Amid a busy legislative session for education issues, House Bill 1423 continues to grab headlines. The bill is a policy package concerning Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) and Indianapolis charter schools that stems from the final recommendations set forth by the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance at the end of 2025.

Advanced out of the House Education Committee on January 21, the bill seeks to establish the Indianapolis Public Education Corporation (IPEC). This mayor-appointed body would oversee facilities, transportation, property taxes, and accountability for IPS and charter schools. It does not, as many feared, dissolve the IPS board (or individual charter school boards, for that matter). The IPS board would retain control over key responsibilities like budgets, staffing, and academics.

Amendment to House Bill 1423 Brings Timeline Clarity

Before advancing out of committee, legislators updated the bill to bring much more clarity about the timing of the IPEC’s creation, outlining that it would fully come into its powers for the 2028-29 school year. That provides a two year timeline for what is the most significant structural change to public schooling in Indianapolis since the creation of the Innovation Network back in 2014. (See this Chalkbeat Indiana article for a full timeline from now until 2028.)

As other commentators and outlets have noted, the latest version of House Bill 1423 still leaves questions unanswered, particularly related to facilities and accountability. For example, many charter advocates hope to see the bill keep charter accountability with authorizers alongside allowing charter schools to retain ownership of their buildings.

I certainly hope those and other grey areas get ironed out in the coming days as the bill moves forward. But as someone who was largely pleased by the more deeply entwined future for IPS/charters that the ILEA mapped out, I’m again largely pleased by what I’m seeing in the bill given it closely mirrors those recommendations.

It’s not perfect, but it is definitely better than continuing the status quo. And certainly not the threat to democracy many critics continue to harp about.

Meanwhile, just days before House Bill 1423 advanced out of committee, the IDOE released the latest public school enrollment data. The release was yet another reminder of why we need structural change.

IPS Enrollment Continues to Decline

IPS enrollment fell by 1,281 students this school year. As Chalkbeat Indiana noted in their coverage (and whose analysis informs the rest of this section), this is the single “greatest drop since losing 2,681 students after the 2019-20 school year.”

Middle school was the red flag last year. This year, it was high school and middle school, with ninth grade showing the heaviest loss at around a 20% reduction over the previous year. I don’t think the high school dip is an accident.

The chaotic roll-out of standalone middle schools as part of Rebuilding Stronger (the mess at Broad Ripple in particular) was a key reason IPS lost so many students last year. I can’t help but think the considerable decline in high school enrollment is a function of many of the families who stuck it out last year now calling it quits rather than continue into high school.

Another thing I find interesting in the IPS-specific trends is that this enrollment decline dramatically increased the proportion of IPS students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Nearly 68% of their students now qualify. Before it was about 59%. That, paired with the overall enrollment loss, means many of the families who left are more affluent than those who remain. Not necessarily rich, but at least rich enough so that their kids don’t qualify for free meals.

As IPS keeps hemmorhaging students, their financial cliff looms ever closer.

How Charter School Enrollment Compares to IPS

In past years, the typical story on enrollment is that IPS loses students and Indianapolis charter schools gain students. It’s a trend that dates back over a decade.

This year, IPS lost about 6% of their total enrollment at direct-run schools. But charter schools (depending on how you slice the data) lost around 3% of their total enrollment, according to Chalkbeat’s analysis (which includes preK but excludes adult charter high schools and virtual charters that aren’t also Innovation Network schools; their analysis also only included charter schools operating outside of IPS boundaries if the majority of the students they enrolled live within IPS boundaries).

As Chalkbeat noted, “enrollment at independent charters dropped by 740 students.” But the drop wasn’t consistent across the charter landscape. In fact, “Innovation Network charters grew by 113 students.”

The drop among independent charters surprised me. Though, as Chalkbeat rightfully noted to contextualize the outcomes for both IPS/charters, “the number of students living in IPS attendance boundaries fell from 49,721 in October 2024 to 48,869 in October 2025.” There’s just less students overall in the geographic area to attend public schools.

Still, this dip in charter enrollment is worth paying attention to, even if it’s nowhere near a trend in the way IPS’ declines clearly are. But it’s important to keep in mind where the landscape is as a whole. I’ve noted it before, I’ll note it again: the majority of public school students who live in IPS boundaries attend a charter school.

And, despite IPS’ changing demographics noted above, charter schools continue to serve more (and a higher proportation of) students of color and low-income students.

The charter sector is not in structural crisis the way IPS is. That’s part of why I find the substance of House Bill 1423 compelling. It can help level up the already-healthy charter school sector and put IPS on a healthier path moving forward. That would be nothing but a boon for enrollment across all types of public school.