The city of Indianapolis is at the heart of a major education battle that has sparked debates across the state of Indiana. Under a dramatic new proposal, the Indianapolis Public School (IPS) system, along with four other districts, faces the possibility of being dissolved by 2028. If enacted, this would effectively convert all 50 schools within IPS—including others in similarly struggling districts—into charter schools overseen by panels appointed by state and local officials. This unprecedented legislation has ignited a firestorm of reactions, splitting opinions on whether such drastic measures could help tackle long-standing issues in the public school system or risk dismantling it altogether.
The bill, introduced earlier this month, sheds light on a pressing issue many cities across the United States face: how to equitably distribute state and local tax funding between traditional public schools, whose enrollments have been declining, and the growing number of charter schools. Districts like Indianapolis, where fewer than half of students attend traditional schools, have become a focal point in this funding tug-of-war. In recent years, as thousands of students have transferred to charter or private schools, the viability of traditional public schools has been called into question.
### The Numbers Behind the Debate
The statistics driving this conversation are stark. Today, less than 40% of school-age children living in Indianapolis attend IPS-operated schools. In just one year, enrollment in the district dropped by more than 900 students, bringing the total down to roughly 20,000. Meanwhile, nearly 27,000 students in the city are enrolled in charter schools or Innovation Schools, a unique hybrid model supported by IPS but independently operated.
Money is a key concern here. A study conducted in 2023 found notable funding disparities between IPS and charter schools. Indianapolis Public Schools, supported by local property taxes, spends approximately $18,500 per student annually—compared to roughly $10,600 per student for charter schools. Critics of the current system argue that this creates an unequal playing field, particularly for parents whose children attend charters but still pay property taxes largely channeled to IPS.
State Representative Robert Behning, chair of the House Education Committee, acknowledged that the bill, as designed, may push boundaries but believes it brings critical issues to the surface. “Status quo is not okay,” he stated. “This is actually encouraging some districts to come up with strategies that could improve academic success for all students.” Bill author Jake Teshka, a Republican from South Bend, echoed this sentiment, arguing that new solutions are needed for districts struggling to meet the needs of their students under current governance systems.
### Controversy on All Sides
While proponents view this proposal as a wake-up call for reform, the bill has drawn considerable backlash from a variety of voices. Critics see it as an overreach that undermines local control and could exacerbate problems, rather than solve them.
The Indianapolis school board strongly opposes the legislation, arguing that it threatens local authority over public education. “This bill undermines the concept of community control,” they said in a public statement. Similarly, the Indiana State Teachers Association has expressed deep concerns about targeting school districts based solely on the number of student transfers. Addressing the proposed closures, their president, Keith Gambill, stated, “Rather than supporting schools and addressing critical issues like poverty and underfunding, House Bill 1136 unfairly penalizes districts.”
Even within the national charter school community, normally advocates of school-choice policies, reactions have been mixed. Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, voiced strong reservations about dismantling an entire school district so quickly. “It’s a bad idea for several reasons,” he said, though he acknowledged policies could encourage under-enrolled schools to close.
Petrilli also cautioned against a potential backlash: “Proposals like these give ammunition to opponents who argue that charters are out to destroy traditional public education. That’s not what the vast majority of charter leaders and educators want. We want public schools to respond to competition and get better.” On the other hand, Robert Enlow, president and CEO of the national organization EDChoice, argued the bill appropriately addresses what he calls a “monopoly” traditional public schools have on property taxes, even as they serve fewer students.
### Suggestions for Sharing Resources
The issue of resource allocation has prompted varied ideas for compromise. Advocates like Scott Bess, founder of the Indiana Charter Innovation Center and a state education board member, believe new mechanisms are needed to share local property taxes, transportation, and school facilities with charter schools. Bess pointed to existing legislation—passed in 2023—that requires public school districts to share incremental gains in property tax revenues with charters. These gains are calculated based on the percentage of students residing in the district but attending charters.
Bess also proposed creating a regional board to manage all public schools—district, charter, or private—in a shared governance model. This board would oversee resources like bus transportation and building utilization to ensure they are distributed based on student needs, not bureaucratic lines. “This could work similarly to states with countywide school districts that integrate resource distribution,” he explained. Still, he acknowledged the complexity of such a plan, saying, “This is why no one has solved this issue across the country. It’s really complicated.”
Similarly, former Indianapolis mayors Bart Peterson and Greg Ballard have joined a coalition of local leaders urging IPS to share resources with charters. In a public letter, they called on the district to redistribute facilities, tax revenue, and transportation to better support students across all types of public schools. Maggie Lewis, majority leader of the Indianapolis City-County Council, signed the letter but criticized the state’s top-down approach, instead advocating for a local solution that involves the IPS school board.
### What’s Next?
The Indianapolis public education ecosystem has long been viewed as an incubator for innovation, especially with the creation of Innovation Schools combining elements of traditional schools and charters. However, this latest debate throws a wrench into its future. A potential legislated dissolution would be a seismic shift, not just for education in Indiana but for public schools across the United States. Experts suggest that any substantial restructuring must be carried out with care to avoid chaos and unintended consequences.
Critics worry about the haste with which the bill could be implemented. Developing successful school ecosystems—whether charter or district-run—takes time, resources, and collaboration. A phased approach, rather than abrupt closures, might have better chances of yielding positive long-term outcomes.
In the meantime, the city’s parents, teachers, and stakeholders are left grappling with the unknown. For those in favor of reshaping the status quo, the bill represents an opportunity to level the playing field for charters and public schools alike. For those opposed, it embodies the threat of losing community oversight and deepening inequities in the name of reform.
One thing is clear: As Indianapolis navigates this crossroads, its decisions have the potential to set a precedent that could ripple far beyond city and state borders, reshaping the future of urban education in America. Whether this legislation succeeds or stalls, it has effectively made one thing impossible to ignore—education reform is urgently needed, and the conversation is far from over.
