Indiana lawmakers revisit requirement for cameras in special education classrooms
Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Should Indiana’s special education classrooms be equipped with round-the-clock video surveillance?
Parents said the move would help protect kids and keep them informed of behavioral incidents.
District administrators aren’t opposed—but only if the state foots the bill. Educators, meanwhile, have been less receptive and maintain that increased staff training will better ensure student safety.
Discourse swirled around House Bill 1285 on Wednesday in the House Education Committee, though it’s not clear what if any action lawmakers might take next.
The legislation, authored by Rep. Becky Cash, R-Zionsville, seeks to make several changes to special education practices, including a new requirement for schools to have electronic recording equipment in special education classrooms, sensory rooms, seclusion spaces and time-out areas.
Schools would also be mandated to have at least one trained behavioral interventionist on the grounds at all times who can “respond to instances where de-escalation is needed.” That person would need to be available to quickly assist with student “meltdowns,” for example.
And while the bill additionally creates a grant fund to help schools purchase cameras and meet other proposed requirements, no state money has been earmarked.
Any taxpayer appropriation for the fund would have to be approved by House budget regulators. Fitting new funds in Indiana’s next two-year spending plan is already more challenging this session than in previous years, as state revenues are projected to be much tighter.
Without guaranteed dollars, critics worried the bill would create an unfunded mandate.
“The intent is good, but the fiscal implication is significant,” said Bob Taylor, executive director of the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents. He also spoke on behalf of the Indiana Association of School Business Officials.
“Not only do we have the issue of the hardware and the cameras—and many schools have those already, because it is good practice—but there are schools that do not have those,” he continued. “You can’t go to Costco and buy a Ring camera and put it in a classroom.”
Cash seeks further crackdown
Taylor noted the cost of video storage, too. According to the bill, schools would be required to store at least 90 days of recorded footage so it can be reviewed at parents’ request.
He pointed to an unnamed Indianapolis school corporation that estimated such security installation costs at roughly $327,000 last year. That quote did not include expenses that some districts might be burdened with if staff have to be hired and trained to manage the security system, Taylor said.
A legislative fiscal analysis did not estimate the statewide financial impact of the bill but expected digital video camera purchases to increase school expenditures by $2,000 to $10,000 per classroom, depending on the recording equipment installed.
“We are not opposed in any way, shape or form, to transparency,” he added. “But without specifics, I don’t believe I can be where you want me to be.”
David Marcotte, executive director of the Indiana Urban Schools Association, further emphasized that while many member districts already have “numerous cameras” in hallways and common areas, additional cameras “could require additional storage devices or upgraded servers” — which comes at a cost.
He made clear the urban schools association would be supportive if the legislature fully funds the grant program included in the bill.
Caution was also stressed about student privacy.
“Sharing videos of students must be done with caution and in alignment with legal requirements,” said Cindy Long, representing the Indiana Association of School Principals. “We would want to very carefully work through how a classroom video might be shared with a specific parent when other students are easily identifiable in that video.”
Other testifiers raised concerns about the necessity and cost of editing such videos to ensure only one parent’s special education student would be visible in requested footage.
Regarding the behavioral interventionist provision, Long said mandating their presence “in every school could present practical difficulties, while also impacting our funding.”
“Schools could train an existing staff person to serve in this role, as the bill outlines … but it would be very difficult for a current employee to take over that feasibility of being available at all times,” she said.
Cash, who is a parent of several children with disabilities, successfully pitched a related bill last year that bars Indiana schools from temporarily removing a student from instruction—and subsequently placing them in a “time-out” isolation—except as a last resort and in situations where safety is at risk.
Similar language in the 2024 legislation to require cameras in special education classrooms was ultimately stripped out.
Jill Lambert with the Indiana Council of Administrators of Special Education said her group continues to be opposed to classroom surveillance.
“Restraint and seclusion policies and procedures are required to protect all students in all settings, not just students with the most significant disabilities. … However, this is not a pervasive issue regarding sweeping legislation for the entire state,” Lambert said. “The current process in place is working in the vast majority of school districts.”
It’s unfair, she continued, for only teachers and staff of the most severe, “highest-need” special education students to be “under this level of scrutiny, when other special education and general ed colleagues are not.”
Lambert said it’s already “increasingly more difficult to recruit and retain high quality staff” to serve in special education roles. Nearly 300 such jobs around the state remain vacant.
“Placing another mandate on them to be recorded over the course of an entire school day as yet another barrier schools will have to overcome during the hiring process,” she said.
Lambert suggested for state lawmakers to instead focus “on adequate training and support for staff members,” and emphasizing “continued documentation and debriefing of incidents that occur.”
Senate committee moves sex education bill
Across the hall, the Senate education committee advanced a separate bill that would require any instruction and learning materials used to teach “human sexuality” for grades 4-12 be approved by the school board. The materials would also have to be publicly posted on each school’s website.
Republican Sen. Gary Byrne, the bill’s author, maintained that his proposal “will just help parents better decide whether they want their child to opt out or not” from sex education instruction.
“We all know conversations on sex ed are more sensitive than other subjects because families have different values and different ideals about what is appropriate to talk about—and when it’s appropriate to talk to their child, or for them to hear about it,” said Byrne, of Byrneville.
He resisted attempts by Democrats to more specifically define what does—or does not—constitute sex education in state law.
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.
Even so, 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.
“We don’t have any state standards for sex ed, so teachers don’t have a lot of direction. I didn’t want to force anything at the state level, but as a former school board member, I think putting the local school boards in the driver’s seat on this issue makes good sense. They’re elected by the voters, after all,” Byrne continued. “I think this is a good bill that respects local control and parents’ rights.”
Two amendments were accepted by the committee: one to exclude non-public schools, and another to update reference to “sexually transmitted diseases” in the existing sex education statute with “sexually transmitted infections.”
Democrats remained opposed to the overall bill, which passed 9-4 along party lines to the full chamber.
Byrne introduced a similar bill in 2024 that advanced from the Senate but died in the opposite chamber without a committee hearing.
The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.