I agree. So what is better, to keep a failing school as-is and keep 1,000 kids there, or enact some pretty poor legislation that keeps 900 kids there? Because those are the two options we are faced with; there is no third option on the table that fixes it for all 1,000 kids.
It's like the post-release arguments for Obamacare. Something is better than nothing is all we have heard. The problem with Obamacare is that, arguably, it is a net engative. And that is the question here. Does something like this proposed legislation create a net positive or a net negative. If you are one of the kids going from a bad school to a good school, then it is a net positive. Given that I doubt many people will be going from a good school to a bad school (because otherwise you would just stay in your home district), then it would seem to be a net positive. Maybe not a great net positive, but arguably better than the status quo.