[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 22 (Thursday, March 3, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994

                                 ______


                               speech of

                         HON. RICHARD K. ARMEY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 2, 1994

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6) to extend 
     for 6 years the authorizations of appropriations for the 
     programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965, and for certain other purposes:

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I am submitting for the Record the 
legislative interpretation of the private school and home school 
freedom amendment which I offered on the floor on February 24, 1994, 
during debate of H.R. 6, Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.

   Legislative Interpretation of The Private School and Home School 
                           Freedom Amendment

       I. General introduction.
       H.R. 6 came from committee with language in Section 2124(e) 
     which raised very serious concerns. This section required 
     schools ``under the jurisdiction'' of a local education 
     agency to require that all full-time teachers be certified in 
     the specific subject matter of every course taught. Concerns 
     were raised as to the wisdom of this section vis-a-vis public 
     schools. Very serious concerns were raised as a result of the 
     potential application of this section to home schools and 
     private schools.
       Congress recognizes that home schools and private schools 
     constitute an important part of the educational opportunities 
     for children in this country. Scores of studies confirm home 
     schooled students on the average, score above average on 
     standardized achievement tests. The Home School-Private 
     School Freedom Amendment was adopted to further recognize the 
     general principle that home schools and private schools 
     should not be regulated by Congress. Generally speaking, any 
     necessary and constitutional academic regulation of such 
     schools is a responsibility of state government (and local 
     government to the extent delegated by the state).
       II. Deletion of section 2124(e).
       Section 2124(e), which contained the course-specific 
     teacher certification requirement, has been eliminated from 
     this Act by the Ford-Kildee amendment. In repealing section 
     2124(e), Congress has made clear that it has no intention of 
     imposing such a requirement vis-a-vis private and home 
     schools. Moreover, serious doubt is raised about the 
     constitutionality of such an application since in 1993 the 
     Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that it was a violation of 
     the First Amendment to require religious home school parents 
     to be certified teachers. People of the State of Michigan v. 
     DeJonge, 501 N. W.2d 127 (Mich. 1993). A similar principle 
     applies to any corresponding requirement upon religious 
     schools. Furthermore, hundreds of studies confirm there is no 
     positive correlation between teacher qualifications and 
     student performance. Teacher certification is not necessary 
     for children to be educated.
       The wisdom of this certification provision vis-a-vis public 
     schools was also seriously questioned. State governments have 
     the jurisdiction to require certification of all public 
     school teachers. All states exercise this jurisdiction with a 
     comprehensive scheme of teacher certification regulations. 
     The course-specific provision of 2124(e) would have had 
     serious consequences for public schools. For example, a 
     teacher certified to teach secondary science who happened to 
     have been a champion debater in college, would not have been 
     allowed to teach a debate class under this section. To teach 
     such a class the teacher would have had to obtain substantial 
     additional course work to be certified in the language arts 
     area. Such a rule may have resulted in reduced opportunities 
     for students in specialized electives--especially in rural 
     and smaller public high schools. It may have also imposed 
     substantial hardships on classroom teachers. By rejecting 
     this section Congress leaves the issue of the qualification 
     of teachers to state governments and local school boards 
     whose interest is primary and which more directly encounter 
     the varying specific circumstances.
       III. Change in the definition of ``elementary school'' and 
     ``secondary school.''
       H.R. 6 raised substantial concerns among home schooling 
     parents. The word ``nonprofit'' had been added to the 
     definitions of ``elementary school'' and ``secondary school'' 
     to assure the exclusion from participation under the Act of 
     for-profit schools.
       However Congress recognizes that home schools are a unique 
     approach to education that requires special consideration. 
     Home schools should not be accidently lumped into legislative 
     provisions aimed at institutional schools. The addition of 
     the word ``institutional'' to the definition of ``elementary 
     school'' and ``secondary school'' insures that home schools 
     are not unintentionally subjected to laws which use the 
     general term ``school''. Congress recognizes that any 
     provision aimed at home schools should address them 
     specifically by designation. While many states have laws 
     which specifically address home schools, Congress recognizes 
     that in at least seventeen states (AK, AL, CA, CO, DE, FL, 
     IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, NE, SC, TX, UT) home schools 
     operate as ``private schools'' as a primary or alternative 
     mode of complying with state public education law. By adding 
     the term ``institutional'' Congress intends to categorically 
     exclude home schools, including those which have the status 
     of private schools, from the federal definition of 
     ``elementary school'' and ``secondary school'' regardless of 
     the definitional term employed for home schools under state 
     law.
       IV. Section 9508 is added to provide a general exclusion 
     under the Act of the regulation of home schools and private 
     schools.
       H.R. 6 is voluminous, with many sweeping provisions. In 
     earlier versions the phrase ``all children'' was often used 
     in a directive sense. Section 9508 makes it explicit that 
     there is no intent under this Act to have federal control or 
     a mandate for state regulation of private schools or home 
     schools, which may participate in programs to facilitate the 
     participation and receipt of services by students. Under 
     operation of Title I or Title II such schools are not 
     recipients of funds under the Act.
       The second sentence makes it clear that this section is not 
     intended to change the rules so as to bar any continuance of 
     participation by home schools or private schools, or their 
     students or faculty, in federally funded programs. Those 
     rules are set forth specifically in other provisions of this 
     Act.
       This section is not intended to alter in any way the 
     constitutionally accepted practice of including private 
     school students (including religious school students) in 
     broad programs aimed at benefiting all children. See, e.g. 
     Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind, 
     471 U.S. 1002 (1986), Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School 
     District, 113 S. Ct. 2462 (1993).

                          ____________________