A bill in the Florida State House of Representatives to allow charter-school students to participate in extra-curricular activities at private schools may not affect a great number of students, but it shows why school-choice measures accomplish exactly what their critics say they fail to do.

A common argument against school choice is that going to a smaller charter school or being homeschooled will limit students’ options and social life, but the way to expand such options is actually to loosen restrictions, not further cement them. Floridians know the value of this idea because their state is the home of the first-ever Heisman Trophy winner to be homeschooled: Tim Tebow. A statute colloquially known as “the Tim Tebow law” allowed the University of Florida’s eventual national title-winning quarterback to continue being homeschooled while playing football at Allen D. Nease High School.

The Tebows paid their taxes and schooled their children, so why shouldn’t they be able to see their son play football for their local high school?

Many homeschoolers, in states such as California, are forced to choose between pursuing athletics and continuing with a homeschooling curriculum that is best for them, and that can also apply to a range of extra-curriculars. Another alternative education method — charter schooling — often entails similar restrictions, since small or niche charters may not offer some activities that would benefit a given student, such as a chess club.

If all parties involved can benefit from a charter schooler joining a private-school chess club (or allowing a homeschooler to join a public-school football team), then why arbitrarily restrict students from doing so? Bills like this answer that question by handing the responsibility to decide how programs work into the hands of families and schools.