Debunking Missouri’s K-12 open enrollment fears

Missouri policymakers have introduced proposals to improve the state’s K-12 open enrollment program. The best of these bills, Senate Bill (S.B.) 215, would ensure that students could transfer to any public school with open seats regardless of where they live.

In past years, open enrollment bills in Missouri have failed to secure the necessary support from lawmakers to pass. This is a disservice to Missouri families, as national polling by EdChoice and Morning Consult from January showed that 73% of parents with school-aged children support open enrollment. Moreover, the support is bipartisan, with 71% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats favoring it.

Across the nation, 16 states have already codified strong open enrollment laws, five of which are Missouri’s neighbors: Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. About 101,000 students in these states used open enrollment to attend schools that were a better fit than their assigned ones.

This begs the question: Why hasn’t Missouri followed suit?

Opponents to better open enrollment laws regularly raise three objections. However, these fears often collapse under scrutiny.

Myth #1: Open enrollment will force school districts, especially small and rural ones, to close schools if too many students leave.

While many small and rural school districts fear that open enrollment will negatively impact their enrollments, data from other states show that rural school districts often see increases instead. Small and rural districts in California rely on open enrollment transfers to remain fiscally solvent. Without open enrollment transfers, these districts would have to close schools permanently. 

In Oklahoma, Iowa, Nebraska, Arkansas, and West Virginia, rural districts usually received about 50% of transfers statewide, gaining about 10,400 students on average. In Wisconsin, rural districts increased their enrollment by more than 2,300 students on net.

Oftentimes, students use open enrollment to access smaller class sizes available in rural districts, escape bullying, or shorten their commutes. For instance, many West Virginia transfers occurred so students could go to the same school where a parent taught.

These data show that robust open enrollment laws are not a death sentence for small or rural school districts. Instead, these districts can successfully compete in a robust education marketplace, attracting and retaining students based on their own merits.

Myth #2: Open enrollment will cause a mass exodus of students from lower-performing school districts, resulting in district collapse. 

Under Missouri’s current law, students assigned to school districts that have lost their state-approved accreditation may transfer to accredited districts. This caused the financial collapse of St. Louis County’s Normandy School District (NSD) when it lost its accreditation, and almost 1,000 students–approximately a quarter of its student population–enrolled in neighboring districts. Opponents of strong open enrollment proposals argue that S.B. 215, which would let students transfer to any school with open space regardless of their assigned district’s accreditation status, will cause financial mayhem.

While NSD’s collapse is a striking example of a district’s worst nightmare come true, it only happened because the state’s open enrollment laws were weak. Because Missouri law only lets students transfer after NDS’s situation became so bad that it lost its accreditation, students left en masse. If a strong open enrollment law had been operational, departures would have been gradual and would have occurred earlier as quality declined. NDS would have felt the financial pinch of departures sooner and could have reevaluated its methods to retain students more effectively. 

That’s what happened in California. Some struggling California school districts reached out to the local community to learn how to better retain students after open enrollment led to significant student departures. After implementing specific programs that their communities prioritized, some districts experienced increased student retention and even attracted incoming transfers from other districts.

Data from other states show that most districts should not expect sudden, significant enrollment drops because open enrollment participation tends to increase gradually. When Kansas launched its open enrollment program last year, only 1,500 students, 0.4% of students statewide, transferred to other districts. Similarly, only 1,400 and 2,500 students transferred to other districts when West Virginia’s and Wisconsin’s open enrollment programs became operational.

Myth #3: Open enrollment will siphon resources from local students.

Opponents of open enrollment argue that when students transfer to other districts, it takes education funds away from residentially assigned students. But this isn’t how it works. Under S.B. 215, receiving school districts would count transfers in their district’s membership for funding purposes. This means that the base amount in state funding (nearly $6,400 per student in Fiscal Year 2024) that districts receive for each transfer student is the same as if the student moved inside the district’s boundaries. Districts could also get extra funding for transfer students who are classified as low-income, special education, or English language learners. 

The only exception is Missouri’s roughly 200 hold harmless school districts, which are funded based on state aid levels from two decades ago. Transfer students don’t generate additional dollars for these districts because they’re already funded at higher levels than the state formula provides. Hold harmless districts benefit from this policy and shouldn’t need additional dollars to fill available seats. However, if warranted, policymakers could easily address this by adopting a funding mechanism that provides additional funding for each transfer student they enroll. Other states, such as Nebraska and Wisconsin, have similar mechanisms in place.   

Barring these exceptions, transfer students increase school districts’ revenues because state funds follow them to the receiving school district. These funds can serve as a stabilizing revenue stream for districts, especially those with declining enrollment. This could benefit many districts, as Missouri’s student population has dropped by almost 10,000 students, or 14%, between the 2013 and 2024 school years. Overall, stronger open enrollment laws stand to benefit both students and school districts.

Getting past the myths

Strong open enrollment laws help students and strengthen public education. Open enrollment doesn’t weaken local accountability; it encourages school districts to compete, improve, and become more responsive to families’ needs, as shown by data from California and Wisconsin.

That Arizona, Colorado, and Wisconsin have operated robust open enrollment programs for decades without massive upheavals to traditional public schools should reassure state policymakers and families. Missouri should join its neighbors in placing students first by letting them attend schools that are the right fit regardless of where they live. 

The post Debunking Missouri’s K-12 open enrollment fears appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Source: https://reason.org/commentary/debunking-missouris-k-12-open-enrollment-fears/