Kansas Schools Fought Open Enrollment but Now Need It To Stay Afloat
Superintendents warned open enrollment would overwhelm them. Instead, they have nearly 3,000 vacancies as parents and students have more choices.

Kansas launched its K-12 open enrollment program at the beginning of the 2024–25 school year, allowing students to transfer to public schools other than their residentially assigned ones. Before this reform, school districts had significant discretion over non-resident transfers, rejecting applicants even if space was available in their schools.
Kansas' reform isn't unusual—since 2020, nine states have strengthened their open enrollment laws so students can attend public schools other than their assigned ones when there are extra seats. Yet some public school officials in the state, such as the superintendent of Olathe Public Schools, opposed letting students who live outside their boundaries transfer to fill open seats.
The irony now is that the same district that opposed better open enrollment laws could benefit significantly from non-resident transfers as it faces a $28 million budget deficit after losing almost 1,900 students since the pandemic.
Before it was signed into law in 2022, Kansas' open enrollment policy faced fierce opposition. Notably, two Kansas superintendents, Brent Yeager of Olathe Public Schools and Tonya Merrigan of Blue Valley Public Schools, testified that their "nationally competing" school districts would be overwhelmed by transfer requests.
But it turns out that this was grossly exaggerated. Instead of being overwhelmed by transfer requests, Olathe Public Schools only received 72 transfer requests for the 2024–25 school year, filling just over 10 percent of the district's 590 vacancies. The Olathe Reporter noted that the district excluded certain schools from transfer applicants due to anticipated growth and higher attendance rates.
Yet a new report estimated that Olathe Public Schools could have nearly 3,000 open seats—more than enough openings to accommodate the handful of transfers they received so far. This means that five times as many seats could be available during the next school year as the current one.
However, a high volume of transfer requests wasn't the superintendents' only concern. "Without intending to sound elitist," they added, "it is nonetheless true that housing costs in our districts often provide a check on resident student growth now." In other words, Olathe and Blue Valley didn't want to accommodate families who couldn't afford a $363,000 home, which is the average median home value in these districts.
Contrary to Merrigan's and Yeager's fears, strong open enrollment programs don't attract large shares of students overnight. For instance, just 2,464 students participated in Wisconsin's open enrollment program when it was launched in 1998—less than 1 percent of students statewide. In the intervening 26 years, participation has increased by about 14 percent annually, accounting for 8 percent of Wisconsin public school students during the 2023–24 school year.
Similarly, in West Virginia, only about 1,400 students, or 1 percent of public school students, transferred to schools in other districts when its program became operational in 2023.
Participation in Kansas' new open enrollment program isn't too different from Wisconsin and West Virginia's initial participation rates—just over 1,500 students and fewer than 1 percent of Kansas students enrolled in public schools.
As the program scales up, however, Kansas school districts should start thinking about how to attract new students instead of how to keep them out. Like many state public school systems, Kansas's student count has dropped by 3 percent since the pandemic.
In particular, the Kansas Department of Education reports that Olathe's and Blue Valley's student counts declined by 6 percent and 3 percent, respectively, during that time frame.
These losses are due to an increasingly competitive education marketplace as families choose schooling options other than their residentially assigned public school and the effects of a birth dearth that began in 2007.
Some public schools are already experiencing growing pains in this new education landscape where students have greater agency in school selection. Nick LeRoy, whose organization, SchoolMint, specializes in rebuilding public schools' student enrollments, explained that traditional public schools resist the idea of having to "market their school," even though schools are now operating in an increasingly "free market sort of environment."
For example, some traditional public schools in Florida created "attractor programs," which give students hands-on experience with flight simulators, gardening, robotics, and 3D printing in order to retain and attract new students. School districts that fail to adapt, like Florida's, risk losing students.
These competitive pressures will only increase as more states adopt strong open enrollment policies, like Kansas', which weaken the tie between housing and schooling. Currently, state policymakers in 12 states are considering proposals that would significantly strengthen their open enrollment laws.
To date, 16 states have codified strong open enrollment laws. In five of them—Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, West Virginia, and Wisconsin—nearly 686,000 students used open enrollment to attend schools that are the right fit, accounting for 14 percent of these states' public school enrollments. These data illustrate that traditional public schools can successfully operate in competitive education marketplaces without the sky falling.
Instead of letting overblown fears stifle good policy, school district leaders should embrace open enrollment. Additionally, traditional public schools shouldn't be afraid of the same competitive pressures faced by private and charter schools where parents and students can vote with their feet.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
State of Illinois is about to pass a law that would force homeschoolers and private schools to conform to teachers union demands at the risk of criminal penalties. Big protest in Springfield. Maybe Reason could cover it.
Be careful what you wish for, they'll probably take the side of the state. It would be in keeping with recent Reason positions.
Erm, I'm not sure that "don't worry, nobody is switching there anyway" is a great argument.
Surely the idea was that students *would* transfer from lousy districts to good ones? But that risks turning the good ones into lousy ones, or worse ones, anyway. But you seem to be saying "don't worry about it, nobody's using this much anyway."
There's cargo cult thinking going on here. Taking 1000 students from a Detroit school and enrolling them in a suburban school is not going to magically result in academic success.
But it might magically result in election success.
Election success in Detroit, failure in the suburb.
Taking 1000 students whose parents don't care about their success in school from a bad school to a good school will only make the good school worse. But taking 1000 students whose parents went to considerable trouble to get their kids into a better school might see nearly 1000 students doing much better in school.
Hey, public school district, if you want my kid (and my money), here's some suggestions:
1. Demonstrate academic success, if not excellence.
2. Remove all political content, including teacher's personal preferences. I don't give a shit about their first amendment rights in the classroom.
3. Guaranty that my parental rights are absolute, and that you will never try to subvert me when it comes to my kid.
4. Tell me how you will directly and quickly deal with kids and parents who disrupt learning.
After that, tell me about perks. Gonna have some dinners to go? Teachers who will mow my lawn and wash my car?
However, a high volume of transfer requests wasn't the superintendents' only concern. "Without intending to sound elitist," they added, "it is nonetheless true that housing costs in our districts often provide a check on resident student growth now."
Really? What else could have possibly been a concern in a white flight suburb? Where housing costs were jacked up via access to FHA loans and where deed restrictions were used to make sure there would be no redlining because there would be no blacks allowed. And now the house prices alone ensure restrictions. Oh - and the zoning.
It's almost like the present day happens by magic
Yes, this is well covered in The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein. And you know which party was largely responsible for these race-based laws? I'll bet you can guess.
..No guess?
..still not?
Bingo, time's up. The same party that has promoted race-based policies like Jim Crow laws, affirmative action, and DEI.
When it comes to housing in the North - you're wrong. It was people like Herbert Hoover, R developers (including the one from Olathe KS - JC Hughes - mentioned in the link), banks and real estate groups, urban planners like Robert Moses, and R advocates (like Robert Taft) of urban 'renewal' (like requiring that one unit of urban housing be destroyed for every unit of public housing built) and white flight and municipal expansion.
Just look at every Northern city. Republican mayors/councils until almost exactly the point (1960 or so) where white flight destroyed their white voting bases and 'urban renewal' destroyed any goodwill they might have with anyone in the city who wasn't allowed to move to the suburbs. So the D's became mayors of the urban wreckage and the R pols moved out to the now-segregated suburbs.
The book you cite has much of that info. Frankly - I doubt you even read the book. You're just using it as a bogus cite to perpetuate DeRp.
Instead of letting overblown fears stifle good policy, school district leaders should embrace open enrollment.
I don't know, I don't think you can convince parents (or students) to go to schools where the mentally ill/attention seeking students are allowed to force the normal students to indulge their delusional behavior by sharing bathrooms and locker rooms against their will. To say nothing of the beautiful special magical teachers who have made their sexual kinks their entire identity.
Haven't you considered how open enrollment is a direct threat to the LGBT grooming, abuse, and rape of public school students? How are we going to facilitate the perverts and pedophiles if students are allowed to reject schools that mandate the rainbow brainwashing?
If we're going to protect/serve the LGBT - and let's be real, that is the ONLY thing that matters (and the last election proved it) - we gotta take away freedom from these parents/students, and FORCE them to submit to our indoctrination programs.
Kamala 2028 y'all!
You are in big trouble. Secretly recording DNC leadership meetings is a felony, doncha know.
Oh no... Quick! Pull out the Gov-'Guns' again and go round up all the sheeple who escaped the Gov-Gun-Gods commie-indoctrination camp!! /s
How about that. Maybe 'Guns' don't teach kids after all.