[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.