FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Anita B Hoge
724-263-0474
Ryan
Bannister 717-919-2122
Gen Yvette
Sutton 610-507-9113
Cheryl Boise
412-389-6896
Rich Felice
484-678-2236
Pennsylvanians Restoring Education
Pennsylvanians Against Common Core
March 4, 2015
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE,
H.R. 5 ESEA Reauthorization cannot be fixed. We also say “NO” to S. 144, Local Leadership in Education Act. We
also say “NO” to S. 227, Strengthening
Education through Research Act. You
both know perfectly well and recognize that the core of HR 5 ESEA Reauthorization rests upon Title I
and IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, under which our children are tracked and remediated.
We
citizens demand that HR 5 be completely suspended until the
United States Department of Education General Counsel reviews the
Constitutionality of the Title I Portability embedded in the Student Success Act of 2015 which will
amend No Child Left Behind.
The federal government does NOT
have the authority under TITLE I PORTABILITY to mandate “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES.” These services, identified for an “AT-RISK”
student (see pp. 53-54), are defined as “specialized
student support services.” (See
pp. 55, 78.)
The federal government is
effectually mandating the identification of an individual
student through interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports on
assessments and how that student is meeting state standards. (See
pp. 24(i), 29) This identification and reporting of the
individual student means that individual children are being monitored by the
federal government. We find this
monitoring of individual students
unconstitutional. (See pp. 29-30.)
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, Who are these “AT-RISK” TITLE I children that your
legislation has defined to receive “direct student services”?
“At-Risk” is defined as, “a child,
youth, or student, means a school-aged individual who is at-risk of academic failure.”
(Emphasis added. See p. 150.)
The local educational agency will monitor and
identify quickly and effectively those INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS who may be “AT-RISK” of failing to meet the State’s
academic standards. (See pp. 53-54.)
The Common Core Standards are the measuring stick for “AT-RISK” children.
Common Core Standards have been accepted in 45 states. (Some states use ACT,
who developed the benchmarks for Common Core Standards, thereby standardizing
the use of Common Core in all 50 states). HR 5 nationalizes the curriculum and
testing across the United States, thus standardizing the assessments,
standards, interventions, and data elements for data collection. The addition
and expansion of children who may be defined “AT RISK” includes mental health, social, emotional, and behavioral interventions
(attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions), required by the specialized
instructional support services as defined below as disabilities by 605 IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. (See p. 467.) (See
S. 144 page 3(e), “Title I shall be carried out....”)
“AT-RISK” children will
receive these specialized student support services defined as “CHOICE”
through the “Direct Student Services” that will follow the child. We do not
believe the federal government has the authority to monitor individual American
students or mandate these services. (Source: The following sources
document the expansion of Common Core Standards into the affective domain: Secretaries
Commission for Achieving Necessary Skills, Department of Labor, 1992;
Presentation of ACT, www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfP3rQ3uyPo
, Nov. 2012 - Kevin Houchin; Chief State School Officers, CCSSO, Knowledge,
Skills, and Dispositions, Feb. 2013, http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/ILN%20Knowledge%20Skills%20and%20Dispositions%20CCR%20Framework%20February%202013.pdf;
ESEA Flexibility Waiver adds non-cognitive psychological standards to the
Common Core Standards in Principle 6: NAEP - soft skills and affective domain, http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/what-we-do/quarterly-board-meeting-materials/2013-08/tab11-saturday-board-policy-discussion.pdf,
p. 2.)
Any reauthorization of ESEA should address the illegality of
the ESEA Flexibility Waivers issued by President Obama and Secretary Duncan. In
Principle 6 of the waiver it establishes that a school environment must
improve school safety and discipline, and address other “non-academic factors that impact student achievement, such as students’
social, emotional and health needs,” which is further clarified in S 225. The assessment and interventions
in the psychological “direct student services” violates the original intent of
satisfying Title I to improve academic achievement. There have been
several years of identifying children as “AT-RISK” due to the implementation of
the Obama/Duncan ESEA Flexibility Waivers in the affective-psychological
domain. Parents are asking how these attitudes, values, beliefs, and
dispositions will be measured, scored, and remediated to a government standard?
Let's be clear: these attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions must conform
to the Common Core Standards; they have nothing to do with academic
achievement.
The HR 5 consolidation of funds
that covers a SCHOOLWIDE Title I program also blankets an entire school with
Title I “AT RISK” interventions for all children, including babies. All
children are “At-Risk” for not achieving Common Core Standards, including those
standards in the affective domain as described above. (Pennsylvania's
affective standards were called Interpersonal Skills.) (See p. 40; p. 65, Schoolwide
Programs; pp. 68,70,74,75, for mandated specialized student instructional
support services in a schoolwide program; pp. 76,77, mandated specialized
student support services for pre-school programs.)
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, HR 5 continues the mandate to identify
Title I “AT-RISK” individual students to receive this same SPECIALIZED STUDENT
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT (see p. 55), thus extending services in the
non-academic psychological/affective domain which is defined as:
(41)(A) SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT PERSONNEL.—The term ‘specialized instructional support personnel’ means school counselors, school social workers, school psychologists, and other qualified professional personnel involved in providing assessment, diagnosis, counseling, educational, therapeutic, and other necessary services (including related services as that term is defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) as part of a comprehensive program to meet student needs.(B) SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES.—The term ‘specialized instructional support services’ means the services provided by specialized instructional support personnel. (See p. 496.)
We believe the federal government
does not constitutionally have the authority to enforce psychological personality
traits standards, nor regulate government-prescribed attitudes, values,
beliefs, and dispositions. These represent Civil Rights violations. The intervention,
treatment, and re-education of attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions of
children fundamentally violates First Amendment protections and rights, which guarantees
“right of conscience,” as well as the Fourth Amendment right “to be secure in
their persons.”
SENATOR ALEXANDER
AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, the Constitutionality of Title I portability
funds, that “follow the child” through identification and direct student
services to all private and religious
schools, is also an issue. The identification of an individual child, and
providing equitable services in your HR 5,
extends to all private schools and religious students. This federal overreach
violates the autonomy of private schools where the funds will “follow the
child.” These specialized student support services are called “DIRECT
STUDENT SERVICES” which are offered as “MEANINGFUL CHOICE.” These
services MUST be equitable, as
determined by a provider on a state approved list (see
p. 18, 78-79), for all public school students and private
school students. (See pp. 17-19, 473, 487, 491, 493, 496.)
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, are you aware that HR 5 mandates equitable CHOICE defined as “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” to every child
in the United States? These “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” are defined as public
school choice. (See p. 473.)
Do you believe that this is the kind of “CHOICE” that parents and private and
religious schools desire, which is in reality no choice at all? The federal
government will mandate “direct student services” no matter the school entity. (See
p. 80; an ombudsman to monitor enforcement requirements on private and religious
schools.)
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, is the Title I Portability that you have
designed true CHOICE? This federal encroachment controls what is taught, and
how it is taught, through the reeducation of every student in the United
States. The “direct student services” have nothing to do with academics, but
everything to do with psychological manipulation. (See
S. 227, Strengthening Education Through
Research Act, pp. 28-29, Part B sec 132(l).)
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, please clarify
the following passage in HR 5 below. Does this section mandate the provision
that the federal government have oversight and control of all funding and
services delivered to private and religious schools in the United
States?
(C) SPECIAL RULE.—If the local educational agency in which a child resides makes a tuition or other payment for the free public education of the child in a school located in another school district, the Secretary shall, for the purpose of this Act (i) consider the child to be in attendance at a school of the agency making the payment; and (ii) not consider the child to be in attendance at a school of the agency receiving the payment.(D) CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.—If a local educational agency makes a tuition payment to a private school or to a public school of another local educational agency for a child with a disability, as defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Secretary shall, for the purpose of this Act, consider the child to be in attendance at a school of the agency making the payment. (See pp. 466-467.)
In Uniform Provisions, on pp.
525-531, private school participation for the “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” or
“CHOICE,” and private school participation follows:
(3) SPECIAL RULE.—Educational services and other benefits provided under this section for private school children, teachers, and other educational personnel shall be equitable in comparison to services and other benefits for public school children, teachers, and other educational personnel participating in the program and shall be provided in a timely manner. (See p. 526; pp. 15(3), 18(3), 58 (4), 78-88, 335(2).)
The IES, the Institute for
Educational Sciences (see pp. 555-557),
monitors “continuous progress” and accountability of all individual TITLE I
“AT RISK” CHILDREN through the state longitudinal data systems
designed in each state and funded through the National Center for Education
Statistics. The IES is collecting psychological data (data on attitudes,
values, beliefs, and dispositions) through a unique national ID on every child
in the United States.
HR 5 violates privacy throughout
the bill. The IES/NCES individual data collection violates the privacy of
students and their families via individualized data reported through each state
longitudinal data system and disclosed to 3rd party contractors, which is
allowed through President Obama's Executive Order. Personally identifiable
information on our children and families is re-disclosed, thereby allowing the
tracking and trafficking of data. (See FERPA, Family Education Rights in Privacy Act,
Sec. 99.31. Obama Executive Order, 12866, expanding the collection of
personally identifiable information in a state longitudinal data system, Jan.
2012.)
The constitutionality of this
personal data collection by the federal government on individuals is in
question. (Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/stateinfo.asp)
Does the federal government have the authority to mandate and monitor specific
psychological services that an individual student must receive? Must parents allow
Common Core Standards in the affective domain
to be mandated to their child, in violation of parental rights and privacy? (See
S 227, p. 17, IES acts as a “national school board,” SEC. 116. NATIONAL BOARD
FOR EDUCATION SCIENCES. See p. 28, expansion of standards into the social and
emotional domain of a child. Note: The Pennsylvania unique national ID,
NCES/IES grant, Contract: CFDS-#84.384, PR/Award #R372A090022; grants.gov
Tracking #: Grant1007608.)
It
is time to close down and defund the Institute for Educational Sciences, the
National Center for Education Statistics, and the National Assessment for
Educational Progress.
It
is time that the federal government get out of education and close shop. Close
down the Department of Education.
It
is necessary to request General Counsel for a legal opinion about the
Constitutionality of Title I Portability and the “direct student services”
because the federal government does NOT have the authority to mandate anything
to an INDIVIDUAL STUDENT in any individual state.
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, stop your unconstitutional bills, called HR 5, S 144 and S
227.
