Learning from mistakes made with Senate Bill 167
By STU CLAMPITT
In an exclusive interview with The Reporter, Rep. Tony Cook (R-Cicero) spoke at length about the details and intentions of House Bill 1134, the “Education Matters” bill. After the death of Senate Bill 167 last week, HB 1134 is now more in the spotlight.
When asked about the difference between this bill and the ill-fated SB 167, Cook was abundantly clear that teachers are encouraged to speak out against ideas like Nazism.
Cook
“I want to really emphasize to your readers that we added even stronger language to ensure that nothing in the bill should be construed to exclude teaching against ideals and values that conflict with the Constitution of the United States,” Cook told The Reporter. “We are saying about those ‘isms,’ we are encouraging teachers to speak out about how those violate the expressed ideals and values in our constitution and how they are incompatible with what our constitution and our values in the United States seek to achieve. That was crucial for us. That’s been added in Section 12, page 20, lines 4 through 12 in the ‘good citizenship instruction’ statute, which is already there.”
Cook put amendments in multiple places in HB 1134 to reemphasize that point.
“The other place is in Section 22 of the bill on Page 35, lines 14 through 15,” Cook said. “I want to be very explicit with that. And as an old government and history teacher myself, I would have a concern if I couldn’t teach opposing those kind of isms out there, whether that’s Nazism, whether that is any kind of thing you can think of in a discriminatory manner that was done across the world in different countries. You utilize the facts when you teach history and government, and those things were wrong. They are in our constitution. They were wrong. That’s why we put in amendments and the Bill or Rights. We want to oppose those kinds of evil things that have arisen across the world over time.”
Lines HB 1134 adds to the good citizenship statute include, “The ideals and values expressed or enumerated in the Constitution of the United States compared to forms of government that conflict with and are incompatible with the principles of western political thought upon which the United States was founded. Individual rights, freedoms, and political suffrage. The economic and political institutions which have best contributed toward human advancement, prosperity, scientific inquiry, and well-being.”
Origins of HB 1134
“I got involved with this in the summer when I was trying to bridge the gap between the education community and the parental concerns that were being raised across the state, of which there are many,” Cook told The Reporter. “It’s been a real issue and I’m trying to get some guardrails put around for both understanding as educators and for parents.”
Cook said the bill began from a common theme across the state of a lack of transparency concerning various curricula and the way some programs were being implemented in the classroom.
“We decided to put together a bill trying to bridge some of those concerns,” Cook said. “I need to point out when I say that I mean we have had teacher concerns about some of the things they have been asked to implement in a classroom and that they don’t feel comfortable with either.”
Cook says much of this bill is about transparency for everyone involved.
“We are trying to require transparency and really reinvigorate a curriculum advisory committee, which I operated under as a teacher,” Cook said. “Until about 2010, we had curriculum advisory committees that were required. The statute moved to a ‘may,’ and when it moved to ‘may,’ not all school corporations are doing that at all. Even though the committee was just making recommendations, at least we had people who were interested in the various subject areas and various materials stepping forward and helping us vet those materials.”
Disciplinary process
“The bill does set up a complaint process, but we have gone out of our way to make sure that teachers understand that you have to willfully and wantonly do something,” Cook said. “The statute emphasizes that in another amendment I put in last Monday.”
Section 10, Page 18 lines 8 through 12 read, “On the written recommendation of the secretary of education, the department may suspend or revoke a license of a teacher, principal, superintendent, or any other individual licensed by the department under this chapter if the individual willfully or wantonly violates IC 20-28-10-20, IC 20-33-1.5, or IC 20-34-3-27” [emphasis added].
“Before you would get into an issue where you would go through a disciplinary process, the appeal process for someone who feels there has been a violation is the same as it is on basic things now,” Cook explained. “If the teacher has insubordination or immorality it goes through the process of the principal first, who makes a decision if there is no validity or if there is and what they are going to do about that. If that isn’t acceptable, then it goes to the superintendent. Then from the superintendent it goes to the board. The board can have a hearing and if that is still unsatisfied, it goes to the Secretary of Education. That is currently the way some things go.”
Cook used his experience with Ryan White’s struggle to complete high school as an example of how the process works.
“When I had Ryan White, he had to go through that process when Western High School was denying him school, and that went all the way up the state, and they ruled that he should attend school,” Cook said. “That still did not satisfy them, and they had to go to court. That process is in place. This just supplements that for these type of violations and divisive concepts. Again, that’s one that parents and constituents that we talked to across the state were really concerned about.”
SEL and Counseling
There has been a great deal of community concern about counseling and about participating in Social Emotional Learning (SEL) as it is addressed in HB 1134.
“What we did there was, again, to put in clarity,” Cook said. “Language was added that says and makes clear that educators do not have to obtain parental consent when there is an emergency response in a crisis situation in which an intervention or rapid response service is needed to evaluate or stabilize and immediate medical, behavioral or mental health condition or provide intervention for students who are in immediate danger of experiencing abuse or neglect. That’s Section 21, Page 33 line 36 through Page 34 line 1.”
According to Cook, a key point is that when there are outside counseling providers or inhouse programs provided to a student, then they MUST HAVE parental consent and knowledge that it’s to occur.
“Some of the programming that the state used at this time is good programming, some of it is bad programming,” Cook told The Reporter. “It gets into everything from SEL (Social Emotional Learning) to sexual orientation and things that classrooms are now discussing. Some things really move over the line, and we are trying to protect against that.”
Cook specified that HB 1134 is largely about opening good communication between educators, parents and administrations for the benefit of the children in school.
“I want to emphasize that this legislation is NOT an attack on the men and women who educate our children,” Cook said. “The bill allows schools across the state to better communicate with parents and make it easier to identify the areas the school may be excelling in and also areas for improvement in the curricular realm. That was an overall driving purpose for me: To bridge that between parents and educators, and educators and school corporations. It is coming a lot from corporation adopted programs and we have educators who have been reaching out saying, ‘I am concerned about this. I don’t feel competent. I don’t feel comfortable teaching some of these things in the classroom.’ It’s across the board, this concern about some of these divisive concepts and programs that we are utilizing in school. I’m not saying they are all bad. There are good approaches and there are good topic areas that can be approached particularly in a manner that is age appropriate.”
Advisory committees
“There has been some misconception about where the ultimate authority over the curriculum lies,” Cook said. “It has been shared [on social media] that curricular committees’ recommendations are binding. That’s not true at all. Another belief is that most curriculum will become opt in or opt out. That’s not true either. The advisory committee will have to review and approve all educational activities. That’s not true either. This was never the case. Language has been adapted or modified to make this abundantly clear. We adopted language to make explicit that the school boards may accept, reject or modify recommendations that the curricular advisory committee puts forward. That language is found in Section 6, Page 16, lines 19-20.”
Perception of the bill
“Sometimes people react or they get on social media and they haven’t really read it, or they don’t understand the process,” Cook said. “The amendments were accepted last Monday and I’m still probably going to have a couple more amendments because we have met with principals’ associations, superintendents’ associations, parental associations and groups like PTAs – we’ve met with literally hundreds of people.”
Cook credits his co-author, Rep, Chuck Goodrich (R-Noblesville) with making HB 1134 a much better document than it could have been without his involvement.
Goodrich
“Most co-authors don’t put in the kind of time and effort that he has with this in going through group after group after group and even state after state,” Cook said. “Chuck’s business goes across 20-some states. He has heard these things from parents and from educators. We value all that. That’s why we are trying to span the gap here that’s created some of the problems.”
When asked if the controversary around SB 167 has given him and his team the opportunity to make HB 1134 a better piece of legislation, Cook said, “That’s exactly right. That’s why several things were put in to be more direct, more specific and to protect teachers. I particularly do not want teachers attacked for teaching factual information and saying, ‘Stalin was terrible.’ They need that freedom. In fact, we encourage it with what I put in the amendments.”