Friday, July 11, 2014

Common Core and Mental Health!


Repeal Common Core Rally Speech by a clinical mental health therapist  
Minnesota Schools: Common Core and Mental Health
Marti Oakley
July 9, 2014
The active attack on public education through the Common Core curriculum has now taken one giant step forward as Minnesota and other states passed aggressive mental health laws directed at our children. Several additional public schools in the state will now have [mental health] clinics on site as the programs become established; clinics that will be used to aggressively label the greatest number of children possible as having one or more mental disorders. Tied to these bills are massive government subsidies and other targeted funding.
In other words, our children will be traded for dollars regardless of the lifelong damage that will be the result from the assessment of fictional mental disorders; an assessment which will follow them for the rest of their lives whether real or just imagined by a mental health provider. Many will become dependent on the highly addictive psychotropic drugs known as neuroleptics and will suffer from a myriad of adverse side affects.
Project AWARE :Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education

This federal level project would have been more aptly titled "schools collecting allocated money for kids", or the SCAMkids proje
"Dr. Karen Effrem, president of the national watchdog group, Education Liberty Watch, is sounding an alarm about Common Core, the federal education standards that almost all states are adopting by accepting federal "Race to the Top" funding. Under Common Core, Effrem said, students’ personal information increasingly is being collected, measured and assessed while the standards shift the focus away from academics and toward psychological training and testing of personal attitudes and behaviors. " Minnesota alone has allocated 45 million to jump-start the psychological training of kids: Under five-year grant contracts with the department, 36 mental health organizations will provide school-linked mental health services to approximately 35,000 students in more than 800 schools across 257 school districts and 82 counties by 2018. More than half of those students will receive mental health services for the first time. Why does that statement make me cringe? Maybe its the unfettered access to more than 35,000 students and the ensuing data mining that will also be relentlessly conducted, and stored in permanent lifetime files for easy access by insurance companies, federal and state agencies and eventual employers.
Talk about coincidences!
It appears less than coincidental that all of the bills that appeared in 2013 targeting school children for mental health services, coincided with the creation and release of the DSM V, a revealing collection of fictional mental "disorders" for which there is nothing other than the observations of a self-sustaining facilitator to substantiate. The DSM V, created by individuals obviously suffering from mental disorders of their own, has been soundly rejected by actual ethical professionals in the field, as the contrived collection of ridiculous and unfounded disorders that it is.
There is not one medical test, no scientific evidence of any kind and none can be produced to substantiate the majority of claimed disorders listed in the DSM V. All diagnosis are observational and totally dependent upon the observations and mental stability of the person making the diagnosis and by using psychological tests such as the MMPI 1 & 2. These tests are intentionally designed so that no answer or combination of answers can produce anything other than some disorder of some kind. You cannot take these tests and not come away with a disorder of some kind.
What about the MMPI 1, and MMPI 2?
In James Roger Brown’s book: PSEUDOSCIENCE AND PSEUDOLOGIC IN PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING, Mr. Brown observes this: "Documents through local analysis of the interpretive structure for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 how it, and other similar psychological tests, produce false conclusions of mental disorders and label certain thoughts, life experiences, personal habits, social relationships, religious and political beliefs as indicators of mental disorders. No set of responses exists that can be interpreted to conclude the individual taking the test has an absence of psychological problems. Methods used to rig the false positive conclusions violate the scientific requirements for establishing causal relationships and violate the U.S. Supreme court standards of testability, refutability and falsifiability. Once the false positive conclusion that a mental health problem exist is made there is no human act that can disprove the false positive."Book available HERE.
There are no defining diagnostic tests for any of the 300 so-called mental disorders. Psychiatry isn’t science. It’s fraud, from beginning to end. Jon Rappoport (link)
Also to be considered is the number of ties to the pharmaceutical industry by those who comprised the working committees that developed and expanded the list of so-called disorders.
From: New Scientist "What’s more, the work groups that had the most members with ties to the pharmaceutical industry were considering illnesses for which drugs are the front-line treatment – and for which proposed changes to diagnostic categories are especially controversial.
"Cosgrove is especially concerned about DSM authors who serve on "speakers’ bureaus" – experts who are paid to lecture about a drug company’s products. These payments are not specifically identified in the DSM-5 disclosures, but web searches indicated that 15 per cent of the work group members were speakers’ bureau members." end quote
With a financial incentive firmly in place, many of the authors and creators of this collection of fictional disorders are also promoting the drugs that supposedly treat the disorder they created.
The new "Kids for Cash"
Each bill appears to be based on the self-sustaining quota systems used by Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services estimating the number of individuals they anticipate herding through the system in order to fulfill estimated quarterly quotas tied directly to continued funding, grants and subsidies. If a school or district clinic fails to fill its estimated quarterly quota? No funding or, reduced funding, and we all know that will never be allowed to happen.
In an era of massive state regulation, perverse financial incentives will become the motivation for labeling fictional mental disorders in school settings. Profits realized by the pharmaceutical industry will be at the expense of our kids. Our kids will be drugged, not because they need the drugs, and not because the drugs will treat an actual problem. They will be drugged because they, in effect, will exist as leased out property which creates an ongoing revenue stream not only from the government, but also from prescribing manufacturer specific drugs.
Expensive, dangerous and inferior drugs known as atypical neuroleptic drugs, now routinely prescribed in clinical settings regardless of the known horrendous side affects, will create a generation of permanently brain-damaged children who will never be able to realize their full potential as a result. Damage to growing brains from the use of these morbidly toxic drugs is irreversible.
Neuroleptics cause a shrinkage of the frontal cortex, many times causing suicidal, homicidal and aggressive behavior as damage to the brain and its normal processes is altered with pharmaceuticals. Today’s pharmaceuticals are designed to be addictive and are manufactured in such massive quantities so as to allow competition with street drugs.
An article in the February 2011 Archives of General Psychiatry, "Long-term Antipsychotic Treatment and Brain Volumes" by Ho, Andreasen, et al. describes a study that points to antipsychotic drugs as a major cause of brain shrinkage. The study found that over 7 to 14 years, "More antipsychotic drug treatment, including duration and intensity, was linked to greater declines in brain volume. Severity of disease, alcohol and illegal drug use had no effect. Here…take this pill, you’ll feel better
Surveys distributed in our public schools ask loaded questions; asked in such a
way that they indicate to the child that the normal ups and downs of everyday life are not normal. Our children are led to believe that unless they are happy 24/7, they need medication. Medicated, they no longer have the ability to learn coping mechanisms, the social skills associated with their age group, and end up emotionally stunted and unprepared for adulthood.
A Minnesota House info session produced this comment: Statewide, the school-linked grant program has 20 grantees connected with about 500 schools, Sander said. In the program’s first three and a half years, it served more than 13,000 students, half of whom had never received mental health services. Of those, half turned out to have a serious emotional disturbance, he said. The idea that 6,500 children in just a few Minnesota schools, could possibly have emotional disturbances serious enough to require medication, or emotional disturbances so extreme that it requires mental health treatment, is troubling in its self. Without asking questions relevant to age and lifestyle, medical issues including vaccine injury, or assessing the quality and types of foods consumed, there is no way to determine that 6,500 children actually had mental health needs of any kind. The number actually needing mental health services was likely closer to 65-100. Not nearly enough to make the service profitable. Still, did anyone ask any of these questions and assemble any kind of data base which would have possibly revealed an underlying issue that could be treated without medication? Without inventorying personal information and recording it for future use? How many of these children were going through puberty with all its hormonal upheavals?
How many were suffering from vaccine injury?
How many were reacting to genetically modified foods?
How many were consuming numerous cans of diet soda each day, full of aspartame known to settle in the brain and linked to Alzheimers?
How many suffered from severe allergies?
How many were addicted to fast foods containing chemical additives to make them crave more of the same thing?
How many of the schools have SMART meters installed on them?
How many were using WiFi?
How great is the exposure to microwave radiation at home and at school?
How many were suffering from electro-sensitivity, causing irritability, restlessness, sleeplessness, or anxiety?
How many were intentionally misdiagnosed in order to fill quotas?
This new law in Minnesota is opening a Pandora’s box, the contents of which will cause life long damage to the children exposed to it. While there are instances when actual observable problems occur in mental health, the idea that half the children exposed to this program have been determined to have problems requiring therapy and drugs should be raising the alarms. Statistically, the improbability of the claim is staggering.
The point is, there are far too many environmental, medical and other exposures which could present as so-called [mental disorders], especially when the majority of disorders never even existed to begin with! The opportunity for abuse and for future discrimination based on a pseudo diagnosis will follow these kids all their lives.
The need for treatment of this kind should only be accessed by parents of the child. We have seen first hand the results of state controlled mental health in the foster care system. If this program is allowed to go forward almost all of our kids will suffer from the "foster care stare" which results from the forced drugging of up to 80% of foster children whether they need it or not.
Do we really want to go there?
Is Common Core testing good for mental health?

By Erin Timony
Posted: Jan 24, 2014
Editor's note: This story is part of a continuing series to examine the effects of Common Core curriculum in West Virginia. Previous stories have been archived at

Even without a degree in child psychology, one could say with confidence that it takes several years before a child's brain is fully developed.
Several scientific studies have even suggested it is not until someone's mid-20s before the brain's developmental process is complete.
In the continuing debate about Common Core curriculum, the effect on a child's psyche in relation to the required testing is an issue not often talked about, but that those in the mental health field are beginning to address.
Guidelines needed
According to Gary Thompson, director of Clinical Training and Community Advocacy Services of the Utah-based Early Life Child Psychology and Education Center, the testing aspect of Common Core deserves closer inspection, considering the final product of the adaptive, assessment test has yet to be tested.
Although adaptive tests are used — the GRE for example, Thompson said, "In terms of children in K-12 this has never been done in the history of the United States of America on this level and on this scope."
So, how will the new K-12 adaptive test be tested? With children sitting in front of a computer screen answering questions in a format that has never been done in the history of the United States.
An experiment is defined as "a course of action tentatively adopted without being sure of the eventual outcome."
Considering adaptive testing on such a wide scale, magnitude and scope has never before been done, some say Common Core testing, itself, is an experiment.
Informed consent needed
Thompson points out that informed consent is necessary for any experiment.
"One of the first rules you have when it comes to experimentation is informed consent," he said, which includes outlining "what type of experiment is going to happen and the potential consequences or damages that can result from the experimentations."
But, he continued, parents were not provided with information to give their consent about Common Core curriculum. According to Thompson, the fact that "nobody knows what is on these adaptive tests" is another reason why informed consent is necessary.
Thompson said experiment itself is fine.
"I'm a local clinical community scientist," he said. "I make my living off of the results of people's experimentations, but there needs to be rules."
Thompson compared current Common Core testing to the "wild, wild west," with the assessment consortia doing as it pleases without imposing any regulations on itself.
As outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, entered on June 8, 2010 between the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the State of West Virginia, the Mountain State has to "identify and implement a plan to address barriers in state law, statute, regulation or policy to implementing the proposed assessment system and to addressing any such barriers prior to full implementation of the summative assessment components of the system."
The MOU was signed by then-Gov. Joe Manchin, former Chief State School Officer Steven Paine and former President of the State Board of Education Priscilla Haden.
Vulnerable groups
When it comes to vulnerable groups, the Smarter Balanced Test Administration and Student Assessment Group outlined accommodations. The Student Assessment Group created a document titled "Accessibility and Accountability Framework."
Thompson said he spent "eight hours trying to figure out who was in this group" and "would hope they would have a licensed clinical psychologist and a large variety in the group to build valid accommodations."
The goal, as stated, is to "provide accommodations that all yield valid scores that count as participation in state-wide assessments when used in a valid manner."
"What does that ‘count as participation' mean?" Thompson asked.
He answered his own question by saying, "If these vulnerable groups show up to the test and participate they would deem that as valid."
When it comes to test validity and accommodation validity, Thompson said, "there is absolutely no data whatsoever to show that these tests are valid or that the accommodations they are proposing are valid.
"There is no peer review research and absolutely no data."
Advice from a father
Speaking as a father, Thompson advised other parents to "not participate in Common Core testing" and to "opt out your children."
"We have to stop Common Core as it is currently instituted today. One size can't fit all," he said. "Parents are, and must always be, the resident experts of their children. The Smarter Balanced Assessment Corporation and their vendors are not bigger than my children."
Mary Calamia, licensed clinical social worker and psychotherapist, who works in Stony Brook, N.Y., also raised questions about the adverse effect of Common Core testing and the developmentally inappropriate curricula.
Calamia, whose caseload also consists of teachers, said she first heard about "the change to the curricula to a one-size-fits-all" in the summer of 2012, when her "elementary teachers reported increased anxiety over learning two new curricula: math and ELA."
In the fall of 2012, Calamia said she received numerous referrals to elementary students refusing to go to school, school children complaining of insomnia, depressed mood, loss of appetite, panic attacks and increased self-mutilation.
"My phone never stopped," she said. "I was alarmed to hear in some cases there were no textbooks for parents to look at and they had no idea what their kids were learning."
Those symptoms only increased, she said, when testing time came closer.
Although Calamia said she didn't know of any formal studies that link these symptoms to Common Core, that didn't stop her from forming an opinion of her own.
"I really don't think we need to sacrifice an entire generation of children just to get the correlation," she said. "The Common Core and high stakes testing are creating a hostile environment for teachers and consequently a hostile learning environment for students."
Adding to teacher anxiety, Calamia said, is making teachers responsible for student performance.
Variables beyond teacher control such as poverty, lack of parental discipline, drug or alcohol problems, children not getting adequate sleep due to social media and other distractions as well as many other variables, affect a child's academic performance.
"Variables affect student performance and we make teachers responsible for their performance," Calamia said.
Critical thinking required

How does that connect with Common Core and the idea that it may be developmentally inappropriate?
"Young children cannot engage in the type of critical thinking Common Core calls for," Calamia said. "That would require a fully developed pre-frontal cortex, a part of the brain that is not fully functional until adulthood.
"The pre-frontal cortex is responsible for critical thinking, rational decision making and abstract thought, all things the Common Core requires prematurely."
Giving children pre-assessments, telling them to succeed, giving them a test on material they haven't learned and telling them it's OK to fail is a mixed message children cannot resolve, she said.
Another issue Calamia has is with the "informational texts."
"Common Core requires children to read informational text that are owned by a handful of corporations," she said. "They don't have a filter to distinguish good information from bad, so whatever you put in front of them, they take that as gospel. They're literal."
Developmentally inappropriate writing
How children are asked to write also is a point of concern, Calamia said, especially with the focus on persuasion and persuasive writing.
"This focus on persuasion and persuasive writing and arguing, basically, is developmentally inappropriate when a child's pre-frontal cortex is not fully developed," Calamia said.
Relating to the developmentally inappropriate persuasive writing is the emphasis on writing critically using emotionally charged language to persuade, Calamia said.
"We ask them to write critically using emotionally charged language to persuade instead of to inform," she said. "They don't have that functional pre-frontal cortex so they tap into their limbic system, which is the part of the brain that involves basic human emotions, anger and fear being the foremost."
"So when we ask them to use emotionally charged language we are actually asking them to fuel their language with fear, anger and aggression," she said. "They cannot temper this judgment. They don't have the ability to do that."
That is where the anxiety and acting out comes from, she said.
Calamia said the limbic system is primal and fully charged by the flight or fight emotions.
When it comes to the actual test, Calamia said she feels it doesn't measure learning, but rather resilience and endurance.
"Only a child who can sit still for 90 minutes, come back the next day, and do it again the next day can succeed," she said.
Former Texas Commissioner on Education Robert Scott said instead of having the two consortia, which are written by grants but funded by the federal government, create assessments, why not use existing resources like NAEP?
Scott also wonders that with 46 states having a one-size-fits-all system, how will local and community traditions be recognized?
In regard to planning tests and activities during his time as Commissioner on Education, Scott said he "had to be respectful of what was going on in other communities" because he "didn't want to upset local traditions."
He asked how a nationalized test covering 46 states will be able to do the same.
Old fashioned sometimes better
When it comes to Common Core in education, Calamia said, "we need to rethink Common Core and the associated high-stakes testing and get back to the business of educating our children in a safe, productive and healthy manner," she said.
To drive home her point, Calamia took a lesson from the past.
"Our country became a superpower on the backs of men and women who learned in one-room schoolhouses," she said. "This isn't rocket science.
"It doesn't take a great deal of technology or government or corporate involvement to help our children succeed."
Scott echoes Calamia's sentiment by bringing to light words James Madison spoke in 1792.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
While Congress itself is not the overt interference, the federal government is, he said.
"The Founding Fathers of our union saw this coming and they intended deliberate dialogue before once branch of government acted one its own and they intended the checks and balances to prevent one branch from dominating. I see that happening here," Scott said.
Also See:
Common Core: Public Education or is it Indoctrination?
(Part 1)
02 April 2013
(Part 2)
23 October 2013
(Part 3)
03 March 2014
(Part 5)
22 November 2013
(Part 6)
05 May 2014
Your Children Don't Belong to You!
09 April 2013
Corporal Punishment in Schools!
29 January 2012
Agenda 21! The Death Knell of Liberty!
(Part 1)
02 March 2011
(Part 2)
22 January 2012
Socialism is Not Disappearing!
15 November 2011
Should We Have Prayer in Schools?
06 July 2011
Don't Blame the Teachers! Blame the Parents!
18 March 2011
Parents! What do You Know about Whole Child Education?
13 August 2010
Sex Education in Ontario Elementary Schools is Going Too Far!!
24 June 2010
Teaching Propaganda or American History?
25 April 2010
What Happened to Education?
30 August 2009
Homeschooling - What About It?
18 June 2009
Who Writes History?
23 July 2007