What Indiana Charter School Growth Data Really Shows

A recent research study from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University found that Indiana charter school students experienced greater achievement growth in both math and English Language Arts in the years following the pandemic, with gains most concentrated among Black, Hispanic, economically disadvantaged, and lower-performing students.

That should be big news. At a time when Indiana is still wrestling with pandemic learning loss, these findings should prompt serious attention, not reflexive dismissal.

If a group of public schools is helping students recover faster, especially students who were hit hardest by the pandemic, we should want to know why. What did these schools do? How did they support students through and after COVID? How do we make sure those approaches reach every child in Indiana, regardless of where they go to school?

Instead, much of the public conversation has gone somewhere else entirely toward doubt, discrediting, and a familiar set of claims about charter schools that aren't grounded in fact.

That concerns us. And it should concern every Hoosier who wants honest conversations about what's working for kids.

First, let's get the facts straight

The most common claim we see: that charter schools cherry-pick their students. That they turn away students with disabilities, English language learners, or kids who are harder to serve. That their results are explained not by what they do for students, but by who they let in the door.

This is simply false.

Indiana charter schools are public schools. They are governed by Indiana law, which means they are required to be open to all students. They cannot use selective admissions criteria. They cannot screen students by academic ability, income, disability status, or any other factor that traditional public schools are also prohibited from using. 

When demand exceeds seats, they are required to use a random lottery, not a preference list. This is not just a suggestion or best practice. It is the law.

Indiana charter schools take the same standardized assessments as every other public school in the state. The same ILEARN. The same state accountability framework. There is no separate, easier test. The data in the Annenberg study comes from the same statewide assessment system used to measure every Indiana public school student.

We have also heard that charter schools exist to make money and maximize profits. This is also simply untrue. Indiana charter schools are governed by nonprofit organizations, not private companies or for-profit corporations. They are public institutions accountable to an authorizer, to the state, and to the families they serve.

These are not opinions. They are the facts of how Indiana charter schools operate.

‍

Who charter schools actually serve

The "cherry-picking" claim doesn't just fail the legal test. It fails the demographic one too.

Indiana's charter schools represent roughly 6.6% of all public schools in the state and serve approximately 56,000 students, or about 5.1% of Indiana's total public school enrollment. These are not dominant, resource-rich institutions. They are a small part of a large system, and they are disproportionately serving the students that critics claim they avoid.

Statewide, Indiana charter schools serve Black students at a rate of 40%, compared to 12% at traditional public schools. They serve Hispanic students at 20%, compared to 14%. They serve English language learners at 12%, compared to 8%. And they serve FRL-eligible students, those who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, at 64%, compared to 47% at traditional public schools.

Charter schools are not enrolling the easy-to-serve. They are disproportionately enrolling students who face some of the greatest barriers to academic success, and the Annenberg research shows they are producing stronger outcomes for those very students.

This is what makes the cherry-picking claim so frustrating. It presumes that strong results must come from advantaged students. The data shows the opposite: Indiana charter schools are serving more low-income students, more Black and Hispanic students, more English language learners, and delivering strong outcomes for those same students.

On the question of students with disabilities: charter schools do enroll students with IEPs and 504s, and many ICIC member schools serve these students at rates significantly above the statewide average.

Across the sector as a whole, Indiana charter schools enroll students with IEPs at approximately 14%, compared to about 17% in traditional public schools. That gap is worth acknowledging honestly, but it also needs context. That statewide charter figure includes adult education and virtual education programs, which by their nature serve far fewer students with IEPs than brick-and-mortar schools. What the data does not show, through any lens or interpretation, is a sector that is screening out students with disabilities or discouraging families from enrolling. The numbers don't support that conclusion.

_{A note on data: the demographic figures above come from ICIC's Indiana Public School Dashboard, reflecting 2024-25 enrollment data. The Annenberg Institute study covers school years 2017-18 through 2023-24. These are complementary but distinct data sources, both drawing on Indiana's statewide public school data systems.}

‍

On open enrollment: we hold ourselves to a high standard

We want to be direct about something.

Indiana charter schools know the rules. They follow them. Every charter school in our network is aware of Indiana's open enrollment requirements, and to our knowledge, every one of them actively upholds those requirements.

But we also want to say this clearly: if you ever suspect a public school, any public school, anywhere in Indiana, is not following the law on enrollment, report it. Report it to the school's authorizer or to the Indiana Department of Education. 

The oversight mechanisms exist precisely for this.

We say this not to be defensive or argumentative. We say it because it's the right thing to do for families, for students, and for the integrity of public education. If there are bad actors, the response cannot be silence or shoulder-shrugging or finger-pointing. It has to be accountability. Charter schools are held to that standard, and we welcome it. If a school isn't following the law, that needs to be known and addressed, full stop.

Part of why ICIC holds our member schools to a high ethical standard on enrollment is precisely because misconceptions like this one are so pervasive. We cannot ask the public to trust what the data shows if we are not willing to be completely transparent about how we operate. Trust is built through consistency, transparency, and accountability over time. We take that seriously.

Skepticism is reasonable. Misinformation is not.

Skepticism can be healthy. The world is full of misinformation. Social media rewards outrage over accuracy. And education, especially anything that touches questions of access and opportunity, is an area where people's lived experiences vary enormously and where distrust has often been earned the hard way.

We do not expect or ask anyone to take our word for it.

What we do ask is this: let the skepticism lead to questions, not to conclusions reached before the facts are examined.

There is a difference between "I want to understand how these results were produced" and "These results must be fraudulent." There is a difference between "I want to make sure charter schools are following enrollment law" and "Charter schools definitely cherry pick the best students." One is inquiry. The other is misinformation, even when it comes from a place of genuine concern for students.

We can disagree on policy. We can have real debates about governance structures, funding formulas, and the role of charter schools in Indiana's broader public education landscape. Those are legitimate conversations, and reasonable people come down in different places.

But we cannot disagree on the facts. We cannot build common ground from a foundation of inaccurate claims. And we cannot learn what works for students if we refuse to look honestly at evidence that challenges our assumptions.

The questions worth asking

When a study shows Indiana charter students, particularly those who have historically been underserved, experienced stronger post-pandemic academic recovery than comparable students in traditional public schools, the questions that follow should be:

What did those schools do during and after the pandemic that contributed to this outcome? What instructional approaches, operational decisions, or support structures made a difference? How do we study that seriously and ensure those methods are available to all Indiana students, in charter schools and traditional public schools alike?

That is the work. That is what students deserve from the adults in this conversation.

We do not think charter schools have all the answers. We do not think the work is finished or that every charter school is doing it perfectly every day. What we believe is that honest, curiosity-driven inquiry, grounded in accurate information and a shared commitment to every child, is the only way forward.

‍