Educational currency: The divisiveness of school choice policies in Ontario,Canada

Abstract

School choice policies continue to expand across the globe. Advocates insist that the opportunity to decide where one’s children will learn is more equitable and socially responsive. However, these sentiments are widely disputed. In this study I emphasize that school choice is another venue where families experience uneven amounts of privilege. While there is extensive literature documenting that unequal advantage exists in school markets, little is known about what this advantage looks like, how it is attained, and how it is used in Ontario, Canada. This research unveils the intricacy of educational currency by studying teacher-parents, a subgroup of the population who possess it. Educators in Ontario share how their unique combinations of cultural, social, and economic capital allow them to collect and spend educational currency (EC) as they choose schools for their own children. The data not only reaffirms that certain populations possess unique amounts of EC and defines what EC is; it provides insight into how school choice leads to a more racially, ethnically, and economically segregated system.

Introduction

For the past four decades, school choice initiatives have been intensifying across the globe. These policies observe neoliberal and economic principles, emphasizing school competition by increasing families’ opportunities to select between academic programs (Bosetti and Gereluk, 2016; Davies and Aurini, 2011). The result is an educational market in which schooling is the product and parents (students) are the consumers. Set in Ontario, Canada, this article reports the findings of a study that demonstrates the inequity of educational markets by exposing how individual circumstances impact one’s navigation of the choice process. The research challenges the assertion that choice reforms foster academic equity by analyzing the experiences of teachers - a uniquely informed, middle-class, and socially connected subgroup of parents - in the school choice market. To date, researchers know too little about how uneven amounts of educational currency, such as, social, cultural, and economic capital, are utilized in academic markets. This study contributes to a richer understanding of these nuances and how current choice policies diminish school equity.

Review of the literature

In the US, scholars have coined the school choice movement “as close to a disruptive innovation as American K-12 education has seen in decades” (Finn et al., 2016, p. 1). Particularly in the Western hemisphere, others have gone so far as to label school choice as “the civil rights issue of our time” (Peterson and Howell, 2002, para. 1). School choice provisions are more than new initiatives, they represent a paradigm shift in how society views public education (Bosetti and Gereluk, 2016). In such a framework, the market replaces the common school model, known as the “crucible of citizenship, equal opportunity, and social cohesion” (Barlow et al., 1997; Gaskell, 2001, p. 19). Choice employs neoliberal, economic properties of competition and accountability by giving parents more control over their children’s education (Davies and Aurini, 2011) and permitting them to select programs beyond their neighborhood schools (Bosetti and Gereluk, 2016). Ben-Porath argues for a greater definition of school choice and cautions against the limited study of charter schools and vouchers (2021). Understanding school choice to include residential selection and magnet schools (Ben-Porath, 2021) allows space for other countries, such as Canada, to be included in discussions of school choice.

School choice in Canada and the US

School choice is a blanket term that embodies a vast number of policies, opportunities, and ideologies. In Canada there is no national governing body. Education policy is determined by province, resulting in significant variations in how school choice is implemented across the country (Asadolahi et al., 2022). The increase of school options in Canada is a result of neoliberal influence, as well as augmented demographic change and an uptick in income inequality (Asadolahi et al., 2022). School choice initiatives have been a response to a competitive global economy and the enhanced need to accommodate differences (Asadolahi et al., 2022). To the west, Alberta has received accolades for its leadership in choice (Taylor and Woollard, 2003). In addition to developing charter schools, Alberta has also created policies that provide students with funding to attend private schools of their choice.

Along with Alberta, Ontario has been a leader in recognizing the rights of minority groups by offering programs of choice in public schools (Bosetti and Gereluk, 2016). Instead of veering away from public education, Ontario is maintaining Canada’s commitment to the public system while creating an abundance of choice within it. The largest school boards in Ontario offer local and regional programs, including specialty arts, sports, language focused, Afrocentric and Advanced Placement (AP) programs whereby students may earn university degrees in high school. Regional Learning Choice Programs (RLCP) in Peel School District provide opportunities for students to explore individual areas of interest (PDSB RLCP). A trend approximately a decade and half old that has infiltrated Ontario High Schools is the Specialist High Skills Major (SHSM) Programs. Students may apply to earn credits toward SHSM programs such as hospitality or athletics. Public schools also offer specialized programs such as French Immersion and Extended French, International Baccalaureates, arts and sports programs, and a wide array of alternative options. Furthermore, opportunities such as homeschooling and affordable private education is becoming far more popularized. Overall, The Canada School Choice Policy Index (CSCPI), measuring the evolution of school choice policies in Canada from 1980–2020, demonstrates that while provinces have seen a growth in school choice options, they have largely reflected options within the public school system, rather than private education (Asadolahi et al., 2022).

In the United States, the route toward individualized education has differed drastically from that of Canada. School choice is a much more recent shift, and one intended to right the wrongs of the US’s traditional system. School reforms in the US were envisioned to enhance academic productivity, diversity, and equity. Neoliberal ideas, often attributed to 1950s economist Milton Freidman, have responded to civic anxieties about the productivity of public schools. Freidman, amassed support for a voucher system whereby governments would provide impoverished families with credit for privatized schooling. He attested that a competitive, market-based school system would result in improved academic performance. Similarly, like-minded researchers including Chubb and Moe vocalized their support for market-style competition, insisting that schools require choice to “unleash competitive pressures in education” (Chubb and Moe, 1990; Davies and Quirke, 2005). More recently, choice advocates underscore shifting social patterns in which a one-size-fits-all model no longer serves a changing community. Bosetti and Gereluk (2016) propose that choice reflects increased urbanization and immigration. Consequently, minority groups and marginalized people who disagree with the common school’s dominant ideologies have also sought relevant reform to increase inclusivity and awareness (Bosetti and Gereluk, 2016). These types of arguments stem from a viewpoint that the public school system is failing, or at least, that it leads to “mediocrity rather than meritocracy” (Bosetti and Pyryt, 2007) and fails to effectively develop the whole child.

In the US, choice has chiefly been implemented to counteract racism and classism often resulting in unequal academic opportunity. Canadian proponents assert that by providing parents and students the opportunity to find schools that best suit their needs, choice more fairly serves an increasingly pluralistic society (Bosetti and Gereluk, 2016). Ample literature suggests that equity (whether cultural, economic, or racial) drives choice reform in public-school systems that are inherently unjust.

School choice outside of Canada and the US

School choice reforms are not limited to North America. In 1992, Sweden introduced publicly funded private schools increasing options for families and competition in the public system (Wondratschek et al., 2013, pp. 71–72). Parent choice became a focus in England and Wales in the 1980s when local education authorities were required to consider parents’ school preference for their child (West, 2023). Like Canada, the United Kingdom’s government adopted policies to diversify the public school system (Taylor, 2009). Most schools in England remain government funded, and parents can choose between religious or secular schools, grammar schools (with academic selection tests), and a variety of specialist schools (e.g. technical schools). In addition, many secondary schools are now “academies” meaning they are independent of local government control, demonstrating the beginning of a free school movement.

Australia offers its own form of school choice. Aside from government schools, owned and managed by the state department of education, non-government schools are run by non-government bodies such as churches, corporations, and organizations. Australia’s educational policy reforms have been influenced by diverse incentives, significantly neoliberal ideology promoting free-markets and individual choice, as well as global trends from the UK, New Zealand and the US (Proctor and Aitchison, 2015).

Debates about school choice effects

School choice policies provoke strong, often conflicting, opinions. Supporting arguments include an attempt to satisfy parental requests, the quality of schooling, serve a progressively diverse community, and increase equity in the public system. According to Davies and Aurini, parents who can choose are pleased to have an increase in options (2011). In the US, the “monopoly power of local school districts” has been blamed for low performance of struggling students (Card et al., 2010, p. 150).

However, a substantial amount of literature reveals that school choice is a middle-class phenomenon. Middle-class parents, with the intention of reproducing their social positioning, are more likely to take advantage of academic markets than those belonging to a lower socioeconomic status.

Another factor that threatens the equitability of market-based provisions are unevenly informed social networks. Middle-class mothers are known to have “a knack for ‘working the system’” and can coax extra advantages for their children in school (Levine-Rasky, 2009, p. 335). Social networks encourage the reproduction of racism and classism by restricting conversations within these groups, redistributing information, and encouraging flight from schools with “poor” reputations.

Conceptual framework

To scaffold the elements of inequity within school choice markets, I identify and connect several concepts. They are bounded rationality (Simon, 1997); social and cultural capital as understood by Bourdieu (1986a, 1989b, 1989) and Coleman (1988); Robert Merton’s insider-outsider doctrine (1972); and Lipsky’s theory of street level bureaucracy (1969; 1980). Together, these models form a conceptual framework that informed participant selection, interview questions, and the initial thematic organization during the data analysis. Because of the intricacy of this framework, I develop the concept of educational currency (EC). EC is a combination of the various factors that impact one’s access to the academic market.

Rational choice v bounded rationality

School choice policies are established in rational choice theory (Becker, 1976; Green and Fox, 2007; Hobbes, 1651; Homans, 1958; Smith, 1776). Rational choice suggests that humans make decisions by maximizing benefits and minimizing costs. The school choice process is more accurately interpreted in this paper as bounded rationality. According to Simon (1997), bounded rationality is an interpretation of rational choice that recognizes the cognitive capacity of the decision maker. Cognitive capacity, or “limitations” (Simon, 1997), includes a persons’ knowledge of the system and their ability to accurately compute potential costs and benefits with regards to a decision outcome. However, this knowledge and ability are not equally distributed and so the concepts of social, cultural and economic capital help to explain these limitations. Among teacher-parent participants, privilege is also derived from insider status that draws on Robert Merton’s insider-outsider doctrine (1972) and Lipsky’s theory of street level bureaucracy (1969; 1980).

Capital

This study is founded on the notion that school selection is subject to various forms of capital. Coleman defines social capital as a conceptual tool that demonstrates how the amalgamation of purposive action and specific contexts explain not only the action of an individual, but the development of group norms and organizations (Coleman, 1988, p. 96). What is unique to Coleman (1988) is that he does not reject principles of rational choice in his definition of social capital, but instead attempts to marry the two “broad intellectual streams” that explain social action. Another distinctiveness in Coleman’s work is that social capital is not necessarily seen as a commodity possessed by an individual, but instead a resource shared among groups (1988). In other words, social capital benefits the group and not a particular member. While Coleman’s social capital will ultimately benefit each member, it is very much enmeshed within the group. For example, a group within which there is extensive “trustworthiness” can accomplish much more than a comparable group that lacks it (Coleman, 1988, p. 101).

Bourdieu (1986a) defines social capital as privilege that is acquired through the memberships of groups. It “provides each of its members with the backing of the collectively-owned capital, a ‘credential’ which entitles them to credit in the various senses of the word” (Bourdieu, 1986a, p. 249). Relationships from which members acquire social capital or advantages exist because of the exchanges (either material and/or symbolic) which maintain them (Bourdieu, 1986a, p. 286).

While Bourdieu’s social capital plays an important role in understanding educational currency and the experience of school choosing, the theory of cultural capital is also significantly useful in framing the present research. Bourdieu (1993) defines cultural capital as “a form of knowledge - an internalized code or a cognitive acquisition - which equips the social agent with empathy toward, appreciation for, or competence in deciphering cultural relations and cultural artefacts” (p. 7). Simply put, cultural capital is knowing how to be.

Insider doctrine

Another component of educational currency is insider status, which is derived from Robert Merton’s insider-outsider doctrine. Merton’s insider doctrine states that, “one has monopolistic or privileged access to knowledge, or is wholly excluded from it, by virtue of one’s group membership or social position” (1972, p. 15). He borrows from earlier theorists including Karl Marx, who discusses privilege and the “strategic location of (one) social class” (Merton, 1972, p. 12), and Polanyi (1958, 1964), who suggests that knowledge growth only exists between elite groups, such as scholars and scientists. Insider status is relevant to this study because teachers are insiders of the education system. It is distinguishable from social and cultural capital in that in that it is centered around privileged knowledge, whereas social capital includes various advantages derived from relationships, and cultural capital represents immeasurable qualities such as taste (Bourdieu, 1984, 2018).

Lipsky’s theory of street level bureaucracy

Lipsky (1980) explains that people who work with the public (such as teachers and police officers) consistently exercise discretion when implementing policy at the ground level. He (1980) insists that policy making evolves past the point of initiation and that front-line workers are partially responsible for how policy is delivered to the public (Lipsky, 1980). Not only does Lipsky’s work identify that street-level discretion occurs and alters policy implementation, but he also argues that this process is necessary. To adapt and apply to individuals and individual circumstances, street-level bureaucracy and its embedded discrepancy increases the applicability and suitability of the policy.

Street-level bureaucracy is a necessary piece of the conceptual framework because as street-level bureaucrats, teacher-parents can make school choices based on the realities of their programing options rather than simply the ideas of them. That is, teacher-parents have a unique understanding of program implementation based on how they themselves apply Lipsky’s theory and the potential of other teachers as well. The decisions that they make for their children reflect this advantage. Delving deeper into Lipsky’s work on street-level bureaucracy uncovers the critical link it shares with social capital (and consequently with this research). Teacher-parents’ experiences as system insiders and school choosers are greatly influenced by their professional relationships and the information sharing that occurs within them.

Educational currency

The conceptual framework of this study includes what I (2017) introduce as educational currency (EC). While it does not yet exist in scholarly literature, the concept of educational currency helped me to shape the research design, to collect data, and to analyze portions of this project. It also framed the way questions were asked, and how answers were received. Developed during one of my preceding studies, the term has gained applicability, relevance, and support from this data. Educational currency is the combination of social capital, cultural capital, and insider status. Because social and cultural capital are broad and generalized terms, I have introduced educational currency to underline elements of capital, insider status, and (in this study) street-level bureaucracy, that are meaningful in the school choice market. I have chosen “currency” to underscore the marketization of public schools, explore privilege within it is as a commodity, and suggest that options can be bought when advantages are spent. By accentuating the economic aspect of a school market, I further emphasize the potential for unequitable experience within it. EC further emphasizes the potential for uneven experiences within an educational market by stressing the economic aspects of a school market. While this study focusses on the abundance of educational currency available to teacher-parents, it can be possessed by any person.

Research questions

This is a qualitative study that explores how parents with significant amounts of educational currency understand and navigate school choice. To address a qualitative gap in research about the equitability of the school choice process, and to understand how parents exercise their educational currency, I ask the following three questions:

• (1) What privileges do teacher-parents possess in the school choice process?

• (2) How do teacher-parents in Ontario, Canada acquire relevant forms of privilege?

• (3) How do teacher-parents in Ontario, Canada use various forms of privilege to interpret, access, and navigate the school choice process?

Significance of the research

One of the major tribulations with Canadian school choice initiatives, is that they exacerbate academic inequity by creating elite opportunities (Gaztambide-Fernández, 2010). This research adds to the Canadian and global conversation about school choice. Except for a few Canadian scholars including Yoon who studies elitism and spacial and geographic impacts options, Lubienski, Gaztambide-Fernández, whose work is centered around inequity and regional arts programs, and Bosetti, who has contributed to conversations about what and why parents choose, the school choice market, let alone inequity within it, is understudied.

The purpose of this study is to examine how teacher-parents - as one group of potentially privileged parents in Ontario - navigate the school choice market. While privilege and school choice are widely researched, too little is known about how it is used in the school selection process in Ontario. I investigate how it can be defined, acquired, and used within the school market. In this study, I set out to uncover what this privilege is and how it is utilized by parents when choosing a program for their child. Using an intricate conceptual framework, I coin the term educational currency to represent all privilege used in the school choice market. In addition to unearthing what this privilege is, I use qualitative methods to examine how it is accessed and utilized to navigate the school choice process in Canada.

This study makes two distinct contributions to enhancing our understanding of the nature of school choice policies. First, it contributes to the existing literature on school choice in Canada by focusing on system insiders who have a unique knowledge of the system and its operation. While literature exists about teachers’ professional views of choice policies, teacher-parents have been all but ignored in the school choice discussion. Second, this study presents the term “educational currency” to the field of study. The use of the word currency may trigger feelings of discomfort but is intentionally chosen to emphasize the neoliberal, competitive nature of a school choice market, and to highlight disproportionate privilege and possible injustice.

Methodology

The decision to study teacher-parents was a deliberate attempt to learn about EC from those who both possess and reproduce it. Participants were recruited using snowball sampling. I sent out original emails and invitations to colleagues with whom I had previously discussed the project. The email asked recipients to forward the invitation to others who fit the study criteria. To qualify for the study, participants had to be fulltime Ontario teachers working in one of the public-school boards and have school aged children. Those whose children were approaching or recently graduated from K-12 were also accepted. Many participants taught in choice programs or in schools that offered French Immersion or other regional programs. However, while these participants provided insight into the street-level bureaucracy element of the conceptual framework, experience in choice programs was not a prerequisite for participation. The total sample size is 23, including four males and 19 females. Four of the participants were high school teachers and the remaining 19 taught in elementary schools. One teacher taught in the Francophone Catholic board and one taught in the Francophone Public board. Seven of the participants were educators at public schools with a French Immersion program, and the remaining 11 participants taught at public, English schools.

After an individual interview with one of the original recruits, a colleague, I realized that her experience with school choice was different than other candidates because of the sensitive needs of her child. I did not want her to feel uncomfortable in a group interview and did not feel that it would be ethical to single her out. Of the 22 Teacher-Parents who took part in this study, 15 of them participated in two separate interviews. Each interview consisted of between one and six people, was unstructured and lasted 1–2 hours. While I did not ask about cultural, ethnic, or racial identification, two of the participants shared their racial identities and discussed the impact of their identity during the interviews.

I used the non-standardized interview format, deciding the sequence of questions as I saw fit. The second method that I used was the group interview. Like individual interviews in that a series of questions are asked, group interviews differ in that they deal with questioning of several people. During a group interview, the researcher plays the role of moderator and manager (Gudkova, 2018). I re-visited many of the questions from individual interviews in hopes of enticing conversations about important elements and therefore extracting richer and more detailed data.

It was my intention to emphasize the qualitative nature of this research. “Qualitative projects are, to varying degrees, iterative and emergent, with unique strategies evolving from moment to moment as the analysis unfolds (Silver and Woolf, 2018, p. 14).” I used a talk-to-text program to turn the audio-recorded interviews into transcripts. These transcripts then required intensive editing to accurately reflect the conversations. While sorting through the data, I recorded notes and kept track of observations.

After reading through the transcripts several times, I began a more structured phase of analysis. I first organized transcripts into precise quotes. Next, I employed the phenomenological process of horizontalization. “Horizontalization is the process of laying out all the data for examination and treating the data as having equal weights; that is, all pieces of data equal value in the initial data analysis stage. These data are organized into clusters or themes” (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016, p. 27).

I used the NVivo analysis program to organize my data. I followed a qualitative format and allowed my analysis to be “emergent” giving each piece of data equal value as required in horizontalization. Emergent themes became categories. Subsequent data would either fit into this category or become a new one. This initial process generated 25 categories. I was able to group the 25 categories into 4 themes: What parents want, what parents know, what parents can do, and what parents actually do. However, the attempt to consolidate 25 original categories into four was unsuccessful. Because I did not feel that this analysis captured the stories shared by the participants, I focused on aligning the data with my three research questions. Through careful consideration, I was able to interpret the data in a way that addressed these questions and ultimately conveyed the essence of the participants’ experiences, as intended in a phenomenological study.

Using NVivo to re-sort the data with my research questions as the focus, three overarching categories emerged: What educational currency is, how it is collected, and how it is used in the school choice process. These final three categories formed the foundation of my findings and provided a framework for presenting a more detailed analysis to an audience.

Discussion

The data demonstrates how educational currency can be defined, acquired, and used within the school market. It is important to note that while teacher-parents were selected as a subgroup of the population assumed to possess significant amounts of educational currency, EC is not limited to educators. EC refers to the accumulation of any advantage in the process of choosing schools. Non-teacher parents can possess EC through their social circle or by researching and investigating options. As such, parents with more money than teachers may have enough EC to consider more expensive schooling options. A prominent portion of the data corroborated existing literature. At the same time, several original observations were made that help create a richer understanding of school choice and the potential inequities of the process.

What is educational currency?

Educational currency is any advantage that can be used as a commodity when choosing schools in a school choice market. In this study, a major component of EC came in the form of knowledge (both explicit and covert) and experience. Teacher-parents’ knowledge and experience impacted both their opinion of and access to school selection. Participants demonstrated familiarity with the system because of their involvement in it but were also privy to the ways in which policies played out in individual school boards, schools, and classrooms. While discussing the dropout rate of French Immersion students, one teacher explained that a school may “start with six grade 1 FI classes, and by grade 5 there are only two left.” This knowledge and experience proved pivotal in the navigation of school choice as it provided participants with vital information.

Teachers shared a wealth of information about where, when, and how various options may be accessed. One participant defined and discussed regional programs in depth. “So, AIM is a very new program. It’s only been around for a couple of years. . . French Immersion and the Arts program used to be a merge program. Then they had the Sci- Tech program. . .but there’s a bunch of new (programs) – over the past five years is when they really started.” Many were familiar with registration details and of basic information concerning boundary regulations, or school assignment according to address. One parent was able to describe how bussing regulations for French Immersion differed between the Public and Catholic boards. “With public school, French Immersion, no matter where you live in proximity to the school, you are guaranteed transportation. Catholic school you’re not. If it’s not your home school, then you find your own way there.” Overall, teachers understood the competitiveness of program placements, as well as bussing regulations and the differences between them.

Educational currency as teacher-parents’ professional experience

Teacher-parents relied on their professional experiences to give detailed portrayals of regional and mainstream programs. A notable emphasis was placed on the superiority of regional programs, particularly French Immersion. Marketed as a benefit beyond the enhanced curriculum, regional programs were described as attracting a “better” type of student. This was also true of other regional programs. One teacher said, “Those kids in sci-tech, I felt, brought the whole (school) up. The school was better because it had those kids and it brought the rest of the kids, the normal kids up. It was like a better school because they brought everybody up. So, when you take those kids out of those schools you don’t have those kids.” According to teachers, a group of students with a strong work ethic means a more productive learning environment. This was a common sentiment about regional programs in general. Unsurprisingly, the converse was also addressed.

As street-level bureaucrats, teachers were also aware of system deficits and programing flaws boosting their ability to make sound choices. Those who taught within the French and Francophone systems witnessed academic quality and policy implementation, as well as student experience, firsthand. However, teacher knowledge was derived from and therefore limited to their own experiences. Several teachers acknowledged that options and procedures vary from school board to school board and that they were often more familiar with their own policies and processes.

Educational currency as social capital

Data collected in this study about the benefits of social capital within the school choice market, corroborated existing literature in the area. Research suggests that “(p)arental choice is part of a social process influenced by salient properties of social class and networks of social relationships” (Bosetti, 2004, p. 388). In this study, social capital focusses on participants’ relationships with other teachers and how these relationships advantage them in the school choice market. The current data reveals that teachers know teachers. Even those who did not have direct experience working in certain settings or programs were able to use their social capital to inform decisions. One Catholic teacher explained, “I feel like I don’t know because I’ve never worked in a public high school. But when I talk to my friends who do work there, it seems like it’s the same. Like, they have virtues, we have morals, values. . .It’s similar.” Both professionally and personally, each participant was closely linked to several other educators. Many of the participants were married to teachers. A few of them had one or more parents who are or were educators. And all the participants had teacher friends and colleagues. Participants’ EC included their social networks, which provided decision making support, supplemented knowledge, and provided favors.

Educational currency is financial wealth

The third element of EC evident in the data is financial wealth. Teacher-parents possess varying amounts of monetary wealth allowing them access to regional and elite programs within the public system, and sometimes moderately priced private schools. Existing literature emphasizes the connection between wealth and school choice. According to the literature in Western industrialized countries “parents who actively choose schools are better educated, have higher levels of income, and are less likely to be unemployed than non-choosing parents” (Bosetti, 1998, 2004, p. 392; Carnegie Foundation, 1992; Gewirtz et al., 1995; Goldthorpe, 2010; Hatcher, 1998; Martinez et al., 1994; Smrekar and Goldring, 1999; Whitty et al., 1998). Those with financial wealth are overrepresented in elite programs because they have access to important experiences. In a study which examines the homogeneity of the student population in Toronto’s most prestigious public art school, Gaztambide-Fernández and Parekh (2017) identify students do not end up in this program by accident or, necessarily, on merit.

Participants in this study demonstrate similar habits. Several parents emphasized the importance of extracurricular activities and lessons, and more pointedly, that enrolling their kids in sports and activities has prepared them for specialty programs. This can be a direct or indirect path. Finally, most of the participants had the ability to select homes in neighborhoods and areas in which they felt comfortable with the public schools in the area.

How is educational currency acquired by teacher-parents?

Through experience

Teacher-parents earned educational currency by working within a school board, school, or classroom. One father shared, “I’ve taught kindergarten Phys. Ed. I’ve also done some kindergarten planning time coverage. So, I’m pretty familiar with the expectations, routines. . .And way back in teachers’ college, I had a two-month long place in a kindergarten classroom, where I taught everything.” One participant was able to list academic initiatives that were happening in her board, explaining that her familiarity was reassuring. Participants also became familiar with what regional application panels were looking for when admitting students into their program. Parents who taught within the French Board had observed that initiatives and programing originate in the English stream and are ineffectively passed down to the French school boards without adequate thought put into the unique Francophone necessities. Two of the participants had taught at small private schools and had developed negative opinions about their academic quality.

Teachers have professional experiences which afford them the opportunity to form opinions about safety and school culture. For example, one mother reflected on her school’s climate. “(Here) is a different place than a lot of other places. . .that’s what we see anyway at our school and in this area.” This teacher attributed violence (and lower graduation rates) to gangs, lower socioeconomic status and single parent families. Other teachers working in certain districts discussed problems such as violence, drugs, and low achievement. However, these opinions were not necessarily factual truths, and at times felt conflated with bias, fear and sometimes prejudice. Often participants discussed safety concerns at the same time as racial composition and poverty.

In several instances, teachers who had more experiences were even more advantaged in that they had accumulated additional knowledge by comparing different programs. In other words, increased experiences result in increased educational currency as they allow for more meaningful understanding of the systems between which parents may choose.

Through social networks

Another way that teacher-parents acquire educational currency is from their social capital, and more specifically, social networks. Lamont and Lareau (1988) have emphasize that middle-class mothers share common values which allow them to facilitate relationships in schools better than their working-class counterparts. The participants in this study both facilitated and happened to be in close knit social networks with other educators. In addition to their social circles, teacher-parents easily connected with others in the school system when they needed information, advice, and even special treatment accessing options.

Participants used social networks to acquire information about regional programs including French Immersion. Participants shared information and acquired information from teachers in their networks about their experiences as both educators and parents. While teacher opinions were not always identical, decisions were often deliberated amongst them. Teachers’ social capital and social networks are unique in that they are, in essence, super groups, composed of insiders, each with a significant amount of knowledge, experience, and subsequent dependability.

How do teacher-parents use their educational currency?

Teacher-parents use knowledge and experience to navigate the market

Teacher-parents relied on professional knowledge and experience to navigate the school choice market. Insider information provided them the ability to manage clerical and technical details with ease. They were able to prepare and support their children through various stages of school choice and the application processes of regional programs. They also had the knowledge and experience (and subsequent confidence) to advocate for their children during the process. The participants in this study used educational currency to shape their priorities and make schooling decisions that reflect them.

Teachers also made judgments about different geographic locations and how area might impact educational experience. Notably, the data demonstrates that participants’ priorities for their children were sometimes incongruent with their political and professional views. In other words, teachers who emphasized equity and inclusion sometimes sought privilege and segregation. The incongruence between what parents want and what parents believe is identified by Swift (2003) as champagne socialism. Parents making choices that were incongruent with their opinions was a phenomenon seen throughout the data. It appears that when faced with decisions that impacted what they perceive as the wellbeing of their children, teacher-parents were inclined to make decisions based on the knowledge and experience they acquired and not their moral makeup. This is a clear way in which EC impacts choice making and therefor equity. In other words, parents who have the EC to understand the realities of schooling can make the choice they feel best supports their child. In contrast, those with less EC would have limited ability to fully understand the choices that they make.

To form opinions and shape priorities

Another way that teacher-parents used their professional knowledge was to understand and form opinions about various school policies and programs. This privileged them in the school choice market because they became informed choosers. Knowledge, interpretations, and opinions allow participants to not only access options in the market, but also poised them to be informed consumers and boosting their ability to select options that matched their definition of the best choice. Teachers in this study, particularly those who have taught in French Immersion schools, considered FI a viable option. At the same time, they were privy to intricate details of the registration and withdrawal process, how boundaries change for those in FI and English, and that French Immersion may not be the right choice for every learner.

The participants in this study used their professional knowledge and their experience to help them shape their schooling priorities and to make decisions that fit. Not only did they understand and critique various options, but they then used this knowledge to make informed choices for their children. Teacher-parents used their EC to deliberate the value of different elements of schooling. They also made judgments about different geographic locations and how various elements may impact educational experience. One mother who taught in an urban center was particularly concerned with the class sizes in her school. She spoke openly about her trepidation with the public system in densely populated areas. Had they not moved their family to a small, rural community in time for kindergarten, this mother explained that she would have “forced” her teacher-husband to agree to Montessori. She insisted, “had we stayed in Toronto, I would have paid for Montessori. Yep. I told him after my experiences in the classroom, I said, (to husband), I’ve never believed. In private education before. . .if we had stayed in Toronto. . .I was going to pay for Montessori until they were seven years old.”

Existing literature states that most parents not only look for schools that are academically superior, but they also seek environments with mirroring values (Godwin et al., 1998; Lee et al., 1996), are safe (Armor and Peiser, 1997; Lee et al., 1996), are convenient (David et al., 1994; Hamilton and Guin, 2005; Hastings et al., 2005; Theobald, 2005), and contain fewer poor children and children of color (Bell, 2009, p. 494; Henig, 1990; Schneider and Buckley, 2002). However, studies also demonstrate the contradiction that middle class parents face. The literature demonstrates that middle-class, White parents prefer their children to attend schools with similar students. In many instances, self-proclaimed liberals tended to “support segregated and stratified school structures that mainly benefit students of the middle class” (Swift, 2003, p. 571). Teacher-parents used their educational currency to make similar choices. The data demonstrates that participants’ priorities for their children were sometimes incongruent with their political and professional views.

Participants used their knowledge and experience to determine ideal peers for their children and where to find them. Teacher-parents in this study emphasized the significance of peer groups. Overall, teacher-parents identified ideal peers as well-behaved and academic students. Participants often acknowledge that well-behaved and academic students could readily be found in specialized courses including French Immersion and regional programs. They used this knowledge to determine the benefits of a specialized option. This also meant that parents wanted children to be around other kids “like them.” Several participants reiterated their desire that their child fit into the demographics of their school so that they would not feel excluded. In a more recent Canadian study, Yoon and Gulson (2010) find that middle-class, White parents, continue to choose schools populated with students who are predominantly White and English speaking. In fact, this hunt for similarity extends beyond North America. International studies attest that middle-class families choose specialized programs and schools to segregate themselves from “social and ethnic others” (Lipman, 2008; Raveaud and Zanten, 2007).

EC is used to evaluate programs, validate claims and navigate the choice-system to improve their chances of getting access to their preferred schools. In making their decisions these teachers often adopt positions that contradict the values they espouse in their professional roles. Whilst they may work in diverse or under-privileged schools and espouse the principle of equity, they make personal decisions to segregate their children from such schools and from “other” children.

To identify the best geographic areas

Teacher-parents used their professional experiences to determine optimal geographic areas in which to send their children to school. Evaluations were based on concerns of inclusion, safety, and academic excellence. Lubienski and Yoon (2017) explain that spatial dispositions tend to influence (parents’) school choice by shaping their decisions to choose a school within areas where they feel comfortable and where they “fit in” within the city. (p. 3). Thus, choosing a location is linked to parental prioritizations and shaped by one’s identity. In addition to choosing a school location, teacher-parents made residential choices that matched their identity and priorities trusting that their neighborhood school would reflect these as well. The tendency of choosing a home in an area where one would want to send their children to school is not new. Many scholars have studied this trend. Scholars such as Teske et al. (2007) and Wilson (2001) have explored how residential decisions are in themselves a form of school selection that reinforce choosing patterns.

When deciding where to enroll their children for school, some parents were concerned with the safety of a specific location. Teacher-parents referred to their experience and knowledge to determine which areas were safe. One mother identified safety as her biggest priority but was also very concerned that her son and daughter would not be racially represented because most of their classmates would be Black or South Asian. She explained that after teaching in her school she “100%” would avoid certain areas because of issues of violence and demographics. When asked what influenced this choice she explained: “I would say safety, but then some areas I would say because it’s maybe like a high population of one specific race. And I also didn’t want that because I wanted it to be more diverse rather than one sort of. . .” Another mother refused to consider a regional arts school for her daughter because of the location, even though she felt that her daughter would have thrived in the program. Another parent valued geographic location over other priorities he had previously expressed. He explained that where a school was physically located was more important than whether it was Catholic or public.

To prepare and support their children for schooling options

Once parents had decided on select programs for their children, they used their EC to prepare them and navigate the process. Teacher-parents were able to support their children through the application process, likely increasing the possibility that they would be chosen for the program of their choice. In addition to regular registration, parents whose children were applying to regional and select programs managed this process with confidence and ease because of their experience within their board. In fact, several of the parents explained that they had been indirectly preparing their child for programs and auditions for years. One participant determined that attending an information night for French Immersion would be redundant for her. “Well, I already knew what the program entailed. And I was working inside it.” Another participant had been preparing for years. She was confident that her child would do well in front of a regional program selection panel because she had made sure they were involved in activities that she believed fostered the aspect of character that would fare well in this situation

Teacher-parents use social capital and networks

Teacher-parents use social networks, made up of family, friends and colleagues to supplement knowledge and provide favors within the school choice market. Those considering options outside of their own experiences, relied on teacher networks and teacher friends to increase their educational currency. Social networks provided important information that was used during the deliberation of school choice. Scholars, like Lareau, have investigated the structures and underlying processes of this type of knowledge (Lareau et al., 2016) and argue that immediate “hot” knowledge acquired through networks is more important than the “cold” knowledge available on websites and brochures concerning tests scores and results (Lareau et al., 2016). Many reiterate that access to “hot” knowledge is unevenly distributed across different groups. What is unique about the data in this study is that teacher-parents can not only be classified at middle-class, educated parents, but they belong to networks that consist of other system insiders with an abundance of their own knowledge. Teachers relied on their networks to help guide them through the decision of whether to choose the FI program. One participant discussed how a knowledgeable teacher-friend provided her with the confidence to choose the FI program.

Social networks also expanded student opportunities. In addition to unique knowledge, many teachers enjoyed a confidence that because of their profession, they could receive flex-boundaries – permission to attend a school outside of one’s designated catchment - for their child if they so desired. Some discussed the opportunity for their own children to be accepted into their school on flex as a favor from their principal. Two of the participants shared stories about flex-boundary favors. The participant explained that her husband who is also a teacher, asked his principal to allow his son to attend his school. The principal’s response was helpful and positive, and they did not require any convincing.

It should be noted that while teacher-parents shared a wealth of explicit knowledge (when schools accept registrations and applications, where bussing is available, program costs, etc.) many of them were far more familiar with what was happening within their own boards than with programs outside of their experience. This discrepancy demonstrates that even teachers with access to information, are bounded by their experiences and have dissimilar and uneven amounts of knowledge.

In conclusion

In this study I have demonstrated how the 23 teacher-parent participants have navigated the choice system in Ontario to achieve advantage for their own children. Their decisions often further the segregation and inequality that have come to be associated with the operation of school choice policies. I have also demonstrated how the concept of educational currency helps to explain the variety of factors that come together to enable this kind of positional advantage.

While I define EC as any privilege relevant to specific contexts of the school choice process, it is not reserved for teacher-parents. Parents who are not teachers may also access information, knowledge, and privilege from social networks, their financial wealth, and personal experiences and attain different levels of educational currency. A richer understanding of educational currency results in a clearer understanding of the inevitable inequities of school choice markets.