The Hamilton Southeastern School District is beginning to sort out how it will implement a new state requirement tied to what’s known as the “success sequence,” after a presentation Wednesday night to the school board from Scott Phelps.
Phelps, executive director of a national group promoting the concept, outlined what he described as a research-backed roadmap for student success. His presentation emphasized a simple progression: graduate from high school, obtain full-time employment and wait until marriage to have children.
Phelps and other supporters argue students who follow that path are far less likely to experience poverty as adults. Indiana lawmakers cited similar research when approving legislation earlier this year requiring schools to include the concept in classroom instruction.
That law, signed by Gov. Mike Braun in March, places the “success sequence” under the state’s required “good citizenship” curriculum. It takes effect July 1, meaning districts like HSE are now deciding how — not whether — to incorporate it into lessons.
Supporters say the concept offers students a clear, practical framework for life decisions. The idea was popularized by researchers including Isabel Sawhill and has been embraced by policy groups such as the American Enterprise Institute and Institute for Family Studies.
In presentations like the one delivered Wednesday, advocates often point to data showing a strong link between following the sequence and avoiding poverty. Some also argue the concept reflects behaviors already common among more affluent Americans.
But the approach has drawn criticism from educators, researchers and some lawmakers, who say the issue is far more complex.
Analysts with the Brookings Institution — including scholar Richard Reeves — have found that while the sequence is associated with better economic outcomes, it does not produce equal results across all groups. Their research shows that even among people who follow all three steps, economic outcomes can differ significantly based on race and other factors.
Critics also argue the concept risks oversimplifying poverty and shifting too much emphasis onto individual decisions while downplaying broader issues such as wages, education access and housing costs.
During debate at the Statehouse, some Indiana lawmakers raised concerns about how the message could be received by students. They noted it may unintentionally stigmatize children from single-parent or nontraditional families, or those whose life circumstances do not align with the sequence.
There are also questions about how the concept intersects with health and sex education. While Indiana’s law places the “success sequence” in a civics context, public health groups have long supported comprehensive sex education that includes contraception, disease prevention and relationship education. Critics of the new requirement worry the sequence could be presented in ways that resemble abstinence-focused messaging if not carefully balanced.
Even some supporters acknowledge limits in the research. Reports from the Institute for Family Studies note that while the evidence linking the sequence to economic outcomes is strong, more long-term studies are needed to establish direct cause-and-effect relationships.
For HSE Schools, the immediate question is how to present the material in a way that meets state requirements while fitting into existing curriculum.
District officials have not yet outlined specifics, or reached a final decision, but similar instruction elsewhere is often incorporated into courses on government, health or life skills rather than taught as a standalone class.
As the district moves forward, the discussion is likely to continue among educators, parents and board members about how the concept should be framed — as a guideline, a research finding or a broader conversation about life choices and opportunity.
What appears certain is that the issue will not be settled by a single presentation.
Instead, HSE — like districts across Indiana — will be navigating a policy that supporters say offers a straightforward path to success, and critics say demands a more nuanced conversation.
