ALERT: HR 5, the Student Success Act of 2015

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Charlotte Thomson IserbytThe fol­low­ing infor­ma­tion is crit­i­cal­ly impor­tant. It should go viral imme­di­ate­ly. Send it to every par­ent and grand­par­ent, school board mem­ber, state leg­is­la­tor, vot­er, friend.… Post it on Face­book, web­sites, blogs, etc. Time is very short! This bill is on the FAST TRACK! The vote on H.R. 5 may take place as ear­ly as Tues­day Feb. 24.



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
Feb­ru­ary 20, 2015, Har­ris­burg, Pitts­burgh, Philadel­phia, PA.

Cit­i­zens of Penn­syl­va­nia, Penn­syl­va­ni­ans Restor­ing Edu­ca­tion, Penn­syl­va­nia Against Com­mon Core, par­ents and stu­dents are ask­ing Rep­re­sen­ta­tive John Kline to stop the REAUTHORIZATION of ESEA, HR 5, the Stu­dent Suc­cess Act of 2015 which will amend No Child Left Behind.

  • HR 5 denies par­ents their rights over their chil­dren. Ref­er­ence pages 488; 522–555.
  • HR 5 leg­is­la­tion cre­ates the rad­i­cal trans­for­ma­tion of tax col­lec­tion through the assigned destruc­tion and hos­tile takeover of our local neigh­bor­hood schools.
  • HR 5 vio­lates states’ rights under the Unit­ed States Constitution.
  • HR 5 is designed to destroy local, pub­lic neigh­bor­hood schools through usurpa­tion of elect­ed school boards’ author­i­ties and responsibilities.
  • HR 5 will destroy all pri­vate edu­ca­tion in Amer­i­ca, as well, leg­is­lat­ing Title I “choice” vouch­ers that will “fol­low the child,” enforc­ing HR 5 com­pli­ance in EVERY PRIVATE AND RELIGIOUS SCHOOL.
  • HR 5 would leg­is­late ser­vices to these Title I “choice” chil­dren called DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES AS A VOUCHER that must be equi­table and com­pa­ra­ble to any pub­lic school, which is need­ed to sat­is­fy Com­mon Core.
  • HR 5 will destroy rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­ern­ment, all non-gov­ern­men­tal schools, and stan­dard­ize edu­ca­tion across this nation. This over­reach of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment is in direct vio­la­tion of our Unit­ed States Con­sti­tu­tion which dic­tates sep­a­ra­tion of fed­er­al juris­dic­tion vs. State jurisdiction.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, you state in the Stu­dent Suc­cess Act HR 5, Press Release, Feb­ru­ary 3, 2015:

.….This pro­pos­al pro­vides an oppor­tu­ni­ty to chart a new course.…”

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, this “new course” that you are forc­ing on the states will end in Con­sti­tu­tion­al chaos.

  • HR 5 removes Con­sti­tu­tion­al states’ rights sovereignty.
  • HR 5 rede­fines par­ent and removes parental rights over the upbring­ing of their children.
  • HR 5 sub­ju­gates state leg­is­la­tures under bla­tant­ly false pre­tens­es about state and local control.
  • HR 5 presents choice vouch­ers defined as “direct stu­dent ser­vices,” as a means to con­trol pri­vate and reli­gious schools and phase out pub­lic schools.
  • HR 5 would trans­form ALL SCHOOLS into gov­ern­ment schools. Has every state ced­ed the land that these schools occu­py, turn­ing them into fed­er­al lands? If the states have not ced­ed the land to the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, the fed­er­al gov­ern­men­t’s juris­dic­tion is deter­mined to be severe­ly lim­it­ed, unless altered dras­ti­cal­ly by the state leg­is­la­ture. Ques­tions of juris­dic­tion would still remain. At the least, HR 5 obfus­cates state and fed­er­al juris­dic­tions as spec­i­fied in the Con­sti­tu­tion and affirmed in numer­ous Supreme Court decisions.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE Who “Gru­bered” your HR 5 and con­signed the states to fed­er­al takeover?

  • HR 5 forces pri­vate and reli­gious schools to pro­vide ser­vices through an APPROVED state list of providers elim­i­nat­ing the free­dom for pri­vate and reli­gious schools to teach stu­dents to their own stan­dards and select their own curriculum.
  • HR 5 forces pri­vate and reli­gious schools to pro­vide non-cog­ni­tive men­tal health areas of per­son­al­i­ty devel­op­ment and inter­ven­tions where­by pro­fi­cien­cy lev­els in the social, emo­tion­al, and behav­ioral domain are scored to a cri­te­ri­on result­ing in vio­la­tions of pri­va­cy under the Pro­tec­tion of Pupil Rights Amend­ment, fed­er­al law, state law, and civ­il rights laws.
  • HR 5 uses choice vouch­ers to dis­solve the pub­lic school sys­tem through the exo­dus of (depar­ture of) Choice, Title I, at-risk stu­dents who dis­en­gage from the pub­lic school and enter a pri­vate or reli­gious school. Pub­lic schools are present­ly rep­re­sent­ed by local­ly elect­ed school board mem­bers in the Unit­ed States. The destruc­tion of our neigh­bor­hood pub­lic school sys­tem under­mines the pow­er and author­i­ty of prop­er­ty tax pro­vi­sions and elect­ed school board rep­re­sen­ta­tion on the local lev­el, rep­re­sen­ta­tion which finan­cial­ly sup­ports local edu­ca­tion agencies.
  • HR 5 pro­vides for the expan­sion of char­ter schools as the sanc­tioned alter­na­tive for school­ing. As you, Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Kline, must know, char­ter schools are a sys­tem of school­ing with­out elect­ed boards. They use pub­lic tax monies reg­u­lat­ed by fed­er­al gov­ern­ment man­dates, stan­dards, assess­ment and teacher reme­di­a­tion with data track­ing and traf­fick­ing and re-edu­ca­tion toward Com­mon Core standards.
  • HR 5 by design elim­i­nates local and state rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­ern­ment by remov­ing the states’ rights and local con­trol of edu­ca­tion and sur­ren­ders our chil­dren’s edu­ca­tion and future to the dic­tates of the fed­er­al government.

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


‘(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)

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, ©(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 FUNDSFOLLOWING 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 “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)