Scholars have long acknowledged that the information parents have about schools is the “Achilles’ heel” of school choice. Although much has been written about school choice, far less is known about the information disseminated to help families make choices. I construct a case study of the dissemination and accessibility of choice information in the Chicago Public Schools. I find that both the readability and content of the information disseminated limit its usefulness. In addition, a lack of centralized resources leads to both limited and disparate access. I conclude with modifications for improving information dissemination and accessibility.
BaerJ.KutnerM.SabatiniJ.WhiteS. (2009). Basic Reading Skills and the Literacy of America’s Least Literate Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) Supplemental Studies. NCES 2009-481. National Center for Education Statistics.
2.
BallS. J.VincentC. (1998). “I heard it on the grapevine”: “Hot” knowledge and school choice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19, 377-400.
3.
BettmanJ. R.KakkarP. (1977). Effects of information presentation format on consumer information acquisition strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 233-240.
4.
BormuthJ. R. (1966). Readability: A new approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 79-132.
5.
BridgeG. (1978). Information imperfections: The Achilles’ heel of entitlement plans. The School Review, 86, 504-529.
6.
BybeeC. (1981). Fitting information presentation formats to decision-making: A study in strategies to facilitate decision-making. Communication Research, 8, 343-370.
7.
Chicago Public Schools. (2005). Chicago Public Schools Policy Manual: Enrollment and transfer of students in the Chicago Public Schools (Section No. 702.1). Retrieved from http://www.policy.cps.k12.il.us/documents/702.1.pdf
8.
Chicago Public Schools. (2009). Options for knowledge high school directory.
DavidhizarR. E.BrownsonK. (2000). Literacy, cultural diversity and client education. Home Health Care Management Practice, 12, 38-44.
11.
Delale-O’ConnorL. (2017) Using what you’ve got: The possession and use of official information in urban school choice. Equity and Excellence in Education50(2), 170-181.
12.
Delale-O’ConnorL. (2018) Choosing, defaulting or falling short: Defaulters in the education context. Teachers College Record120(4).
13.
HastingsJ. S.WeinsteinJ. M. (2008). Information, school choice, and academic achievement: Evidence from two experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 1373-1414.
14.
HendersonM. (2010). Does information help families choose schools? Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Government and Social Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
15.
HenigJ. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
HibbardJ. H.PetersE. (2003). Supporting informed consumer health care decision: Data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annual Review of Public Health, 24, 413-133.
17.
HolmeJ. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 177-206.
18.
Holmes-RovnerM.Llewellyn-ThomasH.CoulterA.O’ConnorA.RovenerD. R. (2001). Patient choice modules for summaries of clinical effectiveness: A proposal. British Medical Journal, 322, 664-667.
19.
JabbarH. (2016). Selling schools: Marketing and recruitment strategies in New Orleans. Peabody Journal of Education, 91, 4-23.
20.
JenningsJ. (2010). School choice or schools’ choice? Managing in an era of accountability. Sociology of Education, 83, 227-247.
21.
JohnssonM.LindgrenJ. (2010). “Great location, beautiful surroundings!” Making sense of information materials intended as guidance for school choice. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54, 173-187.
22.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ.ThalerR. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspective, 5, 193-206.
23.
KlareG. R. (1974). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62-102.
24.
KleinmuntzD.SchkadeD. (1993). Information displays and decision processes. Psychological Science, 4, 221-227.
25.
KrippendorfK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
LareauA. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73-85.
27.
LareauA. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
28.
LubienskiC. (2007). Marketing schools: Consumer goods and competitive incentives for consumer information. Education and Urban Society, 40, 118-141.
29.
MilesS.DavisT. (1995). Patients who can’t read: Implications for the healthcare system. Journal of the American Medical Association, 274, 1719-1720.
30.
MilnerH. R.IV (2015). Rac (e) ing to Class: Confronting Poverty and Race in Schools and Classrooms. Harvard Education Press.
31.
NeildR. C. (2005). Parent management of school choice in a large urban district. Urban Education, 40(3), 270-297.
32.
O’ReillyC. A. (1982). Variations in decision makers’ use of information sources: The impact of quality and accessibility of information. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 756-771.
33.
PoratA. M.HaasJ. A. (1969). Information effects on decision-making. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14, 98-104.
RichP. M.JenningsJ. L. (2015). Choice, information, and constrained options: School transfers in a stratified educational system. American Sociological Review, 80, 1069-1098.
36.
SamuelsonW.ZeckhauserR. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59.
37.
SaporitoS.LareauA. (1999). School selection as a process: The multiple dimensions of race in framing educational choice. Social Problems, 46, 418-439.
38.
SaporitoS.SohoniD. (2007). Mapping educational inequality: Concentrations of poverty among poor and minority students in public schools. Social Forces, 85(3), 1227-1253.
39.
SchneiderM.BuckleyJ. (2002). What do parents want from schools? Evidence from the internet. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 133-144.
40.
SchneiderM.MarschallM.TeskeP.RochC. (1998). School choice and culture wars in the classroom: What different parents seek from education. Social Science Quarterly, 79, 489-501.
41.
SlatenD.ParrotR.SteinerC. (1999). Readability of skin cancer prevention brochures targeting parents of young children. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 40, 997-999.
42.
SteinM. L.NagroS. (2015). The readability and complexity of district-provided school-choice information. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20, 199-217.
43.
StephensN. M.MarkusH. R.TownsendS. M. S. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: The case of social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 814-830.
44.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
46.
von WagnerC.SteptoeA.WolfM. S.WardleJ. (2008). Health literacy and health actions: A review and framework from health psychology. Health Education and Behavior, 35, 860-877.
47.
WegnerM. V.GirasekD. C. (2003). How readable are child safety seat installation instructions?Pediatrics, 111, 588-591.
48.
WellsJ. (1994). Readability of HIV/AIDS educational materials: The role of the medium of communication, target audience, and producer characteristics. Patient Education and Counseling, 24, 249-259.
49.
WestA. (1992). Factors affecting choice of school for middle class parents: Implications for marketing. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 20, 212-222.
50.
WhiteM. D.MarshE. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55, 22-45.
