Reporting on Current Obama Education Policies

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:       Contact: Anita B Hoge 724-263-0474


Pennsylvanians Restoring Education

Pennsylvanians Against Common Core                   March 4, 2015


H.R. 5 ESEA Reauthorization cannot be fixed. We also say “NO” to S. 144, Local Leadership in Education Act. We also say “NO” to S. 227, Strengthening Education through Research Act.  You both know perfectly well and recognize that the core of HR 5  ESEA Reauthorization rests upon Title I and IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, under which our children are tracked and remediated. 

We citizens demand that HR 5 be completely suspended until the United States Department of Education General Counsel reviews the Constitutionality of the Title I Portability embedded in the Student Success Act of 2015 which will amend No Child Left Behind.

The federal government does NOT have the authority under TITLE I  PORTABILITY to mandate “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES.” These services, identified for an “AT-RISK” student (See pp. 53-54), are defined as “specialized student support services.” (See pp. 55, 78.)

The federal government is effectually mandating the identification of an individual student through interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports on assessments and how that student is meeting state standards. (See pp. 24(i), 29) This identification and reporting of the individual student means that individual children are being monitored by the federal government.  We find this monitoring of  individual students unconstitutional. (See pp. 29-30.)


TITLE I  children that your legislation has defined to receive “direct student services”?

“At-Risk” is defined as, “a child, youth, or student, means a school-aged individual who is at-risk of academic failure.” (Emphasis added. See p. 150.) The local educational agency will monitor and identify quickly and effectively those INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS who may be  “AT-RISK” of failing to meet the State’s academic standards. (See pp. 53-54.) The Common Core Standards are the measuring stick for “AT-RISK” children. Common Core Standards have been accepted in 45 states. (Some states use ACT, who developed the benchmarks for Common Core Standards, thereby standardizing the use of Common Core in all 50 states). HR 5 nationalizes the curriculum and testing across the United States, thus standardizing the assessments, standards, interventions, and data elements for data collection. The addition and expansion of children who may be defined “AT RISK” includes mental health, social, emotional, and behavioral interventions (attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions), required by the specialized instructional support services as defined below as disabilities by 605 IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (See p. 467.) (See S. 144 page 3(e), “Title I shall be carried out….”) 

“AT-RISK” children will receive these specialized student support services defined as “CHOICE” through the “Direct Student Services” that will follow the child. We do not believe the federal government has the authority to monitor individual American students or mandate these services. 

(Source: The following sources document the expansion of Common Core Standards into the affective domain: Secretaries Commission for Achieving Necessary Skills, Department of Labor, 1992; Presentation of ACT, , Nov. 2012 – Kevin Houchin; Chief State School Officers, CCSSO, Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions, Feb. 2013,; ESEA Flexibility Waiver adds non-cognitive psychological standards to the Common Core Standards in Principle 6: NAEP – soft skills and affective domain,, p. 2.)

Any reauthorization of ESEA should address the illegality of the ESEA Flexibility Waivers issued by President Obama and Secretary Duncan. In Principle 6 of the waiver it establishes that a school environment must improve school safety and discipline, and address other “non-academic factors that impact student achievement, such as students’ social, emotional and health needs,” which is further clarified in S. 225. The assessment and interventions in the psychological “direct student services” violates the original intent of satisfying Title I to improve academic achievement. There have been several years of identifying children as “AT-RISK” due to the implementation of the Obama/Duncan ESEA Flexibility Waivers in the affective-psychological domain. Parents are asking how these attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions will be measured, scored, and remediated to a government standard? Let’s be clear: these attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions must conform to the Common Core Standards; they have nothing to do with academic achievement.

The HR 5 consolidation of funds that covers a SCHOOLWIDE Title I program also blankets an entire school with Title I “AT RISK” interventions for all children, including babies. All children are “At-Risk” for not achieving Common Core Standards, including those standards in the affective domain as described above. 

(Pennsylvania’s affective standards were called Interpersonal Skills.) (See p. 40; p. 65, Schoolwide Programs; pp. 68,70,74,75, for mandated specialized student instructional support services in a schoolwide program; pp. 76,77, mandated specialized student support services for pre-school programs.)

SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, HR 5 continues the mandate to identify Title I “AT-RISK” individual students to receive this same SPECIALIZED STUDENT INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT (see p.  55), thus extending services in the non-academic psychological/affective domain which is defined as: 

(41)(A) SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT PERSONNEL.—The term ‘specialized instructional support personnel’ means 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.

 (B) SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES.—The term ‘specialized instructional support services’ means the services provided by specialized instructional support personnel. (See p. 496.)

We believe the federal government does not constitutionally have the authority to enforce psychological personality traits standards, nor regulate government-prescribed attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions. These represent Civil Rights violations. The intervention, treatment, and re-education of attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions of children fundamentally violates First Amendment protections and rights, which guarantees “right of conscience,” as well as the Fourth Amendment right “to be secure in their persons.”

SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, the Constitutionality of Title I portability funds, that “follow the child” through identification and direct student services to all private and religious schools, is also an issue. The identification of an individual child, and providing equitable services in your HR 5, extends to all private schools and religious students. This federal overreach violates the autonomy of private schools where the funds will “follow the child.” These specialized student support services are called “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” which are offered as “MEANINGFUL CHOICE.” These services MUST be equitable, as determined by a provider on a state approved list (see p. 18, 78-79), for all public school students and private school students. (See pp. 17-19, 473, 487, 491, 493, 496.)


HR 5 mandates equitable CHOICE defined as “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” to every child in the United States? These “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” are defined as public school choice. (See p. 473.) Do you believe that this is the kind of “CHOICE” that parents and private and religious schools desire, which is in reality no choice at all? The federal government will mandate “direct student services” no matter the school entity. (See p. 80; an ombudsman to monitor enforcement requirements on private and religious schools.)

SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, is the Title I Portability that you have designed true CHOICE? This federal encroachment controls what is taught, and how it is taught, through the reeducation of every student in the United States. The “direct student services” have nothing to do with academics, but everything to do with psychological manipulation. (See S. 227, Strengthening Education Through Research Act, pp. 28-29, Part B sec 132(l).)

SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, please clarify the following passage in HR 5 below. Does this section mandate the provision that the federal government have oversight and control of all funding and services delivered to private and religious schools in the United States?

(C) SPECIAL RULE.—If the local educational agency in which a child resides makes a tuition or other payment for the free public education of the child in a school located in another school district, the Secretary shall, for the purpose of this Act (i) consider the child to be in attendance at a school of the agency making the payment; and (ii) not consider the child to be in attendance at a school of the agency receiving the payment. 

(D) CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.—If a local educational agency makes a tuition payment to a private school or to a public school of another local educational agency for a child with a disability, as defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Secretary shall, for the purpose of this Act, consider the child to be in attendance at a school of the agency making the payment. (See pp. 466-467.)

In Uniform Provisions, on pp. 525-531, private school participation for the “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” or “CHOICE,” and private school participation follows:

(3) SPECIAL RULE.—Educational services and other 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 participating in the program and shall be provided in a timely manner. (See p. 526; pp. 15(3), 18(3), 58 (4), 78-88, 335(2).)

The IES, the Institute for Educational Sciences (See pp. 555-557), monitors “continuous progress” and accountability of all individual TITLE I “AT RISK” CHILDREN through the state longitudinal data systems designed in each state and funded through the National Center for Education Statistics. The IES is collecting psychological data (data on attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions) through a unique national ID on every child in the United States.

HR 5 violates privacy throughout the bill. The IES/NCES individual data collection violates the privacy of students and their families via individualized data reported through each state longitudinal data system and disclosed to 3rd party contractors, which is allowed through President Obama’s Executive Order. Personally identifiable information on our children and families is re-disclosed, thereby allowing the tracking and trafficking of data. (See FERPA, Family Education Rights in Privacy Act, Sec. 99.31. Obama Executive Order, 12866, expanding the collection of personally identifiable information in a state longitudinal data system, Jan. 2012.)

The constitutionality of this personal data collection by the federal government on individuals is in question. (Source: Does the federal government have the authority to mandate and monitor specific psychological services that an individual student must receive? Must parents allow Common Core Standards in the affective domain to be mandated to their child, in violation of parental rights and privacy?

(See S 227, p. 17, IES acts as a “national school board,” SEC. 116. NATIONAL BOARD FOR EDUCATION SCIENCES. See p. 28, expansion of standards into the social and emotional domain of a child. Note: The Pennsylvania unique national ID, NCES/IES grant, Contract: CFDS-#84.384, PR/Award #R372A090022; Tracking #: Grant1007608.)

It is time to close down and defund the Institute for Educational Sciences, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the National Assessment for Educational Progress. 

It is time that the federal government get out of education and close shop. Close down the Department of Education. 

It is necessary to request General Counsel for a legal opinion about the Constitutionality of 

Title I Portability and the “direct student services” because the federal government does NOT have the authority to mandate anything to an INDIVIDUAL STUDENT in any individual state. 


bills, called HR 5,  S. 144 and  S. 227. 

Demand a Federal Investigation on FERPA, Family Education Rights in Privacy Act

3rd Party Contractors now have access to your child’s personally identifiable information, PII, because of the new definition of an authorized representative called a ” school official.” 3rd party contractors or vendors can apply for a written agreement that allows them to access PII. Also, the definition of personally identifiable information includes a biometric marker, definition below.


PII Definition:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(4)(A))
“Personally Identifiable Information”
The term includes, but is not limited to–
(a) The student’s name;
(b) The name of the student’s parent or other family members;
(c) The address of the student or student’s family;
(d) A personal identifier, such as the student’s social security number, student number, or biometric record;
(e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student’s date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name;
(f) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or
(g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g)
“Record” means any information recorded in any way, including, but not limited to, hand writing, print, computer media, video or audio tape, film, microfilm, and microfiche.

Definition for biometric record:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(C), (b)(3), and (b)(5))
“Biometric record,” as used in the definition of “personally identifiable information,” means a record of one or more measurable biological or behavioral characteristics that can be used for automated recognition of an individual. Examples include fingerprints; retina and iris patterns; voiceprints; DNA sequence; facial characteristics; and handwriting.

President Obama’s Official Position for Unlocking Data

Obama Unlocks Data

Demand a Federal Investigation on FERPA

December 15, 2012


(No comments)