Posted on 07/23/2004 4:26:02 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
CHICAGO -- This week, a series of public forums on a program requiring all pregnant women and children through age 18 years to be tested for mental health needs is being held this week in five different locations statewide.
One group of parents learned about the state's plans to proceed with this program and on Monday issued an alarm asking for parents and citizens concerned about the new program to voice their opinions at the forums.
"We're moving toward social training over academic training with this program," Larry Trainor, a Mt. Prospect parent of four children and a contact for Citizens Commission on Human Rights, based in Los Angeles, said today.
"Since psychiatric involvement in education, SAT scores have gone down for the past few decades. Evaluating mental conditions is not based on scientific evidence, it's subjective," he said.
The $10 million plan for the setup of the Children's Mental Health Act of 2003 is being considered at this week's public forums starting Monday, July 18 in Champaign.
Signed into law, the bill passed the Illinois General Assembly last spring, sponsored in the House by State Representatives Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) and Patricia Bellock (R-Westmont). State Senator Maggie Crotty (D-Oak Forest) and Susan Garrett (D-Highwood) shepherded the legislation through the Senate.
The legislation passed the House with a 107 to 5 vote, and the Senate unanimously.
"What if they find a student has a math disorder, a reading disorder. Would that be a mental health disorder, one that would cause the parents to put their children with a drug for a condition they may or may not have?" Trainor asked.
The mental health program will develop a mental health system for "all children ages 0-18 years," provide for screening to "ensure appropriate and culturally relevant assessment of young children's social and emotional development with the use of standardized tools."
Also, all pregnant women will be screened for depression and thereafter following her baby's birth, up to one year. Follow-up treatment services will also be provided.
Trainor said that he is trying to get parents and citizens out to voice their opinion about the new program.
Apparently, children's mental health will be assessed along with their academic standards in the new proposed testing. The Illinois State Board of Education has been given the responsibility to develop the appropriate tests, according to last year's legislation.
The Task Force hosting the public forums this week are to send a recommendation to Governor Blagojevich by the end of the summer, according to the Act (HB 2900).
Developing story . . .
Wrong wrong wrong way of doing this.
OPINION -- The Children's Mental Health Partnership Act was passed on August 8, 2003, with overwhelming support from the legislators of both Illinois houses.
The Illinois House passed this into law with a 107 to 5 vote. The Senate’s consensus vote was unanimous, with three not voting.
Many have questioned how and even whether this affects Illinois homeschoolers, since homeschoolers are exempt from the public school mandates.
But this Act does affect homeschoolers by the “partnership” of many government entities that homeschoolers use, with little or no accountability as to the right to educate their children as they see fit.
The Act disregards parental rights, just as it disregards those parents whose children attend public school or brick and mortar private schools.
The emphasis on coordination of provider services and interagency referral networks for children from birth through age 18 is pervasive.
The coordination begins with the use of the word "Partnership" in describing "oversight."
Section 5(a) 9b of the Act refers to the “Partnership” as composed of the Human Services Department, the Illinois State Board of Education, the departments of Children and Family Services, Public Aid, Public Health, and Corrections.
Also included in the legislation is a connection with the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority and the Attorney General’s office, appointed by the Governor.
As a matter of course, a priority recommendation as laid out in the ICMHP Preliminary Plan says the developing mental health system “treats families and caregivers as partners."
Do homeschoolers consider their parenting roles as partners to all of the agencies listed in Section 5(a) 9(b) of the Children’s Mental Health Act?
One of the Long-Term Strategies and Action Steps is to explore how non-state funded (private) early childhood programs would access and fund mental health consultation. Consider that if you were thinking of putting your child in a church or other private pre-school program.
Another Priority Recommendation in the ICMHP Preliminary Plan calls for screening all women for depression during pregnancy and following their child’s birth up to one-year post partum.
Under Section D ("establish social emotional and developmental screening and assessment"), the first Priority Recommendation is to “ensure that all children receive periodic social and emotional developmental screens."
Note the words "all children." This would start with increasing early childhood and primary health care providers’ ability to screen and refer to appropriate services.
Long term, the plan calls for developing a data reporting state system to track who is screened and when they are screened. Tie that in with all pregnant women being screened and that the Partnership’s priority is to ensure all children are screened for social and emotional developmental progress.
Add to all this the goal of identifying how programs not in the public school system receive training in and provide screening and referral services, as the plan states.
Governmental agencies and the public school system are all tied together in this Partnership. How could private schools/home schools possibly stay exempt from the mandates in this Children’s Mental Health Act?
The 1ast Priority Recommendation under section E is no less invasive. In one or two years, the plan is to find methods to build partnerships with key school and community stakeholders with information exchanges and follow-up. It states, “in accordance with relevant confidentiality policies,” but what would be relevant or rather, more importantly, what would not be relevant when they are partners with this mass of governmental agencies?
Section E (III), Action Step 5 says they will explore mechanisms and strategies for promoting and incorporating social and emotional development into the educational program as well as protocols for responding to children with social, emotional and mental health problems into private school systems.
I would think that brick and mortar private schools as well as homeschoolers would not want to be any part of that plan.
Still, another serious suggestion is that there be “coordinated policies and financing strategies that place mental health screening at the same level of importance as physical health screens and immunizations." Also, an outreach to children who participate in out-of-school programs such as the library-reading program or park district classes will be included - another route to home schooled children.
This is the time that homeschoolers should ally with our public school friends and let our legislators and the Partnership know that this is not acceptable.
Not only that it's unconstitutional.
BTTT!!!
totally outrageous and intrusive and unconstitutional!
more of the same
And here's the second ping. An alert for Illinois...
The mental health program will develop a mental health system for "all children ages 0-18 years," provide for screening to "ensure appropriate and culturally relevant assessment of young children's social and emotional development with the use of standardized tools."
Also, all pregnant women will be screened for depression and thereafter following her baby's birth, up to one year....
....children's mental health will be assessed along with their academic standards in the new proposed testing. The Illinois State Board of Education has been given the responsibility to develop the appropriate tests, according to last year's legislation.
If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Are you a homeschooler looking for advice from other homeschoolers? Visit our Free Republic Homeschoolers' Forum 2006-2007.
Thought you might be interested in this one, in case you haven't seen it yet...
FYI - See post #83.
What is this about? If this article is a joke or the facts have been twisted, then I just wasted time sending a ping to it.
>>>How do they define "mental health"?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574836/posts
The UN Plan for Your Mental Health (UNESCO)
The article is old--2004...I googled it and most of the articles were dated '04.
Someone is yanking our chains.
Right on target. Not to change the subject, but this is exactly why the 2nd amendment is so important. It was not placed there to support the recreational hunter or gun collector. It was placed there to enable the people to resist and potentially overthrow an opressive government that is out of the control of the people.
Underscore Jim has the actual PDF in post 20.
I looked it up from there and think it was sign. See the bottom of this page:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/sb/09300sb1951enr.htm
Excerpt:
093_SB1951enr
SB1951 Enrolled LRB093 08901 RCE 09133 b
1 AN ACT in relation to children.
The article is old. The act is now becoming law.
AND other states and facitilies are launching the same act.
>>>Not to change the subject, but this is exactly why the 2nd amendment is so important.
That has been thought of my friend. Memories of Poland:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1667884/posts
IL: Governor's Ally Calls for House to House Gun Searches
Why should I continue to live in Illinois?
Every state I've looked up is signed on for this Healthy People 2010 act. It is just getting implemented in different phases.
We all have to realize the 28 focus areas are part of the same foundation funding and fight this. THAT is the problem. As much as I ping all those phases back to the same source:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010
People aren't realizing this source as being the problem.
If you don't tow the publik skewl party line (agenda) on a whole host of liberal topics, I'll bet they'll declare you mentally ill. They're just trying to put teeth into their policies that they are already implimenting in those schools anyway ala 1984 or Brave New World.
ToT, thanks for the ping. Sure glad I don't live in IL but am surprised that they beat NY to the punch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.