Wrong, Wrong, Wrong on H.R. 5

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Charlotte Thomson IserbytAn Alert by Anita Hoge

National Review Online and Thomas B. Fordham Institute are wrong, wrong, wrong on HR 5.

National Review Online and Fordham Institute are totally wrong on HR 5. They are calling HR 5 as “take back our schools” legislation and that “federal overreach in education might finally be coming to a close.” Michael Petrilli says HR 5 will end Obama’s “prescriptive playbook.” (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415260/take-back-our-schools-michael-j-petrilli?target=author&tid=901836 )

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Nothing could be further from the truth. HR 5 calls for total control of education with private and religious schools being dragged into the mix. (SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER AND REP. KLINE SELLING OUT YOUR CHILDREN (http://www.newswithviews.com/Hoge/anita114.htm)

This top-down federally controlled design has been the Obama/Duncan equity plan (including “choice,” eliminating school boards, and expanding charter schools), documented in a white paper called The Equity and Excellence Commission, For Each and Every Child, February, 2013. (http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/eec/equity-excellence-commission-report.pdf)

Interesting then to note that Obama has publicly threatened to veto the Republican versions of ESEA. We also know this is smoke and mirrors because the objective is to get control of ALL schools including private and religious schools through “choice.” HR 5 will do just that. KLINE is frustrated because parents actually have read his current bill and the grassroots have been protesting this federal takeover. KLINE is still trying to scrape up support and votes.(http://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398543 )

The Senate Democrats’ Reauthorization in 2013, SB 1094, corresponds to Senator Alexander’s Reauthorization plan. A grand compromise is in the mix. Title I portability and choice is the greatest obstacle for Democrats, or that’s how it is being publicized with Murray and Alexander negotiating in the back room to get the Reauthorization of ESEA passed. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/09/key-lawmakers-close-to-deal-on-education-law/24659017/)

It is regrettable that a piece of legislation as big, or bigger than Obamacare, is not getting the national media attention that it warrants.

Chester Finn and Fordham’s President Michael Petrilli state that HR 5 would, “be the most conservative federal education move in a quarter century.”

Time for the truth. HR 5 actually legislates the “mischievous, dysfunctional, intrusive, big-government features” that the Obama administration put into place with the illegal Flexibility Waivers, plus more. Republicans, National Review Online, and Fordham are aligning themselves with the Obama/Duncan nationalizing education plan.

Chester Finn states in his article:

Moreover, states have always had the option to…. “opt completely out of the program. Any state willing to forego its share of federal education dollars is free to do so—and to exempt itself from all the rules and constraints that accompany those dollars.” (http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-conservative-case-for-hr-5)

A state must give up its sovereignty by accepting federal dollars and must insert federal law into state statute. Signing away all state legislative jurisdiction over education is a gigantic un-Constitutional power shift in favor of the federal government. This is total federal encroachment that rescinds the General Education Provisions Act, sec. 432, that says the federal government’s cannot direct or supervise curriculum. So Chester Finn is agreeing with the federal government making legal what is illegal by allowing the federal government to have total control of education, and consume all the rights of states. Local school districts will have to bow to the federal government with no recourse on the state level. Wow! What could you be thinking, Chester Finn?!

Micromanaging” doesn’t come near to what will happen if HR 5 is passed. Be prepared for the federal total takeover of ALL education by handing over your children to the Feds on a silver platter if this legislation is approved, and your state abdicates its jurisdiction. As the last act before walking the gang plank, states will be stripping local school boards of their authority, as well.

Other glaring issues not discussed by National Review Online and Finn:

  • Neither National Review nor Fordham discuss the bastardization of Title I and IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act inherent in HR 5.
  • Neither mentions interventions on the students, schools, teachers, or specialized student instructional support.
  • They do not mention mental health standards in the affective domain, or direct student services — let alone define the above.

HR 5 DOES NOT shrink the federal role in education. HR 5 expands the federal roll mandating that every “at-risk” child, which is ALL CHILDREN NOT MEETING COMMON CORE, including the soft skill standards in the affective domain, must be remediated. Teachers will be required to track and code values, attitudes, beliefs, and dispositions and treat deficiencies therein with psychological interventions from birth to graduation.

HR 5 IS NOT TRANSPARENT. The definitions of specialized student instructional support, direct student services, and interventions in the social, emotional, and behavioral domain of a student are cloaked in doublespeak under labels like disabilities, related services, or rehabilitation. The devil is in the definitions.

HR 5 DOES NOT REDUCE the authority of the Secretary of Education. (PP. 513-525, ‘‘PART D—WAIVERS, ‘‘SEC. 6401. Waivers of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) Sec. 6401 gives the Secretary of Education the authority to use waivers for state or local education agencies in HR 5, at his convenience.

HR 5 DOES NOT put states, communities, parents, and teachers back in charge. There are massive amounts of mandates that force compliance on states and local school districts under equity, accountability, and treatment. It expands the definition of at-risk Title I children to all private and religious schools and mandates they have the same equitable services and interventions (direct student services, or choice) which is no choice at all when an ombudsman oversees the school.

HR 5 places the Institute for Educational Sciences and National Center for Education Statistics (IES/NCES) as “BIG BROTHER” NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARD for data tracking and trafficking using a unique national ID entering all of the personally identifiable information on our children through each state longitudinal data system. Neither National Review nor Finn ever mention the FERPA betrayal implemented by Obama’s Executive Order(12866) to unlock the data to sell our children’s personally identifiable information including psychological profiles to big business. NO explanations. Just approval of HR 5.

So let’s set the record straight. How do National Review Online and Fordham define Conservative? NRO, you have turned your back on the truth and made a mockery of representative government.You have betrayed your conservative subscribers and parents. Goodbye, National Review Online.

STOP KLINE’S HR 5 and SENATOR ALEXANDER’S REAUTHORIZATION OF ESEA.

For a complete listing of Anita Hoge’s alerts on this blog, see the post “It Wasn’t US!” and scroll to the bottom.

Get informed!
Stay informed!
Inform others!
Make this alert go viral!