Open enrollment study highlights value of school choice, erosion of local school control

The success of open enrollment shows parents value educational choice and signals the weakening of the local school monopoly, data from a new study suggests.

In Colorado and Arizona, two open-enrollment states, one-third of public school students attend schools outside their assigned district.

In Arizona, 19% of publicly funded students are in charter schools, 10% use open enrollment and 6% receive private school choice scholarships. The data is from 2022-2023, and the state’s school choice programs have grown since then. 

In Colorado, which doesn’t have private school choice, 13% of its publicly funded students are in charter schools and 20% take advantage of public school open enrollment. 

The study, by Jude Schwalbach of the Reason Foundation, demonstrates the growing demand for options, offering substantial proof that parents will take advantage of educational choices when available. 

The analysis of 19 states used the latest data from each state. Several states, such as Texas and Arkansas, either passed or expanded school choice programs after the survey data was collected. 

The report found a total of 1.6 million students using open enrollment across 19 states. This is slightly more than the 1.2 million students using private school choice programs across 35 states.  

Notably, both the number and size of school choice programs are expanding. States including Tennessee and Texas passed school choice bills this year, and states with existing programs are lifting restrictions to expand access. 

The survey also found 43% of open enrollment students are low-income, reducing the divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” 

“This suggests that open enrollment can weaken the connection between housing and schooling since some students use it to enroll in schools that would otherwise be out of reach due to high housing costs,” the executive summary says. 

Similar arguments are made in support of private school choice, which makes private education accessible for many lower-income students. 

The report noted that 12% of open enrollment participants have special needs but said students with disabilities also face higher rejection rates when attempting to transfer between public schools. 

This mirrors realities in private school choice. 

In Arizona, 18% of education savings account (ESA) participants have special needs, a higher percentage than in public schools. And while many private schools serve students with special needs – including some founded specifically for that purpose – not all private schools can accommodate them. 

The summary also found nearly one-third of students using open enrollment transferred into rural schools, alleviating fears that educational freedom would harm schools in small communities. 

School choice advocates have long argued that school choice is a viable option for rural areas. Towns without private schools may see them start once choice is enacted; students may transfer in or out of the local public school; and public schools often improve when the market becomes more competitive. 

While some states or specific school districts have fought against open enrollment, the number of states offering it has grown by nine since 2020.  

Several wealthy districts in Kansas opposed the state’s introduction of open enrollment in 2024, but a recent report found that neither district was overwhelmed by transfer requests. 

The report acknowledged that use of open enrollment could scale up as more residents learn about the program, which is similar to what happens when school choice is introduced. 

It also noted how public schools have begun to market themselves more and create “attractor programs” to bring in students, since families have more options to consider. 

In conclusion, the executive summary called for greater transparency from states regarding open enrollment data, including the number of transfers, number of rejected applicants, and reasons for denial. 

“Better transparency is crucial to public accountability, program refinement, and more accurate distribution of education funds,” it said.