Controversial “anti-CRT” education bill passes in Senate committee

INDIANAPOLIS—Despite teacher protests, a House bill that has been dubbed “anti-CRT” legislation is now on its way back to the full Senate.

House Bill 1134 has been the subject of scrutiny from teachers since it was introduced in January. In the Wednesday Senate Education and Career Development meeting, it passed 8-5.

Uproar from teachers and other education advocates led to the initial watering-down of the bill by the Senate committee. During the committee vote, Sen. Jean Leising, R-Oldenburg, said talking to her constituents and officials at the Indiana Department of Education led to her “no” vote.

“I have superintendents that are opposed, I have corporations that are opposed, I have numerous teachers that are opposed,” Leising said. “I have people on the right who are expressing their concerns that this bill doesn’t go far enough.”

Leising said the bill was the most difficult vote in her time on the Senate Education and Career Development Committee.

“For me today, the only correct vote is a no vote,” Leising said.

Sen. Fady Qaddoura, D-Indianapolis, said hundreds of thousands of people are unhappy with HB 1134, partially because they do not trust the context provided by the House.

“The premise, the context and the entire initiative from the House, the target itself was made up to silence people,” Qaddoura said.

Sen. Eddie Melton, D-Gary, also provided a passionate “no” vote on the bill. 

Melton said he asked Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita why he wrote the Parent’s Bill of Rights, which has been cited as a contributor towards critical race theory arguments. Melton said Rokita’s response did not justify moving forward with the legislation.

“Just because something makes us uncomfortable, should not be prevented for discussion,” Melton said. “No one in here is accusing any white person for being a slave owner or anything connected to that history. However I still feel the benefits of it, or the impact of it.”

Amendment adjusts curriculum committees, adds summer study committee

An additional amendment from Sen. Linda Rogers, R-Granger, would require the curriculum advisory committees to send information to the Department of Education and the Indiana General Assembly. If parents ask to review materials, the committee would be required to respond. The committee would also be allowed to review guest speaker materials.

The amendment would add third-party mental health support surveys in schools to the list of items requiring a parental opt-in. It would also address concerns about students needing parental permission for mental health services in instances where a parent is causing mental health issues by tightening the language. It would also have a summer study committee that would look into mental health services and parental consent in schools.

Amendment 34 passed 8-5, with no testimony heard in committee. Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, joined the four Democrats in the committee in voting against the amendment.

Rogers’ amendment was the only one accepted by the committee, despite Democrats filing ten others to the divisive bill.

Senate Democrat efforts to amend HB 1134 fail

Committee discussions of the controversial HB 1134 ended with the acceptance of more Republican-authored amendments watering down the original bill and rejection of several Democrat-authored amendments.

An amendment requiring schools to teach Black history was authored by Melton. Melton said the amendment would mirror current Indiana statute about teaching the Holocaust. The amendment nearly made it into the bill, receiving a 7-6 vote. Republicans Sen. Kyle Walker, R-Indianapolis and Sen. Scott Baldwin, R-Noblesville, voted in favor of the amendment.

Melton, a member of the Indiana Black Legislative Caucus, sounded tearful as he expressed disappointment that the committee did not pass the amendment.

“What I’m asking today is, before this bill hits the floor, that this body and your colleagues when you go and caucus, seriously think about the message that you are sending when we can’t pass a simple amendment to teach our children about the sins of this country,” Melton said.

Sen. J.D. Ford, D-Indianapolis, authored two amendments for the bill. One, which Ford said would allow the bill to ensure transparency for parents, would remove everything in the bill except for the requirement for schools to utilize a learning management system that is accessible for parents. The other amendment authored by Ford would remove mentions of the Department of Education in the bill, which Ford said would ensure local control. Both failed.

Qaddoura proposed in an amendment that the entire bill be moved to a summer study committee. This failed 9-4.

Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington, authored five amendments on the bill. The amendments would send the topic of student mental health to a summer study committee, ask the IDOE to create a model for ideal parent participation in schools, codify constitutional anti-discrimination into state law, apply the legislation to charter and private schools and ensure the legislation cannot affect advanced placement or dual credit classes. All of these amendments failed.

Bill previously “watered down” by amendment

The bill previously was watered down with an amendment from Rogers, which removed language encouraging civil action against teachers for violation of the bill, removed many of the “divisive concepts” found in the initial bill and required that parents have access to school learning management systems instead of requiring that educators post all materials and lesson plans online. Common learning management systems include Google Classroom, Canvas and Moodle.

Despite the amendment, over 200 people signed up to testify on the bill, with about 90% of them against, according to Senate Education and Career Development Committee chairman Jeff Raatz, R-Richmond. The Indiana Coalition for Public Education also hosted a Day of Action to bring teachers together against the bill and others making their way through the Indiana legislature.

The amended bill will now be sent back to the full Senate. If it is passed and returned to the House, its future is uncertain. 

Last week, author Rep. Anthony Cook, R-Cicero, said he did not agree with many of the changes Rogers’ amendment made to his bill.

“We have about 10 things that are in this. About six of them I can agree with,” Cook said. “More than likely because it moves it into a better position.”