Socioeconomic differences among low-income and racially minoritized students may be consequential for understanding the dynamics of school choice—especially in high-poverty and racially segregated urban contexts that are often targeted by school choice policies. Yet school choice research largely focuses on differences between groups and relies on measures that broadly categorize students as low-income or not. Drawing on parent interviews in Detroit, this study describes socioeconomic differences among low-income and racially minoritized families and examines how those differences relate to their engagement in the school choice process. While families faced a similar landscape of choice, relied on similar types of resources, and did not have drastically different preferences, relative socioeconomic disadvantages translated to more constrained access and engagement in school choice.
AlcainoM.JenningsJ. L. (2020). How increased school choice affects public school enrollment and school segregation (EdWorkingPaper: 20-258). Annenberg Institute at Brown University.
2.
ArchbaldD. (2000). School choice and school stratification: Shortcomings of the stratification critique and recommendations for theory and research. Education Policy, 14(2), 214–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904800014002002
3.
BellC. A. (2009). All choice sets created equal? The role of choice sets in the selection of schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560902810146
4.
BergerR. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
5.
BlaggK. (2019). Which students count as low income? New national data shine light on proxy for poverty. Urban Institute.
6.
BoweR.GewirtzS.BallS. J. (1994). Captured by the discourse? Issues and concerns in researching “parental choice.”British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(1), 63–78. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1393349
7.
BradyD.ParolinZ. (2020). The levels and trends in deep and extreme poverty in the United States, 1993–2016. Demography, 57(6), 2337–2360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-020-00924-1
8.
CarrascoA.MendozaM.FloresC. (2022). Self-segregation strategies through school choice in Chile: A middle-class domain?Journal of Sociology, 58(3), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833211036505
9.
ChenF.HarrisD. (2022). How do charter schools affect system-level test scores and graduation rates? A national analysis (Working Paper 22-525). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/1044-gj22
10.
ChengA.PetersonP. E. (2021). Experimentally estimated impacts of school vouchers on educational attainments of moderately and severely disadvantaged students. Sociology of Education, 94(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040721990365
11.
CohodesS.CorcoranS.JenningsJ.Sattin-BajajC. (2022). When do informational interventions work? Experimental evidence from New York City high school choice (Working Paper 29690). NBER Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w29690
12.
CohodesS.ParhamK. S. (2021). Charter schools’ effectiveness, mechanisms, and competitive influence (Working Paper 28477). NBER Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w28477
13.
CooksonP.Darling-HammondL. (2022). Building school communities for students living in deep poverty. Learning Policy Institute.
14.
CorcoranS. P.JenningsJ. L. (2019). Information and school choice. In BerendsM.PrimusA.SpringerM. (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (pp. 365–378). Routledge.
15.
DumasM. J. (2013). ‘Waiting for superman’ to save Black people: Racial representation and the official antiracism of neoliberal school reform. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(4), 531–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2013.822621
16.
EisenlohrA.KennedyK.BulkleyK. E.MarshJ. A. (2023). A tale of two systems: Choice and equity in the District of Columbia’s charter schools. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048231198816
17.
EllisonS.AloeA. M. (2019). Strategic thinkers and positioned choices: Parental decision making in urban school choice. Educational Policy, 33(7), 1135–1170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818755470
18.
FreidusA.EwingE. L. (2022). Good schools, bad schools: Race, school quality, and neoliberal educational policy. Educational Policy, 36(4), 763–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221087208
19.
GarzaA. N. (2023). Bending over backward: Flexible resources, parenting, and child engagement during remote learning [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
20.
GreenT. L.SánchezJ. D.CastroA. J. (2019). Closed schools, open markets: A hot spot spatial analysis of school closures and charter openings in Detroit. AERA Open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419850097
21.
GulosinoC. A.LubienskiC. (2011). Schools’ strategic responses to competition in segregated urban areas: Patterns in school locations in metropolitan Detroit. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19, 13. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v19n13.2011
22.
HaderleinS. A. K. (2022). How do parents evaluate and select schools? Evidence from a survey experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 59(2), 381–414. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211046360
23.
HamlinD. (2017). Are charter schools safer in deindustrialized cities with high rates of crime? Testing hypotheses in Detroit. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 725–756. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217705060
24.
HamlinD. (2018). “The types of kids we get are different”—The distinguishing characteristics of school choosers in Detroit, Michigan. Journal of School Choice, 12(1), 52–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2017.1393305
25.
HamlinD. (2021). Parental involvement in high choice deindustrialized cities: A comparison of charter and public schools in Detroit. Urban Education, 56(6), 901–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917697201
26.
HarwellM.LeBeauB. (2010). Student eligibility for a free lunch as an socioeconomic measure in education research. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10362578
27.
HashimA.Sattin-BajajC. (2023). Transportation logics: How charter school leaders make choices about student transportation. American Journal of Education, 129(4), 513–538. https://doi.org/10.1086/725549
28.
HenigJ. R. (2008). Spin cycle: How research gets used in policy debates. The case of charter schools. Russell Sage Foundation.
29.
HenigJ. R. (2020). Prospects for grassroots influence: Can we be realistic without being fatalistic?Urban Affairs Review, 56(3), 930–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419867164
HoustonD. M.HenigJ. R. (2023). The “good” schools: Academic performance data, school choice, and segregation. AERA Open. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231177666
32.
JabbarH. (2015). “Every kid is money”: Market-like competition and school leader strategies in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 638–659. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715577447
33.
JabbarH.DaramolaE. J.MarshJ. A.Enoch-StevensT.AlonsoJ.AllbrightT. N. (2022). Social construction is racial construction: Examining the target populations in school-choice policies. American Journal of Education, 128(3). https://doi.org/10.1086/719159
34.
JabbarH.LenhoffS. W. (2019). Parent decision-making and school choice. In BerendsM.PrimusA.SpringerM. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (2nd ed., pp. 351–364). Routledge.
35.
JenningsJ. L. (2010). School choice or schools’ choice? Managing in an era of accountability. Sociology of Education, 83(3), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040710375688
KangL. (2020). Dismantled: The breakup of an urban school system. Detroit, 1980-2016. Teachers College Press.
38.
KantorH.LoweR. (2006). From New Deal to no deal: No Child Left Behind and the devolution of responsibility for equal opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 474–502. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.76.4.yg7l5t01617h7628
39.
LareauA.EvansS. A.YeeA. (2016). The rules of the game and the uncertain transmission of advantage: Middle-class parents’ search for an urban kindergarten. Sociology of Education, 89, 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040716669568
40.
LenhoffS. W.PogodzinskiB. (2018). School organizational effectiveness and chronic absenteeism: Implications for accountability. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 23(1–2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2018.1434656
41.
LenhoffS. W.SingerJ.StokesK.MahowaldJ. B.KhawajaS. (2022). Beyond the bus: Reconceptualizing school transportation for mobility justice. Harvard Educational Review, 92(3), 336–360. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-92.3.336
42.
LincoveJ. A.ValantJ.CowenJ. M. (2018). You can’t always get what you want: Capacity constraints in a choice-based school system. Economics of Education Review, 67, 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.07.006
43.
LongK.RenbargerR. (2023). Persistence of poverty: How measures of socioeconomic status have changed over time. Educational Researcher, 52(3), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221141409
44.
LubienskiC.PerryL. B.KimJ.CanbolatY. (2022). Market models and segregation: Examining mechanisms of student sorting. Comparative Education, 58(1), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2021.2013043
45.
MarcotteD. E.DalaneK. (2019). Socioeconomic segregation and school choice in American public schools. Educational Researcher, 48(8), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19879714
46.
McWilliamsJ. A. (2017). The neighborhood school stigma: School choice, stratification, and shame. Policy Futures in Education, 15(2), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210317705740
47.
MichelmoreK.DynarskiS. (2017). The gap within the gap: Using longitudinal data to understand income differences in educational outcomes. AERA Open, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417692958
48.
MilesM. B.HubermanM.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
49.
MonarrezT.KisidaB.ChingosM. (2022). The effect of charter schools on school segregation. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(1), 301–340. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20190682
50.
ParolinZ.DesmondM.WimerC. (2023). Inequality below the poverty line since 1967: The role of the US welfare state. American Sociological Review, 88(5), 782–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224231194019
PeurachD. J.CohenD. K.YurkofskyM. M.SpillaneJ. P. (2019). From mass schooling to education systems: Changing patterns in the organization and management of instruction. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 32–67. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821131
53.
PolikoffM. (2021). Beyond standards: The fragmentation of education governance and the promise of curriculum reform. Harvard Education Press.
54.
ReckhowS.Tompkins-StangeM.Galey-HornS. (2021). How the political economy of knowledge production shapes education policy: The case of teacher evaluation in federal policy discourse. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(3), 472–494. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737211003906
55.
SaldañaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
56.
SaporitoS.LareauA. (1999). School selection as a process: The multiple dimensions of race in framing educational choice. Social Problems, 46(3), 418–439. https://doi.org/10.2307/3097108
57.
SchneiderJ. (2012). Excellence for all: How a new breed of reformers is transforming America’s public schools. Vanderbilt University Press.
ScottJ.HolmeJ. (2016). The political economy of market-based educational policies: Race and reform in urban school districts, 1915-2016. Review of Research in Education, 40, 250–297. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16681001
60.
SingerJ. (2020). Student stratification among a combination of school choice policies in Detroit. Journal of School Choice, 14(1), 122–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2019.1689467
61.
SingerJ. (2021). Power to the people? Populism and the politics of school choice in the United States. Journal of School Choice, 15(1), 88–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2020.1853993
62.
SingerJ. (2024a). Quantification and the homogeneous representation of urban students in school choice research and politics. Race Ethnicity and Education, 27(4), 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2024.2306395
63.
SingerJ. (2024b). School choice, local discretion, and stratification: Evidence from inter-district open enrollment in Metro Detroit. Education and Urban Society, 56(4), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245221137571
64.
SingerJ. (2024c). School choice, socioeconomic status, and stratified enrollment in urban districts: Evidence from Detroit. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737241254783
65.
SingerJ.LenhoffS. W. (2022). Race, geography, and school choice policy: A critical analysis of Detroit students’ suburban school choices. AERA Open, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211067202
66.
SmallM. L. (2009). “How many cases do I need?” One science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138108099586
67.
SzaboJ. (2022). “I just didn’t want to risk it”: How perceptions of risk motivate charter school choice among Latinx parents. American Educational Research Journal, 59(4), 651–686. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312221078579
WellsA. S.KeenerA.CabralL.Cordova-CoboD. (2019). The more things change, the more they stay the same: The resegregation of public schools via charter school reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 94(5), 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1668209
YoonE.-S. (2020). School choice research and politics with Pierre Bourdieu: New possibilities. Educational Policy, 34(1), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819881153
72.
YoonE.-S.LubienskiC. (2017). How do marginalized families engage in school choice in inequitable urban landscapes? A critical geographic approach. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(42), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2655
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.
