• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Education Program

School Choice

* Puerto Rico has both charter school and inter-district school choice options.

Since the initial passage of inter-district public school choice in Minnesota in 1988, the number of states with inter-district public school open enrollment policies has grown to 22. Although recently states have favored charter schools as a means of providing parents with choice options - currently 36 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico - two states, South Dakota and Wisconsin, passed statewide choice legislation in 1997.

These few pages are intended to highlight key components of school choice laws and provide a few examples of how states have addressed these considerations. Arguments used by those advocating the listed considerations are highlighted in order to stimulate discussion.

Each state has specific provisions outlining the application procedure (including due dates for application and often notification to the district of residence) and requirements that the receiving district accept credits transferred from the district of residence.

Currently, Florida is the only state with a statewide program that includes private school choice options. Milwaukee, WI and Cleveland, OH have citywide programs, both of which have been challenged, but ruled constitutional on religious establishment grounds. Given the unresolved constitutional issues associated with voucher systems, some states interested in expanding private school choice options have turned to tax deduction and credit legislation.

• Some studies have demonstrated that students receiving vouchers in Milwaukee and Cleveland have increased student achievement in private schools.
• A full choice program is most equitable, allowing for all students to have the same array of options that the wealthy have always enjoyed.

• Most state constitutions specifically prohibit direct government aid to religious institutions. Federal constitutional issues around the separation of church and state also have been raised.
• Vouchers take money away from public schools either through a proportion of the state funding formula or in revenue which could have gone to public schools.
• Vouchers will bring unwanted government regulation to private schools.

Some states have voluntary statewide school choice programs, allowing school districts to choose not to participate in the program. In Michigan, for example, 217 out of the state's 557 school districts have opted into the program since it was passed in 1996. However, in Iowa, the receiving school district must accept all applicants unless there is insufficient space or a violation of established desegregation plans. States with mandatory compliance have found greater student participation in choice programs; although enrollment in statewide programs usually only grows to about 1 to 2 percent of eligible students.

• Districts have little incentive to opt into the choice program; therefore, the state should mandate participation.

• As districts ultimately have to educate choice applicants, they are in the best position to assess whether their participation will have a negative impact.

While most state legislation allows for the district to create student acceptance policies, some states explicitly outline provisions that can and cannot be included in these policies. Commonly, school districts are prohibited from accepting students based on academic achievement, athletic or other extracurricular ability, a disabling condition, previous disciplinary history, or limited English proficiency. Standards normally include the capacity of a program, class, grade level or school building within the district.

In Delaware, however, the receiving district can use criteria for acceptance "that is reasonably related to the nature of the program or school for which the application is submitted." This includes the ability to reject an application based on special needs requirements outlined in an Individualized Education Plan. The state lists priorities categories that districts must adopt. Some states either allow or mandate districts to accept applications from students in which a child from the same nuclear family attends a receiving district school.

• Districts are in the best position to assess if it can accommodate a student's needs.

• For a more equitable selection process states should at least set minimum requirements for districts to follow when evaluating choice applicants.

In order to ensure that all parents are aware of choice options, some states mandate that districts publicly announce the availability of the open enrollment program. For example, in Arkansas, a participating district must make public announcements "over the broadcast media and in the print media" announcing the availability of the program. Washington originally mandated that the superintendent of public instruction prepare and annually distribute an information booklet outlining parental enrollment options for their children (it was repealed in 1994).

• For choice programs to involve a larger proportion of the student population, parents must be made aware of open enrollment procedures and deadlines.
• Parents must know about existing programs across the state in order to best select a school and district for their child.

• Parents should bear the responsibility of investigating choice options for their children.

The responsibility of getting to the school of choice or to a regular bus route or school district boundary is commonly placed on the pupil's family rather than the school district of residence. If students qualify, most states have provisions to provide transportation or reimburse the pro rata cost of the transportation to and from a point on a bus route in the receiving district. In Michigan, there is no free transportation provision, limiting the ability of many students in inner city areas to participate in the choice program.

• Impoverished and rural students need transportation assistance to be able to participate in a statewide options program.

• Including transportation costs unduly burdens the school district or adds to the cost of enacting statewide choice legislation.

There is some variation across states as to the duration of enrollment without reapplying. Some states set minimum time periods (although all have provisions allowing pupils to return to the district of residence) while others, like North Dakota, assume that enrollment is until graduation.

• Through reapplication, parents and school districts will reassess the student's progress in the new school district.

• Reapplication creates extra paperwork and levels of bureaucracy for school districts or the state.

The level of funding which follows the student is an essential component of school choice programs. If a school district receives an application from a pupil in a district with less local revenue or state aid allocation, and the funding formula uses the sending districts contribution, there is no incentive for a school district to accept that student. Issues of equity commonly surround funding provisions as students are more likely to transfer from a school district with less local revenue to a district with higher per pupil spending.

In Idaho the sending district must pay the local contribution of the receiving district. In Iowa and Delaware, the sending district pays the lower of the two local revenues. Further, in Delaware, the difference in local revenues is put into the "School Choice Fund" which is administered by the Department of Public Instruction. The money is given to all receiving districts that have the lower local revenues in pro-rata fashion in order to narrow per pupil expenditure disparities across districts.

• This option allows districts with lower per pupil spending to participate in the choice program without bearing an undue financial burden.

• In a mandatory choice program, this option provides the greatest incentive for school districts to reform in order to attract and keep students.

• This option holds both district harmless in implementing school choice legislation.

Visitor counts for this page.

Education Home Page