INDIANAPOLIS — Senators heard testimony about a bill limiting the promotion of “divisive concepts” in classrooms Wednesday, with over 130 educators and parents signing up to testify against the bill.
Bill author Rep. Tony Cook, R-Cicero, insisted that the bill had been distorted by opponents and never barred teachers from discussing difficult topics such as race or Nazism. Rather, the bill aimed to make the education of children more transparent to parents.
“There’s a lot of moving parts and there’s also a lot of misperceptions or misinterpretations,” Cook said. “Opponents of the bill cherry-pick language and did not read (it all).”
Opponents said the bill would limit their teachings on race due to worrying about being punished for making students uncomfortable.
Responding to this and other issues, Senate sponsor Sen. Linda Rogers, R-Granger, successfully incorporated a strip-and-replace amendment to the bill, saying the change came after discussion with educators and parents.
Instead, the amended bill now ensures parents have access to their school’s learning management system and allows them to review any other learning materials used in their child’s classroom upon request. Parents could request a school board to adopt a parent committee to review curriculum, though it would not be required.
“I wanted to provide a path for parents to be involved in their child’s education,” Rogers said, adding that she also wanted to ensure that school districts still maintain local control. “I wanted to recognize that we have over 60,000 teachers here in Indiana, great teachers. Now do some of them cross the line? Yeah, they do. ... This legislation, hopefully, will rein them back in.”
Language about lawsuits for violations of the bill were also removed. Instead, the new version of the bill allows parents to appeal to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) to take administrative action for a violation if they remain unsatisfied after following the school’s grievance process.
Other provisions in the original bill that would have restricted teaching about racism and politics were removed with the amendment.
Rather than a ban on teaching certain “divisive concepts,” the bill stipulates that schools would be barred from teaching that one group is inherently superior or inferior to another, that one group should be treated adversely or preferentially, and that individuals, by virtue of their traits, “are inherently responsible” for the past actions of others who share their traits.
Teachers and other critics argued that the earlier version of the bill, authored by Cook would amount to “censorship” of classroom instruction and curriculum.
“We all want to ensure that Hoosier children have the best education possible and that education involves parents, teachers and administrators working together as a team,” Rogers said.
An estimated 90% of the 150 people signed up to testify registered as opposed to the bill, and several expressed concerns about language requiring parents to approve of ongoing counseling services at schools.
Authors insisted the bill wouldn’t interfere with emergency or crisis services.
Keith Gambill, president of the Indiana State Teachers Association, shared a story of a student’s suicide at his middle school in 1999. The school district’s counselors rallied together to provide mental health services for 900 students.
Gambill said the association had concerns that the bill’s language addressing counseling services at schools would “muddy” the teacher-student relationship.
“We must make sure that we do not create a system whereby a teacher like myself would question what I should do.”
Parent Dawn Lang, a supporter of the bill as amended, acknowledged the nationwide movement toward “parent transparency” was a reaction to parents feeling unheard.
“There’s a reason why parents en masse — in other states and in Indiana — have reached a point where they no longer feel that their concerns are being resolved at the local level,” Lang said.
Legislators will have another opportunity to amend House Bill 1134 next week and didn’t vote on the overall bill Wednesday.
The committee also passed House Bill 1041 along party lines, 8-3, promoting a bill that would bar transgender girls from competing on their school athletic teams with their peers.
Two Democratic amendments to the bill failed along party lines — one to let the Indiana High School Athletic Association continue to determine eligibility based on gender for athletic teams and another to reduce the bill to a summer study committee.
Sen. J.D. Ford, D-Indianapolis, offered the amendments, calling the underlying bill unnecessary, unconstitutional and unkind.
Ford noted that the Indiana High School Athletic Association already has a policy that requires transgender girls who want to play sports to show they’ve completed hormone therapy, and that their muscle mass or bone density is typical of other girls the same age.
“Instead of addressing the teacher shortage, instead of addressing student mental health, we’re getting sidetracked with bills like this,” Ford said in a statement Wednesday. “Even filing this bill sends a message to trans kids and their families that they’re not welcomed in our state.”
The bill would prohibit students who were born male but identify as female from participating in a sport or on an athletic team that is designated for women or girls. But it wouldn’t prevent students who identify as female or transgender men from playing on men’s sports teams.
Republican Rep. Michelle Davis, of Greenwood, who authored the bill, said its purpose is to “maintain fair competition in girls’ sports.”
Representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union maintained on Wednesday that the group will file a lawsuit if the “hateful legislation” is signed into law in Indiana.
If the bill passes the Legislature, Indiana could be the 11th Republican-dominated state to adopt such a ban on transgender women or girls.
Sen. Stacey Donato, R-Logansport, sponsored the bill and said 10 other states had adopted similar bills.
“(This) is to protect the dignity and the respect of girl athletes.”
Donato didn’t mention that nearly all of those bills are in litigation. The American Civil Liberties Union already said it would sue the state, and the attorney general’s office said it would use taxpayer dollars to defend the bill.
This story was supplemented with information from The Associated Press.
© 2024 Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.