Should Indiana’s special education classrooms be equipped with round-the-clock video surveillance?
The idea is sparking debate among parents, educators, and lawmakers alike. Supporters argue that continuous monitoring could provide peace of mind, improve student safety, and help families stay informed about behavioral incidents. For some, it’s a matter of protection.
Parents in particular said the move would help protect kids and keep them informed of behavioral incidents. They believe surveillance could shed light on incidents that otherwise might go undocumented, offering transparency and clarity during difficult situations.
District administrators aren’t opposed to the concept — but only if the state is willing to provide financial support. Without adequate funding, many school systems say implementation would be a challenge.
Educators, however, have expressed greater hesitation. Their concern is that more effective staff training, not more equipment, is the key to keeping students safe in special education settings.
On Wednesday, those varying perspectives collided in the House Education Committee as members discussed House Bill 1285. While the hearing sparked passionate dialogue, it remains unclear what, if any, action lawmakers will take on the proposal moving forward.
The bill, authored by Rep. Becky Cash, R-Zionsville, aims to overhaul certain special education practices. Among the changes is a provision that would require schools to install electronic recording equipment in special education classrooms, sensory rooms, seclusion spaces, and time-out areas.
These changes could mean a wide deployment of cameras in special education classrooms, raising both logistical and ethical questions for school districts and communities.
Another key provision in the legislation would mandate that schools always have at least one trained behavioral interventionist on campus. This professional must be capable of stepping in “to respond to instances where de-escalation is needed.” Such a role could prove invaluable during student “meltdowns” or other behavioral episodes requiring immediate attention.
While the bill includes the creation of a grant fund to help cover these new expenses, no specific state funding has been allocated yet.
Any taxpayer dollars used to fill the grant fund would need approval from House budget regulators. Unfortunately, Indiana’s budget is especially tight this session. New programs face steep competition as lawmakers grapple with reduced revenue forecasts.
That’s one reason critics have voiced concerns over what they consider 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 represented the Indiana Association of School Business Officials at the hearing.
“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.”
Taylor also drew attention to the cost of video storage. The bill would require recorded footage to be archived for at least 90 days, enabling parents to request and review the video when questions arise.
He cited a 2023 quote from an unnamed Indianapolis school corporation estimating that full installation of such a security system would cost around $327,000 — and that figure excludes the costs of additional staffing and technical management.
A legislative fiscal analysis hasn’t offered a firm projection of the bill’s statewide cost. Still, estimates suggest that camera installation could raise expenses by $2,000 to $10,000 per classroom, depending on the quality and capacity of the chosen system.
“We are not opposed in any way, shape or form, to transparency,” Taylor emphasized. “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, added that many schools already utilize “numerous cameras” in high-traffic areas like hallways and cafeterias. But adding surveillance in more private or specialized spaces could strain budgets further.
Additional hardware requires storage space, new servers, and sometimes even IT personnel to manage the data. Marcotte said his organization could support the initiative — but only if the legislature fully funds the grant program that would help schools comply.
Privacy concerns also loomed large during the hearing.
“Sharing videos of students must be done with caution and in alignment with legal requirements,” warned Cindy Long, speaking for 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 witnesses echoed those worries, pointing out the challenges and costs associated with editing video footage to protect student privacy — especially when parents only have a right to see their own child in recordings.
Regarding the behavioral interventionist provision, Long warned that such a mandate could prove logistically difficult.
“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.
Rep. Cash is no stranger to special education policy. Last year, she successfully championed a related bill that restricted the use of time-out isolation in Indiana schools, only allowing its use as a last resort in situations where student safety was at risk.
That earlier bill initially included a provision for cameras in special education classrooms, but the language was stripped from the final version. This year’s HB 1285 revives the debate.
Still, not everyone believes a statewide mandate is necessary.
Jill Lambert of the Indiana Council of Administrators of Special Education said her organization opposes mandatory 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.
She added that the legislation unfairly targets a narrow subset of educators.
“The current process in place is working in the vast majority of school districts,” she said.
“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 also raised a critical staffing issue: special education positions are already difficult to fill, and the pressure of being filmed all day could make hiring even harder.
“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 warned.
Instead, Lambert encouraged lawmakers to invest in better training and support.
She concluded by recommending that the legislature shift its focus to “adequate training and support for staff members,” and to prioritize “continued documentation and debriefing of incidents that occur.”
Meanwhile, just down the hall from the HB 1285 discussion, the Indiana Senate Education Committee considered another contentious issue — sex education.
The committee advanced a bill that would require all instructional materials used to teach “human sexuality” in grades 4 through 12 to be reviewed and approved by local school boards. Schools would also be required to post those materials publicly on their websites.
Republican Sen. Gary Byrne, the bill’s author, framed it as a transparency measure for parents.
“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 added, “will just help parents better decide whether they want their child to opt out or not” of sex education classes.
Although the state doesn’t currently require schools to teach sex ed, Indiana does mandate HIV/AIDS education. The new bill wouldn’t change that — but it would impose additional scrutiny on schools that choose to teach a broader curriculum.
Byrne resisted calls from Democrats to more clearly define what qualifies as sex education under Indiana law.
Two amendments were adopted by the committee: one that exempts non-public schools and another that updates the term “sexually transmitted diseases” to “sexually transmitted infections” in existing law.
Democrats opposed the overall bill, which passed 9-4 along party lines.
Byrne proposed a similar measure last year, which passed in the Senate but stalled in the House. He hopes this year’s version will fare better.
“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 said. “I think this is a good bill that respects local control and parents’ rights.”
Empower Progress with Expert Behavioral Care
Discover the difference expert support can make in your child’s development. Golden Care Therapy delivers personalized, compassionate care through our evidence-based approach to ABA therapy. We tailor each program to the unique needs of children and families, helping them build meaningful skills and achieve lasting growth.
With a team of dedicated professionals by your side, you can trust that your child is in caring, capable hands. Reach out today to learn how we can support your family with high-quality autism services in Indiana. Let’s work together to build a brighter future—contact us now!
