K-12 open enrollment lets students attend public schools other than their assigned ones, and it’s one of the most common forms of school choice. At least 1.8 million students use these programs nationwide, and nearly all states have codified open enrollment laws of varying strength. Yet, there is a dearth of research on the topic, particularly on its effects on student achievement.
Although researchers have spilled much ink about how student mobility, lottery-based admissions, and desegregation plans affect student outcomes, most don’t isolate the impact of K-12 open enrollment on student achievement. Some research has hinted at this relationship, finding that students tend to apply to higher performing districts or exploring the relationship between program participation and districts’ test scores. But high-quality research on K-12 open enrollment is very limited.
While not a full literature review, this brief analysis examines key open enrollment research on how the policy affects student achievement on test scores and college enrollment in the United States from 2000 onward. Overall, of the five studies reviewing the effects of K-12 open enrollment on student achievement, four of them find that participants experienced statistically significant positive results or no effect. Policymakers should keep these student experiences in mind as they consider strengthening open enrollment laws.
Impact of cross-district open enrollment on student achievement
Nationwide, 42 states offer some form of cross-district open enrollment, allowing students to transfer to public schools outside their assigned district. Data from 26 states show that nearly 1.3 million students use this policy, accounting for nearly 5% of students enrolled in traditional public schools on average.
While four studies examine the effects of cross-district open enrollment on student achievement, only two find statistically significant effects, as shown in Table 1.
Deven Carlson and Stéphane Lavertu’s 2017 study found that inconsistent cross-district open enrollment participation (meaning students who subsequently return to their home district) didn’t affect student outcomes.
Similarly, Joshua M. Cowen and Benjamin Creed’s 2017 research, the stronger of the two studies, found that overall open enrollment participation didn’t affect their academic outcomes in math and reading, even if transfers’ year-over-year participation was consistent.
However, Carlson and Lavertu’s research showed that regular participation significantly improved in both math and reading, especially among black students, when compared with non-participants.
Cowen and Creed also found positive gains in math among students with the lowest achievement levels, but the authors noted that the effect was very small in magnitude.
Overall, these studies found that cross-district open enrollment participation either had a positive or no effect on student achievement. Neither of these studies found that program participation resulted in statistically significant negative effects for student learning.
Table 1: Studies related to cross-district open enrollment and student achievement
| Study | State | Statistically significant positive findings | Null Findings | Statistically significant negative findings |
| Carlson & Lavertu (2017) | Ohio | -Overall regular participants improved on math and reading compared to non-participants, especially Black students | -Effects are null for students who don’t use open enrollment consistently | |
| Cowen & Creed (2017) | Michigan | -Overall, regular participants improved on math and reading compared to non-participants, especially Black students | -Overall impact of participation is close to zero for math and reading;-Consistent participation didn’t affect student outcomes |
Note: Saahoon Hong & Wonseok Choi (2015)and Saahoon Hong et al. (2020) reviewing Minnesota’s cross-district open enrollment program were excluded because their findings were not statistically significant.
Impact of within-district open enrollment on student achievement
Nationwide, 43 states operate within-district open enrollment programs that allow students to transfer to public schools outside their assigned catchment area but still within their school district. While most states don’t track the number of participants, data from five states showed that they often accounted for the vast majority of open enrollment participants.
Four studies reviewed the impact of these policies on student outcomes, but just three reported statistically significant findings. Christopher Campos and Caitlin Kearns (2023) and Austin Nichols and Umut Özek (2010) found either positive or null results, while Özek (2009) found mixed results, as shown in Table 2 below.
The most rigorous of these, Campos and Kearns (2023), examined the policy’s effects on students transferring into California’s Los Angeles Unified School District, finding that consistent program participation resulted in better reading scores on state tests, as well as improved math, reading, and writing scores on the SAT. The study also found that open enrollment transfers were more likely to enroll in a four-year college than non-participants.
Similarly, Nichols and Özek’s 2010 paper showed positive effects for student outcomes in math and reading when students participated in Washington, D.C.’s within-district open enrollment program. Neither of these papers found that within-district open enrollment participation negatively impacted students’ academic performance.
By contrast, Özek’s 2009 study of within-district open enrollment in Florida’s Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater metropolitan area found conflicting results among participants. Only students who transferred two years before the terminal grade of their school (i.e., a 5th-grader transferring the year before transitioning to middle school) saw improvements in math scores. Otherwise, results were null or negative, mainly in reading and persisted year over year.
Özek’s findings indicate that when transfers occur, they can negatively impact elementary students’ achievement in math and reading. When students transferred one year before their terminal grade, their math scores declined. This finding is consistent with other research on student mobility, which shows that students often experience a period of learning loss as they adjust to new expectations, curricula, teachers, and peers at their new school.
However, Özek also found that outcomes for students who transferred earlier–two years before their terminal grade–were unaffected in reading, while their math scores improved significantly. Overall, this shows that despite initial losses, students who switch schools earlier recover after acclimating to their new environment.
Elementary students who transfer before completing middle school (a non-transition year) also experienced negative outcomes in math and reading. These losses persisted, especially in reading, two years after the transfer occurred. However, disadvantaged and middle school students’ outcomes were unaffected by non-transition year transfers.
In sum, the research on within-district open enrollment participation is mixed. Studies from Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., show only positive and null outcomes. Özek’s study, on the other hand, finds that transfer timing can significantly affect student outcomes, especially for elementary students. Yet, middle school students and those from disadvantaged families are unaffected.
Table 2: Studies related to student achievement and within-district open enrollment
| Study | District | Statistically significant positive findings | Null Findings | Statistically significant negative findings |
| Özek (2009) | Pinellas County Schools, Florida | -Math scores for students who transferred two years before their terminal grade | -Math scores overall;-Middle school math and reading scores -Reading scores for students who transferred two years before their terminal grade -Math and reading scores from disadvantaged students -Math scores unaffected year over year | -Reading scores overall;-Reading and math scores for elementary students who transfer during a non-transition year -Negative reading scores persist one year after transfer -Math scores affected transferring one year before terminal grade -Negative reading scores persist for two years after transfer -Advantaged students’ reading scores |
| Nichols & Özek (2010) | District of Columbia Public Schools, District of Columbia | -Reading scores -Math scores | ||
| Campos & Kearns (2023) | Los Angeles Unified School District, California | -Reading scores improved after consistent participation -Math, Verbal, and Writing SAT scores -Increased college enrollments | -Math scores |
Note: Julian R. Betts et al. (2006) reviewing San Diego’s within-district open enrollment program was not included in this table because none of its findings were statistically significant.
Conclusion
Overall, the research on cross-district open enrollment indicates that its effects on student outcomes are either positive or null.
While the findings related to within-district transfers are less clear, two of the three studies found that the policy positively affected student performance or had no effect. Altogether, this means that four of the five studies on this topic found only statistically significant positive effects or null ones. This should reassure policymakers concerned that strengthening states’ open enrollment laws will negatively affect student achievement.
Nonetheless, more research on the effects of K-12 open enrollment on student achievement is necessary, as only a handful of studies have addressed the topic. There is now ample opportunity to build on existing research, as 17 states have strengthened their open enrollment laws since 2021. Today, 16 states have universal cross-district open enrollment programs and 17 states have universal within-district open enrollment programs, all of which are ripe for new research.
In addition to examining the academic outcomes related to open enrollment, researchers should also consider the policy’s effects on student behavior, discipline, student attainment, school safety, and participants’ adult experiences, such as employment or incarceration. This information would provide families, policymakers, school districts and taxpayers with a holistic picture of the impact of these open enrollment programs on students.