One of the major objections to school choice is its potential impact on high school athletics if students are free to go to whatever school will accept them, regardless of where they reside.
The governing body of public school athletics, the Mississippi High School Activities Association, is worried that lifting restrictions on public-to-public transfers would give rise to recruiting wars, with the state’s larger public schools siphoning off the best athletes from smaller schools located nearby, regardless of the recipient school’s academic standing.
“We could see students transfer from a B school district to a C school district to play sports,” MHSAA President Chad Harrison last week told a House panel that is charged with recommending school-choice proposals for the 2026 legislative session.
Advocates of school choice in the House, including Speaker Jason White, have told the public school coaches, athletic directors and athletics regulators not to worry. The legislation would specify that MHSAA would still set its eligibility rules, one of which presently requires transferring athletes to sit out for a year unless their families can prove they moved into the district where the athletes want to play.
Lawmakers might put that restriction in the legislation, but it would be inconsistent with the main argument for school choice. It also probably would not stand up to a court challenge.
Those in favor of school choice say that parents, regardless of their financial means or where they live, should have the freedom to pick the school for their children that is the best fit. That “best fit” might not just be about academics. It could be about class size, safety or other factors. Athletics also might be part of the family’s calculation. If parents feel their student athlete might get better coaching, more playing time or more exposure by transferring to another school, why should that athlete have to sit out a year?
That rule sounds awfully similar to the restrictions the NCAA imposed for decades on college athletes until the courts decided that those restrictions violated federal antitrust laws by restraining the ability of the athletes to maximize their current and future earnings.
High school athletes could reasonably argue, once school attendance zones are made irrelevant, that forcing them to sit out a year when they transfer financially damages them, too. It costs them exposure to college coaches, on whom scholarship offers depend, and to the professional leagues that draft players right out of high school. They might also claim, as did the college athletes, that it’s unfair to treat the athletes differently than the coaches, who can change jobs freely between schools.
Thus, whether it be for ideological reasons or legal ones, if school choice comes to pass, high school sports will be dramatically changed. Recruiting, which now is done surreptitiously, will become standard operating procedure. The high-powered programs, given their staffing and facility advantages, will become even more dominant. Competitive balance will be largely shattered.
Any honest debate over school choice demands that this likely impact be acknowledged.
