Chapter 4, Part IV: What Is a “SAP” ?

A Student Assistance Program� identifies “at-risk” students and refers them for prevention, intervention, and aftercare programs.� Each school building has a team of personnel referred to as a CARE team, CORE team, TAT or Teacher Assistance Team, or something similar.� These teams identify and refer students with “behaviors� of concern” to programs within the school, the community, or Special School District.

S

AP is not intended to be a synonym for TAXPAYER in this context.Â? It stands for Student Assistance Program.Â? SAPs are being implemented in school districts all over the country.

Missouri’s Student Assistance Program� (MOSAP) was written by the Progressive Youth Center� in St. Louis with a $100,000 contract� from the Missouri Department of Mental Health, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse.� Progressive Youth Center also wrote a controversial little directory called the Youth Yellow Pages� which is described in the preceding chapter.

The MOSAP Handbook� explains that students can be “referred” by any counselor, social worker, teacher, fellow student, the student himself, bus driver, cafeteria worker, or maintenance person.� All aspects of a student’s well-being� are referable, whether physical, academic, emotional, psychological, or familial.

Students may be referred either verbally or in writing.� Students who have been referred are evaluated by a “core team” for further testing and/or a referral� to a school/community-linked prevention, intervention, aftercare program(s,) or Special School District. � Programs may be internal (within the school) or external (through a community organization or agency).� A “case manager” coordinates services between the student, the school and the community.� Parents are included if appropriate.[1] Who determines what is “appropriate”?!

Students who have exhibited “behaviors� of concern” may also be referred.� Behaviors of concern include those that would give grounds for legitimate concern, while others could describe any student walking down the hall.� Listed behaviors include:� “lack of motivation, apathy, short attention span, excessive movement, mood swings, sleeping in class, shy/timid, unusually quiet, dislikes being touched, fears of obesity, shows little enjoyment, exaggerated rambling, often alone, unwillingness to speak, exhibits nervousness, picks on/teases others, picked on/teased by others (emphasis added), unusually passive with others, bruises, constantly tired, poor loser, visible weight loss or gain, family problems (please specify), speaks of family problems (please specify), dis­liked/rejected by peers, has few friends” [2] (emphasis added).

While the intent may be innocent and sincerely positive, such interference into family life places a wedge between parents and their children, as well as between parents and schools.

Page 10 of the MOSAP Handbook states, “Health education and wellness programs, prevention� programs, and identification and response systems provide a continuum which REACHES STUDENTS, REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF NEED.” [3]

The intent is to develop an infrastructure which uses the schools as a vehicle to refer children and families into a socialized system of universal “health” care.

The Evaluation chapter of the MOSAP HandbookÂ? explains that pregnancy is one factor evaluated in order to justify further program funding!

Chapter nine titled “Ready, Set–GO! Preparing School and Community,” speaks of School/Community Teams Training programs such as STAR, and IMPACT.Â? “The SAP office (Missouri Institute for Prevention Services) is able to link schools to trainingÂ? which include identification and referralÂ? processes, chemical dependency, support groups, peer helpers, preventionÂ? philosophy, and enabling.Â? Understanding family systems, when to involveÂ? parents, how to handle difficult parents, and other related topics should be covered in this training.” [4]

The Missouri Department of Mental Health, Division of Alcohol and Drug AbuseÂ? paid a total of $300,000 per year to six Missouri regional offices which offer preventionÂ? programs of their choice.

The six state regional offices through which the Missouri Student Assistance ProgramÂ? is implemented are listed on page 54 of the Missouri Student Assistance Program Handbook:

- Transitional Care Center in Kirksville

- National Council on Alcoholism and Drug AbuseÂ? in KansasÂ? City

- Family Counseling Center of Missouri in Columbia

- National Council on Alcoholism and Drug AbuseÂ? in St. Louis

- Ozarks National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence in Springfield

- Southeast Missouri Community Treatment Center in Farmington

The Missouri Division of Alcohol and Drug AbuseÂ? is also working with the Community 2000Â? program.Â? Missouri is divided into four area offices.Â? Each area office heads one or more regions within the state.Â? Each region has a Community 2000 Support Center.Â? Support Centers include:

- Community Counseling Consultants in Clinton

- Family Counseling Center of MO, Inc. in Columbia

- Preferred Family Healthcare in Kirksville

- Quality Prevention Services in Unionville

- The National Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse in St. Louis and KansasÂ? City

- Tri-County Community Mental Health Services in North KansasÂ? City

- Family Counseling Center, Inc. in Kennett

- Ozarks Fighting Back in Springfield, MO

- Support centers in Rolla: MO ADA, and Prevention Consultants of MO, Inc.[5]

The slogan used by those implementing this program is “It takes a village to raise a child” (note: “village” NOT “family.”)� The perception is that EVERY family needs help, and some families need more help than others.� The presumption is that every family is in need of either a prevention, intervention, or after-care program(s) provided through school-based clinics� or through school/community-linked services.

School/community-link services are collaborations between the school and agencies in the community.� One aspect of MOSAP� is a peer-helping program called the “Teenage Health Consultant� Program” which is sponsored by the St. Louis County Health Department.� A small pocket-sized card is distributed by fellow students (minors) involved in the school “Peer Helping” program.� Crisis telephone numbers include sections titled Family Planning Information/Clinics as well as Pregnancy Information/Clinics.� A counselor writes that these telephone numbers gave her abortion� referrals.

Teen pregnancy� is one topic for which programs may be designed for small group participation.� The key question is:� Are teens being referred to resources like the County Health Department’s Teen Clinic� which provides contraceptives� to minors� without parental consent?� Since the St. Louis County Health Department receives federal family planning� funds� called Title X, it is mandated� to provide “non directive” counseling� which is to include information on resources for abortion� to minors without parental consent when requested.� The St. Louis County Health Department offers their Teenage Health Consultant� Program to schools and trains students to identify peers who may be “at-risk” and in “need” of such services or referrals.� Funds from the Drug Free Schools and Communities� Grant have been used by schools to purchase the County Health Department’s Teenage Health Consultant program.

Social service programs that are not an academic necessity may be implemented in a school district without great notice.� Such programs may be originally funded by private grants.� When such grants expire, school districts turn to area businesses for funds� and/or a tax increase is “needed.”

The community is told that if the tax increase isn’t received, academic classes will be enlarged, special classes for the gifted� and academically challenged will be deleted, teachers will lose their contracts, there won’t be books or computers for the students, athletics will be canceled, the busses will no longer run, etc.

Taxpayers are made to feel that if they don’t vote in favor of school tax� increases, or universal health care, they do not care about the community, its schools, or the children.� Students are taken to the state capitol on a “field trip” to voice support for additional school taxes, and are encouraged to promote the tax increase to their parents.

If the community doesn’t understand what percent of the district’s budget is used to purchase social programs that are less essential to academics, the community is likely to vote in favor of increased taxes, to avoid “hurting the kids.”

The question is:� Do we want to be responsible for and raise our own children?� Or do we want to give our children and our earnings to the government to raise our children for us while we do something “more important”?