Say No to Cheap Choice

On Tuesday, Matthew Yglesias commented on the report ES released this week on interdistrict school choice (see below for more posts about this). Yglesias questions my use of the word “only” to discuss our finding that 10 to 20 percent of students would likely benefit from interdistrict choice. Instead he argues that for the students who do benefit, it’s worthwhile. This brings up an excellent question – if a reform is likely to impact a minority of students, but will substantially benefit those students, is it worth the costs? Or, more appropriately, how much in additional resources is it worth expending for the benefit of a minority of students?

This is a question that plagues many choice proposals, which often can only serve a minority of students. And with interdistrict choice, the costs can be pretty high, so policymakers would rightfully want to impact a substantial number of students, even if it isn't the majority. Effective interdistrict choice requires additional transportation to get students to their new schools, financial incentives to get higher performing schools to participate, and academic support for transferring students. It’s critical that a school district or state interested in implementing interdistrict choice carefully weigh these costs with a realistic estimate of the number of students who will benefit—in some areas it will be a lot, and in others only a few. A worse-case scenario is a policymaker trying to scrimp on these costs— introducing a “cheap choice” program that is ultimately detrimental both to goals of integration and student achievement.