Charter schools & neighborhood boundaries - are we not thinking creatively?

The market approach to schools. Maybe one of the most charged phrased in education policy and ed reform at the moment.

But, are we looking at the controversy all wrong?

Critics of a market approach to education point to the fact that parents don't actually have that much choice as to where their students attend. Also, that so far the invisible hand hasn't moved the market in support of "higher performing" schools.

Further, students from the area immediately surrounding charter schools are not guaranteed admission so critics would say that parents can't effectively/definitively choose*.

Critics see this as a charter school's ability to cream the best students from all over the city. Even though (in my very anecdotal experience) 90% of the students that attend charter schools because they are living geographically close**.

Conversely, neighborhood schools are required to take all students within an attendance boundary. And, with the exception of magnet schools, students attending from outside the attendance boundary is exceedingly rare.

So, how about an idea.

It would likely require changes in statute, and is extremely unlikely to happen. But, hear me out:

1. Amend statute to read that every public school student in the city of Chicago has guaranteed admittance at the nonselective high school closest to their home geographically. Essentially, attach guaranteed attendance boundaries to charter schools.
    
2. All schools - traditional neighborhood and charter - are required to hold a lottery if there are empty seats after the geographic preference has been filled. Essentially, for vacant seats any student from anywhere in the city could attend any neighborhood school. If there are too many interested students, a lottery is held.

Advantages:

1. For parents and students - guarantees that the school closest to home is always an option.
    
2. For parents and students - creates more options if they want to pursue them, if there are seats available in a north-side Lincoln Park neighborhood (or wherever) school a student from west Lawndale (or wherever) has the option to attend.
    
3. For utilization/avoiding school closings - if a school is doing well but enrollment is declining because of demographics in a neighborhood, students can elect to attend said school maximizing utilization and retaining.
   
4. For fans of market-based reforms - theoretically gives parents a more equitable market place of options to choose from, increases competition by adding all non-selective schools as options. 

Potential pitfalls:

1. Lack of proactive transparency on the part of district would make it difficult for parents to make decisions.
    
2. If timeline of application/lotteries is unclear or not system-wide it could create uncertainty and chaos on budgeting and planning process (this seems surmountable to me with some foresight and planning).

So, what am I missing? Why won't this work?

 

* For the uninitiated charter schools allow students from anywhere in the district to attend, if there are more students than available space in the school the school holds a lottery.

** Side note: would love to see that metric, average distance travelled to attend each school.