Whats up with HB1367?

This vlog introduces viewers to HB1367, explaining what it is, where it is in the legislative process, and some reasons why we should stop that bill.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• seesayjay
• jay
• krieger
• hb1367

[bpickell12]

Below is my transcription of this video while I figure out how to try to add captions to it. I have done this in collaboration with J Krieger and a couple of other Deaf people. I hope this provides accessibility for those who do not sign.

[bpickell12]

What is HB 1367?

You may have seen discussions on that popping all over Facebook, Twitter or among friends. Because some of us may not know much about it, and are asking for more information, I will share here what HB 1367 is all about. First, HB is an acronym for “House Bill” (Similarly, bills from the Senate side is abbreviated SB).

[bpickell12]

HB 1367 has been written and submitted by Cindy Noe, a House of Representatives member, whose home district includes Carmel. Her bill has three parts. The first part proposes a modification to the existing law concerning the Indiana School for the Deaf. The second and third parts propose additional laws.

The existing law related to the Indiana School for the Deaf (ISD) describes the school’s three purposes: 1) provide educational programs for day and residential students,

[bpickell12]

2) serve as an outreach center, and 3) serve as a resource center for Indiana teachers, including educational consulting for the whole state. This is the long-time existing law mandated by the state to fund ISD to meet those purposes.

Now, what does HB 1367 propose for this current law?

For the part about educational programs, the bill proposes to keep it as is. However, HB1367 proposes the second and third purposes of ISD be deleted.

[bpickell12]

In lieu of the deleted parts of existing law, the second part of this bill proposes that a new center related to the Deaf be established providing unbiased services similar to ones already existing at ISD with the current law. New staff positions and facilities shall be provided for the new center completely separated from ISD. And the funding for this, where shall it come from? Most likely, it will transferred out of the current ISD budget.

[bpickell12]

The third part of HB 1367 is shorter and proposes that the test scores for the Indiana School for the Blind and ISD must be reported and posted on the Department of Education website. This is with the understanding that if the scores are unsatisfactory, there won’t be any punitive action. This third part is not problematic.

[bpickell12]

It is the second part of HB 1367 that is what many of us are objecting to. The idea of moving outreach and consultative services away from ISD is not right, not good and definitely not the smart thing to do.

So how did this bill come to be? There are three key players: The author, Representative Cindy Noe, Office of Management and Budget Director Adam Horst, and Pete Miller, who recently investigated and audited ISD.

After Pete Miller did his study, he and Adam Horst gave the report to Noe.

[bpickell12]

Interestingly, both Noe and Horst are on the 10-member school board for ISD, all appointed by the governor. You may recall that not long ago, there was a controversy when the governor suddenly filled a few long-neglected vacancies on the board ending up with only one board member being Deaf. Now, what’s the idea of Noe and Horst, being on the school board, collaborating with the information from Pete Miller, and submitting this bill without any support or input from the ISD community?

[bpickell12]

We are not clear if the rest of the school board supported or were aware of Noe’s legislative action.

Now, is this bill good and beneficial for ISD? No. That is why we are now saying stop this bill through the democratic process with the legislature.

The current status of the bill is that it has been submitted, gone through the first reading, and has been assigned to the 13-member Education Committee.

[bpickell12]

We need to work hard and lobby those members to have the bill die in committee. Yet, we need to be prepared if the committee disregards us and moves the bill out to the House floor for a second reading, either as is (“engrossed”) or amended by the committee. This would mean lobbying the whole House, all 100 members to vote no on the bill. However, should the second reading proceed without any amendments, there will be a third reading, which means the actual voting on the bill.