By Aleksandra Appleton, Chalkbeat Indiana
Editor’s note: This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.
Proponents and opponents squared off on Jan. 5 over a sweeping bill to regulate how Indiana schools teach about race and racism.
The hearing, the first of likely many about Senate Bill 167, covered the basics of the bill and included several hours of testimony. It would ban educators from teaching eight specific ideas, would give parents a say in regulating curriculum, and would require schools to post lessons and materials online.
It also would require schools to obtain parental permission to survey students about social and emotional needs and to offer them mental health services.
The bill echoes the measures other conservative-led states have taken to excise from classrooms discussion about race. Some critics have seized on a university-level concept called critical race theory to stop schools from discussing racial history and events.
Indiana K-12 curriculum does not include that theory, nor does the Senate bill mention it explicitly.
The legislature likely won’t vote for weeks on the bill.
Its proponents argue that it would codify parental say over what their children learn in school and would prevent the teaching of divisive ideas and political ideologies.
Criticism of the bill ranged from its detailed requirements – like the burden on teachers to post lesson plans and materials online – to the chilling effect it could have on teaching and learning the history of racism.
Several students in particular spoke of the effects that such a law would have on their classes and peers, warning of the harm of taking mental health services away from students or preventing their teachers from teaching freely.
“Saying this bill is not intended to prevent the teaching of history is like slashing funding for road maintenance and saying you don’t intend to create potholes,” said Tilly Robinson, a senior at Bloomington High School South in Bloomington, Ind.
Sen. Scott Baldwin (R-Noblesville), the author of the bill, asked many speakers to specify which of the eight points identified as divisive in the bill they objected to.
Baldwin
Among those points is that any individual is superior or inferior to another based on sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation, or should be discriminated against based on those factors.
The bill also seeks to protect any student from feeling uncomfortable because of personal characteristics or feel responsible for actions of those who share their traits – phrasing meant to prevent white students from feeling blamed for slavery and persecution of people of color.
In response to questions from Sen. J. D. Ford (D-Indianapolis) about how often the eight points identified in the bill are taught in Indiana, Baldwin said he had received stacks of materials and hundreds of emails and calls complaining about lessons that his bill seeks to outlaw.
Ford also asked Baldwin why the bill did not include gender identity and sexual orientation in its list of protected characteristics. Baldwin replied that the Republican caucus would not support such language.
Ford objected. “I think leaving out those particular folks sends a very loud and clear message to students that their existence is not worth bothering to put in the bill,” he said.
Baldwin said he had not consulted the Department of Education in creating the proposal.
He denied drafting the bill in the midst of the national furor over teaching race in the classroom, saying he had written an early version at the start of last year’s legislative session after hearing from concerned constituents.
Speaking in support of the bill, Center Grove parent Cara Cecil said the existing recourse for parents to pull their children out of lessons has failed her family.
When she tried to prevent her daughter from undergoing a social and emotional evaluation, she said the sixth grader was surveyed anyway and would have had to voice opposition to her teacher to avoid taking the survey.
Cecil said she removes her elementary-aged son from school every other week during social and emotional lessons she disagrees with, but as a result she has received a warning about his attendance. Those lessons can help students deal with emotions and interpersonal relationships, but opponents fear that teachers also use sessions to address inequity.
“I don’t want him to be told he’s guilty of the sins of other people,” Cecil said.
Attorney General Todd Rokita supports the bill. However, it doesn’t go far enough for Purple for Parents, a parent group that has voiced opposition to topics like critical race theory at school board meetings last summer.
At Wednesday’s hearing, teachers raised issues with the proposal to post their lesson plans online. The plans are often guidelines for veteran teachers, said Robert Taylor of the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents, and can change even over the course of one day.
In testimony, Brownsburg teacher Christianne Beebe said that for just one week of lessons, she’d be required to post 75 books, presentations, labs, activities, and video clips, and questioned whether she’d need to get approval from the curriculum review committee for every one.
Opponents also criticized provisions seeking to protect students’ feelings as too vague and open to unwarranted complaints.
Baldwin said the bill is not intended to stop the teaching of history neutrally. Several educators disputed that historical events like Nazism could be taught neutrally.
Justin Ohlemiller of Stand for Children Indiana said a lesson could devolve into a he-said, she-said dispute and involve threats of legal action that might deter teachers and schools from attempting to cover certain topics.
“We need to consider that this bill could have a freezing effect on teaching race and racism unless we make sure there’s a clear lane for them to do that without fear of retribution,” Ohlemiller said.
Chalkbeat (chalkbeat.org) is a nonprofit news organization covering public education.
Statement from State Sen. J. D. Ford
Minority Caucus Chair Senator J. D. Ford (D-Indianapolis) released the following statement:
Ford
“Senate Bill 167 seems to be a solution looking for a problem. As Governor Holcomb and the Indiana Department of Education have said, critical race theory is not part of Indiana’s academic standards. I believe that transparency and parent involvement is paramount for our students to be successful. However, this legislation is part of an overall extreme political effort to control teachers, insert politics directly into classrooms by making school board races partisan and implement government-mandated censorship of our colleges and universities. As a result, we heard concerns that this would handcuff teachers and have a chilling effect on educators at a time when Indiana is struggling with teacher retention and recruitment.
“Instead of spending our time on this egregious government overreach into our children’s lives, we should instead focus on actually helping our students. Recently, the US Surgeon General shared that our nation’s youth are in a mental health crisis due to the stresses of the previous few years. That’s why I filed Senate Bill 174 to help address student mental health and implement programs aimed at suicide prevention. If we want to help schools, students and families, let’s instead focus on addressing student mental health, bullying and long-term ways to address learning loss.”
Sen. Ford represents Indiana Senate District 29 which encompasses Boone County’s Eagle Township, Hamilton County’s Clay Township, and Marion County. Marion County communities include Pike and Wayne Township.
Fishers teacher objects to neutrality on Nazism
During a more than seven-hour hearing this week about SB 167, Fishers High School Social Studies teacher Matt Bockenfeld said he is concerned about what could be required of teachers under this legislation.
Bockenfeld
“For example, it’s the second semester of U.S. history, so we’re learning about the rise of fascism and the rise of Nazism right now,” Bockenfeld said at the hearing. “And I’m just not neutral on the political ideology of fascism. We condemn it, and we condemn it in full, and I tell my students the purpose, in a democracy, of understanding the traits of fascism is so that we can recognize it and we can combat it.”
Bockenfeld also said he is unwilling to teach every topic in a neutral manner, as at least one interpretation of SB 167 could require.
“Of course, we’re neutral on political issues of the day,” Bockenfeld said. “But we’re not neutral on Nazism. We take a stand in the classroom against it, and it matters that we do.”
Baldwin said he doesn’t think teachers should take a stand on “any of those isms out there.”
“I have no problem with the education system providing instruction on the existence of those isms,” Baldwin said. “I believe that we’ve gone too far when we take a position on those isms … We need to be impartial … I’m not sure it’s right for us to determine how that child should think and that’s where I’m trying to provide the guardrails.”
Baldwin has since backpedaled on his position, going on record to say SB167 was intended was to ensure teachers are being impartial when discussing “legitimate political groups.”
Bockenfeld has also spoken publicly after the hearing, saying on social media, “I want to be really clear that this language can be fixed. If the senator misspoke, then let’s fix the language and move on. No need to pile on. But it needs to be clear in the bill that teachers can take a stand against hateful ideologies in our classrooms.”
“Baldwin said he had received stacks of materials and hundreds of emails and calls complaining about lessons that his bill seeks to outlaw.”
My question to Mr. Baldwin is: What was your methodology in collecting and analyzing data to validate that each stack of material, and hundreds of emails and verbal (calls) complaints about a lesson plan was accurate to support this bill you are proposing?