Whether you assign secondary schools by race or income, the same problems arises. Some kid is going to have to go to a different, probably more distant, probably also lower quality, school than his or her neighbors. Maybe because of race. Or because he or she is poor. Or just lives in a white neighborhood.

There's obviously a problem here. Most programs, whether free-market or government based, generally try to leave all parties who haven;t broken any laws or rules better off. Even with welfare-type programs, the taxpayers are, at least theoretically, on average better, because feeding otherwise starving people avoids social unrest, brings moral satisfaction, etc.

Moreover, the idea goes against traditional American principles. Even though nobody really has a right to go to a specific school, many people think about it that way. After all, many parents move kids to expensive suburbs with great schools (and stupendous taxes) to get their kids into good public schools. They have a reasonable expectation of a return on that investment. It is, in fact, very reasonable since that's what happens in the vast majority of cases - kids end up going to their local schools. And the Constitution prohibits taking away rights or property without just compensation. This is just one of the reasons the idea of forcing kids to attend a school worse than the one in their own neighborhood makes many Americans uncomfortable.

So how about this: offer to refund to parents of the kids being forced to a worse school district the extra taxes (if any) they paid. I guess that could be equal to the difference in % tax times the value of the property times the number of years they've lived in the district since their kid's been alive. But that's just one way of calculating it. If they rent, use the value of the property they live in since a bulk of those property taxes goes into their rent.

Of course, in some cases the tax difference is zero (or negative), and even if it exists there may be no takers. Then take the same approach airlines use: Auction the school switch off. Whoever is willing to move their kid for the lowest price gets the deal. It might sound cold, but it has the main benefit of market economics: whoever has the smallest relative burden of switching schools moves. A lot better than choosing kids randomly and winding up with lawsuits. Of course, this latter approach could even be used either instead or in combination with the tax-refund approach.

I bet that in many cases you'll see quite a few more willing participants. Some people will even volunteer. Since, as Slate writers have mentioned, the number of kids forced to actually switch schools is small, the cost to taxpayers would be insignificant. It shouldn't outweigh those much-spoken-of benefits of diversity and it might even be less costly than all the brouhaha surrounding these cases. Really, does this solution seem so unreasonable or infeasible?