Democrats, school advocates continue pushback against ‘redundant’ human sexuality bill

Opposition to a bill targeting “human sexuality” instruction continued Wednesday at the Indiana Statehouse, where critics argued that parents already have access to — and authority over — such coursework for their kids.

On the table before the House Education Committee, too, was legislation to further address widespread chronic absenteeism among Hoosier students.

Up first was Senate Bill 442, which requires any instruction and learning materials used to teach “human sexuality” for grades 4-12 be approved by a school board. 

Basic information about the curriculum would have to be published in a “conspicuous” place on the school’s website. That includes a list of classes, by grade level, “in which any instruction concerning human sexuality will be taught,’ and whether that  instruction “will be provided by a male or female instructor.”

The school’s parental consent form — which lets parents remove their children from sexual education classes — would also need a link to that information. A grievance procedure would additionally need to be in place for parents to call out non-compliant schools.

Critics of the bill emphasized, however, that Indiana parents already have the right to remove their child from sex education classes.

Currently, school boards also have the authority to review and approve curricular materials. State law further requires school corporations to make instructional materials available to parents so that they can consent to instruction on human sexuality.

“A parent can contact the teacher and say, ‘What’s the curriculum?’ And the teacher has to tell them … and then (parents) can already opt their child out of whatever education that they don’t feel is appropriate,” said Rep. Tonya Pfaff, D-Terre Haute. “I’m wondering why we’re doing this when it already exists.”

But bill author Sen. Gary Byrne, R-Byrneville, questioned if school boards “are actually having conversations” about related curriculum. He reiterated Wednesday that his proposal “respects both local control and parental rights” and “just says materials used in sex ed must be approved by the local school board.” 

Byrne said the bill stems from concerns brought to him by teachers and parents and intends to “help parents better decide whether they want to opt their child out” of sex ed courses.

He gave a similar argument before the Senate education committee earlier in the session. His bill advanced from that panel — and from the full chamber — along party lines.

“We all know conversations on sex ed are more sensitive than other subjects because families have different values, different ideals, about what is appropriate to talk about and when it’s appropriate to talk to their child, or when it’s appropriate for their child to hear about it,” Byrne said.

“We don’t have any state standards for sex ed, so teachers don’t have a lot of direction,” he continued. “I didn’t want to force anything at the state level. But as a former school board member, I think putting local school boards in the driver’s seat on this issue makes good sense. They are elected by the voters, after all, so I think this is a good bill.”

More opposition against sex ed measure

The introduction of sex education usually starts in the fourth grade, according to state guidelines. But Indiana does not require the course in schools. Instead, it only mandates that schools teach lessons on HIV and AIDS. Schools that do teach sex education are expected to focus on abstinence.

Byrne introduced a similar bill in 2024 that advanced from the Senate but died in the House without a committee hearing.

This year’s bill has some tweaks: non-public schools are excluded; and a new provision, added in the Senate education committee, updates reference to “sexually transmitted diseases” in the existing sex education statute with “sexually transmitted infections.”

The House Education Committee heard testimony on Byrne’s proposal but is not expected to take a vote until next week — just before the deadline for bills to advance from committee.

Two amendments to the bill are pending.

One offered by Rep. Julie McGuire, R-Indianapolis, seeks to require sex ed instruction to include a presentation on “human growth and development during pregnancy” that includes:

• a “high-definition ultrasound video,” at least three minutes long, “showing the development of the brain, heart, sex organs and other vital organs in early fetal development;” and
• a “high-quality computer-generated rendering or animation” showing “the process of fertilization and each stage of fetal development inside the uterus, noting significant markers in cell growth and organ development for every week of pregnancy from fertilization to birth.”

Democratic Rep. Ed DeLaney, also of Indianapolis, questioned whether lawmakers are confusing what “this new term ‘human sexuality’ is.”

“I think I’m in support of this particular amendment, but I’m worried about where we’re going here,” he said. “Are we opening the door here to a broad discussion of, ‘Let’s call it everything about sex except the sex act?’ That’s what’s troubling me here. … Where’s the line here as to what we can’t talk about, what we can talk about?”

DeLaney offered his own amendment to the bill to better specify what would be required of school boards and “get rid of telling the parents whether the teacher who’s going to teach the class is male or female — I find that personally offensive.”

Byrne held that parents should know information about the teacher so they can decide if their child should participate in the instruction.

“A young child or young boy … they may behave differently depending on whether it’s a male or female teacher,” he said. “And if you think about a daughter, do I want a man teaching those subjects to her?”

Democrats — along with Rep. Becky Cash, R-Zionsville — separately asked what would happen if materials, or even the class’ teacher, changed during the academic year, since the postings are due in July. Byrne replied that “locals can figure that out … they’ll be able to navigate that.”

Roughly 30 minutes of public testimony, mostly from school and teachers groups, was critical of the bill. Samantha Bresnahan, a senior policy specialist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, cautioned, for example, whether the bill would apply to a wide range of subjects beyond sex education, including literature and science classes. 

“This could create confusion about which courses need to be approved and reported on, and have a chilling effect for education on a wide range of subjects,” she told the committee.

Only Micah Clark, representing the American Family Association of Indiana, spoke in favor, saying the bill “informs parents of what will be taught on a potentially sensitive subject, and ensures that elected school board members have reviewed whatever might be taught on this topic.”

Continued support for chronic absenteeism interventions

House lawmakers additionally considered Republican Sen. Stacey Donato’s measure to beef up the state’s absenteeism statute.

Senate Bill 482 has multiple parts, including a new definition in state code for chronically absent, specified in the bill as missing 10% or more of the school year, regardless of whether it is excused.

Another provision allows local prosecuting attorneys to hold “intervention meetings” with parents to help improve a student’s attendance before any legal action is taken. 

Indiana officials say chronic absenteeism rates are improving, but there’s still more work ahead

A final section of the bill would prohibit K-8 students from expulsion “solely because that student is chronically absent or habitually truant,” said Donato, of Logansport. Current law permits students in those grades to be expelled for missing too much school.

The Senate measure mirrors House Bill 1201, which unanimously passed the House but has yet to get a Senate hearing. A House committee vote on Donato’s bill is likely to come next week.

Multiple school advocates who testified Wednesday supported Donato’s effort.

“This bill acknowledges that a one size fits all approach simply won’t work,” said Cindy Long, assistant executive director for the Indiana Association of School Principals. “It gives schools the tools they need to support students, engage families and take additional action when necessary, without penalizing our youngest learners for struggles beyond their control.”

Chris Lagoni, of the Indiana Small and Rural Schools Association, said his organization also backs the proposal, but recommended other language be added to the bill to address students who use school transfers “as a way to escape accountability.” 

“We’d like to really work on focusing and getting kids to school,” Lagoni said. “If they can make it to school, they can make it to work. … And (we want to) continue to look at, and make sure, that students aren’t using the opportunity to transfer to another school to escape the process of trying to improve their attendance.”