Minnesota’s 1988 open enrollment law was the nation’s first, allowing students to attend public schools outside their zoned home district. The policy reshaped school finance by letting state aid follow the student to a new district. The two teachers’ unions that existed at the time opposed the measure.
Today, open enrollment remains a central feature of Minnesota’s public education system. While the policy could better prioritize student need over boundary lines, this public-school choice policy is used by tens of thousands of families each year.
Data from the Minnesota Department of Education show that open enrollment participation has increased by roughly 27 percent over the last decade. In the 2015 school year, 75,166 students enrolled outside of their residential districts. By 2025, that number had grown to 95,214 students. With total K-12 public school enrollment at 843,287, just over 11 percent — or roughly 1 in 9 students — now participate in open enrollment.
Programs in which at least 10 percent of public school students transfer across district lines signal that “this policy is a key part of states’ education marketplaces,” writes Jude Schwalbach in Education Next.
Data from 26 other states and the District of Columbia compiled by the Reason Foundation place Minnesota among the largest open enrollment programs in the country, tied with Indiana for fourth. Florida leads with 280,154 participants (10 percent of enrollment), followed by Colorado with over 202,000 students participating — 29 percent of its total enrollment, the highest state transfer rate. (Washington, D.C. is the highest nationally at 43 percent, but that is because it “operates as a single district entity in a high-density area with extensive public transportation options,” explains Schwalbach.)
Open Enrollment Participation in Largest Programs
(40,000 participants or more)
Open enrollment participation tends to grow gradually over time, and previous research shows this pattern holds in Minnesota. As Schwalbach notes, this gives school districts time to respond to market forces and adjust, rather than face sudden enrollment shocks.
Minnesota also provides districts with declining enrollment protection that comes with a partial funding guarantee. Because not all local and federal funding is tied directly to enrollment, districts in some cases retain more resources on a per-pupil basis even as students transfer out.
At the same time, statutory restrictions limit the policy’s reach. While districts are required to participate in cross-district open enrollment, they can limit the number of transfer students — even if they have open seats. Districts operating under desegregation or integration plans may also limit nonresident transfers.
Minnesota’s own data suggests participation will continue to rise. With declining birth rates contributing to declining public school enrollment, districts are “actively competing for a shrinking student population where students are increasingly mobile,” writes Schwalbach.
This is not entirely new terrain. Minnesota school districts in the past “have shown how to compete in a more robust education marketplace through more and better specialization,” Schwalbach documents. That dynamic could intensify given growing dissatisfaction with Minnesota public schools.
“This is an opportunity for school districts to increase flexibility within their systems, improve their offerings, try to win back students they’ve lost, and become more attractive to families as a viable education choice,” Schwalbach concludes. Realizing that opportunity will require both local initiative and state-level reform, including removing unnecessary, limiting, and ideologically-driven mandates.
Without starting there, Minnesota risks maintaining a system that limits opportunity for students and the range of options families can realistically access.