State of Our Schools: School Governance in Central Indianapolis
The State of Our Schools series explores several of the major systemic issues facing public schools within and near Indianapolis Public School (IPS) boundaries. Over 60% of IPS-area public school students attend charter or innovation network schools, and that percentage continues to increase each year. Conversely, the district faces deepening enrollment and financial challenges, raising questions about its sustainability.
The Indianapolis Local Education Alliance (ILEA) marks a once-in-a-generation moment to reimagine education for 46,000 Central Indianapolis public school students and forge a sustainable system. As the ILEA meets to form recommendations to help solve these issues, this series outlines challenges that their proposals should address and presents a range of potential solutions that should be considered. Read our blog on transportation and facility management.
Most schools in central Indianapolis operate under a highly decentralized structure. The growth of school options has created more opportunities for students, and it also presents opportunities to rethink school and system governance so that all students can excel.
What is school governance?
School governance involves the body responsible for making decisions at the school level, including resource allocation, staffing, and policies. Within IPS boundaries, different types of schools, such as IPS-operated, public charter, and innovation network schools, operate under distinct governance structures, which may include a central district office or a nonprofit board of directors.
What is system governance?
System governance refers to the body responsible for financial management, accountability, facilities, and overall resource allocation across a system of schools.
Current Challenge: Fragmented School Governance
Indianapolis has four different types of public school governance within IPS boundaries. All of these schools (with the exception of IPS’ selective-admission schools for gifted and dual-language students) are free to attend, open to any student, and must enroll any student:
- IPS-operated schools: Fully controlled by the IPS Board and Superintendent.
- Innovation network schools (non-charter): IPS-affiliated schools with contractual autonomy over staffing, pay, and curriculum that are overseen by nonprofit boards and accountable to the IPS Board.
- Innovation network charter schools: IPS-affiliated schools with autonomy over staffing, pay, and curriculum that are overseen by nonprofit boards and accountable to a charter authorizer.
- Independent charter schools: Authorized by the Mayor’s Office, Indiana Charter School Board, or universities, and overseen by nonprofit boards. No affiliation with IPS.
This multi-layered governance creates different levels of accountability, oversight, and system strategy. For example, while IPS schools may continue operating despite low performance, charter schools face stricter closure requirements. In contrast to IPS-operated schools, charter and innovation schools receive annual accountability reports from their authorizers and must meet renewal criteria to continue operating. Additionally, not all schools are mandated to participate in unified enrollment, potentially making access unbalanced and confusing for families.
Multiple external studies show that Indianapolis schools with nonprofit governance, as seen in public charter and innovation network schools, consistently achieve stronger academic results and reduce achievement gaps, particularly for students of color and low-income students.
Current Challenge: System-Level Governance Issues
IPS’ Board of Commissioners is locally elected and holds authority over IPS-operated schools and some innovation schools. Three independent authorizers retain the power to approve or close charter and most innovation schools, leading to different accountability standards.
While decentralization is important to ensure one bad actor does not control the entire system, Indianapolis’ current system makes standard accountability measures and coordinated system-level strategies more complicated to execute with fidelity.
ILEA members could have three primary system governance pathways to consider:
- Full Mayoral Control: The Mayor appoints all members of the IPS board and all public schools operate under its authority. Could risk instability if a future mayor or board impedes progress.
- Hybrid Governance: The IPS board is made up of mayoral-appointed and elected seats. At least two authorizers continue to independently authorize charter schools. Common systems for enrollment and accountability are implemented across system governance types.
- Status Quo (Decentralized): Maintain the current system governance structure of an elected IPS board and several charter authorizers with no common accountability system.
Why would the ILEA consider school and system governance changes?
Enrollment data from the 2025-2026 school year shows that 61% of students attending public schools within or near IPS boundaries are attending public charter and innovation network schools, which are not directly managed by IPS. This percentage has steadily grown over the last few school years. In the 2019-2020 school year, 51% of IPS boundary public school students attended a charter or innovation network school.
House Enrolled Act 1515, passed in the 2025 legislative session, requires the ILEA to design a facilities and transportation plan and also provides the option to recommend a governance structure for a collaborative school system. By including system governance solutions as an area for exploration, Indiana’s lawmakers provided local education stakeholders with an opportunity to consider how our systems of schools can be more collaborative and efficient, while also improving quality and access for all students. The ILEA should consider how political shifts and family demand for educational models impact their recommendations.
How have other cities tried to address school and system governance challenges?
Cities around the country take different approaches to school system governance: from mayoral control in cities like New York City and Chicago, to state control in post-Katrina New Orleans and Newark, to locally-elected boards like Denver and Indianapolis. Each model offers different trade-offs. Mayoral and state control can drive rapid improvement, but risk community disengagement. Locally elected boards may foster trust, but often lack stability or sustained results.
Indianapolis stands at a crossroads. Maintaining the status quo will likely lead to insolvency for IPS by 2027, as shown by their own financial projections. A sustainable school and system governance solution will ensure stability for students and families. Most importantly, it can help turn more focus to increasing academic achievement and ensure every student has access to a school that best meets their needs.
While there is no perfect model, Indianapolis can learn from peer cities to design a governance system that drives continuous improvement and better outcomes for students while respecting local context and civic engagement.