NewsWithViews on Pinterest NewsWithViews on Google+

Additional Titles


End of Family Privacy Rights





PART 2 of 2


By Anita Hoge
May 9, 2015

The Pennsylvania Technical Training and Assistance Network (PATTAN) team effort is training teachers in Pennsylvania to screen all students, and apply the multi-tiered system of support to all students (Response to Intervention-RTI), identifying behavioral/mental health disabilities and interventions on normal children before referring any child to Special Education. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) codes must be used for billing and there is no code for normal. Every child will now be coded as mentally disabled. Clearly, the ESEA Flex Waivers are re-educating teachers to implement this mental health agenda and have a process for eliminating and weeding out those who refuse to comply. In addition, Pennsylvania has the contract with Pearson to certify teachers in the new Common Core grade levels. The ESEA Flexibility Guidelines include

“9. Turnaround Principles: Meaningful interventions designed to improve the academic achievement of students in priority schools must be aligned with all of the following “turnaround principles” and selected with family and community input:

“providing strong leadership by: (1) reviewing the performance of the current principal; (2) either replacing the principal if such a change is necessary to ensure strong and effective leadership, or demonstrating to the SEA that the current principal has a track record in improving achievement and has the ability to lead the turnaround effort; and (3) providing the principal with operational flexibility in the areas of scheduling, staff, curriculum, and budget;

“ensuring that teachers are effective and able to improve instruction by: (1) reviewing the quality of all staff and retaining only those who are determined to be effective and have the ability to be successful in the turnaround effort; (2) preventing ineffective teachers from transferring to these schools;….” [Emphasis added]

[And from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) site:]

MERCEDES WROTE: “Allow me to note that I have yet to know of any student ‘identified’ with ‘Common Core mental health disabilities’.”

MY CHALLENGE TO MERCEDES: Surely, you are aware of screening all children's social, emotional, and behavioral aspects of personalities in the Response to Interventions (RTI), Multi-Tiered System of Supports, Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports, the Penn Resiliency Project, Vanderbilt's Pyramid Model for babies, Specialized Student Support Teams, all currently being implemented through fidelity – meaning delivering an intervention “exactly the way it was designed and the way it was implemented during research studies that have validated its effectiveness….” (See AIR DOC, p.3) as required in every classroom in America funded through Special Education, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Everybody gets subjectively screened for mental health interventions birth-grade 12+ once teachers are re-educated. Subjective screening and evaluations of a student's emotional/behavioral conditions do not equal academics. Plus, many of these interventions are named outright in the ESEA Reauthorization legislation. Please read the Gordon Commission papers for inclusion of testing personalities to be included in Assessments. You can ask Diane Ravitch for these commissioned papers since she served on the Commission. [See Andrew Ho, Harvard, for trait identification. See pages 7-8,]

MERCEDES WROTE: "Nothing I have read lends support to any Hoge-induced mind-bend that ALL students will be labeled “at-risk” and that the government will tamper with children’s psychological states via ESEA requirements. Moreover, the ESEA reauthorization does not carry the authority to place a single student on Medicaid, even if the ESEA authors were foolish enough to directly write as much in the draft– which I assure you they did not."

MY CHALLENGE TO MERCEDES: Title I identifies the child as “at risk” of not meeting the affective-behavioral Common Core standards. It is IDEA that identifies the child as needing services, remediation and interventions. It is IDEA and the definitions for disabilities and Early Periodic Screening and Diagnostic Testing (EPSDT) that brings in Medicaid. Why do you think there are so many references to IDEA and specialized student instructional support in the Reauthorization? [See Louisiana, p. 9; Gearing up to claim Medicaid reimbursement and p. 11; Applying and billing for MEDICAID School Based Mental Health Funding; and Bazelton Law Center/MEDICAID:]

Contrary to your opinion, it is Lamar Alexander and John Kline who are "tampering with children's psychological states,” inducing “mind-bending psychological interventions" with the authority of IDEA. These legislators know exactly what they are doing. How many references do you need under "specialized student instructional support" that are defined as psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, etc., to understand that ESEA is about the government's proficiency standard of mental health, not academics?

The following are questions about the ESEA Reauthorization:

1. What does it mean when the legislation states that children will be 'linked' to appropriate treatment and intervention services and to form partnerships between school-based mental health programs and public-private mental health organizations? (p. 255)

2. What does it mean when the legislation states that school- based mental health service providers include state-licensed or state-certified school counselors, school psychologists, or other state-licensed, certified mental health providers? (pp. 349-350)

3. What does it mean when the legislation says that school-based mental health services for early identification of mental health symptoms, direct or group counseling provided by community health services providers, and school-based mental health programs will form partnerships with private or public mental health entities including child welfare, family-based mental health or community-based entities? (p. 364)

4. What does it mean when the legislation states that the school-based mental health services and supports will be carried out by IDEA-provided mental and behavioral health professionals? This would include early identification of social, emotional and behavioral problems and disorders, early intervention services, and treatment for social, emotional and behavioral problems. (p. 365)

5. What does it mean when the legislation states that school personnel will be trained to identify warning signs for students “at risk” of academic failure in order to coordinate IDEA bringing about school-wide (all children) Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS)? (pp. 366-367)

Also, I'm sure you do not have a copy of the formal investigation (HR 37) by the House Select Investigating Committee in Pennsylvania, chaired by Representative Sam Rohrer, that explains very clearly how this MEDICAID billing agenda will be executed. Pennsylvania was the pilot program, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The warning shots have been fired. MEDICAID services will expand and explode, using our children and our schools under the banner of equity and mental health.

Also, as further background, I testified at the US Department of Interior National Infrastructure Health and Education Data Security Hearing (December 8, 1994 in Washington, DC), at which I presented a paper entitled “Exposing the Medicalization of Schools” along with Representative Sam Rohrer, and Kent Masterson Brown, Esq., who filed the complaint to stop HillaryCare. Pennsylvania parents and students were victims of this pilot program funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

My paper reported how Medicaid would become the financial vehicle mandating and remediating mental health outcomes when HillaryCare was being promoted. It explained how schools would be required to obtain a provider or partial hospitalization license to bill for Medicaid through Mental Health Wrap-Around Services at school through the identification and re-definition of disabilities of all children as “at risk” through Title I, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), thus substantiating the following statement by Ira Magaziner at the HillaryCare hearings, Washington, D.C: "Medicaid would merge into the main healthcare system." This is Hillary's backdoor dream come true for her vision of "It Takes a Village To Raise a Child." ESEA Reauthorization is her baby, reincarnated, to integrate age 0-21 into the national healthcare system known currently as ObamaCare.

The difference between the 1994 Outcome Based Education (OBE) battle vs. Common Core is that parents stopped the affective domain standards from becoming mandated to individual children at that time. The authority to have government affective domain/mental health standards to become legal is the crucial piece in the current ESEA legislation. Common Core, ESEA Flex Waivers, and ESEA Reauthorization allow the federal government to access our individual children as "at risk" in the affective domain. Mercedes, you just refuse to face the facts.

I was also an expert witness to a lawsuit filed by Pittsburgh parents against their school district, University of Pittsburgh, and Western Psychiatric Hospital for implementing a program entitled Pittsburgh Schoolwide Intervention Model (PSWIM), a prototype for Title I Common Core mental health programming and remediation/re-education.

MERCEDES WROTE: "This is not evidence that Medicaid can be billed for all students’ mental health services. It is not even a section detailing mental health services. It is only a section of Title I operationalizing the concept, ‘measure of poverty’.”

MY CHALLENGE TO MERCEDES: Secretary Duncan and President Obama had lowered the poverty guidelines to 0% in the ESEA Flexibility Waivers, so that all children are accessed and blanketed under Title I in a schoolwide program. Title I has been bastardized. It no longer serves just the poor. Title I now applies to every child who is "educationally deprived." Every child has to meet all "aligned academic achievement standards" (p.28) to the government-mandated proficiency levels in a continuing, closed, feedback loop-controlled process. Therefore, every child is Title I and all of these continuing direct services for every child are billable to Medicaid.

On page 106 there is an expansion of the school-wide program to include free and reduced lunch, children under Social Security Administration, or the number of children eligible for Medicaid. So, interventions are well underway and they will not stop with the ESEA Reauthorization. The section in schoolwide programs allows the poverty level the day before implementation of the legislation to be granted, which would be the 0% waived by Duncan and Obama in the Flex Waivers. Read below:

“(ii) the school is operating a schoolwide program on the day before the date of enactment of the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015, in which case such school may continue to operate such program, but shall develop amendments to its existing plan during the first year of assistance after that date to reflect the provisions of this section.” (p.116)

MERCEDES WROTE: “The reports noted on page 38 are reports of student progress on state assessments, reports that are for parents and school officials. There is no directive to send such reports to the federal government.”

MY CHALLENGE TO MERCEDES: "School Officials" as defined in Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) have access to the National Center for Educational Statistics/Institute for Educational Statistics (NCES/IES) state longitudinal data system of student's personally identifiable information. Page 38 in Alexander's ESEA states that there is a need to "produce individual student interpretive descriptive, diagnostic reports" which can be shared in written agreements under FERPA to third party contractors.

[Authority and Obama Executive Order 12866:

§ Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g (b)(1) and (b)(2)(A)
§ 99.31 “Under what conditions is prior consent not required to disclose information?" and
§ 99.33(a) “governing the use and redisclosure of personally identifiable information from education records”)]

You have not mentioned at any time that Alexander's inclusion of FERPA in the reauthorization legislation (pp. 66, 83, 372) would codify President Obama's Executive Order 12866 into law. This would legalize the now illegal data tracking, data mining, and data trafficking because this EO unlocked FERPA and allowed written agreements for re-disclosing our children's and teacher's personally identifiable information to third party contractors. ESEA accomplishes the goal of legalizing the disclosure of our children's personally identifiable information to outside contractors. [Link]

Our children are NOT protected at all. I have the contracts in Pennsylvania that allow personally identifiable information to be re-disclosed to outside contractors. Parents in Pennsylvania released a press release about the privacy and data violations last November. But I guess you missed that too, along with the NCES/IES grants to every state that are monitoring individual data collected by the Feds in a state longitudinal data system.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts

*required field

Mercedes, you and Ravitch are allowing Alexander and Kline to hide the truth about ESEA. Parents and teachers have a right to know what will happen under this law. This documentation is crucial for parents to protect their children. I find it regrettable that you refuse to look at the momentum of the federal government's control through the merging of health, education, and labor.

This country needs more warriors to understand when freedom is at death's door. This ESEA Reauthorization will destroy our children's freedom of thought, education and unique futures. Please don't let Alexander and Kline destroy freedom itself in America. This is our generation's challenge. Join the fight.

Click here for part -----> 1, 2,

� 2015 Anita Hoge - All Rights Reserved

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing


Anita B. Hoge, lecturer, educational researcher, parent.

In 1990 a federal investigation was completed against the Pennsylvania Department of Education, after filing a federal complaint against the Educational Quality Assessment, EQA, & the US Department of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, under the Protection of Pupils Rights Amendment. Forced the Pennsylvania EQA to be withdrawn. Forced the US Department of Education to do their job to investigate the psychological testing of children without informed written parental consent. NAEP was never investigated because the Department said I didn't have standing, although documents had proven that NAEP did experimental research & used different states to pilot their agenda by embedding their test questions into the Pennsylvania EQA as well as other state tests.

Subject & main researcher for the book, Educating for the New World Order. My story is told about an incredible journey into the devious & deceptive operations of our government to change the values, attitudes & beliefs of American children to accept a new world order. The first to document the expansive data collection operation of our government establishing micro-records on individual people in the United States. Experimentation, illegal testing, & data collection is exposed.

Lectured all over the Unites States in the 90's about illegal & controversial testing, curriculum, & collection of data by our government. Arranged & lectured town hall meetings all across the state of Pennsylvania to withdraw affective student learning outcomes to stop Outcome Based Education. In January of 1992, parents in Pennsylvania won the battle against OBE when the Independent Regulatory Review Board had requested that the State Board of Education remove all outcomes which dealt with attitudes, habits, traits, feelings, values, & opinions which are difficult & subjective to measure & that the remaining outcomes be defined & coordinated with academic requirements that can be measured. The battle continues.




Our children are NOT protected at all. I have the contracts in Pennsylvania that allow personally identifiable information to be re-disclosed to outside contractors. Parents in Pennsylvania released a press release about the privacy and data violations last November.