The Indianapolis Local Education Alliance (ILEA) first met in June. They met for a second time at the end of July. And it’s clear from the early goings that multiple different groups representing traditional public schools, charter schools, and Innovation Network Schools, view ILEA as a venue for ongoing advocacy. A lever to pull as we approach what is possibly an even more consequential legislative session in 2026. 

Are the competing visions for the future of public education in Indianapolis now occupying the public square reconcilable? If not, what does it mean for where ILEA is headed the rest of this year?

IPS Parent Coalition Issues List of Demands

Let’s start with the IPS Parent Coalition, a new group formed this year to advocate for traditional public schools within IPS. In advance of ILEA’s most recent meeting, they issued a petition listing a series of demands that ask ILEA to both operate in a certain way and ultimately make a set of particular recommendations.

On the former, they asked that all ILEA meetings remain public (and if not that some level of transparency around private meetings is applied) and that any future ILEA recommendations be grounded in reliable, transparent, and accessible data. 

On the latter, their six requests boiled down to wanting ILEA to formally recommend:

1. A statewide moratorium on new charter school authorizations until 2035 
2. That IPS should retain governance authority over all IPS schools
3. Using school closures as a last resort and, when necessary, meeting a set of criteria to decrease their negative impact of the community
4. Repealing the “dollar law” that allows charter schools to acquire (in certain cases) vacant or unused district buildings for $1 
5. Conducting a review of all current Innovation School partnerships
6. Limiting Innovation School partnerships to five year terms (some currently run as long as 15)

As of initial publication of this piece (July 31), the petition had gathered 179 signatures.

Innovation Leaders Advocate for Increased Facility Control

Meanwhile, leaders representing 20 of the 25 Innovation Network Schools issued an open letter to the ILEA. The letter called for a pathway to transfer ownership of school buildings from IPS to Innovation Network Schools. Their letter noted, “Having complete control over the space where our educators teach, students learn, and families connect would benefit both the district and the city as a whole.” These leaders estimated transferring building ownership could save IPS as much as $37.5 million annually.

The letter also issued a series of three requests in relation to ILEA’s upcoming facilities assessment (something they are expected to complete as part of their normal functioning in the coming months). These included:

1. That the assessment be conducted by subject matter experts who “understand the unique education landscape in our city”
2. That the results of the assessment be made fully public
3. That the report includes “all facts related to facility management” 

How These Groups Illuminate the Shifting Balance of Power in Indianapolis

It’s clear to me that, with the recent legislative session in the rearview, the ILEA is the new battleground for the future of education in Indianapolis. A battleground that, in the eyes of many, is already tilted to favor Innovation Network and charter schools. Does it? Here’s the members of the board:

• Mayor Joe Hogsett
• IPS Superintendent Dr. Aleesia Johnson
• Tina Ahlgren, a teacher at Harshman Middle School (appointed as IPS district-managed school parents) 
• Barato Britt, President/CEO of the Edna Martin Christian Center (appointed by the IPS Board President)
• Maggie A. Lewis, CEO of Boys and Girls Clubs of Indianapolis and a member of the Indianapolis City-County Council (appointed by the Mayor)
• Tobin McClamroch, a local lawyer who also serves on the board of Marian University (appointed by the mayor)
• Andrew Neal, CEO of Outreach Indiana (appointed by IPS Innovation School parents)
• Bart Peterson, former mayor (appointed by the mayor)
• Angela Smith-Jones, associate vice president for state relations at Indiana University (appointed by the mayor)

Certainly, there are folks on the board who have been vocal and steadfast charter school supporters for years. Yet IPS is well-represented. I don’t think it’s fair to assume or claim that the board will overwhelmingly favor charter schools (or, tangentially, Innovation Network Schools) as they continue to meet and ultimately put forth recommendations.

But that’s an aside. What of the actual requests that are so far on the table? For me, it boils down to power. Who has it, who can exercise it. The IPS Parent Coalition demands are an attempt to shift the balance of power back toward IPS and away from charter and Innovation Schools. The Innovation School Leaders seek to gain increased power over their facilities, which would increase their power in the relationship they have to IPS. 

The tension here isn’t a bad thing. Nor is power. What I care about is whether power is exercised for the benefit of students. For example, I am compelled by Innovation Leaders’ rationale for how owning their facilities could benefit their school communities. Then too, I have no pushback to offer regarding certain IPS Parent Coalition demands around IPS’ exercising of its power to hold Innovation schools accountable (though I already think they largely do).

However, I would have a problem with IPS exercising its power in such a way that restricted Innovation Schools’ ability to serve students (for instance, I strongly disagreed when IPS blocked Cold Spring from operating as both an Innovation Network School and an independent charter school). 

What I think so many traditional public school advocates are reacting to right now is that the power balance in our education ecosystem is continuing to shift away from unipolarity (where traditional districts dominate) toward multipolarity (where there’s an interplay between traditional districts, charter schools, and Innovation Schools) . ILEA’s work is the next frontier in this. Their recommendations could accelerate that shift, slow it down, or even reverse it.  

The shift, for me, isn’t in and of itself a bad thing. What matters is whether or not, on the whole, the shift is benefiting the kids we all say we care about. I would say it has so far. And it can continue to be true moving forward.