SB 358 makes a series of changes to Indiana education law focused on instructional materials, early literacy, and education savings account administration. On the curriculum side, it requires the Department of Education to periodically evaluate and publish a list of high-quality materials in science, technology, engineering, math, and English/language arts, and it adds requirements that publishers provide statewide pricing and data-sharing agreements before approval. The department must also publish an annual report describing the evaluation process, the materials reviewed, and the approved materials.
The bill also strengthens Indiana’s reading and retention framework. It expands requirements for school reading plans to include science-of-reading-aligned instruction, parent notification, progress monitoring, reporting of interventions and costs, and specific requirements for schools where fewer than 70% of students pass the reading evaluation. Those low-performing schools must use approved curriculum, employ a trained instructional coach, use approved assessments, and participate in the Indiana literacy cadre if funding is available. The bill preserves grade 3 retention rules for students who do not pass the reading evaluation, while listing several exemptions and requiring additional reading instruction for exempt students.
In addition, SB 358 makes several changes to the Education Savings Account program. It clarifies who may become an ESA participating entity, requires certain entities with expected payments above $100,000 to show sufficient unencumbered assets, and requires receipts for ESA payments. It also gives the treasurer of state authority to revoke participating entity status for noncompliance, notify families, require repayment of improperly received funds, and seek civil penalties through the attorney general. The bill further bars a parent who is an ESA participating entity and who teaches only that parent’s own child from claiming reimbursement for tuition and fees for that instruction.
The overall sentiment appears generally supportive, as reflected in the strong floor votes in both chambers, including unanimous House passage on third reading and substantial majorities on the conference committee report. At the same time, the narrower Senate and House votes on the conference report suggest some lingering concerns or disagreement over the final negotiated version. The bill’s education accountability and literacy provisions likely drew broad support, while the ESA-related compliance, enforcement, and reimbursement restrictions are the most likely areas of contention.
The main points of contention are likely the retention mandate, the expanded state oversight of curriculum and assessments, and the new ESA restrictions and enforcement tools. Critics may view the reading provisions as increasing state control over local school decisions and imposing additional reporting and staffing burdens, especially on schools with low reading proficiency. Others may object to the ESA provisions as either too restrictive for participating entities or, conversely, not restrictive enough in protecting public funds. Supporters are likely to emphasize literacy improvement, transparency, and stronger accountability for both schools and ESA providers.
SB 358 amends multiple sections of the Indiana Code governing curriculum review, literacy instruction, grade 3 retention, and education savings accounts. It creates new duties for the Department of Education to evaluate and publish approved curricular materials, collect statewide school survey data, and oversee literacy intervention reporting and school improvement requirements. It also adds new compliance, documentation, and enforcement provisions for ESA participating entities, including asset verification, receipt requirements, revocation authority, repayment of improper funds, and civil penalties.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, with strong bipartisan support on final passage and especially in the House. The conference committee version still drew some opposition in both chambers, indicating that while the bill’s literacy and accountability goals were broadly acceptable, some members had reservations about the final balance of state oversight, retention requirements, and ESA regulation. The vote pattern suggests general approval with a modest but persistent minority of dissent.
The most notable contention centers on the grade 3 retention framework and the extent of state-mandated reading interventions, especially for schools with low pass rates. Another likely flashpoint is the ESA section: participating entities face new financial and administrative requirements, and parents who teach only their own children through an ESA entity are barred from reimbursement for tuition and fees. Supporters likely argue these provisions protect students and public funds, while opponents may see them as burdensome, intrusive, or limiting educational choice.