>> Students advancing after failing the reading test.

A judge rules for John Rust and his bid to get on the ballot and recommendations to weaken agency rulemaking and more from the television studios at WFYI's Indiana Week in Review, the weekend of December 8 of December 8, 2023.

>> Indiana Week in Review is made possible by the supporters of Indiana public broadcasting stations.

>> This week the Indiana Department of Education says too many third-graders will fail statewide reading tests are still passing to fourth grade.

The idea we is waiting on a new data visualization tool that shows where students are struggling the most.

>> Nearly one in five third- graders in Indiana lacked key literacy skills and state educations officials say the average scores for the state reading tests are declining.

Data from the idea we shows over the past few years over 96% of third-graders who fail I read three have moved to fourth grade Katie Jenner says not passing I read three has a profound impact on child's education.

>> If a child moves forward not passing I read three they will likely never pass.

>> This tool officials say will help legislators track reading scores, showing I read three trends and track how many students progressed to fourth grade after failing the test.

Jenner says this will soon be available to parents.

>> Should the state hold students back if they fail the I retest?

That's the first question for Republican Mike O'Brien, or she avoid,-- Oseye Boyd, Niki Kelly, and before I get to you, congratulations to you Oseye for your launch, we are excited to see all the stuff you already have rolling out for the months to come.

So, Elise Shrock, is Indiana advancing too many kids?

>> That's something we have to look at, the whole scope of reading rates.

I think everyone can agree that reading is essential to creating good leaders and that's why we sell legislation, major bipartisan legislation, last year to try to align some new trainings for third grade reading levels, science and reading, and we need to wait to see what that impact that has.

We are going to need to look at when the public data, when data is released publicly on the dashboard, so it's definitely something that is shocking enough to be paying attention to what I think leaders from all sides are doing that.

>> I mean, we don't have a lot from legislative leaders on what they will actually do with this session but this is the top of everybody's list it seems.

This and truancy.

So is that a difficult political conversation to have when you're going to tell parents, sorry, we are holding your kid back?

>> I think part of this is stigma, holding a kid back.

That's a problem.

There's a bigger stigma assigned to not getting a high school diploma which is a bigger problem if you can't read in third grade.

We need to look at the whole picture and rolling out what is happening before third grade?

Revisit pre-k, you know, prioritizing those areas.

That's how we revisit the pre-k conversation prioritizing using the state and where this is happened the most, those areas that mean the most.

Also investment and targeting the areas where kids are most likely to not be able to have as high reading.

>> Elise did bring up that Indiana did bring up big things on the science of reading, trying to make it so we are teaching kids the way they need to be taught to make this as effective as possible.

Those have barely taken affect and taught Houston, speaking of Todd Houston, he talked about part of the reason why he wants to be more limited this session is Indiana just did a whole bunch of big things in the last couple of years, let's give them time to roll out.

Why do we not see the same sort of " Let's wait and see how things take effect and quote on reading proficiency?

>> Can we wait?

We don't have time, kids are in third grade now and they will move on.

So we need to know what's happening now and try to fix it now.

But I do think we need to take a holistic approach from pre-k, which by the way we had on my way pre-k story, so from pre-k on, we know what happens in third grade has an effect for the rest of their school lives and what happens there usually determines what's going to happen in high school and beyond.

So we need to make sure that what is happening in third grade, stigma, yes no one wants to flunk.

That was a thing that happened when I was a kid, kids flunked, but they stop that because of the stigma, but to the point of not having a diploma, not having a job, these are the things we need to think of third-graders now, it starts with pre-k we are reluctant to go back, it was glorified daycare, we had four day kindergarten and now we are a glorified kindergarten with pre-k but these things are very vital for the long-term and we need to start thinking of these things now.

>> So glad for on my way with pre-k, we started with Tony Bennett talking about this 15 years ago and here we are.

>> Stigma is real and that is going to be a problem, because going back to when they created the reading test, the original plan was let's hold a lot more kids back then these exceptions piled up and piled up because they are unpopular.

>> I will tell you what they mentioned a lot, speaker Houston and Senate resident Richard Bray engine the exceptions, I was more concerned, when they were like just numbers for people, not just percentages.

There were like 5500 exceptions, about 14,000, a little less than 14,000 kids who failed it.

I'm more concerned about the 8300 people who didn't get an exception and moved on.

We only held back 400 kids across the entire state who failed, so I think that's the bigger discussion.

I do want to note as someone, we mentioned obviously pre-k, what do we do before third grade, we still are I think the only state that doesn't require kids to go to school until they are seven!

Could that may be be?

>> They just announced they're going to be rolling out another one of those bills, legislative agenda last week.

>> Greg Taylor, Senate Democrats, he's been talking about that for it feels like a decade.

That's one of his biggest problems.

>> And one thing I hope the visualization tool helps is I do think it would be helpful to know of the thousands of kids failing.

Are they failing by one percentage point?

Are they failing by 30 percentage points?

I mean, correct.

>> You can move on, but there's a plan.

>> Let me ask you this before we move on.

If you're going to hold-- maybe it isn't a legislative solution, maybe it is just applying the laws that is now and not allowing kids to advance if they are failing the test but either way, if that's ultimately what happens here, at least in the short term, are we looking at a major bottleneck problem in third grades across the state?

>> Yeah, which is why we probably need to be looking at that compulsory aid and age legislation because if you don't go in until you are seven and that you are in third grade, the rate at which - kids are starting even between pre-k in third grade, that is going to create a bottleneck.

>> That could be why they've been passed on to fourth grade anyway.

And going and getting remediation back in third grade, still moving to fourth grade because it will create a bottleneck.

We need to think of individual schools and what their needs are.

>> I started school in Illinois, and so I was actually younger than the oldest kids in the grade behind me when I came to Indiana, so I would've been like the youngest kid in the grade behind me.

Because I started so early.

In Illinois.

When I was three or four years old.

>> Time now for-- >> So complement Ray.

>> Time now for viewer feedback, every week we post an unscientific poll online, and today's question is should third-graders be held back if they fail the proficiency test?

A for yes or B for no?

Now, and Destiny Wells beat out Todd Rokita, 75% if >> Indiana Republican Congressman Jim Banks might have an opponent on the pilot for next year's U.S. Senate primary after all that's because a judge ruled in favor of southern Indiana and farmer Jon Russett this week in a lawsuit challenging the states ballot access law.

>> There are two ways in Indiana candidate can run in a Republican or Democratic primary, they must've voted in that party's primary loss to-- last two primaries or get the support of a party where they live, John Rust doesn't meet those requirements, he voted in the GOP primary but has Democratic valves before that in his local buddy later refuses him access.

Rust suit and Marion County judge Patrick Dietrich lot ruled in his favor, Dietrich writes that while they acknowledge the right of political parties to decide their own members, the election itself is run and finest by the states of the ballot access law must serve citizens interested not just the political parties and Dietrich writes there is no compelling or even rational government interest being served here.

>> Mike O'Brien in a feeling of this ruling is-- appealing this ruling is likely I would say, John Rust still needs to get signatures from 500 registered voters in the nine congressional district, that's a total of 4500 in order to appear on about, and all that said does Jim Banks have any reason to worry?

>> Not in an election, as it's been described.

I'm actually for, having been a County chairman and district chairman and having used this law to disqualify people from the ballot or permit people to run who didn't have a voting registry, I'm actually OK revisiting these rules but you still have to qualify for your party somehow.

Other states, people like to say I'm a registered Republican, registered Democrat but not in Indiana you want, in some states he voted to become a voting member of that party, there's got to be a way to do that.

And you do need some kind of integrity in that system because the parties do run the primaries.

Based on political outcomes in the county, it determines how election boards are formed, what majority or which party controls those majoriies, there are party mechanisms in the administration of an election that are necessary, that are important, because otherwise what are you doing?

Everybody is running for everything.

And in a county like Marion County controlled by Democrats, candidates no how they can win and if you are a Democrat and parts of Hendricks County you know you can't win see run as a Republican and have a total Democrat voting history, I didn't allow that as a running chair and I don't think I should've, but I am for taking another look at the ballot access requirements and looking at whether there states do.

>> Is there a better system out there?

I think we like in Indiana that you don't have to declare a party, the you can vote in whatever primary you choose because sometimes there are reasons why you might not want to vote, nobody on the ballot in the Republican primary so I will vote in the Democrat won for candidates I like or don't like, is there a better way to do this in Indiana?

>> I'm sure there is a better way, I think what's important here is where looking at different options, this is kind of fascinating to me.

On numerous levels it's fascinating from a legal standpoint, it's fascinating from an election standpoint and also from a campaign finance standpoint.

Because, you know, a lot of what we're asking is, can you get the signatures as well, and you can if you pay for them.

That is one way to get a lot of signatures.

To pay people-- >> Don't literally pay for them.

>> You pay people to go and stand outside of grocery stores, outside of popular areas, yeah, that's how you get those signatres.

If a candidate has a lot of money and can do that, and can make up the time for the February deadline, we are about to see if that can happen, but there are so many fascinating-- >> But a judge changing the rules 30 days before it opens, I think it's inappropriate, if legislation wants to have this, that's the place to do it not in Court.

>> That's the challenge to doing this particular requirement they expanded this from one primary, you needed only one primary, the last primary voted and had to be the party wanted to run for to two parties, which a lot more people seem to have a problem with.

Do you see the legislature revisiting this at all?

>> They might have to, but I mean I just want some sort of explanation, and I did see a big change from the one I mean I just want some sort of explanation, and I did see a big change from the 122, I never understood why we were doing to, because if we look at donations he is never given to Democrat candidates he's only given to Republicans, similarly Brad Chambers who is running for Republican has only voted Republican but has given to Democrats, there are a bunch of different things.

>> Also do you really want to have donation history determine your political party?

Because then you are paying to enter?

>> There mainly, this is a little tenuous for lawmakers, when you look at the younger people who are turning 18 in and the rules in the Constitution about where you live and what age you can run for house of Senate and stuff like that, by having this to primary rule you are basically overruling the Constitution and that's a big problem I think, then the example of John Rust.

>>-curious, we haven't talked about it before now but I wanted to talk about it briefly here now, which is before this ruling, and it still might get overturned, Jim Banks and his folks were hitting John Rust really hard on social media.

And they have every right to do that, I'm not suggesting they are wrong to do that, but I've been curious about why, and even with this ruling, why are they going hard, so hard, after John Rust?

>> That's a curious question.

They were nervous, maybe they are ready had a feeling and they don't want him to get the 500 votes in the districts.

Those signatures.

Because I wouldn't think they would really give him much attention or time since we pretty much already know what the outcome is going to be.

>> Sticking to a solid lead.

>> Maybe just something to do, you've got nothing else to do.

>> I wrote about this whole thing today for an editorial, some people do better having an opponent to go after, a little tension.

>> A legislative task force recently approved along party lines recommendations that would further restrit the ability of state agencies to adopt rules and regular nations, Democrats on the task force said while they agree with the majority of the 12 recommendations, three of them needed further study.

>> Chief among the complaints was a recommendation that the General assembly create a law that would block agency rules from taking effect without legislative approval.

Of those roles have a significant fiscal or regulatory impact.

Democratic representative Ed DeLaney says that creates a separation of powers problem.

>> I'm not interested in issuing regulations, it's not my duty and by the way you are pushing us into a full-time legislature.

>> The chairman of the task force as a wreck imitation is in the end of the discussion.

>> It would be our response significant fiscal regulatory impact is, not just those words, we would really need to get into that.

>> Democrats also disagree with recommendations that would direct state courts not to give state agencies deference when reviewing agency decisions.

>> Niki Kelly is the legislature turning itself into a big administrative agency?

>> I mean, maybe.

They do have to walk a fine line but since they are only here 3 to 4 month a year on how much preapproval they need to beginning intervals and stuff like that but then at the same time someone mentioned the separation of powers and we do have to remember that agencies have rule-making authority because lawmakers give it to them, so what they give us they can take it away.

>> This is a question I keep coming back to because we talk about the issue clearly Republicans, not all Republicans, but a lot of Republicans and state legislature become increasingly and uncomfortable with state legislation rules and find safe and giving out to businesses for the most part.

Republicans have been in control of state agencies for two decades now, is this Republicans run amok?

Is that with the legislature is saying?

>> So are they mad at each other is what you're asking me?

They controlling each other too much?

Yeah, I don't know but it definitely begs the question and I do think in some ways it can become overreach because it is Republican-controlled and you are talking about Republican run agencies so then where is the disconnect?

There seems to be some kind of disconnect.

And if you like legislators, they have enough on their plates.

To start worrying about rules and regulations in various agencies.

So, are we trying to now become a full-time legislator-- legislature rather.

I think they need to go back to the scope of the job, maybe.

>> I do want to ask, where what he saw, so they pass this major bill this last session, I said last year but it's still 2023.

Last session.

That took a long look at how agencies were allowed to make rules, emergency rules and that sort of thing.

And in the wake of that I think the Department of Insurance came out and said you've really messed with us because we are working with insurance companies, the timelines you've given us to work with that none of this will work.

That's understandable, there are unforeseen consequences.

Aren't they just setting themselves up for more of those sort of unforeseen consequent is?

>> I think a very basic level I think he is right, this authority exists because the legislature has over years, and Congress has done the same thing, decided they don't want to be involved in the nitty- gritty of administering the laws, the policies they set forth.

For example there's been times when legislators have had bills that have listed road projects, and they've been resistant to that and said I don't think-- I think engineers should decide what bridges to be fixed not legislature, so this process, these conversations, it's usually in reaction to what was broadly considered in overreach by an agency.

Then legislature reacts to that and pulls some of that back.

This isn't a new conversation this is just what we are doing every year.

They are putting forth policies and deciding who is actually going to administer this, is it going to be IDM, DNR?

How detailed is the legislature going to direct them to get to the outcome.

>> To a certain extent is that the experts at these agencies I guess, are they the ones that should be deciding some of this?

>> Sure, but I also think we are at an inflection point were over two decades of Republicans being in power, we've seen a slippery slope.

The department of education used to be elected then legislature came in and made changes there, so I think we are at an inflection point where our part-time legislature that prides itself generally for being a number of people who are part-time, they come for a long session until April, a short session which has turned into packing a long session into just a couple of months, those are grueling because of the capacity.

So I think yeah, we have these conversations, but it's coming to a point where we have to really consider, are we a part-time legislature or are we going to pack in a full-time legislature job in just a few months and let the subject matter experts, to your point, the agency do their job?

>> It runs directly contrary to what they said, you are doing so much, the necessity to do more.

>> Not just the necessity, they would have to do more.

>> This is just what we are always doing, it's the administration.

>> Is the balance falling out of balance?

>> We will find out.

We think the balance fell out of balance another way, the agency overreached and now it's a tug-of-war.

Hoosier's are a step closer to finding out whether they abortion ban clashes with religious freedoms, women argued with abortion in the states of the religious freedom information act, and in front of a panel this week.

This is a legal group that says if the lot is in fancy a compelling interest and does so in a release least restrictive way possible appeals Court asked repeatedly solicitor general James Barta how the state can have a compelling interest to ban abortion when it has exceptions to the ban like for cases of rape or incest.

>> If this case-- Court looks more broadly to federal cases, simply because there is an exception the state doesn't have a compelling interest.

>> ACU Indiana Director Ken Falk representing anonymous women asked whether they religious exercise was really being burdened when none of the women are pregnant or seeking abortions?

>> It's the change in the sexual behavior, they have taken steps today solely because of this statute, solely because of their religious beliefs.

>> There's no timetable for the appeals Court decision and then he ruling will almost certainly be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

>> Oseye Boyd, even if the abortion ban gets completely restrained it would only affect, well, for sure this group of anonymous women.

It was made a class action so potentially more people, but really, will it change Hoosier's access to abortion in the state?

>> I don't think so, I think now people know abortion is illegal.

I know we have certain exceptions but I think for the most people they think abortion is illegal.

For another reason, we now have limited access.

So hospitals, only hospitals and surgical centers can now perform abortions, we know there are no more abortion clinics that can perform abortions, so now there are also limited hospitals in certain areas, certain rural areas there were no hospitals, so therefore you don't have access, so it even cuts down the accessory even if you can have an abortion for one of these reasons you still may not be able to get to a place, and they are probably going to have parameters and with the timeframe.

So who's to say you can actually get there in that amount of time?

I think people will still-- it's just confusing too, people still think no we can't have an abortion in Indiana.

>> Even if you have a hospital near you, almost none of them actually do perform abortions, will allow abortions to be performed anyway There's another lawsuit going on which is a revisit of the first lawsuit which is them trying to expand the medical exception of the pregnant person to add Mental Health to it, and get the abortion clinics to be able to operate again.

Is that the one that really could be a game changer for access?

>> Yeah.

Before we moved to that I think this one is probably a long shot but even if they win it affects a smaller number of people.

The other one on access and what the exceptions are is the one that could actually make a difference.

We reported looking at numbers from the department of health for September and October, and under the exceptions, there were only 12 abortions in the state in September and 13 in October, and you know, that is showing you how few are happening, maybe in a few months we will get an update and see where but they are probably all going to be in Indianapolis.

>> In terms again talking about the impact of people, even with this lawsuit potentially opening the door for more people have access, if they can find somewhere to have access, it will be months, even theoretically years before we get a final ruling on this case.

>> And who is the onus on to determine the religious exceptions?

Most of the precedent we have this on comes from the COVID vaccine, so this, the bottom line is, Indiana remains one of if not the most restrict of