NationStates

Open enrollment is a form of school choice which allows a family to send their child to any school, regardless of the school district they live in. For example, a family in Town X is zoned for School X. However, using open enrollment, they instead send their child to School Y in neighboring Town Y.

And this is the topic of today's discussion: school choice. Each state in the US has its own laws regarding open enrollment. Some states, such as Illinois, do not have a clear policy on this issue. Other states, such as Florida and Arizona, allow families to essentially pick any school. Arizona and Florida allow for free transfer to any district, while some states allow it for students from underachieving schools. Other states allow school districts to set open enrollment policies. I'll use an example from my state of Illinois. There are schools where less than 10% of students meet the basic math and English requirements set by the state. I went to a high school like this for my senior year. Only 20 minutes away was one of the best high schools in the state. I couldn't attend the neighboring high school because I didn't live in their district. With this in mind, I have 2 questions:

1: Should a student be forced to attend a public school in an underperforming school district? Many families can't afford private tuition, so private school isn't an option for the average family.

2: Should you be required to attend the public school for the district you live in (or go to private school), regardless of whether or not your public school is high achieving?

My opinion: Florida's open enrollment policy should be the official policy in any state. The quality of your child's education should not be dictated by the town in which they live in. You should be able to freely transfer to a new school district, even if you don't live in that district. This should especially be the case, at the very least, if you attend an underperforming school.

We have open enrollment in NYC. The only issue is that some students have a hard time getting to school on time -- their commute can be up to two hours each way.

Katganistan wrote:We have open enrollment in NYC. The only issue is that some students have a hard time getting to school on time -- their commute can be up to three hours each way.

Doesn't sound fair for the kid. I guess they can get sleep/do homework on the bus.

Neutraligon wrote:

Katganistan wrote:We have open enrollment in NYC. The only issue is that some students have a hard time getting to school on time -- their commute can be up to three hours each way.

Doesn't sound fair for the kid. I guess they can get sleep/do homework on the bus.

It's not. And if they are driven by parents from say, Staten Island to Brooklyn, the traffic is so bad they might be late anyway.

However, I knew a young man who got to school early every day coming from the Bronx. He told me he got up at 4am and left by 4:30 to make sure he got to my 1st period class on time.

I was shocked, and admired him. I had kids coming from four blocks away, about a quarter mile, who were NEVER on time.

I attended high school in a neighboring town which was part of a different district, and had access to opportunities I would not have had otherwise. The commute was a little rigorous, but worth it in my opinion.

I’m rather supportive.

Katganistan wrote:We have open enrollment in NYC. The only issue is that some students have a hard time getting to school on time -- their commute can be up to two hours each way.

That honestly sucks. But at least they're getting a superior education, so the commute is worth it.

Stellar Colonies wrote:I attended high school in a neighboring town which was part of a different district, and had access to opportunities I would not have had otherwise. The commute was a little rigorous, but worth it in my opinion.

I’m rather supportive.

Although states with open enrollment tend to put the burden of transportation on the family, that's a minor downside compared to the quality of education you're getting. My family personally did some shenanigans to keep me in better schools. My mom would live in one district with good schools and although I lived with my grandparents in a bad district, I was legally required to attend school where she lived. It was usually a 30+ minute drive and I would always have to wake up around 5:30, but I definitely preferred that over a later wake up time at a horrible school.

My old elementary school is an F school from what I hear, while when I went to it back in the late 90s, it was an A school. It got taken over by new people that're bussed in, so it is truly a shame to see. My sister's stepdaughter never has to do any homework there, and you'd think math requires practice on paper at minimum.

Open enrollment is a must if your local school system has collapsed or gone to crap.

Just improving failing schools would be stupid, right?

I feel remote learning has a big role in the future.

Also: now that there are smartphones and automation a great deal of the raison d’etre for tradition style school no longer exists. Rather than flabbling about stuff like open enrollment it would be better to start the transition to a more useful model as soon as possible. “School choice” as an issue should be a thing of the past.

The change could even been described as “open, inclusive and sustainable” so no one could argue against it.

Neutraligon wrote:

Katganistan wrote:We have open enrollment in NYC. The only issue is that some students have a hard time getting to school on time -- their commute can be up to three hours each way.

Doesn't sound fair for the kid. I guess they can get sleep/do homework on the bus.

The kid is picking the school. In the city there is only Stuyvesant HS you live in the rockaways its 90 minutes by subway.

Edit: I support this idea.

Emotional Support Crocodile wrote:Just improving failing schools would be stupid, right?

Well it could be considered evidence of near criminal mismanagement for decades, so yes.

And what happens when you can't go to the school next door because they've got people waking up at 4am to get there?

School choice is evil.

Forsher wrote:And what happens when you can't go to the school next door because they've got people waking up at 4am to get there?

School choice is evil.

In the states, unless its a magnet school or specialized HS, the locals have to be accommodated first.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Forsher wrote:And what happens when you can't go to the school next door because they've got people waking up at 4am to get there?

School choice is evil.

In the states, unless its a magnet school or specialized HS, the locals have to be accommodated first.

Then school choice does not exist.

Emotional Support Crocodile wrote:Just improving failing schools would be stupid, right?

It can take years to do so. What do we do about the thousands of children who don't learn during that time? Giving them an immediate option to improve their education is stupid because you'd rather them languish in a bad school while the improvement process takes place?

¿Por que no los dos?

Forsher wrote:And what happens when you can't go to the school next door because they've got people waking up at 4am to get there?

School choice is evil.

???

Forsher wrote:And what happens when you can't go to the school next door because they've got people waking up at 4am to get there?

School choice is evil.

Vouchers would solve that problem pretty easily. If there was a high demand for education in an area, the extra funds would help existing schools to expand, or would contribute to building new schools.

Galiantus III wrote:

Forsher wrote:And what happens when you can't go to the school next door because they've got people waking up at 4am to get there?

School choice is evil.

Vouchers would solve that problem pretty easily. If there was a high demand for education in an area, the extra funds would help existing schools to expand, or would contribute to building new schools.

That's not what vouchers are.

And you can't just expand because they're going to, wait for it, continue to deny places to neighbourhood children in favour of the commuters.

Or, alternatively, you have several absolutely enormous schools, 40k pupils or whatever, and a bunch of really tired families... and all the other schools have closed down because in order to keep up with expansion, these popular schools are stealing their teachers...

This doesn't appear to happen in the US because the US doesn't actually have school choice according to Ethel. But much of this did happen here and it's why the system was shot in the street and dragged through the mud. Leading to, of course, voucher programme suggestions (possibly policy, I forget) and charter schools (also killed with extreme prejudice, just a few years ago now) twenty years later.

Forsher wrote:

Galiantus III wrote:
Vouchers would solve that problem pretty easily. If there was a high demand for education in an area, the extra funds would help existing schools to expand, or would contribute to building new schools.

That's not what vouchers are.

And you can't just expand because they're going to, wait for it, continue to deny places to neighbourhood children in favour of the commuters.

Or, alternatively, you have several absolutely enormous schools, 40k pupils or whatever, and a bunch of really tired families... and all the other schools have closed down because in order to keep up with expansion, these popular schools are stealing their teachers...

This doesn't appear to happen in the US because the US doesn't actually have school choice according to Ethel. But much of this did happen here and it's why the system was shot in the street and dragged through the mud. Leading to, of course, voucher programme suggestions (possibly policy, I forget) and charter schools (also killed with extreme prejudice, just a few years ago now) twenty years later.

Oh no, just because you jump to a wrong conclusion don't pin it on me.

I said no such thing, in fact my point was quite the opposite.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Forsher wrote:
That's not what vouchers are.

And you can't just expand because they're going to, wait for it, continue to deny places to neighbourhood children in favour of the commuters.

Or, alternatively, you have several absolutely enormous schools, 40k pupils or whatever, and a bunch of really tired families... and all the other schools have closed down because in order to keep up with expansion, these popular schools are stealing their teachers...

This doesn't appear to happen in the US because the US doesn't actually have school choice according to Ethel. But much of this did happen here and it's why the system was shot in the street and dragged through the mud. Leading to, of course, voucher programme suggestions (possibly policy, I forget) and charter schools (also killed with extreme prejudice, just a few years ago now) twenty years later.

Oh no, just because you jump to a wrong conclusion don't pin it on me.

I said no such thing, in fact my point was quite the opposite.

If you give priority to neighbourhood children, you cannot have school choice. Whether you agree with this statement is completely beside the point. It is your fact, which you provided.

Now, as it happens, either the fact you gave is wrong... and you can deny a place to the kid next door... or school choice does not exist... because you can't send your kid to the desirable school, since its capacity is filled by people the school had to accept.

Your fact is just how the present system works in NZ. You don't have to send your kid/s to the school(s) you're zoned for. But if you do try to, then that school has to accept your kid/s, come hell or high water. We contrast this with the school choice model for a reason.

Forsher wrote:

Galiantus III wrote:
Vouchers would solve that problem pretty easily. If there was a high demand for education in an area, the extra funds would help existing schools to expand, or would contribute to building new schools.

That's not what vouchers are.

Vouchers = the money follows the student.

And you can't just expand because they're going to, wait for it, continue to deny places to neighbourhood children in favour of the commuters.

The point of expanding is to enroll as many students as possible. Why would a school expand then deny more funds? Also, what is preventing the establishment of rules to prioritize students within a certain geographic area around the school?

Or, alternatively, you have several absolutely enormous schools, 40k pupils or whatever, and a bunch of really tired families... and all the other schools have closed down because in order to keep up with expansion, these popular schools are stealing their teachers...

That's not how any of this works. If a bunch of families don't want to make a huge commute for school, they're going to prioritize schools closer to them, which will be enough to sustain them. And if a school is really so good tons of people are willing to commute... isn't that a good thing?

This doesn't appear to happen in the US because the US doesn't actually have school choice according to Ethel. But much of this did happen here and it's why the system was shot in the street and dragged through the mud. Leading to, of course, voucher programme suggestions (possibly policy, I forget) and charter schools (also killed with extreme prejudice, just a few years ago now) twenty years later.

Charter schools still exist. In plentiful amounts, actually. And they are superior to public schools in practically every way.

Forsher wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
Oh no, just because you jump to a wrong conclusion don't pin it on me.

I said no such thing, in fact my point was quite the opposite.

If you give priority to neighbourhood children, you cannot have school choice. Whether you agree with this statement is completely beside the point. It is your fact, which you provided.

Now, as it happens, either the fact you gave is wrong... and you can deny a place to the kid next door... or school choice does not exist... because you can't send your kid to the desirable school, since its capacity is filled by people the school had to accept.

Your fact is just how the present system works in NZ. You don't have to send your kid/s to the school(s) you're zoned for. But if you do try to, then that school has to accept your kid/s, come hell or high water. We contrast this with the school choice model for a reason.

If a school has 200 seats, and only 150 are taken by locals that means 50 seats are available for outsiders.

I think people should be allowed to go to the school of their choice.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Forsher wrote:
If you give priority to neighbourhood children, you cannot have school choice. Whether you agree with this statement is completely beside the point. It is your fact, which you provided.

Now, as it happens, either the fact you gave is wrong... and you can deny a place to the kid next door... or school choice does not exist... because you can't send your kid to the desirable school, since its capacity is filled by people the school had to accept.

Your fact is just how the present system works in NZ. You don't have to send your kid/s to the school(s) you're zoned for. But if you do try to, then that school has to accept your kid/s, come hell or high water. We contrast this with the school choice model for a reason.

If a school has 200 seats, and only 150 are taken by locals that means 50 seats are available for outsiders.

Yes. That's not school choice.

Galiantus III wrote:

Forsher wrote:
That's not what vouchers are.

Vouchers = the money follows the student.

Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. If you can explain how school vouchers solve the problem of children being unable to go to the school next door, do tell.

And you can't just expand because they're going to, wait for it, continue to deny places to neighbourhood children in favour of the commuters.

The point of expanding is to enroll as many students as possible. Why would a school expand then deny more funds? Also, what is preventing the establishment of rules to prioritize students within a certain geographic area around the school?

Because once you do that, you don't have a school choice regime. You have a system in which you have to cross your fingers and hope that the school is under-subscribed by people with privileged access.

Or, alternatively, you have several absolutely enormous schools, 40k pupils or whatever, and a bunch of really tired families... and all the other schools have closed down because in order to keep up with expansion, these popular schools are stealing their teachers...

That's not how any of this works. If a bunch of families don't want to make a huge commute for school, they're going to prioritize schools closer to them, which will be enough to sustain them. And if a school is really so good tons of people are willing to commute... isn't that a good thing?

Sure, if they can stay open.+

This doesn't appear to happen in the US because the US doesn't actually have school choice according to Ethel. But much of this did happen here and it's why the system was shot in the street and dragged through the mud. Leading to, of course, voucher programme suggestions (possibly policy, I forget) and charter schools (also killed with extreme prejudice, just a few years ago now) twenty years later.

Charter schools still exist. In plentiful amounts, actually. And they are superior to public schools in practically every way.

In that paragraph, am I talking about the US? Try again.

Forsher wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:If a school has 200 seats, and only 150 are taken by locals that means 50 seats are available for outsiders.

Yes. That's not school choice.

Galiantus III wrote:Vouchers = the money follows the student.

Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. If you can explain how school vouchers solve the problem of children being unable to go to the school next door, do tell.

The point of expanding is to enroll as many students as possible. Why would a school expand then deny more funds? Also, what is preventing the establishment of rules to prioritize students within a certain geographic area around the school?

Because once you do that, you don't have a school choice regime. You have a system in which you have to cross your fingers and hope that the school is under-subscribed by people with privileged access.

That's not how any of this works. If a bunch of families don't want to make a huge commute for school, they're going to prioritize schools closer to them, which will be enough to sustain them. And if a school is really so good tons of people are willing to commute... isn't that a good thing?

Sure, if they can stay open.+

Charter schools still exist. In plentiful amounts, actually. And they are superior to public schools in practically every way.

In that paragraph, am I talking about the US? Try again.

I dont think you understand the meaning of " school choice."

No school has an unlimited number of seats. The choice is ALWAYS limited by availability of seats.

If you are claiming that school choice only happens when every student gets to go to whatever school they choose whether there are seats are not... well that never existed anywhere nor can it.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Forsher wrote:
Yes. That's not school choice.



Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about. If you can explain how school vouchers solve the problem of children being unable to go to the school next door, do tell.



Because once you do that, you don't have a school choice regime. You have a system in which you have to cross your fingers and hope that the school is under-subscribed by people with privileged access.



Sure, if they can stay open.+



In that paragraph, am I talking about the US? Try again.

I dont think you understand the meaning of " school choice."

No school has an unlimited number of seats. The choice is ALWAYS limited by availability of seats.

If you are claiming that school choice only happens when every student gets to go to whatever school they choose whether there are seats are not... well that never existed anywhere nor can it.

The question is whether schools are forced to take pupils from a geographic zone. If that exists? School choice does not.