This is a Little Scary

[Guest guest]

With No Obligation to Educate, Schools Turn to Thought Control

By Linda Gorman

http://www.independenceinstitute.org/SuptDocs/OpEdArcv/Gorman/00May16.DPS.htm

In case you were ever in doubt, the Colorado Court of Appeals has just

made it official. Colorado public schools have no legally enforceable

obligation to educate children. According to the court, parents and

students cannot sue school districts because they “are not private students

enrolled in a private vocational school but, instead, consist of the general

public. They have not individually bargained with the school district,

nor individually paid for specific educational services. As a result,

they cannot assert legal claims for the alleged failure to provide those

unbargained for services.”[1]

 

The Court found that “the contention that the quality of education

provided by the school district is inadequate—is not a matter to be properly

resolved by the courts.” Had various courts not already found legal

excuses for taking control of almost every other aspect of school operations,

its restraint would be refreshing.

 

In other words, the state may require that children attend school and

that everyone pay school taxes. In return, citizens get to vote for

one of the slates of school board candidates offered by the teacher’s union.

 

Though government entities are free to compel people to pay for lousy

services over which they have little control, private entities are not.

Private vocational schools failing to offer promised classes or hours of

instruction can be sued.

 

Having mastered the art of pretending to educate those required to

attend it and having been freed of any responsibility to do otherwise,

the Denver Public School System (DPS) is apparently planning to expand

into pretending to provide mental, medical, and behavioral health services.

To this end, the Center for Human Investment Policy at the University of

Colorado Denver was “asked to develop a health/behavioral health needs

assessment survey to gather broader input” to determine if “principals,

nurses, psychologists, social workers, teachers and parents are in agreement

about these issues.”[2]

 

Judging from the loaded questions, DPS officials want the power to

pass judgment on the physical, mental, emotional, and social health of

individual children and to treat those problems as they see fit.

 

“What level of health and behavioral health care do you believe your

school should provide?” asks question number 7. In addition to “Don’t

know,” one may pick Basic Care, which includes referral for assessment

and treatment, Intermediate Care, which adds counseling and care for chronic

health problems, or Full Care which includes treatment for general medical

and mental health problems and referral to specialists. There is

no space for telling DPS elites to stay out of health care delivery until

they have mastered the art of delivering reading, writing, and arithmetic.

 

Note also that mental health and behavioral problems are lumped with

medical ones despite the fact that medicine has a scientific basis and

most mental and behavioral “health” assessments consist of little more

than someone’s opinion. The potential for abuse, for drugging the

rebels and brainwashing those who disagree, is huge and already beginning

to be realized.

 

According to Jon E. Dougherty writing in WorldNetDaily, Derek Loutzenheiser,

a 12-year-old student with an exemplary record in Holland, Michigan, was

labeled a potential violence risk when he suggested, in a Social Studies

class discussion, that one way to prevent school shootings would be to

arm instructors. School officials told his parents that they would

not have to involve Social Services if Derek was separated from other students

and forced to enter the school’s “Mentor” program so that an adult supervisor

could monitor his thought processes.[3] Recall that Social Service

bureaucrats have the power to declare parents guilty of child abuse until

proven innocent, and to take their child from them until parents prove

their innocence.

 

School officials noted that Derek had violated the school’s policy

of non-violence by fighting back when attacked by three older students

and had often spoken favorably about the First and Second Amendments.

His parents noted that Derek had refused to sign a “Red Letter” vow of

peace written by the principal that asked students to take a oath to turn

in their friends for suspicious activity and to never defend themselves

if attacked.

 

In short, Derek had refused to parrot the party line and was judged

behaviorally unhealthy. The Soviets pioneered this model by declaring

those who disagreed with the government mentally aberrant and imprisoning

them in mental institutions until their thinking could be adjusted by psychological

conditioning or drugs. As DPS puts it, “schools are where one finds

children, so it [sic] is the best place to offer health/behavioral health

services,” “children need good health to learn, so health/behavioral health

is a valid school concern, and “children with health/behavioral health

challenges need medical attention in schools to reach their potential.”[4]

 

DPS has a point. Judging from his behavior, Derek has already

assimilated the independence and respect for truth characteristic of outstanding

Americans. Without medical attention, he never will realize his full

potential as a good little citizen in the new world order.

 

Notes:

[[1]]Denver Parents Association et al. v. Denver Board of Education;

98CA1309, Colorado Court of Appeals. February 3, 2000. As posted on the

Colorado Bar Association’s web site, http://www.cobar.org/coappcts/ca2000/ct02036.htm,

on 10 May 2000.

[2] Denver Public School Health and Behavioral Health Needs Assessment

Survey. 1 May 2000. The Center for Human Investment Policy,

University of Colorado, Denver.

[3] Jon E. Dougherty. 30 March 2000. “Sixth grader targeted

for pro-gun remarks, ‘A’ student defends 2nd Amendment, flagged as violence

risk.” WorldNetDaily, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/200000330_xnjdo_sixth_grad.shtml

as posted on the web on 9 May 2000.

[4] Denver Public School Health and Behavioral Health Needs Assessment

Survey. 1 May 2000. The Center for Human Investment Policy,

University of Colorado, Denver. Questions

15 [2], 15 [4], and 15 [5] all of which required an agree or disagree

answer. Note that agreeing that schools should be concerned about

health does not imply that they should deliver it.

Linda Gorman is a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute, a free-market

think tank in Golden, Colorado, http://i2i.org. This article originally

appeared in the Colorado Daily (Boulder), for which Linda Gorman is a regular

columnist.