House Bill 1423’s passage officially established the Indianapolis Public Education Corporation (IPEC). Cue much cheering among charter school advocates and much wringing of hands from traditional public school advocates.

I’ve been clear before that I resist framing IPEC’s upcoming work as the “death of democracy” because of how it shifts power between Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) and charter schools. But change inevitably engenders anxiety and many fear that the IPEC is, in one way or another, a pivotal moment that will accelerate IPS’ decline rather than bolster its ability to educate students.

I take these fears seriously, as anyone cheering HB 1423’s passage should. It’s not a moment for charter school advocates to rest on an ostensible victory. It’s a moment to leverage in building momentum toward the creation of a shared, common future for all types of public schools in Indianapolis.

Does the IPEC “Dismantle” IPS?

I’ve seen some worry following the passage of HB 1423 that it’s the beginning of a spiral into the abyss for IPS. Perhaps a long, slow, drawn-out spiral. But a death spiral all the same. I don’t see it that way. As I’ve written before, there’s no doubt the IPEC’s existence fundamentally changes how IPS operates. For example, the IPS Board will no longer manage facilities or transportation for their schools.

I get why that matters to people. Neither, for the most part, will charter schools. I get why that matters to some charter school leaders.

Yet one of the biggest worries I’ve seen expressed is that the IPEC somehow diminishes democracy by devaluing the voices of those who live in IPS. The IPS board (and individual charter school boards) remains intact. Its powers are changing, but they retain the powers I believe are most central to a school board’s functioning. Principally: academics, budgeting, and hiring the superintendent.

I don’t live in IPS boundaries so I can’t vote for any of the commissioners. I do happily vote in all the elections available to me, including for local school board candidates. I can honestly say I’ve never thought about voting for a school board member because I expected them to make the buses run on time. I do vote for school board members on the basis of whether or not they will make academic and leadership hiring decisions that I support.

What About the Referendum IPS Needs?

I’ve covered IPS’ dire financial straits before. I’m hardly the only one. It’s been central to much of the conversation around the IPEC legislation, especially from supportive voices who see this legislation as key to steadying the slowly sinking IPS ship. I’m firmly in that camp.

And again, while I get the consternation in some corners around the IPS board no longer directly controlling referendums, in no world does the IPEC want IPS to flounder and eventually go under. That would destroy the IPEC’s long-term viability and make this round of structural reforms forever a cautionary tale to other major metropolitan areas.

The IPEC has a vested interest in the success of both IPS and charter schools under their framework. So they will pursue a referendum this calendar year to solidify IPS’ financial standing, I have no doubt. What’s more, IPS has a new set of allies for an upcoming referendum: charter schools. And all their families, educators, and supporters.

I think the viability of a referendum, especially one that is big enough to safeguard IPS’ financial future, is higher with the IPEC at the helm. Whether or not it passes also remains entirely up to the same pool of voters that a referendum advanced by the IPS board would be.

There’s one last point I want to make here. IPS’ immediate financial situation is not the result of property tax sharing with charter schools. That doesn’t kick in until 2028. Yes, there are increased financial pressures looming ahead for the district. But being in the red today has nothing to do with recent reforms to public school funding mechanisms that will be implemented in the near future.

But Does the IPEC Unfairly Favor Charters Over IPS?

The sentiment that the IPEC will unfairly favor charter schools seems to be pervasive among traditional public school advocates. It even became the dominant frame in coverage from Chalkbeat Indiana.

That Chalkbeat piece focused on the IPEC’s remit to “create a process to close ‘inefficient’ school buildings based on underutilized capacity.” The article notes at least eight IPS schools are under 50% utilization compared to at least four charter schools based on 2024-25 enrollment data. So under the hypothetical scenario where the IPEC puts all schools with a utilization rate of 50% or less on the docket for closure, yes, IPS would be impacted more than charter schools.

But if we’re applying an equal, fair standard across all public school types, that doesn’t mean charters are being unfairly preferenced. It means they are meeting the standard more frequently than IPS schools.

Again, this is all hypothetical for now. But to claim, before the IPEC board is appointed or their work has begun, that charters are in an unfair position from the jump only taints the public discourse.

So, About that Death Knell?

Regarding the IPEC’s work, the devil, as they say, will be in the details. How it all will play out is sufficiently ambiguous. Ambiguity can beget worry. But the establishment of the IPEC is not ipso facto the death knell of IPS.

Indeed, a future where IPS is stronger, where charter schools are stronger, and where both sectors work in greater concert, is possible. It is not guaranteed. Of course not. But I believe it is more likely in the wake of the IPEC’s creation than without it.