Moves to merge money for Indiana schools.

Signatures nearly set for one candidate of the Secretary of State race.

And questions about abortion inducing drugs in the water from the television studios at WFYI Public Media.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending June 19th, 2026.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.

The U.S.

Department of Education approved Indiana's request to consolidate about $50 million of various federal funding streams into a single pool of money for schools.

Caroline Beck reports.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon visited Plainfield High School this week.

The sweeping waiver now allows Indiana leaders to merge funding originally dedicated to serving populations, such as students learning how to speak and read English and teacher training into a single grant.

Here's Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.

It's about breaking up the education bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., a system that too often enriches adults while stifling progress for kids.

Indiana Secretary of Education Katie Jenner says this means that the state and local schools will have more flexibility in how to use the money.

This waiver allows Indiana to streamline federal requirements, reduce unnecessary red tape, put more resources directly into our classrooms where they make the greatest difference.

But some advocacy groups are concerned the waiver will make it harder for the public to understand how high schools are supporting students.

What does this mean for Indiana schools?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Terri Austin, Republican Whitley Yates Oseye Boyd, editor in chief at Mirror Indy.

And Laura Merrifield Wilson, professor of political science at the University of Indianapolis.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

Hi.

So, Terri, do you think this move makes sense as it relates to funding for Indiana schools?

Well, it's interesting the reaction that we're seeing because some groups actually applaud it and they're looking forward to the flexibility.

Others are starting to express some concerns.

And I think they're valid concerns because they're changing the, accountability system.

They're less reliance on reading and math scores, more emphasis on college and career readiness.

I think college and career readiness is great for middle schools, high schools.

But at the elementary level, and as a former teacher, I will tell you, you can gain some real insight into those test scores about how little kids are performing and they won't be college or career ready if they don't have the basics down.

We heard as well with this announcement, Whitley, that, you know, it will take away some of the bureaucracy, some of the red tape that's involved when it goes to funding Indiana schools.

Does this decision make sense to you?

Absolutely.

I think the waiver allows Indiana schools the flexibility to utilize funds in a way that best suits the school.

I think a lot of times what happens with federal funding, the schools end up chasing compliance as opposed to positive educational outcomes.

And I do believe that this waiver allows them the flexibility to cater the needs towards the students.

And we do have elected school boards for the level of transparency necessary to know what we're doing with the money.

But all in all, I think this is a really bold move for Indiana and a great step for education.

And we're hearing as well that Oseye this will be you know, the Indiana's the state with the most flexibility the most oversight now of this federal funds as it relates to funding for schools.

do you think so?

We've heard a little bit about how it may take away from some programs for schools.

and, and thereby impact students.

Well, that is part of the fear, right, that we are the third state to do this.

Behind, was Iowa and Louisiana.

Yeah.

so there's not a lot of, precedents and it's not a lot of, information to actually look at, to see how the program, how it works.

but part of the whole deal is that, states will have more flexibility, schools will have more flexibility, the local level, and that we're giving power back to the states.

And also we remember, President Trump has said he wants to dismantle the Department of Education at the federal level.

So I think this is also a move in that direction of giving people giving states back, more flexibility.

And they're supposed to also be a $20 million savings in compliance costs.

I don't know what that means.

I didn't really see what that meant, but it's supposed to be a good thing, so I'm looking forward to more information.

And I and I know school people are too.

Well, I think we've, Laura, you know, heard a lot about bringing, you know, these back to the States.

And, you know, this move is directly aligned with that.

I believe Indiana actually asked for even more flexibility when it was related to this waiver.

but the feds said, maybe not that much.

And I think that should calm some concerns, as we didn't get everything we asked for and we did get quite a bit.

as I said, Iowa, Louisiana also have this.

And I think it's interesting timing wise.

This comes at the same time the kids count data came out.

there were some metrics where Hoosier children are faring more poorly, particularly in terms of economic standards.

education, we're still 11th, in the country, which is fantastic.

I think generally the flexibility is good.

and you, you trust hopefully in your school boards and your superintendents and making good policy decisions.

My only concern would be when you have that kind of flexibility, vulnerable populations can potentially lose out.

So making sure that this applies to sections one through four of the law.

Right.

English language learners.

Right.

Low income students, if they are a part of that school district, they're still being taken care of, they're still being funded, and they're still having a high quality education.

I mean, Laura makes a good point.

And coming from an educational background, are we, you know, at risk of leaving some students behind?

Well, it depends on how the funds get deployed.

I mean, that's the bottom line.

And the issue the other issue is what directive will the state education department give to this individual school districts?

I think they also have to do a pilot program for this.

So it's only 15%.

That's a smart way to do it, quite honestly, because it gives you a chance to look at a direct line of accountability.

Are the funds getting used?

Does it help raise student achievement?

It's going to be too early to tell whether it's college and career ready, quite honestly.

But we need to make sure that all kids are in a trajectory where they're making progress.

But overall a win for Indiana overall a win for Indiana.

I think we have a fantastic education.

leader.

I love Doctor Jenner, and I think that she's consistently putting schools first and children first.

And so watching, you know, not only does our data and our metrics continue to go up, but the way in which we're looking at education Circumspectly it's a win for everyone.

Well, it's time now for viewer feedback.

Every week we pose an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question will federal changes that aim to provide Indiana schools with more control over funding and accountability?

Succeed.

Vote yes or no.

The last question posed to viewers Will you support a school referendum if it's on your ballot in November?

We have never had exactly a 50-50 percent answers here, but yes, answering 50% and no saying 50%.

Saying no as well.

If you would like to take part in the poll.

Go to WFYI.org/IWIR and look for the poll.

Former Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's campaign for Secretary of State is nearing a 37,000 signatures needed to appear on the ballot.

Ben Thorp reports the former Republican is running as an independent, and has vowed to offer an alternative to the state's two broken political parties.

Ballard's campaign announced they submitted over 35,000 signatures ahead of the June 30th submission deadline.

Ballard says his message to offer an alternative to Democrats and Republicans is resonating with voters he's spoken to.

The two parties have a have a stranglehold on the voters right now, and have a stranglehold on the citizens.

That has to change.

Ballard says he is not running as a spoiler for either party, but is running to win.

He says his campaign will submit well over the necessary signatures as a precaution in case some get thrown out.

So Whitley, on the eve of the Republican convention this weekend, will Greg Ballard have a major impact on this race?

Historically in Indiana, independent candidates have not won statewide.

And I think it's less about will Greg Ballard make this big splash and more about who will the Republicans choose to be the secretary of state nominee?

I think if Diego is selected, then you will have some discontent.

Republicans looking for another option, or they will turn apathetic and not show up to the polls at all.

If it's Max, I think you have more Republicans that will rally around him.

And there then creates less of a path of victory for Ballard.

So what happens is, you know, at the convention will directly impact Ballard's campaign.

Well, it is going to be an interesting campaign, the biggest one that we'll probably have here in the state of Indiana, you know, moving into November.

what do you expect from this campaign?

I mean, we're going to have four different candidates that really will, be grabbing a lot of attention.

And you're talking about at the convention itself.

Well, I'm talking about the larger election, but this weekend, I like I'd like to weigh in on that, too, because the four candidates this weekend to.

Have this campaign for the general shapes up is going to depend on who the Republicans select.

I know who I think they're going to end up with.

I think Diego is going to come out of the convention.

I really do.

When you look at the delegates, you look at the relationships he's built, even if there are some disenfranchized ones, they still will be.

The majority of those delegates are going to be very loyal.

And it's so split among the candidates right now that with not just his name recognition, that's a general election issue, but the relationships and their thoughts about how he's been treated by the Republican Party.

I think, are going to come to the floor.

Well, I mean, I've got to ask everyone, what is your prediction this weekend?

Because it is going to be, all eyes on Fort Wayne with the Republican convention four really valid candidates.

Yeah.

And I don't I don't know that I am in touch enough with delegates to make a firm prediction.

Morales has a obviously a huge uphill climb, but he's also the incumbent, right?

and it's just about a thousand delegates.

So you've got 2000 total.

You just need a majority.

It's so different than a primary election.

I do think Greg Ballard as the independent or the Lincoln Party candidate, you have Lauri Shillings as a libertarian candidate.

A lot of times we hear voters say, well, there's just not enough choice.

I don't like the candidates options I have.

It's really exciting to see a race where you have four candidates, and I recognize some are better funded, some have better name recognition, some have party apparatus and structure and support behind them.

But nonetheless, whomever is the candidate, you are going to have an exciting secretary of State race in November.

And you have options for voters, which is important for democracy.

Yeah, I mean, it is going to be a huge race.

And like Laura said, I mean, if, you know, you have plenty of people to pick from in the secretary of state race coming in November.

Yeah, that's a little unusual.

Because you hear about it a lot for the next four months as well.

Yeah.

If, if, if, if Ballard gets the gets the signatures and I saw, his people out at Juneteenth food waste collected signatures.

last Friday, they were, they were collecting a lot of signatures.

So, it's going to be a good, interesting race.

And I do wonder, though, does he have recognition outside of Indianapolis?

Name recognition?

That was my because we talk a lot about him here.

We know him here because he was our former mayor.

But I wondered how much is this his?

Is his name known outside of Indy and statewide when it comes to the other candidates.

And we know, like you said, third party has not done well in our state, but we are seeing more people have an interest in third party, which is what his point is.

People want compromise.

They are tired of it's either this way or that way.

and they're looking for a little bit in the middle.

So it's going to be interesting for sure.

It is going to be an interesting race.

And, we'll be covering a, I'm sure plenty more coming months.

Well, Indiana's attorney general, Todd Rokita, is joining 13 other states and calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to put tighter restrictions on the abortion abortion inducing drug mifepristone, saying it poses a risk to the water supply.

Ben Thorp reports that medical experts say claims those claims are without evidence.

Rokita signed on to a letter claiming that at home chemical abortions have been on the rise, and that has resulted in a risk to the water supply.

Women, particularly other pregnant women, could have health complications if mifepristone reaches a certain concentration.

Caitlin Bernard, an ob/gyn in Indianapolis, says there's no evidence for those claims.

There's certainly no, data, for example, to suggest that, you know, trace amounts of mifepristone in drinking water would induce an abortion cause complications in a pregnancy or for pregnant people.

A newly proposed list of water contaminants by the federal government does include some pharmaceuticals.

That list does not include mifepristone.

So Oseye, should this be a real concern for Hoosiers?

Oh, geez.

I don't want to say no, but there's not any evidence to suggest that we should be concerned.

I am really glad that AG Rokita is concerned about, contaminants in our drinking water.

but we have some other ones that should be top of mind, such as lead, you know, forever chemicals, PFAs.

there are other medications, antidepressants in the water that we've already we already see this data coming out that says this.

So, I think this is a little bit of fear mongering.

I don't really know what could happen if you drink water that has mifepristone in there.

we need more data to find out before people become alarmed.

We should at least know what the what the risk is.

before we rise to, scaring everyone about drinking water, which we have other concerns.

Like I said, that we should be thinking about as we drink our water.

I mean, she makes a good point, you know, with the the release that we, you know, covered this week with what Rokita was saying, you know, the really from the scientists we talked to, not any evidence that is a risk at all to women in general or especially pregnant women.

Yeah.

And the center for Biological Diversity is has patently said we don't believe there's any harm in this.

There are there's harm in lead.

there is harm in the pfas you talked about the plastics, microplastics and water.

And I think there's a real question.

If we're worried about what's in our drink water, we should study that.

that's why we do research, is to be able to either reaffirm this as a concern, and we need to treat this, or it's not.

but a lot of the GOP leadership cites a 1996 study saying, well, it wasn't very clear whether or not mifepristone could have this effect.

And in 1996, Pluto is still a planet.

So a lot has changed in 30 plus years.

If we want to do more research, do more research.

But I think also be really transparent about the fact there's a lot of stuff in our waters.

There's a lot of stuff impacting ecosystems.

Let's look for at all, not just one particular thing.

that is obviously very politicized.

And Whitley this is part of, you know, a growing EPA list that's been added to the you mentioned microplastics.

That should be a concern in our water.

But is this just, politicizing this issue more, in Indiana and is it at risk of creating more fear?

I think Indiana has lauded itself as being a very pro-life state.

And so when it comes to the regulation of the abortion pill, and if it's showing up in water, who's able to have it in the way that people are able to get access?

I am not surprised to see the Attorney general consistently fighting for the right to life, and to continue to make Indiana on the forefront of that.

The question that I have, or that I want to know when it comes to this particular, pill and it being in our water, is it causing infertility?

Has it been shown to cause any type of infertility issues, and if so, should even be on our shelves?

If the experiments of taking the pill could then create infertility in other people?

If we're only looking at the 1990s, 1996 study and we don't have any new studies, the General Assembly, who is also very much pro-life, should be instituting some of that over their summer study sessions.

I think that if we're really interested in maternal health, if we're really interested in being a pro-life state and a pro livelihood state, making sure that we have data so that we're making data driven decisions is important.

What do you think, Terri?

I mean, is this just, a way to further this issue for the AG?

Well, I think we need to rely on science and the scientists who study this issue.

I'm I'm like Whitney Whitley.

I am not surprised to see Todd Rokita jump into this fray.

And where was he all this time?

Quite honestly, it wasn't until the Supreme Court said, no, you cannot take this off the shelf and regulate it that he decides this is the avenue he's going to pursue.

But trying to frighten people, trying to frighten women and families in particular.

You need to come out and lead with something a little more substantive than, hey, I think there's a problem here, and we're going to try to create a headline for it.

I mean, Laura, he has joined, you know, a number of other states, and we have seen legislation, you know, this past session as well, targeting this drug.

Will this continue to be something that, Indiana leaders go after?

Yes, I think so.

Especially when you essentially outlaw abortion.

Right.

This is the next thing, you create a black market, so to speak.

But we also recognize the Supreme Court came out and reaffirmed, a woman's right to have mifepristone and to be able to use telehealth in order to get that.

So the timing here, I think, makes a lot of sense.

Will we continue it to your question?

Yes, absolutely.

You think that at the statehouse as well?

Oseye that will absolutely say I mean, I believe the last legislation would have allowed others to call out others.

And if if they did know that people were taking the drug.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And that that was a little frightening to some people.

Very frightening.

So I think majority of people, because how does one know all the details of your business and what exactly you did, you know, and it also is that they're vindictive thing.

So I think that is very scary.

we are in a place now where, obviously Indiana does not want abortions happening in our state, but there's also a thing called free will.

And people have privacy, the right to privacy.

And the Supreme Court said you can get mifepristone through telehealth.

So I don't know how you how you go to the next level of outlawing, just anyone's actions in their home.

I will say.

I volunteered at the Hope clinic, which is in Berne, Indiana, up near Fort Wayne, and at this specific clinic, they actually helped to reverse the abortion pill for the women who have taken it and want a second option.

And so they there at this specific clinic are able to help women to do that.

And I didn't think that it would be as poplar, as it was.

And so volunteering there, I was able to kind of see some of the women who were like, I took it, I don't want this anymore.

I've changed my mind.

What do we do?

And I think we have to circumspectly look at this issue and make sure that we're doing things that are safe for women on both ends of the spectrum.

And that was their choice.

To.

Yeah.

Absolutely fascinating.

What long term road funding in the capital city is the goal of a newly proposed tax increase in Indianapolis.

The proposal comes after the state legislature approved a financing tool that requires Indianapolis to raise matching funds.

The exponential funding growth formula would raise road funding to reach a projected $100 million in 2031.

It would do this in part by allowing the city to qualify for millions more in state funding.

Indiana State Senator Greg Taylor spoke at the meeting.

If we don't do this, the $50 million contribution goes away.

It has to be a new source of revenue.

You cannot take from the current budget and fund this program.

Many residents spoke against the proposal, citing concerns about affordability and fairness.

The increase includes a $240 wheel tax.

It would also provide a $100 excise tax.

A final hearing will take place later this month.

After that, the measure will be voted on by the full city county council.

So, Laura, will this solve, you know, a long time issue here in Indianapolis?

I don't know that the issue ever be truly solved, but it will help address it.

I think infrastructure is so difficult is a political issue because no one's ever exceeded their expectations.

but oftentimes expectations aren't met.

So people get annoyed like, I want to be on a road, I want to drive without potholes.

And the reality is, in Indiana, that's that's just not oftentimes the case.

we also have elections coming up, and it's going to be an unpopular decision, but I think it might absolutely be a necessary one.

And interestingly, like this proposal is going through, of course, we have the congressional midterms in November, but we have local elections for Indianapolis.

And I'm curious if if people are so opposed to the excise tax, if they're opposed to to the wheel tax, where do our mayoral candidates stand?

Right.

Maybe there's another creative way to make the state match, but still fund the roads and provide the necessary infrastructure.

It's decaying.

It's aging.

It has to be addressed.

It's going to be unpopular to do so.

Maybe there's another solution right now on the table.

This looks like the best option.

I mean, we are going to have a big mayoral race next year in Indianapolis.

We have heard the current mayor, Joe Hogsett say he does not support this.

I thought that was interesting that he came out against at this point.

Yes, he has a different plan.

Correct.

And he can also veto this plan.

If it actually passed the city county council.

what I think we have to we always have to remember when we're talking about our roads is the state funding system.

And that is part of the reason why our roads look the way they do, because, the state funds roads, the same mile of roads that the same all over the state, no matter how many lanes you have.

So in the Indianapolis, we have, I think, 8400 lane mile mile lanes or and then, but we only get funded for 3400.

So that makes a huge difference in how our how our roads look compared to other parts of the state.

But to be honest, I don't I don't go anywhere in the state and feel like the roads are in optimum condition.

So we really need to revisit the funding formula in general.

but I do hope that we figure out how to fix it.

But I will say that the the jump for some people in the tax is a is a big jump, but $80 for the, for the excise.

And then about what?

Depending on your vehicle, $240 for the for the wheel tax.

So that's a lot.

That's a big increase that we have not like incrementally done.

It's just like jumping straight to it.

So for some people that's going to be a bit of a shocker.

I mean Oseye makes a great point.

You know every year we hear about how unfair the funding formula is for the city of Indianapolis.

And there have been many times that we've maybe tried to to make effects.

And this was a significant, fix that the legislature gave to Indianapolis.

But, it has to be new money.

So that's kind of the match catch.

Yeah.

I never thought I would sit on this panel and agree with Joe Hogsett, but here I am agreeing with Joe Hogsett.

I don't think we should necessarily be raising taxes.

I'm never hit a pothole in Carmel County.

I've never hit a pothole.

Well, together they have some of the best roads ever.

Indianapolis, on the other hand, it's do or die.

it definitely feels Third world out there.

Couple that with a lot of the infrastructure construction happening now, do we need infrastructure dollars pouring into Indianapolis?

Yes.

Do we need a better plan of how those dollars are going to get used?

Absolutely.

Do we need the leadership in Indianapolis to show us a better plan?

Yes.

Will we have that in the next election cycle?

I hope so, I well, we did hear to from so many people at these meetings me that, you know to Oseye's point, now's not the time.

I can't afford this.

This is, going to be an affordability issue for many people.

But let me say this.

The General Assembly has talked about the road funding problem with Indianapolis and other major urban areas for years.

I mean, years and Oseye is absolutely right.

The issue is this it's lane miles versus just traditional funding model.

They have refused refuse to try to modify it.

So they're forcing Indianapolis to say, okay, you want more money.

You've got to create a new tax.

Did they do that for any other community in the state?

No.

And now they're going to try to what what we really ought to look at is I still say we go back to that original road funding bill in 2017 where they raised the gas tax and do an audit of all of that money to see where it has actually gone.

That's what we need to do.

But nobody wants nobody wants to be accountable.

That is Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel has been Democrat Terri Austin, Republican Whitley Yates, Oseye Boyd, editor in chief at Mirror Indy, and Laura Merrifield Wilson, professor of political science at University of Indianapolis.

You can find Indiana Week in Review's, podcast and episodes at WFYI.org/IWIR or on the PBS app.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

Join us next time because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.