Browsing articles in "Early Education/Nanny State"
Jun 28, 2014
ELW

Rep. Bachmann Stands Against Newborn Genetic Data Collection Starting to be Used in CCSS Databases

Sadly, on June 24th, the US House passed HR 1281, a bill that nationalizes newborn genetic screening without consent on a voice vote without a roll call or amendments. There are many problems with the bill from a health care freedom and privacy standpoint that include as described by great expert on and champion  of medical freedom and privacy, Twila Brase of Citizens Council for Health Freedom in her alert:

1) No Consent Requirement.
2) Long-Term Surveillance.
3) Nationalized Newborn Screening.
4) Intrusive Labeling, Profiling and Sharing.
5) Genetic Research on Newborns.
6) Genetic Testing of Newborns for Conditions Not Yet Determined Appropriate for Newborn Screening.
7) $99.5 Million Price Tag.

The reason that Education Liberty Watch and our project organization, The Florida Stop Common Core Coalition are so concerned is because there is already at least one state program in place that is linking this newborn genetic data to early childhood and K-12 databases being implemented through the Race to the Top and Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge and linked to the Common Core standards and related tests.  Rhode Island said the following in their Early Learning Challenge grant application:

“Rhode Island’s proposed early learning data system will be linked to both the state’s K-12 data system and to the state’s universal newborn screening and health data system, helping to identify children with high needs, track participation in programs, and track children’s development and learning.”
The cradle to grave federal educational control is discussed in an Education Liberty Watch article about the Early Learning Challenge program.  Rhode Island’s program was also discussed and highlighted at the National Center for Education Statistics national data conference in Washington DC last summer detailed in this report.
However, Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN-6) showed great courage and grace under fire to bring up the consent and privacy problems even though the bill was going to pass. Hopefully, something can be done to remedy this in the appropriations process and links to Common Core databases can be stopped. Here is the video of  Mrs. Bachmann’s important and courageous speech:

Feb 16, 2014
ELW

Education Liberty Watch Speaks Out Against “Baby Common Core” in Utah

Gayle Ruzicka, president of Utah Eagle Forum and co-founder of Utahns Against Common Core, interviewed Education Liberty Watch president, Dr. Karen Effrem on February 13th about the expansive and invasive Utah early childhood bill, HB 96.  During that interview, Dr. Effrem discussed the many dangers of expanding these programs that include the imposition of radical early childhood curriculum standards on young children and the government takeover of private and religious childcare and preschool.  Most importantly, she described how early childhood programs are “Baby Common Core” or the cradle end of the “Cradle to Career” womb to tomb government control and tracking  of your child as part of the federal Race to the Top program that required the imposition of the Common Core standards on K-12, and is now doing the same with early childhood standards.

You may listen to the podcast of that interview and here are links to research, quotes, and analysis by Dr. Effrem on  this very important topic:

Mar 14, 2013
ELW

Pre-K Scholarships Mandate Curriculum, Aid Unionization & Decrease Choice

The DFL legislature is seeking to greatly expand the funding for early childhood scholarships to as much as 1750% over current levels.  The Republicans are supportive of the concept of school choice as is Education Liberty Watch.  However, both sides need to be aware of the many pitfalls with these bills.  The biggest concern is that accountability strings will end up imposing a one size fits all nationalized government mandated curriculum on private and religious providers, analogously to what is happening with the Common Core in K-12.

SF 481, authored by Senator Chuck Wiger (DFL – South St. Paul) was heard in the Senate Education Committee on March 11th.  HF 1058, authored by Rep. Ryan Winkler (DFL – Golden Valley) is being heard today, March 14th at 4 PM in the House Early Childhood and Youth Development Committee.

The detailed written testimony submitted to both committees is available here.  The main points are as follows:

1) Mandated curriculum standards for early childhood that apply to private and religious programs that take subsidies that destroy parental autonomy regardless of one’s views. These standards are based on the Head Start national standards and are part of the Race to the Top efforts. They include gender identity, careers, environmentalism, and social activism

2) Childcare and preschool programs that accept scholarship recipients will be considered subsidized for the purposes of unionization, resulting in increased costs and decrease access for poor and middle class families analogously to what is happening under the Affordable Care Act.
3) Cost – The governor’s finance bill calls for a 733% increase in funding for these scholarships over current levels.  This bill’s funding for 2014 is a 1,300% increase and a 1,750% increase in 2015 in a bad economy.

4) Many large centers and Head Start programs receive automatic four star ratings putting small programs at a disadvantage.

5) Evaluations of Parent Aware and national research show there is no evidence that the required quality rating systems  improve child outcomes.

6) Scholarships incentivize poor parents to let someone else raise their kids.
7) Preschool does not work in the long-term and causes academic and emotional harm.

Although there are many issues facing the legislature, if you care about parental autonomy, conscience rights for providers, and fiscal responsibility, please consider calling your legislators and asking them to oppose this legislation or at least to provide conscientious objection to the curricular mandates.

Thank you!

Mar 14, 2013
ELW

Written Testimony SF 481/ HF 1058 – Early Childhood Scholarships

Written Testimony on SF 481/HF 1058 – Early Childhood Scholarships

Karen R. Effrem, MD

President – Education Liberty Watch

Although this bill is less onerous than the language in the governor’s education finance bill regarding parental rights, family sovereignty, and the rights of conscience, we still have a number of concerns

1)      Internal language inconsistency  – Lines 1.10-1.14 of the bill say:

1.10 Subd. 2. Duties. The Office of Early Learning shall administer the early learning

1.11scholarship program, establish participation standards for children and their families,

1.12develop criteria for qualifying providers based on section 124D.142, and contract for

1.13administrative services as necessary with a resource and referral organization under

1.14section 119B.19, or other nonprofit or public entity.

If the Office of Early Learning determines “criteria for qualifying providers” how does that square with lines 3.9-3.10 that say:

 Subd. 7. Scholarship recipient choice of programs. A scholarship recipient may
3.10choose to apply to any rated program or prospective program for acceptance.

What is to say that the Office of Early Learning won’t say later that recipients must choose a 3 or 4 star rated program such as required in the governor’s finance bill?  We are particularly concerned about the Parent Aware requirement to align curriculum and assessments to the Early Childhood Indicators of Progress (ECIP) in order to receive a three or four star rating, which I will discuss more below.  We also want to know whether it is the language of this bill or the governor’s bill that will be included in final legislation and which part of the language of this bill.

2)      Childcare and preschool programs that accept scholarship recipients will be considered subsidized for the purposes of unionization – This will increase costs and decrease access for these poor and middle class families analogously to what is happening to physicians who cannot afford to take care of Medicaid and Medicare patients under the Affordable Care Act.

3)      Cost – The governor’s finance bill calls for a 733% increase in funding for these scholarships over current levels.  This bill’s funding for 2014 is a 1,300% increase and a 1,750% increase in 2015 when there is still a deficit in Minnesota, much less the federal government, the threat of unionization and higher taxes, other needs in education, little proof that they will work, and a still quite shaky national economy.

4)      Many large centers and Head Start programs receive automatic four star ratings putting small programs at a disadvantage – According to the Parent Aware evaluation two thirds of programs received automatic four star ratings.  This is especially problematic for Head Start, when the most recent of over 600 studies released in 2010 and 2012 showed that there was no benefit to the program after 1st grade and harm to math skills of three year old participants. Smaller programs and individual providers will find it harder to compete.

5)      Mandated curriculum standards for early childhood that apply to private and religious programs that take subsidies – If the 3 or 4 star rating requirement remains, all programs that take subsidized students must align their curriculum and assessments to the ECIP.  This is especially problematic in the social and emotional area, because the state is now mandating one set of standards for thought, behavior, and belief that, no matter one view’s on any given subject, it is the right and authority of parents to inculcate those values in their children, not taxpayer funded education institutions.  Doing ratings and assessments of little children and eventually teacher/caregiver merit pay systems on one set of very subjective standards like this is extraordinarily problematic.  It could also lead to unnecessary over diagnosis and treatment for mental health issues.   We have heard through the grapevine that these standards are being rewritten to remove some of the more controversial items.  That is good, but we still question the authority of the state to be determining norms in this area at all and imposing them of private and religious providers.  Some of the more egregious examples of the ECIP, with definitional quotes and my comments are as follows: Continue reading »