The Final Weekend Push in Indianapolis
Indianapolis voters are heading into the last days before the November 3, 2026 general election with one of the most consequential local questions on the ballot: whether to approve an operating referendum that would raise about 95 million dollars a year for public schools inside Indianapolis Public Schools boundaries. On Saturday, October 31, two candidates for mayor joined Black community leaders at a press conference near the City-County Building to urge a yes vote, arguing that the future of the city’s schools, and local control over them, depends on the outcome. The event took place beside a long line of early voters, a visible reminder that many Indianapolis residents have already begun deciding the question, while others will make up their minds on Election Day itself.
State Senator Andrea Hunley and City Council member Vop Osili, both Democrats seeking the mayor’s office, appeared together with State Representative Greg Porter and leaders from Indianapolis Public Schools, the Indianapolis Urban League and the African American Coalition of Indianapolis. Their message was deliberately broader than a single campaign: they presented the referendum as bigger than any contest between individuals, and as a test of whether the city will protect its public schools at a moment when state law has already reshaped who controls school money. Supporters at the event warned that a no vote could open the door to deeper state involvement in the district, a prospect they described as a loss of local decision-making for Indianapolis families.
The referendum is not a routine school funding request. It would replace a tax approved in 2018 that expires at the end of December, and for the first time it would divide the proceeds between the traditional district and the city’s charter schools. That sharing arrangement, required by new state law, is what makes this vote different from earlier Indianapolis school referendums, and it is also what makes the debate inside the city so heated. Even supporters acknowledge that the district will still face cuts if the measure passes. Opponents, including some who otherwise support public schools, argue that the structure of the deal is unfair to the district. Voters, in short, are not simply choosing between funding schools and saving money. They are choosing between a shared funding model they may not love and a future without the referendum money at all.
What the Indianapolis School Referendum Would Do
The ballot question asks voters in Indianapolis Public Schools boundaries whether the Indianapolis Public Education Corporation, a new body created by state law in early 2026, should increase property taxes for the district and participating charter schools for no more than four years. The stated purpose is funding teacher and staff retention, professional development and academic programs and opportunities. The maximum rate would be 37.2 cents for every 100 dollars of assessed value, and the maximum annual amount would be 95 million dollars. In plain terms, the measure would set a new, higher school operating tax and share it across all public schools serving students within the district’s boundaries.
The Indianapolis Public Education Corporation, often shortened to IPEC, is central to understanding the vote. It is a nine-member board appointed by the mayor that has taken over powers once held by the elected Indianapolis Public Schools board, including authority over referendums, debt service and tax levies. Under the new state framework, IPEC also has growing responsibility for school buildings, buses and accountability across both district-run and charter schools. Supporters of the new structure say it brings order to a system in which charter enrollment has grown sharply. Critics say it removes power from an elected board and hands it to an appointed body that is dominated by charter interests. That disagreement about governance runs underneath almost every argument about the money itself.
Money from the referendum, if approved, would be used for purposes that district leaders describe as essential rather than optional. Those include competitive pay to recruit and keep teachers and other staff, special education support services, learning interventions for students who have fallen behind, English language learner support and advanced academic offerings such as dual-credit courses and work-based learning. Charter schools receiving a share would use their portion for their own staffing and programming, though reporting in the run-up to the vote noted that only some charter operators had publicly detailed their spending plans by September. The broad shape of the plan is therefore clear, even if the line-by-line spending in every school is not yet fully spelled out.
What the Indianapolis School Referendum Would Cost Homeowners
Cost is where the debate becomes personal for homeowners, because the ballot language itself states a headline figure that requires explanation. For a home with a median assessed value of 150,000 dollars, the ballot says the annual property tax bill would increase by 221 dollars. District leaders and referendum supporters say that figure is not the net change for most homeowners, because the new tax replaces the expiring 2018 tax. On that accounting, the actual increase over what residents pay now is about 106 to 115 dollars a year, or roughly 9 dollars a month, depending on the estimate used. The difference between the ballot figure and the net figure has become a point of confusion in the campaign, and it illustrates why voters are being urged to look beyond a single number.
The current rate, set by the 2018 referendum, is about 19 to 19.6 cents per 100 dollars of assessed value, and it expires on December 31, 2026. The proposed rate of 37.2 cents would roughly double it. That doubling sounds large, but supporters argue that the comparison is misleading without the sharing rule: the new money must cover far more students than the old tax did, because it now covers charter students as well as district students. Opponents respond that doubling the rate while the district still faces cuts shows the deal does not solve the district’s problem. Both points can be true at once, which is why the campaign has produced such sharp disagreement even among people who agree that Indianapolis schools need more money.
Indianapolis Superintendent Aleesia Johnson has acknowledged the affordability pressure directly, saying she recognises that taxpayers are feeling squeezed by rising costs. Her argument, echoed by other supporters, is that the referendum is still an investment in students rather than an optional extra, and that losing the money would cost the city more in the long run through larger classes, fewer programs and weaker support for students with the greatest needs. That framing asks voters to weigh a modest monthly increase against the risk of a much larger disruption to schools. It is a calculation that will feel different to a homeowner on a fixed income than to a parent whose child depends on special education services, and the campaign has not resolved that tension. It has simply put it to voters.
How the $95 Million Would Be Split
The split of the money is the most contested feature of the referendum. Estimates reported in the campaign put the district’s share at roughly 40 to 46 million dollars a year and the charter share at roughly 49 million dollars, for a combined total of about 95 million dollars. The district serves about 18,000 students in its own schools, while about 60 charter schools serve about 18,850 students within the boundaries, so the per-student amounts are broadly comparable. Yet the district argues that the comparison hides a deeper problem: the old tax was for the district alone, so even a similar per-student share leaves the district with a gap compared with what it needs to maintain current services.
District leaders say Indianapolis Public Schools has already cut 24 million dollars from its budget, bringing it to about 490 million dollars, and will need to cut another 20 million dollars next school year even if the referendum passes. In other words, approval does not restore the district to comfort. It prevents a worse outcome. The district had hoped for more money, and the shortfall is one reason the teachers union initially opposed the measure, before later reversing course and supporting it. The union’s early opposition reflected a view held by some supporters of traditional public schools: that raising taxes on struggling households to fund a deal that still leaves the district cutting programs is difficult to defend.
Charter leaders and referendum supporters offer a different view. They note that charter schools now enrol more students in Indianapolis than the district itself, and that those students are also Indianapolis public school students who deserve stable funding. From that perspective, sharing the tax is not a diversion of district money but a recognition of where students actually attend school. The Yes campaign stresses that this is the first time district and charter schools have been on the same side of a ballot question, and that a yes vote benefits every public school child in the boundaries, regardless of the type of school they attend. That argument has won endorsements from the chamber of commerce and, eventually, the teachers union, but it has not persuaded every critic.
The Other Side: Why Some Say Vote No
Opposition to the referendum is not limited to people who oppose school spending in general. State Representative Ed Delaney, an Indianapolis Democrat, has argued that the proposal gives lopsided benefits to charter schools and leaves traditional public schools worse off despite a near-doubling of the tax rate. In his account, the district would lose about 20 million dollars in effective support even as homeowners pay more, because the new money is spread across many more schools. That critique has resonated with some progressive voters who might otherwise support a school tax, and it explains why the referendum debate has cut across party lines in Indianapolis.
Another strand of opposition focuses on governance and trust. Critics point to the creation of IPEC and the transfer of taxing power away from the elected school board as a democratic concern: voters are being asked to approve a tax whose proceeds will be managed by an appointed board, not by the board they elect. Supporters of IPEC counter that state law now requires this structure, and that voting no will not restore the old board’s powers. It will simply deny money to schools operating under the new structure. That reply is legally accurate as far as the current law goes, but it does not answer the underlying worry that local voters have less direct control than they once did. For some voters, that worry alone may be enough to vote no, even if they support school funding in principle.
There is also a practical dispute about the district’s partnership with charter schools in the Innovation Network, a group of about 30 schools, mostly charters, that has relied on the district since 2014 for building maintenance, busing, technology and other services costing more than 20 million dollars a year. District leaders have signalled that this support may be cut or billed to charter schools, because the shared tax will not cover the district’s needs. Charter interests have accused the district of creating instability for families, while district leaders describe the move as a necessary cost-saving step. The dispute shows how the referendum, even before the vote, has already strained the relationship between the district and the charter schools it is supposed to share money with.
A Statewide Pattern Behind One City’s Vote
Indianapolis is not voting in isolation. Superintendent Johnson has noted that 38 school districts across Indiana have referendums on the ballot this year, which she described as the highest number in state history. That statewide surge is linked to SEA 1, the property tax reform law passed in 2026, which supporters say gives homeowners relief but which school leaders say cuts into local revenue for schools, parks and police. In that context, the Indianapolis vote is part of a larger Indiana story: communities across the state are being asked to decide, district by district, whether to raise local taxes to make up for changes made in the Statehouse.
The statewide pattern also helps explain why the Indianapolis campaign has drawn attention beyond the city. If voters in the state’s largest city reject a school tax, it could signal broader resistance to local tax increases even when schools warn of cuts. If they approve it, it could show that voters will still support school funding when the case is made clearly, despite affordability worries. Either result will be studied by school leaders in other Indiana communities facing similar choices, and by state lawmakers weighing future changes to school funding. Indianapolis, in this sense, is a test case for a funding model that the state has imposed and that voters are now being asked to ratify.
Mayoral candidates Hunley and Osili used the October 31 event to broaden the appeal beyond Indianapolis itself, encouraging voters to support school referendums in Carmel and Beech Grove and in Washington, Wayne and Decatur townships as well. Hunley also raised a statewide question that supporters see as the real issue: why so many districts must come to voters at all for basic operating money, and what it would cost the state to cover that gap directly. She put that statewide figure at about 500 million dollars a year for the 38 referendums combined. That argument shifts the blame from local voters to state policy, but it does not change the choice on the Indianapolis ballot. Voters cannot approve a statewide fix on Tuesday. They can only approve or reject the local tax before them.
What Happens If the Referendum Passes or Fails
If the referendum passes, Indianapolis schools will still face hard choices, but they will face them with about 95 million dollars a year in new operating revenue for up to four years. The district would still need to find about 20 million dollars in cuts next school year, and it would need to negotiate how to handle shared services for Innovation Network schools. Charter schools would gain a stable, voter-approved revenue stream for the first time through a shared tax, which could change their planning and their relationship with the district. The immediate crisis would ease, but the underlying tension over governance and sharing would remain, and it would likely return when the four-year tax approaches its end.
If the referendum fails, district leaders warn of a much sharper outcome. Johnson has said she is confident that failure would lead to further state intervention for Indianapolis Public Schools, a warning echoed by community leaders at the October 31 event. One longtime community leader, Pat Payne, said her biggest fear is that the state could take over the district, and that the state has never been kind to Indianapolis schools. The district’s own materials warn of staffing freezes, reduced transportation, possible closure of support programs and greater instability for families and students. Critics of that warning say it overstates the case and that a no vote would force a better deal, but no critic has yet produced an alternative funding plan that would replace 95 million dollars a year on the same timetable.
For voters, the practical steps are straightforward. Early voting has been under way, with early voting available at the Indianapolis City-County Building through November 2, and polls open on Election Day, Tuesday, November 3. Only voters within Indianapolis Public Schools boundaries can vote on the referendum, and they will see the question in the ballot language described above, including the 221-dollar figure for a median home. Supporters say voters should focus on the net increase and on what the money protects. Opponents say voters should focus on the rate doubling and on where the money goes. Both sides agree on one thing: the decision will shape Indianapolis classrooms for years, and it will be made by the voters who turn out.
Sources
The Indianapolis Star, Chalkbeat Indiana and The 74.