Open enrollment benefits all children, not just ‘rich, white kids,’ analyst argues

As New Hampshire considers implementing open enrollment statewide, a recent commentary takes aim at naysayers suggesting this will hurt students and underserved districts.

“We know it’s a fantasy because 23 states already have robust open enrollment programs, and credible research on these programs points in the opposite direction, finding that competition among schools incentivizes the ‘have nots’ to make changes to be more competitive,” writes Peter Angerhofer, published by Seacoast Online.

“While it is convenient to argue, as (Somersworth Superintendent John) Shea does, that only ‘…rich white kids…’ will benefit from the program, the facts once again do not support the accusation.”

Angerhofer, who has served on the board of the Josiah Bartlett Center and Heronfield Academy, highlights the data from other districts with open enrollment policies – showing the broad socioeconomic range of participating students.

“In Wisconsin, for example, the racial profiles of program participants largely match the state demographics with the exception that Hispanics are slightly over-represented. In California, Hispanics make up 40% of open enrollment students. And across 10 open enrollment states, 44% of participants are eligible for free or reduced lunches,” he notes.

“When Shea writes the program will only help ‘…rich, white kids…,’ he should have omitted ‘rich, white’ and just said it will help ‘kids.’”

‘A fantasy of horrific results that have not materialized’

Angerhofer’s column arrives after New Hampshire’s Legislature fast-tracked House Bill 751, which would allow parents “to enroll their children in any public school in the state.”

As a result, Shea envisions a future of “affluent districts bullying less affluent districts, desirable schools cherry-picking athletes and musicians, and low-performing schools becoming hollowed out buildings of last resort,” according to Angerhofer.

“Shea also does not appear to have read the actual bill he attacks. He claims that ‘we will inevitably have districts creaming top students, athletes, musicians, et al. from other districts.’”

However, Angerhofer points to the legislation’s wording to address this argument.

“The bill explicitly forbids this, stating that ‘No receiving school or district shall accept or reject an applicant based upon grade or age levels, pupil needs, areas of academic focus, aptitude, academic or athletic achievement.’”

Meanwhile, districts experiencing outflow in states with open enrollment policies responded by making positive changes within their communities, Angerhofer concludes.

“In open enrollment states like California, home districts (those sending students to ‘Districts of Choice’) sought to improve their appeal to local students and parents by convening community meetings to learn about family desires, studying the programs in desirable districts, and developing more popular course offerings like college prep courses or additional science and math classes.”

Instead of focusing on verifiable facts, critics of open enrollment tend to rely on what-if scenarios without providing proof these have ever occurred, according to Angerhofer.

“After chiding people for not paying attention to details, Shea claims the open enrollment bill would allow a practice it specifically forbids, then imagines a fantasy of horrific results that have not materialized in other states with open enrollment laws.”

As previously reported by The Lion, a recent study found 1.6 million students are using open enrollment across 19 states.

“The injection of competition might seem daunting, perhaps even scary. But discomfort can spur positive change,” Angerhofer concludes.

“The introduction of competition creates strong incentives to improve educational services without increasing costs. This is just what has happened in other states, benefitting both students and taxpayers.”