Teachers, counselors and parents urge delay to Indiana diploma overhaul at state hearing

At a public hearing convened by the Indiana Department of Education on Nov. 8, 2024, dozens of teachers, counselors, parents and several state legislators urged the State Board of Education to slow or substantially revise proposed changes to the state’s high-school diploma rules, citing staffing shortfalls, financing questions and insufficient transparency.

The hearing, opened by DOE staff attorney Billy Ensm, was held to gather public comments on LSA document number 24-22 and draft amendments to 511 IAC 6-7.14 and 511 IAC 6-7.2. Ensm explained that oral comments would be limited to three minutes and that written and chat submissions would be provided to the board for its consideration.

Why it matters: speakers said the draft could shift substantial instructional time away from traditional coursework, impose heavy new duties on already overburdened counselors, and require logistics—background checks, transportation and employer participation—that schools and districts have not been funded to provide. Several lawmakers reiterated that a statutory deadline for finalizing the rule this year leaves districts little time to adapt ahead of next school year.

Teachers and arts educators warned about curriculum loss and staffing impacts. "Our graduation requirements should be updated from time to time," said Randy Hudgin, a 20-year social studies teacher and coach, but he criticized the rulemaking process and warned that the proposal would marginalize courses such as world history and world geography and could force teachers to recertify or be reassigned. "Teachers feel under siege," Hudgin said, urging the department to "have our back."

Arts and music educators pressed to preserve fine-arts requirements. Lyanna Powell, reading a letter from the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra, urged the board not to make fine arts optional on the honors diploma and asked that at least a two-credit arts requirement be added to preserve access across urban and rural districts. Music educators at multiple points recommended reinstating two fine-arts credits in honors pathways.

Counselors described workload and feasibility problems. A veteran high-school counselor told the board that Indiana has roughly 1,333 high-school counselors and said asking counselors to add verification forms, ASVAB interpretation, mentoring and detailed graduation-plan work would be unrealistic without new funding and many more counselors. "The 1,333 Indiana high-school counselors are already so burdened," the counselor said, listing routine tasks from crisis response to FAFSA help to scheduling.

School counselors and counseling directors echoed that concern. Brad Miller, a long-time counseling director, said the proposed system’s complexity would be difficult to explain to parents and expressed worry that timing issues (for example, AP exam results arriving after graduation) push students toward dual-credit tracks and raise equity issues for students without transportation or stable enrollment.

Lawmakers and researchers flagged transparency and curriculum concerns. State Rep. Sue Arrington said Ball State researchers remain unconvinced the draft improves learning and questioned who was consulted in drafting the rule. Arrington and others said the proposal appears to roll back math requirements to Algebra I in some pathways, and they urged clearer explanations of the plan’s goals and evidence.

Other speakers, including Dr. Michaela Spangenberg of the Gary Education Coalition, called out what she described as a "door-in-the-face" tactic in earlier drafts and criticized a seal in the draft that sets a 650-work-hour threshold—raising questions about how that would align with statutory instructional-time rules and with students' ability to complete required hours during a school year.

Fiscal and implementation questions were prominent. Carrie Mixa of the Indiana Coalition for Public Education asked whether the Legislative Services Agency had completed a fiscal analysis of the latest draft and sought clarity about the potential for students to accumulate far more than 42 credits under some pathways. Multiple speakers warned that districts in financial distress or those with existing contracts could face substantial cost and logistical burdens if the changes are adopted rapidly.

Timeline and next steps: several speakers noted a statutory timeline that could require the board to finalize rules by Dec. 31 for implementation next school year. DOE staff closed the hearing by reminding attendees that written comments would be accepted online and via the posted jotform through the day’s 5 p.m. deadline and that all comments will be forwarded to the board.

The public record for the rulemaking remains open for written comments; the board has not taken a vote during this hearing and no formal action was recorded.