“Student Success Act” to Crush Religious Freedom, Private School Autonomy, Parental Rights: #NO on HR5   110 comments





This one is such a betrayal.

I’ve never been so shocked and angry over a proposed Congressional bill that I burst into tears.  Not until tonight.

I’d been quietly reading and taking notes on H.R. 5, “Student Success Act” (SSA) when my husband simply, offhandedly asked me how I was doing.   Though I’d been quiet, I was boiling over as I read tucked-away portions of this 600+ page bill which,  despite the local-control-touting, anti-Common Core-sounding words (on page 10 and elsewhere), is terrible. When my husband asked how I was doing, I stood up, walked to the couch and explained through my hot, angry tears what destruction and reduction of vital freedoms will take place if this bill passes:

It ends private schools’ religious freedom from government control.  It harms funding freedom in private schools.  It puts into question parental rights and control over education.  It pushes sameness of testing.  Those are just a few things.  There are more.

We have conscious deceivers in D.C. pushing this bill:  its damages are so painfully ironic.  The bill is touted specifically to “reduce the federal footprint and restore local control while empowering parents“. What a poignant lie.

If H.R. 5 passes this week, in exchange for billions in federal funding, we will be crushed in the following ways.  The federal Department of Education aims to take over:







H.R. 5  the “Student Success Act” won’t be enforced for five years– plenty of time for its promoters to plan implementation, and for the opposition to burn out, give up, to feel there’s no way to rein it in.

The bill is 600-plus-pages long but was just barely introduced this month; and it’s being fast-tracked for a vote this week.  Those whose lives will be changed by it have likely never heard of it and elected reps haven’t had time to debate intended and unintended consequences.

Would our representatives vote to pass this bill if they knew that it included such hidden away, serious damages to Americans’ freedoms?

I want to thank Ann Marie Banfield of Stop Common Core in New Hampshire, who  sent me her summary and pointed to specific paragraphs and pages in this huge bill, to focus attention on where vital freedoms are being slashed.   I have included her notes following mine.  I  invite you to verify for yourself.


 If you read no further, here’s the bottom line:  

H.R. 5  is not a viable alternative to the terrible “Every Child Ready for College and Career” bill

Please call reps and senators: 

Vote NO on H.R. 5, the Student Success Act.  


Here are highlights with pages, sections and direct quotes:


Subpart 4, Section 6561 (page 564 on the pdf) says:

STATES TO RETAIN RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES THEY DO NOT EXPRESSLY WAIVE” –How will a state “expressly waive” its authorities and rights?  –Answer from the bill: simply by having a state legislature accept federal money.

A state that acts “inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance” will waive its authority because the legislature of that state would have “expressly approved that [federal] program”.  If a state’s or a parent’s rights conflicted with a requirement, too bad: the federal bill claims authority to enforce obedience from states because the states take the money.

Read: “…nor shall any authority of a State have any obligation to obey… unless the legislature…. approved that program and in so doing, have waived the state’s rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary...”  So states have no obligation to obey unless they approved federally promoted programs (which the states have done in multiple ways).

As Ann Marie Banfield wrote: “What is going on here? The Secretary of Education can’t enforce any requirements under the program that would violate states’ rights UNLESS the state legislature gives its consent to participate in the ESEA, which encompasses around $25 Billion in aid to states.  Essentially, participating in the program to receive funds requires states to waive their states’ rights and those of the parent over their child if they conflict with ANY requirements of the program.”


On page 567, Section 6564, we read that “…Other than the terms and conditions expressly approved by State law under the terms of this subpart,  control over public education and parental rights to control the education of their children are vested exclusively within the autonomous zone of independent authority reserved to the states and individual Americans by the United States Constitution, other than the Federal Government’s undiminishable obligation to enforce minimum Federal standards of equal protection and due process.”

By tying inalienable parental rights to the receipt of funds and federal “obligations,” the bill just claimed authority to take parental rights away, under conditions it has just defined.

Even in the statement of purpose on page 11, the bill minimizes parents and maximizes itself, by “affording parents substantial and meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children”.

To reduce parents to a recipient of government-granted “opportunities to participate in” the education of a child is de-parenting.  It’s far, far different from Utah’s  legal code, which states in multiple places that: “A student’s parent or guardian is the primary person responsible for the education of the student, and the state is in a secondary and supportive role to the parent or guardian.”


Read pages 78-82.  It mandates that private schools:  “ensure that teachers and families of the children participate, on an equitable basis, in services and activities…  SECULAR, NEUTRAL, NONIDEOLOGICAL.—  Such educational services or other benefits, including materials and equipment, shall be secular, neutral and nonideological.

What’s a private Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Baptist, or any other private religious school to do?  –Alter its beliefs to match mandates for altered materials, equipment and services?

This is the price we pay for “school choice”  and “backpack funding,” folks.  It’s not what they make it out to be.  Where federal money goes, federal chokeholds follow.

The federal government has no right to mandate that private schools must give services  that are secular and non-religious.  (See page 79: it includes in its definition of services: one on one counseling, mentoring, educational television, computer technology and more).



An ombudsman, if you haven’t heard the term, is a paid position, a role in which a person investigates and mediates official complaints for a living.  This bill mandates that private schools will be assigned a state-appointed ombudsman to monitor private schools:  “The State educational agency involved shall designate an ombudsman to monitor and enforce the requirements.”

On page 82 the bill states that the LEA (school district) must consult with private school officials and must transmit results of their “agreement” to a state-appointed ombudsman.  On page 86 the federal bill allows a private school to complain to the government:  “private school official shall have the right to file a complaint with the State educational agency that the local educational agency did not engage in consultation that was meaningful and timely”.  These are private schools.  They  never, ever have had any legal mandate to report to, complain to, speak to, or even think about state or federal governments.  These are private schools; private means not public, not under government mandates.



On page 535, the bill slashes freedom by mandating equity for private and public schools.  “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”.  The government has no right to command a private school to give more benefits, nor to withhold benefits, from private school teachers, staff or children.  The same page states: “Expenditures for educational services and other benefits to eligible private school children, teachers, and other service personnel shall be equal to the expenditures for participating public school children.”  The ombudsman’s job, according to page 80, is to “monitor and enforce” such “equity for private school children”.





ann marie banfield


Additional Information, provided below, comes from Ann Marie Banfield of Stop Common Core in New Hampshire:


Kline/ Rokita Student Success Act



Title 1 Part A- 16,245,163,000

Title 1 Part B- $710,000

Title 11 $2,766,356,000

Title 111 Part A (1)- $300,000,000

Title 111 Part A (2)- $91,647,000

Title 111 Part A (3) $25,000,000

Title 111 Part B $2,302,287,000

Title 4 (1) $66,813,000

Title 4 (2) Basic Payments for Impacted LEAs- $1,151,233,000

Title 4(3) Payments for children with disabilities- $48,316,000

Title4 (4) Construction $17,406,000

Title 4 (5) Facilities Maintenance $4,835,000


Sec. 7 Sense of the Congress:

(a)(1) This paragraphs details how the ESEA prohibits the fed. Government from “mandating, directing, or controlling a State, a local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of state and local resources, and from mandating a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under such Act.”

Problem: Language doesn’t include standards

(b) Sense of the Congress: It is the sense of the Congress that States and local educational agencies should maintain the rights and responsibilities of determining educational curriculum, programs of instruction, and assessments for elementary and secondary education.”

Problem: Language doesn’t include standards.

Sec. 1001. Statement of Purpose

“The purpose of this title is to provide all children the opportunity to graduate high school prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce. -“

Problem:  To fulfill the purpose of this Act, or submit a plan that meets the intended purpose of this Act, a state technically would have to align their standards and assessments to the Common Core. In the state applications for Race to the Top and in NCLB waivers, state post-secondary institutions made assurances that the Common Core standards and assessments would be used to place students into entry-level courses without remediation, thus prepared for college or careers.

  • Many states have already completed the alignment of postsecondary institutions to the Common Core. For example, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington are all participating states in a grant (Rockefeller) called Core to College, which states its goal as: “Preparing Students for College Readiness and Success, aimed to foster long-term collaborations between state higher education and K-12 entities that will improve student achievement and college readiness and ultimately, increased rates of enrollment and graduation. One key to this success was using the Common Core State Standards and assessments to establish a statewide common definition of college readiness to signal a student’s preparedness for credit-bearing college courses. Having such a baseline informed processes to transition students successfully between high school and higher education environments.”


Core to College is only one of many similar programs establishing alignment of postsecondary institutions to Common Core, and they have been well underway since 2011. If the expectations for postsecondary institutions are the Common Core, how would a state prepare students for it without aligning their entire system to it?


  • There are general educational expectations of knowledge and skills that high schools provide to students who choose to join the workforce after high school, such as basic math, reading skills, etc., but “to provide all children the opportunity to graduate high school prepared for ….the workforce” could mean something more than this and could vary dramatically between states.

As used in the Statement of Purpose above, does “prepared” mean a student acquiring an industry certification, a license for a trade, or industry specific training and classes? If so, that would prescribe a great deal to the state regarding the organization, funding, and structure of their entire education system beyond the programs served under this Act.

  • While the Act authorizes the Secretary to “disapprove a State plan for not meeting the requirements of this subpart’” he does “not have the authority to require a State, as a condition of approval of the State plan, to include in, or delete from, such plan one or more specific elements of the State’s academic standards or State accountability system, or to use specific academic assessments or other indicators.” Would the Secretary have to authority to deny a State plan if through the peer review process, which he controls, determines that the state standards, assessments, or accountability system isn’t aligned to college and career established benchmarks and fails to “prepare students for post-secondary education or careers?” He wouldn’t have to condition his approval on including or deleting items concerning standards, assessments or accountability systems, he could simply deny it for failure to meet the purpose of the Act and send them back to the drawing board for the required revisions.




This section is on page 552, towards the very end, but it needs to be addressed first, as it negates so much of the entire Act.

‘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.

‘‘(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 subsection (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.

Subpart 4, section 6561 What is going on here? It states that the Secretary of Education can’t enforce any requirements under the program that would violate states’ rights unless the state legislature gives its consent to participate in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which encompasses around $25 BILLION dollars in aid to states. Essentially, participating in the program to receive funds requires states to waive their state’s rights and those of the parent over their child if they conflict with ANY requirements of the program.

“[The US Department of Education may not violate states’ rights] 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. “

The state will not be able to act inconsistently with ANY requirement that the Secretary of Education MAY impose through this program if they want to receive funding. Geez, I thought the NCLB waivers and Race to the Top grants were coercive!

“This approval may be accomplished by a vote to affirm a State budget that includes the use of such Federal funds……….. 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.”

This is sneaky. They want states to be able to pass this without any fanfare, sort of like how Common Core was adopted- under the radar.

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section applies in each  State beginning on the 90th day after the end of the first regular session of the legislature of that State that begins 5 years after the date of the enactment of the Student Success Act and shall continue to apply in subsequent years until otherwise provided by law.

Why is it not effective until 5 years after SSA is enacted? Seems like Obamacare- let the nightmare unravel slowly….


‘‘It is the intent of Congress that other than the terms and conditions expressly approved by State law under the terms of this subpart, control over public education and parental rights to control the education of their  children are vested exclusively within the autonomous zone of independent authority reserved to the States and individual Americans by the United States Constitution, other than the Federal Government’s undiminishable obligation to enforce minimum Federal standards of equal protection and due process.

After the bill details how your states’ rights over education will be violated, they include this weak assurance that unless the rights were waived by participation in the program,  “state control over public education and parental rights to control the education of their children are vested exclusively within the autonomous zone  of independent authority reserved to the States and individual Americans by the United States Constitution.

Gosh, thanks, guys. It’s so kind of you to have the “intent” to let me keep any constitutional and inalienable rights over parental control that you didn’t illegally revoke by tying them to the receipt of federal funding. This is laughable.













Replaces the school improvement section under NCLB, yet still requires school choice transportation services and SES. The new language calls these two services “direct student services.”


“Part A- Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantage”

“Subpart 1- Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies”

Chapter B- Allocations

Sec.1111. State Plans:

  • (A) “In General. Each State plan shall demonstrate that the State has adopted academic content standards and academic achievement standards aligned with such content standards that comply with such content standards that comply with the requirements of this paragraph.”

(C) Requirements, The standards described in subparagraph (A) shall:

  1. apply to all public schools and public school students in the State; and
  2. with respect to academic achievement standards, include the same knowledge, skills, and levels of achievement expected of all public school students in the state.
  • Academic Assessments-

(B) REQUIREMENTS- Such assessments shall-

(ii) be the same academic assessments used to measure the academic achievement of all public school students in the State:

I think this should be amended to allow LEAs to use a comparable test, or nationally norm-referenced test that can be compared for accountability purposes, this allows for greater local control and freedom in testing necessary to prevent a one-size-fits-all curriculum, enforced by a single test as we witnessed with Common Core tests.

(viii) “include measures that assess higher-order thinking skill and understanding”

This language should be struck. It was also included in original NCLB text and has led to the incorporation of testing thinking skills and process of thought, which in younger grades is not developmentally appropriate. Young children’s brains, until age 11 or 12, have yet to fully develop the brain structures (pre-frontal cortex) needed to think abstractly which is required for high-order thinking- their thinking is still too concrete at this stage.

Additionally, assessing “high-order thinking” has been the impetus for mandating state assessments measure students’ thinking and process skills at the expense of measuring knowledge. The higher-order thinking skills are very difficult to accurately measure on a standardized test, and require test items like open-ended responses, constructed performance items, and technology-enhanced items that are expensive to develop and score, and don’t provide valid or reliable measurements of student knowledge. High-order skills are more accurately assessed by teachers in the classroom.

(xiv) where practicable, be developed using the principles of universal design for learning as defined in section 103(24) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 USC 1003(24) which describes an assessment that provides for multiple ways answering questions

What is Universal Design? In education circles in means “Embedding continuous assessment in instructional materials and methods themselves through the kind of technology-rich, UDL-based curriculum recommended by the National Educational Technology Plan would make it possible to assess not only students and their teachers but the curriculum itself. This would allow the collection of voluminous and timely data on the effectiveness of every element in the curriculum: what works, what doesn’t work, and what works for whom. The result: comprehensive accountability systems and instructional reforms that could support robust learning opportunities for all.”

This language should be struck. It is too prescriptive to states and prevents them from having full control over the type of assessments they develop.


(1) ESTABLISHMENT- Notwithstanding section 6543, the Secretary shall-

(A) establish a peer-review process to assist in the review of State plans; and

If the Secretary shall establish the process the peer-reviewers use it allows him to set the criteria for how a State plan must meet the requirements of this section. This is an overreach of federal authority and negates all the language which prohibits the Secretary from mandating the states to use particular standards, assessments, and accountability systems. This is how the criteria will be set to evaluate whether State plans are approved or not approved.

(D) have the authority to disapprove a State plan for not meeting the requirements of this subpart, but shall not have the authority to require a State, as a condition of approval of the State plan, to include in, or delete from, such plan one or more specific elements of the State’s academic standards or State accountability system, or to use specific academic assessments or other indicators.

This sounds great, but as long as the Secretary sets up the process to judge whether the State plan meets the requirements it is weakened.

(g) FAILURE TO MEET REQUIREMENTS.- If a State fails to meet any of the requirements of this section then the Secretary shall withhold funds for State administration under this subpart until the Secretary determines that the State has fulfilled those requirements.

This make it clear that there is no financial penalty directly incurred by LEAs or individual schools. The financial loss is strictly at SEA level. The State administration funds are noted in SEC 1004. STATE ADMINISTRATION. (a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), to carry out administrative duties assigned under subparts 1,2, and 3 of part A if this title, each State may reserve the greater of

  • 1 percent of the amounts received under such subparts; or
  • $400,000 ($50,000 in the case of each outlying area)



(b) PLAN PROVISIONS Each local educational agency plan shall describe

(12) if appropriate, how the local educational agency will use funds under this subpart to support preschool programs for children, particularly children participating in Head Start program, which services may be provided directly by the local educational agency or through a subcontract with the local Head Start agency designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 641 of the Hard Start Act, or another comparable early childhood development program;

This section allows funds to be used for preschool programs and preferences Head Start instead of for the disadvantaged students the Act is intended to serve in K-12 public education. There is finite amount of money allotted to schools, to give to preschool programs reduces the amount available for K-12.

(13) how the lea through incentive for voluntary transfers, the provision of professional development, recruitment programs, incentive pay, performance pay, or other effective strategies, will address disparities in the rates of low-income and minority students and other students being taught by ineffective teachers.

Why should the federal government dictate how the lea will manage its personnel?

(14) if appropriate, how the lea will use funds under this subpart to support programs that coordinate and integrate-

(A) career and technical education aligned with State technical standards that promote skills attainment important to in-demand occupations or industries in the State and the State’s acadmic standards under section 1111(b)(1); AND

(B) Work-based learning opportunities that provide students in-depth interaction with industry professionals; AND

(15) if appropriate, how the lea will use funds under this subpart to support dual enrollment programs, early high schools, and AP or IB programs.

While it says “if appropriate” leas should not have to use funds to support anything besides the basic education of students. This clause doesn’t stipulate high school, thus it would include K-8 schools. This dilutes the purpose and intended use of Title 1 funds away from supplementing the education of disadvantaged students.

(c) ASSURANCES Each lea plan shall provide assurances that the local lea will-

(3) provide technical assistance to schoolwide programs

Why not to targeted? Does this create an incentive for targeted schools to implement schoolwide programs?

(5) In the case of a lea that chooses to use funds under this subpart to provide early childhood development services to low-income children below the age of compulsory school attendance, ensure that such services comply with the performance standards established under section 641 (a) of Head Start Act

Again, why would title 1 funds be used for children outside the K-12 system, further, why would they choose to align with the performance standards of Head Start which has a failed record to improve student long term achievement?

(6) inform eligible schools of the lea’s authority to request waivers on the school’s behalf under Title VI and



 Amendments to section 1301(which use to be section 1501) to do the following:

  • In subsection (a)
  • In paragraph (1) , by inserting “acting through the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences (in this section and section 1302 referred to as the ‘Director’) after “The Secretary”’
  • In paragraph (A) strike “reaching the proficient level” and all that follows and insert “graduating high school prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce.”

It would read as follows: A) The implementation of programs assisted under this title and the impact of such implementation on increasing student academic achievement (particularly in schools with high concentrations of children living in poverty), relative to the goal of all students reaching the proficient level of achievement based on State academic assessments, challenging State academic content standards, and challenging State student academic achievement standards under section 1111.graduating from high school prepared for postsecondary education of the workforce.

They have been very careful to switch the expectation and the goal of the Act from being proficient on assessments that measure the State standards to attaining the necessary preparation of entering college or the workforce- which is already defined through the waivers and RttT as being the end expectations of CC. Even if the reauthorization voids those agreements, the end result of them remains- public universities are, or have already, aligned their expectations to the CC. Those who wrote this had to have a measurable way to judge if in mind to measure whether or not the new goal would be met by states. What other measure will the IES Director use to see if students are prepared for postsecondary schools or workforce?

  • The types of programs and services that have demonstrated the greatest likelihood of helping students reach the proficient and advanced levels of achievement based on State student academic achievement standards and State academic content standards. meet State academic standards.


If the Director of IES is no longer using the measures of proficient, advanced, what will he use to gauge if the standard is met? Will he use the 1,2,3,4 score from CC aligned tests?

(v) used State educational agency and local educational agency funds and resources to help schools in which 50 percent or more of the students are from families with incomes below the poverty line meet the requirement described in section 1119 of having all teachers highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-2006 school year. address disparities in the percentages of effective teachers teaching in low-income schools.


GENERAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE DIRECTOR OF IES AS ARBITRATOR OF WHAT IS EFFECTIVE AND INCREASES STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: What happens to the approval process of State plans that don’t address issues in accordance with the analyses of the Director of IES based on his analyses the data collected from schools and students? It is very likely that the Secretary could say the State plan doesn’t fulfill the requirements of the Act because the methods they choose are ones that the IES data report as “ineffective.” IT will become reversed- the Director of the IES will tell states what the data says regarding effective standards, school improvement efforts, assessments, etc. and the State plan will be formed accordingly, instead of the State presenting a fresh plan and the Secretary evaluating it.



(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary Director shall conduct a longitudinal study of schools receiving assistance under part A. subpart 1 of Part A

(2) ISSUES TO BE EXAMINED- In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary Director shall ensure that the study referred to in paragraph (1) provides Congress and educators with each of the following:

(A) An accurate description and analysis of the short- and long-term effect of the assistance made available under this title on academic achievement.

(B) Information that can be used to improve the effectiveness of the assistance made available under this title in enabling students to meet challenging academic achievement standards. State academic standards.

(C) An analysis of educational practices or model programs that are effective in improving the achievement of disadvantaged children.

(D) An analysis of the costs as compared to the benefits of the assistance made available under this title in improving the achievement of disadvantaged children.

(E) An analysis of the effects of the availability of school choice options under section 1116 on the academic achievement of disadvantaged students, on schools in school improvement, and on schools from which students have transferred under such options. extent to which actions authorized under section 1111(b) (3)(B)(iii) improve the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and low-performing schools.

(F) Such other information as the Secretary Director considers appropriate.

(3) SCOPE- In conducting the study referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that the study —

(A) bases its analysis on a nationally representative sample of schools participating in programs under this title;

(B) to the extent practicable, includes in its analysis students who transfer to different schools during the course of the study; and

(C) analyzes varying models or strategies for delivering school services, including —

(i) schoolwide and targeted services; and

(ii) comprehensive school reform models

  • Analyses varying models or strategies for delivering school services, including schoolwide and targeted services.




(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall conduct an independent study of assessments used for State accountability purposes and for making decisions about the promotion and graduation of students. Such research shall be conducted over a period not to exceed 5 years and shall address the components described in subsection (d).

(b) CONTRACT AUTHORIZED- The Secretary is authorized to award a contract, through a peer review process process consistent with section 1206, to an organization or entity capable of conducting rigorous, independent research. The Assistant Secretary of Educational Research and Improvement Director shall appoint peer reviewers to evaluate the applications for this contract.

(c) STUDY- The study shall —

(1) synthesize and analyze existing research that meets standards of quality and scientific rigor; and

(2) evaluate academic assessment and accountability systems in State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and schools; and

(3) make recommendations to the Department and to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the United States House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the United States Senate, based on the findings of the study.

(d) COMPONENTS OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM- The study described in subsection (a) shall examine —

(1) the effect of the assessment and accountability systems described in section (c) on students, teachers, parents, families, schools, school districts, and States, including correlations between such systems and —

(A) student academic achievement, progress to the State-defined level of proficiency, toward meeting the State academic standards and progress toward closing achievement gaps, based on independent measures;

(B) changes in course offerings, teaching practices, course content, and instructional material;

(C) changes in turnover rates among teachers, principals, and pupil-services personnel; specialized instructional support services.

(D) changes in dropout, grade-retention, and graduation rates for students; and

(E) such other effects as may be appropriate;

(2) the effect of the academic assessments on students with disabilities;

(3) the effect of the academic assessments on low, middle, and high socioeconomic status students, limited and nonlimited English proficient students, racial and ethnic minority students, and nonracial or nonethnic minority students;

(4) guidelines for assessing the validity, reliability, and consistency of those systems using nationally recognized professional and technical standards;

(5) the relationship between accountability systems and the inclusion or exclusion of students from the assessment system; and

(6) such other factors as the Secretary finds appropriate.

(e) REPORTING- Not later than 3 years after the contract described in subsection (b) is awarded, the organization or entity conducting the study shall submit an interim report to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the United States House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the United States Senate, and to the President and the States, and shall make the report widely available to the public. The organization or entity shall submit a final report to the same recipients as soon as possible after the completion of the study. Additional reports may be periodically prepared and released as necessary.

(f) RESERVATION OF FUNDS- The Secretary may reserve up to 15 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated for this part appropriated under section 3(a)(2) to carry out the study, except such reservation of funds shall not exceed $1,500,000.



  • In general, Each state that receives funds under this title shall:
  • Ensure that any State rules, regulations, and policies relating to this title conform to the purposes of this title and provide any such proposed rules, regulations, and policies to the committee of practioners created under subsection (b) for review and comment.
  • Minimize such rules, regs, and policies to which the State’s local educational agencies and school are subject;
  • Eliminate or modify State and local fiscal accounting requirements in ,,,,,,,
  • Identify any such rule as State imposed
  1. Identify any duplicative or contrasting requirements between State and Federal rules or regulations
  2. Eliminate the rules and regulations that are duplicative of Federal requirements
  • Report any conflicting requirements to the Secretary and determine which Fed or State rule or regulation shall be followed.

How is it ensuring the rights of states and local school districts to govern education policy if all rules and regulations required under this act are to be evaluated by a committee that the USDOE picks the types of people who will sit on it, and further that they recommend which state rules will be followed if the conflict with fed rules or regs under this title. This is an attempt to have one set of federal rules and regs that govern all aspects of the state in relation to programs under this Act.

The Act requires the state to appoint the majority of the committee from representative of local education agencies. It must include administrators of other federal programs under the Title, this would include IDEA, Head Start, Health and Human Services, etc; teachers from public charter schools, traditional public, and career and technical educators; parents; members of local school boards; reps form charter school authorizers, public charter school leaders, reps of private school children, and specialized instructional support personnel ( this category includes people who are 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.)

In an emergency situation where such rules or regs must be issued within a very short period of time, the State education agency can issue a regulation without prior consultation, but shall immediately thereafter convene the State committee of practioners to review it before issuance in final form. Great, if the State educ, agency needs to it can act unilaterally, without the consent of the non-elected committee of practioners required to be formed by the Secretary of Education under this title.



Part A

Section 2113. the state must make available 95% of the funds received under this section as grants to LEAs to do the following:

Section 2122: If state doesn’t have a statewide teacher and school leader evaluation system, the funds must be used to create and implement one. (1)(B) The LEA must show how the “activities to be carried out by the lea under this subpart will be evidence-based, improve student academic achievement, and improve teacher and school leader effectiveness.”

Section 2132: The teacher evaluation system may (1)(A)“use student achievement data derived frk a variety of sources as a significant factor in determining a teacher’s evaluation, with the weight given to such data defined by the lea.;(1)(B) use multiple measures(1)(C) have more than 2 categories for rating the performance of teachers(1)(D) be used to make personnel decisions,

Really? State autonomy is restored or enhanced by a grant telling the State how the leas may constitute their evaluation systems? Also, it is worth mentioning that the extensive rulemaking authority of the Secretary allows for him to decide what are “evidence-based,” and what data shows it has “imporved teacher and school leader effectiveness.” This is also related to the new authority granted under this Act to the Director of the Institute for Educational Sciences to access data through a cariety of sources, including state and local reporting, to conduct studies to show which practices are effective and have positive impacts. This will become a loop, where schools must report data, that data will be analyzed and recommendations will be made, through the rulemaking authority, those recommendations will become necessary for approval of state plans, etc.

The funds may also be used to under (6) for professional development for teachers and school leaders that is “evidence based, job embedded, and continuous” such as

(B) aligned to State’s academic standards

(E) professional development based on the current science of learning, which includes research on positive brain change and cognitive skill development

(G) professional development on intergrated, interdisciplinary, and project-based teaching strategies, ..



The lea must report to the state education agency on an annual basis the following:

(a)(1) how the lea is meeting the purpose of this part described in sect 2101

(2) how the lea is using the funds

(3) if the lea is implementing a teacher evaluation system, the results of of such evaluation system, except if individually identifiable

(4) any such other information as the State educ. Agency may require

This takes complete authority away from local school districts and will require them to report any student or teacher information/data that is required by the state.


“From the funds reserved to the Secretary under section 2111(b)(1)(A) the Secretary shall, directly or through grants and contracts-

  • Provide technical assistance to States and local educational agencies in carrying out these activities under this Act; and
  • Acting through the Director of IES, conduct national evaluations of activities carries out by the state educational agency and local educational agency under this part

RED FLAG: This gives the director of IES authority to request any data from both the State and LEA to “evaluate” the program. Remember that under FERPA, personally identifiable information is allowed to be shared- without consent- for an audit or evaluation – to authorized representatives of Federal, State, and local educational agencies. FERPA 99.31- authorities conducting an audit, evaluation, or enforcement of education programs.




18 ‘‘SEC. 6601. EVALUATIONS.

19 ‘‘(a) RESERVATION OF FUNDS.—Except as provided  in subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary may reserve not  more than 0.5 percent of the amount appropriated to  carry out each categorical program authorized under this Act.

The reserved amounts shall be used by the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences to 1. Conduct an evaluation of the program of the effectiveness of the and long and short term impact to local schools and state, and performance of grant recipients.


Title 1 funds can’t be reserved for sec 6601 or other programs under this act where funds have already been reserved for an evaluation



‘‘Subpart 2—Education of Migratory Children


13 ‘‘The purposes of this subpart are as follows:

14 ‘‘(1) To assist States in supporting high-quality

15 and comprehensive educational programs and serv-

16 ices during the school year, and as applicable, during

17 summer or intercession periods, that address the

18 unique educational needs of migratory children


Will they propose to offer year-round school for these kids or provide free child care when school is not in session?


‘‘(4) To help such children overcome edu-

5 cational disruption, cultural and language barriers,

6 social isolation, various health-related problems, and

7 other factors that inhibit the ability of such children

8 to succeed in school.

9 ‘‘(5) To help such children benefit from State

10 and local systemic reforms.

(4) allows the federal funding to establish “wrap around services for mental and physical medical treatment through the schools, and (5) requires schools to help the children, and I suppose their families, to access public assistance programs offered through the State and localities.



In Section 1001 the Statement of Purpose is to provide “all” children with the opportunity to graduate high school prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce. Of course this must be done by 1) meeting the needs of low income children, 2) closing achievement gaps, 3) affording parents meaningful participation, 4) “challenging states to local educational agenices to embrace meaningful, evidence based education reform, while encouraging state and local innovation.”





I take issue with the purpose of the title to be for “all” children and that it will be accomplished by, among other things, number 4, -“challenging states to embrace reform policies” that will affect all schools.  This means all students, regardless of benefitting or qualifying for the program, will be stuck with statewide reforms necessary for federal compliance.


Private schools are eligible to receive a “direct student service” provided by the LEA to offer choice transportation and tutoring services on an equal basis to children in public schools.




(1)(A) an lea shall “provide such service on an equitable basis and individually or in combination, as requested by the officials or representatives to best meet the needs of such children, special education services, instructional services, counseling, mentoring, one-on-one tutoring, or other benefits under this subpart (such as dual enrollment, educational radio and television, computer equipment and materials, other technology, and mobile educational services and equipment) that address their needs and

(B) “To help ensure equity for such private school children, teachers and other educational personnel, the SEA involved shall designate an ombudsman to monitor and enforce the requirements of this subpart.

(5) PROVISION OF SERVICES- The local educational agency or, in a case described in subsection (b)(6)(C), the State educational agency involved, may provide services under this section directly or through contracts with public or private agencies, organiztions, and institutions.


Any provision that comes with the assignment of an ombudsman to monitor and enforece compliance of private school’s adherence is problematic.


(b) IN GENERAL- “…….the lea shall consult with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of such agency’s programs under this subpart to reach agreement about equitable and effective programs for private school children……the results will be transmitted to the omsbudsman….


I’m not sure whether or not there many provisions that stop Title 1 money from following the child into private schools. The range of services is the same and it is to be on an equitable monetary amount. IT is concerning that the provision of these services must be delivered to the children in a manner prescribed by the lea in “consultation with the private school.”


The consultation must discuss:

“how children’s needs are identified (will they be assessed and data collected)

What services are offered (Can a private school reject certain services or will lea have the say)

How, where, and by whom the services are provided (School can’t provide it themselves- must be done by a third party or the lea, or Sea if lea can’t provide)

How the services will be academically assessed and how the results of that assessment will be used to improve those services. (Assessment, data collection, changes made based on that data)


The provision of services must be from a secular provider:

(d) PUBLIC CONTROL OF FUNDS (2)(B) REQUIREMENTS- In the provision of such services, such employee, individual, association, agency or organization shall be independent of such private school and of any religious organization, and such employment or contract shall be under the control and supervision of such public agency.

(e) If a local educational agency is prohibited by law from providing for participation on an equitable basis to children enrolled in private schools…….or determines the lea has failed or is unwilling, the Secretary waives the requirement and shall arrange for the provision of services to such children

The Secretary will take over the provision of equitable services to private schools if the lea refuses?








  • IN GENERAL.—In establishing criteria and procedures under this section, the Secretary shall collaborate with State educational agencies and, as appropriate, with other State agencies, local educational agencies, public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions, private schools, and parents, students, and teachers.

Looks like private school children, not just teachers, are part of this Act in such a substantial way that the Secretary would want to consult them on forming the State plan? I think Title 1 funds are portable to private schools, regardless of the lack of language stating it. There is nothing that prevents it.


  • —Through the collaborative process described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall establish, for each program under this Act to which this section applies, the descriptions, information, assurances, and other material required to be included in a consolidated State plan or consolidated State application.

This seems to allow the Secretary broad discretion to require additional assurances, information, and “other material” in a consolidated State plan. Why should this be different than a State plan where it is submitted for each program?


  • NECESSARY MATERIALS.—The Secretary shall require only descriptions, information, assurances (including assurances of compliance with applicable provisions regarding participation by private school children and teachers), and other materials that are absolutely necessary for the consideration of the consolidated State plan or consolidated State application.

Again, here is the private school children language.




Thank you, Ann Marie Banfield and Stop Common Core New Hampshire.


















110 responses to ““Student Success Act” to Crush Religious Freedom, Private School Autonomy, Parental Rights: #NO on HR5

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Pingback: “Rule of Law” or “Rule of Men” | On the Edge of the Precipice

  2. I suppose they could go as far as deciding that boarding schools are required for a good education. Or home visits to ensure the parents are engaged in their education. This could go on and on.
    If they keep working on bills to take control of our children sooner or later we will be so busy trying to stop one bill or program that they will sneak in another one.
    This isn’t going to end until they get our kids.

    • Please go to free download of my book “the deliberate dumbing down of america” deliberatedumbingdown.com, page 155, and read following: “BIG SCHOOL CHANGES PROPOSED” WAS PRINTED IN THE BANGOR (ME) DAILY NEWS ON November
      30, 1979. The article covered what could easily be described as futuristic plans for Vermont
      public education. It stated in part:
      MONTPELIER, VT—A blue ribbon commission has recommended a radical restructuring of
      education in Vermont with year-round, ungraded schools and a policy of allowing some
      students to drop out at age 13. In addition, the commission suggested creation of a 4,000-
      student, residential school for students ages 4 through 19. The state-run school would be a
      center for educational research and teacher training…. The commission recommends students
      should be permitted to drop out of formal schooling at age 13, as long as they get a job or
      enroll in an alternative training program.
      [Ed. Note: This extraordinary plan for radical restructuring seemed beyond the pale in 1979.
      However, it doesn’t seem so out of reach in 1999 when most of its recommendations are being
      introduced nationwide. Year-round school has been proposed in many locales, being adopted
      in some in 1999. Boarding schools have been openly proposed by former Speaker of the House
      Newt Gingrich, but have not been widely embraced. However, the concept of allowing students
      to drop out at age 13 has its parallel in school-to-work efforts which force students to select
      a career emphasis by the end of eighth grade.]

    • If we vote the “progessives”and everyone who supports them out and keep them out it will stop,

    • Isn’t this how Hitler started gaining total control in Germany? He took over the schools and the education of the children in Germany and essentially brainwashed them.

  3. Wikipedia makes it sound pretty wonderful. I hope most people don’t get their info about this bill from there.

  4. I am a little confused. It seems to be winning Congress over by statements like this – {Wikipedia}Republicans contended that state and local officials are in a better position than the federal government to decide what their students need.[3] They also argued that parents would take better care of their children than bureaucrats from the United States Department of Education.[3]
    Just lies? Or they really haven’t read the bill? Its like two completely different stories and that doesnt surprise me, just wondering how to combat conversations that support it. Your help with this is greatly appreciated!!

    • I think the majority have not read the legislation but you can be sure the writers know fully well that they are lying and titling sections of the bill with deceptive and Orwellian language that deliberately obfuscates what the meat of the Language actually accomplishes.

      Deliberate Deception. If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat and reads like one? It is.

  5. Pingback: ALERT: H.R. 5 - Student Success Act - Stop Common Core NCStop Common Core NC

  6. The progressives back in the 80s decided that school choice and targeting state and local officials for conversion to their agenda was the most effective way to accomplish their social justice/inclusive society vision. I am quite sure of this because Ted Sizer wrote a book called The Red Pen laying it all out and I have tracked down now every book he cited. In order to appreciate the ESEA bill coming out of either side of Congress it is crucial to know about the Constitution in 2020 vision. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/progressive-polyphonic-federalism-invisibly-binds-people-and-places-to-the-just-society-vision/ Education is consistently given as the prime example of the feds, states, and locals working together as harmonic stew pulling in the same direction.

    One more term to be familiar with that helps to appreciate how all this works to invisibly bind us while pretending to be local and about limited government is the acronym TOGA. It stands for Translocal Organizations of Government Actors. CCSSO, the National Governors Association, League of Mayors, National Assoc of County Governments all coordinate around common visions to create the horizontal tethering. The vertical is that harmonic blending of governments at all levels.

    One more term is Crony Enterprise–the NGOs and private businesses must conform to the terms of the government dollars they accept. Allows control and regulation without ownership and largely out of sight.

    • Ahhhh! Yes of course the Constitution 2020!! Et Voila! Now we know why implementation of this bill and /or Mr. Alexander’s kissing cousin bill in the senate won’t be mandated in total until 5 years down the road! Oh but these cretins are good. So delightful.

      So they have given themselves, the ” rulers” and us ” the ruled” sufficient time to suffer through and adjust and adapt to the new freedoms and ” responsibilities” granted to us via a constitutional convention .

      Bless their tiny little hearts.

  7. I knew this would be the next step, only I figured they would strip the right of religious freedom first to have all that base their private or home school off religious belief and the right to practice these beliefs in school curriculum. I guess they are in a hurry to ‘uniform teach’ all in the next generation making this last one the actual last free generation. Now with all the chemicals (from air to foods we eat) they have inflicted on the mass majority from the time they are born on up will die off soon enough where these elitist can control all mankind. Obamacare came right on time to allow money to be collected from insurance companies to pay for the massive sickness that’s been inflicting people from man made illnesses. Making insurance a mandate and the highest part of the cost comes from the individual rather then insurance company with deductibles at $10k to have affordable premiums. Next is the censoring of the world wide web (neutralizing net bill). This is to keep the people away from the truth tellers, how to survive, how to make your own medicines that do work, like nano or collide silvers. My suggestion is to prepare for the worse if you are going to fight this future. Teach your children how to filter water and grow your own foods after you clean the soils that are contaminated. Use usb flash storage to save important “real news that’s changing our lives” save educational material, horticultural living materials, survival off nothing videos, Find videos that teach us how to make our own energy, medical treatments, and natural remedies. If you know of a outdoor survivalist take lessons even if you have to pay for them. What you learn you can teach. Learn to live off the necessities of life and let go of that material world. And most of all store a Bible on usb, and other reading material (especially history, math, science, grammar, current events) to teach your children. This is how to use what we will eventually lose access to by censoring the net and if you have on usb flash you can stay under the grid offline.

  8. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

    Seems obvious that this bill is an attempt to ducktape a broken system with more brokenness, with assurances that more broken systems will be leveraged to break the few state systems and local systems and private systems that work.
    Our politicians suffer from their narrow minded world. They think politics and legislation are the only tools available. They are wrong. Usually, when it comes to the government, doing nothing is the best option. In general, all government action leads to loss, pain, suffering, and death. Very few government programs do more good than harm. Very few government programs are worth having at all.
    It is time to start reducing. We must reduce regulation, law, and spending. Eliminate government everywhere we can. It will take many years, but we must start now. The longer it takes, the more pain and suffering we, we the people and our government, will impose on future generations.

  9. This disgusting legislation is vomit inducing. We Americans, we Humans, do not deserve this treasonous drivel. These apparatchiks should be sequestered to the Siberian tundra to live out the rest of their days with their likeminded comrades. Perhaps then awareness of their own drives and consciousness and loss of autonomy will make them reconsider their deeds.

    Thanks for this Christel.

  10. I just sent an email to Congresswoman Jenkins. I am hoping that since she knows me (Jefferson County co-chair 2012 & 2014) and my son (campaign intern 2014), she will pay close attention to and carefully consider my comments. I borrowed very heavily from the above article. I hope you don’t mind! Thanks!

  11. Bless you for taking so much time out of your schedule to put this together; I know I would never have time to read over a 600+ page document! I too borrowed much from your above post and sent a letter to Bill Foster. Hopefully he replies.

  12. Pingback: HR 5 “Student Success Act”: Scariest. House Resolution. Ever! | Lisa Jackson Design Blog

  13. I have been reading the bill from the gov website. I agree about the language as far as private schools are concerned. I have not found anything in the bill that addresses homeschooling. Can anyone clear this up for me? Thanks. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr5/text

    • In Wisconsin, homeschooling families are considered Private Schools. This applies to private schools, so it applies to homeschoolers here.

    • This is a reauthorization of NCLB and includes much of the language from that original bill, including a specific provision that none of this applies to homeschoolers or private schools that are not participating in the programs being discussed, Title I and Title III.

  14. thank you for pulling this together. This is incredibly frighetening and indegistible overwhelm for me right now. I appreciate so much your dilligence.

  15. After doing some more reading, I have to agree with this article that to allow homeschooling to be on equal footing with private school was a huge mistake to start with. Don’t parents fundamentally have a right to instruct their children themselves? I would think that if your state went along with the labeling of homeschools equal to private school that it would need to be repealed.with.http://www.nheld.com/btn61.htm

  16. It seems that it entered the Senate a year and a half ago. Is it still alive or did it die in committee? https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5/all-actions

  17. This has become so insane, that in order to keep my sanity as a parent, I have just boiled this down to the following:

    1. Whatever type of school that President Obama, and Bill & Melinda Gates send their kids too, is where my kids will be going.

    2. Even as little as 1 year ago, if someone had told me that the Feds were going to have massive power, control and influence over private schools, especially religious private schools, Inwould have assumed that person was on crack.

    3. As such, it would behoove all of you, (myself especially included) that when approached by someone with claims that the Feds and our State Education Agency will shortly be drafting laws to eliminate homeschooling and/or require yearly testing on homeschooled kids, you should not assume they are on drugs, or is a right wing nut bag.

    The last time I checked, these nut bags have predicted the course of education reform with stunning accuracy.

    4. When, not if, a boatload of Utah parents start to pull their kids from public AND private schools to homeschool their kids, that will be the time laws will be drafted to eliminate the homeschooling option. These greedy SOB’s will not tolerate the massive loss of data generated income from kids who are no longer in the public/charter/private school system.

    My guess is that this will happen when the homeschooling numbers reach around 10%, with indication of those numbers rising exponentially.

    5. I will leave this country with my 4 year old in tow the day I am forced to participate in a education system not of my choice.

  18. Pingback: H.R. 5 The Student Success Act Worse than the Redcoats: Invasion of Home School | COMMON CORE

  19. Pingback: Immediate Action Required: Contact Kristi Noem – VOTE NO ON HR5 – | South Dakotans Against Common Core

  20. I’m grateful to you for pulling all of this together, and looking at this site and a couple of others recommended by friends this morning has raised my concern over this bill.

    One concern I have, though, is that I think this community is misreading Section 1120. What I see here is a stipulation that any “special educational services, instructional services, counseling, mentoring, one-on-one tutoring, or other benefits” provided to private schools by the “local educational agency” be “secular, neutral, nonideological.” It does not require private schools to provide “secular, neutral, nonideological” counseling or other services, only that the “local educational agency” ensure that any services they provide to private schools in their districts is “secular, neutral, nonideological.”

    The intent here is to open up existing, taxpayer-funded services provided to public school children to private school children as well. Note also that these services are only provided “after timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials or representatives” and only provided “as requested by [private school] officials or representatives.” There is no mechanism in this section to force secular education into the curriculum of religiously-based private schools.

    Let me illustrate with a real-world example. My children attend a private Baptist school that meets in a large church. One of my children has special educational needs. Currently, the local educational agency does not provide special educational support to my child. His private school does not have the resources to provide this support, and it is my understanding that the school has requested support in the past and been refused. The public school three doors from my house – funded by my property taxes – does provide this support to students enrolled there. The provisions of this bill would allow him to receive support at his private school from the local educational agency IF the private school requests it. I would also be included in the process, as the bill requires the local educational agency to “ensure that teachers and families of the children participate, on an equitable basis, in services and activities developed pursuant to this subpart.” My child gets the special educational services he needs without me being forced to enroll him in public schools to get them or to provide them myself.

    Let’s take this example further. My children attend a school-wide chapel service every Wednesday and have developed a relationship with several of the pastors. If either of them have a problem that they feel that they need to talk with someone about and don’t feel comfortable discussing with my wife or I, they can request to meet with a pastor for counseling. There is no provision in this bill requiring pastoral care provided by the private school to be restricted to “secular, neutral, nonideological” counseling because that service is not provided by the local educational agency.

    Just my thoughts to add to the discussion.

    • Thank you for actually reading the legislation in context.

    • I was wondering if anyone had read and interpreted that section the same as I had. I have had a similar situation with my child so perhaps we can understand more readily that they are talking about the school district providing special education services to assist the private school.
      I will add that the ombudsman is only mentioned in this section as well and it appears to me that this person monitors that the school district provides equal special ed services to the public school and private school. And the private school may report issues to the ombudsman. I didn’t see any language stating that the school has any required reporting.

    • Question: Do these “special education services” open the door to the claim by gov that by the private school accepting the services, the school has now received government money and is now subject to government regulation?

      • I don’t think so. As I read this, the private school isn’t directly receiving government money to provide a service on their own – this is a mechanism to ensure the local educational agency is extending services provided to public school students to the students of private schools.

  21. According to the govtrack.us site, it died in a previous congress! Yay!

  22. The bill has been reintroduced https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5

  23. Reblogged this on bumblingperfectionist.

  24. HSLDA’s position on this is neutral. They are stating that it won’t affect home schools or private schools that do not receive federal funding. I pray that is accurate.

  25. How would your respond to HSLDAs comments on the bill? I’m thoroughly confused.

    *I tried to link the HSLDA response here, but it won’t work.

  26. I come at this at a spiritual angle to pray… When things like this bill are brought up for a vote, it can only be evil behind the scenes to gain control of the righteous believers. In order to keep them from teaching their children the oracles of God through the word of God. The Ancient of Days is taking His seat and executing judgment now against these kind of detestable abominations. So with that said…
    I agree with all would would like to pray that, the wicked spirit/s behind this move and bill, BE judged by all mighty God in Jesus name. We declare the fire of the Holy Spirit and the Blood of Jesus be applied and destroy all spirits that have inspired this conjured up bill. Let it leave them neither root nor branch to operate from. When this vote happens let it be struck down with such power that it never be revisited again. Father God in Heaven, hear our petition to assign these wicked spirits to the dry parts to wait their sentencing for attempting to pervert your little ones. Father thank you that no weapon form against us will prosper and every tongue that rises against us, we condemn it. In Jesus name we pray, Amen.

    This prayer is 100%, “spiritual only”, warfare.

  27. This was introduced and passed during the 113th Congress (last Congress), 07/19/2013 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 221 – 207 (Roll no. 374). It was NEVER voted on in the Senate, which means that if they ever want to bring this back to life, they must be reintroduced, which nothing has been mentioned so far this year in the 114 Congress.
    I think we have more important fish to fry than talking about dead legislation.

  28. It was reported out of committee last Friday.

  29. Reblogged this on Catholic Is Our Core and commented:
    Please call your Congressman/woman and urge them to reject this bill!
    For those in the Lehigh Valley, PA area, we are represented by Congressman Charlie Dent.

    You can call Charlie Dents DC office @ 202-225-6411 or email him @ https://dent.house.gov/?p=ContactForm

    If you don’t know who represents you in the House, just click on this link to find out!

    This bill is sponsored by Rep. John Kline (R- MN) and co-sponsored by the following Republicans!
    Rokita, Todd [R-IN-4]
    Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]
    Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN-1]
    Rep. Messer, Luke [R-IN-6]
    Rep. Byrne, Bradley [R-AL-1]
    Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32]
    Rep. Hunter, Duncan D. [R-CA-50]
    Rep. Heck, Joseph J. [R-NV-3]
    Rep. Guthrie, Brett [R-KY-2]
    Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA-12]
    Rep. Curbelo, Carlos [R-FL-26]

    Thank you and God Bless
    CIOC Editor.

    • There are a lot of reasons to oppose this and any legislation that is just more NCLB nonsense. There are even some good articles online that outline the actual problems with this bill.

  30. Pingback: Action Alert: Call NOW! Stop HR 5 | Stop Common Core in Michigan

  31. While I agree with much of what you have said here, I disagree with the statements about curbing religious freedom in private schools. Most private schools, particularly religiously affiliated ones are not affected by No Child Left Behind/Student Success Act as they do not receive federal or state funding. Under these acts, they are welcome to apply for the funding but in doing so will have to follow all the stipulations. This is why they are PRIVATE. This is how they avoid SOL testing and benchmarking, etc.

  32. Reblogged this on Sister Patriot and commented:
    I am re-blogging this excellent article on H.R. 5 — which I firmly OPPOSE! Please call your Congressman!! ~~Sister Patriot

  33. How about this, if you want free money you have to do whatever the person giving the free money tells you to do. If you don’t want the money, you don’t HAVE to do those things. If you want government off your back quit asking them to get into your wallet.

  34. Taxpayer funds should NEVER EVER be used to fund anything religious…..ANYTHING.

    • Agreed, Tomnikoly. Likewise, private/religious institutions should never be controlled by the government. It works both ways. This is why using “portable backpack funding” and school choice and vouchers with public money going into private schools, is wrong.

  35. Reblogged this on Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

  36. I was too upset to get past the first few paragraphs… corrupt and unjust… 😦 Sad decline. I have had a hard time getting help from the school this year even when it comes to my ideals as a parent. I expect my child to do well, to uphold himself with respect to himself and others, to not call names, etc… to not cheat and what I get from the school is that if they exclude him for doing it then they have to monitor and track down the other kids they handed an ipad to and monitor them too… THEN SO BE IT… I am the parent.. I will retain rights… And my child will behave the same in school as he does at home morally and the school will not brush it aside just because they do not want to deal with it… 😦 UGH… what a mess the decline has become.. they want control but they don’t want to do anything with it.. (the government to the schools and then pass it to the parents as our fault and we have no say.) what a bunch of bologna… 🙂
    Sorry for the rant, but reading this upset me…
    The government has overstepped their bounds way too much and not just in education and they steal the money from where they can… (ie SS)

  37. Pingback: 125 Amendments and Vocal Outrage Should Tell Kline to Hit the Reset Button on Student Success Act | MN Political Roundtable

  38. Let’s stop common core in every state. We need to get oboma out of office before he destroy’s the united States

  39. It’s an inspiration to all of us,,! As experience to develop themselves better

  40. Reblogged this on To Talk of Many Things and commented:
    This is awful! It going to affect Private Schools as well as Public. In Texas Homeschools are considered Private Schools and I’m shocked that I’m just now hearing about it. Why are my homeschool friends not in an uproar!?!

  41. It was my understanding that this bill only effects private institutions that accept federal funds…

    • Question: (applies here same as above) When a private school student accepts “special education services” provided by a gov entity, does that open the door to the claim by gov that by the private school accepting the services for its student, the school has now received government money and is now subject to government regulation? And does this include any other education-related services a private school student might receive from the gov?

  42. I didn’t read it all but it sounds like communism to me

  43. Reblogged this on Angela At Her Home.

  44. My children have been homeschooled and private-schooled from kindergarten through high school. As most homeschool/private school families, we don’t use the public school system for anything, nor do we expect anything from it. Yet, we still have to pay public school taxes, (which, in my book is a pretty one-sided deal). Nevertheless, as responsible citizens, we pay our taxes and teach our children to do the same. Thus, it would seem that the motive for such a bill as this to even be written, is nothing more than invasive and thorough government control of the populace, of which I am adamantly against.

  45. Why do you suppose that those typically in line with conservative-minded school reform – less government involvement at all levels – including the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, the majority of Republicans, National Review and others heavily support this bill. The bill is garnering NO democratic support, Arne Duncan is against it.

  46. Did you know that this bill only applies to schools that accept federal funds? So private schools that do not take money from the federal government will not be affected…and neither will families who homeschool since they certainly don’t receive federal money. Here’s a link to HSLDA where I got my information: http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/National/2015/HR5/default.asp

    • Here’s a fascinating article about Grove City College and the implications of their decision not to accept ANY type of federal funding. No matter how small an amount or how far removed from the federal government, any variety of federal money would make them liable to government regulation.

      That means they can no longer have an ROTC program; they would be in receipt of federal funds. When they were invited to participate in a drama production at the Kennedy Center, they had to go the extra mile to avoid entanglement because the event was underwritten by federal funding. There are limitations on their students participating in federal internships, and their faculty getting federal grants for research.

      So it isn’t just a simple matter of a school saying, “We’re private.”

      I wonder if any Christian high schools offer ROTC? That would mean the same rules would apply to them. Any national contests where the sponsoring organization is underwritten by federal funds? Ditto. So you can see how subtle but far-reaching the federal connection is. Would the federal government exploit such a tenuous connection? Just ask Grove City College.

      Click to access Grove%20City%20v%20Bell.pdf

  47. Pingback: HR5 must be halted! We must let the legislators know we are speaking out. | stopcommoncorenys

  48. This only applies to schools that accept federal funds. It’s alarming, however there are still options available. http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/National/2015/HR5/default.asp?utm_campaign&utm_content&utm_medium&utm_source&utm_term

    • The federal government’s interpretation of what constitutes receiving federal money is exceedingly broad. See my post above about Grove City College’s experience with this. Even if a school participates in a national contest that is partly underwritten by federal funding, they could be considered in receipt of federal funds. This makes avoidance of federal funding much trickier than it sounds on the surface.

      • Even if that is true, it doesn’t mean jackbooted ombudsmen will be in every living room.

        • Forget about living rooms. It only takes one overly zealous ombudsman going after private schools. But who ever heard of overly zealous government employees, eh? 😉 Again, please read the Grove City article linked above.

          • Living rooms are a large part of this page’s nonsense. The suggestion here is that homeschoolers of all stripes should be fearful that government agents will descend on their homes, remove Bibles, and otherwise crush freedom at will.

            And if it doesn’t happen in your home it’s only because you send your child to a brick and mortar private school and it will happen there.

            I read the article at the link and it’s a cute story. The case is from 1976 and has nothing to do with the legislation being discussed here. Except to suggest that if you are going to participate in taxpayer-funded programs, like Title I and Title III, there will be some paperwork involved.

            • As you may have noticed, I was not talking about homeschool, but private school, so that is a straw man argument.

              If you think it is a “cute” story, then I suspect you work for the government. Grove City wasted 10 years and no telling how much money fighting the federal government. That’s not “cute.”

              And yes, the concepts in the “cute” story are very much applicable to the present legislation. Anyone who has tangled with the government knows that.

              • If you read all the way to my second paragraph, you will see I am also talking about private schools.

                This site could actually be doing some good in drawing attention to problems with Common Core and NCLB and its spawn.

                Instead it is getting derailed by inaccurate concerns about legislation that has nothing to do with anyone who is not participating in the Title I or Title II programs.

  49. Reblogged this on St Louis Photographer Peggy Franz and commented:
    WTH! ANOTHER GOV’T TAKE OVER SAD!!!!!!!! 😦 New it was going to come to this….Kids behaved and learned in school before they took out the Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer

  50. Pingback: HUDSON: H.R. 5 – The “Student Success Act” Actually a Failure? | The Hayride

  51. Pingback: Student Success Act is a trap « Watchdog.org

  52. Pingback: When I Read This Proposed Child Education Bill, I Burst Into Tears. | The Edgy Truth

  53. Pingback: HUDSON: H.R. 5 – The “Student Success Act” Actually a Failure? - iVoter.com | iVoter.com

  54. Thanks for the article. Please note, however, that the “secular, neutral, non-idealogical” language is already codified in US. Code 6320 (read it here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/6320). I’m not exactly sure what that language means; it appears to be in relation to private-schooled children that utilize public-school resources, that those resources might not be religious, etc. It does not appear to apply to the private-school resources themselves.

  55. Pingback: ACTION REQUIRED- “Student Success Act (H.R.5)” to Crush Religious Freedom, Private School Autonomy, Parental Rights | Catholic Is Our Core

  56. Pretty part of content. I just stumbled upon your
    web site and in accession capital to say that I get in fact loved account your weblog posts.
    Any way I will be subscribing to your feeds or even I fulfillment you access constantly rapidly.

  57. Pingback: Federal HR5 Down: Ten Things to Watch for in New ESEA Reauthorization Bill and SETRA | COMMON CORE

  58. Wow. You are crazy and terribly confused. Good luck.

  59. Pingback: Conservative Blogger stops No Child Left Behind act |

  60. Pingback: Dropout Nation » No Point Reviving H.R. 5’s Corpse

  61. Supposedly wherever people may be seeking knowledge and not blocked by anything, be it religious or economic problems

  62. Want to take back our country? Support Gareth William (Bill) Neumann for president 2016. Bill is The Patriot we must have. Join the team, lots of work to be done. Bill is against Common Core, No Child Left Behind and HR5. Leave a comment at: http://www.friendsofbillneumann.com and see his articles at: http://www.conservativevoiceofthepeople.com

  63. Pingback: It’s Back: The No Child Left Behind Rewrite | COMMON CORE

  64. Pingback: Call for Action — HR 5 Back in Washington | therightplanet.com

  65. Hello All – You three ladies are making quite a noise down here in Arizona as well. Two of our very own stalwart anti-CCS moms and myself met with Arizona US Congressman Matt Salmon this afternoon. Matt asked us if we were familiar with the three women heading up the Utah Anti Common Core? We told him that we were aware of your group. Matt told us directly he is very strongly anti-common core and has actually helped stall H.R.5 so far. The two ladies I was with spoke to Matt specifically about Title 1 Portability and I about FERPA and the lack of privacy when President Obama wrote an executive order to strike out parental consent for any third party to retrieve our children’s data. FERPA was also changed to allow biometric data be part of the data collection on children. When the technology in each school catches up to the scientific data gathering of eye and body movement during testing. Perhaps we should consider a two state consortium conference soon?

  66. What is the status of this?

  67. Pingback: H.R. 5 – Federal Stranglehold on Education (Including Private Schools) | The Same Deep Water As You

  68. Pingback: A Titanic NO on Twin Ed Bills – Children Deserve Better Than HR5 and S1177 | COMMON CORE

  69. Pingback: HR-5 Would Allow States to Opt Out of Common Core - 'Nox & Friends

  70. Pingback: traiteur rabat

  71. Pingback: H.R. 5 – Federal Stranglehold on Education (Including Private Schools) | Life & Liberty '76

Comments are welcome here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: