Open Letter To the Argyle ISD School Board and Administration (Updated)

To the Argyle ISD School Board and Administration, 

As a parent in the Argyle ISD school district, I want to make sure you are aware of HR 5 (a.k.a., Student Success Act), the reauthorization legislation for ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act)/NCLB (No Child Left Behind) that is currently making it’s way through Congress. I hope you will join me in contacting Congressman Michael Burgess and asking him to VOTE NO on H.R. 5. This vote will be this coming week so please call on Monday. Demand that if he votes “Yes” on H.R. 5 that he publicly state that he actually read the bill.

The language in H.R. 5 on Parental Rights was written by Texas  Rep. John Culberson. 

This language may be detrimental to the rights of a mother and father of a child. Pages 552-555. When putting the language that says the state has authority over parental rights in federal statute, that INDEED removes the unalienable right of the parent to a lower level -to the state. Parents have the ultimate authority over our children. The federal government nor the state has that authority over parents and we MUST not give it to the state. The redefinition on parent also included in the language is on page 488… a person standing in “loco parentis.” This strips parents of their rights and gives it to the school.  Culberson’s File~ 

Last night I received an e-mail from Rep. John Culberson’s office that indicated that an amendment would be added and posted this morning to HR5. While I appreciate that Rep. Culberson is hearing and listening to his constituents, below was my response back to Rep. Culberson’s office.

Good Morning Catherine, 

 Thank you very much for sending me this information. The proposed amendment still does not fix the problem. A couple of things:

— Congress has no right to dictate terms under which states “waive” their sovereignty. Their sovereignty comes from the Constitution, not Congress.

— The language still allows this legislative waiver to take place via a vote on the budget. That means the federal grant will be rolled into the myriad provisions of the annual state budget, which means the legislators will not be able to focus on this particular grant and the strings attached, which means the “waiver” will be made without fully understanding the ramifications. And the bill says the legislature will now have agreed to abide by any conditions the Ed Secretary may come up with.

In addition HR5 still has major flaws and we are encouraging the people in our network to contact your office along with all other Elected Representatives to VOTE NO on HR5 and if a Representative votes YES we are demanding that they state publicly that they have actually read through the bill and completely understand the reality of this vote on American students, parents and teachers.

Please click on the attached statement. NCLB Reauthorization-HR5 Student Success Act

Again thank you for responding to our concerns and we ask that you let Rep. Cullberson know we still expect that he will vote “NO” on HR 5 and if he votes “YES” that he publicly state they he personally has read the bill and understands fully the impact on our children and their future.

Kindest Regards, 

Alice Linahan 



Below is the final version of Culberson’s language to be considered this week:


‘‘Subpart 4—Restoration of State Sovereignty Over Public Education and Parental Rights Over the Education of Their Children
‘‘(a) RETENTION OF RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES.— In order to ensure local control over the acceptance of federal funds, nNo officer, employee, or other authority of the Secretary shall enforce against an authority of a State, nor shall any authority of a State have any obligation to obey, any requirement imposed as a condition of receiving assistance have affirmatively agreed to abide by the conditions attached to the receipt of such funds under a grant program established under this Act, nor shall such program operate within a State, unless the legislature of that State shall have by law expressly approved that program and, in doing so, have waived the State’s rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance.
‘‘(b) AMENDMENT OF TERMS OF RECEIPT OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—An officer, employee, or other authority of the Secretary may release assistance under a grant program established under this Act to a State only after the legislature of the State has by law expressly approved the program (as described in subsection (a)). This approval may be accomplished by a vote to affirm a State budget that includes the use of such Federal funds and any such State budget must expressly include any requirement imposed as a condition of receiving assistance under a grant program established under this Act so that by approving the budget, the State legislature is expressly approving the grant program and, in doing so, waiving the State’s rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance has affirmatively agreed to abide by the conditions attached to the receipt of such funds.
‘‘(c) SPECIAL RULE FOR STATES WITH BIENNIAL LEGISLATURES.—In the case of a State with a biennial legislature—
‘‘(1) during a year in which the State legislature does not meet, subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply; and
‘‘(2) during a year in which the State legislature meets, subsections (a) and (b) shall apply, and, with respect to any grant program established under this Act during the most recent year in which the State legislature did not meet, the State may by law expressly disapprove the grant program, and, if such disapproval occurs, an officer, employee, or other authority of the Secretary may not release any additional assistance to the State under that grant program.
‘‘(d) DEFINITION OF STATE AUTHORITY.—As used in this section, the term ‘authority of a State’ includes any administering agency of the State, any officer or employee of the State, and any local government authority of the State.
(e) nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the Secretary to condition the receipt of any grant funds under this Act on the adoption any specific standards, including the Common Core State Standards, assessments, or curriculum.
‘‘(ef) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section applies in each State beginning on the 90th day after the end of the first regular session of the legislature of that State that begins 5 years after the date of the enactment of the Student Success Act and shall continue to apply in subsequent years until otherwise provided by law.
‘‘Notwithstanding any formula reallocations stipulated under the Student Success Act, any funds under such Act not allocated to a State because a State did not affirmatively agree to the receipt of such funds shall not be reallocated among the States.
‘‘In this Act, the term ‘State with a biennial legislature’ means a State the legislature of which meets every other year.
‘‘It is the intent of Congress that other than the terms and conditions expressly approved by State law under the terms of this subpart, control over public education and parental rights to control the education of their children are vested exclusively within the autonomous zone of independent authority reserved to the States and individual Americans by the United States Constitution, other than the Federal Government’s undiminishable obligation to enforce minimum Federal standards of equal protection and due process.

Please listen to the two audio clips below from this week’s Women on the Wall Conference Call for a clear understanding of the reality on the ground for parents and our children.

HR 5 (a.k.a., Student Success Act) – The House Committee on Education and the Workforce approved this bill on a vote of 21 to 16 on 2.11.15:

Bill Information:

Bill Text:

Here is the gift from Anita Hoge mentioned in the audio above that may just surprise Parents, Grandparents and Tax Payers.

“Below is a link to retrieve our state contracts for your Texas’ longitudinal data system. This link will give you access to our state grant with the National Center for Education Statistics so that you can see how Texas fits into the national data collection scheme. You can identify how our state established a “national unique ID” for each and every student in our state. You can connect the “womb to workplace” data system and prove how this workforce data collection tracks individuals, including wages. A “national unique ID” identifies our children through mazes of data trafficking that is supplied to the federal government. Outside contractors have access to personally identifiable information on our family for free.

Please see the link below. Scroll down to Texas. Click on each of the PDF’s under each grant application.

National Center for Education Statistics Grants for State Longitudinal Data Systems

Texas Longitudinal Data Base SystemTexas Took the Money ~ 

TEA Link to Stimulus Funds Sent to Statewide Data Systems –$18,195,078.00:

The Stimulus money that Texas took required us (and every state who took the funds) to reconfigure our TEA data gathering database (PEIMS) to align with the requirements of the feds.   

In 2011 the Texas Legislature passed HB 2103
( on 6.14.13 and extended the reach of TLDS so that now our Texas cradle-to-the-grave longitudinal information (going back 20 years and taken from the Texas Workforce Commission, Texas Higher Education, and TEA) can indeed be shared with third parties outside our state.

Texas’ path to the nationally intrusive data gathering system may be a little different path than that taken by the other states, but the end result unfortunately is the same:  Now all of our Texas data can be shared with third parties outside the state.


President Obama’s Executive Order (EO 12866) has allowed personally identifiable information to be collected, dispersed for research, and given to third party contractors by “unlocking” the Family Education Rights in Privacy Act, FERPA. Texas is no exception. This is the collection of information on the “whole child.” If your child is about 28 years or younger, they have a national ID and a federal dossier. This data system has been announced by the National Assessment of Educational Progress as a prototype for a new kind of Census – a psychometric dossier, on every child, adolescent, and adult including information on their child’s attitudes, values, opinions, and beliefs, “womb to workplace.”

The three following federal initiatives have nationalized education in the United States which were initiated without the authorization of Congress and done by Presidential Executive Order or by fiat through Secretary of Education Duncan:

  1. The Common Core copyright that standardized a “model” curriculum and standardized the standards in a 50 state strategy creating a national curriculum and a national test.
  2. The “unlocking” of data through FERPA opening the floodgates of personally identifiable information (PII data) to be released to researchers, foundations, testing companies, curriculum and software designers, etc., and allowing the identification of individuals in a longitudinal data bank housed in the National Center of Education Statistics with a “national unique ID.” The data system will be used to monitor compliance to Common Core birth through retirement, called a student “snapshot.”
  3. ESEA ~ The illegal waiver for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Flexibility Waiver, the Flex Waiver for No Child Left Behind lowers poverty guidelines to 0% so that ALL children would qualify for Common Core remediation under Title I that blankets a school. It changes the funding criteria of Title I to follow the child. It initiates teacher evaluations and teacher training to monitor whether teachers are teaching Common Core. And it expands Common Core to include dispositions, non-academic standards, and social and emotional learning in the affective domain, which are attitudes, values, opinions, and beliefs referred to as character or grit.

    Remediation or Interventions in Your “Whole Child”

    By using Special Education funds called IDEA (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act), the interventions in Common Core – both “academic and behavioral” remediation of individual students – are used to be sure each student achieves these Government desired attitudes and values. These interventions are called Response to Interventions, or RTI or multi-tiered system of support. This is the real issue of government interventions into the thoughts, feelings, attitudes, dispositions, and beliefs of American children. By using Special Education teams that are funded to go into the regular classroom they will screen ALL students. The controlled literacy piece of this agenda uses behavioral scripts, researched from BF Skinner’s operant conditioning and individually prescribed instruction, programmed into computer courses, to prepare the future workforce for “functional” literacy. This is the science-based research that the government touts as being “effective.” Parents are not truthfully informed of this process, and the behavioral interventions will proceed on ALL students without your knowledge and without parental consent. Our children will be observed, screened, tested, remediated, and repeated until they meet the government Common Core Standards. Period.

    This is NOT the Special Education that you think it is. This is NOT about an IEP. This has nothing to do with truly educating our children. It’s mental health screening, America. This data is being fed into state and national data banks as soon as our children are identified with a “national unique ID.”   


As an elected school board member that represents my family and as the administration of Argyle ISD schools I pray you will join me in the battle to protect our children and our schools from the federal government. When you listen to the full audio of my interview with Anita Hoge linked below you will also understand the threat to our public schools and the right to have a locally elected school board, because of the school choice super voucher, that is also being pushed through this legislation. It could be devastating to the financial stability of Argyle ISD. 

Thank you in advance for your time in getting educated on this very serious issue. 

If H.R. 5 did not clearly state it, i would not believe it myself. I will keep you updated on the progress of this legislation. 

Kindest Regards,
Alice Linahan 
Argyle Parent 

Anita Hoge

After having Anita Hoge on the Women on the Wall Conference Call I am  proud to stand with her and the team with Pennsylvanians Restoring Education – Pennsylvanians Against Common Core.

Anita and her team have  sent out the press release below.


February 20, 2015, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, PA.

Citizens of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvanians Restoring Education, Pennsylvania Against Common Core, parents and students are asking Representative John Kline to stop the REAUTHORIZATION of ESEA, HR 5, the Student Success Act of 2015 which will amend No Child Left Behind.

HR 5 denies parents their rights over their children. Reference page 488. Reference page 522-555.

HR 5 legislation creates the radical transformation of tax collection through the assigned destruction and hostile takeover of our local neighborhood schools.

HR 5 violates states’ rights under the United States Constitution.

HR 5 is designed to destroy local, public neighborhood schools through usurpation of elected school boards’ authorities and responsibilities.

HR 5 will destroy all private education in America, as well, legislating Title I “choice” vouchers that will “follow the child,” enforcing HR 5 compliance in EVERY PRIVATE AND RELIGIOUS SCHOOL.

HR 5 would legislate services to these Title I “choice” children called DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES AS A VOUCHER that must be equitable and comparable to any public school, which is needed to satisfy Common Core.

HR 5 will destroy representative government, all non-governmental schools, and standardize education across this nation. This overreach of the federal government is in direct violation of our United States Constitution which dictates separation of federal jurisdiction vs. State jurisdiction.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, you state in the Student Success Act HR 5, Press Release, February 3, 2015:

“…..This proposal provides an opportunity to chart a new course….”

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, this “new course” that you are forcing on the states will end in Constitutional chaos.

HR 5 removes Constitutional states’ rights sovereignty.

HR 5 redefines parent and removes parental rights over the upbringing of their children.

HR 5 subjugates state legislatures under blatantly false pretenses about state and local control.

HR 5 presents choice vouchers defined as “direct student services,” as a means to control private and religious schools and phase out public schools.

HR 5 would transform ALL SCHOOLS into government schools. Has every state ceded the land that these schools occupy, turning them into federal lands? If the states have not ceded the land to the federal government, the federal government’s jurisdiction is determined to be severely limited, unless altered drastically by the state legislature. Questions of jurisdiction would still remain. At the least, HR 5 obfuscates state and federal jurisdictions as specified in the Constitution and affirmed in numerous Supreme Court decisions.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE Who “Grubered” your HR 5 and consigned the states to federal takeover?

HR 5 forces private and religious schools to provide services through an APPROVED state list of providers eliminating the freedom for private and religious schools to teach students to their own standards and select their own curriculum.

HR 5 forces private and religious schools to provide non-cognitive mental health areas of personality development and interventions whereby proficiency levels in the social, emotional, and behavioral domain are scored to a criterion resulting in violations of privacy under the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, federal law, state law, and civil rights laws.

HR 5 uses choice vouchers to dissolve the public school system through the exodus of (departure of) Choice, Title I, at-risk students who disengage from the public school and enter a private or religious school. Public schools are presently represented by locally elected school board members in the United States. The destruction of our neighborhood public school system undermines the power and authority of property tax provisions and elected school board representation on the local level, representation which financially supports local education agencies.

HR 5 provides for the expansion of charter schools as the sanctioned alternative for schooling. As you, Representative Kline, must know, charter schools are a system of schooling without elected boards. They use public tax monies regulated by federal government mandates, standards, assessment and teacher remediation with data tracking and trafficking and re-education toward Common Core standards.

HR 5 by design eliminates local and state representative government by removing the states’ rights and local control of education and surrenders our children’s education and future to the dictates of the federal government.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, HR 5 is a Constitutional Crisis in the Making.

HR 5 requires that states legislatively surrender their rights over education in order to receive Title I funds.

HR 5 removes the parents as the final arbiters in the upbringing of their children, and wrestles control of private and religious education through federal encroachment as explained below.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, quoting from your HR 5 legislation, on page 552, you stipulate the criteria for removing the state legislature’s constitutional power, rights, and responsibilities as follows:

Subpart 4—Restoration of State Sovereignty Over Public Education and Parental Rights Over the Education of Their Children

‘‘(a) RETENTION OF RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES.— No officer, employee, or other authority of the Secretary shall enforce against an authority of a State, nor shall any authority of a State have any obligation to obey, any requirement imposed as a condition of receiving assistance under a grant program established under this Act, nor shall such program operate within a State, unless the legislature of that State shall have by law expressly approved that program and, in doing so, HAVE waived the State’s rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance.” (Emphasis added)

An officer, employee, or other authority of the Secretary may release assistance under a grant program established under this Act to a State only after the legislature of the State has by law expressly approved the program (as described in sub- section (a)). This approval may be accomplished by a vote to affirm a State budget that includes the use of such Federal funds and any such State budget must expressly include any requirement imposed as a condition of receiving assistance under a grant program established under this Act so that by approving the budget, the State legislature is expressly approving the grant program and, in doing so, waiving the State’s rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance.” (Emphasis added)

The passage of your bill out of committee to be voted on by the entire House of Representatives by February 24 must be stopped.

The HR 5 Reauthorization of ESEA, amending No Child Left Behind, must be stopped because the provisions inherent in this legislation are egregious and lack Constitutional authority. Passage of H.R. 5 will bring about the destruction of the United States system of public education as well as the radical transformation of representative government both at the state and local level.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, these states’ rights issues have not been discussed at your hearings. Is each state legislature aware of the fact that these measures, hidden in federal and state statute, will remove their state’s guaranteed rights under the Constitution? Will each state, including your own state of Minnesota, have to amend its own state constitution to comply with HR 5?

Several states have recently added language in their state statutes that in effect cedes jurisdiction to the federal government.

REPRESENTATIVE KILNE, have you advised the following states of the impact of the HR 5 legislation:

Pennsylvania has currently proposed legislation, HB 168, Sec. 121(a) (Representative Tobash), that states it will comply to federal ESEA legislation and future ESEA legislation:

“The Department of Education shall develop and implement Keystone Exams in [the following subjects:]…… required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425) or any successor statute.”

(lines 17, 18, 19 ) (Emphasis added)

Oklahoma, in an effort to stop Common Core, the Oklahoma legislature’s passage of House Bill 3399, Sec. 11-103.6a 4 (page 18) with the purpose to remove Common Core Standards, defined in their bill that they would succumb to ESEA federal law:

“Upon the effective date of this act, the State Board of Education shall seek certification from the State Regents for Higher Education that the subject matter standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics which were in place prior to the revisions adopted by the Board in June 2010 are college-and career-ready as defined in the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility document issued by the United States Department of Education.” (emphasis added)

The Oklahoma legislature codified Common Core through ESEA and gave up its state’s rights authority by surrendering education and students to federal control.

Indiana’s supposed departure from Common Core in HB 1427, (Sec. 14.5(a) C, page 9) also surrenders its state’s rights in order to comply with federal standards.

“Provides that the state board shall implement educational standards that use the common core standards as the base model for academic standards to the extent necessary to comply with federal standards to receive a Flexibility Waiver.”

(emphasis added)

South Carolina’s bill, H3893, (Sec 3, section 59-18-325, (C)(1) passed to stop Common Core and the Smarter Balanced Test is yet another example of a state surrendering its state’s rights over education and students to the federal government. In fact this law restores Common Core:

“The summative assessment must assess students in English/language arts and mathematics, including those students as required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and by Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. [For purposes of this subsection, ‘English/language arts’ includes English, reading, and writing skills as required by existing state standards.”]

NOTE: The existing State standards are Common Core. (Emphasis added)

The state of Washington is yet another example. Reference Senate Bill 6030, (Sec 6, (4)(a) page 16, lines 17-20):

“..and shall not conflict with requirements contained in
Title I of the federal elementary and secondary education act of 1965, or the requirements of the Carl D. Perkins vocational education 20 act of 1998, each as amended.” (Emphasis added)

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, have these states been apprised of the devious design in HR 5 to take away states’ rights granted under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution?

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, why have your hearings not discussed the aspect of the “direct student services” that is defined as PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE FOR ALL PRIVATE AND RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS? Why have these services not been discussed…services that each private and religious school MUST “provide on an equitable basis” to meet the individual needs of each child who receives a SUPER VOUCHER? Why does the state require that private or religious schools MUST use “approved academic tutoring services as determined by a provider on a State approved list”? Schools will be subjected to discrimination charges if they deny matriculation of a Title I child even if they cannot financially support the OPEN- ENDED direct services mandated in HR 5, as explained below — even if it bankrupts them.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, why is “meaningful choice” defined as complying to state standards (Common Core) and interventions identified for each “at-risk” child receiving the following services: Special Education, instructional support services, counseling, mentoring, one-to-one tutoring, and other benefits for the Title I child? Why is there wording that mandates that a private or religious school MUST comply with the Civil Rights Act, (the school cannot deny admittance to a Title I choice child) 504 Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, (MUST administer services for mental health disabilities), IDEA (MUST administer behavioral screening, response to interventions, positive behavioral interventions and supports, mental health wrap-around, BILLABLE MEDICAID SERVICES, mental health services or specialized student support services), General Education Provisions Act (GEPA).

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, you know full well that HR 5 will codify the Family Education Rights in Privacy Act (FERPA). This important Act, as it stands now, has been totally gutted due to President Obama’s Executive Order, EO 12866, January, 2012. FERPA now allows personally identifiable information on the student to be released without informed written parental consent. This personally identifiable information on the students includes anecdotal, psychological observations, analysis, and reeducation interventions in the affective domain by teachers, all tracked and trafficked.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, why must private and religious schools provide the following specialized Instructional support on an equitable basis with public school students?

Services defined as school counsellors, social workers, school psychologists, or other qualified professional personnel providing assessment, diagnosis, counseling education, therapeutic and other necessary services defined in Sec. 602 IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when in fact Common Core has been expanded into the mental health personal trait standards defined as social, emotional, and behavioral weaknesses now coded as a disability?

The State Education Agency names an ombudsman, “an official appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against maladministration, especially that of public authorities,” for the following equitable services in each private and religious school: monitoring and enforcement requirements of private and religious schools, including reeducation in the affective domain. Obviously, under HR 5 the SEA will operate independently with no accountability to the state legislature which has surrendered its authority and responsibility over education and the students.

Referring to the concept of Title I funds that will “follow the child” and the super voucher called “direct student services”: the Title I fund that “follows the child” is going directly to every child, bypassing state government. No one at the public hearings explained that CHOICE, TITLE I FUNDS “FOLLOWING THE ‘at-risk’ CHILD” would be used to destroy the financial base of public schools which have elected school boards and are funded by local tax dollars. HR 5 is purposely designed to destroy the traditional public school system.

Furthermore, REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, there are scores of pages in your ESEA legislation that would expand CHARTER SCHOOLS OPERATING WITHOUT BOARDS ELECTED BY THE TAXPAYERS AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. THIS IS A SET UP FOR CHARTER SCHOOL TAKEOVER OF ALL EDUCATION with charter school authorizers to control private and religious schools. Yet, no one explained HOW these Title I funds “following” a CHOICE, TITLE I “at risk” CHILD will impact the intrusion into private and religious schools, which will be forced into all of the mandates that come with Common Core implementation and EVERY CHILD identified and funded through Title I and thereby subverting the mission of the private and religious school.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, you have crafted HR 5 behind closed doors and put it on the fast track to correspond to the “spitball” known as the ESEA Reauthorization.


REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, your “super vouchers” cannot buy our children. No government can deny parents their God-given rights over their children. (Pierce vs Sisters, 1925) Are you really requiring parents to waive their rights?

Similar to the waivers HR 5 requires of the states? If so, we demand that you immediately produce the waiver by which parents would sign their children over to the federal government! Explain that one to God…and your own grandchildren.

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, “The family is the primary society. It does not exist by sufferance of the state.” Dr. Charles E. Rice, correspondence February 5, 1996

REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, if you care about a free America, you must stop HR 5.

Our children are not “mere creatures of the state.” (Pierce vs. Sisters, 1925)



Sign In