During Senate debate, HB 1176 was described as “dismantling public education.” A closer look at the bill tells a different story. Here’s what it actually does—and doesn’t do.
.png)
During Senate debate on HB 1176, Senator Fady Qaddoura described the bill as “the continuation of dismantling public education in the state of Indiana.” He urged colleagues to place the bill in “the correct context over the last twenty years” of education policy and expressed concern that it represents a continued shift away from traditional public schools.
That’s a serious charge. It deserves a serious response.
When legislation affecting thousands of students and public dollars is debated, precision matters. And yes, context matters. But so do facts.
On the floor, Senator Qaddoura stated that “specifically, this bill allows traditional schools to convert their buildings and their schools to charter schools.”
That is directionally true, but incomplete.
HB 1176 expands voluntary pathways available to locally elected school boards. It does not mandate conversion. It does not force districts to give up active buildings. It does not require governance restructuring.The local school board can still have complete responsibility for the converted schools.
The bill simply allows districts, if they choose, to explore partnerships or structural options they believe will better serve students. It does not require action. It does not compel conversion. Local boards retain full decision-making authority.
For districts that want flexibility, it removes unnecessary barriers. The legislation creates options; it does not mandate outcomes.
A central theme of the debate was that legislation like this encourages one type of school over another and weakens traditional districts in the name of choice.
Let’s say this clearly, because we have been saying it for more than twenty years now:
CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
That’s what the law says.
They are tuition-free. They are publicly funded. They are accountable to the state. They operate under performance contracts and can be closed for sustained academic or financial failure.
We have been banging that drum since 2001. It is not a new talking point. It is the law.
Indiana’s public education system includes traditional district schools, charter public schools, innovation network schools, and other publicly funded models. Expanding public options does not eliminate public education. It reflects a policy choice to allow different public models to coexist.
You can disagree with that direction. That is fair. But it is still public education.
Senator Qaddoura warned that “if they are not adding kids and we’re just adding schools, we are adding to the fiscal collapse of traditional public schools across Indiana.”
District financial pressure is real in many communities. Declining enrollment, fixed costs, and facility obligations create strain. No one who works in this space denies that.
But Indiana’s funding formula is enrollment driven. Dollars follow students. Schools do not receive funding simply because they exist. They receive funding because students attend. If students remain enrolled in district schools, funding remains in district schools. If families choose another public school option, funding follows that student.
That portability is not new. It is how Indiana’s formula is designed to work. We may not always like how it feels when enrollment shifts, but the mechanism itself is not new, and it was not created by HB 1176.
We can debate how to balance stability and flexibility. That is a legitimate policy discussion. But we should describe the funding structure accurately.
During debate, Senator Qaddoura cautioned, “Guess where they will get their property taxes from? The same exact community,” and further suggested that “property taxes will go up with the addition of more schools.”
Here is what Indiana law actually says. Charter schools do not have taxing authority. They cannot levy property taxes. They cannot independently raise tax rates. In certain counties, charter schools may receive a proportional share of voter-approved operating referenda based on the students they serve, but those referenda must first be approved by voters. The presence of a charter school does not automatically increase the tax rate.
There was also concern raised about organizations opening charter schools and then closing within a few years.
School closure is disruptive. It affects families, educators, and entire communities. No one treats that lightly. But charter schools operate under performance contracts. If they fail to meet academic, financial, or organizational standards, authorizers can revoke their charter. That level of enforceable, outcome-based accountability does not exist in the same way for traditional districts. Closure is not deregulation. It is a built-in accountability mechanism designed to protect students from prolonged failure.
No one celebrates school closures. But pretending they happen in a vacuum ignores the oversight structure behind them.
Senator Qaddoura framed HB 1176 as part of a larger “direction of the general assembly” to dilute public education in districts across the state.
But debate should be grounded in what the law actually does.
HB 1176 does not mandate conversion.
It does not give charter schools taxing authority.
It does not eliminate traditional public schools.
It expands voluntary options within Indiana’s public education system.
We can disagree about policy direction. That is healthy and expected in a democracy. But when we describe legislation as dismantling public education, we should be very clear about the facts. Students, families, and communities deserve that level of seriousness.
.png)
.png)
