In recent years — and again this session — the Republican supermajority has pushed legislation that rewrites how certain local school systems are governed, and in some cases dictates whether some can exist at all.
The shift has fueled growing debate at the Statehouse over where state oversight ends and local control begins.
Indiana lawmakers eliminated direct state takeovers of underperforming public schools in 2021, moving away from an era when the State Board of Education could install outside managers or strip authority entirely from elected boards based on academic performance.
Instead, the state now largely relies on increased public reporting, data dashboards and a revised accountability framework that’s slated to take effect later this year.
Even so, lawmakers are still seeking to address financial strain, enrollment declines and operational challenges through district-specific legislation. Critics say the proposals bypass existing tools and reshape governance structures in ways that reduce or eliminate direct voter oversight of public schools.
The latest example is House Bill 1423, which would create a new, state-authorized governance entity to oversee transportation and facilities for Indianapolis Public Schools and charter schools operating in the city.
The bill already passed the House and is now making its way through the Senate. Committee discussions have drawn hours of public testimony and debate over whether lawmakers are exerting too much control over public education.
Bill author Rep. Bob Behning, R-Indianapolis, emphasized that his proposal wouldn’t dissolve IPS or its elected board and that elected members school board commissioners “will continue to provide the direction of operation of all district-run schools,” like they do already.
He said the bill is primarily intended to address access — not governance — especially for families navigating charter school options without reliable transportation.
“I personally believe that choice is only a choice if you can figure out how to get there,” Behning said.
And while a separate proposal targeting South Bend collapsed earlier this session, opponents continue to worry that lawmakers are increasingly turning to outright governance changes for struggling districts — removing or reducing authority from locally elected boards in the process.
“I think we’re setting a precedent for the whole state of Indiana that the General Assembly, that if you don’t like your school district, tomorrow it will be Richmond, Indiana. It will be Evansville, it will be Fort Wayne,” said Sen. Fady Qaddoura, D-Indianapolis. “I think this is a dangerous precedent.”
A growing legislative footprint
Indiana’s retreat from formal school takeovers followed years of controversy surrounding state interventions in Gary and Muncie, where lawmakers in 2017 stripped locally elected boards of key powers and installed outside managers to stabilize districts facing severe financial distress.
Those moves sparked protests and lawsuits but were defended by state leaders as necessary to prevent collapse.
Since then, however, lawmakers have preferred one-off legislation to address perceived failures in individual districts.
During the 2025 session, for example, the General Assembly voted to dissolve the Union School Corporation by 2027. State legislators later said they put Union on the chopping block because of poor performance.
The elimination language was tucked into a sweeping property tax overhaul and adopted with no warning or public debate.
The move ordered the closure of the district’s in-person schools and will force roughly 300 students to attend neighboring districts miles away.
Those recent legislative steps have shaped how lawmakers and advocates now view the IPS proposal — either as a narrowly tailored solution or as another move toward state-directed governance.
The bill would create the Indianapolis Public Education Corporation, a mayor-led municipal entity charged with overseeing transportation and facilities for both traditional public schools and charter schools in Indianapolis. Its board would be appointed, not elected, with seats designated for charter leaders, IPS representatives and individuals with professional expertise.
Supporters say the proposal reflects months of collaboration through the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance, a panel convened to study the district’s long-term sustainability amid declining enrollment and rising costs — and that it stops short of a state takeover.
House Speaker Rep. Todd Huston, R-Fishers, said the legislation followed months of local discussion and formal recommendations.
“I’m a strong supporter of strong, stable IPS,” he said. “I think this new governance model and the cooperation between the mayor and the board and other schools, I think is a way to make sure that we have a strong IPS.”
The House speaker maintained that lawmakers intentionally followed that panel’s guidance and said he was “super impressed” by the process used by Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett and IPS Superintendent Aleesia Johnson.
He emphasized, too, that lawmakers have continued to consult stakeholders as the bill moves forward.
“We’ve tried to stay with the recommendations — 8-1 recommendations of the committee — and we continue to have those conversations with all the parties,” Huston said.
A new model, or an ‘unelected takeover’?
But opponents argue the bill effectively shifts power away from an elected school board and concentrates it in an appointed body with limited public accountability.
Democratic lawmakers have repeatedly warned that the legislation weakens local representation and sets a precedent for legislative interference in district governance.
Rep. Cherrish Pryor, D-Indianapolis, criticized the proposal as removing public accountability and said the bill “takes decision-making away from people who are elected by voters and replaces it with people who are not.”
She added that the legislation treats Indianapolis differently from other communities and tells Indianapolis “that their voice matters less.”
“It’s not clear whether or not that body can actually have power or supersede the power of that elected school board,” Pryor said. “What’s the purpose of having an elected school board if you’re going to bring in another authority that might be able to have power over that body that was elected by the people?”
“If we really want to help IPS, let’s give them the funding that they need and stop picking on IPS and changing the goal post year after year after year,” she added. “I just think this is a horrible bill.”
The House ultimately approved the bill 68-30 along party lines, sending it to the Senate.
Behning argued the measure is designed to avoid more severe intervention down the road. “They’re heading toward a fiscal cliff,” he said of IPS. “We don’t want to be taking over another school district. We’ve got to find resolution to that.”
Debate resumed last week in the Senate Education and Career Development Committee, where supporters again framed the proposal as a pragmatic response to Indianapolis’ size and complexity — particularly around families’ access to transportation.
Parents and advocates testified that inconsistent or unavailable bussing has limited families’ school choices and contributed to inequities between traditional and charter schools.
“When buses are unreliable or buildings are not properly maintained, families are left with limited choices. Parents ask for help, they wait for improvements, and they hope the system will respond,” said Ada Lemus, an IPS parent supporting the bill. “House Bill 1423 is about accountability and access. It’s about ensuring students can get to school safely and learn in buildings that support their success.”
Critics, however, questioned why lawmakers were pursuing a new governance structure rather than relying on existing accountability laws or allowing the district to resolve issues internally.
House Bill 1423 is about accountability and access. It's about ensuring students can get to school safely and learn in buildings that support their success.Ada Lemus, an Indianapolis Public Schools parent
Several speakers argued the bill creates a parallel intervention system driven by legislative judgment rather than academic benchmarks or voter input.
Sen. Andrea Hunley, D-Indianapolis, a former school principal, warned that the proposal risks destabilizing communities already coping with school closures and enrollment losses.
“When I read this 115-page bill, it feels to me like we’re creating a school district,” Hunley said. “This is a very complicated way to create a governance structure that, right now, we call a school board.”
The committee has not yet taken action on the bill, but amendments and a vote to advance it to the full Senate could come as soon as this week.
Senate President Pro Tem Rod Bray, R-Martinsville, acknowledged concerns but said Indianapolis presents unique challenges.
“IPS in Marion County is a much bigger system — sometimes, maybe, some people think that has to be dealt with differently,” Bray said.
He emphasized that discussions around IPS began months before the session and were aimed at improving both financial stability and student outcomes.
“They’re just trying something they think will be very helpful,” Bray said.
South Bend bill withdrawn, but debate lingers
Tension surrounding appointed governance was also on display earlier this session with Senate Bill 248, a proposal that would have replaced the elected school board of the South Bend Community School Corporation with an appointed governing body selected through a process involving the Indiana secretary of education.
Authored by Sen. Linda Rogers, R-Granger, the bill applied only to South Bend.
Rogers told the Senate Education Committee that the district faced declining enrollment, underutilized buildings and facilities, academic performance “well below the state and community averages,” as well as financial instability and high chronic absenteeism.
“There are two out of five students who are chronically absent,” Rogers said. “That’s a problem.”
She also pointed to public disclosures that some 2,500 student grades had been manipulated across district high schools in recent years, as well as ongoing State Board of Accounts investigations into financial wrongdoing.
“I don’t look at this as a government takeover,” Rogers said. “All school board meetings are public … all the financial data is public information … and all the academic information is public.”
The bill drew intense opposition.
“This bill is an overreach and premature in timing,” said Terry Spradlin, executive director of the Indiana School Boards Association, adding that school boards and local voters “should maintain the authority to change the local reorganization plan, including the composition of the board.”
Jeanette McCullough, the at-large president of the South Bend Community School Corporation and an ISBA board member, warned that Rogers’ proposal would strip residents of their ability to hold school leaders accountable.
“Public schools are funded by the public, serve the public and should be governed by representatives chosen by the public,” McCullough said. “An appointed board removes that direct accountability.”
“Advisory boards can be ignored,” she continued. “Elected boards cannot.”
Rachel Burke with the Indiana Parent and Teacher Association called the proposal “absolutely a governmental takeover of schools” and argued that it would strip the community of its voting rights.
“This is a fundamental principle of what we are as a country,” she said.
Rogers ultimately withheld the bill from a vote.
“After hearing the testimony this week, I agree that this is not the right solution at this time,” she said in a written statement, adding that she plans to continue working with local stakeholders to address the district’s challenges. “I am dedicated to ensuring the success of our Hoosier children. I want them to receive the best possible education so they can be successful in all their future endeavors.”
Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com.
