SB 442 revises Indiana’s school sex-education and student-survey consent rules. The bill requires schools to obtain written parental consent before administering certain personal analyses, evaluations, or surveys, and before providing instruction on human sexuality. If a parent or eligible student does not respond, the school must send a follow-up notice; after that notice period, the student may receive the instruction or survey unless the parent or student opts out. Schools must also provide alternative academic instruction to students who do not participate, and they must give parents and students notice of their rights under these provisions.
The bill also expands the required content of human sexuality instruction. It continues to require abstinence-centered instruction and adds age-appropriate instruction on consent, plus a medically accurate, in-person presentation on human growth and development during pregnancy, including ultrasound and fetal-development video or animation components. For fully virtual courses, the presentation must be delivered virtually. School corporations may not use unapproved curricular materials for human sexuality instruction, and governing bodies must publish the instructional materials list on the school website.
Impact
SB 442 amends multiple sections of the Indiana Code governing education, especially IC 20-26-21-4 and IC 20-30-5-13 and -17. It strengthens parental notice and consent requirements for both sensitive surveys and human sexuality instruction, adds new disclosure obligations for schools, and requires public posting of instructional materials related to sex education. It also imposes new content requirements for sex-education curricula and limits the use of unapproved materials in school corporations, affecting school administrators, teachers, parents, and students statewide.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have generally favorable support overall, as reflected by its strong Senate and House third-reading votes and the final conference committee adoption. At the same time, the failed House amendment vote suggests there was meaningful disagreement over at least some details of the proposal. The voting pattern indicates broad support for the bill’s core parental-consent and curriculum-transparency provisions, but not unanimous agreement on how far those requirements should go.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s expanded parental consent framework, the automatic follow-up/opt-out process after nonresponse, and the added requirements for sex-education content and materials disclosure. Supporters appear to favor greater parental control, transparency, and standardized instruction, while opponents likely object to the administrative burden on schools, the possibility of defaulting to instruction after a nonresponse period, and the state’s detailed prescription of curriculum content. The failed House amendment indicates at least one attempt to alter the bill’s approach did not gain majority support.