Choice Without Comparable Rules

Why “Competition” Doesn’t Work When Only One System Carries the Mandates

One of the most common arguments for school choice is simple: competition will improve education.

In theory, that sounds reasonable. Competition can push organizations to improve, innovate, and respond to customer needs.

But here’s the problem: competition only works when the competitors play by comparable rules.

Right now, Mississippi’s public schools are still required to operate under a thick web of federal and state mandates—testing requirements, accountability ratings, staffing rules, reporting requirements, intervention plans, special education compliance, transportation obligations, and open-access enrollment responsibilities.

HB0002IN expands choice options while leaving public schools under the full weight of those mandates—and in some areas, it adds even more.

That isn’t competition. That is a tilted field.

Let’s talk honestly about what that means for public education.

The central issue: Public schools serve everyone—and carry everything

Public schools are not allowed to choose their customers.

Public schools must serve:

• students with severe disabilities

• students with significant behavior needs

• students in poverty

• students who are homeless

• students who are new English learners

• students in foster care

• students who move repeatedly mid-year

• students who are already behind

• students who need transportation

• students who need meals

• students who need counseling and mental health support

And they must do all of that in full compliance with requirements—often without adequate funding or staffing.

That is the role public education has always played: the system that serves every child.

School choice programs can offer important alternatives, but they often do not carry the same scope of obligations. And that is where “competition” becomes unequal.

What HB0002IN changes—and what it leaves in place

1) Choice options gain flexibility

HB0002IN creates pathways where participating nonpublic options are not held to the same accountability structure as public schools. That includes differences in:

• state testing requirements

• public accountability ratings

• staffing/licensure expectations

• reporting requirements

2) Public schools remain bound to mandates—plus new layers

Public schools remain accountable through:

• school grades and state accountability ratings

• mandated screeners and intervention plans

• required compliance systems and reporting

• staffing and licensure rules

• discipline constraints and federal mandates

• transportation and open-enrollment obligations

  
  

Under HB0002IN, public schools face additional requirements through expanded screening and intervention systems in reading and math.

So the picture becomes clear:

• one system gains flexibility

• the other remains tightly regulated

• and then both are told to “compete”

That isn’t a fair marketplace. It’s a structural imbalance.

Why unequal rules create predictable outcomes

When one system is regulated more heavily than the other, the outcomes tend to follow a familiar pattern.

1) Public schools absorb the heaviest needs

As choice expands, public schools often become more concentrated with:

• higher-need student populations

• higher behavior and trauma needs

• higher special education demands

• greater mobility

• greater poverty concentration

This is not because public schools fail. It’s because public schools remain the default provider with open access.

2) Public schools become “the compliance system”

Public schools increasingly become the place where:

• compliance is enforced

• paperwork grows

• intervention plans multiply

• data reporting expands

• staffing is harder

• and morale declines

Meanwhile, other options operate with fewer constraints. That difference changes teacher retention and recruitment.

3) Public schools are judged by metrics that don’t apply equally

When public schools are rated, labeled, and publicly scored, those labels shape perception.

If other options are not scored the same way—or if they use different measures—the public comparison becomes apples-to-oranges.

But perception doesn’t care about nuance. Perception becomes “truth” in political environments.

4) The “competition” becomes selection—not improvement

Competition only works if systems compete to improve service.

But when rules are uneven, “competition” often becomes:

• student sorting

• teacher sorting

• resource sorting

• reputational sorting

And public schools end up serving the most challenging reality with the most restrictions.

A simple analogy: one runner has weights strapped on

Imagine two runners on the same track.

Runner A:

• must carry a heavy backpack

• must wear ankle weights

• must stop repeatedly for paperwork checks

• must follow strict rules at every checkpoint

Runner B:

• runs freely

• chooses their path

• stops when they want

• carries less weight

Then the crowd shouts, “Competition will make Runner A better!”

That’s not competition. That’s a staged race.

Public education has become Runner A.

What “fair competition” would actually require

If lawmakers truly want competition, they must decide whether they are willing to create comparable expectations.

Fair competition would include:

• comparable accountability reporting for all publicly funded options

• comparable transparency and oversight

• comparable student protections

• comparable service expectations

• and clear guardrails that prevent public schools from becoming the system of last resort

If that doesn’t happen, choice becomes less about improving education and more about creating pathways out of the most regulated system.

The long-term risk

If public schools become:

• the most mandated

• the most publicly blamed

• the most compliance-heavy

• and the most burdened with high-need realities

Then fewer teachers will want to stay. Fewer administrators will want to lead. Morale will decline further. And the “public system” will increasingly be treated as something to escape rather than something to strengthen.

That is not reform. That is erosion.

A balanced takeaway

I’m not against families having options. I’m not against competition in principle.

I am against calling something “competition” when only one system carries the mandates.

If Mississippi wants to improve education, we should reduce unnecessary burdens across the board—especially in elementary grades. We should support teachers and strengthen learning environments.

But if lawmakers keep stacking requirements on public schools while loosening them for other options, they are not creating a fair system.

They are building a lopsided one.

Reflection question for readers

If the choice is accountability, why do public schools still have to prove themselves through an ever-expanding list of mandates, while other options are allowed to operate under looser standards?