Demystifying School Choice and the Damage Done by Getting It Wrong

History of Saying No Without Knowing Why.

Written by: Dan Shibilia InsideMethuen@gmail.com

---

For years, the Methuen School Committee members, myself included, have voted to opt out of the inter-district school choice program before June 1 each year, as required by Massachusetts General Law. Year after year, the resolution was filed and the vote to opt out was cast. The reasons offered varied from community identity, uncertainty about incoming students, to concern about costs, but they shared one common thread: they were not grounded in the facts of how the program actually works.

It wasn’t until recently (the last few days, actually), when the fiscal realities of Methuen’s declining enrollment began to hit hard, that a more complete picture emerged because we went looking for it. Unfortunately, what that picture shows is troubling: the School Committee has been voting to opt out of a program it clearly did not fully understand, based on arguments that do not hold up to legal or financial scrutiny.

The information was always publicly available. It simply was never adequately presented to the committee and they never bothered to investigate what the real fiscal impact, both of opting out and opting in, actually looks like.

Some members of the committee have employed a tactic that, whatever its intent, has had the effect of misleading the public: painting school choice as a mechanism that would flood Methuen’s schools with troubled kids, expensive special-needs students, and unpredictable costs.

It is a compelling fear. It is also not how the law works. With a little effort, some digging in, it is time to say so clearly.

What Is School Choice?

Massachusetts law allows families to enroll their children in schools outside of the city or town where they reside. This is known as inter-district school choice and is defined in G.L. c. 76, §12B. This law states, in summary, that by default, every school district in the state is a school choice district. However, a district may elect not to enroll school-choice students if no space is available. The opt-out mechanism is defined in section (d) of the law and states: “however, that this obligation to enroll non-resident students shall not apply to a district for a school year in which its school committee, prior to June first, after a public hearing, adopts a resolution withdrawing from said obligation, for the school year beginning the following September.”

The law does not allow cities to opt out of permitting students to attend schools in other communities that accept school-choice students. The only thing a city can opt out of is accepting students. Additionally, it requires each sending district to pay a tuition to the district that accepts its students. Currently, that fee is set at $5,000 per student, plus a $75 administration fee. However, the accepting district adds the cost of special education to that fee.

According to the state, Methuen’s preliminary amount to be paid for the 55 Methuen students who are choosing to attend another public school in Massachusetts through inter-district school choice in FY26, based on the October 1, 2025, enrollment data, is $749,933. You read that correctly: Methuen is paying three-quarters of a million dollars for 55 students to choose to be educated in a different public school, with no say in where they go or what services they receive.

We simply have to pay the bill.

If you are thinking the numbers are not adding up, 55 students times $5,075 is $279,125, not $749,933… You would be correct.

So why are we paying so much?

The answer is: we are paying the receiving district’s special education costs for our students. Let that sink in...

We have no say in what services a student receives; we simply pay the bill. This quite literally means that a student can school-choice to another city, the other city can provide the child every service under the sun, up to and including an out-of-district placement, and Methuen, with no programmatic input, must pay the bill that is sent to the state.

This is not a quirk or a loophole. It is the explicit design of the law.

As the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) explains in its advisory memorandum on financial administration of the school choice program, for students with an individualized education plan (IEP), a special education increment is added to the regular education tuition rate, determined by applying annual cost rates to the specific services cited in the student’s IEP and it is the sending district’s responsibility to pay it. ^[1]

The “Troubled Kids” and “Expensive Special Needs” Argument and Why It Falls Apart

So, when city councilor (Ryan) DiZoglio recently stated during a meeting that he did not support school choice because we didn’t know what kind of students we would be receiving, and we would have to foot the bill for the special education services for the students that come into the district via school choice, he clearly didn’t do any research or even ask anyone what Methuen would be on the hook to pay. Meanwhile, the state explains it very clearly.

Having misinformation spread by elected officials is not only irresponsible but also dangerous. But let’s address this argument on its merits, because it deserves a direct rebuttal.

We are not suggesting Councilor DiZoglio did this intentionally. Merely, this narrative has been adopted by many without research, and he was the last to say it out loud.

First: the concern about special education costs applies to students Methuen sends out, NOT students we accept.

Under the law, when Methuen accepts school choice students, the sending district, not Methuen, pays the special education costs. The DESE advisory memo is explicit: “it is the sending district’s responsibility” to pay the special education increment for any student with an IEP attending through school choice. ^[1] The receiving district (Methuen, if we participate) keeps a record of services rendered and is reimbursed by the sending district through the state’s monthly local aid distribution. We would not be absorbing unknown special education costs. We would be billing for them.

This means Councilor DiZoglio had it exactly backwards. If his concern were valid, it would be an argument for Methuen to accept special education students through school choice because another district would be paying for their services, not us.

Second: a receiving district cannot legally screen out students with disabilities.

The school choice law under G.L. c. 76, §12B explicitly states that no school committee shall discriminate in the admission of any child on the basis of “physical handicap, special need or academic performance.” ^[2] DESE’s April 2019 advisory on inter-district school choice is unambiguous: school districts may not consider whether students have a disability, or the nature of their disabilities, in determining whether to admit them and similarly may not rescind any offers of admission on the basis of a student’s disability or needs. ^[3] Enforcement authority rests with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. ^[2]

In other words, even if Methuen wanted to screen out students with special needs, which some officials appear to want, it would be illegal to do so. This is not a gray area. It is a statutory prohibition enforced by a civil rights commission.

Third: behavior or disability status is not a permissible basis for opting out under the law.

The only legally valid reason for a school committee to opt out of school choice is a lack of available space. As DESE’s advisory states directly, all school districts in Massachusetts are presumed to participate, and a committee may only withdraw if it votes to do so prior to June 1 and states its reasons with those reasons filed with the Department. ^[3] A committee that cites student behavior, disability status, academic performance, or community preference as its reason for opting out is not only legally exposed, but it is also placing the city in a position of potential civil rights liability.

Methuen has lost 200 students this school year compared to FY25. We would be hard-pressed to claim we don’t have space.

Were the Opt-Out Votes Even Procedurally Valid?

Beyond the substance of the committee’s reasoning lies a procedural question that has gone unasked: were these annual opt-out votes actually taken in compliance with the law in the first place?

The statute is clear that a public hearing must precede the vote. DESE’s 2019 advisory clarifies that the hearing and the vote can occur at the same regular school committee meeting but only under specific conditions: there must be notice to the public that this item will be discussed, and members of the public must be afforded a genuine opportunity to participate and make their positions known before the vote is taken. ^[3]

That is a meaningful legal standard, not a rubber stamp.

The question for Methuen is whether the posted agendas for those regular business meetings specifically identified a public hearing on school choice as an agenda item… not merely a vote… but a hearing, with public comment invited. If the item was listed as routine business without clearly advertising it as a public hearing at which residents could weigh in, the procedural foundation for those opt-out resolutions is, at a minimum, questionable.

Compare Methuen’s approach to how other districts handle this. Brockton, for example, posts a standalone agenda, separate from its regular business meeting, specifically titled “Public Hearing on School Choice,” with a dedicated call to order, public comment period, and discussion, all cited directly to M.G.L. Chapter 76, Section 12B. ^[4] That approach leaves no ambiguity about whether the statutory requirement was met.

DESE’s advisory on school governance reinforces why this matters: the school choice law requires the committee to vote after holding a public hearing as a condition precedent to declining to admit non-resident students. ^[5] The hearing isn’t a formality that can be folded invisibly into a regular agenda item. It is a legal prerequisite. If Methuen’s opt-out votes were taken without a properly noticed public hearing, those votes may not have been validly taken under the statute which would mean the district has been operating outside the law while paying nearly $750,000 a year for the privilege.

This is not a technicality. Public notice requirements exist so that residents, parents, taxpayers, and community members who are directly affected by this decision have a real opportunity to be heard before the vote is cast. If those residents were never meaningfully informed that a hearing was taking place, they were effectively cut out of a decision that costs their city three-quarters of a million dollars a year.

The Real Fiscal Picture

We have 200 fewer students this school year than we did in FY25. Those 200 students equate to a $3,563,400 reduction in our foundation budget (200 × our per-pupil foundation budget amount of $17,817). One hundred of that reduction was due to a decline in kindergarten enrollment which means that next year, we will likely have lower numbers in both kindergarten and first grade. The source for the $17,817 figure is: Methuen Public Schools FY26 Proposed Budget Public Hearing document, available at https://methuen.massteacher.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2025/05/FY-26-Proposed-Budget-8-1.pdf

Does it make sense to open the entire district up to school choice? Maybe not. Does it make sense to offer a limited number of seats to students in kindergarten and first grade to offset some of the amount we pay out? The entire topic is still worth a serious conversation.

One argument we hear is that we don’t pay for school-choice students from the operating budget, so it doesn’t really impact the schools. While it is true that school choice students are not part of the operating budget, the $749,933 Methuen pays out is part of the chargebacks, the money added to our operating budget to reach net school spending. So the money is deducted from the amount the city must allocate to the schools’ operating budget. If we could offset this amount with tuition income from accepting students, it could reduce the chargeback amount and free up money for the district to use in the operating budget.

Another argument we have heard is “we only want Methuen kids in Methuen Public Schools.” While this is a nice sentiment, it is not a legally available option. The only reason the law allows a school committee to vote no to school choice is space limitations. To this end, any reason cited by officials, besides space, is not valid under the law. And Councilor DiZoglio’s on-the-record rationale about special education costs, as detailed above, is not only legally invalid as a reason to opt out, it is also factually inverted: it describes a problem that already exists for Methuen as a sending district, not one we would face as a receiving district.

How Accepting School Choice Students Would Help Methuen

The question isn’t just what school choice costs Methuen as a sending district. The more important question is: what could it return if Methuen chose to participate as a receiving district? The answer, supported by both state data and the experience of districts across Massachusetts, is substantial.

The Empty Seat Principle: Revenue Without New Cost

The school choice funding model is built on a straightforward economic reality: the marginal cost of educating one additional student is far lower than the average per-pupil cost. As the superintendent of Newton Public Schools explained it plainly during her district’s school choice debate:

“If there’s a bus that we own and there are 50 or 70 seats filled, we’ve already paid for the gas and the driver and the repair and parking and all of those things.

So there are 20 extra seats. The School Choice program works the same way.” ^[6]

Methuen has already paid for its buildings, its teachers, its administrators, and its buses. It has lost 200 students. Those empty seats do not reduce fixed costs but they do represent an opportunity. Each choice student who fills one of those seats brings $5,075 in tuition toward costs the district is already bearing. As the Berkshire Hills Regional School District, which has participated in school choice for nearly three decades, explains

“The $5,000 that follows a choice student is a net financial benefit to the receiving district” because its marginal costs are lower than that amount. ^[7]

Direct Revenue That Offsets What Methuen Already Pays Out

Tuition income from accepting choice students flows directly into the monthly local aid distribution, the same mechanism by which Methuen currently pays out $749,933 a year for its 55 students who choose other districts. ^[8] Every dollar Methuen collects in choice tuition offsets a dollar it would otherwise have to pay out or make up through local appropriation. The chargeback that drains the operating budget shrinks. The amount the city must contribute to reach net school spending decreases. That is direct fiscal relief.

Berkshire Hills offers a real-world illustration: last year the district realized approximately $1.25 million in school choice revenue and applied it to offset its annual assessment reducing what its three member towns owed by nearly $2 million combined. ^[7] Methuen is a much larger district with more capacity. The upside, even from a limited, targeted program in specific grades, could be meaningful.

Protecting Programs That Declining Enrollment Threatens

Enrollment decline does not just cut revenue, it eventually forces program cuts. When a class or grade shrinks below a viable threshold, specialized offerings become too expensive to sustain on a per-pupil basis. Research on the Massachusetts choice program has found that receiving districts are able to “offer particular niche programs when they might not be able to attract enough resident pupils to enroll in them,” making the district more efficient and more capable of delivering strong programs. ^[9] Accepting a targeted number of choice students in kindergarten and first grade, where Methuen’s losses have been steepest, helps stabilize the enrollment pipeline before those cuts become necessary.

A Competitive Signal to the Community

There is also a reputational dimension worth considering. A school committee that opts out of school choice year after year sends a message: we are not confident enough in our schools to invite outside families in. Personally, that was never the message I intended to send but, admittedly, I was uneducated.

A committee that opens targeted seats signals the opposite. As Pioneer Institute’s research on the Massachusetts program notes, the choice program was designed in part to “spur competition between districts” because competition creates incentives to improve. ^[9] Families choosing out of Methuen are already voting with their feet. Accepting choice students does not cause that problem but engaging seriously with the program is part of addressing it.

The Enrollment Liability Is Compounding Every Year

One final point that should focus the committee’s attention: Methuen’s 55 choice-out students are not a one-time problem. Under G.L. c. 76, §12B(m), once a student is admitted to a receiving district through school choice, they have a statutory right to remain through the completion of their program regardless of any future decision by either district. ^[2] The tuition bill is recalculated and re-certified every October 1 and April 1, at current rates, including any new or expanded special education services. ^[8] Those 55 students will keep generating bills for years. The only way to reduce that liability over time is to make Methuen schools compelling enough that families stop choosing out and accepting choice students in return is one concrete, immediate tool to offset the cost while that harder, longer work is done.

Looking Ahead

I look forward to the public hearing and vote on a resolution, as required by Massachusetts General Law, before June 1. This time I hope the committee will come prepared with the facts, not fears, about what school choice actually costs, what it actually requires, and what it could actually return to our district. And this time, I hope that the public hearing is properly noticed, genuinely open to residents, and conducted in a manner that meets the statutory standard not as a procedural afterthought bolted onto a regular business meeting.

The information has always been there. It is time to use it. I regret just learning it now but better late than never as they say.

---

Sources

[1] Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Advisory Memorandum on Financial Administration of the Inter-District School Choice Program. Available at: https://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/schoolchoice/choicead.html

[2] Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 76, Section 12B. Available at: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXII/Chapter76/section12B

[3] Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Advisory on Inter-District School Choice Pursuant to G.L. c. 76, §12B (April 23, 2019). Available at: https://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/advisory/2019-0423glc76s12b.html

[4] Brockton School Committee, Public Hearing on School Choice — Agenda (May 20, 2025). Available at: https://www.bpsma.org/apps/news/article/2071469

[5] Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Advisory on School Governance. Available at: https://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/advisory/cm1115gov.html

[6] Bryan McGonigle, “Why School Choice Doesn’t Completely Cover Per-Student Cost,” Newton Beacon, April 9, 2024. Available at: https://www.newtonbeacon.org/why-school-choice-doesnt-completely-cover-per-student-cost/

[7] “The Dollars and Cents of School Choice, Explained,” The Berkshire Edge, May 24, 2025. Available at: https://theberkshireedge.com/the-dollars-and-cents-of-school-choice-explained/

[8] Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, FY2026 Preliminary School Choice Tuition. Available at: https://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/schoolchoice/choice2026.html

[9] Roger Hatch, Inter-District School Choice in Massachusetts, Pioneer Institute White Paper No. 181 (May 2018). Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED589538.pdf