HR 5- State legislators on the hook for requirements of ESEA Reauthorization?
The Student Success Act (HR5) sponsored by Representative Todd Rokita (R-IN) and Representative John Kine (R-MN) to re-authorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (NCLB) requires state legislators to agree to any conditions required under the Act to receive the associated federal funding.
Please ask your state representative and state senator to read the excerpts below to understand what is required of them under the Student Success Act and sign the form to acknowledge their agreement or disagreement with the requirements as it pertains to sections 6561 and 6564 (provided with amendments at the bottom). Please ask that they contact your state’s representatives in Congress and express their disapproval.
STATE LEGISLATIVE CONSENT REQUIRED UNDER THE STUDENT SUCCESS ACT
1. I understand that passage of HR 5 will require legislative approval to participate in programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
2. I understand that my consent can be obtained through my vote to pass our state budge,t which acknowledges I “have affirmatively agreed to abide by the conditions attached to the receipt of such funds.’’
3. I agree that the United States Secretary of Education “shall enforce against an authority of a State any requirement imposed as a condition of receiving assistance” under any ESEA grant program that the state legislature has expressly approved through the receipt of ESEA funds.
4. I understand that the Intent of Congress is to place the United States Secretary of Education in control over public education, even if that authority is reserved to the States by the United States Constitution, under the ESEA programs if the state legislature accepts ESEA funds and by doing so expressly agrees to the conditions.
6. I understand that the Intent of Congress is to place the United States Secretary of Education in control over the education of children under ESEA programs and above the authority of parents to control the education of their children reserved to individual Americans by the United States Constitution if the state legislature accepts ESEA funds and by doing so expressly agrees to the conditions.
7. I have read the excerpts of HR 5 below, and understand that it is my responsibility to read and fully understand over 600 pages of ESEA legislation, cross reference each line against state law, and make an informed decision to accept these parameters as the supreme law of the state and enforceable against the rights guaranteed to individuals and the state under the United States Constitution.
8. I will hold myself accountable for any consequences or ill effects of these requirements and understand that they are attributable to my consent.
I support HR 5:__________________________________________________
I do NOT support HR 5:_____________________________________________________
Date:______________________________________________________
SEC. 6561. STATES TO RETAIN RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES THEY DO NOT EXPRESSLY WAIVE.
`(a) Retention of Rights and Authorities- In order to ensure local control over the acceptance of federal funds,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 affirmatively agreed to abide by the conditions attached to the receipt ofsuch funds.
`(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, have affirmatively agreed to abide by the conditions attached to the receipt of such funds.
(c) Special Rule for States With Biennial Legislatures- In the case of a State with a biennial legislature–
`(1) during a year in which the State legislature does not meet, subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply; and
`(2) during a year in which the State legislature meets, subsections (a) and (b) shall apply, and, with respect to any grant program established under this Act during the most recent year in which the State legislature did not meet, the State may by law expressly disapprove the grant program, and, if such disapproval occurs, an officer, employee, or other authority of the Secretary may not release any additional assistance to the State under that grant program.
(d) Definition of State Authority- As used in this section, the term `authority of a State’ includes any administering agency of the State, any officer or employee of the State, and any local government authority of the State.
e) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the Secretary to condition the receipt of any grant funds under this Act on the adoption of any specific standards, including the Common Core State Standards, assessments, or curriculum.
(f) 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.
`SEC. 6564. INTENT OF CONGRESS.
`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.
Since when is it the purview of the federal government, even in the person of the Congress, to tell state legislators, or legislatures as a whole, what the meaning of their passing a state budget is? Out of one side of their mouths, the authors of this legislation say “By golly, this is all about states’ rights!” and out of the other attempt to bully state legislators into accepting the feds’ dictating what their individual votes mean? And further, to presume to tell a state what it must include in its budget, is an abomination. And even further, and beyond the pale, is the notion that they can tell a local authority that the must accept the terms and conditions if their state legislature has passed a budget agreeing to the terms. If these funds are disbursed to the states, it is the states which tell local jurisdictions what the locals must agree to, not the feds.
This is a clever attempt, just as the imposition of Common Core was, for federal control by proxy.