IPS seeks parent nominations for new facilities, transportation advisory alliance
IPS parents are asked to nominate members for the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance (ILEA), which will oversee changes to school buildings and transportation.
IPS Superintendent Aleesia Johnson addressed what changes are likely to come due to the legislative session and its financial impact on the district, including a $14 million loss due to Senate Bill 1.
Indianapolis Public Schools parents are being asked to send in their nominations for who they would like to serve on the new Indianapolis Local Education Alliance (ILEA), which will help design upcoming major changes to how the district uses its school buildings and transportation.
The district is also asking parents to fill out a transportation survey that asks what matters most when considering how their child gets to school every day.
IPS's Superintendent Aleesia Johnson sent out a video update to parents this week about the district's future and the outcomes of this year's legislative session on the district.
This new alliance was created with the final version of House Bill 1515, which creates a nine-member group that could make consequential decisions on how the district uses its buildings and transportation.
The group requires Johnson to nominate one parent who has a child in an IPS innovation network charter school and one parent who has a child in an IPS-directly managed school.
The district is asking parents to fill out the online form by midnight on Sunday, May 11, 2025, to be considered.
The other seven members of the group will include:
Superintendent Aleesia Johnson, or a designee.
Mayor Joe Hogsett, or a designee.
Four members are appointed by Hogsett, one of whom must be a representative of business.
One member appointed by the IPS School board president.
The member appointed by the board president must live within the IPS district boundary.
The district said that parents should expect to dedicate around five hours each month from June to December to work on the committee.
The alliance is required to file its final report and recommendations by Dec. 31, 2025. The group has until July 1, 2025, to hold its first meeting.
What work is the ILEA charged to do?
The group will work to conduct a facility assessment on all the schools within IPS's boundaries, including traditional and charter campuses.
It will then make recommendations regarding school facility 'structural changes,' as well as come up with a process of approving or denying future capital referendum requests.
It will also create a template for revenue-sharing agreements between IPS and its charter school partners.
The ILEA must also create methods on how the district can increase collaboration with governmental entities, community organizations or local nonprofits on how to transform school facilities into 'broader community assets for residents.'
The group is meant to create a transportation implementation plan that would consider how to best serve all the district's students, in charter and district-run schools.
To best understand parents' needs around transportation, the district is asking families to fill out an online 10-minute survey about transportation.
However, during the legislature's last remaining hours of session, lawmakers added language to the bill that allows the ILEA to not be subject to Indiana's Open Door Law, which gives members of the public the right to attend meetings of governing bodies or public agencies.
The bill's author, Rep. Bill Behning, R-Indianapolis, said that language was included at the request of Mayor Joe Hogsett, and that the group can decide for themselves if they want the meetings open to the public.
The ILEA's final meeting, where the members will vote on a final proposal, is required to be a public meeting.
The fallout of the 2025 session on IPS
Johnson also admitted in her video update that this legislative session was an 'incredibly rocky and difficult' one, but thanked IPS parents and community members for coming out and speaking on behalf of the district.
She said thanks to parents and community member testimony, two bills were ultimately stopped, one that would have converted all of IPS's schools into charter schools and another that would have taken away complete control over the district's facilities and transportation.
However, the district must now deal with the ramifications of Senate Bill 1, which not only reduces the amount of property tax revenue IPS will see in the next three years, but also starting in 2028 will send more of the district's property tax dollars to charter schools.
More on SB 1 impact: The Indiana House passed a complex property tax bill. Here are the biggest winners and losers
'So in other words, not only does this bill shrink the overall pie of funding by decreasing revenue, it then creates a win-lose framework that incentivizes intense competition among schools over an even smaller funding pie,' Johnson said in the video.
Over the next three years, IPS is expected to lose out on around $14 million in property tax revenue due to SB 1.
Johnson went on to say that despite these large, looming cuts to funding, the district will aim to minimize disruptions in students' learning and does not expect any immediate impacts to school operations for the 2025-26 school year.
'We will vigorously pursue savings and cost reduction opportunities, but we will do so while keeping stability for students and families at the forefront,' Johnson said.
Johnson also announced that the district will be holding a series of town halls in the coming weeks to better explain to parents the upcoming impacts of this year's legislation. Dates for those town halls will be announced soon.
Families can find both the parent nomination form and the transportation survey form at https://myips.org/ips-2025-legislative-priorities/.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Two Courts Uphold UPEPA Fee Awards After Voluntary Dismissals
The UPEPA is weathering appellate decisions just fine so far. The Uniform Public Express Protection Act (UPEPA) in just a few years has become the most ubiquitous body of Anti-SLAPP law in the world. Like most other Anti-SLAPP laws, the UPEPA provides for a special motion to cause the dismissal at an early stage of meritless litigation which infringes upon a person's free speech and related rights. If the defendant in such a case wins the special motion and the offending cause of action is dismissed, then the defendant who brought the special motion must be awarded their attorney fees, expenses and costs in relation to the special motion. This provides a powerful deterrent to such meritless litigation being brought against them in the first place. But what if, after the UPEPA special motion is brought, the plaintiff who brought the offending cause of action decides not to contest the special motion but instead just voluntarily dismisses it? In that instance, can the defendant who went to the trouble of preparing and filing the UPEPA special motion still be awarded attorney fees for their trouble? The answer to this question was recently answered by two courts in different states (New Jersey and Kentucky) on two consecutive days, and which reached the same conclusion. We'll examine the opinions of those courts now. These opinions are Satz v. Keset Starr, 2025 WL 1522032 ( May 29, 2025), and Johnson v. Kearney, 2025 WL 1536078 ( May 30, 2025). In the Satz case in New Jersey, the defendants circulated a flyer that advocated that the plaintiff get a religious divorce. The flyer contained an unfavorable photo of the plaintiff and suggested a protest outside of the home of the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff sued the defendants for a variety of things related to the flyer and asked for $30 million in damages. When the plaintiff moved for default judgment, the defendants responded to the motion with request that the case be dismissed under the UPEPA. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion and that same day the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint. The defendants then moved to reopen the case for the purpose of assessing fees, costs and expenses under the UPEPA. The trial court, however, refused to consider the defendants' request on the basis that there was no evidence that the plaintiff filed his action was either frivolous or intended to harass the defendants. The defendants appealed this ruling. Now turning to the Johnson case in Kentucky, where two candidates in the 2024 Republican primary for state attorney were squabbling over an endorsement by the local Fraternal Order of Police. Ultimately, one candidate sued the other, and the other candidate (the defendant) filed a UPEPA special motion to dismiss. Concluding that the plaintiff had not acted in bad faith, the trial judge encouraged the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the complaint with prejudice to refiling. The plaintiff did dismiss the complaint and the judge refused to award the defendant fees, costs and expenses because the case had been dismissed. The defendant appealed this ruling. The courts in both Satz and Johnson reached the same conclusion in the same way. Both courts determined that the outcome could be determined by interpreting the plain text of the UPEPA without the need to reference external sources. The statutory interpretation of the UPEPA in these cases was very straightforward: First, the UPEPA provides that a voluntary dismissal of a challenged cause of action does not affect the moving party's right to seek attorney fees, costs and expenses; Second, the UPEPA deems a party's voluntary dismissal of a challenged cause of action ― while a UPEPA special motion is pending ― to establish that the moving party prevailed on special motion; and Third, the UPEPA states that the award of such attorney fees, costs and expenses is mandatory where the moving party has prevailed on the special motion. Therefore, where a cause of action has been voluntarily dismissed while a UPEPA cause of action is pending, the moving party is entitled to a mandatory award of attorney fees, costs and expenses despite the voluntarily dismissal. This was the ultimate ruling of both courts, which reversed the trial court and remanded the cases for the calculation of the attorney fees, costs and expenses to be awarded to the respective moving parties in each case. The Satz opinion additionally noted that one reason for this outcome was to keep a party who brought an offending cause of action from simply dismissing the cause of action and then possibly re-asserting it later. This would defeat the purpose of the UPEPA to free the defendant from having to further litigate the cause of action. The Johnson opinion commented on the fact that "good faith" by the party who filed the cause of action is not any defense to the UPEPA's mandatory award of attorney fees, costs and expenses ― it doesn't matter at all why that party brought the cause of action, only that it infringes upon protect rights. ANALYSIS Both of these appellate courts arrived at the result desired by the UPEPA drafting committee when we were writing the Act: In the event of a voluntary dismissal after a special motion has been brought, the moving party will still be entitled to mandatory attorney fees, costs and expenses. There was considerable debate within the UPEPA drafting committee over this outcome, mostly due to something called the innocent violator. Basically, the drafting committee realized that the cases which infringe upon protected expression could be divided into two categories. The first category is the classic SLAPP case which is intended to harass, punish, or retaliate, etc., against the speaker for the purpose of making them shut up. Recall that the acronym SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The 'Strategic' part of this is that the action would intended ― specifically designed ― to cause harm to the speaker by forcing them to incur legal costs in defense. This wrongful intent characterizes this first category of cases infringing protected expression. The second category is exactly the opposite of the first: The second category is where the plaintiff who brought the cause of action had no intent to misuse the cause of action, but instead stumbled into an infringement of public expression because their counsel was lazy or careless, or the public expression issue was very technical and not easy to spot. This is the aforementioned innocent violator. The drafting committee recognized that an innocent violator should be treated differently than somebody who intentionally brought abusive litigation. But how should that treatment differ? There were suggestions that a warning letter should be sent before the special motion was brought, that the innocent violator should be allowed to dismiss or reframe the infringing cause of action without penalty, or that attorney fees should not be assessed against an innocent violator. In their opinions, the Satz and Johnson courts discuss these things as well (although whether the plaintiffs in those cases could be characterized as innocent violators is somewhat dubious). What was the solution? The idea of a warning letter ― similar to that required before a Rule 11 motion for sanctions is brought ― seemed like a good one. But there were at least two problems with this solution. First, it would be a complete waste of time to have a warning letter sent to the first (abusive) category of violators, who at any rate didn't deserve a warning. Second, if a warning letter was sent and the action thereafter voluntarily dismissed before the filing of the special motion, then the defendant (speaker) compensated for the legal fees for having the letter written and such letters can be quite costly. Thus, the warning letter idea was rejected. The next idea, being that the plaintiff should be allowed to voluntarily dismiss the infringing cause of action after the special motion was filed, was similarly rejected. Preparing and filing the special motion is costly, and if the plaintiff was simply allowed to voluntarily dismiss without any penalty, then the defendant could not be compensated for having to prepare and file the special motion. This was also a bad idea for the reason that a first category plaintiff engaged in abusive litigation could simply later re-file the same cause of action and cause the defendant the same trouble all over again. So this idea was rejected too. The third idea was to not assess attorney's fees against an innocent violator. While this sounds at first like a good idea, it is actually a terrible one. The problem here is the UPEPA would first have to define what an innocent violation was, and that would draw into question the plaintiff's intent. The parties would then have to litigate the plaintiff's intent, which would tremendously exacerbate the very litigation that the UPEPA was supposed to have quickly and efficiently gotten rid of in the first place. That idea was quickly axed. Where the UPEPA ended up is accurately described in the Satz and Johnson opinions: The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the cause of action that is the subject of the special motion, but that voluntary dismissal is treated as a resolution of the special motion in favor of the speaker and thus entitles the speaker to the mandatory award of attorney fees. This is a suitable middle-ground solution. By voluntarily dismissing the special motion, the plaintiff cuts off the attorney fees incurred by the speaker at the special motion ― the speaker could not, for instance, ask for attorney fees to file a reply brief (since no opposition brief was filed) or to attend the hearing on the special motion (which is no longer necessary). For those who would suggest that this outcome is harsh for an innocent violator, the bottom line is that if somebody is going to litigate in an area which might implicate protected expression issues, then they should be particularly careful. One who has stumbled into a violation of protected expression will not be rewarded by a 'get out of jail' card for their carelessness. This is basically what the Satz and Johnson opinions conclude and in this respect they are both right on target.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Republicans will destroy universities in Ohio with SB 1; vote needed, reader says
The innovations that have made America great were not created in a vacuum. In the 1950s and '60s, the United States was the gold standard for university education. State universities provided affordable state colleges for nearly everyone who wanted to attend. They also supported research that benefited their communities. This research led to the U.S. putting a man on the moon, to the eradication of diseases like polio, smallpox, and measles, and to the development of computers, smartphones, and AI. What made American universities great was academic freedom, which allowed instructors to teach and do research where their interests took them, even though it might not seem immediately useful. It is this pure research that leads to the breakthroughs that result in innovation. For the last 50 years, the Republican Party has chipped away at institutions of higher learning, clawing back state funding and making colleges more expensive. Senate Bill 1, recently passed by Republicans in the Ohio legislature, will destroy colleges and universities in Ohio. It is a blatantly unconstitutional law, censoring what faculty can teach and what students can learn. The bill replaces diversity, equity, and inclusion with homogeneous conformity, inequality, and exclusion. It restricts the teaching of 'controversial subjects.' (How else does one learn how to think?) And it will gut academic programs, ensuring that students do not have the knowledge or skills to function in the professions of their choice. It is the purest form of censorship. It is important to remember that colleges are deeply interconnected with their communities. In many small towns, colleges are one of the top employers. They are drivers of culture, innovation, and growth. If you care about free speech and academic freedom, make sure to sign the petition to put Senate Bill 1 on the ballot so that voters can decide for themselves what kind of higher education they want. Laurie Finke, Gambier This article originally appeared on Newark Advocate: Vote needed to stop Ohio GOP from destroying universities, reader says
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal court hears challenge to Confederate monuments funded by taxpayers in Florida
Confederate monuments are once again at the center of legal and public debate in Jacksonville, this time inside a federal courtroom. Former attorney Earl Johnson Jr. is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to revive his 2021 lawsuit, which aims to stop the city and state from using public funds to preserve Confederate tributes on taxpayer-owned property. Johnson, who is the son of a civil rights attorney who once represented Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., argues that public symbols honoring the Confederacy are not just relics, but represent government-backed white supremacy that violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. >>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<< 'The purpose of this court in terms of my case is to lay out the ground rules – where does the state stand? Where does the city stand, as it relates to Confederate monuments?' Johnson said. The lawsuit, originally dismissed last year due to lack of standing, lists Mayor Donna Deegan and more than 30 Confederate-related memorials, plaques, and names statewide. Outside the federal courthouse on Hogan Street, demonstrators rallied in support of the case. Protesters held signs and chanted calls for change, saying the monuments inflict ongoing harm, particularly on Jacksonville's Black residents. 'These are modern-day 'whites only' signs,' Johnson said. 'They tell me, as a Black man, that I'm not worthy — that I'm a second-class citizen.' [DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks] Kelly Frazier with the Northside Coalition of Jacksonville joined the rally and said the monuments are more than just statues. 'They're symbols of hate. They're shrines to rebellion that fought to keep our ancestors in chains,' Frazier said. A courtroom sketch captured a look inside the federal hearing. [SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter] Activists say the fight goes beyond removing statues, calling instead for a broader reckoning with the legacy of racial injustice in public spaces. A decision from the appeals court could take weeks or months. Action News Jax reached out to Mayor Donna Deegan's office for comment. A spokesperson responded, 'We decline to comment on the pending lawsuit.' Click here to download the free Action News Jax news and weather apps, click here to download the Action News Jax Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Action News Jax live.
