School choice policies are often based on the idea that competition will generate better outcomes for all students. Yet there is limited empirical research about how school leaders actually perceive competition and whom they view as rivals. Drawing on concepts from economic sociology, I study principals’ competitive networks and the sets of schools they view as rivals, and I use network and statistical analysis to explore factors that explain the existence of a competitive tie between two schools. Most school leaders perceived some competition, but the extent to which they competed with other schools varied significantly. Factors that predicted a competitive relationship between two schools included geography, student transfers, school performance, principal characteristics, and charter network.
Ávila de LimaJ. (2010). Studies of networks in education: Methods for collecting and managing high-quality data. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 243–258). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
2.
BettingerE. P. (2005). The effect of charter schools on charter students and public schools. Economics of Education Review, 24(2), 133–147.
3.
BifulcoR.LaddH. F. (2006). The impacts of charter schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy, 1(1), 50–90.
4.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software package for social network analysis. Cambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies.
5.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.JohnsonJ. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. London: Sage.
6.
BrahaD.StaceyB.Bar-YamY. (2011). Corporate competition: A self-organized network. Social Networks, 33(3), 219–230.
7.
BurasK. L. (2013). New Orleans education reform: A guide for cities or a warning for communities?Berkeley Review of Education, 4(1), 123–160.
8.
BurtR. S. (1987). A note on missing network data in the general social survey. Social Networks, 9(1), 63–73.
9.
CameronC. A.GelbachJ.MillerD. (2011). Robust inference with multi-way clustering. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 29, 238–249.
10.
CranmerS. J.DesmaraisB. A. (2011). Inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. Political Analysis, 19(1), 66–86.
11.
DalyA. J. (Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education.
12.
DatoS.NiekenP. (2014). Gender differences in competition and sabotage. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 100, 64–80.
13.
FerlieE. (1992). The creation and evolution of quasi markets in the public sector: A problem for strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 79–97.
14.
FligsteinN. (1996). Markets as politics: A political-cultural approach to market institutions. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 656–673.
15.
FligsteinN.DauterL. (2007). The sociology of markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(26), 6.1–6.24.
16.
GewirtzS. (2001). The managerial school: Post-Welfarism and social justice in education. London: Routledge.
17.
GewirtzS.BallS. J.BoweR. (1995). Markets, choice and equity in education. Maidenhead, UK: Open University.
18.
GneezyU.NiederleM.RustichiniA. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049–1074.
19.
GoldhaberD. D.EideE. R. (2003). Methodological thoughts on measuring the impact of private sector competition on the educational marketplace. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 217–232.
20.
HandcockM. S.HunterD. R.ButtsC. T.GoodreauS. M.MorrisM. (2003). statnet: Software tools for the statistical modeling of network data. Retrieved from http://statnetproject.org.
21.
HannemanR. A.RiddleM. (2011). Concepts and measures for basic network analysis. In ScottJ.CarringtonP. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 340–369). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
HarrisD.LarsenM. (2015). What schools do parents want (and why)? Preferences of New Orleans school parents before and after Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University, Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.
23.
HasselB. C.BrinsonD.BoastL.KingslandN. (2012). New Orleans-style education reform: A guide for cities. Lessons learned 2004–2010. New Orleans, LA: New Schools for New Orleans.
24.
HoxbyC. (2002). School choice and school productivity (or could school choice be a tide that lifts all boats?). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
25.
ImbermanS. A. (2011). The effect of charter schools on achievement and behavior of public school students. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 850–863.
26.
JabbarH. (in press). “Every kid is money:” Market-like competition and school-leader strategy in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
27.
JenningsJ. (2010). School choice or schools’ choice? Managing in an era of accountability. Sociology of Education, 83(3), 227–247.
28.
KasmanM.LoebS. (2013). Principals’ perceptions of competition for students in Milwaukee schools. Education Finance and Policy, 8(1), 43–73.
29.
KleinbaumA. M.StuartT.TushmanM. (2013). Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization. Organization Science, 24(5), 1331–1336.
30.
LabiancaG.BrassD. J.GrayB. (1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 55–67.
31.
LaddH. F.FiskeE. B. (2003). Does competition improve teaching and learning? Evidence from New Zealand. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 97–112.
32.
LakeR.HillP. (2009). Performance management in portfolio school districts. Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education.
33.
LevacicR. (2004). Competition and the performance of English secondary schools: Further evidence. Education Economics, 12(2), 177–193.
34.
LindgrenK.-O. (2010). Dyadic regression in the presence of heteroscedasticity: An assessment of alternative approaches. Social Networks, 32(4), 279–289.
35.
LubienskiC.GulosinoC.WeitzelP. (2009). School choice and competitive incentives: Mapping the distribution of educational opportunities across local education markets. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 601–647.
36.
LubienskiC.WeitzelP. C. (Eds.). (2010). The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education.
37.
LusherD.KoskinenJ.RobinsG. (2012). Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
38.
MarsdenP. V. (1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 435–463.
39.
MarsdenP. V. (2011). Survey methods for network data. In ScottJ.CarringtonP. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 370–385). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
MayerA.PullerS. A. (2008). The old boy (and girl) network: Social network formation on university campuses. Journal of Public Economics, 92(1–2), 329–347.
41.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.
42.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
MuijsD.RumyantsevaN. (2014). Coopetition in education: Collaborating in a competitive environment. Journal of Educational Change, 15(1), 1–18.
44.
NiY. (2009). The impact of charter schools on the efficiency of traditional public schools: Evidence from Michigan. Economics of Education Review, 28(5), 571–584.
45.
NiY.ArsenD. (2010). The competitive effects of charter schools on public school districts. In LubiesnkiC. A.WeitzelP. C. (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 93–120). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education.
46.
NiederleM.VesterlundL. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much?Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101.
47.
OplatkaI.FoskettN.Hemsley-BrownJ. (2002). Educational marketisation and the head’s psychological well-being: A speculative conceptualisation. British Journal of Educational Studies, 50(4), 419–441.
48.
PodolnyJ. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829–872.
49.
PoracJ. F.ThomasH.Baden-FullerC. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26(4), 397–416.
50.
RobinsG.PattisonP.KalishY.LusherD. (2007). An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29(2), 173–191.
SirerM. I.MaroulisS.GuimeraR.WilenskyU.AmaralL. A. N. (2014). The currents beneath the “rising tide” of school choice: An analysis of student enrollment flows in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 358–377.
55.
SnijdersT. A. B. (2002). Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation of exponential random graph models. Journal of Social Structure, 3(2), 1–40.
56.
SnijdersT. A. B.vandeBuntG. G.SteglichC. E. G. (2010). Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32(1), 44–60.
57.
SpillaneJ. P.KimC. M.FrankK. A. (2012). Instructional advice and information providing and receiving behavior in elementary schools: Exploring tie formation as a building block in social capital development. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1112–1145.
58.
SrivastavaS. B.BanajiM. R. (2011). Culture, cognition, and collaborative networks in organizations. American Sociological Review, 76(2), 207–233.
59.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
60.
WellsA. S.ArtilesL.CarnochanS.CooperC. W.GrutzikC.HolmeJ. J.. . . VasudevaA. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten California districts. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
61.
WhiteH. C. (1981). Where do markets come from?American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 517–547.
62.
WimmerA.LewisK. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. American Journal of Sociology, 116(2), 583–642.
63.
WohlstetterP.SmithJ.FarrellC. C. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school performance in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
64.
WoodsP. A. (2000). Varieties and themes in producer engagement: Structure and agency in the schools public-market. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(2), 219–242.
65.
WoodsP. A.BagleyC.GlatterR. (1998). School choice and competition markets in the public interest. London: Routledge.
66.
ZimmerR.BuddinR. (2009). Is charter school competition in California improving the performance of traditional public schools?Public Administration Review, 69(5), 831–845.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
