Secretary of Education William J. Bennett recently addressed the misconceptions surrounding the Hatch Amendment, stating that most classroom activities do not meet the strict requirements for coverage under the amendment. In a response letter to Representative Pat Williams, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Select Education, Bennett clarified the definition of "psychological and psychiatric testing" as activities designed to gather nonacademic information about attitudes, habits, traits, opinions, beliefs, or feelings. He emphasized that this definition does not include standardized achievement tests, academic subject tests, or diagnostic tests.
Bennett’s letter also mentioned that if group activities, such as role-playing, align with the definition of "psychological or psychiatric examination or test," parental consent may be required for coverage under the Hatch Amendment. He emphasized the importance of reviewing the circumstances surrounding a complaint on a case-by-case basis to determine if a school activity’s primary purpose is to obtain prohibited information.
The Hatch Amendment, established in 1978, and the Education Department’s 1984 regulations allow parents to limit their children’s involvement in federally supported programs, particularly those related to psychological and psychiatric testing that may disclose their religious or political beliefs. These regulations, introduced by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, have sparked considerable debate. Conservative groups, such as Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, seek a broad application of the rules, while other education and civil-rights groups argue against them, claiming they extend federal authority into the classroom.
Bennett’s letter aimed to make the Hatch Amendment work by increasing parental involvement in covered activities, ensuring parents have the right to consent to their children’s participation in limited instances. Despite parent groups and the Eagle Forum’s efforts to demand compliance with the amendment, there have only been four complaints received by federal authorities. However, various Congressional offices and education organizations have received numerous inquiries about the amendment from parents and school officials nationwide.
While the letter provided some clarity, S. Gray Garwood, staff director for the select-education subcommittee, noted that certain provisions in the amendment were still insufficiently addressed. Melanne Verveer from People for the American Way expressed concerns about the lack of definition for nonacademic activity, research or experimentation, and determination of a test’s primary purpose. She stated that the letter’s case-by-case approach did not assist schools in understanding what is covered and what is not.
Verveer argued that despite the limited number of formal complaints, the amendment has a chilling effect on schools. She criticized the broad and ambiguous nature of the amendment, which leaves teachers and school administrators unsure of its implications. Verveer concluded that there are ongoing questions at the local level regarding the Hatch Amendment.
Ronald P. Preston, an education aide to Senator Hatch, expressed his lack of strong objection towards the letter. According to Mr. Preston, the amendment is not as extensive as some people claim it to be. He emphasizes that it should not be seen as a permission to burn books, but rather as a sensible measure, not too severe or oppressive. Furthermore, he mentions that both the Eagle Forum and opposing groups have stretched the interpretation of the amendment beyond its intended scope.
