Two years ago, the Minnesota Department of Education tried to slip unscientific, intrusive and anti-parent initiatives into special education under the guise of making "technical corrections" in existing law.  They're at it again with their 2008 "technical corrections" bill (SF 3001).

Legislators in both parties and the public spoke out in 2006 that parents' rights to refuse special education evaluations should not be eliminated (see State Attempts to Gut Parental Rights). Federal data indicates that 90% of students in special education are labeled with vague, subjective learning disabilities and emotional-behavioral disorders. This yearthe Department staff seems to be trying a new approach to circumvent parents. 

Now the Department proposes adding extra academic and behavioral screening and intervention before students are referred for special education evaluations. 

EdWatch Action agrees with the idea of finding and correcting academic problems early to improve outcomes. We strongly oppose the Department assuming authority to divert resources into the controversial and unscientific area of behavioral/mental screening and intervention that is sheer trouble for parents and students alike. Here are some of the many reasons:

§         How children are chosen for behavioral screening and intervention is not defined.

§         Obtaining parental consent of any kind is not mentioned.

§         The kinds of behavioral screening instruments are not specified.

§         The subjective nature of these screening instruments and the criteria on which they are based as evidenced by experts is not mentioned.

o       Questions (true/false) from one commonly used behavioral screening tool include:

§         "I worry about little things."

§         "I think I am dumb next to my friends."

§         "My parents control my life."

o       "DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4^th Edition) criteria remain a consensus without clear empirical data supporting the number of items required for the diagnosis . . . Furthermore, the behavioral characteristics specified in DSM-IV, despite efforts to standardize them, remain subjective . . . " (American Psychiatric Association Committee on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV- 1994), pp.1162-1163).

§         The type of behavioral intervention is not clarified, despite the fact that interventions vary widely in their validity, effectiveness and side effects.

§          How any of this behavioral screening or intervention is handled in academic records is also not defined.

After all of this personal information-gathering and unscientific labeling, SF 3001, in another section, allows the data- meaning all individually identifiable academic, health, psychological, parent, and family data-to be shared with the federal "Office of Higher Education." In other words, it's all dumped into federal data banks for use throughout the child's education and career.

Finally, because minority students are over-represented in special education referrals for emotional and behavioral disturbances and mental retardation, the bulk of this behavioral screening and intervention will likely fall on them. 

Psychologizing education will not improve outcomes or close the achievement gap.  Instead, "behavioral" screenings and evaluations lead to psychiatric labeling and drugging. It should be seen as including de facto discrimination against minority children.  The NAACP is understandably alarmed about this situation and has stated:

"Children of color, especially African American boys, are much more likely to have these behavior- and mind-altering drugs prescribed for them. In fact, a recent study in the state of New York showed that 'minority boys' are 11 times more likely to be on mind-altering medicines than is the general student body."  

What you can do: