Brendan P. Walsh

Rick Snyder is staying true to his free market principles as he continues to press his “Borderless Schools” proposal that would have Lansing foist Schools of Choice on all K-12 districts in Michigan.

The interesting philosophical debate is whether Lansing intervention is actually more regulatory than free market based.  Regardless, let’s look at the actual state of the market as it relates to School of Choice (SOC).

In the 2010-11 school year there were 552 Local Education Authorities (LEA’s) and 287 Public School Academies (PSA’s) in Michigan. An LEA is what we’d consider a traditional K-12 school district.  A PSA is essentially a charter school.

Starting on this statistic is significant to the debate because a charter school is already a borderless school and represents a free market option.  Enrollment in PSA’s was 118,678 to LEA’s 1,441,476.  Right off the bat, 7.6% of all K-12 students/families opt for charter schools.

SOC districts choose to open their schools to enroll students who do not live within the LEA’s legal boundary.  Since Proposal A, districts have had this option – executable by annual action by the locally elected school board.

Of the state’s 552 LEA’s, 450 (82%) chose to participate in Schools of Choice.  102 (18%) did not.  If we translate those districts to student enrollment, SOC districts represent 71% of total K-12 enrollment to the non-SOC’s 21% (recalling the rest are charter school students).

Immediately we see that (a) an incredibly large portion of LEA’s opt into SOC, but that (b) larger districts appear less likely to opt into SOC since their student population is proportionally higher than the percentage of LEA’s that opt in. 

So the market has spoken, right? If your adoption rate is 82%, why would politicians choose to regulate further?  This is the key question that all districts, SOC and non-SOC alike, should be asking.

If we go a layer deeper into the numbers, despite the very high district level SOC participation rate, student participation in SOC schools is much smaller.

Only 8.2% of the total SOC district enrollment are there on account of the district’s SOC participation.  Sure, 91,168 is a good number of students, but proportionally it is fairly low.  In  total only 6.3% of LEA students attend a school outside their home district, factoring SOC and non-SOC districts alike.

Is it possible the consumers in this market, despite plenty of options, are simply choosing to not go to another school district?  This is certainly a factor.  These schools are probably farther from their home. Not going to school with neighborhood buddies probably isn’t real attractive.  The local school may simply be a better option for any number of reasons.  These are market factors.

Another possibility could be the limitations the local district puts on its SOC participation.  Commonly SOC districts limit the number of out of district students allowed to attend, often by grade level, with lower elementary favored.

This is where this issue may get tricky even for those districts that have already opted into SOC and who may be paying less attention to this issue figuring it won’t affect them.

First and foremost it DOES affect you because what you once decided locally is now to be decided in Lansing.  No matter your stance on SOC, LOCAL Education Authorities should oppose on this basis alone.

Is Gov. Snyder and his advisors looking at that 6.3% and concluding this market is too regulated by the LEA’s?  Is his interest in this legislation aimed at uncapping SOC enrollment?

The mysterious nature of where, when and how this bill is being developed should be frowned upon by our market of democratic citizens and regardless of your local district’s current decision on participating in Schools of Choice.

2010-11 MI SOC Enrollment by District