What’s our priority as education professionals, leaders, and advocates? Is it supporting students? Or supporting systems? And are those always mutually-exclusive? 

Those were a few of the questions ping-pong-balling around my dome after reading about Indianapolis Public Schools’ (IPS) rejection of Cold Spring’s bid to operate as both an Innovation Network School and a charter school. 

Some Background on Cold Spring 

Cold Spring is a K-8 school on the westside of Indianapolis with a focus on STEM and environmental science. It was one of the first schools to join IPS’ Innovation Network back in 2016. The Innovation Network is a collection of schools that operate as something of a district-charter hybrid. For example, while afforded more autonomy over curriculum, programming, and staffing, schools in the Innovation Network typically receive some combination of special education, food, transportation, and English as a second language services. 

Many of these schools are both independent charter schools and part of the Innovation Network. Others, like Cold Spring, were IPS schools first and did not also become an independent charter school when they switched from being a traditional district school to an Innovation Network School.

A few months ago, Cold Spring submitted a charter application to the Indiana Charter School Board so they could operate simultaneously as an independent charter school and an Innovation Network School. It was unanimously approved, with Cold Spring receiving a 15-year charter agreement. 

But, under the terms of their Innovation agreement with IPS (which currently has two years remaining before Cold Spring is up for renewal), Cold Spring needed approval from IPS to begin operating as a charter school (while, remember, still being an Innovation Network School).

And IPS said no. 

Why Did Cold Spring Apply for a Charter?

Cold Spring’s leadership applied for a charter because they saw an opportunity to enhance student opportunities. Operating as both a charter school and an Innovation Network School would have unlocked around $400,000 in additional funding per year, according to Cold Spring’s calculations. 

Their plans for that money? A K-8 foreign language teacher, a second middle school math teacher, and a school resource officer, among other supports for students.

This was not a fly-by-night decision on Cold Spring’s part. Months of conversation (dating back to February 2024) with IPS leadership led to them even applying for a charter in the first place. Conversations that, by the way, led Cold Spring to think approval was a foregone conclusion. 

And it likely would have been in a different political environment. Because it’s hard to argue with the value-add the move would have had for Cold Spring students. 

Why IPS Declined Cold Spring’s Ability to Operate as a Charter

IPS said no for two reasons.

1. The uncertain impact of recent statewide policy changes
2. An internal policy to limit charter school growth in the district

The first I find flimsy. After all, Cold Spring’s shift would likely have saved the district money overall. And while it would technically have grown the charter school sector by one school, IPS wouldn’t have lost enrollment from the decision.

The second, while disagreeable to me, is at least ideologically consistent with the IPS board’s statements over the past year. But that doesn’t mean it’s good for kids.

Ultimately, it’s hard for me to see this as anything but a political decision meant to protect a system rather than support students. Consider a few more things:

• Cold Spring had overwhelming support from their parents for this transition. The school’s families wanted the school to continue partnering with IPS, which it would have regardless of their charter status. They also saw how the switch to charter could benefit their students. 
• The IPS board issued their decision by email to Cold Spring on June 23 rather than put it to a public vote during a board meeting. While well within their rights, it reduced transparency and removed family agency from the equation. For example, Cold Spring families who attended and left supportive public comments at IPS’ board meeting on June 26 were too little too late.

At that June 26 board meeting, IPS Board President Angelia Moore explained the decision by saying it fits with IPS’ “guiding principles.” 

I don’t doubt that. But those principles, in this case, prioritized a system rather than prioritizing students. What’s disappointing is that IPS had nothing to lose. Nothing, perhaps, except for a few political points.