For months, the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance (ILEA) has been working to craft a series of proposals regarding the future of Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) and independent charter schools in Indianapolis. Now, they’ve finally put forward a series of options for transportation, facilities, and governance. 

Another meeting in early December will see Alliance members narrow down these options before ultimately voting on final recommendations at a December 17 meeting. In the meantime, numerous advocacy groups representing traditional public schools and charter schools have thrown their hat in the ring to support various possibilities. Here’s what’s on the table for consideration in each area.

School Transportation: New Boss, Same as the Old Boss?

Up first: transportation. Two options were floated here that boil down to:

1. The creation of an advisory board to determine service, transportation/walk zones, and overall transportation logistics. IPS would ultimately run transportation services for all schools, who then pay a fee for transportation services (not unlike the way some Innovation Network Schools currently get transportation services from IPS).
2. The creation of an independent transportation authority. This group would make operational and zoning decisions and provide transportation service to schools directly (funded through property tax dollars).

IPS obviously favors the first. ILEA members appear somewhat split. I lean toward the second because it provides a funding mechanism and makes it much easier to ensure every school provides some amount of transportation for its students by creating a level playing field between IPS and charter schools when it comes to transportation (rather than IPS delivering services for all schools).

School Facilities: Double Trouble

Now for facilities. “Double double, toil and trouble,” as Shakespeare says, because we have twice as many options thrown into the cauldron. 

1. The first option is another advisory board to handle facilities, with schools paying a fee for facility services. This board would also determine accountability policies for closing schools.
2. A second option mirrors transportation by offering an independent facilities authority, once again funded by property tax dollars.
3. Option number three puts IPS in control as the facilities provider. Individual schools would receive property tax dollars for buildings and pay a fee to IPS for use and maintenance.
4. And finally, the Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority could assume ownership of and operations over school facilities. They would in turn receive property tax dollars to fund their efforts.

This is all a bit thornier than transportation as it’s even more intertwined with overall system governance. So let’s skip to my lou, darling (by which I mean, keep going to next part).

School Governance: One “Ring” to Rule Them All?

The trouble keeps bubbling as we move to governance options. Four more here to parse. Then I’ll get into who supports which option, why, and my ultimate take. (Note that I’m taking shortcuts in describing each. For a much deeper dive on the options, see this Chalkbeat article.)

1. Make IPS the sole charter authorizer. Charter schools could appeal a denial to the mayor’s Office of Education Innovation (OEI).
2. Create an advisory board. Members would include appointees from IPS, the mayor’s office, and charter schools. This advisory board is then the ultimate authorizer for all district and charter schools, with power over school openings and closures.
3. Create an Indianapolis Education Authority, led by a secretary of education, overseen by the mayor. This authority would include five mayoral appointees and four elected IPS board members. And the authority would control accountability and transportation policy.
4. Replace the IPS board with a mayor-appointed board. OEI would continue authorizing charter schools. Charter denial appeals would go before the Indiana Charter School Board.

I headlined the section (only a little tongue-in-cheek) the way I did because all four options share something in common: the consolidation of power. Not all fully centralize governance entirely, but they all remove at least some of the octopus arms from the system (perhaps not the best metaphor given that octopuses can regrow lost arms, but you get the point I think). 

Moreover, with the exception of the first option, all significantly reduce the power of the IPS board. That’s become one of the dominant narratives in news coverage and public reaction since the proposals made their way into the wild.

Baked into this reaction for many is the assumption that IPS’ autonomy and control is inherently good. Perhaps it is if what you’re after is a traditional way of delivering public education. That’s separate, though, from a question of whether IPS control over the system is a net positive for kids. Based on the state of the district academically and financially, I’m not sure it is. But let’s set that aside for a moment and consider how different advocacy groups responded to these governance model proposals.

The Triple W: Who Wants What?

Let’s start with the pro-IPS crowd. The Central Indiana Democratic Socialists of America embraced a modified version of Option 1. Their modification? Remove OEI from the equation, leaving IPS as the sole charter authorizer and operator of facilities and transportation for all public schools. That gives charter schools no appeal option. The Indianapolis Education Association put out a statement more or less endorsing Option 1 without any modifications. And the IPS Parent Council also seemed to endorse Option 1 without an explicit call for modifications to it. The IPS Board has yet to issue a formal response.

Now for the pro-charter crowd. Before getting to advocacy groups, I’ll actually start with charter school leaders themselves. One group of seven independent charter leaders issued a letter to the ILEA in which they opposed any plan with a single authorizer. In a separate letter, nine Innovation Network School leaders indicated a hope for the mayor’s office and the Indiana Charter School Board to be the only authorizers allowed within IPS boundaries.

And the advocacy groups? The Mind Trust played it coy, with CEO Brandon Brown telling Chalkbeat Indiana, “Out of respect for the ILEA’s work, we will withhold further judgment until the final recommendations are released.” RISE Indy, rather than respond to a particular proposal, voiced support for “an elected board that oversees academics and an appointed board that oversees facilities and transportation,” according to Chalkbeat. And Stand for Children Indiana didn’t yet have anything new to put out beyond pointing folks back to previous calls they’ve made for improved transportation and a universal accountability framework for all school types.

What’s the Best Way to Govern Public Schools?

I’m not a school governance expert. I’m a blogger and a former educator. So of course take away what you will from me and leave the rest. Beyond my earlier indication that I support an independent transportation authority (and would for facilities too), I don’t have a clear option of the four governance proposals that I think deserves a seal of approval. 

But I am fully aligned with the essence of the Innovation Network School leaders’ letter that called for two authorizers (the mayor’s office and the Indiana Charter School Board) and I am opposed to any plan that consolidates authorizing power solely with the IPS board. That doesn’t mean I think the IPS board needs to be dissolved. But in marrying these systems, I just don’t think it makes sense to hand the authorizing keys to a body who has given every indication they don’t want the charter school cars on the road in the first place. 

Others have floated the idea of consolidating authorizing just in the mayor’s office (that’s largely what Option 4 proposes but in a slightly roundabout way). As long as both authorizers remain rigorous and high quality (and I consider the mayor’s office and the Indiana Charter School Board to be high-quality authorizers) then I think two authorizers is healthy. Meanwhile, I don’t mind seeing Trine cut out and the possibility of new authorizers entering the fray negated.

That probably puts me at something like a hybrid of Option 2 and Option 4. An overall umbrella advisory board akin to the existing OEI board with a mix of appointees (allowing IPS and charters to retain their individual boards), with this board serving as authorizer and setting policy for the landscape, but with a charter appeals process to a separate body like the Indiana Charter School Board.

I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say the ILEA holds the future of IPS and charter schools in its hands. Their recommendations will shape education policy in the upcoming legislative session, which in turn will shape Indianapolis’ education landscape for possibly generations to come. 

The phrase “on tenterhooks” was tailor-made for times like these. I’m on them. The good news is there isn’t much longer to wait now.