THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
``(4) INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL.--In this subsection the term `instructional material'
[Page: H2587] GPO's PDF
``(5) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.--(A) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g).
``(B) The term `instructional material' does not include academic tests or assessments.
``(6) APPLICATION.--
``(A) CERTAIN SURVEYS, ANALYSIS, AND EVALUATIONS.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to surveys, analysis, or evaluations administered to a student as part of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
``(B) PARENTAL CONSENT.--Nothing in subsection (c) shall be construed to supersede or otherwise affect the parental consent requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
``(C) STUDENT RIGHTS.--The rights provided parents under this Act transfer to the student once the student turns 18 years old or is an emancipated minor at any age.
``(7) STATE LAW EXCEPTION.--Educational agencies and institutions residing in a State that has a law that provides parents rights comparable to the rights contained herein may seek exemption from this Act by obtaining a waiver from the office designated by the Secretary to administer this Act. This office may grant a waiver to educational agencies and institutions upon review of State law.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. TIAHRT ) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time otherwise reserved for the opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. TIAHRT ).
Mr. TIAHRT . Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of parental rights. Today, we will be passing legislation to ensure that no child is left behind in our education system. As a Nation and as a government, we have a duty to make sure that our public school system is held accountable; but our schools should not only be accountable to the government, but parents as well. Ultimately, it is the families who should have the most say in how their children are educated.
The Parental Freedom of Information amendment is based on the need to provide concerned, active parents with information that is vital for them to exercise their right to guide the upbringing of the children.
Educators have often said that involved parents are the most important thing public schools need to help students learn. I believe involved parents must be informed parents.
The current hodgepodge of State and Federal laws simply does not provide parents of public school children with the clear-cut right to access information regarding their child's education.
The goal of this amendment is to plainly and unambiguously define the rights parents have under the law.
Specifically, parents will have the right to access the curriculum to which their children are exposed. Parents will also have the right to give informed written consent prior to any student being required to undergo nonemergency medical or mental health examinations, testing or treatment, while at school; and finally, they will be afforded the right to inspect surveys and questionnaires seeking personal information before they are given to students.
This legislation in no way seeks to influence the content of curricula or tests. It simply allows parents to access the basic information which involved parents need to guide the education of their children.
There may be some attempt to argue that there is no need for this amendment . However, the increasing amount of litigation to determine what rights are guaranteed to parents under current Federal law is evidence to the contrary. Plain and simple, parents should not have to go into a courtroom to find out what is going on in the classroom.
Parents provide both tax dollars to fund our public education system as well as children who participate. Why should we as parents be denied the right to see how schools are using our tax dollars to educate our children? We need this legislation to clarify that parents have this right to be involved.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, if I might ask either of the authors a question about the amendment because we have no opposition to the amendment . I think we fully understand the problems and the concerns that the authors are trying to address, but we would like to clarify obviously some concern of, very often, school teachers. Under State law, in a number of instances, teachers are required to react to their concerns about whether or not a child has been abused or not, and they must make some inquiries of that child. My understanding is this amendment would not impact in any way the ability of those school officials to engage in that sometimes, unfortunately, necessary activity.
Mr. TIAHRT . Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT . Mr. Chairman, I believe that is correct. We have no intent of preventing anyone from trying to stop child abuse. I think that is an awful situation that we currently have in America that we need to stop, so our efforts would be to do the same as the intent of the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We raise this concern, and I thank the gentleman for his answer. We raise this concern because obviously, again in very tragic and unfortunate situations, many times the child abuse is within the home and the parent cannot be notified that the teacher wants to ask questions of the child, and we just want to make sure that this does not get in the way.
Some of the groups have raised that concern. I do not think the amendment does that, but I would certainly like, if it is possible, that we could continue to work on this if that problem somehow materializes so that does not happen.
Mr. TIAHRT . Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT . It is our intent to work with the gentleman to make sure there is no confusion about this.
I would also like to remind the gentleman this does not supersede State laws. Those States that have made initiatives in this area to stop child abuse, it would not interfere with that process at all.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his response.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIAHRT . Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. TIAHRT ) yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed working with the gentleman on this amendment . It is often said that knowledge is power, and what we are trying to do is make sure that informed and caring parents know what is going on at school in an appropriate way. What the gentleman from California (Mr. GEORGE MILLER) raised, I want to assure him it is not my intent, nor the intent of anyone, to supersede State law that requires teachers or medical personnel to report suspected child abuse, because we do not want to do anything that is going to undermine protecting children. I think we have drafted an amendment that will accomplish that.
We are trying to empower parents in three key areas. We want to make sure that parents have some knowledge of what is going on in terms of the curriculum being taught at the school and that they have some information up front, and that they can be informed by the appropriate authorities to know what their child is being taught and have some input.
We want to make sure that the parents have access to school material that is going to be taught to their child.
Second, if a child is being surveyed about their personal family life, about whether they use drugs, or mental health issues, that we want parents to know what is going on and get parental consent there when a survey is being done because we believe it is important for parents to know what is being asked of their children.
[Page: H2588] GPO's PDF
Third, we want to make sure that in emergency situations, guidance-counseling situations in its normal fashion, that there is no impediment there. But we do believe that when it comes time to perform medical exams or part of a treatment regime that a school counseling team may come up with, that parents are informed about what is going to happen to their child medically and any mental health counseling that is a result of the normal counseling process.
Knowledge is power. We believe this will give parents more knowledge about what goes on in their school. It will create a better relationship between administrators and parents, and we are going to make sure that we do not do anything to impede the right to protect children who are being abused at home.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIAHRT . Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. ROUKEMA) for the purposes of a colloquy.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. TIAHRT ) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to have this colloquy with the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. TIAHRT ) and the other author, but first let me make a point clear. I speak on this subject about parental consent with a little bit of experience that my husband is a psychiatrist not only in private practice but also as a psychiatric consultant to a number of school systems over the years on these issues.
With that as background, I want to say that I agree with the gentleman's amendment ; but I want to be sure that we are not having unintended consequences here. So I want to make clear what the language does.
Specifically with the section on restrictions on medical testing and treatment of minors, these initial contacts are vital. As a primary proponent of school-based mental health services, as the author of that provision that is in the bill, I want to be very sure that we are talking about the same things here.
My understanding here is that under the gentleman's amendment a child in trouble would be first referred to a school guidance counselor, as is presently the case, under all State law; no signed permission for this initial contact is needed. Is that correct?
Mr. TIAHRT . That is also my understanding, yes.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Then the child's case is referred to a child study committee, and the social worker that is a member of that child's study committee then is required to have parental consent or make the contact with the parent before that evaluation. Is that correct?
Mr. TIAHRT . That is also my understanding.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Then, of course, we get to the question of the mental health counselors that are provided for in this bill. It is again my understanding, and there is no ambiguity about this, that mental health counselors would then assess the treatment needs but would again require parental consent with specificity?
Mr. TIAHRT . That is also my understanding.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. That is also the understanding of the gentleman.
I want to thank the gentleman because this is a very important portion of this bill. I want to make the particular point for all of our colleagues that we need this clarification to ensure that the children and families are able to receive the best possible treatment but not eroding the rights of the parents in these cases.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. TIAHRT ) for his amendment .
Mr. TIAHRT . Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. SCHAFFER).
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. TIAHRT ) for yielding me this time and would urge the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. TIAHRT ).
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment because at its core it empowers parents, and that really should be what we are all about here in Congress, is finding ways to empower parents to the greatest extent possible. This empowers them through information and putting parents in the driver's seat when it comes to administering various psychological and psychiatric examinations, nonemergency medical examinations and tests that might be required at school.
Giving parents the authority to make these decisions is just one strategy to do two things: one, to make parents a more integral part of the academic and learning experience of their children; but, secondly, to allow parents to be in a position where they have a better opportunity to protect their children from different examinations, procedures, different experiments that take place in America's government-owned schools that are somehow different than the academic mission that most parents assume these institutions are all about.
That is, in fact, what these institutions should be about, and that should be our goal here in the House, is to focus to the greatest extent possible the mission of our public schools on the mission of teaching, on education. Pure and simple. It is important to empower them through the Tiahrt amendment because the options to empower parents further have really not become a part of this bill nor have those amendments been permitted to even be discussed.
The President, in his plan to leave no child behind, had suggested that parents should have the full authority to move their children out of government-owned institutions and into private schools at some point if those public schools have failed to deliver an academic product that was in the best interest of their children. That core provision of the President's bill has been left behind, ironically, and is not part of H.R. 1; but this amendment here is critical and I think addresses that deficiency in the overall legislation to some degree because it does significantly empower parents in a very important area of their child's academic experience and makes sure that their focus is on education and academics and not on experimentation and psychological testing.
Mr. TIAHRT . Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I first took up the fight to guarantee parental rights when I encountered resistance in trying to obtain information about my own children's curriculum. Since then, I have learned that 11-year-olds have been given surveys asking about explicit sexual practices. School counselors have conducted counseling sessions for treatments that they were not qualified to give, and other abuses have been occurring across the United States.
In closing, let me once again state that my intent with this amendment is to simply clear up the confusion that already exists in Federal law. Any teacher will say parental involvement is imperative to the success of a child during their educational career.
[Time: 12:00]
This amendment states unequivocally, parents have the right to be involved in a child's education. It is pro-family, it is pro-education, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. TIAHRT ).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in House Report 107-69.
AMENDMENT NO. 15 OFFERED BY MR. ARMEY
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment .
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment .
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. ARMEY:
In section 104 of the bill, in paragraph (13) of section 1112(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 104), strike ``public''.
In section 106 of the bill, in clause (ii) of section 1116(b)(7)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 106), strike subclause (II) and insert the following:
``(II) make funds available--
``(aa) to the economically disadvantaged child's parents to place the child in a private school in accordance with subsection (d)(2); or
``(bb) make funds available for supplementary educational services, in accordance with subsection (d)(1); and
In section 106 of the bill, in paragraph (8) of section 1116(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 106), after ``paragraph (6)(D)(i)'' insert ``, (7)(A)(ii)(II)(aa),''.
In section 106 of the bill, in subparagraph (A) of section 1116(b)(8) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 106), strike ``public''.
In section 106 of the bill, in subsection (d) of section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as proposed to be amended by such section 106)--
(1) in paragraph (1) strike ``(1) In'' and insert the following:
``(1) SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.--''
``(A) In
(2) strike ``this paragraph'' each place it appears and insert ``this subparagraph'';
(3) in paragraph (2) strike ``paragraph (1)'' and insert ``subparagraph (A)'';
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) strike ``paragraph (2)'' and insert ``subparagraph (B)''; and
(B) redesignate subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively (and indent accordingly);
| <<< | >>> |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display