IPS Superintendent Aleesia Johnson: Families must stay engaged as the city shifts to mayor-appointed education board

The Indianapolis Public Education Corporation will be a newly established municipal body governed by a nine-member board appointed by the mayor. It is designed to bridge a fragmented education landscape where the Indianapolis Public Schools district and charter schools have long competed for students and funding.

This legislation, House Bill 1423, represents a loss of power for the elected IPS board, shifting major financial and logistical authority to the appointed body. Tasked with managing a unified system for transportation, facilities and performance for 42,000 students, the IPEC will take full control of school property and busing by the 2028-2029 school year. Though, all schools will have the option to opt out of the facility plan. 

MORE Mayor-appointed board to assume control of IPS and charter school facilities, finances

The bill’s passage follows years of rising conflict between sectors, culminating in chaotic public meetings and a tense legislative session. The Senate approved the measure 27-21, with a final 67-30 House vote sending it to Gov. Mike Braun. 

While critics label the move “taxation without representation,” supporters argue it creates equitable funding for all students in the city’s public charter and traditional schools. 

WFYI’s Caroline Beck talked with IPS Superintendent Aleesia Johnson Wednesday after a district event for student advocacy at the Indiana State Library and before the legislation reached final approval in the Statehouse. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Caroline Beck: What are your thoughts now about the state of the bill as it nears passage?

Aleesia Johnson: I think the concept—starting back from the [Indianapolis Local Education Alliance] and through this whole process—of creating a more coherent landscape, of maximizing our resources is one that is right and responsible for our community. And in all things, the devil will be in the details in terms of what that execution looks like. 

There's clearly things that we don't quite know how will actually play out, that we still need to define. I think there are a number of questions about what trade offs that we're all willing to make to actually have a coherent system. And so I think over the next, you know, year, we'll really be in this process of figuring out, what does this actually mean? What are those trade offs we're actually going to make? How do we ensure the resources of our taxpayers in our community are used well. 

Most importantly for me, as I think about our families and our students, I want to ensure that their experience is not disrupted and that we're able to maintain stability for our families and our kids who are counting on us as we are figuring out what this future is going to look like. So that will be my top priority, is ensuring that that stability, to the best of my ability, is in place for our kids.

Beck: What is your message to IPS families about what the district is going to look like in two, three or four years?

Johnson: Well, you know, I think the bill itself doesn't really sort of have the start of implementation for two school years from now. And I think that that is a reflection of the number of questions and the complexities that still have to be navigated. And so what I would encourage our families to do is to keep showing up. 

Our school board is still in place. They have an important role to play in the future and they will continue to have that role to play. Our community has to continue to ensure their voices are lifted and represented. The reality is that the new [Indianapolis Public Education Corporation] board will still be composed of local residents and people who are in this community. And so now is not the time to sort of, you know, pack it all up and move on to the next thing. 

Now is the time to really stay engaged and be sure that our perspectives and our opinions and our point of views are brought to the table, because there's some tough choices to make. No one's denying that reality and it's going to take all of us together to get to what we think is the best possible solution for our students.

Beck: The bill largely didn't change from what the ILEA group you know recommended, except for the provision for the district and charter schools to opt out of the facility plan. How does the district feel about opting out as an option?

Johnson: For me, when it comes to the end of this session, what I hope will be true is that there is equal application across sectors and regardless of type of schools. I think if the goal was to build a system of which everyone must be a part. Well, if you're creating sort of off-ramps for people, we can no longer actually guarantee that everyone will be a part. 

So again, devil in the details of how that gets worked out over the next several months or a couple of years. But, the reality is that there are people and organizations who could choose to say, you know, ‘we don't want to participate in this aspect of the plan.’ 

Beck: During discussion on the bill, there were a lot of comments made some senators, like Sen. Jeff Raatz, explaining the reason they were doing this bill was because he sees the financials have also been mismanaged. Do you have any reaction when senators say those things?

Johnson: The fact of the matter is, there are state policy decisions that have happened over the last decade that have put IPS and a number of public school districts in a really fiscally constrained space. 

The decision to, for example, with property tax reform, with [2025’s] Senate Bill 1, the decision of our state house to move to a more equal funding model than an equitable funding model where you're funding students essentially regardless of their need, has impacted IPS negatively. 

The decision to not fund special education at the level that it needs to be, we are impacted to the tune of $24 million in that regard. The decision to not fund English language learners at the level that it needs to be also negatively impacts our district. And so there are a number of state policy decisions that if we reflect back over the last decade on those decisions, you know, my question would be: What do our state lawmakers say about that? We will continue to do what we can do with the resources that have been afforded to us to make sure that our students are served well. 

We are the one district in the state who have partnered with charter schools and done so very robustly. Again, $60 million to support our charter school partners. That was applauded a decade ago and now seems to be a point of criticism. So I really think it's — what is the vision that our state leaders have for public education in Indiana? And how can they ensure that the resources that they allocate to our school districts matches the vision and the expectation that they have of all of us. We all want to serve our young people well. We all want our state to be successful, our city to be successful. I look forward to the day when we're more aligned around how that happens.

Beck: Why do you think they were supportive of it back when the innovation law passed? Now they're using it, it seems like an argument against IPS. Why do you think that's happening?

Johnson: I don't actually know the answer to. I don't know if it supports a certain set of policy decisions that are now getting made. But again, I think that a decade ago, there was a celebration of collaboration and that seems to now have pivoted back to the same old kind of competition mode. 

What I've tried to be consistent in as superintendent is to say that all kids can be successful. We can support all of our students. It doesn't have to be taken for one group to give to another. How do we ensure all of our kids, the majority of whom are Black or Brown or from a low income community, get what they need to be successful? And that remains the question I have. 

Contact government reporter Caroline Beck at cbeck@wfyi.org.