[House Report 118-9]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } {118-9
======================================================================
PARENTS BILL OF RIGHTS ACT
_______
March 14, 2023.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Ms. Foxx, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 5]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 5) to ensure the rights of parents are
honored and protected in the Nation's public schools, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Parents Bill of Rights Act''.
TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF
1965
SEC. 101. STATE PLAN ASSURANCES.
Section 1111(g)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(g)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (M), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (N), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(O) the State will ensure that each local
educational agency in the State--
``(i) in a case in which the curriculum for
an elementary or secondary school grade level
is freely and publicly available on the
internet--
``(I) posts on a publicly accessible
website of the agency, such curriculum;
or
``(II) if such agency does not
operate a website, widely disseminates
to the public such curriculum; or
``(ii) in a case in which the curriculum for
an elementary or secondary school grade level
is not freely and publicly available on the
internet--
``(I) posts on a publicly accessible
website of the agency--
``(aa) a description of such
curriculum; and
``(bb) information on how
parents can review such
curriculum as described in
section 1112(e)(1)(A); or
``(II) if such agency does not
operate a website, widely disseminates
to the public the description and
information described in items (aa) and
(bb) of subclause (I); and
``(P) in the case of any revisions to the State's
challenging State academic standards (including any
revisions to the levels of achievement within the
State's academic achievement standards), the State
educational agency will post to the homepage of its
website, and widely disseminate to the public, notice
of such revisions and a copy of such revisions, except
that the State educational agency shall not be required
to submit such notice or such revisions to the
Secretary.''.
SEC. 102. ANNUAL LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY REPORT CARDS.
Section 1111(h)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(h)(2)) is amended by inserting at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(E) Budget.--Each local educational agency report
card shall include the budget for the school year for
which such report card is being prepared (including all
revenues and expenditures (including expenditures made
to private entities)) for the local educational agency
as a whole, and for each elementary school and
secondary school served by the local educational
agency. In addition to the detailed budget information
required under the preceding sentence, the agency shall
include a separate fact sheet that summarizes such
information in a clear and easily understandable
format.''.
SEC. 103. LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY PLAN ASSURANCES.
Section 1112(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6312(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) meet the requirements described in section
1111(g)(2)(O);
``(9) post on a publicly accessible website of the local
educational agency or, if the local educational agency does not
operate a website, widely disseminate to the public, the plan
for carrying out the parent and family engagement described in
section 1116 and all policies and procedures that result from
such engagement;
``(10) ensure that each elementary school served by the local
educational agency notifies the parents of any student enrolled
at such school when the student does not score as grade-level
proficient in reading or language arts at the end of the third
grade based on the reading or language arts assessments
administered under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(aa) or another
assessment administered to all third grade students by such
school; and
``(11) ensure that each elementary school and secondary
school served by the local educational agency provides to the
parents of students enrolled at such school, before a person
speaks (in-person or virtually) to such students in a class,
school assembly, or any other school-sponsored event, notice
that includes the name of the speaker and the name of the
organization or other entity being represented by the
speaker.''.
SEC. 104. PARENTS RIGHT-TO-KNOW.
Section 1112(e) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 6312(e)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as
paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (6), respectively;
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated),
the following:
``(1) Notice of rights.--A local educational agency receiving
funds under this part shall ensure that each elementary school
and secondary school served by such agency posts on a publicly
accessible website of the school or, if the school does not
operate a website, widely disseminates to the public, a summary
notice of the right of parents to information about their
children's education as required under this Act, which shall be
in an understandable format for parents and include, at
minimum--
``(A) the right to review, and make copies of, at no
cost, the curriculum of their child's school;
``(B) the right to know if the State alters the
State's challenging State academic standards;
``(C) the right to meet with each teacher of their
child not less than twice during each school year in
accordance with paragraph (5)(A);
``(D) the right to review the budget, including all
revenues and expenditures, of their child's school;
``(E) the right to--
``(i) a list of the books and other reading
materials available in the library of their
child's school; and
``(ii) inspect such books or other reading
materials;
``(F) the right to information about all schools in
which their child can enroll, including options for
enrolling in or transferring to--
``(i) other schools served by the local
educational agency;
``(ii) charter schools; and
``(iii) schools served by a different local
educational agency in the State;
``(G) the right to address the school board of the
local educational agency;
``(H) the right to information about violent activity
in their child's school;
``(I) the right to information about any plans to
eliminate gifted and talented programs in the child's
school;
``(J) the right to review any professional
development materials;
``(K) the right to know if their child is not grade-
level proficient in reading or language arts at the end
of the third grade as described in subsection (c)(10);
``(L) the right to know if a school employee or
contractor acts to--
``(i) change a minor child's gender markers,
pronouns, or preferred name; or
``(ii) allow a child to change the child's
sex-based accommodations, including locker
rooms or bathrooms;
``(M) the right to know if--
``(i) a school employee or contractor acts
to--
``(I) treat, advise, or address the
cyberbullying of a student;
``(II) treat, advise, or address the
bullying or hazing of a student;
``(III) treat, advise, or address a
student's mental health, suicidal
ideation, or instances of self-harm;
``(IV) treat, advise, or address a
specific threat to the safety of a
student;
``(V) treat, advise, or address the
possession or use of drugs and other
controlled substances; or
``(VI) treat, advise, or address an
eating disorder; or
``(ii) a child brings a weapon to school; and
``(N) the right to the notice described in subsection
(c)(11) before a person speaks (in-person or virtually)
to their child in a class, school assembly, or any
other school-sponsored event.'';
(3) in paragraph (2)(B) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by redesignating clause (i) and clause (ii) as
subclause (I) and subclause (II), respectively;
(B) by striking ``(B) Additional information.--'' and
inserting:
``(B) Additional information.--
``(i) In general.--''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) School library.--A local educational
agency receiving funds under this part shall
ensure that each elementary school and
secondary school served by such agency provides
the parents of each child who is a student in
such school--
``(I) at the beginning of each school
year, a list of books and other reading
materials available in the library of
such school; and
``(II) the opportunity to inspect
such books and other reading materials.
``(iii) Violent activity.--A local
educational agency receiving funds under this
part shall ensure that each elementary school
and secondary school served by such agency
provides the parents of each child who is a
student in such school timely notification of
any violent activity occurring on school
grounds or at school-sponsored activities in
which one or more individuals suffer injuries,
except that such notification shall not contain
names or the grade level of any students
involved in the activity.
``(iv) Gifted and talented programs.--A local
educational agency receiving funds under this
part shall ensure that each elementary school
and secondary school served by such agency
provides the parents of each child who is a
student in such school timely notification of
any plan to eliminate gifted and talented
programs in such school.''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (4) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(5) Transparency.--A local educational agency receiving
funds under this part shall provide the parents of each child
who is a student in an elementary school or secondary school
served by such agency--
``(A)(i) the opportunity to meet in-person or
virtually via videoconference with each teacher of such
child not less than twice during each school year; and
``(ii) a notification, at the beginning of each
school year, of the opportunity for such meetings,
including the option to attend such meetings virtually
via videoconference; and
``(B) the opportunity to address the school board of
such local educational agency on issues impacting the
education of children in such agency.''.
SEC. 105. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 7801 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 8549C as section 8549D; and
(2) by inserting after section 8549B the following new
section:
``SEC. 8549C. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
``(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
``(1) Parents have a First Amendment right to express their
opinions on decisions made by State and local education
leaders.
``(2) States and local educational agencies should empower
parents to communicate regularly with Federal, State, and local
policymakers and educators regarding the education and well-
being of their children.
``(3) Transparent and cooperative relationships between
parents and schools have significant and long-lasting positive
effects on the development of children.
``(4) Parents' concerns over content and pedagogy deserve to
be heard and fully considered by school professionals.
``(5) Parent and other community input about schools that is
presented in a lawful and appropriate manner should always be
encouraged.
``(6) Educators, policymakers, elected officials, Executive
Branch officials and employees, and other stakeholders should
never seek to use law enforcement to criminalize the lawfully
expressed concerns of parents about their children's education,
but should never hesitate to contact public safety officials if
there is a credible threat to the safety and security of
students, parents, educators, policymakers, elected officials,
executive branch officials or employees, or other stakeholders,
school faculty, or staff.
``(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that the First
Amendment guarantees parents and other stakeholders the right to
assemble and express their opinions on decisions affecting their
children and communities, and that educators and policymakers should
welcome and encourage that engagement and consider that feedback when
making decisions.''.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO FERPA AND PPRA
SEC. 201. AMENDMENTS TO THE FAMILY EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ACT
OF 1974.
(a) Enforcement.--Section 444(f) of the General Education Provisions
Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (also known as the ``Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act of 1974'') (20 U.S.C. 1232g(f)) is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``The Secretary shall comply with the reporting
requirement under section 445(e)(2)(C)(ii) with respect to the
enforcement actions taken under this subsection to ensure compliance
with this section.''.
(b) Prohibition on Educational Agencies or Institutions Acting as an
Agent of a Parent.--Section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act
(20 U.S.C. 1232g) (also known as the ``Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act of 1974'') is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Prohibition on Educational Agencies or Institutions Acting as
Agent of a Parent for Use of Technology.--An educational agency or
institution may not act as the agent of a parent of a student in
attendance at a school of such agency or at such institution for
purposes of providing verifiable parental consent for the use of
technology in the classroom for purposes of educating the student
without providing notice and an opportunity for the parent to object to
the use of such technology.
``(l) Prohibition on Educational Agencies or Institutions Acting as
Agent of a Parent for Vaccines.--An educational agency or institution
may not act as the agent of a parent of a student in attendance at a
school of such agency or at such institution for purposes of providing
verifiable parental consent for a vaccination.''.
(c) Prohibition on Sale of Information for Commercial Purposes.--
Section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g)
(also known as the ``Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of
1974''), as amended by this section, is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(l) Prohibition on Sale of Information for Commercial Purposes.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
educational agency or institution or authorized representative
of such agency or institution may sell student information for
commercial or financial gain.
``(2) Exceptions.--The prohibition described in paragraph (1)
shall not apply to products sold to students by or on behalf of
the educational agency or institution, such as yearbooks, prom
tickets, and school pictures.''.
(d) Parental Consultation.--Section 444 of the General Education
Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (also known as the ``Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974''), as amended by this
section, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(m) Parental Consultation.--In developing a privacy policy or
procedure, an educational agency or institution shall engage
meaningfully with parents of students in attendance at the schools
served by such agency or institution.''.
(e) Disclosure of Information.--Section 444 of the General Education
Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (also known as the ``Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974''), as amended by this
section, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(n) Disclosure of Information.--An educational agency or
institution or authorized representative of such agency or institution
shall, upon request from a parent of a student, disclose to such parent
the identity of any individual or entity with whom information is
shared from the education record of the student or any response of the
student to a survey.''.
SEC. 202. PROTECTION OF PUPIL RIGHTS.
(a) Availability for Inspection by Parents or Guardians.--Section
445(a) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h(a)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) Availability for Inspection by Parents or Guardians.--A local
educational agency (as such term is defined in subsection (c)(6)(C))
that receives funds under any applicable program shall ensure the
following:
``(1) Information available.--Each of the following shall be
available for inspection by the parents or guardians of the
children in attendance at the schools served by such agency,
and the availability of each of the following for inspection
shall not be conditioned on any requirement that such parents
or guardians sign a nondisclosure agreement:
``(A) All instructional materials, including
teacher's manuals, films, tapes, or other supplementary
material which will be used in such school or in
connection with any survey, analysis, or evaluation.
``(B) Any books or other reading materials made
available to students in such school or through the
school library of such school.
``(C) Any professional development materials.
``(2) Comment periods for parents.--
``(A) In general.--The agency shall provide comment
periods during which parents or guardians of the
children in attendance at the schools served by the
agency may inspect and provide feedback on any of the
materials referred to in paragraph (1) that--
``(i) are expected to be used to teach such
children during the three weeks following the
comment period; or
``(ii) were used to teach such children
during preceding portions of the school year.
``(B) Frequency and duration.--The comment periods
described in subparagraph (A) shall be held not less
frequently than once every three weeks during the
school year and each comment period shall be not less
than three school days in duration.''.
(b) Single Issue Notification.--Section 445(b) of the General
Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h) is amended--
(1) by striking ``prior consent of the student'' and
inserting ``prior written consent of the student''; and
(2) by inserting ``, which is provided specifically for such
survey, analysis, or evaluation'' before the period at the end.
(c) Development and Adoption of Local Policies.--Section 445(c) of
the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Physical'' and
inserting ``Medical'';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by
striking ``in consultation with parents'' and inserting
``in consultation with parents in accordance with
paragraph (2)(A)'';
(B) by amending subparagraph (C)(i) to read as
follows:
``(C)(i) The right of a parent of a student to
inspect, upon the request of the parent, any
instructional material used as part of the educational
curriculum for the student, and any books or other
reading materials made available to the student in a
school served by the agency or through the school
library; and'';
(C) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
``(D) The administration of medical examinations or
screenings that the school or agency may administer to
a student, including--
``(i) prior notice to parents of such a
medical examination or screening, and receipt
of consent from parents before administering
such an examination or screening; and
``(ii) in the event of an emergency that
requires a medical examination or screening
without time for parental notification and
consent, the procedure for promptly notifying
parents of such examination or screening
subsequent to such examination or screening.'';
and
(D) by amending subparagraph (E) to read as follows:
``(E) The prohibition on the collection, disclosure,
or use of personal information collected from students
for the purpose of marketing or for selling that
information (or otherwise providing that information to
others for that purpose), other than for a legitimate
educational purpose to improve the education of
students as described in paragraph (4), and the
arrangements to protect student privacy that are
provided by the agency in the event of such collection,
disclosure, or use for such a legitimate educational
purpose.''.
(d) Parental Notification.--Paragraph (2) of section 445(c) of the
General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``consultation
and'' before ``notification'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (C) as
subparagraphs (B) through (D), respectively;
(3) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) in the case of an activity described
in clause (i) or (iii) of subparagraph (D),
offer an opportunity and clear instructions for
the parent (or in the case of a student who is
an adult or emancipated minor, the student) to
opt the student out of participation in such
activity;''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) in the case of an activity described
in subparagraph (D)(i), a description of how
such activity is for a legitimate educational
purpose to improve the education of students as
described in paragraph (4); and
``(iv) not require a student to submit to a
survey described in subparagraph (D)(ii)
without the prior written consent of the
student (if the student is an adult or
emancipated minor), or in the case of an
unemancipated minor, without the prior written
consent of the parent, which is provided
specifically for such survey.'';
(4) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as so amended and
redesignated), the following:
``(A) Parental consultation.--The parental
consultation required for the purpose of developing and
adopting policies under paragraphs (1) and (3) by a
local educational agency shall ensure that such policy
is developed with meaningful engagement by parents of
students enrolled in schools served by that agency.'';
and
(5) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated by paragraph (2))--
(A) by amending clause (i) to read as follows:
``(i) Activities involving the collection,
disclosure, or use of personal information
collected from students for a legitimate
educational purpose to improve the education of
students as described in paragraph (4).''; and
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``invasive
physical'' and inserting ``medical''.
(e) Updates to Existing Policies.--Paragraph (3) of section 445(c) of
the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(3) Updates to existing policies.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of the Parents Bill of Rights Act, a
local educational agency that receives funds under any
applicable program shall--
``(i) review policies covering the
requirements of paragraph (1) as in effect on
the day before such date of enactment; and
``(ii) develop and update such policies to
reflect the changes made to paragraph (1) by
the amendments made by the Parents Bill of
Rights Act.
``(B) Consultation and notification.--In developing
and updating the policies under subparagraph (A), the
agency shall comply with the consultation and
notification requirements under paragraph (2).''.
(f) Exceptions.--Paragraph (4)(A) of section 445(c) of the General
Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)) is amended by amending
the matter preceding clause (i) to read as follows:
``(A) Educational products or services.--For purposes
of paragraph (1)(E), the collection, disclosure, or use
of personal information collected from students for a
legitimate educational purpose to improve the education
of students means the exclusive purpose of developing,
evaluating, or providing educational products or
services for, or to, students or schools, such as the
following:''.
(g) Definitions.--Paragraph (6) of section 445(c) of the General
Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)) is amended--
(1) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) Medical examination or screening.--The term
`medical examination or screening' means any medical
examination or screening that involves the exposure of
private body parts, or any act during such examination
or screening that includes incision, insertion, or
injection into the body, or a mental health or
substance use disorder screening, except that such term
does not include a hearing, vision, or scoliosis
screening, or an observational screening carried out to
comply with child find obligations under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1400 et seq.).''; and
(2) in subparagraph (E)--
(A) in clause (iii), by striking ``or'';
(B) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) an email address.''.
(h) Enforcement and Reporting.--Subsection (e) of section 445 of the
General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232h) is amended to read
as follows:
``(e) Enforcement and Reporting.--
``(1) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall take such action as
the Secretary determines appropriate to enforce this section,
except that action to terminate assistance provided under an
applicable program shall be taken only if the Secretary
determines that--
``(A) there has been a failure to comply with such
section; and
``(B) compliance with such section cannot be secured
by voluntary means.
``(2) Reporting.--
``(A) Local educational agencies.--On an annual
basis, each local educational agency (as such term is
defined in subsection (c)(6)(C)) that receives funds
under any applicable program shall--
``(i) without identifying any personal
information of a student or students, report to
the State educational agency any enforcement
actions or investigations carried out for the
preceding school year to ensure compliance with
this section; and
``(ii) publish such information on its
website or through other public means used for
parental notification if the agency does not
have a website.
``(B) States.--On an annual basis, each State
educational agency shall provide to the Secretary a
report, with respect to the preceding school year, that
includes all actions local educational agencies have
reported under subparagraph (A), and a description of
the enforcement actions the State educational agency
took to ensure parents' rights were protected.
``(C) Secretary.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of the Parents Bill of Rights Act,
and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate--
``(i) the reports received under subparagraph
(B); and
``(ii) a description of the enforcement
actions taken by the Secretary under this
subsection and section 444(f) to ensure full
compliance with this section and section 444,
respectively.''.
TITLE III--PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN CURRICULUM
SEC. 301. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any department,
agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any
direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of
instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational
institution, school, or school system.
TITLE IV--GENDER MARKERS, PRONOUNS, AND PREFERRED NAMES ON SCHOOL FORMS
SEC. 401. REQUIREMENT RELATED TO GENDER MARKERS, PRONOUNS, AND
PREFERRED NAMES ON SCHOOL FORMS.
As a condition of receiving Federal funds, any elementary school (as
such term is defined in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801)) or school that consists of only
middle grades (as such term is defined in such section), that receives
Federal funds shall be required to obtain parental consent before--
(1) changing a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or
preferred name on any school form; or
(2) allowing a child to change the child's sex-based
accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.
TITLE V--ACCESS TO SCHOOL BROADBAND
SEC. 501. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that all public elementary and public
secondary school students should have access to broadband.
TITLE VI--SENSE OF CONGRESS
SEC. 601. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that all public elementary school and
secondary school students should have opportunities to learn the
history of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism.
PURPOSE
The issue of parents' rights in education has become a
major topic since the Covid-19 pandemic revealed the
unaccountable influence that teachers' unions and special
interest groups hold over public K-12 education. School
closures allowed many parents, for the first time, to see
exactly what their kids were being taught. They learned that
divisive and inappropriate topics like Critical Race Theory
(CRT) and progressive gender ideology have infiltrated public
schools. H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act takes important
steps to clarify that parents have a right to know what is
happening in their child's school and maintain the right to
make decisions about their child's education. H.R. 5 will put
practices in place that facilitate meaningful dialog between a
family and their child's school, and lead to more input
throughout the learning process.
COMMITTEE ACTION
116TH CONGRESS
Second Session--Hearings
On June 15, 2020, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a virtual hearing on ``Budget Cuts and Lost
Learning: Assessing the Impact of Covid-19 on Public
Education.'' The hearing was the first in a series examining
the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on K-12 education. The
purpose of the hearing was to evaluate the state of education
funding and examine the learning losses students are projected
to experience. Testifying before the Committee were Mr. Mark
Johnson, State Superintendent, North Carolina Department of
Public Instruction, Raleigh, NC; Dr. Michael Leachman, Vice
President for State Fiscal Policy, Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Eric Gordon, CEO, Cleveland
Metropolitan School District, Cleveland, OH; and Ms. Becky
Pringle, Vice President, National Education Association,
Washington, D.C.
On July 21, 2020, the Committee's Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education (ECESE) held a
virtual hearing on ``Underfunded & Unprepared: Examining How to
Overcome Obstacles to Safely Reopen Public Schools.'' The
purpose of the hearing was to discuss the barriers to reopening
schools and how to overcome them. Testifying before the
subcommittee were Mrs. Penny Schwinn, Commissioner, Tennessee
Department of Education, Nashville, TN; Ms. Leslie Boggs,
President, National Parent Teachers Association, Alexandria,
VA; Dr. Michael Hinojosa, Superintendent, Dallas Independent
School District, Dallas, TX; and Dr. Sean O'Leary, Pediatric
Infectious Disease Specialist, Children's Hospital Colorado,
Co-Chair of the Immunization Committee, Colorado Chapter of the
American Academy of Pediatrics, Aurora, CO.
Second Session--Hearings
Legislative Action
On April 30, 2019, the Committee held a legislative hearing
on school integration and civil rights enforcement. A review of
Committee archives suggests this is the first hearing focused
on school segregation since the 101st Congress, nearly 30 years
ago. The hearing, titled ``Brown v. Board of Education at 65: A
Promise Unfulfilled,'' was used to inform the development of
H.R. 2639. On May 9, 2019, Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) introduced
H.R. 2639, the Strength in Diversity Act of 2019, with Chairman
Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Rep. Gregorio Sablan (D-MP), Chair of
the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary
Education, as original co-sponsors. On May 16, 2019, the
Committee considered H.R. 2639 in a legislative session and
ordered it reported favorably, as amended, to the House of
Representative by a vote of 26-20. The Committee considered and
adopted the following amendments to H.R. 2639:
1. Rep. Fudge offered an Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute (ANS) that made numerous changes to H.R.
2639. The ANS improved provisions under section 5 of
the bill to ensure outreach to parents and students is
produced in commonly understandable language. It also
ensured consultation with students and families in the
district or region targeted for diversity improvement
efforts. Under section 6, the ANS expanded planning
grant activities to include the development of a robust
family, student, and community engagement plan. It also
explicitly stated that funds can be used to support
school districts under a court-ordered school
desegregation plan. The ANS expanded implementation
grants activities to include the development of
innovative and equitable school assignment plans and
other innovative activities to increase racial and
socioeconomic diversity. Under section 7, the ANS added
reducing school discipline rates as a measure of a
school integration plan's success. Under section 8, the
ANS expanded the annual reporting requirement to
include a description of the entity's efforts to
increase inclusivity in schools. Finally, the ANS added
a new section to specify that GEPA section 426 does not
apply to funds authorized by the bill.
The Committee further considered the following amendments
to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2639:
2. Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) offered an amendment to the
ANS that proposed to strike the authorization of the
new federal grant program created in H.R. 2639 to
support voluntary community-driven efforts to increase
diversity in schools. The amendment instead amended
section 4106 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965\8\ to allow school districts to use funds
authorized by such act to develop or implement
strategies to improve diversity and reduce or eliminate
racial or socioeconomic isolation in schools. The
amendment also permitted LEAs to use funds received
under section 4106 to cover fees associated with
accelerated learning examinations given to low-income
students. Lastly, the amendment exempted funds used
pursuant to the authorized uses from the requirements
of GEPA section 426. Because the amendment proposed to
amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, a law not amended by the underlying bill, the
amendment expanded the scope of the bill and was ruled
out of order by the Chairman.
The Committee again worked with the Committee on
Appropriations on longstanding anti-integration riders during
the Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) appropriations process. As a
result, H.R. 7617, the Defense, Commerce, Justice, Science,
Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General
Government, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education,
Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations
Act, 2021 included a provision striking GEPA section 426 from
law entirely. H.R. 7617 passed the House July 31, 2020 by a
vote of 217-197.
On May 2, 2019, Rep. Kim Schrier (D-WA) introduced H.R.
2480, the Stronger Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act,
with Reps. James Comer (R-KY), Lori Trahan (D-MA), Dusty
Johnson (R-SD), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Elise Stefanik (R-NY),
Chairman Bobby Scott (D-VA), and Ranking Member Virginia Foxx
(R-NC) as original co-sponsors. On May 8, 2019, the Committee
considered H.R. 2480 in a legislative session and reported it
favorably, as amended, to the House of Representative by a
voice vote. The Committee considered and adopted the following
amendments to H.R. 2480:
1. Rep. Bonamici offered an Amendment in the Nature
of a Substitute (ANS) that made several improvements to
H.R. 2480. The ANS narrowed the condition of receipt of
funds in Section 103(d) to grants received through
Section 106. In Section 106(a)(5)(A), housing agencies
were added to the list of service providers
participating in state and local networks supporting
child and family well-being to establish connections
between the child welfare system and agencies that
support families in finding and securing stable
housing.
The ANS made two important changes to support
prevention efforts in tribal communities. The amendment
added Indian tribes and tribal organizations to the
list of entities that receive equitable distribution of
assistance in Section 107 and required the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to examine and make
recommendations about issues relating to child abuse
and neglect in Indian tribal communities.
Several changes were made in Section 110 through the
ANS to clarify the intent of and strengthen the
electronic data exchange system. First, language was
added to ensure that standards and policies governing
the electronic interstate data exchange adhere to
federal law in addition to state law. The ANS also
clarified that the exchange can only be used for
purposes of child safety and is not to be used for any
other purpose. To this end, the ANS included a
prohibition on the Secretary from accessing or storing
data exchanged on the system. The ANS also required
that each state provide the Secretary an assurance that
its child abuse and neglect registry provides
procedural due process for individuals placed on such a
registry. Finally, the ANS modified the appropriations
reservation for Section 110 such that out of annual
funds appropriated in Title I, $2 million per year for
fiscal years 2020 and 2021 and $1 million per year for
fiscal years 2022 through 2025 are reserved for the
development and implementation of the electronic data
exchange system.
The ANS also included a change in Title II to raise
the administrative cap on funds received in excess of
fiscal year 2019 state allocations from four percent to
ten percent to ensure lead entities are able to
effectively monitor and provide oversight of prevention
services. The ANS was adopted via voice vote.
During the legislative session the Committee adopted
several amendments to the ANS:
1. Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) offered, in coordination
with Rep. Stefanik (R-NY), an amendment to the ANS
allowing the Secretary to fund a national hotline for
child abuse and neglect. The amendment was adopted via
voice vote.
2. Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-ID) offered an amendment to
the amendment in the nature of the substitute requiring
the working group established in Section 110 to
generate best practices that ensure due process for
individuals included in state child abuse and neglect
registries. The amendment was adopted via voice vote.
3. Rep. David Trone (D-MD) offered, in coordination
with Rep. Ron Wright (R-TX), an amendment to the ANS
allowing states to carry out programs or strategies
that promote the recruitment, support, or retention of
the child welfare workforce. The amendment was adopted
via voice vote.
2. Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-PA) offered, in coordination
with Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-PA), an amendment to the
ANS ensuring the Secretary includes parent substance
use disorder as a factor in the study examining
adoption outcomes. The amendment was adopted via voice
vote.
3. Rep. Van Taylor (R-TX) offered, in coordination
with Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY), an amendment to the ANS
requiring the Secretary to conduct a study of
exemptions to state laws pertaining to the minimum age
of marriage and examine how such exemptions affect
child safety. The amendment was adopted via voice vote.
4. Rep. Susan Wild (D-PA) offered, in coordination
with Rep. Glenn ``GT'' Thompson (R-PA), an amendment to
the ANS requiring the Secretary to conduct a study of
mandatory reporter state laws and examine differences
in rates of referrals related to such state laws. The
amendment was adopted via voice vote.
5. Rep. Steve Watkins (R-KS) offered, in coordination
with Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV), an amendment to the ANS
ensuring that no child protective services protocols or
systems authorize the separation of a child from their
family due solely to poverty. The amendment was adopted
via voice vote.
6. Rep. Josh Harder (D-CA) offered, in coordination
with Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA), an amendment to the ANS
allowing states to carry out activities that reduce
child abuse and neglect due to the substance use
disorder of a parent. The amendment was adopted via
voice vote.
The Committee further considered the following amendment
H.R. 2480, as amended:
7. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) offered, in
coordination with Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), an
amendment to the ANS ensuring that infants whose
prenatal drug exposure is the result of maternal intake
of drugs as prescribed by a physician are not reported
to child protective services. The amendment was
withdrawn with a commitment to work with Committee
leadership to improve this language for inclusion in
the bill.
On May 8, 2019, Chairman Scott and House Judiciary
Committee Chairman Nadler introduced H.R. 2574, the Equity and
Inclusion Enforcement Act, with Rep. Gregorio Sablan (D-MP),
Chair of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and
Secondary Education, and Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC), Chair of the
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections as original co-sponsors.
On May 16, 2019, the Committee considered H.R. 2574 in a
legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to
the House of Representative by a vote of 26-20. The Committee
considered and adopted the following amendment to H.R. 2574:
1. Rep. Scott offered an Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute (ANS) that made technical improvements to
H.R. 2574. The ANS amended the Short Title of the bill,
and made clear that under section 4, the newly created
Special Assistant position shall advise both the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary on all matters relating
to equity and inclusion in a manner consistent with
Title VI.
During the legislative session the Committee considered one
amendment to the ANS:
1. Rep. James Comer (R-KY) offered an amendment to
the ANS that would strike language from the bill
restoring the private right of action under Title VI
and would modify the new Special Assistant for Equity
and Inclusion at the Department, consolidating its
duties with an existing Special Assistant for Gender
Equity. Because the amendment proposed to amend a
portion of the bill outside of the jurisdiction of the
Committee (as defined in rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives), the amendment was ruled out
of order.
117TH CONGRESS
First Session--Hearings
On April 28, 2021, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing on ``Building Back Better: Investing
in Improving Schools, Creating Jobs, and Strengthening Families
and our Economy.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine
the Biden administration's American Jobs Plan and American
Families Plan. Testifying before the Committee were Dr. Neal
McCluskey, Director, Center for Educational Freedom, CATO
Institute, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Brian Riedl, Senior Fellow,
Manhattan Institute, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Mark Mitsui,
President, Portland Community College, Portland, Oregon; Mr.
Rasheed Malik, Senior Policy Analyst, Early Childhood Policy,
Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C.; Ms. Mary
Filardo, Founder and Executive Director, 21st Century School
Fund, Washington, D.C.
On May 6, 2021, the Committee's Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education (ECESE) held a
hearing on ``Addressing the Impact of COVID-19 on Students with
Disabilities.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
negative consequences of COVID-19 on students with disabilities
and strategies to address the loss of services and learning.
Testifying before the subcommittee were Mr. Reade Bush, Parent,
Arlington, VA; Mr. Ron Hager, Managing Attorney for Education
and Employment, National Disability Rights Network, Washington,
D.C.; Dr. Danielle Kovach, Special Education Teacher, Tulsa
Trail Elementary School, Hopatcong, NJ; Ms. Kanika Littleton,
Project Director, Michigan Alliance for Families, Lansing, MI.
On September 29, 2021, the Committee's Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education (ECESE)
held a hearing on ``Back to School: Highlighting Best Practices
for Safely Reopening School.'' The purpose of the hearing was
to examine efforts to reopen schools this fall in light of the
Delta variant of COVID-19. Testifying before the subcommittee
were Mr. David Zweig, Journalist, Hastings on Hudson, NY; Dr.
Jesus Jara, Superintendent, Clark County School District, Las
Vegas, NV; Ms. Denise Forte, Interim Chief Executive Officer,
The Education Trust, Washington, DC; Dr. Ashish Jha, Dean,
School of Public Health at Brown University, Providence, RI.
On November 17, 2021, the Committee's Joint Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education (ECESE)
held a hearing on ``Examining the Implementation of COVID-19
Education Funds.'' The purpose of the hearing was to conduct
oversight of the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF). Testifying
before the subcommittee were The Honorable Cindy Marten, Deputy
Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.; The
Honorable James Kvaal, Under Secretary, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C.
Second Session--Hearings
On February 16, 2022, the Committee's Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education (ECESE) held a
hearing on ``Serving All Students: Promoting a Healthier, More
Supportive School Environment.'' The purpose of the hearing was
to examine school safety practices such as seclusion and
restraint and corporal punishment, and proposals to fund school
districts' efforts to create positive school climates.
Testifying before the subcommittee were Mr. Max Eden, Research
Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C.; Ms.
Kristen Harper, Vice President For Public Policy and
Engagement, Child Trends, Bethesda, MD; Mr. Guy Stephens,
Founder and Executive Director, Alliance Against Seclusion and
Restraint, Solomons, MD; Ms. Morgan Craven, National Director
of Policy, Advocacy and Community Engagement, Intercultural
Development Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
On May 26, 2022, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing on ``Examining the Policies and
Priorities of the U.S. Department of Education.'' The purpose
of the hearing was to review the Fiscal Year 2023 budget
priorities of the U.S. Department of Education. Testifying
before the Committee was The Honorable Miguel Cardona,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
On September 20, 2022, the Committee's Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education (ECESE)
held a hearing on ``Back to School: Meeting Students' Academic,
Social and Emotional Needs.'' The purpose of the hearing was to
examine how states and school districts are meeting the
academic and mental health needs of students at this stage of
the pandemic. Testifying before the subcommittee were Dr. Penny
Schwinn, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Education,
Nashville, TN; Dr. Aaliyah A. Samuel, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Collaborative for Academic, Social, and
Emotional Learning, Chicago, IL; Dr. Matthew Blomstedt,
Commissioner, Nebraska Department of Education, Lincoln, NE;
Ms. Phyllis Jordan, Associate Director, Future Ed, Georgetown
University, Washington, D.C.
Legislative Action
On September 29, 2021, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
introduced H.R. 5428, the School Shooting Preparedness and
Safety Act, with Reps. McBath and Hayes as original co-
sponsors. The bill was referred solely to the Committee on
Education and Labor. On February 16, 2022, the Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education held a
hearing entitled ``Serving All Students: Promoting a Healthier,
More Supportive School Environment.''
On March 16, 2022, the Committee considered H.R. 5428 in
legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to
the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 27-21. The
Committee considered the following amendments to H.R. 5428:
1. Rep. McBath offered an Amendment in the Nature of
a Substitute (ANS) to make conforming and technical
changes to the bill. The amendment was adopted by a
voice vote.
2. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT) offered an amendment to
the ANS, representing the minority substitute. The
Owens amendment struck the definitions and mentions of
``school shooting'' and ``mass shooting'' from the bill
and would require the Department of Education to
consult with the Department of Homeland Security in
collecting and publishing data on school safety while
eliminating the detailed data collection on school
shooting collected by the underlying bill. The
amendment was defeated by a recorded vote of 21-28.
3. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) offered an amendment to
include data collection and reporting on the
implementation of bail reform, the presence of school
resource officers at schools, and the implementation of
alternative discipline practices in school districts
that have experienced a school shooting. The amendment
was defeated by a recorded vote of 22-27.
4. Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) offered an amendment to
include a study regarding school safety and school
choice, including whether increased school choice
increases perceptions of school safety. The amendment
was defeated by a recorded vote of 22-27.
On July 26, 2022, Rep. John Joyce (R-PA) introduced H. Res.
1273 to direct the President to provide certain documents to
the House of Representatives in relation to communication
between the executive branch and the American Federation of
Teachers (AFT) regarding reopening schools and supporting safe,
in-person learning. On September 15, 2022, the Committee
considered H. Res 1273 in legislative session and reported it
unfavorably, as amended, to the House of Representatives by a
vote of 28-21. The resolution was not considered on the House
floor.
118TH CONGRESS
First Session--Hearings
On February 8, 2023, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing on ``American Education in Crisis''.
The purpose of the hearing was to examine the state of American
education, including the needs to add transparency and
accountability, to update the education system to serve the
needs of students and families, and to protect and restore the
rights of parents to have a say in their children's education.
Testifying before the Committee was Ms. Virginia Gentles,
Director, Education Freedom Center, Independent Women's Forum,
Arlington, VA; Dr. Monty Sullivan, President, Louisiana
Community and Technical College System, Baton Rouge, LA; Mr.
Scott Pulsipher, President, Western Governors University, Salt
Lake City, UT; and Mr. Jared Polis, Governor, State of
Colorado, Denver, CO.
Legislative Action
On March 1, 2023, Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA) introduced H.R.
5, Parents Bill of Rights Act, with Reps. Foxx, Owens, Allen,
Stefanik, Thompson, Steve Scalise (R-LA), Tom Emmer (R-MN),
Mike Johnson (R-LA), Richard Hudson (R-NC), Mary Miller (R-IL),
Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Glenn Grothman (R-
WI), Jim Banks (R-IN), Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), Michelle Steel (R-
CA), Aaron Bean (R-FL), Brandon Williams (R-NY), Erin Houchin
(R-IN), Guy Resechenthaler (R-PA), John Moolenaar (R-MI), Dan
Newhouse (R-WA), Marianette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), Vern Buchanan
(R-FL), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Brad Finstad (R-MN), Claudia
Tenney (R-NY), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Pat Fallon (R-TX), Mike
Kelly (R-PA), Chuck Edwards (R-NC), Tiffany Thomas (R-WI),
Jerry Carl (R-AL), Ken Calvert (R-CA), David Valadao (R-CA),
Ashley Binson (R-IA), Ralph Norman (R-SC), Mike Bost (R-IL),
Daniel Meuser (R-PA), Michael Waltz (R-FL), David Kustoff (R-
TN), Mike Garcia (R-CA), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Nancy Mace (R-
SC), Bryan Steil (R-WI), Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), John Rutherford
(R-FL), Garret Graves (R-LA), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA),
Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Max Miller (R-OH), Tom McClintock (R-CA),
Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Alexander Mooney (R-WV), Lance Gooden (R-
TX), Carlos Gimenez (R-FL), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Michael
Guest (R-MS), Tony Gonzales (R-TX), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Anna
Paulina Luna (R-FL), Troy Balderson (R-OH), Robert Wittman (R-
VA), David Rouzer (R-NC), Eric Crawford (R-AR), Mike Ezell (R-
MS), Mike Carrey (R-OH), Kat Cammack (R-FL), Ryan Zinke (R-MT),
Michael McCaul (R-TX), John Joyce (R-PA), Kevin Hern (R-OK),
Jake Ellzey (R-TX) as original co-sponsors. The bill was
referred solely to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. On March 8, 2023, the Committee considered H.R. 5 in
legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to
the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 25-17. The
Committee adopted the following amendments to H.R. 5:
1. Amendment in Nature of a Substitute--Rep. Letlow
offered an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
(ANS) that adds language to the Title I ``Parents
Right-To-Know'' provisions to ensure that parents have
the right to inspect books and other reading materials
in school libraries. The ANS also makes one technical
change. The ANS was adopted by a recorded vote of 25-
17. It was ordered reported by a recorded vote of 25-
17.
2. School Speakers--Rep. Owens offered an amendment
to the ANS to require school districts to ensure that
schools notify parents of individuals or groups that
are invited to speak at school. The amendment was
adopted by a recorded vote of 25-17.
3. School Enrollment Options--Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA)
offered an amendment to the ANS to add language to the
Title I ``Parents Right-To-Know'' provisions to ensure
that parents have the right to information about all
available public school enrollment options, including
charter schools, schools within the school district,
and transfers to schools in other school districts. The
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
4. PROTECT Act--Rep. Walberg offered H.R. 736, the
PROTECT Act as an amendment to the ANS. The PROTECT ACT
requires elementary and middle schools that receive
federal funds to obtain parental consent before
changing a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or
preferred name on any school form, or before allowing a
child to change the child's sex-based accommodations,
including locker rooms or bathrooms. The amendment was
adopted by voice vote.
5. Budget Information--Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-
OR) offered an amendment to the ANS requiring school
districts to present summarized budget information to
parents in addition to the detailed information
required to be reported under the bill. The amendment
was adopted by voice vote.
6. Teacher Professional Development Materials--Rep.
Eric Burlison (R-MO) offered an amendment to the ANS to
ensure that parents have the right to review teacher
professional development materials. The amendment was
adopted by voice vote.
7. Curriculum Review Periods--Rep. Chavez-DeRemer
offered an amendment to the ANS to create structure
around parents' right to inspect instructional
material. The review period would occur, at minimum,
once every three weeks and last a minimum of three
school days, during which parents have the right to
review any instructional materials expected to be used
in the next three weeks, as well as any instructional
materials used in the past. The amendment was adopted
by voice vote.
8. Third Grade Literacy--Rep. Houchin (R-IN) offered
an amendment to the ANS to ensure schools notify
parents if their children are not grade-level
proficient in reading at the end of the third grade.
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
9. Curriculum Review Fees--Rep. Good (R-VA) offered
an amendment to the ANS to ensure that schools cannot
charge parents fees for reviewing the curriculum. The
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
10. Acting as Agent of Parent for Vaccines--Rep. Good
offered an amendment to the ANS prohibiting schools
from acting as the agent of a parent for purposes of
providing parental consent for vaccination. The
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
11. Permitting Copies of Materials--Rep. Good offered
an amendment to the ANS to permit parents to make
copies of instructional materials, in addition to
inspecting them. The amendment was adopted by voice
vote.
12. Executive Branch Accountability--Rep. Good
offered an amendment to the ANS to state that Executive
Branch officials should not criminalize the lawfully
expressed concerns of parents. The amendment was
adopted by voice vote.
13. Right to Know of Gender Identity Affirmation--
Rep. Good offered an amendment to the ANS to include
the right for parents to know about any attempt by a
teacher of their child to affirm their child's asserted
identity if that identity is incongruent with the
child's biological sex. The amendment was adopted by
voice vote.
14. Non-Disclosure Agreements--Rep. John James (R-MI)
offered an amendment to the ANS to ensure that parents'
rights to review curriculum and any books and other
reading materials made available through the school and
the school library are not conditioned on their signing
non-disclosure agreements. The amendment was adopted by
voice vote.
15. Sense of Congress--Rep. Williams (R-NY) offered
an amendment to the ANS that provides a sense of
Congress that all public elementary and secondary
school students should have opportunities to learn the
history of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. The
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
16. Sense of Congress--Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC)
offered an amendment to the ANS that establishes a
sense of Congress that all public elementary and
secondary school students should have access to
broadband. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
17. Curriculum--Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) offered an
amendment that clarifies that nothing in the Act may be
construed to authorize any department, agency, officer,
or employee of the United States to exercise any
direction, supervision, or control over
curriculum,program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any
educational institution, school, or school system. The amendment was
adopted by voice vote.
COMMITTEE VIEWS
INTRODUCTION
Parental rights are non-negotiable. Parents have a God-
given right to make decisions for their children, to raise
children according to the values they hold, and to know how
their children are being instructed in school. Americans should
never be forced to relinquish these parental rights to the
government--whether that involves curriculum decisions or
personal medical choices.
These rights belong to all serving in parental roles. H.R.
5 amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and the
Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), all of which
define ``parent'' broadly to include legal guardians and others
standing in loco parentis. Unfortunately, these fundamental
parental rights are increasingly under assault. The issue of
parents' rights in education has become a major topic since the
COVID-19 pandemic. School closures allowed many parents, for
the first time, to see exactly what their kids were being
taught. Many parents discovered that divisive and inappropriate
leftist ideology had infiltrated their local public school.
Rather than listening to parents' concerns about what was
being taught, the left has instead tried to silence them.
Powerful teachers unions, school boards, Democrat politicians,
and the Biden Justice Department have all voiced opposition to
the rights of parents to have a say in their child's education.
Former Democrat House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth
argued in an Education and Labor Committee markup that children
need to be protected from their parents.\1\ Virginia Democrat
gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe argued during a debate
that parents should not tell schools what to teach.\2\ And
Department of Education (ED) Secretary Miguel Cardona refused
to accept that parents should be the primary stakeholder in
their children's education.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwduW_zw18U.
\2\https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcauliffe-says-he-doesnt-
believe-parents-should-control-what-schools-teach.
\3\https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/10/01/
biden_education_sec_cardona_parents _shouldnt_be_
primary_stakeholder_in_their_kids_ education.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 5 takes important steps to restore parents' rights by
strengthening provisions in ESEA, FERPA, and the PPRA.
Committee Republicans want parents to be involved in the
decision- making process when it comes to their child's
education. Parents deserve transparency and accountability. The
Parents Bill of Rights Act (PBORA) reaffirms schools' duties to
parents by securing the following five key rights:
1. The right to know what their children are being
taught.
2. The right to be heard by educators and
policymakers.
3. The right to see school budgeting and spending.
4. The right to protect their child's privacy.
5. The right to keep their children safe.
Parents have the right to know what is being taught
In 2021, Rhode Island mother-of-two Nicole Solas talked to
an elementary school principal in South Kingstown, RI, about
what was being taught in schools. She quickly became concerned
that leftist ideology was being taught and demanded to know
more. She asked the principal, the school board, the
superintendent, the director of curriculum, and the legal
department at the Rhode Island Department of Education to let
her view the curriculum.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/06/im -a-mom-seeking-records-
of-critical-race-and-gender-curriculum-now-the- school-committee-may-
sue-to-stop-me/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After persistent stonewalling, the school district directed
her to file a request under state law governing public access
of records on the school district website to obtain the
curriculum. Solas filed numerous requests, leading the school
board to publicly consider suing her.\5\ In August 2021, the
local National Education Association affiliate did file a
lawsuit against her.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\https://turnto10.com/news/local/south-kingstown-school-
committee-wont-sue-woman-over-public-records-requests.
\6\https://turnto10.com/news/local/teachers-union-sues-south-
kingstown-school-committee-parent-over-public-records-release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This kind of treatment is outrageous. Simply because she
wanted to know what her child was being taught, Solas was
subjected to endless stonewalling, public humiliation, and an
interminable and costly legal battle. No parent should have to
go through that just to know what their child is learning in
school.
To these ends, schools and school districts must be
transparent about every aspect of education. To honor the
transparency that all parents deserve, H.R. 5 requires states
to ensure that school districts post curriculum information for
each grade level on a publicly accessible website or, for any
districts that do not operate a website, that such districts
must widely disseminate the information to the public. Schools
will also be required to allow parents the opportunity to
review the curriculum. Additionally, schools will be required
to annually release a list of books and reading materials that
are available in the school library, so parents are aware and
able to review the literature available to their child.
Finally, the bill requires states to provide the public a copy
of any revisions made to the state's academic content and
achievement standards.
The Committee is aware of the important role teachers play
in school system. These transparency responsibilities will not
increase teacher burden. The responsibility to post or widely
distribute curriculum information is a school district
responsibility. The Committee expects that school district
staff will fulfill this obligation.
Parents have the right to be heard
In the past two years, parents have turned out en masse to
school board meetings to protest and express their opinions on
local education policies. They have much to be frustrated
about. For one, parents are rightly concerned about how leftist
ideologies have infiltrated school classrooms. Nicole Solas's
story, above, is a prime example of how school administrators
can stonewall even the most basic attempts to uncover what
children are being taught. That is cause for grave concern.
Second, children have borne the brunt of excessively
cautious and politicized COVID-19 mitigation strategies. School
closures and the pandemic experience plunged students into
feelings of isolation, depression, and anxiety.\7\ The CDC's
2021 Adolescent Behaviors and Experiences Survey noted that 37
percent of high school students experienced poor mental health
during the pandemic, with 44 percent of all students reporting
feeling persistently sad or hopeless.\8\ A study conducted by
the American Civil Liberties Union asked students to grade
their mental wellness before and after schools closed on a
scale of one to 10, with 10 indicating peak mental health.\9\
Before the pandemic, 65 percent of students gave themselves a
seven or higher. After the onset of the pandemic, that
percentage dropped to less than 40 percent. Moreover, the
number of students who rated their mental health a three or
lower more than tripled after the pandemic began, from 7.2
percent to 23 percent.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/covid-youth-
mental-health-crisis/.
\8\https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/abes.htm, https://
www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/p0331-youth-mental-health-covid-
19.html.
\9\Student anxiety, depression increasing during school closures,
survey finds | EdSource.
\10\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although students have been learning in person most of the
last two school years, the learning loss suffered during school
closures cannot be overstated. Study after study confirms the
sad yet unsurprising reality: school closures crippled K-12
students' learning. ED released National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) data\11\ last fall showing that
reading and math scores for nine-year-olds declined sharply
over the course of the pandemic. Average scores in 2022
declined five points in reading and seven points in math
compared to 2020. This is the largest average decline in
reading since 1990 and the first ever decline in math. A July
2021 analysis conducted by McKinsey & Company found that
students may earn $49,000 to $61,000 less over their lifetime
because of the pandemic.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/ltt/2022/.
\12\https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/
our-insights/covid-19-and-education-the-lingering-effects-of-
unfinished-learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is worse is that COVID-19 mitigation policies were
often influenced less by the imperatives of public health
concerns and more by Democrats' political allies. For instance,
the Biden administration allowed the American Federation of
Teachers to rewrite key portions of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's school reopening guidance.\13\
Teachers unions also had tremendous control over deciding which
school districts would reopen. Research shows large urban
school districts with entrenched union power were less likely
to reopen in the fall of 2021.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\https://nypost.com/2021/05/01/teachers-union-collaborated-with-
cdc-on-school-reopening-emails/.
\14\https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/03/
25/teachers-unions-scapegoats-or-bad-faith-actors-in-covid-19-school-
reopening-decisions/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When parents shared their concerns at local school board
meetings, the Biden administration reacted not with compassion
but by threatening to investigate and prosecute parents. In
October 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland instructed the
FBI to be on the lookout for ``harassment, intimidation, and
threats of violence'' against school board members and
administrators.\15\ This directive followed on the heels of the
National School Boards Association's plea to the White House
that some parents' protests to school boards could be akin to
``domestic terrorism.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download.
\16\https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/national-school-board-
groups-apology-for-domestic-terrorism-letter-may-not-quell-uproar/2021/
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents should never be prosecuted or labeled ``domestic
terrorists'' simply for sharing their frustrations. School
board meetings should be open to any concerned parent who
wishes to discuss what is happening in their child's school.
H.R. 5 includes provisions that require each school district
receiving Title I funds to provide parents an opportunity to
address the school board on issues impacting the education of
children in the school district. Additionally, parents should
have access to their child's teachers. Since parents are the
primary stakeholders of their child's education, H.R. 5
includes provisions to ensure that all parents are aware of
their opportunity to meet in person with each of their child's
teachers at least twice a year.
Parents have the right to see the school budget and spending
Each school's budget is more than just numbers. It
represents a school district's past performance and future
spending plan. It further represents a blueprint of the
school's priorities and values. Whether it is paying salaries,
providing academic supports, or purchasing curricula, each
school's allocation of tax dollars should be open to
examination and feedback by parents who can bring crucial
insights leading to increased student achievement. Parents
should further have access to the budget to verify that their
tax dollars are being spent on appropriate, rigorous curricula
needed to prepare their children for success after high school,
and not on materials and outside groups seeking to indoctrinate
students.
Furthermore, parents can ensure that taxpayer resources
entrusted to school officials are spent wisely to address
students' needs. It is estimated that students experienced
learning deficits of approximately one-third of an entire
school year during the pandemic.\17\ To combat the learning
loss sustained throughout the Democrat-led school closures,
Congress appropriated nearly $190 billion to schools. Some of
that funding has not been spent at all, while some has been
spent on frivolous projects like athletic fields or on
campaigns to indoctrinate students with the left's radical
agenda.\18 19\ H.R. 5 requires school districts that receive
Title I funds to include, as part of their annual report cards
to the public, the budget (including all revenues and
expenditures) for that school year for the district as a whole
and for each school served by that district.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Betthauser, B.A., Bach-Mortensen, A.M. & Engzell, P. A
systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Hum Behav (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41562-022-01506-4.
\18\https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-school-funding-
sports-5b468b260ebd2593e53f03f9104d9bca.
\19\https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-new-york-illinois-
covid-19-relief-funds-crt-schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents have the right to protect their child's privacy
Today's parents are the first to rear ``digital
children.''\20\ These children have a virtual presence at a
very early age. However, schools are also storing significant
amounts of information online, such as web browsing activity,
surveillance footage, test scores, health information, and
electronic communications. Using educational technology to
store sensitive information requires meaningful consent,
security safeguards, transparency, and accountability for any
data breaches.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Danah Boyd, ``Social network sites as networked publics:
affordances, dynamics, and implications'', in A Networked Self:
Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, Zizi
Papacharissi ed. (Routledge, 2011).
\21\https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/015/65/PDF/
G2101565.pdf?OpenElement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, parents should be made aware of the various
health screenings their child could be subjected to. Under the
bill, parents must consent before any medical exam takes place
at school, including mental health or substance use disorder
screenings. Parents must have a say in, and be able to review,
their school's privacy policies and procedures. Schools must
also receive consent from parents for their child's
participation in certain surveys, analyses, and evaluations
under the PPRA. Under the PPRA, schools must disclose to
parents when information is collected from students in any of
eight protected categories. H.R. 5 will ensure that each
collection receives parental consent. Finally, when it comes to
data privacy, schools are restricted from sharing student data
to technology companies without parental permission; such data
cannot be sold for commercial purposes.
Parents have the right to keep their children safe
Schools are struggling to address student behavior.\22\ One
thing is certain: bullying, fighting, sexual assaults, or any
other form of violence on school grounds should warrant an
immediate notification to parents and guardians. There is
currently no single data collection that can encompass the
incidence, frequency, and trends in violent crimes throughout
American schools.\23\ It is also no secret that learning
suffers when students worry about their safety, feel that
teachers do not have high expectations for their success, or
fear being bullied at school.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unpacking-school-
violence/202002/violence-in-schools-is-national-crisis.
\23\https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-do-data-reveal-about-
violence-schools#note2.
\24\https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/children-
learn-best-when-they-feel-safe-and-valued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, schools have often chosen to hide violence
on school grounds. In May 2021, Loudoun County parent Scott
Smith was notified of a ``physical altercation'' involving his
daughter at school.\25\ He soon began to suspect his daughter
had been raped in the restroom, but the school obfuscated: at a
June school board meeting, Loudoun County Public Schools
Superintendent Scott Ziegler declared that ``we don't have any
record of assaults occurring in our restrooms.''\26\ Despite
that declaration, it was later revealed that Mr. Smith's
daughter had, in fact, been sexually assaulted and that the
school had actively concealed the facts from him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\https://www.aei.org/op-eds/meet-the-medias-top-domestic-
terrorist/.
\26\https://heartlandernews.com/2022/12/15/loudoun-county-school-
superintendent-spokesman-indicted-for-lying about-transgender-sex-
assaults/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 5 takes steps to prevent instances like Loudoun
County's stonewalling from ever happening again. The bill
requires schools to notify parents of violent activities
occurring on school campuses or at school-sponsored events
while also protecting the privacy of students involved in such
incidents. Access to such information would allow parents to
make the best educational decisions for their child.
CONCLUSION
The Biden administration's politicization of education must
stop. Parents have the right to be part of their child's
education. H.R. 5 takes important steps to restore parents'
rights by strengthening provisions in ESEA, FERPA, and the
PPRA. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona recently published
an op-ed about the Democrat vision for parent empowerment.\27\
In his vision, parents should be satisfied when the federal
government spends taxpayer dollars on top-down solutions. By
contrast, Committee Republicans want an authentic give-and-take
between parents and the education system about what students
learn, how they are taught, and how they should be protected.
Democrats seem to believe parents' rights means the right to
accept whatever the experts hand down from on high. H.R. 5
rejects that approach and embraces an active role for parents
in the education of their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\https://www.newsweek.com/its-time-raise-bar-parent-partnership-
our-schools-opinion-1784502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY H.R. 5, THE PARENTS BILL OF RIGHTS ACT SECTION-BY-SECTION
SUMMARY
Section 1. Short title
Names the bill as the ``Parents Bill of Rights
Act''.
TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
Section 101. State plan assurances
Amends the Title I state plan to require states to
ensure that each school district in the state posts the
curriculum for each grade level on a publicly accessible
website or, if the district does not operate a website, widely
disseminates the curriculum to the public. To protect
intellectual property, the bill specifies that if the
curriculum is not freely and openly available, school districts
must post descriptions of the curriculum and information on how
parents can review the curriculum.
Amends the Title I state plan to require states to
provide the public a copy of any revisions to the state's
academic content and achievement standards, while also
clarifying that such a notice does not have to be provided to
the Secretary of Education.
Section 102. Annual local educational agency report card
Requires school districts that receive Title I
funds to include, as part of their annual report cards to the
public, the budget (including all revenues and expenditures)
for that school year for the district as a whole and for each
school served by that district.
Requires school districts to present summarized
budget information in addition to the detailed information
required to be reported under the bill.
Section 103. Local educational agency plan assurances.
Amends the Title I local plan to require each
school district that receives Title I funds to post on a
publicly accessible website or, if the district does not
operate a website, widely disseminate to the public, the school
district's plan for carrying out the parent engagement required
under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act and the policies and procedures that result from that
engagement.
Ensures that schools notify parents if their
children are not grade-level proficient in reading at the end
of the third grade.
Requires school districts to ensure that schools
notify parents of individuals or groups that are invited to
speak at school.
Section 104. Parents Right-to-Know
Amends the Title I ``Parents Right-To-Know''
provisions to require each school district that receives Title
I funds to ensure that each school served by the district:
annually posts a summary notice of the right of
parents to information about their children's education
contained in the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, including at least:
D the right to review the curriculum of the
child's school at no cost to parents;
D the right to make copies of curriculum, in
addition to inspecting them;
D the right to know if the state alters the
state's academic standards;
D the right to meet with their child's teacher
at least twice each school year in person or
virtually via video-conferencing;
D the right to review the budget, including all
revenues and expenditures, of their child's
school;
D the right to a list of books and other
reading materials contained in the library of
their child's school;
D the right to address the school board of the
school district;
D the right to information about violent
activity in their child's school;
D the right to information about any plans to
eliminate gifted and talented programs in their
child's school;
D the right to review teacher professional
development materials;
D the right to information about all available
public school enrollment options, including
charter schools, schools within the school
district, and transfers to schools in other
school districts;
D the right for parents to know about any
attempt by a school employee to affirm their
child's asserted identity if that identity is
incongruent with the child's biological sex;
D the right to know if their child is not
grade-level proficient at the end of the third
grade;
D the right to know if a school employee or
contractor acts to treat, advise, address
cyberbullying, hazing, mental health, self-
harm, suicidal ideation, a specific threat to
safety of students, possession or use of
controlled substance, and eating disorder of a
student; and
D the right to know if their child brings a
weapon to school.
Section 105. Sense of Congress on First Amendment Rights
Establishes a Sense of Congress guaranteeing
parents and other stakeholders hold the right to assemble and
express their opinions on decisions affecting their children
and communities. It also states that educators and policymakers
should welcome and encourage that engagement and consider that
feedback when making decisions.
Establishes a Sense of Congress to state that
Executive Branch officials should not criminalize the lawfully
expressed concerns of parents.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO FERPA AND PPRA
Section 201. Amendments to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act of 1974
Adds language to align the enforcement provision
in current law with new language regarding enforcement that was
added by the bill to the PPRA.
Clarifies that schools may not provide verifiable
consent related to the use of educational technologies without
providing parents proper notice and a chance to object to the
use of those technologies.
Prohibits the sale of student data for commercial
purposes. The bill provides exceptions for products sold to
students by or on behalf of schools such as yearbooks, prom
tickets, and school pictures.
Adds a requirement for schools to engage with
parents as they are developing their privacy policy or
procedure.
Adds a provision requiring schools to tell
parents, upon request, with whom the school shares student
survey or student record information.
Adds a provision that prohibits schools from
acting as the agent of a parent for purposes of providing
parental consent for vaccination.
Section 202. Protection of Pupil Rights
Expands a current law provision related to
parental consent of student participation in surveys to clarify
that parental consent of minors must be obtained for each
individual survey.
Expands a provision to require local educational
agencies to provide parents access to inspect all books and
instructional material to be used in the school.
Includes the same parent consultation update that
is included in the amendments to FERPA to ensure parents are
fully engaged in the development of these policies and
procedures.
Broadens the requirement around parental
notification of any physical exam to include medical exams,
such as mental health or substance use disorder screenings, to
ensure parents' rights are protected when it comes to any
medical examinations or procedures. The amendments include an
exception for emergencies but clearly state that notice to
parents must be made promptly after the emergency. The
amendments also clarify that the expanded scope of this
provision does not apply to observational screenings conducted
as part of schools' obligations under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
Adds a provision to require transparency regarding
enforcement to ensure schools, school districts, states, and
the U.S. Department of Education are fully enforcing the rights
guaranteed by PPRA.
Adds a provision that ensures parents' rights to
review curriculum and any books and other reading materials
made available through the school and the school library are
not conditioned on their signing non-disclosure agreements.
Adds a provision to create structure around
parents' rights to inspect instructional materials. The review
period would occur, at minimum, once every three weeks and last
a minimum of three school days, during which parents have the
right to review any instructional materials expected to be used
in the next three weeks, as well as any instructional materials
used in the past.
TITLE III--PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN CURRICULUM
Section 301 Rule of Construction
Clarifies that nothing in the Act may be construed
to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of
the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or
control over curriculum, program of instruction,
administration, or personnel of any educational institution,
school, or school system.
TITLE IV--GENDER MARKERS, PRONOUNS, AND PREFERRED NAMES ON SCHOOL FORMS
Section 401. Requirement related to gender markers, pronouns, and
preferred names on school forms
Adds a requirement that elementary and middle
schools that receive federal funds obtain parental consent
before changing a minor child's gender markers, pronouns, or
preferred name on any school form, or before allowing a child
to change the child's sex -based accommodations, including
locker rooms or bathrooms.
TITLE V--ACCESS TO SCHOOL BROADBAND
Section 501. Sense of Congress
Establishes a Sense of Congress that all public
elementary and public secondary school students should have
access to broadband.
TITLE VI--SENSE OF CONGRESS
Section 601. Sense of Congress
Establishes a Sense of Congress that all public
elementary and secondary school students should have
opportunities to learn the history of the Holocaust and
antisemitism.
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, are explained in the body of this report.
APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch. H.R. 5. takes important steps to clarify that parents
have a right to know what is happening in their child's school
and maintain the right to make decisions about their child's
education, including by putting practices in place that
facilitate meaningful dialog between a family and their child's
school, and lead to more input throughout the learning process.
UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement of
whether the provisions of the reported bill include unfunded
mandates. This issue is addressed in the CBO letter.
EARMARK STATEMENT
H.R. 5 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9
of House rule XXI.
ROLL CALL VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the
total number of votes for and against and the names of the
Members voting for and against.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In accordance with clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the
goal of H.R. 5 is to protect parents' rights in educational
decisions about their children.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
No provision of H.R. 5 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS
The committee estimates enacting H.R. 5 does not
specifically direct the completion of any specific rule makings
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.
STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE COMMITTEE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the body of this report.
REQUIRED COMMITTEE HEARING AND RELATED HEARINGS
In compliance with clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII the
following hearing held during the 118th Congress was used to
develop or consider H.R. 5: ``American Education in Crisis''.
The following related hearings were held: ``Budget Cuts and
Lost Learning: Assessing the Impact of Covid-19 on Public
Education.'', ``Underfunded & Unprepared: Examining How to
Overcome Obstacles to Safely Reopen Public Schools.'', ``Brown
v. Board of Education at 65: A Promise Unfulfilled,'',
``Building Back Better: Investing in Improving Schools,
Creating Jobs, and Strengthening Families and our Economy.'',
``Addressing the Impact of COVID-19 on Students with
Disabilities.'', ``Back to School: Highlighting Best Practices
for Safely Reopening School.'', ``Examining the Implementation
of COVID-19 Education Funds.'', ``Serving All Students:
Promoting a Healthier, More Supportive School Environment.'',
``Examining the Policies and Priorities of the U.S. Department
of Education.'', ``Back to School: Meeting Students'' Academic,
Social and Emotional Needs.''
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the committee has received
the following estimate for H.R. 5 from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 5 would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) and the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) to
require public schools to allow parents to review certain
materials and to be informed of, and grant consent for, certain
activities. In addition, the bill would establish requirements
on local education agencies (LEAs) as a condition of receiving
federal funds.
Spending subject to appropriation: The bill would amend
ESEA to require LEAs that receive funding under title I to
ensure that schools either make certain information publicly
available on a website or communicate that information to
parents. That information would include curricula, budgets,
lists of parents' rights, library and course materials, and
parent engagement plans.
In addition, H.R. 5 would amend GEPA to require schools
that participate in programs administered by the Department of
Education seek parental consent for specified activities--such
as the use of technology in the classroom, attendance for guest
speakers in the classroom, or mental health treatment. The bill
also would restrict the use of student information for
commercial and financial gain and require LEAs to provide
comment periods to solicit feedback from parents on course
materials, books available to students, and professional
development materials. Finally, the Secretary of Education
would be required toreport annually to the Congress about
investigations and enforcement actions by LEAs and state education
agencies as well as enforcement action taken by the Secretary.
Enacting H.R. 5 could result in a decrease in estimated
authorizations for programs at the Department of Education.
This would come about if schools choose to forgo federal
funding by not complying with the requirements in the bill. CBO
has no basis to estimate whether or how many LEAs would do so.
CBO estimates that, on average, schools receive $275,000 each
year in federal funds from programs under ESEA title I.
Direct spending: Title IV of the bill would establish as a
condition of federal assistance that schools get parental
consent before staff change a child's gender marker, pronouns,
or preferred name on any school form or allow a child to change
which bathroom or locker room they use. CBO expects that the
requirement would apply broadly to all federal funds that
schools receive, including funding that is authorized by laws
other than ESEA or GEPA.
Enacting the parental consent requirement could result in a
reduction in direct spending through a similar mechanism as
spending subject to appropriations, but CBO has no basis to
predict whether, or how many, schools would not comply with the
requirement in title IV. As a result, CBO cannot estimate the
savings related to schools not complying with that requirement.
CBO expects that schools that fail to get such parental
consent would not be allowed to participate in the child
nutrition programs. Under the National School Lunch Program
(NSLP), the School Breakfast Program (SBP), the Child and Adult
Care Food Program, the Summer Food Service Program, and the
Special Milk Program, the government provides commodities and
cash payments to reimburse participating schools and
institutions for at least part of the cost of each meal served.
In 2024, CBO estimates that the average school that
participates in the NSLP and SBP will receive about $121,800 in
2024 under those programs.
Mandates: Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA),
duties required of nonfederal entities do not impose mandates
if those duties are a condition of federal assistance. H.R. 5
would require state and local educational agencies, including
schools, to perform a series of new duties primarily related to
the publication of school materials and parental notification,
consent, and review. Because the duties in H.R. 5 are either
explicitly conditioned on accepting federal assistance or amend
existing laws that apply to recipients of federal assistance,
the bill would not impose mandates under UMRA.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Garrett
Quenneville. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 5. However,
clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement
does not apply when, as with the present report, the committee
has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of
the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(e) of rule XIII
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in
existing law made by the bill, as reported, this section was
not made available to the Committee in time for the filing of
this report. The Chair of the Committee shall have this printed
upon its receipt by the Committee.
MINORITY VIEWS
INTRODUCTION
The Majority claims that H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights
Act, seeks to ``put in place concrete legal protections that
will ensure parents always have a seat at the table when it
comes to their child's education.''\1\ However, the bill is
largely duplicative of current law, lacks clarity in how its
provisions will actually address students well-being, and
stands as an example of the type federal overreach
Congressional Republicans have long claimed would harm
children, teachers and schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Press Release, Rep. Julia Letlow, Letlow Introduces Parents Bill
of Rights (Mar. 1, 2023), https://letlow.house.gov/media/press-
releases/letlow-reintroduces-parents-bill-rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF CONCERNS
H.R. 5 is Duplicative of Current Law
The provisions in H.R. 5 are largely duplicative of current
law and create unnecessary and burdensome requirements on state
education agencies (SEAs), local education agencies (LEAs), and
schools. The bill would require these entities to divert
essential resources and personnel away from serving students
and providing them with the supports they need. Recognizing
this is not an exhaustive list, the following are examples of
duplicative provisions contained in H.R. 5.
Under the Protection of Pupils Rights Amendment (PPRA),
parents already have the right to access instructional
materials used by their child's school.\2\ Title I of
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Title I) also
currently requires that districts conduct outreach to parents
and family members, and implement programs, activities, and
procedures to involve parents and families in their child's
education.\3\ Under the law, each district that receives Title
I funds must have a written parent and family engagement policy
in place that, in part, provides parents with a description and
explanation of the curriculum and assessments used in their
child's school.\4\ Districts and schools must distribute this
policy to parents and family members and hold at least one
annual meeting with families to explain the policy and their
right to be involved.\5\ Many of the additional requirements
placed on SEAs and LEAs would unduly burden Title I schools,
which serve higher portions of students from low-income
backgrounds and students of color. For example, if H.R. 5
became law, funds spent compiling and disseminating required
lists of books and reading materials to families could
otherwise be spent on direct educational services for
disadvantaged students or efforts to close achievement gaps, as
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)(1).
\3\20 U.S.C. 6318(a)(1), (b), (d); 20 U.S.C. 6311(d); 20 U.S.C.
6314(b).
\4\20 U.S.C. 6318(a)(1); 20 U.S.C. 6318(b), (d).
\5\20 U.S.C. 6318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the amendments to ESEA, the student data privacy
provisions in H.R. 5 are largely redundant of provisions
currently required by law. Currently, PPRA requires that
educational institutions make parents aware of instances in
which their child's information may be used for marketing or
sales and provide parents with the opportunity to opt their
child out.\6\ Likewise, PPRA currently requires that school
districts develop policies, in consultation with families, to
protect student data privacy and govern the disclosure of
student information online.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\20 U.S.C. 1232h(c).
\7\20 U.S.C. 1232h(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 5 Lacks Clarity in Addressing Student Well-being
Additionally, there are concerned with H.R. 5's proposed
amendments to PPRA that pertain to school-based health
examinations. The language is problematic for several reasons.
For example, the bill changes ``physical'' to ``medical,''
thereby expanding the PPRA to non-physical (i.e., mental)
health, and then requires an opt-in with prior notice to and
consent from parents before ``any medical examination or
screening'', except in case of emergency.\8\ The bill does not
specify how often schools would be required to collect and
confirm parental consent prior to providing students with
medical care. As a result, the requirement could prevent
students from accessing needed medical services at school--
particularly in instances where parents cannot be reached--and
could create an additional administrative burden for both
schools and families. The bill also does not define ``mental
health screening'' or ``emergency,'' leaving room for
potentially broad and inconsistent interpretations, and could
negatively impact the provision of vital mental health support.
This could be particularly harmful due to recent rises in
suicide, anxiety, and depression among students.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\It should be noted that the Committee supports ensuring that
behavioral health is encompassed within health.
\9\Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, Mental Health, Poor
Mental Health Is a Problem for Adolescents, (last reviewed Feb. 13,
2023) https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/mental-health/
index.htm#: :text=In%202021%2C%20more%20than%204,10%20(10%25)%20attempte
d%20suicide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 5 is an Example of Federal Overreach
In addition to being duplicative of existing federal law,
the requirements in H.R. 5 are at best redundant, and at worst
in direct conflict, to requirements of state and local
education laws. For example, a number of states and districts
have enacted policies to provide transparency and access to
documents and proceedings already. If signed into law, H.R. 5
could institute an additional set of standards and requirements
to accomplish the same goal. Further, key terms are undefined,
leaving the true scope of work necessary for compliance
unclear. For example, schools are required to inform parents of
all ``violent activity'' which results in injury, but the
vagueness of the bill could leave to question whether these
``activities'' include playground squabbles and skinned knees,
which, while low stakes may involve violence, or something much
more serious (e.g., robbery) which may involve the threat of
violence, but not actual violence.
This is especially troubling as H.R. 5 makes a mockery of
long-standing Republican ideals of federalism in education and
local control over educational decisions. The bill is a litany
of unfunded mandates put on schools with no real theory as to
how any of these requirements will actually improve educational
quality. For example, the bill includes a ``notice of rights''
for parents, including the right to review curriculum, budget,
and the list of books and other reading materials but does not
take into consideration any current state or local laws which
may beduplicative in purpose yet incongruent with the bill in
implementation. While Congressional Democrats generally support a
strong federal role in education, we believe in many instances, federal
education law can provide a floor of support that localities can build
on based on their unique needs.
It was in this spirit that Committee Democrats offered a
series of amendments that simply provided assurances that
nothing in H.R. 5 could be construed to permit federal
involvement in the teaching of many aspects of history that we
know state PBOR bills are explicitly targeting. This began with
Rep. Courtney (D-CT) offering a blanket amendment on ensuring
H.R. 5 could not be construed to allow the federal government
to meddle in curriculum, which was accepted as a restatement of
law. Democrats then offered amendments to specify that certain
history curricula would also be safe from federal intrusion
under H.R. 5. These include, but are not limited to, African-
American history, Latino history, Asian-American history,
LGBTQ+ history, Women's history, the Holocaust and the history
of Anti-Semitism in America. Committee Democrats recognize that
these subjects are not taught in every school, and nothing in
our amendments would compel they be taught, as that would
violate longstanding federal policy. But we did want to protect
the schools and teachers who have chosen to teach these
subjects, letting them know state law mandates to ``Don't Say
Gay''\10\ or ``Teach the Controversy''\11\ could not be
construed to be required by H.R. 5. Committee Republicans voted
down all of these measures on party line votes, with Chairwoman
Foxx repeatedly invoking the longstanding federal ban on
involvement with curricula as the reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\2022 Fla. Laws 22.
\11\Terry Gross, From slavery to socialism, new legislation
restricts what teachers can discuss, NPR, Feb. 3, 2022, https://
www.npr.org/2022/02/03/1077878538/legislation-restricts-what-teachers-
can-discuss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly after those amendments were considered, Rep.
Williams (R-NY) offered Sense of Congress language (shared with
the Committee mere minutes before its consideration 12 hours
into the markup) that all public elementary and secondary
school students should have opportunities to learn the history
of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. While this provision was at
best aspirational and carried no force of law whatsoever,
Democrats led by Rep. Bonamici (D-CA) sought to perfect it by
including the other marginalized groups mentioned in our
previous amendments to this Sense of Congress. The Bonamici
amendment would put Congress on the record as supporting an
expansive and inclusive teaching of history in our schools.
Rather than vote on this provision, the Majority insisted
the Bonamici amendment to the Williams expanded upon the
fundamental purpose of the Williams amendment, which they
determined was the teaching of history relating to the
Holocaust and Anti-Semitism. Despite a masterful argument from
Rep. Takano (D-CA) illustrating the intersectionality of all
our varied histories in American history, and a reminder from
Ranking Member Scott that just because a point of order lies
against an amendment, it doesn't need to be insisted upon
(especially if the provision would materially improve the
bill), the Majority ruled the Bonamici amendment as out of
order and not germane to the fundamental purpose of the
Williams amendment. In the space of less than an hour, the
Majority abandoned its principles of federalism by refusing to
guarantee H.R. 5 could not be used to stifle local curricula
choices. It then introduced language telegraphing what
curricula it thought should be taught, and then prevented the
Committee from expanding that list of curricula to be inclusive
via parliamentary tactics.
H.R. 5 Would Harm Children, Teachers, and Schools
Finally, we must highlight the real harm that PBOR bills,
and H.R. 5 specifically, will inflict on students and their
families. While many of H.R. 5's provisions detail what seem to
be simple ways parents can involve themselves with their
child's educational experience, many of those provisions
already exist in federal law or are even further detailed in
state law. Coupled with these provisions H.R. 5 includes
impactful provisions that may harm children, teachers, and
school communities. For example, by expanding the PPRA to non-
physical (i.e., mental) health and requiring an opt-in with
prior notice to and consent from parents before ``any medical
examination or screening'', except in case of emergency, the
bill could essentially be forcing a school to share information
about a student's sexual orientation in order for the parent to
approve such services. A school official may know that this
sharing would result in harm coming to the child, but under
H.R. 5, they would have no discretion in the matter.
Additionally, there are concerns that requiring prior approval
for such examinations and screenings could allow parents to
essentially conceal abuse in the home, evidence a student would
otherwise share with a relevant mental health professional.
Educators are also worried about H.R. 5\12\ For example,
the National Education Association stated ``. . .the
legislation tells teachers, school counselors, librarians, and
other school professionals that despite their education,
expertise, experience, and dedication to their students, they
cannot be trusted to work with parents and their communities to
determine what materials are appropriate, how to design
curricula that meet students'' needs, nor how to ascertain
students' progress.''\13\ Additionally, there are concerns that
the bill could create the conditions to amplify censorship. The
American Library Association expressed ``concern about the
potential for the negative unintended consequences of further
book banning and censorship of viewpoints that may results if
these federal requirements are imposed on local schools.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Libby Stanford, Teachers Say a New Parents' Bill of Rights
Doesn't Solve Schools' Problems, EdWeek, March 7, 2023, https://
www.edweek.org/leadership/teachers-say-a-new-parents-bill-of-rights-
doesnt-solve-schools-problems/2023/03.
\13\Letter from Marc Egan, Director of Government Relations,
National Education Association, to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce (March 7, 2023).
\14\Letter from Alan S. Inouye, Ph.D., Senior Director, Public
Policy & Government Relations and Interim Associate Executive Director,
American Library Association, to the Honorable Virginia Foxx,
Chairwoman, House Education and the Workforce Committee and the
Honorable Bobby Scott, Ranking Member, House Education and the
Workforce Committee (March 3, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENTS OFFERED DURING THE MARKUP OF H.R. 5
Committee Democrats put forward 30 amendments in response
to H.R. 5. Democrats offered proposals focusing on improve
parental engagement and ensuring that every child receives an
inclusive, well-funded, and accurate education. Democrats also
offered amendments that addressed impractical aspects of the
bill, including Rep. Alma Adams's successful amendment to
ensure parents could attend conferences remotely and Ranking
Member Scott's unsuccessful amendment which clarified that
parents' right to address school boards come with
reasonablelimitations. Committee Republicans rejected 26 of the 30
Democratic amendments that were considered.
Amendment Number Offered By Description Action Taken
2 Ms. Bonamici Democratic Substitute Defeated
4 Mrs. Hayes Authorizes $117,000,000 for teacher Defeated
preparation, training, and recruiting
under Title II of ESEA
6 Mr. Scott Adds the Strength in Diversity Act, a Defeated
grant program to increase diversity in
schools, to the bill
7 Mr. Scott Rule of construction that nothing in the Defeated
bill may be construed to authorize
Federal funds to arm any person
8 Mr. Grijalva Rule of construction that nothing in the Defeated
bill may be construed to allow the
banning or censorship of books in
public elementary or public secondary
schools
10 Mr. Courtney Rule of construction that nothing in the Adopted
bill may be construed to permit federal
involvement in the curriculum, program
of instruction, administration, or
personnel of any educational
institution, school, or school system
12 Mr. Grijalva Rule of construction that nothing in the Defeated
bill may be construed to permit federal
involvement in the curriculum or
program of instruction of any
educational institution, school, or
school system, including with respect
to Latino history
14 Mr. Grijalva Rule of construction that nothing in the Defeated
bill may be construed to permit federal
involvement in the curriculum or
program of instruction of any
educational institution, school, or
school system, including with respect
to Native American history
16 Mr. Bowman Rule of construction that nothing in the Defeated
bill may be construed to permit federal
involvement in the curriculum or
program of instruction of any
educational institution, school, or
school system, including with respect
to Black history
18 Mr. Scott (Amendment to Amendment #17 offered by Adopted
Mr. Good of Virginia) Clarifies that
public safety officials should be
engaged in certain instances when there
is a credible threat
19 Mr. Takano Rule of construction that nothing in the Defeated
bill may be construed to permit federal
involvement in the curriculum or
program of instruction of any
educational institution, school, or
school system, including with respect
to LGBTQ+ history
20 Ms. Bonamici Rule of construction that nothing in the Defeated
bill may be construed to permit federal
involvement in the curriculum or
program of instruction of any
educational institution, school, or
school system, including with respect
to women's history
21 Ms. Jayapal Rule of construction that nothing in the Defeated
bill may be construed to permit federal
involvement in the curriculum or
program of instruction of any
educational institution, school, or
school system, including with respect
to Asian, Asian American, and Pacific
Islander history
22 Ms. Jayapal Requires a GAO study on the bill's Defeated
impact on learning outcomes
24 Mr. DeSaulnier Authorizes Statewide Family Engagement Defeated
Centers at $60,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2024 through 2029
25 Ms. Manning Sense of Congress that students should Adopted
have access to broadband
26 Mrs. Hayes Sense of Congress that students should Defeated
have access to healthy, nutritious
meals
27 Ms. Manning Rule of construction that nothing in the Defeated
bill may be construed to permit federal
involvement in the curriculum or
program of instruction of any
educational institution, school, or
school system, including with respect
to the Holocaust or anti-Semitism
29 Ms. Bonamici (Amendment to #28 offered by Mr. Ruled non-germane
Williams of Texas) Adds Black history,
Native American history, LGBTQI+
history, AAPI history, women's history,
Latino history, and all other history
within the sense of Congress that all
public elementary school and secondary
school students should have
opportunities to learn the history of
the Holocaust and anti-Semitism
30 Ms. Adams Ensures teacher-parent conferences can Adopted
be accessible via video and that
parents must be made aware that video
conferencing is an option
32 Ms. Manning Rule of construction that nothing in the Defeated
bill may be construed to permit or
encourage a local educational agency or
school to require any student to
provide reproductive or sexual health
information, including information
regarding the student's menstrual cycle
34 Mr. Bowman Sense of Congress that students should Defeated
have regular access to a trauma
informed mental health professional
36 Ms. Stevens Creates a grant program to remove lead Defeated
pipes in schools
38 Ms. Wilson Sense of Congress that teachers should Defeated
earn a minimum salary of $60,000 per
year
40 Ms. Wilson Sense of Congress that children have a Defeated
right to diverse teachers; creates a
grant program to facilitate the
training and recruitment of diverse
teachers authorized at $10,000,000 for
fiscal year 2024 and each succeeding
fiscal year
42 Mr. Bowman Increases the authorization levels for Defeated
full-service community schools
43 Mr. Takano Renames the bill the ``Ban Books, Censor Defeated
Teachers and Child Endangerment Act''
44 Mr. Scott Creates a parent coordinator role at Defeated
public schools
45 Mr. Scott Requires schools or local educational Defeated
agencies to provide the opportunity for
parents for whom English is a second
language to have a qualified translator
at meetings with the parent.
46 Mr. Scott Clarifies that parents have the right to Defeated
address school boards with reasonable
limitations
CONCLUSION
House Democrats believe parental engagement is central to
student success. As the American Psychological Association
highlighted, ``research shows a strong relationship between
parent engagement and educational outcomes, including school
attendance and higher grades and classroom test scores.''\15\
However, H.R. 5 does not help further promote parental
engagement. Instead, it is a bill largely duplicative of
requirements already in federal and state law; where it expands
upon existing requirements it unduly burdens schools and
families, opens the door for censorship in school curricula and
school libraries and contributes to the de-professionalization
of educators and librarians. The bill does nothing to address
the real challenges facing students, parents, and educators.
Issues like declining math and science scores, achievement
gaps, mental health services, and a lack community centers and
wrap-around services for youth were sidelined to focus on a
political agenda focused not on education but scapegoating some
of our most vulnerable students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\What is Parental Engagement, Am Psych. Ass'n, (last visited
Mar. 11, 2023), https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs.safe-supportive/
parental-engagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply put, H.R. 5 and PBOR efforts are educational gag
orders across the nation designed to prevent students from
learning and prevent teachers from teaching. These efforts seek
to score political points and scare parents into thinking that
schools do not have their best interests at heart. The
overwhelming majority of parents in this country know this is
not true. Instead, Committee Democrats will continue to
advocate for the support that schools and families actually
need to improve parent-teacher partnerships and support student
well-being and academic achievement. For the reasons stated
above, Committee Democrats unanimously opposed H.R. 5 when the
Committee on Education and the Workforce considered it on March
8, 2023. For the sake of the students of this country, we urge
the House of Representatives to do the same.
Bobby Scott,
Ranking Member.
Raul Grijalva.
Joe Courtney.
Gregorio Sablan.
Frederica Wilson.
Suzanne Bonamici.
Mark Takano.
Alma Adams.
Mark DeSaulnier.
Donald Norcross.
Pramila Jayapal.
Lucy McBath.
Jahana Hayes.
Haley Stevens.
Teresa Leger Fernandez.
Frank Mrvan.
Jamaal Bowman.