Indiana House Bill 1423 (HB 1423) is now being considered by the Indiana Senate after passing through the House. Right before it did, a key amendment brought increased clarity around how the bill could impact school accountability and facilities.

Quick refresher. HB 1423 would create the Indianapolis Public Education Corporation (IPEC). This mayor-appointed body would oversee facilities, transportation, property taxes, and accountability for IPS and charter schools. And it hews closely to the final recommendations handed down by the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance at the end of 2025.

Here’s two things that stood out in this amendment as the legislation is being considered by the Senate (where it could undergo further changes).

A Shared Accountability Framework for IPS and Charters

The amendment notes that the IPEC would collaborate with IPS and charter schools to create “a single school performance framework that applies beginning with the 2028-29 school year” which applies to all participating schools (meaning all IPS schools and charter schools).

The accountability structure would have to include “a process to close chronically low performing participating schools” and “a process to close inefficient school buildings.” A couple caveats to that. The amendment clarifies that school closures must be approved by a charter authorizer (in the case of a charter school) or the IPS board (in the case of a traditional IPS school).

But! If either of those bodies does not approve a closure that is called for under this shared accountability framework, the IPEC can appeal to the state board of education to push through the closure. The state board would have 60 days from appeal to approve or decline closure.

Such a shared accountability framework would put IPS and charters on a new playing field together. I’m all for it. This doesn’t remove responsibility or authority entirely from authorizers and the IPS board. Nor does it leave the IPEC enfeebled. I think it balances power nicely while addressing a longstanding disconnect in how accountability is handled among public schools in Indianapolis.

Charter Schools Can Keep Their Buildings

Meanwhile, another part of the amendment notes, “A participating school that is a charter school may elect to opt out of participation in the management and control of school property by the corporation board.” So, yes, in layman’s terms, charter schools can keep their own buildings. This drew a little controversy. Call me a charter supporting hack if you will, but I also like this part of the amendment because it comes with a meaningful trade off for charter schools.

Those that opt out and choose to keep their facility then give up their ability to receive any money that comes from “a debt service levy under IC 20-46-7” or “a levy imposed under IC 6-1.1-20.” As currently written, the legislation does give charter schools an option that IPS schools would not have but the strings attached balance the scales for me.

The bill’s author, Rep. Bob Behning, explained his thinking in a recent Chalkbeat article by saying, “An opt-out makes absolutely no sense long term. When you opt out as a charter, what you are opting out of is having parity in terms of having debt service of capital project dollars.” In his view, this part of the amendment is important to protect schools where their facility was built with private investment. It’s also an acknowledgement that traditional public school facilities and charter school facilities are not an apples to apples comparison. There’s important nuance in the financing behind them.

Still, it’s rubbed certain folks the wrong way. To Behning’s credit, he indicated plans to nudge the Senate to consider an amendment that gives IPS the same ability to opt out of the facilities portion of the IPEC just like charter schools. I certainly don’t mind if he does. I just hope it comes with the same strings attached that charter schools who keep their facilities face: an inability to access “debt service of capital project dollars.”