Arizona’s open enrollment system didn’t become a cultural juggernaut by accident—it’s a machine built on legal and practical gears that lawmakers elsewhere can study, tweak, or replicate. For lawmakers and their staff skeptical of disrupting traditional district models, Arizona offers a blueprint that’s worked for 30 years. It’s not perfect, and it’s not without faults, but it’s a functioning model that balances parental demand with district stability. Here’s how it works—and where it stumbles.
The legal structure prioritizes clarity and portability. Arizona’s school funding formula allows state dollars to follow students across district lines with minimal complexity, reducing barriers to movement. In contrast, states with fragmented or unequal funding systems encounter resistance, as disparities between districts amplify financial and political tensions. In these states, where local funding variations persist, taxpayers in wealthier districts may express concern for funding students whose families are not subject to the same tax regime. However, Arizona avoids policies that stifle mobility, such as requiring tuition for cross-district transfers or mandating approval to leave a home district—measures that elsewhere deter families from exercising options.
Operationally, districts adapt by positioning themselves competitively. CUSD, with nearly 6,000 out-of-district students, maintains an accessible online platform displaying available seats, emphasizing parental input over geographic dictates. Madison Elementary employs lotteries for its unrestricted schools, sustaining enrollment despite demographic shifts. Yet implementation reveals gaps. Rural districts once faced inconsistent high school tuition costs, which limited options until legislative action—such as Rep. Michelle Udall’s effort to tear down tuition barriers—standardized funding flows. These adjustments highlight the need for ongoing refinement to ensure equitable access.
The system’s viability rests on aligning incentives with demographic realities. With birth rates declining—next year’s preschool cohort is 17% smaller than today’s graduating class—districts are feeling the pressure. Open enrollment transforms this challenge into a mechanism for growth, enabling adaptive districts to expand while compelling others to improve. Critics may point to initial funding imbalances or the risk of depleting struggling districts, and these concerns merit attention. Addressing them requires uniform funding rules, limits on local disparities, and streamlined transfer processes.
For states hesitant to adopt open enrollment, Arizona offers a balanced perspective: it preserves the core promise of public education while introducing flexibility. Its flaws—uneven resources, rural complexities—are manageable with deliberate policy design. Lawmakers can begin modestly, testing simplified transfers or pilot programs, to assess feasibility without destabilizing existing structures. The result is a system that responds to family preferences and demographic trends, not one preserved for its own sake.
Sean McCarthy is Director of Fiscal Policy at the Arizona House of Representatives and a 2025 No More Lines Ambassador with yes. every kid.
