“Ounce of Prevention” or “Parents as Teacher” Programs/Proposed Legislation Material Researched & Compiled by: Kim Geyer, May 2, 2004

House Bill 1796 passed out of the House 181-15 in 2004 and once in Senate was referred to the Aging and Youth Committee where the bill died at the end of the November 30, 2004 session. Simultaneously, Senate Bill 357 was introduced in the Senate during the 2004 session. Both bills reflect one and other in stated purpose and framework. Policymakers will need to anticipate both being reintroduced in the 2005 session.

To: Senate Aging and Youth Committee,
After thoroughly reading HB1796, I feel compelled to contact your committee in regards to the legislation piloting/mandating/allowing the “Parents as Teachers” program to be implemented here in Pennsylvania. Although the bill does not specify this program, instead calling it the “Ounce of Prevention Act” the system that would be established is actually “Parents as Teachers.” Furthermore, although the bill does not focus on the involvement of schools, “Parents as Teachers” or “Ounce of Prevention” programs that exist in other states are heavily interwoven with the public school system. Therefore, it is important to examine the implications of HB 1796 or SB 357 of Session 2004.

PAT is an international and early childhood parent education and family support program that serves families throughout pregnancy and until their child enters school or the Head Start Program. The program is designed to enhance childhood development and school achievement through parent education, parent intervention and support through in-house visitation accessible as a “Free Service” to all families on a voluntary basis for participation. PAT’s vision states “All children will learn, grow, and develop to realize their full potential.” How could one argue against such a noble and aspiring program developed to offer and provide needed family and parental support?

Current U.S. Missouri Senator Christopher Bonds initiated the PAT program in the United States in 1981 while serving as governor of Missouri. It was then called New Parents as First Teachers, but has been simplified to PAT. Since 1981 PAT has been introduced in 40 states and at least eight foreign countries. Legislation that was marketed as voluntary participation was soon mandated statewide with Bonds signing legislation in 1984 that required all Missouri school districts to provide PAT programs to all parents, all schools, and all children from birth to kindergarten.

Ohio, Texas, and Connecticut became the next states outside to implement “Parents as Teachers” in 1986. In 1987, the Parents as Teachers National Center was established based on the Missouri statewide program. By 2001, Hawaii’s programs became certified, establishing PAT in all 50 states. Internationally, PAT’s genesis is rooted in Israel and has expanded over time to Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, and most recently, China. Seven other countries are expected to complete pilot programs, which began in 2003.

In 1987, the Education Commission of the States announced eight spin-off statewide programs with different names but similar goals based on the PAT concept.
1. California’s Carpentaria Language Minority Student Experience
2. Colorado’s Community Infant Project
3. Minnesota’s Early Childhood Family Education
4. Illinois’ Family Focus
5. Arkansas’ Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY)
6. Illinois’ Ounce of Prevention
7. Kentucky’s Parent And Child Education (PACE)
8. Missouri’s Parents as Teachers Program (PAT)

At the November 1989 at the Governor’s Conference on Education in Wichita, Kansas called “Schools, Goals, and the 1990’s” most of the strategy behind PAT was openly discussed and further defined by various speakers:

· Lamar Alexander, president of the University of Tennessee and the U.S. Secretary of Education under President George Bush, called for a “brand new American school.” He said he envisioned America will go through “its own perestroika and form a brand new American school that would be open year round from six a.m. to six p.m.
· Dr. Shirley McCune of Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McRel) and New Horizons stated the following in her speech: “You cannot begin to think about restructuring of education without understanding that our total society is in a crisis of restructuring, and you can’t hide from it. You can’t hide from that fact that we are facing a total restructuring of our society.” She went on to say, “What the revolution has been in curriculum is that we are no longer teaching facts to children…”
· Dr. Frank Newman, who is with the Education Commission of the States (and on the national advisory board of PAT) agreed. “We cannot expect these systems to change unless we change the basic policies that surround them.”

In March of 1990, delegates from more than 156 countries met in Thailand at the “United Nations World Conference on Education for All” to achieve a worldwide consensus on education. They produced 10 global educational goals. In July of 1990, the National Education Goals panel was formed in America to produce national education goals. President George Bush selected Governor Bill Clinton to lead the panel. In Bill Clinton’s administration, the massive education bill “Goals 2000” was passed by Congress March 31, 1994, making the goals law. The NY Times reported, “The nation will for the first time have a federal blueprint to educate its children.”

Goals 2000 has eight National Education Goals (based on the global goals), with a prescription for restructuring all public schools, whether they want it or not. In “Who Will Raise Our Children?”, David J. Willmott, editor, Suffolk Life Newspapers, September 13, 1995) wrote “Goals 2000’s agenda is to create an environment for all American citizens from cradle to grave using the school system as a national nucleus to regiment people to have a predictable outcome….The educational system in America will be nationalized. The parent’s role in their children’s upbringing will be minimal…The entire concept was developed under President George Bush, who supported a one world concept, and it has been championed since the day after the election by Hillary Clinton. If you thought Hillary’s national health care program was scary, or born out of secrecy, wait until you get a load of what is in store for your children under the guise of education. Is this your vision of America of Year 2000? It is not ours….”

(Wilmott is referring to the fact that the current U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton is one of three social change agents long with Marc Tucker and Ira Magaziner that introduced national health care legislation in President Clinton’s first term. When that legislation was presented as a whole with the big picture uncovered, overwhelming opposition resulted in its defeat. Now they have put their new plan in place via the education system, one piece at a time with little or no notice…as most policymakers cannot and do not have the time to do in-depth connecting of the dots. This new arrangement is a fact and is documented in several quotes as contained in A Human Resource Development Plan for the United States, Marc Tucker, President of the National Center on Education and the Economy, 1993, page 13.

By now, you’re wondering WHY are we getting so in-depth with all of this and what does this or any of this have to do with PAT?

The eight National Education Goals are spelled out in Title 1. The eight present goals grew directly out of six earlier national education goals contained in America 2000, the Bush administration predecessor to the Clinton administration. Those six goals, in turn, parallel six international education goals adopted at a U.N. sponsored conference in Jomtien, Thailand within months of the launching of America 2000. It is important to note that only two of the eight goals (goals three and five) deal directly with academics.

Title 2 formally sets up the entity for the national Education Goals Panel and sets up a national report card on progress toward the national goals via standards and assessments.

Title 3 sets up the conditions for each state to submit to the DOE, a statewide systemic improvement plan to prove they are in compliance or prove they are working hard at reaching compliance. One of the prominent
features of Title 3 is the collaboration of schools with a myriad of outside agencies, services, and businesses, in order to provide non-educational services such as child-care, nutrition, health care (including school-based health clinics), social services (including welfare counseling, and social security services), and to establish mechanisms to get students into the workforce through emphasized vocational training and apprenticeships. Goals 2000 refers to all this coupling and partnership of the schools with non-educational activities as “coordinated access.” What was not realized at the time of passage of Goals 2000, but now revealed, is that Hillary Clinton’s failed national health care plan is being brought in through the back door using our school children and the public schools as points of entry. Medicaid funds are being used for a broad range of these services. Using the schools to deliver health care and social services is a 180 degree turn from delivering academics. These non-academic programs and services increase the state’s primacy in the lives of our children and push Americans into a cradle-to grave managed society.

Title 4 enables the first National Education Goal: “By the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn. This goal is realized by funding in every state “Parental Information and Resource Centers.” In many states the available money will be utilized to develop new programs for the development and expansion of Parents as Teachers (PAT), Home Instruction for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY), or Success by Six. By whatever name, these are parental training programs aimed at children from birth to (usually) five years. Goals 2000 affects us all because it addresses the entire lifespan of every citizen from programs like PAT through lifelong learning.

In the past five years, Pennsylvania has seen and experienced first hand various media and political efforts to launch and promote the early childhood agenda. The countless studies and research can be bent to facilitate one’s argument for or against early childhood education in our schools. NCLB and Pennsylvania are using the PSSA scores to make the case for accountability in our public schools. Advocates of early childhood education now are able to seek federal money available through the NCLB Act to fund early childhood education, which is supposed to solve all of these issues and problems created within our society.

Several recent actions in Harrisburg will accommodate the facilitation of these programs:
· The State Board of Education’s proposal to lower the compulsory age limit from 8 to 6 and adding the definition of “pre-kindergarten” in the Chapter 4 regulations this past year.
· The Pennsylvania House attempting to codify the “age” change into law via HB 36.
· The current administration’s campaign for early childhood education.

We must ask: Is it the responsibility for the government to fund programs to teach parents how to be parents? Where is the data that these programs are making a distinct difference? Should we continue to throw more money in this direction? Even more basic is the question: Should the government entrench itself further in the schooling of children?

The PAT program combines group interaction with home visits. In Missouri, recruitment for the program begins at pediatrician and prenatal clinics before children are even born. The Dept. of Education in Missouri shows a video tape promoting their program to new parents in the hospital before they take their new baby home. Increasing student enrollment becomes an important task of the PAT program because all children must be involved to facilitate social change and to get the money to keep the programs running. But, a headcount isn’t the only means of funding. Collaboration by various agencies and private foundations brings more funding.

Some of the supporters of PAT include, but, are not limited to: The Ford Foundation, The Carnegie Foundation (an influential not-for-profit think tank with billions of dollars in assets to dedicate to social change and education. The Carnegie’s board of directors over the past few years has included Hillary Clinton, David Hornbeck, Ira Magaziner, Marc Tucker, and David Rockefeller, Jr.) Other supporters of PAT include: The Danforth Foundation, New World Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Pet Corporation, Edna McConnell-Clark Foundation, A.P. Green Foundation, The Kansas City Association of Trusts and Foundations, The Monsanto Fund, The Powell Family Fund. It should be noted that in Missouri when individuals file income tax forms, there is a little box on the state income form directing money to “The Children’s Trust Fund” that donors may check off at tax time providing more funding to the PAT program. Section 7 of HB 1796 calls for the establishment of a designated “Children’s Trust Fund Board,” which is one of numerous provisions that parallel the Missouri program.

In referencing back to Title 3, another clever funding alternative for PAT Programs comes through the Handicap Law, also known as P.L. 94-142. All the “Certified Parent Educator” need to do during or after a home visitation is identify any normal child with the label of “developmentally delayed” and more money starts to flow. In other words, the more children identified “at-risk” or “special education” or “speech and language delayed” through screening, the more money that flows to this program via federal and state funding.

If Pennsylvania chooses to implement PAT, the state would need to examine the criteria and the mechanism utilized to assess these children and hold these agencies to the highest standards and public accountability for the identification of students. In Missouri, a Missouri Dept.of Education publication permits “psychometrists” the very people who screen and evaluate to choose to “rate selected aspects of the child’s social development” without any public accountability for the results. In addition, the highest safeguards must be necessary in protecting and providing the privacy and welfare of families and personal data and information collected. We need to know who will access this information being collected and for what purpose. Since collaboration amongst social agencies is promoted through PAT, that data and information will be shared.

When Missouri first implemented PAT in 1981, that cost was $30,000 for four school districts. Legislators at the time believed it would help disadvantaged children by screening them for “developmental delays”. In 1985, the cost in Missouri rose to $9.1 million dollars and involved 53,000 families. By 1990, the program escalated to include 100,000 Missouri children at a cost of $15,000,000. Edward Ziegler, Director of the Yale University Bush Center, and author of “Head Start: The Inside Story of America’s Most Successful Educational Experiment”, NY Basic Books, 1992, predicts the future price tag of PAT to be between 75 and 100 billion dollars.

Parents as Teachers may appear a good idea; however, the goals of the program are obscure.
PAT will undoubtedly be marketed and promoted throughout Pennsylvania so that the program sounds positive and noble, with the benefit of all children so that No Child Will Be Left Behind. The PAT program prides itself on home visitation. While anxious first-time parents might glean some tips on child development and child rearing, few are aware of the full ramifications of the “nice and friendly” social worker who visits their home and goes back to her office, pulls up the child’s cumulative electronic portfolio, and enters data on all she observed in the home. These reports may contain information on the type of literature in the home, how clean the kitchen was, and how the kids were dressed. Some mothers have been criticized for having too much religious literature and pictures throughout their home, and even questioned about it. Questions are asked about family dynamics and relationships, birth control methods, politically correct attitudes, and all this was recorded at the office and filed in a portfolio. Again, privacy needs to be guarded and families need to be told the big picture concerning home visits by any and all social workers. It is simply misleading to do otherwise to unsuspecting Pennsylvania families.

These “certified parent educators” are especially concerned about risk factors that might necessitate the services of the health clinics and social service agencies with whom the program is coordinated. Though these parental “assistance” programs are still voluntary, one can see their involvement as an effort by the state to assert its primacy over the family.
Often times, parents are intimidated by these home visitation programs, especially migrant and minority parents of families. They are sold as parental assistance, but in reality they advance an agenda of parental obsolesce and replacement by state agencies.

Parents as Teachers News in 1990 reported that the purpose of the home visits is to help the parents feel more comfortable about leaving their child and establish that the parent-teacher relationship begins in the home. Parents begin to see the teacher and the center as more responsive to their needs and to the needs of their baby. Once the bond has been established through trust, the children and parents are invited into school programs that deliver a battery of services, such as screening, evaluation, and documentation of data collected. The next step of the PAT is to change relationships through mentoring programs via the “certified parent educator” who delivers free medical care, free nutrition counseling, free mental health services and free food…everything the parents formerly provided. This just continues to escalate over time to a higher level as needs increase, services increase, and children begin to spend more time at schools than at home. The parents soon discover that the schools will provide free camps, free education, free overnight camps, and freedom from parental authority. While some parents may object to the new goals of the program itself, the “certified parent educators” are not responsible to the parent, even though it involves their child. In essence, they are accountable only to the State and must report any abuses. Forms of neglect, related to parent and child behavior not consistent with state policy. In sever cases, children can be removed from the home if the family has been labeled “failure to provide” for a variety of reasons.
Across America:

I, myself, would have never believed that any of this is actually happening here in America, let alone having the potential to be implemented, currently, here in Pennsylvania through HB 1796. But, while traveling with my own family through the Midwest and Southern states last month, I came across an AP newspaper article written by Heather Hollingsworth. This article reported on Missouri schools that are giving hungry children backpacks filled with food to help children get through the weekend until they return back to school Monday morning. This occurrence is an actual weekly ritual occurring at the Noyes Elementary school in St. Joseph’s, Missouri. The St. Joseph program is called “Backpack Buddies.” It started with 40 children in January, has grown to 140, and is expected to continue to increase.

It’s important to note that all students participating are not just the disadvantaged. The idea of sending home food in backpacks originated through a local food bank and when the school nurse discovered hunger related symptoms of students coming to school hungry. With food stamps, food banks, welfare programs, and community soup kitchens available to these families, there should be no reason for schools to send two backpacks of food home each weekend with students. Schools are filled with adults who do care about these and various problems and about America’s children. These administrators, counselors, and teachers have dutifully taken on this enormous responsibility. Schools have been asked to take over much of the responsibility of parenting by providing before and after school programs including breakfast.

The PAT program was implemented twenty years ago in Missouri and around the world. Despite early intervention pilots, social programs, and pro-active measures of many government programs, the societal and socio-economic influences of various regions across our state, as well as, nation allow a void to continue to exist. Otherwise, why would schools need to take on more responsibility by sending kids home in Missouri with food in backpacks?

Some tough questions must be asked:
1. Why are these types of issues still occurring in this particular state when there are extensive social programs in place for twenty years?
2. Is PAT and similar programs making a real difference in the lives of students and their education? Where is the solid data? Do we have increased reading scores within these states that have this program currently implemented?
3. Why take the federal money being made available to the states to implement these types of programs with far reaching ramifications…only to have the responsibility of funding resort back to the local taxpayer to fund and sustain them? Right now, on the PAT e-mail list, there are daily articles about funding cuts by the various states and the difference being compensated by the local taxpayers to avoid cut programs and services.
4. Is PAT or provisions of HB 1796 the best plan for Pennsylvania?
5. Should schools be brought into this type of social programming? We would be further ahead to reinvigorate local control in our schools by allowing and empowering our schools to teach. All of these types of programs continue to take time, energy, and resources away from the task of simply teaching academic skills.
6. Why are existing state agencies not fulfilling the void our society’s needs are demanding? Where is the weak link in their program’s effectiveness? Can we identify it? What do we need to do to correct it?

The bottom line is this; we need leadership in Pennsylvania to look at clearly at what schools should be providing. Schools are playing too many roles because of influential individuals, special interests, unions, national and state think tanks, and government. Schools are being forced to be “all things for all people.” Schools cannot be all things to all students and their families and still be able to teach effectively. Pennsylvania’s schools must return their focus and attention to their true purpose and role: educating students.
Legislators and State Policymakers cannot have it both ways. I recognize you are truly swimming against a powerful tide, but, schools need to return to their original focus of academics just as parents need to return their focus and purpose to parenting their children.

Critics will be anxious to accuse opponents as uncaring, anti-family, anti-education, and all the various political portrayals utilized when opposing such reforms. It’s a sad commentary when our society needs to have government come into our homes and lives to teach our parents how to be parents. There are many current programs and services provided to meet the needs of these disadvantaged and dysfunctional families; we do not need to overlap services or reinvent the wheel. A statewide program (one size fits all) is a mark of past era and relies on expanding the system that created the very problems it seeks to solve. Experience suggests that providing funding on an as-needed basis to families is a much more effective approach in lieu of a statewide mandated program for early childhood programs.

· Do not implement the PAT Program in Pennsylvania via the education or welfare system.
· Carefully review and evaluate the data to support the need for PAT.
· Consider how Pennsylvania will fund such an expensive program.
· Investigate what the state currently spends annually on half day kindergarten or other early childhood initiatives. You may be surprised that it is enough money to give at least each Kindergartener $1000 toward tuition or based on the poverty-aid ratio formula currently put in place.
· Enable families to make their own choices, to apply that voucher to a school program of their choice, promising greater opportunity for all.
· Consolidate grant programs administered by the Dept. of Education, returning the funds allocated for those grants to local schools based on the average daily attendance in each district. This could result in increased amounts of direct funding to local schools over a period of five years. Schools would determine how best to use the funds…creating total local control over how to spend the money with no strings attached.
· Provide funding to provide early screening and early detection of students prior to Kindergarten registration. We currently do this at Mars Area School District at the local level.
·Ask yourselves, what do you hope to accomplish by implementing this program? What does PA have to gain by doing so? Are there current programs already in place that meet the needs of what we hope to accomplish? If so and a void continues to exist in not meeting a need, what do we need to do as a state to make that existing agency more effective in providing services to these families? (Rather than implement an entirely new and far-reaching program such as PAT)

It is my hope that some of the dots have been connected for you so you can see where HB 1796 can take Pennsylvania. Debate and discussion of the many issues by your committee members will enable you to make wise decisions in the best interest of our state and educational system.

Kim Geyer
May 2, 2004

>> Back to Policies