Education Week’s District Dossier blog wrote last week about a new report on the effectiveness of desegregation programs in improving student achievement, stating:

After examining the nation’s eight remaining desegregation programs that enable disadvantaged students to cross school district boundary lines to attend more-affluent, suburban public schools, the researchers conclude that the programs are “far more successful than recent choice and accountability policies at closing the achievement gap and offering meaningful school choices.”

I wrote a report last year that reviewed the existing research on these programs and was underwhelmed by the evidence on their effectiveness. After reading the Ed Week post, I was curious about what new information the authors used to come to the conclusion that these programs are superior to other reform efforts. But there was no new information and the authors actually came to much the same conclusions as I did about the existing research—primarily that “there is less solid research on the impact of these inter-district voluntary desegregation programs on student achievement than one might think, given the duration and significance of these programs.” How then, with limited research evidence, could the authors conclude that desegregation programs outperform other choice reforms?

The authors were able to come to this conclusion only by constructing a straw man “free market” choice reform to use as a comparison. Never clearly defined, the “free market” reforms the authors discuss alternately take the form of charter schools, vouchers, and unregulated open enrollment programs. Instead of engaging in a more nuanced and interesting discussion of the role of each of these reforms in promoting parental choice, desegregation, and student achievement, the authors argue against a vague “free-market reform” that doesn’t provide a useful basis for discussion.

And by arguing that policymakers either support desegregation or ‘free market’ reforms, the authors miss the opportunity to point out areas where the interests of desegregation policies actually coincide with these more free-market options. Given the “politically and legally fragile” state of desegregation programs, the authors could better promote these reforms, not by pitting them against other choice-based reforms, but by finding areas of agreement and mutual benefit.

The authors, for example, recommend that states provide schools with equal per-pupil funding to encourage suburban schools to accept transferring students. Charter schools have been arguing for equal per-pupil funding for a long time. The same type of funding arrangement that would expand options for students across district boundaries would make it easier for charter schools to offer students choices within their neighborhoods.

The authors also point out the importance of providing transportation to students to ensure equal access to choices. Again, charter schools would likely support expanded transportation to allow students to access more school options.

The authors also never really address the need for more good neighborhood schools. Desegregation programs may benefit the students willing to endure long bus rides to the suburbs, but many parents and students want–and deserve–a good school that doesn’t require an hour-long bus commute. Proponents of desegregation policies would do well to support efforts to provide better neighborhood choices while also promoting choice across district boundaries.

There’s no reason it needs to be an either-or decision. In the end, providing good school choices to all students will likely require a little bit of everything.