IAHE received this note from attorney, Will Estrada, of HSLDA. Reposted with permission.
Friends,
As you know, HSLDA is neutral on H.R. 5. You can see our article here. HSLDA’s stated position is that the U.S. Department of Education should be closed, and all education decisions returned to the states, which obviously H.R. 5 does not do.
I wanted to send you some interesting backstory that I know of regarding H.R. 5, which may help to address concerns raised by some that H.R. 5 will mean the end of private school autonomy. I do not say this to defend H.R. 5, but to give you some info which may be of interest to you.
I’ve been reminding folks that HSLDA exists to protect and defend homeschooling. While sometimes our advocacy and fighting to protect homeschool freedom overlaps and includes fighting common threats that also endanger public education (i.e., battling the Common Core), our members are not joining HSLDA in order to make the public schools better. I sympathize with the concerns raised by many regarding how H.R. 5 will affect public schools, but that’s not our primary mission (HSLDA did not oppose ESEA in 1994 and 2001; we were neutral once homeschool freedom was protected). We just do not have the resources to fight for legislation to improve public schools in addition to fighting for protections for homeschools and private schools that do not receive federal funds. In addition, many people who are mad at us for not fighting H.R. 5 are themselves in publically funded virtual public education, something which we warn homeschoolers against.
I have attached a memo from Concerned Women for America that addresses some of the concerns circulating regarding parental rights in H.R. 5.
In addition, here’s an email from Joe McTighe, with Council on American Private Education, in response to a certain blog post:
“Thanks for your analysis of HR 5. My area of expertise with respect to the bill covers the private school provisions. You state that under HR 5,
‘Private schools must admit vouchered childen who apply and provide them with the ‘services’ they would get in public schools. Private schools are to lose their autonomy, deliberately. There is no language preventing federal mandates from following Title I money.’
“I am not aware of a voucher initiative within HR 5 that includes private schools. Nor am I aware of provisions in the bill that would strip private schools of their autonomy.
Sadly, the article you referenced represents a fundamental misunderstanding of certain components of the bill. ESEA’s Title I services to private school students are indeed limited to those that are “secular, neutral and nonideological.” See this citation from current law. HR 5 simply retains this longstanding language and for good reason. The private school community does not want the state or public school teachers offering instruction to students in our schools that would be other than secular. We want religious instruction to be offered by teachers employed by religious schools and using programs selected by religious schools. Anything else would be a violation of our religious liberty under the First Amendment and a gross interference of the state in religious institutions. Ironically, the article you referenced seems to suggest that language in the bill that actually protects us from what the state can do, is designed to limit what private schools themselves can do. There has never been anything in ESEA since its start in 1965 that restricts what religious schools can teach. We have 50 years of experience on that score.
“Further, the ombudsman provision was actually included at the request of CAPE. It is part of a series of proposals we advanced for improving ESEA (see #18 in CAPE’s issue paper). CAPE essentially wrote the language in question, which in its entirety reads: “OMBUDSMAN.—To help ensure such equity for such private school children, teachers, and other educational personnel, the State educational agency involved shall designate an ombudsman to monitor and enforce the requirements of this subpart.” The ombudsman is supposed to ensure that school districts provide the equitable services they are supposed to provide to students in private schools. The article erroneously suggests that the ombudsman is supposed to monitor private schools, rather than school districts. Not sure where the author came up with that idea, but it is simply not the case.
Regards.”
Joe
————————————————-
Joe McTighe
Executive Director
Council for American Private Education (CAPE)
Web – www.capenet.org
I hope this is helpful to you. Please feel free to call or email me, or put concerned parents in touch with me.
Best,
Will
William A. Estrada, Esq.
Director of Federal Relations
Home School Legal Defense Association
One Patrick Henry Circle
Purcellville, VA 20132
Attachment below:
Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee
Statement on the Student Success Act
Title: H.R. 5 – Student Success Act
Summary: The Student Success Act (H.R. 5) reauthorizes and changes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Status:
Passed the Committee on Education and the Workforce (2/20/2015)
Vote expected on the House floor the week of February 25.
Sponsor:
Rep. John Kline
Bill Summary and Status: Read here.
CWALAC Position: Supportive.
The Student Success Act takes a first step forward toward returning educational decisions to the states, and to parents, teachers, and local school boards. While we urge Congress to take an even stronger step toward getting federal bureaucrats completely out of education decision making, we recognize that the Student Success Act has the best chance of passage at this present time, and will represent an improvement over the status quo.
Background:
CWALAC believes that the federal government is far too heavily involved in educational decisions that under our Constitution must be left to the states. We believe that every child is unique and that children learn best when parents and teachers, not educational bureaucrats in Washington, have the freedom to make the critical decisions regarding a child’s education.
CWALAC supports the following provisions in the Student Success Act:
The Student Success Act retains the language in the No Child Left Behind Act to ensure that nothing in the Act will apply to homeschools or private schools that do not receive federal funds, thus protecting these private educational programs from any federal regulation or control.
Student Success Act strengthens the existing prohibitions on federal funding and control over a state or school district’s curriculum, educational standards, and educational testing and assessments. CWALAC is deeply concerned with the federal government’s use of federal funds to pressure the states into adopting the Common Core and other educational initiatives, and believes that this bill takes steps towards ameliorating our concerns. The states and local school districts, not federal bureaucrats, should make these decisions.
Likewise, we are pleased that the Student Success Act strengthens the existing prohibitions on federal funding and control for any program of national testing or certification for teachers.
CWALAC is supportive of the school choice portability language in the bill which allows the funds to follow the students to public, magnet and charter schools. This will give the most disadvantaged students, including homeless and foster children, the opportunity to get the best education possible. It empowers parents the ability to choose high-performing schools and forces failing schools to improve or risk losing students and thus lose funding.
Other resources:
Background on HR 5 from Chairman Kline: http://edworkforce.house.gov/studentsuccessact/
Education and Workforce Committee Key Facts on States’ Rights
Student Success Act (H.R. 5)
- State Authorities and Rights
- This is a misreading of language added to the Student Success Act in 2013 by Rep. Culberson. To clarify the intent, the manager’s amendment will include language to remove references to states waiving rights. The Culberson provision was added to ensure faceless bureaucrats cannot commit a state to the requirements under the Act until locally elected officials vote to agree to those terms. This gives parents and other interested stakeholders an opportunity to voice their concerns and encourage their state to reject the funds and any requirements attached to those funds.
- It is important to remember that the other prohibitions preventing the Secretary from forcing any state to adopt the Common Core State Standards or any other standards are still in effect and further limit the Secretary’s ability to force states to act contrary to what a state wants to do.
- The bill also includes a provision to clarify that if a state has opted out of participating in a program under this Act the Secretary cannot force the state to abide by any of the requirements or force a state to participate.
- Parental Rights to Direct Education of a Child
- This is a misunderstanding of the language in the bill. This provision simply says states have all of the rights around education and the only provisions states must follow are the ones agreed to by the state legislature when voting to accept the funding.
- This in no way establishes the ability for the federal government to take more power or control or to limit a parent’s rights under the law.
- Government Control in Private and Religious Schools/Takeover of Private Schools
- This is a misunderstanding of the law and the bill. These provisions have been in the law since 1965 and, while protecting the rights of private schools, ensure students attending these private schools who are eligible for certain services under the law receive those services. The provisions do not allow the public schools or the Secretary to exert any control over private schools or private school students.
- There is an explicit prohibition included in current law (section 9506) that is maintained in the Student Success Act (section 6506) which explicitly says nothing in the Act can be construed to affect any non-public school. This provision ensures private schools and home schools remain free from control of the Secretary.
IAHE-Government-Affairs