There’s a Benjamin Gibbard lyric that goes “It’s been a basement of a year / And all I want is for you to disappear.” I’ve caught myself humming it these past days just as I have toward the end of the last few recent years. Basements all of them for one political or geopolitical reason or another.

But in Indianapolis, the sun may be rising on a new day for education. One not trapped in a basement of competition and underperformance. Though I guess whether or not you like the light that’s about to shine has a good deal to do with where you’re standing.

Which is all my typically-odd way of easing into telling you about the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance’s (ILEA) final recommendations about the future of Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) and charter schools across our city.

Numerous outlets have already covered these recommendations in great detail. I’ll offer a quick primer as well. But I really want to focus on clearing up a few misconceptions already permeating about the public square about what these recommendations are.

From there, I’ll look at who stands to gain the most from these recommendations, a potential split among IPS leadership, and what the heck IPS is doing in trying to become a charter school authorizer.

What are the ILEA’s Final Recommendations?

The ILEA passed their final recommendations in an 8-1 vote (you can view the ILEA’s official powerpoint deck with the recommendations included here). The most curious thing about the vote is not the sole dissenting voice (from IPS teacher Tina Ahlgren). It’s the fact that IPS Superintendent Johnson, after previously voting against advancing recommendations from the prior round, now voted in support of the final recommendations. We’ll unpack more there in a moment.

But focus here: the headline recommendation is for the creation of an Indianapolis Public Education Corporation (IPEC). The corporation would include nine members, three from the IPS board, three from among the pool of current Indianapolis charter school leaders, and three at-large. All would have to reside within IPS boundaries and all would be appointed by the mayor.

The corporation’s powers would include:

• Managing IPS buildings and transportation services with its own operations staff
• Levying property taxes to support both charter and IPS schools
• Creating a new framework for school accountability applicable to both IPS and charter schools
• Operating a unified enrollment system for all public schools in IPS boundaries

A few smaller, yet important recommendations accompanied this larger one about the creation of the IPEC. These included:

• An exemption for IPS from the “$1 law”
• Limiting charter school authorizers within Indianapolis to the Mayor’s Office of Education Innovation (OEI) and the Indiana Charter School Board (ICSB); meanwhile, the ILEA left the door open for IPS to pursue approval to operate as a third authorizer
• Full special education funding for all public schools within IPS boundaries

No, the IPS Board’s Power is Not Dead

Note these lines from the ILEA’s slideshow: “With the exception of the responsibilities assumed by the Corporation for facilities, transportation, and uniform accountability standards, the Board of School Commissioners for Indianapolis Public Schools will continue to provide direction for the operation of all direct-run schools, as is currently the case…. The IPS Board of School Commissioners will continue in its current form with the current model of election of Board members.”

Now, in contrast, consider the lead framing from Chalkbeat Indiana’s first piece following the vote: “…a state-backed task force has told lawmakers they should establish a new agency to oversee both the city school district and charter schools.” The outlet doubled down on that unified governance framing with its even more in-depth piece that followed, saying the ILEA “recommend[ed] that a mayoral-appointed board oversee a new agency in charge of both city school district and charter schools.”

It’s not quite right to say the IPEC is in “charge” of IPS and charters. It would take on a handful of key responsibilities. The management of transportation and facilities and the creation of a unified accountability framework. That’s not nothing. But it leaves the IPS board and individual charter school boards intact. Importantly, it leaves them intact with a lot of power and influence. Consider the powers remaining to the IPS board under these recommendations:

• They would remain a 7-member elected body
• They would set district policy and strategic direction
• They would approve budgets and contracts
• They would hire and evaluate the superintendent

Democracy is not, it turns out, dead. This recommendation does not create a “new agency” that governs both IPS schools and charter schools. The IPS board is not suddenly neutered and ineffectual should these recommendations become reality.

Yes, the IPEC would take over responsibility for transportation and facilities. But the elected IPS board remains in control of what I would argue are the core responsibilities of educating students (which make them the very same voters ostensible care most about).

For me, whether or not IPS controls transportation and facilities for itself and charter schools is meaningless to the business of educating students.

What is meaningful is whether or not transportation is handled effectively and efficiently and facilities are in quality condition and support student learning. That needs to happen. Does it need to happen under the purview of an elected board? No, not for me.

Which isn’t to say democracy is out of the picture on transportation and facilities either. After all, under these recommendations, the mayor would appoint the IPEC members, three of whom have to hail from the IPS board.

Amid the Fierce Community Pushback, Students of Color Stand to Gain the Most

There’s been enormous pushback to parts of the ILEA’s work. Indeed, local media coverage after the final vote pivoted quickly from the content of the recommendations to the ongoing fight traditional public school advocates aim to continue once the legislative session is in full swing come January.

One of the fiercest opposition forces has been the Central Indiana Democratic Socialists of America (Central Indiana DSA), whose members have repeatedly shown up to ILEA meetings to give public comment.

For as much noise as they have made, plenty of other folks have come out to ILEA meetings to express their support for the ILEA’s work to create a more collaborative and unified system between IPS and charter schools.

What I’m about to say is not backed by empirical evidence. But it is what my eyes have seen and ears have heard. My read is that many of the loudest voices opposing these recommendations happen to be white progressives while many of the people happiest about the direction the ILEA has recommended are Black and Latino voices. I know it’s not 100% in either direction. For example, the local NAACP and the Indianapolis Urban League were notably in opposition to the ILEA’s final recommendations.

But here’s what is empirical. Today, there are more Black and Latino students attending public charter schools in Indianapolis than Black and Latino students attending district-run IPS schools. In addition, charter schools serve more low-income students than district-run IPS schools. Those stats are true for both proportion (meaning percent of overall enrollment) and raw numbers.

A system where 1) all public schools are held to the same accountability framework, 2) all public schools provide transportation, and 3) all public schools can access facilities on an equitable basis, is, for me, a system that is poised to serve Black and Latino families better than our current one. That’s the kind of system I see in these final recommendations.

Indeed, for as much as I think charter students stand to gain from all this, I think IPS students (the majority of whom are also still Black, Latino, or low-income) stand to gain as well from the kind of system being proposed here.

Is There a Looming Split Between Superintendent Johnson and the IPS Board?

Remember that 8-1 vote? With IPS Superintendent Johnson voting in favor of the final recommendations? She released this statement the day after the vote about why she made that decision.

Meanwhile, at least three IPS board members (Allissa Impink, Nicole Carey, and Gayle Cosby) joined the Central Indiana DSA press conference (held jointly with the Indianapolis Education Association teachers union) right before the vote. Said press conference seemed to be in full opposition to the recommendations the ILEA was poised to vote on.

It seems the IPS Superintendent and the IPS Board may not be in lockstep as we enter a deeply consequential legislative session.

Why is IPS Trying to Become a Charter Authorizer?

This is perhaps the most baffling thing to emerge in the final days leading up to the ILEA vote. The IPS Board announced it has started the process to become an authorizer.

State law allows for this. But I’m old enough to remember when the IPS board was very loud about wanting a charter school moratorium. Becoming a charter school authorizer is practically the opposite of pursuing a moratorium.

Why would any charter school leader in their right mind consider applying for a charter through IPS? And why is IPS going down this road?

The first question is self-explanatory to me. I really don’t think any leader will seriously consider IPS as an authorizer should the possibility become available. The ILEA recommended leaving OEI and the ICSB as authorizers. Both are high-quality and authorize the vast majority of charter schools in Indianapolis already (the couple schools authorizer by Trine would have to find new authorizers come renewal time under the ILEA’s recommendations).

The second is more obscure. One way to read it is as a play to bring Innovation Schools under greater district control. While most Innovation Schools also have their own charter, I can imagine a future where IPS expects Innovation Schools to seek authorization through them or they pull the plug on Innovation renewal.

Here’s What Comes Next

Of course, for all the endless discourse these recommendations are already producing, they are not set in stone. The legislature now must take them up and produce bills that put them into action. The exact shape of those bills is to be determined. They may reflect the recommendations wholesale or they may add their own spin to what the ILEA advanced.

But the 8-1 vote offers a clear mandate from the very body the legislature created to figure this out. If 2025 was a basement of a year in many ways politically, maybe we can at least rise to the ground floor in 2026. I certainly believe the ILEA offers the bones of something better for the students who attend IPS and charter schools.

Time to put some muscle on the skeleton. Your move, legislature.