INPEA Express Statehouse Edition: Season 7, Episode 2

We've reached the halfway point of the 2026 legislative session. Catch up on where things stand with the education bills we are following. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:09

Hello again, everybody, and welcome to the INPEA Express Podcast. I'm your host, James McNeini, and blessed to serve as the Executive Director of the Indiana Nonpublic Education Association. INPEA, as we're better known, serves as an advocate, promotes engagement, and strives for the advancement of nonpublic schools. I'm joined again today by our Associate Executive Director, Chris Brunson, and together we tackle the legislative advocacy work for our association. We're just past the midpoint of this session, and we flew by it like Burt Reynolds and his Camaro flying by Jackie Gleason in his squad car. That's a little reference to one of my favorite childhood movies. But what I mean by that is that the General Assembly will usually take a week's break at midpoint. That did not happen this year as the bills crossed over from one side to the other and then immediately began being heard in committees. So in this edition, we're going to take time here at the beginning and focus on the bills that are still moving, especially those that got a hearing this week in those committees. We also want to touch on some disappearing language from one of the bills that we've been monitoring. We'll talk about that here in a minute. And also some potential new legislation, or at least conversation about new legislation that has made news and some heartbreaking events that have unfolded over the last couple weeks. Finally, I want to end by giving just a quick update on the accountability model. Chris, let's start with the Senate bills that we're monitoring that crossed over and were heard in the House Education Committee this week.

SPEAKER_00 1:43

Sure, thanks, James. So Senate Bill 78 is the Bell-to-Bell cell phone ban. This bill's been around for a while. It is the only education bill that was heard in December before the typical session started in January, but just crossed over to the House this week. Reminder that this bill does not include non-public schools, but it may have an indirect impact on practice in our non-public schools. There was testimony heard on this bill this week, but uh there was no vote yet. The discussion was largely around implementation. I think everybody pretty much agrees that this is what's best for kids and for the educational environment, but how to store devices, um, a little bit of back and forth on, you know, is a smartwatch count, should we name it in the bill, or just try to come up with language that encompasses all internet connected devices. So um, James, you you recently lived uh in a uh in a high school, so you can talk a little bit more probably about some of those questions or challenges around implementation and storage.

SPEAKER_01 2:47

Yeah, I think what you're seeing here is this convergence of lawmakers who have an idea of what they want to see with uh actual practitioners who are saying, look, in practice, like like doing away with smart watches is is is kind of difficult. Like you can have a policy that'd say it's gone, but ultimately at the end of the day, a lot of a lot of watches look like smartwatches, and are you actually gonna, you know, expect the teachers to to go and click on the watch and find out if it's a smartwatch? So you know that can get a little tricky uh as far as implementation. And I think a lot of the conversation, like you said, is on storage. You know, is it okay to just say they can have it in their backpacks or in their pocket or whatever? I think most educators would say, hey, as long as I don't see it, I don't care where it is, right? Uh but this idea of storing them or kids checking in and the responsibility of a school administrator to be in charge of, you know, a couple hundred of these thousand dollar devices that these kids carry around. I don't know school administrator wants to be in charge of that. So it'll be interesting to see how this bill keeps getting modified as it goes down. Uh as we've said, I do anticipate this will pass, but I think it'll look just a little bit different by the time it gets all the way through.

SPEAKER_00 3:54

Sure. Yeah, the language in the bill is intentionally vague to allow local school districts to decide on their own policy, their own mechanism of storing devices. Um, but there's just a lot of back and forth about whether even some of those words should come out, like secure storage instead of just storage. So, you know, are you locking them up or are you carrying them in a backpack? Um, it's it's been very interesting and a very granular discussion. Uh so we'll see where that goes and keep you apprised so that you are aware of best practice and what's happening down the street, even though it won't apply directly to non-public schools. Another bill uh in the in the house now that started in the Senate, Senate Bill 159, uh deals with technology plans and policies. Again, this does not include non-public schools, um, but really is interesting thought around uh the control that parents want to have over a school-issued device when that device comes home with a kid. So um basically allowing parents to set screen time or additional controls on allowable apps at home on a device that is otherwise managed by the school. Uh an initial challenge uh thought to be associated with this initiative was the cost that that might be incurred by schools to add that functionality. Uh turns out the vast majority of platforms that schools are already using to uh to filter uh and and firewall their systems on site have a parent control component available and in their standard pricing. So um you might look into that. Again, even though this bill won't apply to non-pubs, uh it will probably come up that your parents are aware that this is a requirement for uh public schools and are interested in having similar parental controls on school-issued devices at home.

SPEAKER_01 5:40

Yeah, well said, Chris. Um on the other side, we've got the Senate Ed Committee, and they heard testimony on some bills, even voted on a bill. We'll get to that in a second, uh, that uh do have some direct impact on non-public schools. So, unlike those uh the bills you just mentioned, these these actually include non-public schools. I just a pause and a recap. Uh, if you didn't get a chance to listen last week, we're actually thrilled that we're not in a lot of these regulatory bills. We put a lot of work in before the session to try to help uh the General Assembly understand that when it comes to regulating schools, we should be left out of that. That really should be more for public schools. Um we're thrilled about that. But there are a few bills that do include non-public schools. Uh, a couple of them were heard in the Senate Ed Committee. Chris, why don't you tell us about uh House Bill 1266 and House Bill 1176?

SPEAKER_00 6:28

Sure. So House Bill 1266 does a few things. Um, it moves the date that the Department of Ed can start processing 2026 choice scholarship applications, uh, which is really important to them and to us. Uh, in the initial law passed last year that moves the eligibility criteria to universal, no income cap, um, that law is effective July 1st. So what would happen is schools would basically sit on applications until July 1st so that they did not have to attach otherwise unnecessary income verification to those applications. The department has a 10-day turnaround required in law, and there's no way that they could process all the applications they would get on July 1st within 10 days. So this it's really it's complicated legal language at the very end of the bill, but it just moves that application timeline up to May 1st, which is not quite as early as they've accepted applications before, but uh gives them enough time, schools enough time to start processing those choice scholarship applications without income verification.

SPEAKER_01 7:28

Yeah, you're right. And I was just in a uh choice meeting that the DOE put on this week, and they mentioned that, that that is legislation that that looks like that's gonna pass, but we don't know for sure. Um yeah, and a lot of schools said, gosh, I wish it was earlier than May 1st. I I I I hear you, but um I I think we're just grateful for any kind of extension on that. The other thing that the department brought up, which I think it's important for schools to recognize, that if there are any um like direct certify uh students or students that uh because they're applying for an additional financial aid, maybe an SGO uh scholarship or any of those, and they are submitting income, go ahead and process those right away, right? No reason why uh once that window opens up, which should be here soon, uh, that you can't go ahead and process those students and then just save the ones that otherwise you wouldn't collect income for. Uh we can save those for after May. So that I thought that was a good tip uh that the that the uh the choice team at the department gave to our schools.

SPEAKER_00 8:22

Yep. So a couple other things in House Bill 1266, uh, it gives non-public schools access to the teacher residency pilot grant program. Uh it's a great opportunity to train people for service as licensed teachers uh through a residency program instead of some of the other means that are available for uh achieving licensure. So a great opportunity for some of our schools to join what's already working with some public funding to support it in public schools. And then one more thing in that bill I'll touch on is it limits emergency permits to three years. So the thinking there, there are so many paths to licensure, and if it was an emergency three years ago, um then you you probably should have addressed it as such and pursued one of those paths. So teachers will have maybe a shorter timeline to move from that initial emergency permit to full licensure. Moving on to House Bill 1176. This one does a couple things we're interested in. It would remove the income cap for the tax credit scholarship or SGO program to align that with the choice scholarship or voucher program. Those two programs have moved with each other every time until the last legislative session where the income cap was removed on the voucher but not on the SGO. So this would just allow schools to collect and verify need by whatever means they deem appropriate within their community and award those dollars that they're raising through the tax incentive uh as they see fit.

SPEAKER_01 9:49

Yeah, you testified really well on that, Chris. I like how you stated that. And and you let the members of the Senate committee know that, hey, most of our schools are still actually awarding these scholarships well below what the income thresholds are and prioritizing those highest need students. We're hearing from schools that they'll continue to do that. But again, we'd like to see those two programs aligned in those uh uh in in terms of uh the Choice Scholarship Program and the Tax Credit Scholarship Program.

SPEAKER_00 10:16

Yep, there's really only one other thing in that pretty large bill that would apply directly to non-Pubs. Um, in recent sessions, the state mandated parent notification and resources in reading when students are identified as at risk or not proficient in grade two or three in reading. They gave you 15 days to communicate that information to parents and offer them some resources to support their kids' development at home. They're aligning the same intervention timeline for math. So it's really best practice, and that's what I testified to on the floor. Uh, it's best practice, so it really shouldn't be problematic that it's in regulation now that we're expected to notify parents within 15 days of a student identified as needing extra support. That bill was voted, uh kind of surprising. Usually they'll take testimony one week and then vote on it, uh, possibly amend it the next week. Uh we testified on it and it was voted out uh a couple minutes later in the same meeting this week. So that one is moving on to uh Senate appropriations and then a final vote.

SPEAKER_01 11:17

Yeah, and we think it'll be uh have some difficulty in Senate appropriations. Um no guarantee that it passes there, but uh in the past that's anything school choice related has been highly scrutinized there. So uh we'll uh stay tuned on that one. We'll continue to monitor that and uh and and advocate for this bill. So another bill uh that actually is scheduled to be heard on Monday is uh Senate Bill 199. So this is the bill, uh it still contains the language uh that moves the school-wide third-grade eye reading uh proficiency mark to 75 to be 75% over a three-year average. Um I actually I don't think there'll be a lot of pushback on that one. But but the interesting thing is gone is the language about social media. Um that just sort of uh disappeared to be strange without a lot of conversation about it. Um but I would say we do uh expect that to reappear somewhere. We're hearing a lot of that uh from a lot of different angles. Uh so stay tuned. We will as well uh as we see where that's going to uh re-emerge.

SPEAKER_00 12:22

Yeah, we like the language, the original language in that bill, it puts no pressure whatsoever on schools to enforce that. It puts all the pressure where it belongs on the large social media companies to verify age for users. So we're hoping it will come back. It's best for kids, and we'll throw our support behind it when it when it reappears uh in an amendment later after they clean up some of the language that was controversial.

SPEAKER_01 12:44

Yeah, and I really think too, and and I'll say in related news, you you may have seen the absolutely heartbreaking story of uh the high school student from Fishers who was found murdered after allegedly meeting up with a 39-year-old guy that she met online through the game of Roblox of all places. Uh, House and Senate leadership, along with Governor Braun, have all said that they want to draft language to protect kids and teens from predators who communicate, especially via games and social media. It would not surprise me a bit if when we see that language re-emerge, that it's actually beefed up a bit around this to make sure that there are even more restrictions uh for social media and for games and uh that get reinserted somewhere in that language. Um again, we'll stay tuned on that. Finally, I just want to touch a little bit on the accountability model. I've had a lot of questions about that, as uh we expected that actually to be voted on and approved at the January 14th State Board of Education meeting. Kind of at the last minute it uh it was gone from the agenda or was removed from the agenda. So there the rumor has it that uh there's last at the last minute there was some outside pressure to include more of a focus on test scores and some legal questions about uh how uh the plan as it is kind of shook out. Um so there are some people that would prefer that we see less of a focus on the multiple metrics, which actually we all kind of supported and advocated for a little bit. Um so we'll see how that uh all that shakes out. But I was assured by the department this week that that is still moving ahead and will be approved soon. We think probably at the next State Board of Ed meeting, but we'll see. Um again, the plan is that that accountability model will be used to issue school grades based on the data that's happening this year, uh, and that those school grades will come out in the fall for next year. Well, that's all for this week. Thank you for tuning in. And on behalf of Chris, I just want to reiterate it is an honor to advocate for our schools and be assured that we will continue to serve as the voice for non public education in Indiana. Until next time.