REPRESENTATIVE
KLINE, H.R. 5 is a Constitutional Crisis in the Making.
- HR
5 requires that states legislatively surrender their rights over education in
order to receive Title I funds.
- HR
5 removes the parents as the final arbiters in the upbringing of their children,
and wrestles control of private and religious education through federal
encroachment as explained below.
REPRESENTATIVE
KLINE, quoting from your HR 5 legislation, on page 552, you stipulate the criteria for removing the state legislature's
constitutional power, rights, and responsibilities as follows:
Subpart 4—Restoration of State
Sovereignty Over Public Education and Parental
Rights Over the Education of Their Children
‘‘SEC.
6561. STATES TO RETAIN RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES
THEY DO NOT EXPRESSLY WAIVE.
‘‘(a) RETENTION OF RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES.— No officer, employee,
or other authority of the Secretary shall enforce against an authority of a
State, nor shall any authority of a State have any obligation to obey, any
requirement imposed as a condition of receiving assistance under a grant
program established under this Act, nor shall such program operate within a
State, unless the legislature of that State shall have by law expressly
approved that program and, in doing so, HAVE
waived the State’s rights and
authorities to act inconsistently
with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of
receiving that assistance."
(Emphasis added)
"(b)
AMENDMENT OF TERMS OF RECEIPT OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
An
officer, employee, or other authority of the Secretary may release assistance
under a grant program established under this Act to a State only after the
legislature of the State has by law expressly approved the program (as
described in sub- section (a)). This approval may be accomplished by a vote to
affirm a State budget that includes the use of such Federal funds and any such
State budget must expressly include any requirement imposed as a condition of
receiving assistance under a grant program established under this Act so that
by approving the budget, the State legislature is expressly approving the grant
program and, in doing so, waiving the State’s
rights and authorities to act
inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a
condition of receiving that assistance."
(Emphasis added)
The
passage of your bill out of committee to be voted on by the entire House of
Representatives by February 24 must be stopped. The HR 5 Reauthorization of
ESEA, amending No Child Left Behind,
must be stopped because the provisions inherent in this legislation are
egregious and lack Constitutional authority. Passage of H.R. 5 will bring about
the destruction of the United States system of public education as well as the radical transformation of representative
government both at the state and local level.
REPRESENTATIVE
KLINE, these states' rights issues have not been discussed at your hearings. Is
each state legislature aware of the fact that these measures, hidden in federal
and state statute, will remove their state’s guaranteed rights under the
Constitution? Will each state, including your own state of Minnesota, have to amend its own state constitution to
comply with HR 5?
Several
states have recently added language in their state statutes that in effect
cedes jurisdiction to the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE
KLINE, have you advised the following states of the impact of the HR 5
legislation:
Pennsylvania
has currently proposed legislation, HB 168, Sec. 121(a) (Representative
Tobash), that states it will comply to federal ESEA legislation and future ESEA
legislation:
"The
Department of Education shall develop and implement Keystone Exams in [the
following subjects:]........as required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425) or any successor statute." (lines
17, 18, 19 ) (Emphasis added)
Oklahoma,
in an effort to stop Common Core, the Oklahoma legislature's passage of House Bill 3399, Sec. 11-103.6a 4 (page
18) with the purpose to remove Common Core Standards, defined in their bill
that they would succumb to ESEA federal law:
"Upon
the effective date of this act, the State Board of Education shall seek
certification from the State Regents for Higher Education that the subject matter standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics which were in place prior
to the revisions adopted by the Board in June 2010 are college-and career-ready as defined in the Federal
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility document issued by the United States Department of Education."
(emphasis added)
The
Oklahoma legislature codified Common Core through ESEA and gave up its state's
rights authority by surrendering education and students to federal
control.
Indiana's
supposed departure from Common Core in HB 1427, (Sec. 14.5(a) C, page 9) also
surrenders its state's rights in order to comply with federal standards.
"Provides
that the state board shall implement educational standards that use the common core standards as the base model for academic
standards to the extent necessary to comply with federal standards to receive a
Flexibility Waiver." (emphasis added)
South
Carolina's bill, H3893, (Sec 3, section 59-18-325, (C)(1) passed to stop Common
Core and the Smarter Balanced Test is yet another example of a state
surrendering its state's rights over education and students to the federal
government. In fact this law restores
Common Core:
"The
summative assessment must assess students in English/language arts and
mathematics, including those students as
required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and by
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. [For purposes of this
subsection, 'English/language arts' includes English, reading, and writing
skills as required by existing state standards." [NOTE:
The existing State standards are Common Core.] (emphasis
added)
The
state of Washington is yet another example. Reference Senate Bill 6030, (Sec 6,
(4)(a) page 16, lines 17-20):
"..and
shall not conflict with requirements contained in Title
I of the federal elementary and secondary education act of 1965, or the
requirements of the Carl D. Perkins vocational education 20 act of 1998, each
as amended." (Emphasis added)
REPRESENTATIVE
KLINE, have these states been apprised of the devious design in HR 5 to take
away states' rights granted under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution?
REPRESENTATIVE
KLINE, why have your hearings not discussed the aspect of the "direct
student services" that is defined as PUBLIC
SCHOOL CHOICE FOR ALL PRIVATE AND RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS? Why have these
services not been discussed... services that each private and religious school
MUST "provide on an equitable basis" to meet the individual needs of
each child who receives a SUPER VOUCHER?
Why does the state require that private or religious schools MUST use
"approved academic tutoring services as determined by a provider on a State approved list"? Schools will be
subjected to discrimination charges if they deny matriculation of a Title I
child even if they cannot financially support the OPEN-ENDED direct services
mandated in HR 5, as explained below -- even if it bankrupts them.
REPRESENTATIVE
KLINE, why is "meaningful choice"
defined as complying to state standards (Common Core) and interventions identified
for each "at-risk" child receiving the following services: Special
Education, instructional support services, counseling, mentoring, one-to-one
tutoring, and other benefits for the Title I child? Why is there wording that
mandates that a private or religious school MUST comply with the Civil Rights
Act, (the school cannot deny admittance to a Title I choice child) 504
Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, (MUST administer services
for mental health disabilities), IDEA (MUST administer behavioral screening,
response to interventions, positive behavioral interventions and supports,
mental health wrap-around, BILLABLE MEDICAID SERVICES, mental health services
or specialized student support services), General Education Provisions Act
(GEPA).
REPRESENTATIVE
KLINE, you know full well that HR 5 will codify
the Family Education Rights in Privacy Act (FERPA). This important Act,
as it stands now, has been totally gutted due to President Obama’s Executive
Order, EO 12866, January, 2012. FERPA
now allows personally identifiable information on the student to be released
without informed written parental consent. This personally identifiable
information on the students includes anecdotal, psychological observations,
analysis, and reeducation interventions in the affective domain by teachers,
all tracked and trafficked.
REPRESENTATIVE
KLINE, why must private and religious schools provide the following specialized
Instructional support on an equitable basis with public school students?
Services defined as school counselors,
social workers, school psychologists, or other qualified professional personnel
providing assessment, diagnosis, counseling education, therapeutic and other necessary services defined in Sec.
602 IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when
in fact Common Core has been expanded into the mental health personal trait
standards defined as social, emotional, and behavioral weaknesses now coded as
a disability?
The
State Education Agency names an ombudsman, "an official appointed to
investigate individuals' complaints against maladministration, especially that
of public authorities," for the
following equitable services in each private and religious school: monitoring
and enforcement requirements of private and religious schools, including
reeducation in the affective domain. Obviously, under HR 5 the SEA will operate
independently with no accountability to the state legislature which has
surrendered its authority and responsibility over education and the students.
Referring
to the concept of Title I funds that will
"follow the child" and the super voucher called "direct student
services”: the Title I fund that
"follows the child" is going directly to every child, bypassing state
government. No one at the public hearings
explained that CHOICE, TITLE I FUNDS "FOLLOWING THE 'at-risk' CHILD"
would be used to destroy the financial base of public schools which have
elected school boards and are funded by local tax dollars. HR 5 is purposely
designed to destroy the traditional public school system.
Furthermore,
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, there are scores of pages in your ESEA legislation that
would expand CHARTER SCHOOLS OPERATING WITHOUT BOARDS ELECTED BY THE TAXPAYERS
AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. THIS IS A SET UP FOR CHARTER SCHOOL TAKEOVER OF ALL
EDUCATION with charter school authorizers to control private and religious
schools. Yet, no one explained HOW these
Title I funds "following" a CHOICE, TITLE I "at risk" CHILD
will impact the intrusion into private and religious schools, which will be
forced into all of the mandates that come with Common Core implementation and
EVERY CHILD identified and funded through Title I and thereby subverting the
mission of the private and religious school.
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, you have crafted HR 5
behind closed doors and put it on the fast track to correspond to the
"spitball" known as the ESEA Reauthorization.
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, your HR 5 merged with the
Senate version of ESEA REAUTHORIZATION
will NATIONALIZE EDUCATION BYPASSING LOCAL CONTROL AND STATE CONTROL,
ELIMINATING LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, THE HALLMARK OF A FREE
SOCIETY.
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, your "super
vouchers" cannot buy our children. No government can deny parents their
God-given rights over their children. (Pierce vs Sisters, 1925)
Are you really
requiring parents to waive their rights? Similar to the waivers HR 5 requires of the
states?
If so, we demand that you immediately produce the waiver by which
parents would sign their children over to the federal government! Explain that
one to God... and your own grandchildren.
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, "The family is the
primary society. It does not exist by sufferance of the state." (Dr. Charles E. Rice, correspondence February
5, 1996.)
REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, if you care about a free
America, you must stop HR 5.
Our
children are not "mere creatures of the state."
(Pierce vs. Sisters, 1925)
