimbursement works for Medicaid administrative case management. The formula is:
cost x percent of time x percent of Medicaid eligibles x FFP rate = reimbursement.
(Editor’s note: See the chapter titled “Universal Health Care Reform’s ‘Creative Financing’” for an explanation of the equation).
Q: “What ‘data’ is being referred to in this statement‌”
A: “The time study.”
Q: “Since there is no school during the summer months, why is it necessary for the school/district to develop a billing for this period‌”
A: “Because the annual cost is divided by four (see explanation above) this spreads the reimbursement over four, roughly equal, quarters.”
Q.: “Is Medicaid reimbursement for services provided in a nine-month school year reimbursed to the school/district over a 12-month period‌”
A: “Only when costs are spread over a 12-month period.”
a) q: “Does this mean that the school/district receives LESS than the amount actually due during each of the quarters that school is in session‌
a: “No.”
b) q: “Wouldn’t it be necessary to wait at least two quarters before beginning reimbursement, so as to estimate what the average quarterly reimbursement would be‌”
a: “Yes, in fact, a district must bill three complete quarters before being allowed to bill a summer quarter. A school district which begins with the January-March quarter or after is not entitled to bill for the summer quarter.”
c) q: “If payment is averaged so as to be spread out over a 12-month period, what arrangement is made for adjustment of reimbursements that were over or under paid to the school/district‌”
a: “The program review, conducted by DSS staff, will later determine if funds were over or under paid, and an appropriate adjustment made.”
Question dated August 24: “What happens in school districts--whose board has not provided such procedures‌” (regarding whether or not to provide referrals for family planning.)
A: “When a school district has not established procedures for referrals, then it must be difficult for staff to make referrals. What does your district currently do when a child is in need of medical care‌
“You ask again the question about whether or not districts are exempt from certain requirements. We believe you are confusing services with administration. Certainly, a provider of services, such as a doctor or clinic, is required to provide referrals for services they do not themselves provide. When signing the interagency agreement, the school does not become a service provider, but rather enters into an agreement with [the] Department of Social Services (DSS) to meet specified mutual goals. The district then becomes eligible for reimbursement for time spent in administrative activity. If certain activities are not engaged in, they are not billed.
“Before entering into such an agreement, the district must assess its own vision and agenda for the health status of its children. If the district is not interested in comprehensively meeting the health needs of children, either by direct service provision or referral, then the district should not participate in Medicaid. I don’t feel that a district who selectively engages in only parts of Medicaid administration, or makes referrals for some services and not others, can successfully meet program goals (emphasis added).
“We will contact our regional office and will request clarification of the differences between requirements of a service provider and those of an agency providing Medicaid administration, and will notify you of the response.”
To date a response has not been received. Notice how the state went from saying, “We believe you are confusing Medicaid services with administration” (indicating that schools do not have to provide or refer for the ten basic required Medicaid services which includes family planning services and supplies) to stating, “We--will request clarification of the differences between requirements of a service provider and those of an agency providing Medicaid administration” (emphasis added).
Federal and state documents verify the family planning component of Medicaid. One version of the state’s Goals/Outcomes Program Evaluation Plan contains a family planning component for schools.
There is concern that in order to entice districts to become Medicaid providers, the government will initially “look the other way” from schools which choose not to provide family planning services and/or referrals, until they become dependent on the Medicaid dollars. There is concern that at that point, the government may threaten to discontinue the Medicaid funding to those schools that do not provide family planning services and/or referrals. There is concern that school districts may be coercively forced to sacrifice the fertility of their students to the “god” of Medicaid on the “altar” of accreditation, since the district will have become dependent on the Medicaid funds to provide health “services” mandated by school health and education reforms.
November, 1997
MC+ is the state’s Medicaid funded managed care program. Family planning is one of the basic required Medicaid services. A Catholic health plan (Sisters of Mercy Health System) was among the health plans with whom the state Division of Medical Services had contracted to provide managed care services. Does this mean the Catholic health system also includes family planning‌ Yes.
The afternoon of November 4, 1997 a gentleman from the state Department of Social Services directed me to dial 1-800-796-0056 to reach the state MC+ office. So when a lady answered “(N) with Mercy Health Plans,” I was surprised. She explained that Mercy Health Plan has two sides to their program: one is Medicaid and the second is commercial. When I questioned whether they included family planning services she emphatically reiterated twice: “Mercy does provide family planning services for the state. It’s the law and family planning is a Medicaid allowable fee! Mercy contracts for family planning and provides tubal ligations.” She went on to explain that the bills were handled in another part of the state.
Interestingly enough, I recognized the lady’s name as being the same person whom our school district had invited to represent the Catholic Diocese on their Medicaid panel that successfully convinced the school board to vote in favor of being a Medicaid provider. (See the true story in this book titled “Church Convinces Public School District to Become a Medicaid Provider.”)
The “Mercy MC+ Member Handbook” states: Mercy MC+ provides family planning services to all members, including minors. These services are confidential--You do not need to ask us first. We will pay your PCP (Primary Care Provider), Plan provider, Medicaid clinic or Medicaid provider for the family planning services that you received.” The listing under “What Does Mercy MC+ Cover‌” includes “Family Planning and Birth Control.”[195]
A letter from the state Division of Medical Services states the following: “Health plans with religious affiliations which prevent the direct administration of family planning services have engaged a third party administrator to fulfill their contractual obligations. Health plans are required to pay for family planning services provided to their enrollees. MC+ enrollees may access family planning services from a network provider or any Medicaid provider. Health plans are not responsible for the reimbursement for any abortions and abortion services are not part of the MC+ program. The Medicaid fee for service program will reimburse for abortions where the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or life endangerment of the mother.”[196]
What a scandal it is that the faith is being sacrificed to the god of Medicaid dollars, on the altar of universal health care!!

Universal Health Care Reform’s
“Creative Financing”

State tax dollars are used to collect matching federal Medicaid (tax) dollars for services already provided by school nurses whose salaries taxpayers already pay. School Districts are using Medicaid dollars to purchase copiers, computers, printers, audiometers, mini-buses, closed captioned TV for a classroom, an entire computer system, contracting with substitutes, employment of new special education staff, expanding existing special education programs, and implementing totally new programs. It's been written that the potential for dollars is limitless.[197]

here “oughta” be an investigation. If Medicaid is for the poor, then why are schools receiving it‌ District taxpayers are told that schools are being “reimbursed” from the state for services already provided. This includes health screenings such as hearing, vision, and scoliosis, as well as immunization preparation (updating each child’s immunization records and “keeping after” parents to bring their child/ren’s immunizations up to date), and work involving IEPs for special education students.
LOOK BELOW THE SURFACE - The “services ALREADY provided” have long been provided before schools received Medicaid, and were ALREADY “reimbursed” by local taxpayers every time the school employee who provided these services received a paycheck. If anyone should be reimbursed, it should be the TAXPAYERS who have been paying the “reimbursement” all along!! Schools are collecting TWICE for providing the same services. When schools started receiving Medicaid money, the taxpayers who have always been paying for these services did NOT receive a reimbursement.
The truth of the matter is that Medicaid dollars are being used to EXPAND health services offered through schools by creating school-based clinics. Medicaid dollars which are claimed to simply and innocently “reimburse for services already provided” are being used to purchase copiers, computers, and printers for counselors’ offices. Apparently there is more “reimbursement” being received than necessary to simply reimburse for “services already being provided.”
The Comprehensive Substance Abuse Treatment and Rehabilitation Program “(C-STAR) model was developed by Missouri’s Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and is funded by Missouri’s Medicaid program and the Division’s purchase-of-service system.”[198]
This same scenario is happening all over our country. In Illinois Medicaid dollars have been used to purchase mini-buses, closed captioned TV, an entire computer system, and more. This is partly why Medicaid costs have skyrocketed. It’s been stated that “the potential for the dollars is limitless.” Obviously, this must mean that the amount of dollars the government thinks it can collect from the taxpayers is limitless. If elected officials want to do something to help families, please stop taxing us into poverty.
Schools are being used as a vehicle to reach ALL children and families to implement universal health care. The government is working towards implementing Medicaid as its single payer for universal managed health care coverage. This is socialized medicine. Socialized medicine caters to prevention, and abandons those most in need of medical care. Socialism implements mediocrity, and is a captor of souls that yearn for freedom.
“Medicaid expenditures are another reason why federal funds have become increasingly important to states. Between 1970 and 1987, Medicaid expenditures rose from about 4 percent of state expenditures to more than 10 percent. Seven years later, this share had risen to almost 20 percent. Thus the share of state funds allocated to Medicaid expenditures has increased roughly five-fold in the past 25 years.
“The federal government’s share of each state’s Medicaid spending ranges from 50 percent to 80 percent. Despite this assistance, Medicaid spending by the states has mushroomed at the expense of other spending--According to a NCSL (National Conference of State Legislatures) survey, Medicaid expenditures rose an estimated 10 percent in fiscal year 1995, significantly higher than the budgeted increase of 7.2 percent; for 1996, Medicaid expenditures are projected to increase 9.5 percent--.
“As states were devoting more resources to Medicaid, education expenditures (elementary and secondary, plus higher education) as a share of general fund expendi­tures fell from 49.7 percent in 1987 to 46.7 percent in 1994--.
“(M)ost policymakers recognize that double-digit yearly percentage increases on entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare and AFDC are not only unsustainable, but are coming at the expense of other programs.”[199]
In order for school districts to be funded, they must now be accredited through the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) which was written into Missouri law in May, 1993, with the passage of Missouri’s Outstanding Schools Act (SB380). This was Missouri’s school reform law passed to comply with Goals 2000 which mandated that states implement a school improvement program. School districts are mandated to offer comprehensive health education, services, and/or referrals. Missouri’s univer­sal health care reform bill (HB564) provides for this by allowing schools to become Medicaid providers. The two laws dovetail, and passed the same week. HB564 allows schools to provide Medicaid reimbursable services, case management, and/or primary health services through the Missouri Department of Social Services Division of Medical Services.[200],[201] This allows Missouri schools to comply with the student support services portion of the Missouri School Improvement Program Review Procedures, of which implementation is necessary for school district accreditation and funding.
Families pay health insurance premiums either out-of-pocket or through what is earned as a “fringe benefit” from their place of employment. While called a “fringe benefit,” health insurance coverage through one’s employer has actually been earned, and is considered to be a part of the worker’s pay. In other words, the “fringe benefit” has been EARNED, and is NOT a gift. The funds used by the employer to purchase health coverage for the employee would otherwise have been added to his/her paycheck, and could have been used by the employee to purchase his/her own health insurance coverage. Therefore, working Americans have already paid once for health care. Taxpayers pay a second time when they pay their local personal property tax, of which a large portion goes to the local school district to help pay the salaries of the school nurse and other support staff. The duties of the school nurse have traditionally included hearing tests, vision tests, and scoliosis screenings for all students regardless of their economic background. The school nurse will still provide these services, as she always has, to all students of her Medicaid provider school. However, now the school collects Medicaid (tax) dollars for each screening provided to each Medicaid-eligible student. State tax money is used to fund the school foundation formula - taxpayers pay a third time. State school foundation formula funds are put into a state Health Initiatives Fund for approximately 48 hours to draw down matching federal Medicaid funds, this is referred to as “creative financing,” but for taxpayers it means they pay a fourth time. The SAME TAXPAYER is paying local, state, and federal taxes as well as their private health insurance!
As of December 1993, Medicaid may ALSO pay for abortions in the case of rape and incest. At present, a police report of the rape is not required to obtain the abortion. These women pay a fifth time when they feel they must sacrifice the life of their child so they may live.
Not reported in the news is the effect of pages 30-37 of Missouri’s health care reform bill. The Department of Social Services may “recapture” Medicaid expenses by putting a lien on a deceased Medicaid recipient’s personal property as long as a spouse or dependent no longer lives there. Taxpayers pay a sixth time, this time with their homes!
During the hearing on HB564, Ms. Widdicombe explained that this bill was not only for public schools, but private and parochial schools as well. A member of the committee asked her what the “carrot” was. Her one word response was “MONEY.” Money is the incentive or “carrot” offered to Missouri’s public and private schools to provide Medicaid reimbursable services to eligible students and their families. These funds are obtained through what Judith Widdicombe (a key author of HB564 and foundress of Missouri’s largest abortion clinic) calls “creative financing.”[202],[203] Here’s how it works:
Schools may put their state aid (tax dollars received by the school district according to a state foundation formula) into the state Health Initiatives Fund long enough (48 hours) to draw matching Medicaid dollars.[204] For every school foundation formula dollar, the school district may receive an additional $1.20 from Medicaid (YOUR tax dollars). The district receives their initial foundation formula dollar back, the 20 cents goes into the Health Initiatives Fund (see HB564 pages 65 and 66) to cover expenses, and the remaining Medicaid dollar MUST be used ONLY for Medicaid services (not academics).[205]
The Project Manager of the Division of Medical Services writes:
“HB564 described a method by which schools could contribute to a fund to draw the match. A school contributing to the fund, and subsequently doing Medicaid administration, could then be reimbursed from this fund, up to twice the amount they contributed.
“The state agencies implementing HB564 determined that establishing and administering such a fund would be costly and burdensome to districts as well as the state. An alternative method of drawing federal match, called ‘certifying the match’ already existed, and precluded the need for an exchange of funds.
“The following will briefly explain how reimbursement works for Medicaid administrative case management. The formula is:
Cost x percent of time x percent of Medicaid eligibles x FFP rate = reimbursement
“Here is an example:
“A district identifies ten staff who will engage in any of the Medicaid activities listed in the interagency agreement. The salaries and benefits of those ten staff equal $300,000 per year. Since billing is done on a quarterly basis, only one quarter of that is billed. The schools indirect rate is 20% (This will vary widely from district to district). The first figure in the formula will thus be:
300 x 25% x 1.2 = 90,000
“This district has 1,000 pupils enrolled and 350 are Medicaid eligible (have a Medicaid card). This portion of the formula is 35%.
“The ten staff complete time studies on 22 days each quarter. Some staff report spending 40% or more of their time, on the average, in Medicaid activities, other staff report only 10-25% of their time, still others show less than 10% of their day is typically spent in Medicaid time. The overall average for this quarter for all the staff is 25%. This is the third figure. The final figure, the Federal match rate, is 50%. In rare, isolated cases, this may be 75%; however, for school districts this will usually be 50%.
“The billing for that quarter is thus:
90,000 x 35% x 25% x 50% = $3,937.50
Costs Eligibles Time FFP Reimbursement
“When a school district submits a bill for ACM [Administrative Case Management,] the superintendent signs the invoice, certifying the state and local portion (the other 50% in the final cell of the formula) has been expended from state and local sources. This would include the foundation formula, as well as any other non-federal sources of funds. In fact--districts are to exclude any portion of salary and benefits that are from federal sources, because a state is not permitted to meet federal matching requirements with other federal funds.”[206]
While it is made clear that districts are to EXCLUDE any portion of salaries and benefits that are from federal sources, and that a state is not permitted to meet federal matching requirements using other federal funds, DON’T FORGET that ALL government funds come from YOUR POCKET, whether those funds are federal, state or local.
In 1993 the state legislature raised Missouri’s taxes by $310 million. It was the single largest tax increase in the state’s history! Governor Carnahan told Missourians they would have the opportunity to vote on this issue. He did not keep that promise. In 1995, Missouri’s legislature passed an additional “nearly $190 million increase (in taxes to fund) the foundation formula (which was) the largest single-year increase in the formula in the state’s history.”[207] This brought the funding for the state’s school Foundation Formula for educational reform to 75 percent. The General Assembly approved ANOTHER “$185 million dollar increase in the Foundation Formula for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1996-June, 1997. This represent(ed) the fourth year of the phase-in of foundation formula increases under the Outstanding Schools Act and will allow the foundation program to be fully funded for the first time. In addition, the legislature approved $13 million in money for safe schools initiatives. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will administer $10 million of that amount and the Department of Public Safety will administer $3 million.”[208] You can bet MORE tax increases are yet to come!!
“Senate Bill 380 revised the Foundation Formula, as ordered by the courts, to make school district distributions more equitable. To reach this goal, the additional funding needed was ‘phased in’ over a four-year period. Fiscal Year 1997 is contemplated as the year when full-funding of the ‘revised’ formula is to occur. Preliminary estimates place the additional amount needed in Fiscal Year 1997 as $165 million. This amount is on top of the $1.1 billion for the Equity Formula and $129 million for Line 14 At-Risk Programs in the Fiscal Year 1996 budget. We expect full funding of the formula to be obtained through savings in desegregation and a combination of the Outstanding Schools Trust and Gaming Proceeds for Education (Riverboat) Funds.”[209]
The State Board of Education “approved a request for an increase of $185 million in Foundation Formula aid for next year” (1996-97).[210]
The Missouri Committee on Legislative Research Oversight Division authored the Performance Audit: Schools Becoming Medicaid Providers. Page iv states “--(T)he Departments of Social Services, Elementary and Secondary Education, Health and Office of Administration have not fully coordinated their procedures in order to guard against duplication of effort and to ensure efficient opera­tion of the program to maximize the service to school districts and ultimately to the citizens of our state.”
Tax dollars fund schools that have traditionally included the salary of school nurses who already provide screening services for ALL students regardless of their economic background. Schools may now collect a second time for providing these SAME services to Medicaid eligible children AND their families. In addition to ser­vices, Medicaid also reimburses schools for: administrative costs, providing case management, (liaison between student, school, and community) and outreach programs which identify families to be added to the Medicaid rolls. Families of four making “nearly $29,000” may be eligible for preventive health care through Medicaid.[211]
A state document says, “There may be a concern that the district is already being paid to do these activities and participating in this program would result in its being paid twice. In fact, the federal, state, and local funds provided school districts are for delivering educational services. In this context, if another source of funding is available to pay for the health care services provided by the district, the funds now used for those services should be released for more traditional educational purposes. Therefore, receiving Medicaid funds for health care services should ‘free up’ existing district funds.”[212]
In reality, the funds that the state refers to as “released for more traditional educational purposes” are to be used to expand health programs, services, referrals, follow-up, etc. as mandated by the Missouri School Improvement Program in order for a school district to remain accredited and funded!!
Five individuals authored Missouri’s universal health care reform bill (HB564). They were from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education the School Nurses’ Association, two from the Department of Health and Judith Widdicombe Director of Health Policy Institute and foundress of Reproductive Health Services, which is Missouri’s largest abortion clinic. Of no small importance is the fact that (for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1992) Health Policy Institute donated $36,000 to Reproductive Health Services.[213] How much more has Health Policy Institute donated to the state’s largest abortion clinic‌ Since Missouri is known to be a pro-life state, and Ms. Widdicombe supports abortion, isn’t there a conflict of interest‌ Where does the money that Health Policy Institute donates to Reproductive Health Services come from‌
Another form of financing for school/community-linked services is the “Incentives For School Excellence" program. School excellence programs may include programs such as the following: Linking Community Services for Family Attachment, Missouri Re: Learning (Coalition of Essential Schools), Caring Communities, Global Schoolnet and Global Curriculum Network.
Missouri Re: Learning may be used to “expand (a school district’s) support base by networking with parents, businesses, and community. This includes direct involvement through avenues such as partnerships and volunteer programs.” Caring Communities is one partnership program which may be used to “expand its Schoolwide Project by integrating the Caring Communities ideas of school-linked services--(and) collaborate with other agencies through (community service coalitions) to ‘wrap around’ services to--children and their families.” Global Schoolnet and Global Curriculum Network is a grant which may be used to install a computer fileserver which would “permit access to Global Schoolnet (Internet) to promote communication between all segments of the community (schools, universities, community service, health agencies, and others.”)[214] For more information on Caring Communities, partnerships, and tracking, see the chapter titled “‘Together We Can’ Socialize ‘Caring Communities.’”
Health is defined to include nutrition. Here too, one can find “creative financing.” “Food service personnel at each school record the number of full-paid lunches served each month. These figures are also reported to the state for reimbursement.”[215]
The full price of an elementary school breakfast is 60 cents. The federal government reimburses the school district $1.16 for each free breakfast, 86 cents for each reduced breakfast, and 19 cents for each full paid breakfast.
The full price for lunch at an elementary school is $1.25, and the full price for lunch at a secondary (middle and high) school is $1.40. The federal government reimburses the school district $1.75 for each free lunch, $1.35 for each reduced lunch, and 17 cents for each full-paid lunch.
Each year more and more children become eligible for free and reduced meals as the allowable eligible income is increased. In July 1993 a household of one with an annual income of $9,061 as well as a family of four with an annual income of $18,655 were eligible for free and reduced meals. In May 1994 a household of one with an annual income of $13,616 as well as a family of four with an annual income of $27,380 were eligible. In May 1995 a household of one with an annual income of $13,820, as well as a family of four with an annual income of $28,028, were eligible for free and reduced meals.
Additional government programs and funding are available to public schools based on the number of district students eligible for free and reduced meals. One can understand the financial incentive for school districts to identify and enroll as many financially “at-risk” students into the free and reduced meal program as possible.

Church Convinces Public School District
to Become a Medicaid Provider
(True Story)

The purpose of this chapter is to show how the church is allowing itself to be used to promote, implement, and legitimize the government's goal of socialized health care, and its insidious population control component. The intent of this chapter is NOT to “air anyone's laundry.” It is important to remember that the intentions of many good people in both the church, and public education, are sincere. They may not understand or believe the population control component of the “big, (global) picture.”

pon hearing a rumor that their school district was considering to become a Medicaid provider, a school board member met with the school board president and district administrators to discuss concerns created when school districts become Medicaid providers. Copies of federal and state documents were shared which verified the family planning component of Medicaid. Concern was expressed that referring minors to the County Health Department’s Teen Clinic which distributes contraception to minors without parental consent, would undermine family stability, and the added cost to taxpayers would be detrimental to district families.
A memorandum referred to an addendum from the school district’s Medical Needs Planning Group regarding critical medical needs. The memo stated, “A group of office professionals, principals, nurses and central office staff met--to discuss and plan to meet the emerging medical needs of our students--It is hoped that a future Medicaid program could fund this recommendation--This cost has been projected to be $53,000 for one year. Implementing these recommendations for the second semester of 1994-95 would cost approximately $26,500.”[216]
(THERE WAS NO BOARD APPROVAL FOR THE DISTRICT TO BE A MEDICAID PROVIDER UNTIL EIGHT MONTHS LATER).
Note that the December 1994 “projected cost of $53,000 for one year” of health services provided by the district was MUCH less than the July, 1995 quote in the paper which states that the Medicaid program “would be worth about $200,000 to the district.” [217] THANKS, MR. TAXPAYER!!!
Four months later, a parent asked a board member if the board was planning to attend the district Medicaid meeting for PTGs and principals. The parent was shocked to learn that not only did the board member NOT KNOW that such a panel or committee had been formed, but that the board was unaware that the district was actively moving forward to become a Medicaid provider.
The board member shared the telephone call with fellow board members. Since no board member acknowledged that they were aware of the Medicaid meeting or panel, the consensus was that the board president should ask administration about it. The board president reported back to board members that the district had formed a committee and was prepared to make a recommendation to the board at the next board meeting for approval to enter into the Medicaid Agreement!
This was the first time the board was formally aware of district activities taking place to become a Medicaid provider. (Interestingly, the chairperson of the district’s Medicaid panel was a six year school board incumbent who had been unseated in the previous election by a candidate who was opposed to Medicaid-funded school-based clinics, and school/community-linked services).
The board requested a study session on the Medicaid issue prior to receiving a formal recommendation from administration. In preparation for the study session, a board member who was concerned about the Medicaid Agreement, provided packets documenting Medicaid’s family planning component to each board member and three administrators for examination prior to the study session.
April 19 Study Session
During the board’s study session, administration distributed a sample copy of the Medicaid Agreement. Concern was voiced that schools were being used to implement socialized medicine, and government documents were quoted which verified the family planning component of Medicaid.
A principal stated that parents on the panel voted in favor of the Medicaid Agreement. In response, a board member explained that while advisory councils and panels are beneficial, there are some issues for which EACH PARENT should be able to speak for his/her own family. Some issues should allow the wishes of EACH PARENT to be followed, and such panels represent parents who are not aware that they are being represented, or that important decisions are being made on their behalf.
To lend credibility to the district’s desire to be a Medicaid provider, the district announced that the Archdiocese of St. Louis had become a Medicaid provider and that soon 57 Archdiocesan schools would be participating in Medicaid. A board member asked that the diocese NOT be used as an example, noting that the General Counsel of Missouri Catholic Conference (MCC) was quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch as stating that the legislation which legalized schools as Medicaid providers said the law allows “Those parents who choose contraceptive referral (for their children) are free to do so.”[218] When it was explained that this was not consistent with the teachings of the Catholic faith the room fell silent. That evening the board voted 6-1 giving approval to administration to move forward with the Medicaid Agreement.
In anguish the board member sent the following letter to the Archbishop. It must be understood that this Archbishop is in no way responsible for the existence of HB564, and inherited the consequences of HB564 that became law prior to his appointment to this country and the community. However, Archbishops may decide what their diocesan institutions do or do not continue to participate in.
“Dear Archbishop (N,)
“I am a member of the (N) school board. I am also Catholic. The evening of April 19th, our school board met with administrators in a study session regarding school/community-linked services grants and becoming a Medicaid provider.
“Being a Medicaid provider is of grave concern to me. I have obtained documentation that Medicaid pays for contraception and case management which allows for referrals to community health providers who provide contraceptives, which may be distributed to minors without parental consent.
“In defense of becoming a Medicaid provider, our district’s community specialist stated that five Catholic schools are already Medicaid providers and in the near future, all Catholic schools will be. I kindly requested she not use Catholic schools as an example, since a Post Dispatch article which quoted the general counsel of Missouri Catholic Conference as explaining that parents who choose contraceptive referral for their children could do so, was NOT consistent with the teachings of the Catholic faith.
“Health care providers MAY provide contraceptives to minors WITHOUT parental consent. Even though Catholic schools, and our public school district may not provide contraceptives and abortion referrals, we are providing those who do, ACCESS to our children and their families. The foundress of Missouri’s largest abortion clinic, Judith Widdicombe is the author of the legislation which allows schools to become Medicaid providers. She emphatically stated that collaborative practice was the ‘benchmark’ of HB564, which provides ACCESS to ‘services.’
“I will continue to oppose schools as Medicaid providers in an effort to avoid sacrificing the fertility of our children to the god of Medicaid on the altar of universal health care. I doubt that I will be successful, there are too many good, well intentioned people who don’t see the population control component of the ‘big picture’. However, I will continue to educate families wherever possible, and promote natural family planning, so families may protect themselves and their children from the population controllers, and those who would hand them over.
“We thank Almighty God and Pope John Paul II for your presence here.
“Working for LIFE,
(Name)
“Enclosures:
St. Louis County’s Teen Clinic
Schools’ Health Services May Grow-St. Louis Post Dispatch 5-28-93
Planned Births, The Future Of The Family And The Quality of American Life
State Medicaid Manual-EPSDT
March 2, 1995 letter from Missouri Division of Social Services”
Soon afterwards a letter was received from the Vicar General stating that the Archbishop had requested that the letter and enclosures be sent to the Missouri Catholic Conference’s General Counsel for analysis. Missouri Catholic Conference was a major supporter of HB564, whose lobbying efforts were a key factor in the passage of the Missouri law that allowed schools to become Medicaid providers in the first place.
May 24 Study Session
Sensing that the board would vote in favor of becoming a Medicaid provider and having documented that doing so allowed “link[ing] at-risk adolescents to--family planning,”[219] the board member suggested that a policy limiting ‘pre-pregnancy risk prevention activities’ to abstinence” be added to the agenda of the May 24, 1995 study session. The suggested policy read:
“The district supports and promotes abstinence, recognizing it as the only method to be 100% effective in preventing all sexually-transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancies.
“Consistent with the district’s ‘no use’ drug policy, the district will not distribute and/or refer minors for contraceptives. Students requesting such services will be referred to their parent/legal guardian.
“The district supports the individual rights and preferences of families to teach as they wish in this regard within their homes. While recognizing this, it is the responsibility of the district to promote abstinence in an effort to uphold that which is in the best interest of the physical and social health of minor students.”
ALL board members and administrators supported abstinence, but one board member stood alone in support of such a policy !!! An administrator stated that it was not the board’s place to pass policy regarding curriculum. Another expressed the benefits of having compliance come from the bottom up, rather than being imposed as a mandate from the top down. The school board made known its desire to promote abstinence and family values, but to date had neglected to see the necessity and benefits of putting it in writing. The board president then asked if any board member was interested in further discussion of the topic and promptly pronounced the issue closed.
On June 19, 1995, a copy of Missouri Catholic Conference’s (MCC’s) analysis was requested, which arrived in a letter dated July 11. The analysis simply consisted of a copy of a letter dated November 23, 1993, which had been sent to the President of American Life League that explained MCC’s interpretation of HB564. A documented point-by-point counter analysis of MCC’s November ‘93 letter was sent to the Vicar General, MCC and the Archbishop.
July 12 Board Meeting
During the July 12, 1995, board meeting, school district administrators invited Medicaid representatives from another school district, the Archdiocese, and selected members of the district’s Medicaid committee (panel) to encourage the board to vote in favor of becoming a Medicaid provider. In an effort to influence the board favorably, it was repeatedly stated that the Archdiocese was present to explain its participation in the Medicaid program. The board had an opportunity to ask questions of the presenters.
The representative from the other school district was asked if their school district had an abstinence policy. She said she didn’t know. She was also unaware of the ten basic Medicaid services to be available to those eligible for Medicaid, including family planning services and supplies, and that Medicaid providers who choose not to provide those required Medicaid services are obligated to provide referrals for those services. She stated that she was aware that Medicaid services were to be provided to ALL students, not just those who are Medicaid eligible since there was to be no discrimination regarding who received care.
When the Medicaid representative from the Archdiocese was asked how their pregnant teens were handled, she replied that it was not an issue for them since Medicaid services are provided only to grades K-8. She stated that families which have no physician are given a list of 25 doctors which she had put together. She did not say whether or not these were Medicaid doctors, nor whether these doctors were “screened” regarding the distribution of contraception for purposes of family planning. (Artificial contraception for reasons of family planning is not consistent with the Catholic faith). Initially the Archdiocese may not have been “privy” to district concerns regarding family planning, but it became clearly evident the evening of the July board meeting.
A board member quoted from page 6272 of the June 1992 Commerce Clearing House Medicare and Medicaid Guide regarding “Family Planning Services: [which stated] State Medicaid programs must offer family planning services and supplies directly or under arrangements with others to categorically needy individuals of childbearing age (including minors who can be considered to be sexually active) who desire such services and supplies and may offer them to comparable medically needy individuals (See ‘Mandatory and Optional Services’ at 14,511). [Soc. Sec. Act 1905(a)(4)(C); Reg. 440.40(c) and 440.250(c)]” emphasis added.
An administrator adamantly stated that the district has not, does not, nor will ever provide or refer students for contraception, and asked that the board trust them in this regard.
However, the issue was not one of trust, but of good business practice. Providing written direction to school district staff on this issue would protect them from the possible consequences of not understanding the board's (which reflects the community's) philosophy on such an important and controversial matter, as had happened in the past.
Since school districts form partnerships with community heath organizations and others who work with district students in an effort to reduce teen pregnancy, a tangible district procedure on the issue is necessary with which to provide direction and enforcement. Parents worry about the safe passage of their children while at school, and are at the mercy of teachers, counselors and social workers who may or may not know whether the district allows staff to provide contraceptive referrals. A written procedure allows parents to understand that their children are intended to have “safe passage” from those who might otherwise (perhaps unintentionally) undermine their family's values while at school. Without a written policy or procedure parents have no avenue for recourse should someone refer their child for contraceptive drugs.
The July 12 board meeting ended in a 5-2 vote in favor of tabling the Medicaid issue until the board had an opportunity to discuss the Medicaid Agreement document at another study session. The board study session was scheduled for August 3, in time to add the Medicaid Agreement to the August 9 board meeting agenda. This would ensure its approval in time for the district to be a Medicaid provider prior to the start of the new school year.
August 3 Study Session
The August 3, 1995, study session consisted of a presentation from the Medicaid panel. The board president informed a fellow board member, who wished to also provide information during the study session, that each person would be allowed only five minutes and then be promptly cut off when told the time was up. The board president informed the fellow board member that in order to be fair, there would be NO exceptions.
During the presentations, the Medicaid panel’s co-chairman quoted from Missouri’s School Health Initiative section 167.611 (HB564) which states, “Contraceptive devices or contraceptive drugs shall not be provided by school personnel or their agents.” The next sentence in the legislation that was not quoted states, “When a child seeks contraceptive devices or contraceptive drugs, the child shall be referred to the previously designated family practitioner.” The law does NOT state that the child is to be referred to the parents. The Interagency Medicaid Agreement which school/districts sign states that the school/district will follow the law as defined in HB564!
Eight panel members including the representative of the Archdiocese, spoke in support of the district being a Medicaid provider. This resulted in an unbalanced amount of time spent on arguments favoring Medicaid, since only one “presenter” represented the alternative point of view, who was also limited to five minutes. Neither the board president nor administration invited an alternate “panel” to present the alternative viewpoint.
Reasons cited for favoring Medicaid included more money for the district with which to hire additional nurses, social workers, psychologist, counselors, etc. ALL children would receive health services, not just those who are Medicaid eligible, (although the formula for “reimbursement” is based on the number enrolled in Medicaid within the district,) NO additional services would be provided outside of what was already being offered, and accepting state and federal Medicaid dollars would prevent a need to raise personal property taxes. People are wise enough to realize that ALL taxes, whether federal, state or local, come from the same paycheck, THEIRS! The Archdiocesan representative explained that they use Medicaid dollars to hire school nurses, provide health education and referrals.
In the five minutes allowed to present the dissenting viewpoint, copies of the following documents were presented which verified the family planning component of Medicaid:
1. A copy of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ chart listing “family planning services and supplies” as one of ten “basic required Medicaid services” (emphasis added).
2. A July 25, 1995, letter from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Region VII Chief of Medicaid Operations Branch stating that “you are essentially correct in your understanding of the services and provisions” (emphasis added). This letter was in response to a July 19 letter asking if the state is required to reimburse for those health services to be provided to Medicaid eligible patients, and that those choosing not to provide certain services may choose not to provide them, but MUST provide referrals for those services they choose not to provide.
3. A May 2, 1995, letter from the Medicaid Unit Supervisor of the Missouri Department of Social Services which stated that “The interagency agreement between the Department of Social Services and each school district does not vary from school to school. A school does not write their own agreement. Schools may not necessarily provide services, but will make arrangements for linking the student to an appropriate Medicaid provider for the service” (emphasis added).
4. The definition of “Comprehensive Services for Adolescents” taken from a 1991 federal document titled Adolescent Health Volume I Summary and Policy Options by the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. The definition includes laboratory tests, reproductive health care, prescriptions and much more. This is relative since the agreement states that referrals and scheduling include “comprehensive health.”[220]
5. Page 5124 from the State Medicaid Manual Part 5 regarding the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program (which is the basis of the district’s Medicaid agreement), which states, “Prenatal Care Services--Just as it can provide enhanced services for at-risk infants, EPSDT can link at-risk adolescents to pre-pregnancy risk education, family planning, pregnancy testing and prenatal care” (emphasis added).
6. A letter from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Region VII’s Medicaid Operations Specialist which states “EPSDT is a comprehensive health care program for children which includes--pregnancy testing--I believe Missouri Medicaid covers Norplant--. “
7. Page 6273 from the Medicare and Medicaid Guide’s section 14,553 titled “Family Planning Services” which states “Utah’s prohibition of Medicaid payment for family planning services and supplies provided to minors, unless parental consent was obtained, violated the Supremacy Clause and was enjoined. By choosing to participate in Medicaid, Utah became bound by federal Medicaid requirements, one of which is unrestricted coverage of family planning services for eligible individuals of childbearing age, including minors. The parental consent requirement was also barred as a violation of a minor’s right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment because it was unsupported by compelling state interest. T.H. v. Jones, USDC (CD Utah), 425 F. Supp. 873 (1975). Affirmed U.S. Sup. Ct. (1976). This decision was originally reported at NEW DEVELOPMENTS 27,568.); Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Dandoy, CA-10, 810 F 2d 984 (1987) (originally reported at NEW DEVELOPMENTS [36,040], affirming USDC CD Utah, 635 F. Supp. 184 (1986) [originally reported at NEW DEVELOPMENTS [35,827]” (emphasis added). A number of people from the community attended the open meeting. The board president announced that they would not be afforded an opportunity to speak.
August 9 Board Meeting
The August 9, 1995, board meeting was the climax of the district’s Medicaid debate. Prior to the vote a board member read the following prepared statement addressed to the community:
“In May of 1993, legislation passed which allows schools to become Medicaid providers. It concerns me that this law funds government universal health care through schools which provide administrative case management for the state. It is my belief that schools should be centers for academics, not one-stop centers for state health and social services. The community reflected these same concerns when it elected me to the school board in April of 1994. Parents were not informed that for two years a fellow parent from their school was representing them on a committee that was preparing for the district to become a Medicaid provider.
“Administration has stated no new services will be provided. Through salaries, the district already reimburses for health services. To collect additional Medicaid funds for what is already being provided, is an undue tax burden on our already financially overburdened families.
“While the law states that ‘contraceptive devices or--drugs may not be provided by school personnel,’ the next sentence states, ‘When a child seeks contraceptive devices--or drugs, the child shall be referred to the previously designated family practitioner.’ It does NOT say the child is to be referred to the parents.
“The Agreement diminishes local autonomy, since the district agrees to ‘conduct all activities recognizing the authority of the state--on issues, policies, rules and regulations on program matters.’ The (N) school district is in need of a written policy stating it will refer only to parents those children seeking such referrals and/or services, and will not indirectly make such referrals.
“The Medicaid Agreement our district is to sign with the Missouri Department of Social Services states that the district is to provide: ‘REFERRAL to any needed services,’ as well as ‘prenatal care services: [which] includes the provision of outreach coordination and prevention services.’ According to the State Medicaid Manual, prenatal care includes ‘link[ing]--adolescents to--FAMILY PLANNING.’ An April 7, 1994, letter from the Director of Missouri’s Department of Social Services states, ‘In this instance, prevention refers to coordinating pre-pregnancy risk prevention activities.’ Outreach activities include ‘provid[ing] scheduling assistance and develop[ing] transportation resources.’
“While the district can cancel this contract at any time with a 30 day notice, rare indeed is the institution who is willing to return public funds to the people, once it has become accustomed to receiving them. Contact your elected officials to let them know how you feel about this.
(Closing and signature.”)
During this board meeting a Protestant board member publicly stated, “I find it a little odd that as a school district, we are being asked to be more conservative than the Archdiocese of the City of St. Louis.” (The August 17, 1995, issue of The Independent News printed the quote as “I find it hard to believe that we are being asked to take a more conservative approach than the archdiocese of St. Louis.”) In response the Catholic board member stated that the Archdiocese had a Christian Witness Statement, whereas the district had no such statement or abstinence policy.
It was obvious that board members had received the message that the concerns of their Catholic board member were not credible since the diocese was a Medicaid
provider and came to say so. In the long run, the documentation didn’t seem to matter. The final vote at the August 9 school board meeting of 5-2 allowed the school district to become a Medicaid
provider in spite of the documentation regarding its bias favoring contraception for minors.
A PTG officer confided that following the board’s approval for the Medicaid
Interagency Agreement, a district employee attended school PTG meetings to explain the Medicaid
agreement, and pointed out that the Archdiocese was also a Medicaid provider.
Where is the “silver lining” in this cloud‌ Well, God can do anything with nothing. We are simply asked to be faithful whether or not we are successful.
The good news is that on the evening of November 29, 1995, another board study session was scheduled to discuss the issue of family planning as it related to district staff as well as the Medicaid Agreement. The consensus was to add wording to the Methodology (which describes how the district will implement the Medicaid Agreement) stating, “It in no way obligates the District (sic) to promote any services related to reproduction, abortion counseling or birth control. Any student requesting information or a referral for family planning or abortion or assistance in accessing these services will be referred to the parent or guardian.” YEA !!!
However, as good as this news is, the population controllers STILL win. As long as a school district is involved in referring children and their families to community health providers for any reason, those visits will be used to encourage children to use contraception in an effort to meet the government’s “health” goal of increasing to at least 90 percent the proportion of people aged 19 and younger who use contraception.
Sometime later, a letter dated December 12, 1995, from the Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services, to the (then) school district superintendent appeared in the weekly packet to school board members. Among other things, the letter stated “All changes in methodology must be prior approved by the Division of Medical Services in order for change to occur (emphasis added). If any policy clarifications are made in regard to the ACM [Administrative Case Management] program, the methodology must be updated to reflect current procedures.” What NERVE! Administrators have not mentioned, referred to, or discussed this letter with the school board!
During administrative presentations to the Board, the board member who did not support the district entering into a Medicaid Interagency Agreement, explained to administrators the contraceptive connection and loopholes. District administrators clearly assured the board that “we don’t have to provide any services we don’t want to.” What happened‌ And what happened to local control‌

Christian Witness Statement
The Archdiocese utilizes a Christian Witness Statement to be signed by social workers and counselors stating they will be consistent with the teachings of the Catholic faith. While such social workers and counselors MAY understand that Catholic institutions are not to provide or refer for contraceptives for purposes of family planning, there is no guarantee about what takes place behind closed doors. Even the Christian Witness Statement is so broad that it makes no mention of specifics such as contraception. How many Catholics practice Natural Family Planning as opposed to taking the Pill or some other form of artificial birth control‌ It is believed to be minimal. What are the chances that social workers and counselors working in Catholic schools and paid for with Medicaid funds will refer Catholic children and families only to clinics and doctors which will not provide contraception‌ The chances are slim to none since there are only a handful of doctors in all of St. Louis (Catholic or otherwise) who do not distribute contraceptives. Who is going to check to make sure that the faith is not being undermined‌
It’s been said that contraception isn’t an issue for the diocese since its use isn’t consistent with the Catholic faith. Reality dictates otherwise. Such a “head-in-the-sand” attitude is exactly what the government and its non-governmental population controllers are counting on in order to use Catholic institutions to pump Catholic children and families into the government’s contraceptive-providing health-care system.
Two separate spiritual directors urgently advised that this information be directly provided to the Archbishop. A telephone call was placed to the Chancellor (the Archbishop’s secretary,) to request an audience with the Archbishop. The Chancellor explained that the Archbishop was out of the country and suggested speaking with the Vicar General. Even though he was active in supporting HB564, the Vicar General kindly and patiently listened to and understood the concerns. He stated that the best that could be done was to have the decision regarding contraception put into the hands of parents. It was explained to him how HB564 circumvents parents. He asked that the concerns be explained to the director of Catholic education, and said the director could send a copy of the Christian Witness Statement. The education director requested that the concerns also be explained to his Director of Personnel, who had the Director of Health Related Issues call to discuss the concerns. Each referral was a welcomed opportunity to educate another administrator.
After following the Chancellor’s advice, an August 10 letter was sent to him explaining the past events relative to the public school district, the consequences of HB564, and a formal request for a meeting with the Archbishop. The Chancellor was kind enough to respond on August 22. He wrote that information in the letter would be discussed in a meeting with the Archbishop and Vicar General, and asked that his office be contacted after September 10th for an update. The return call resulted in an explanation of the Bishop’s busy calendar. It is true that the Archbishop is a very busy man and leadership necessitates delegating responsibility.
Very early one October morning an opportunity presented itself for a brief and impromptu visit with the Archbishop about the Medicaid issue. It was explained to the Archbishop that the government is very wise. The government will not ask the Catholic schools to provide family planning services, but the Catholic schools are being used by the government as a vehicle to gain access to Catholic children and families. This is done when Catholic schools which become Medicaid providers refer their children and families to Medicaid health providers who DO provide family planning services and supplies. It was explained to the Archbishop that the Archdiocese’s participation, however sincere and innocent, was being used to lend credibility to the state’s school Medicaid program, and its use among public schools.
The Archbishop is a good and holy man who seemed greatly concerned at the enormity of the situation which includes Catholic hospitals. He is trusting that through prayer, example, and the perseverance of good people, that the situation will be corrected. He explained that people must come to do what is right on their own and cannot be forced. He explained that people can't be taken from where they are and simply put “up here” where they need to be. We live in the world and must work with the world. A comparison was made to parenting. Parents teach and train their children about what is right and expected of them, but have a God-given free will to do just what they want to do. They can't be MADE to do what is right and good for them.
This is so true. However, parents can and should insist that certain activities may or may NOT take place under their roof regardless of how their children may choose to exercise their free will elsewhere. Consequences for breaching these expectations should be swiftly, fairly and mercifully dispensed with love.
Likewise, adults need and expect spiritual leadership which says “this is right, this is wrong and this is why.” Strong leadership which explains and enforces what may or may not take place within the church's institutions, under its roof, within its walls, with dollars donated to the church, or in collaboration with the church, is needed and appreciated.
How will Missouri Catholic Conference (MCC) address the situation it has helped to create regarding the unsafe passage of our school children‌ Population controllers may now access our children in exchange for Medicaid funds. The result of Missouri Catholic Conference’s support of HB564 was a key element which defeated a Catholic board member’s efforts to protect school district children and families from Medicaid-funded school-based clinics and government population control goals.
These goals include increasing to at least 90 percent the proportion of unmarried people aged 19 and younger who use contraception, and reducing to no more than 30 percent all unintended pregnancies as broadly defined by the government.
The Protestant board member’s statement of “it seems a little odd that the district is being asked (by the school board’s Catholic member) to take a more conservative approach than the Archdiocese of the city of St. Louis” says it all.

---