The Chimera of Choice: Gentrification, School Choice, and Community

Abstract

This study investigates school choice in a gentrified urban context and examines the ways in which school choice as rhetoric creates false perceptions, how school-choice policies can betray the very principle they espouse, and how choice (while sought after by many) can undermine community. As school choice continues to expand and gain traction politically, it is increasingly important to understand the effects it has on a variety of populations and how the rhetoric surrounding the policy does not correspond with the lived realities on the ground. This research borrows the concept from psychology and economics of “the paradox of choice” (Schwartz, 2004) and applies it to school choice to demonstrate some of the negative influences of choice on parents and their views of schooling. This research calls into question one of the major arguments for the expansion of school choice—that it provides all parents the opportunity to choose the best fit for their child—by demonstrating that in actual practice choice does not meet parents’ expectation that they are in control of their child’s educational options, regardless of their class background. In this case study the choice system results in a lack of agency, anger and hostility, discontent with schooling options, and an undermining of community connections. Although a number of families do believe they had a choice and were satisfied with their child's school options, or became staunch advocates for their local district schools, the choice landscape still creates tensions.

Notes

1 Pseudonyms used throughout.

2 85% of those surveyed (N = 49) chose to answer the income question. All those who did not, however, answered the education question and possessed bachelor’s degrees or above. In order to support participation and openness in survey responses, it was not mandatory to answer all questions. Therefore, at times the sample for a question like this one has a smaller N. I will note the N for each question where it was less than 100% (58) in footnotes.

3 N = 57

4 N = 57

5 N = 56

6 N = 56

7 This school was 96% socioeconomically disadvantaged in 2014–2015 when the parents that are the focus of this study were looking at kindergartens; in 2015–2016 it was 90% and then in 2016–2017 80%. As described here, the district began sending children whose parents had not requested Elwood to Elwood for the 2016–2017 school year.

8 This shift was implemented without an official policy change presented to parents (who were under the impression their district choices would be honored as in years past). It was generally perceived as a response to growing enrollment, the choices of some advantaged parents to opt in to the school, and a need to work toward more demographic equity. Parents expressed that they felt that some parents were still able to have choices honored while others were not.

9 N = 57.

10 These are small samples, with only N = 19 identifying income and choosing “no.” Although not large numbers or a scientific sample, they do provide an indication of dynamics.

11 In a recent effort to increase socioeconomic diversity, two of the charter schools have begun to use weighted lotteries for students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds.

12 Including my child specifically.

13 While one parent thought twins had double the chance (two chances and if either get it they both go), the other thought twins had half the chance in the lottery (one chance for both in lottery).

14 N = 46.

15 N = 57.

16 N = 57

17 N = 56

18 This paper is not an examination of what happens inside of schools in Tindley, but charter-school parents interviewed were generally very happy with the schools and education their children were getting.

19 N = 56

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Molly Vollman Makris

Molly Vollman Makris is an assistant professor of urban studies at Guttman Community College, City University of New York, where she currently serves as program coordinator for Urban Studies. She holds a Ph.D. in Urban Systems from Rutgers University. She is the author of Public Housing and School Choice in a Gentrified City: Youth Experiences of Uneven Opportunity (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) and coauthor of the recent articles “A Different Type of Charter School: In Prestige Charters, A Rise in Cachet Equals a Decline in Access” (Journal of Education Policy, 2017) and “School Development in Urban Gentrifying Spaces: Developers Supporting Schools or Schools Supporting Developers?” (Journal of Urban Affairs, 2017). Her research interests are urban education reform, school segregation, public housing, gentrification, and the privatization of public education, housing, and space.