DATA COLLECTION from The E-Files - The Truth About Education

THE E-FILES NUMBER TWO APRIL-MAY, 2000

THE SUBJECT OF THIS E-FILE IS DATA COLLECTION. Public school systems are collecting students’ personal information via surveys and assessments. It happens in other schools and places, too. The public should be informed. Data collection is a big area so this only an outline. I will include urls when possible so you can do your own further research. The technological revolution of the 90s has made possible the rapid collection and sharing of large databanks of personal information, and legislation has been passed that encouraged data collection for various rationalizations—nabbing of deadbeat dads, identification of illegal immigrants, tracking bank transactions for drug money, etc.

YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE that surveys have been taken in schools all across the country throughout the 90s, especially of middle and high school students. Parents began fighting against their use when they discovered the questions asked in many surveys. Lawsuits have been filed and won; bills have been passed to protect privacy. (Such legislation has also often been ignored.) Battle lines have been drawn between people who want PRIVACY versus those who want DATA.

ASSESSMENTS have often replaced achievement tests when what is being measured is not the factual knowledge gained through information-based education, but rather whether a student has adopted the skills, attitudes and behaviors that were taught in the curriculum. The ill-fated CLAS test was an assessment, discontinued when it was deemed to be a psychological testing instrument. The Stanford 9 is an achievement test. However, achievement tests may have embedded questions that test for attitudes, too.

SURVEYS AND ASSESSMENTS are used in data collection and evaluation for some of the same purposes, some of which I’ll list below. Though assessments are known to be tied to specific individuals, surveys can be also, for even when a survey-taker is told it will be anonymous, often there are “slugged” questions that enable the administrators to match the student with his/her survey. Sometimes surveys are barcoded.

PURPOSE #1: MATCHING STUDENTS TO CAREERS. The first E-File gave a summary of School-to-Work, AKA School-to-Career. As an example of what is happening, these are sections from Arizona legislation relating to pupil assessment: “School districts shall provide each high school pupil with either a curriculum based on academic skills or a curriculum based on workplace skills according to the results achieved by that pupil on the high school skills track test administered pursuant to section 15-741…Each pupil’s high school skills track test results shall be recorded on the pupil’s eighth grade transcript. The state board of education shall prescribe the format for recording the high school skills track test results on eighth grade transcripts.”

In 1996, the State of California contracted with three different agencies to continue development of the Career-Technical Assessment Program (C-TAP), a school-to-career student assessment model to support the overall student assessment system in California. Primary responsibility for development and eventual implementation of C-TAP was given to WestEd (formerly Far West), the federal education regional laboratory. WestEd’s job including assisting in reviewing plans for scoring sessions, training reviewers, designing and revising rubrics, instituting data collection procedures, and analyzing scoring results. Also: developing on-demand assessment components for industry core or cluster areas.

The National STW database information is at: www.stw.ed.gov/products/903/903.htm. This links a child with a student ID—using a Social Security number—to county governments and an employer ID. It is noted in the guide for educators: “This ID (student tracking number—SSN) will be used to input student course information and for reporting data about the student in FUTURE years and must remain the same number over the years reported…”

WorkLink is a data system created by Educational Testing Service in which all students’ electronic resumes can be called up on the Internet by schools and businesses. It was created as a result of the Department of Labor’s SCANS report in the early 90s. See SCANS documents at www.ttrc.doleta.gov/SCANS/. See an example of computerized occupational outcomes at www.worldaccessnet.com/~midtec/

Planning by educators and business may seem a rational course of action. F.A. Hayek, late economist and author of “The Road to Serfdom,” used the term “planning” synonymously with “socialism.” Too much planning by authorities pre-empts planning by individuals and necessarily reduces freedom. In his1944 book, Hayek warned that “the unforeseen but inevitable consequences of socialist planning create a state of affairs in which, if the policy is to be pursued, totalitarian forces will get the upper hand.”

PURPOSE #2: TO COLLECT INFORMATION FOR SHARED DATABASES with other agencies involved in education, health, labor, law enforcement, employers, criminal justice, military, etc. See “Tracking the Well-being of Children within States: The Evolving Federal Role in the Age of Devolution” at http://newfederalism.urban.org/html/anf21.html to get an idea of what sort of data is being exchanged and what agencies are involved.

There is a system, the SPEEDE/ExPRESS (an acronym for a much longer name), which is a cross-referenceable computer tracking system with 345 headings, with subheadings under each. It tracks information about American citizens from birth to death about: personal, background, address/contact, family, school, financial, memberships, attendance, assessment, transportation, health conditions, height, weight, hair color, birthmarks, nicknames, IRS, DMV, credit, pharmaceutical, newspaper and magazine subscriptions, etc. This information is available to anyone, not only government agencies, without restriction. As education author Beverly Eakman said, “Blackmail, intimidation and harassment are a consideration to everyone now.”

There is an online version of the Student Data Handbook, which “was developed to provide guidance concerning the consistent maintenance of student information”. This version of the handbook contains no data. See http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/studenthb.

Scott McDonald, owner of a website dedicated to the maintenance of privacy (www.ScanThisNews.org) wrote on 6/27/99: “What principle of “liberty” incorporates a system whereby the government maintains dossiers on its citizens? What element of “freedom” provides for a government that “has our number?” …Blackmail artists will protect your privacy—as long as you comply with their demands! The government is no different. …The question must be: Does government have any right, whatsoever, to maintain databases of information about free citizens? The answer is simply NO, not in a free society.”

PURPOSE #3: TO CHANGE ATTITUDES. To understand this, you have to go back to 1963 when the schools were invaded by some really alien ideas. This is from “The Role of the Computer in Future Instructional Systems: U.S. Department of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare Contract #SAE9073”, chapter entitled “Effortless Learning, Attitude Changing, and Training in Decision-Making”: “Another area of potential development in computer applications is the attitude changing machine. Dr. Bertram Raven in the Psychology Department at the University of California at Los Angeles is in the process of building a computer-based device for changing attitudes. This device will work on the principle that students’ attitudes can be changed effectively by using the Socratic method of asking an appropriate series of leading questions designed to right the balance between appropriate attitudes, and those deemed less acceptable….Dr. Raven would hypothesize that a positive change would be effectively brought about by showing the student the inconsistency of his views.

One long-time education researcher said this: “Pacesetters in Innovation” (PII) a soft-cover, huge-volume of hundreds of applied-for and received federal “education” contracts, complete with summaries of the intended projects...covered the years of ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) from 1965 to 1969 (after those years the programs were hidden in State by State microfiche libraries so the troops couldn’t get their hands readily on them.) PII shows how American schools were converted into psycho-therapeutic clinics and the teachers trained to be facilitating clinicians. It was a very deliberate and calculated plot to “reorganize” and reconstruct public education from traditional to psycho-social and it was done with almost no public notice.”

Robert H. Burke, a member of the California State Legislature in 1971, wrote a white paper titled “Education—from the Acquisition of Knowledge to Programmed, Conditioned Responses.” He traces the introduction of the new behavioral goals from the California State Plan developed under ESEA Title III funds and submitted to the U.S. Office of Education in 1969. The California state plan mandated that 50% or more of the new Title III funds would be used for planning the development and implementation of innovative, experimental, and exemplary education programs and their pilot programs that would lead to the adaptation of the new educational programs and methods in the schools of the state. The California legislature then passed the necessary laws to provide state funding of the new “needs assessment” methods.

Beverly Eakman, in her book “Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality Through Education”, confirms this 40 year old conversion: “Psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists moved into schools to take over education, taking them from mind development to mind control.” Eakman describes what value systems are typically the desired outcomes of public schools (this list is from a North Carolina inservice training but is representative): 1) There is no right or wrong, only conditioned responses; 2) The collective good is more important than the individual; 3) Consensus is more important than principle; 4) Flexibility is more important than accomplishment; 5) Nothing is permanent except change; 6) All ethics are situational; there are no moral absolutes; 7) There are no perpetrators, only victims. “Tests assess how well students respond to manipulations” which educators use to “correct the viewpoints they find distasteful.”

PURPOSE #4: FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH. Some parents have discovered after-the-fact that their children have been used for research purposes without permission. One Texas mother noted: “This sort of stuff was an obvious waste of valuable class time and was particularly troubling to me because I had just learned that my daughter had been used as a test subject in school for nearly three years without my informed consent. The surveys were administered by an outside agency seeking funding for psychological research. The program required her to participate in very intrusive self-esteem surveys asking 58 personal, upsetting questions…The last time she took the test she was so upset that she asked not to take it but was forced to do so against her will. The survey contained disturbing questions about her thoughts and feelings on many personal topics such as suicide, self-image, self-worth, gender preference, parents, home environment, relationship with family, morals and values, and so on.”

In 1947 The Nuremberg Code was established after the end of WWII, when 24 German doctors were charged with crimes against humanity during the Nazi regime. Some of the terms were: 1) The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without…force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other form of constraint or coercion… 9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end…

Education psychologist in the surveying business should take heed.

PURPOSE #5: TO DIAGNOSE MENTAL DISORDERS: In 1994 Goals 2000 and Improving America’s Schools Act were signed into law. These required schools to train teachers, counselors, nurse practitioners and psychologists how to match symptoms with behaviors by using the Diagnosis Statistical Manual (DSM IV-R--www.psychdiagnoser.com). The problems: 1) Teachers should teach. 2) Schools get more $$$ for kids diagnosed with problems, so there may be over-diagnosing of ADD, ADHD, ODD and other ill-defined behavioral disorders. 3) There may consequently be over-prescribing of psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin.

PURPOSE #6: TO SCREEN OR PROFILE students in order to (theoretically) identify those who are “at risk” of violent behavior. A program called Mosaic 2000 is being tested in 20 schools in grades 1 through 12. Potential for abuses? Privacy violations? See articles at www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/biztech/articles/24violence.html; www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19991027profile2.asp; and www.gdbinc.com/mosaic2000.htm.

A licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist, Steve Kossor, with years of experience in studying abuses and misuses of psychology in schools, has a newsletter and a website: see www.voicenet.com/~sakossor.

PURPOSE # 7: TO MAXIMIZE FUNDS RECEIVED. Oftentimes, funds from the state or federal Department of Education are not forthcoming unless a district agrees to give up student data on race, income, test results, post-graduate plans, etc. This “carrot and stick” approach is one of the reasons local control long ago bit the dust.

PURPOSE #8: TO PROBE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS ABOUT SEX, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, AND OTHER SENSITIVE TOPICS: There have been more complaints in this area than any other. Many surveys “of risky behaviors” have been administered with questions such as: “Did you drink alcohol or use drugs before you had sexual intercourse the last time?”; “The last time you had sexual intercourse, did you or your partner use a condom?”; How many times have you been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant?” (1999 Center for Disease Control questionnaire); “How often do you have sex?”; “What famous person would you most like to have sex with?”; “Where was the weirdest place you’ve had sex?”; “”Have you ever had sex with more than one person at the same time?”; “If you have a particular fetish, please state what it is.” (RAND survey; see at www.passport.ca/zoo/survey.html.) See a sex/drug survey for middle and high schoolers that was used in suburban Minnesota at http://members.aol.com/cesg.

With questions like those, how can they help but show that students “engage in risky behaviors”? (Also, to plant some neat ideas in their young minds!) The surveys are bound to show that there is a crying need for more sex education, social services, and school based health clinics. The media doesn’t take any pains to discuss studies showing that more sex education leads to more sex! I was also surprised to find in my research that there are lots of folks in the sex education area that believe young people SHOULD freely engage in sex. Parents, be forewarned. As a mom of daughters 12 and 14, I can say that they are decidedly NOT mature enough for it. (Go ahead and call me a prude, I don’t care.)

There are several surveys called “Profiles of Student Life” to peruse. Regarding Sexuality, see: http://ericae.net/tc2/TC016102.htm; re: Alcohol and other drugs: http://ericae.net/tc2/TC016104.htm; re: Healthy/High Risk Behavior Patterns: http://ericae.net/tc2/TC016113.htm.

PURPOSE #9: TO PREDICT FUTURE BEHAVIOR: Electronic technology combined the science of behavior and statistical techniques with modern marketing know-how is equipping people in government and business to predict how folks will behave in the future. This is discussed at length in the Eakman book and is pertinent in the planning of careers and other areas.

YOU KNOW IT IS REAL WHEN IT HAPPENS TO YOU: Old Russian proverb. A few years ago, I had heard of school surveys that asked personal or psychological questions about a student. I didn’t know how seriously to take those rumors. Then it was announced that my daughter’s middle school was going to administer a survey to measure the student’s satisfaction with the school. It was to be given in conjunction with the Carnegie Corporation and the California Department of Education. A letter said that the survey would be confidential and anonymous. It sounded innocuous. On advice, I went to the school and looked at the survey. I made a copy.

The 208 questions included those about how the student felt about the school and what the teacher did in class. The survey asked 13 questions about how often the parents helped their child with homework, etc. There were questions about the student’s use of drugs, alcohol, and sex. There were 24 questions that were GUARANTEED to make any group of kids sound like neurotic basket cases. Yes or no: “I worry about what my parents or guardian will say to me”; “I often feel sick in my stomach”; “I feel alone even when there are people with me”; “I am nervous”; “I often worry about something bad happening to me”; “I have bad dreams”; “A lot of people are against me”; “I am afraid of a lot of things”; “Other students are happier than I am”; “It is hard for me to keep my mind on my school work”; “Others seem to do things easier than I can”; “I get nervous when things do not go the right way for me” and so forth. NO HAPPY QUESTIONS! I can see the headline now: “SURVEY SHOWS TEENS ARE DEPRESSED.”

Some of the drug/alcohol questions seemed to my common-sense self to show really BAD judgment. Strongly Disagree through Strongly Agree, A--D: “Alcohol will help you to be friendly and outgoing”; “Having two or three alcoholic drinks before driving is fine”; “There is no harm in trying cocaine or crack”; “There is no harm in smoking marijuana once or twice to find out what it is like.”

I’m glad I was forewarned about the survey, that I was able to copy it, and that we were able to stop the survey (at least that year) since it was in contravention of several California State Ed codes. As similar surveys have been used all over, I can’t PARTICULARLY blame that school. But BE FOREWARNED. Go look at any survey that is announced. Raise hell if necessary. More advice for parents in future E-Files.

Until then: advice from The X-Files: TRUST NO ONE.

The E-Files
Susan O’Donnell
efiler@pacbell.net


Copyright 2000, E-Files. All Rights Reserved. Web Design by LMi.net	THE E-FILES NUMBER TWO APRIL-MAY, 2000 THE SUBJECT OF THIS E-FILE IS DATA COLLECTION. Public school systems are collecting students’ personal information via surveys and assessments. It happens in other schools and places, too. The public should be informed. Data collection is a big area so this only an outline. I will include urls when possible so you can do your own further research. The technological revolution of the 90s has made possible the rapid collection and sharing of large databanks of personal information, and legislation has been passed that encouraged data collection for various rationalizations—nabbing of deadbeat dads, identification of illegal immigrants, tracking bank transactions for drug money, etc. YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE that surveys have been taken in schools all across the country throughout the 90s, especially of middle and high school students. Parents began fighting against their use when they discovered the questions asked in many surveys. Lawsuits have been filed and won; bills have been passed to protect privacy. (Such legislation has also often been ignored.) Battle lines have been drawn between people who want PRIVACY versus those who want DATA. ASSESSMENTS have often replaced achievement tests when what is being measured is not the factual knowledge gained through information-based education, but rather whether a student has adopted the skills, attitudes and behaviors that were taught in the curriculum. The ill-fated CLAS test was an assessment, discontinued when it was deemed to be a psychological testing instrument. The Stanford 9 is an achievement test. However, achievement tests may have embedded questions that test for attitudes, too. SURVEYS AND ASSESSMENTS are used in data collection and evaluation for some of the same purposes, some of which I’ll list below. Though assessments are known to be tied to specific individuals, surveys can be also, for even when a survey-taker is told it will be anonymous, often there are “slugged” questions that enable the administrators to match the student with his/her survey. Sometimes surveys are barcoded. PURPOSE #1: MATCHING STUDENTS TO CAREERS. The first E-File gave a summary of School-to-Work, AKA School-to-Career. As an example of what is happening, these are sections from Arizona legislation relating to pupil assessment: “School districts shall provide each high school pupil with either a curriculum based on academic skills or a curriculum based on workplace skills according to the results achieved by that pupil on the high school skills track test administered pursuant to section 15-741…Each pupil’s high school skills track test results shall be recorded on the pupil’s eighth grade transcript. The state board of education shall prescribe the format for recording the high school skills track test results on eighth grade transcripts.” In 1996, the State of California contracted with three different agencies to continue development of the Career-Technical Assessment Program (C-TAP), a school-to-career student assessment model to support the overall student assessment system in California. Primary responsibility for development and eventual implementation of C-TAP was given to WestEd (formerly Far West), the federal education regional laboratory. WestEd’s job including assisting in reviewing plans for scoring sessions, training reviewers, designing and revising rubrics, instituting data collection procedures, and analyzing scoring results. Also: developing on-demand assessment components for industry core or cluster areas. The National STW database information is at: www.stw.ed.gov/products/903/903.htm. This links a child with a student ID—using a Social Security number—to county governments and an employer ID. It is noted in the guide for educators: “This ID (student tracking number—SSN) will be used to input student course information and for reporting data about the student in FUTURE years and must remain the same number over the years reported…” WorkLink is a data system created by Educational Testing Service in which all students’ electronic resumes can be called up on the Internet by schools and businesses. It was created as a result of the Department of Labor’s SCANS report in the early 90s. See SCANS documents at www.ttrc.doleta.gov/SCANS/. See an example of computerized occupational outcomes at www.worldaccessnet.com/~midtec/ Planning by educators and business may seem a rational course of action. F.A. Hayek, late economist and author of “The Road to Serfdom,” used the term “planning” synonymously with “socialism.” Too much planning by authorities pre-empts planning by individuals and necessarily reduces freedom. In his1944 book, Hayek warned that “the unforeseen but inevitable consequences of socialist planning create a state of affairs in which, if the policy is to be pursued, totalitarian forces will get the upper hand.” PURPOSE #2: TO COLLECT INFORMATION FOR SHARED DATABASES with other agencies involved in education, health, labor, law enforcement, employers, criminal justice, military, etc. See “Tracking the Well-being of Children within States: The Evolving Federal Role in the Age of Devolution” at http://newfederalism.urban.org/html/anf21.html to get an idea of what sort of data is being exchanged and what agencies are involved. There is a system, the SPEEDE/ExPRESS (an acronym for a much longer name), which is a cross-referenceable computer tracking system with 345 headings, with subheadings under each. It tracks information about American citizens from birth to death about: personal, background, address/contact, family, school, financial, memberships, attendance, assessment, transportation, health conditions, height, weight, hair color, birthmarks, nicknames, IRS, DMV, credit, pharmaceutical, newspaper and magazine subscriptions, etc. This information is available to anyone, not only government agencies, without restriction. As education author Beverly Eakman said, “Blackmail, intimidation and harassment are a consideration to everyone now.” There is an online version of the Student Data Handbook, which “was developed to provide guidance concerning the consistent maintenance of student information”. This version of the handbook contains no data. See http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/studenthb. Scott McDonald, owner of a website dedicated to the maintenance of privacy (www.ScanThisNews.org) wrote on 6/27/99: “What principle of “liberty” incorporates a system whereby the government maintains dossiers on its citizens? What element of “freedom” provides for a government that “has our number?” …Blackmail artists will protect your privacy—as long as you comply with their demands! The government is no different. …The question must be: Does government have any right, whatsoever, to maintain databases of information about free citizens? The answer is simply NO, not in a free society.” PURPOSE #3: TO CHANGE ATTITUDES. To understand this, you have to go back to 1963 when the schools were invaded by some really alien ideas. This is from “The Role of the Computer in Future Instructional Systems: U.S. Department of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare Contract #SAE9073”, chapter entitled “Effortless Learning, Attitude Changing, and Training in Decision-Making”: “Another area of potential development in computer applications is the attitude changing machine. Dr. Bertram Raven in the Psychology Department at the University of California at Los Angeles is in the process of building a computer-based device for changing attitudes. This device will work on the principle that students’ attitudes can be changed effectively by using the Socratic method of asking an appropriate series of leading questions designed to right the balance between appropriate attitudes, and those deemed less acceptable….Dr. Raven would hypothesize that a positive change would be effectively brought about by showing the student the inconsistency of his views. One long-time education researcher said this: “Pacesetters in Innovation” (PII) a soft-cover, huge-volume of hundreds of applied-for and received federal “education” contracts, complete with summaries of the intended projects...covered the years of ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) from 1965 to 1969 (after those years the programs were hidden in State by State microfiche libraries so the troops couldn’t get their hands readily on them.) PII shows how American schools were converted into psycho-therapeutic clinics and the teachers trained to be facilitating clinicians. It was a very deliberate and calculated plot to “reorganize” and reconstruct public education from traditional to psycho-social and it was done with almost no public notice.” Robert H. Burke, a member of the California State Legislature in 1971, wrote a white paper titled “Education—from the Acquisition of Knowledge to Programmed, Conditioned Responses.” He traces the introduction of the new behavioral goals from the California State Plan developed under ESEA Title III funds and submitted to the U.S. Office of Education in 1969. The California state plan mandated that 50% or more of the new Title III funds would be used for planning the development and implementation of innovative, experimental, and exemplary education programs and their pilot programs that would lead to the adaptation of the new educational programs and methods in the schools of the state. The California legislature then passed the necessary laws to provide state funding of the new “needs assessment” methods. Beverly Eakman, in her book “Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality Through Education”, confirms this 40 year old conversion: “Psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists moved into schools to take over education, taking them from mind development to mind control.” Eakman describes what value systems are typically the desired outcomes of public schools (this list is from a North Carolina inservice training but is representative): 1) There is no right or wrong, only conditioned responses; 2) The collective good is more important than the individual; 3) Consensus is more important than principle; 4) Flexibility is more important than accomplishment; 5) Nothing is permanent except change; 6) All ethics are situational; there are no moral absolutes; 7) There are no perpetrators, only victims. “Tests assess how well students respond to manipulations” which educators use to “correct the viewpoints they find distasteful.” PURPOSE #4: FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH. Some parents have discovered after-the-fact that their children have been used for research purposes without permission. One Texas mother noted: “This sort of stuff was an obvious waste of valuable class time and was particularly troubling to me because I had just learned that my daughter had been used as a test subject in school for nearly three years without my informed consent. The surveys were administered by an outside agency seeking funding for psychological research. The program required her to participate in very intrusive self-esteem surveys asking 58 personal, upsetting questions…The last time she took the test she was so upset that she asked not to take it but was forced to do so against her will. The survey contained disturbing questions about her thoughts and feelings on many personal topics such as suicide, self-image, self-worth, gender preference, parents, home environment, relationship with family, morals and values, and so on.” In 1947 The Nuremberg Code was established after the end of WWII, when 24 German doctors were charged with crimes against humanity during the Nazi regime. Some of the terms were: 1) The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without…force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other form of constraint or coercion… 9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end… Education psychologist in the surveying business should take heed. PURPOSE #5: TO DIAGNOSE MENTAL DISORDERS: In 1994 Goals 2000 and Improving America’s Schools Act were signed into law. These required schools to train teachers, counselors, nurse practitioners and psychologists how to match symptoms with behaviors by using the Diagnosis Statistical Manual (DSM IV-R--www.psychdiagnoser.com). The problems: 1) Teachers should teach. 2) Schools get more $$$ for kids diagnosed with problems, so there may be over-diagnosing of ADD, ADHD, ODD and other ill-defined behavioral disorders. 3) There may consequently be over-prescribing of psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin. PURPOSE #6: TO SCREEN OR PROFILE students in order to (theoretically) identify those who are “at risk” of violent behavior. A program called Mosaic 2000 is being tested in 20 schools in grades 1 through 12. Potential for abuses? Privacy violations? See articles at www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/10/biztech/articles/24violence.html; www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19991027profile2.asp; and www.gdbinc.com/mosaic2000.htm. A licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist, Steve Kossor, with years of experience in studying abuses and misuses of psychology in schools, has a newsletter and a website: see www.voicenet.com/~sakossor. PURPOSE # 7: TO MAXIMIZE FUNDS RECEIVED. Oftentimes, funds from the state or federal Department of Education are not forthcoming unless a district agrees to give up student data on race, income, test results, post-graduate plans, etc. This “carrot and stick” approach is one of the reasons local control long ago bit the dust. PURPOSE #8: TO PROBE BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS ABOUT SEX, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, AND OTHER SENSITIVE TOPICS: There have been more complaints in this area than any other. Many surveys “of risky behaviors” have been administered with questions such as: “Did you drink alcohol or use drugs before you had sexual intercourse the last time?”; “The last time you had sexual intercourse, did you or your partner use a condom?”; How many times have you been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant?” (1999 Center for Disease Control questionnaire); “How often do you have sex?”; “What famous person would you most like to have sex with?”; “Where was the weirdest place you’ve had sex?”; “”Have you ever had sex with more than one person at the same time?”; “If you have a particular fetish, please state what it is.” (RAND survey; see at www.passport.ca/zoo/survey.html.) See a sex/drug survey for middle and high schoolers that was used in suburban Minnesota at http://members.aol.com/cesg. With questions like those, how can they help but show that students “engage in risky behaviors”? (Also, to plant some neat ideas in their young minds!) The surveys are bound to show that there is a crying need for more sex education, social services, and school based health clinics. The media doesn’t take any pains to discuss studies showing that more sex education leads to more sex! I was also surprised to find in my research that there are lots of folks in the sex education area that believe young people SHOULD freely engage in sex. Parents, be forewarned. As a mom of daughters 12 and 14, I can say that they are decidedly NOT mature enough for it. (Go ahead and call me a prude, I don’t care.) There are several surveys called “Profiles of Student Life” to peruse. Regarding Sexuality, see: http://ericae.net/tc2/TC016102.htm; re: Alcohol and other drugs: http://ericae.net/tc2/TC016104.htm; re: Healthy/High Risk Behavior Patterns: http://ericae.net/tc2/TC016113.htm. PURPOSE #9: TO PREDICT FUTURE BEHAVIOR: Electronic technology combined the science of behavior and statistical techniques with modern marketing know-how is equipping people in government and business to predict how folks will behave in the future. This is discussed at length in the Eakman book and is pertinent in the planning of careers and other areas. YOU KNOW IT IS REAL WHEN IT HAPPENS TO YOU: Old Russian proverb. A few years ago, I had heard of school surveys that asked personal or psychological questions about a student. I didn’t know how seriously to take those rumors. Then it was announced that my daughter’s middle school was going to administer a survey to measure the student’s satisfaction with the school. It was to be given in conjunction with the Carnegie Corporation and the California Department of Education. A letter said that the survey would be confidential and anonymous. It sounded innocuous. On advice, I went to the school and looked at the survey. I made a copy. The 208 questions included those about how the student felt about the school and what the teacher did in class. The survey asked 13 questions about how often the parents helped their child with homework, etc. There were questions about the student’s use of drugs, alcohol, and sex. There were 24 questions that were GUARANTEED to make any group of kids sound like neurotic basket cases. Yes or no: “I worry about what my parents or guardian will say to me”; “I often feel sick in my stomach”; “I feel alone even when there are people with me”; “I am nervous”; “I often worry about something bad happening to me”; “I have bad dreams”; “A lot of people are against me”; “I am afraid of a lot of things”; “Other students are happier than I am”; “It is hard for me to keep my mind on my school work”; “Others seem to do things easier than I can”; “I get nervous when things do not go the right way for me” and so forth. NO HAPPY QUESTIONS! I can see the headline now: “SURVEY SHOWS TEENS ARE DEPRESSED.” Some of the drug/alcohol questions seemed to my common-sense self to show really BAD judgment. Strongly Disagree through Strongly Agree, A--D: “Alcohol will help you to be friendly and outgoing”; “Having two or three alcoholic drinks before driving is fine”; “There is no harm in trying cocaine or crack”; “There is no harm in smoking marijuana once or twice to find out what it is like.” I’m glad I was forewarned about the survey, that I was able to copy it, and that we were able to stop the survey (at least that year) since it was in contravention of several California State Ed codes. As similar surveys have been used all over, I can’t PARTICULARLY blame that school. But BE FOREWARNED. Go look at any survey that is announced. Raise hell if necessary. More advice for parents in future E-Files. Until then: advice from The X-Files: TRUST NO ONE. The E-Files Susan O’Donnell efiler@pacbell.net