Shopping for schools: parents of students with disabilities in the education marketplace in Stockholm

ABSTRACT

This article examines the experiences of parents of students with disabilities when they shop for schools in Stockholm. It looks at the motivations behind school choice, the kinds and sources of information used and the constraints that parents encounter in the school choice process. The results, based on interviews with parents, demonstrate friendship, special support systems and school flexibility as reasons for opting for a particular school. Parents seek school-based and consumer satisfaction information, through the use of both official and unofficial sources. Parents also describe constraints such as lack of choice, information inadequacy and lack of support. The findings of this study suggest some negative implications on inclusion and equity and consumer empowerment for students with disabilities.

KEYWORDS:

• Free school choice
• students with disabilities
• motivation
• constraints

Introduction

Sweden introduced a free school choice system in the early 1990s, allowing parents and students to freely choose schools. Studies show that there is strong support for free school choice amongst parents in Sweden, with 54% favourable and only 12% unfavourable (Malmberg, Andersson, and Bergsten 2014). In the current system, parents of students in need of special support have the possibility to choose from an expanding and diversifying education market in Sweden. Not only can they choose between public or private providers, they can also choose schools in regular education or alternatives within the special education market (Tah 2018). There is, however, limited research on how these parents of students with disabilities participate in school choice (Byrne 2013; Mawene and Bal 2018). Three issues are considered here. First, how parents of students with disabilities choose schools and the factors that influence these choices (Glenn-Applegate, Pentimonti, and Justice 2011; Mawene and Bal 2018). Secondly, concerns about information availability for parents of students with disabilities to enable school choice (Tah and Knute-Nykvist, 2019, unpublished manuscript; Mawene and Bal 2018) and thirdly, the challenges that parents of students with disabilities encounter when they shop for schools. These issues remain unexplored in the Swedish literature on school choice, and this study is perhaps inaugural in exploring them. The purpose is to examine the experiences of parents of students with disabilities when they shop for schools in the local education market in the Stockholm region. Focus is on three aspects of school choice: motivations behind the parents’ choices; the information that parents seek and the sources of this information, and the constraints encountered in the process of shopping for schools. The following questions are examined: What are the motivations behind school choices for parents of students with disabilities? What kind of information do parents seek when they choose schools, and where does the information come from? What constraints do they encounter when shopping for schools?

Table 1. Information about informants.

Informant data
	Sex M = Male F = Female	Age of child	Disability	School choice- special or regular	School choice: school type	Status of school choice
Parent 1	M	13	ADHD	Special school	Independent Resource school	Attending school
Parent 2	F	6	ASD	Regular school	Municipal pre-school with a special education department	Attending school
Parent 3	M	7	ASD	Special school	Municipal särskola* integrated in a regular school.	Attending school
Parent 4	F	10	ASD	Special school	Independent resource school	Waiting for admission decision (currently attending regular school)
Parent 5	F	10	Cerebral palsy and Motor difficulties	Regular School	Municipal regular school	Waiting for admission decision
Parent 6	F	15	Down Syndrome	Special school	Municipal särskola integrated in a regular school.	Attending school
Parent 7	F	6	ASD	Regular	Regular school	Attending school

*Schools for children with severe learning disabilities

This study contributes in elucidating school choice within the framework of special education, by bringing in the demand-side perspective especially the experiences of a consumer viewed as undesirable and risking segregation and exclusion (Tah 2018; Magnússon 2019). More so, to contribute to the theoretical discussions on inclusion, equity and consumer empowerment in education market which is oppositional. This study is limited to the compulsory school level, as it is better suited to understanding free choice for students with disabilities since there is an open enrolment policy and parents are likely to be influential in making shopping decisions for their children.

The freedom of choice and special educational needs in sweden

The introduction of a free school choice relinquished the residential principle as the determinant of the school a student would attend (Lindblom, 2010). The legislation enacted freedom of choice stipulates that:

The aim is to establish the greatest possible freedom for children and parents to choose schools. This freedom should mean the possibility to choose between public and independent schools, but also to choose within the municipality or to choose a school in another municipality. (Govt. Bill, 1991/92:95:8, own translation)

To enhance the opportunity for parents and students to choose between municipal and independent schools, the legislation grants the same conditions and financial terms to those who choose either option through a student voucher system (Miron 1993). The Education Act of 2010 and other ordinances further regulate the inner workings of the free school choice system.

In Sweden, parents typically choose schools in a ranking system. In a case where parents choose a municipal school outside of the student’s municipality of residence, an agreement between the municipalities is required, ensuring that the municipality of residence covers the costs of schooling. Municipal schools have an obligation to accept all eligible students and places are awarded based on residence in the catchment area. Regarding independent schools, parents can choose any of the schools within or outside of the municipality of residence. Admission is based primarily on a first come, first serve principle, whether another sibling is attending the school (Edmark, Frölich, and Wondratschek 2014) and absolute proximity to the school. Independent regular schools could refuse admission for students in need of special support in certain circumstances scripted in the education act (Tah 2018).

For parents of students in need of special support, both regular schools and various forms of special schools are possible options. These special school forms include regional and national special schools, schools for students with severe learning disabilities (särskolan) and resource schools targeting learners with specific disabilities, that have emerged and expanded as an outcome of the marketisation of the school system (Tah 2018).

Though parents’ participation in school choice is optional today, there is an ongoing political discussion to make it compulsory. A school commission inquiry recommended the institutionalisation of compulsory school choice as a way to improve the quality of education (SOU 2016:38). Some municipalities in the Stockholm region have implemented obligatory school choice or similar mandatory measures, for example, Botkyrka, Nacka, Sollentuna and Täby.

Theory and research review on parental school choice

The theoretical framework of this study builds on aspects of a variety of theories to understand and discuss parents’ motivations, information and the constraints they experience when shopping for schools.

Market theory makes assumptions on how parents choose schools and under what conditions a free school choice system would work. Rowe and Lubienski (2017, 341) write that market theory emphasises demand-driven, rational and individualised choices as drivers of the school market. Parents are viewed as rational actors who will shop for the best schools on the basis of cost-benefit computations, using adequate and accurate information (Bosetti and Pyryt, 2007). In a market system, parents will seek to send their children to the ‘best schools’; referring to academic quality (Chubb and Moe 1990). As rational actors in the school marketplace, their motivations will rest upon evidence of school effectiveness (Rowe and Lubienski, 2017) and suitability for the academic needs of their children (Prieto, Aguero-Velverde, Zarrate-Cardenas, and Van Maarseveen, 2018). The rationalist perspective in market theory emphasises academic consideration as the primary motivation behind parents’ school choices.

The rationalist view is questioned on the basis that it takes for granted that people are rational and will optimise utility (Chetty 2015), and ignores the role of human agency, freedom and ability to act independently, as well as the social and cultural practices (Wells, 1997:422 cited in Bosetti and Pyryt, 2007) and societal conditions and institutional constraints (Brannen and Nilsen 2005) that impact on decision-making. A sociocultural perspective offers an alternative understanding of the motivations that may underlie parental school choice. Choice is viewed as a sociocultural and local practice and school preferences are constructed in the context of symbolic and material restrictions affecting different groups, and the individual’s capacity to construct their own educational preferences (Moschetti and Verger, 2019:3). Therefore, school choice process is influenced by factors such as class, ethnicity, religion and social relationships (Bosetti 2004). Group and individual factors like culture, social class, ethnicity, disability, networks of social relationships, material resources and local contexts interact to mediate preferences and choice, thus imposing restrictions on purely rationalist behaviour (Moschetti and Verger, 2019). Bagley and Woods (1998), propose the intrinsic-personal/social value perspective to understand motivations behind school choice for parents of students with disabilities. This perspective is a mixture of priorities, focusing primarily on the child. It ‘represents a general concern with process; the child’s feelings and (anticipated) day-to-day experiences at the school; the quality of his or her relationships there; and the support, concern and general care to be provided by the school’ (Bagley and Woods (1998, 780)). The child is at the centre of the reasons for choosing a school, and child-specific factors such as capabilities, ambitions, affinities, friendship, emotional nature, sensitivities, strengths and weaknesses are important when parents assess their alternatives.

The literature on school choice for parents of students with disabilities demonstrate a diversity of motivations. In a recent review of the literature on the factors influencing parents of students with disabilities, Mawene and Bal (2018) demonstrated that school choice is influenced by school-based factors such as the availability of special education resources including special education programmes (Ysseldyke, Lange, and Gorney 1994; Bryne, 2013), facilities and specialist staff (Bajwa-Patel and Devecchi 2014) smaller class size (Jenkinson 1998), positive attitudes among teachers (Glenn-Applegate et al. 2016), communications between parents and teachers and individual attention to their children (Finn et al., 2006). Furthermore, family-based factors such as shorter distance to school (Jessen, 2003), social continuity such as siblings support (Ysseldyke et al.1993; Jessen, 2003) and family beliefs about disability could influence choices towards inclusive schools or segregated settings (Runswick-Cole, 2008). Finally, some studies demonstrate child-based factors such as the child’s needs, happiness, self-esteem and the importance of a caring environment as reasons for opting for a school (Bagley and Woods 1998; Jenkinson 1998), as well as friendship (Rowe and Lubienski 2017). These studies demonstrate that school choice for parents of students with disabilities is influenced by a variety of factors, including child-, family-and school-based. Academic motivations seem to have very little direct influence on school choice.

While no Swedish studies were found looking specifically at how parents of students with disabilities choose schools, some studies show that parents do participate in school choice (e.g. Bunar and Ambrose 2018), and that factors such as residential demographic aspects, school reputation and school profile, student achievement, emphasis on special needs and proximity to school influence parents’ choices (Andersson, Östh, and Malmberg 2010; Malmberg, Andersson, and Bergsten 2014).

Regarding information relating to school choice, the concepts of hot (grapevine knowledge) and cold knowledge (Ball and Vincent 1998) provide an understanding of how parents acquire and use information. Cold knowledge is the official information produced and publicly disseminated and contains information such as lists of schools, examination results and school policies. Hot knowledge is unofficial, constructed on affective responses or direct experience, acquired through a network of social relationships. This information, produced through social networks, is more localised and useful in the mediation of parental school choice as it is more reliable than official information, especially information generated by schools. It is more trustworthy, delivers knowledge about topics of importance – which the cold knowledge may not provide – such as student behaviour and well-being. The concept of hot knowledge has been used to study how mothers of children with autism acquire and use information when choosing primary schools in Australia (Lilley 2015). These concepts will be useful in analysing information acquisition and usage.

Finally, inclusive education and the concept of equity in education are relevant in understanding parental experiences of shopping for schools. Booth (1996:34) proposes a two-process approach to understand inclusive education. Inclusive education is

the process of increasing the participation of pupils within the cultures and curricula of mainstream schools and the process of decreasing exclusionary pressures. To attempt the first without the second is self- defeating.

Booth stresses on the notion of participation; inclusion is about increasing participation. This aligns with the Salamanca´s view of inclusion which focuses on participation and limitation of unnecessary exclusion of students in need of special support from local schools (Magnússon 2019). Rouse and Florian (1997) specify participation by using the notion of opportunity to participate. Opportunity to participate means active involvement and choice and not a passive reception of a pattern or pre-established conditions (Rouse and Florian, 1997:326). Therefore, any aspect of the school choice that has a negative effect on the participation of students with disabilities excludes them, and exclusion disempowers the excluded (Barton 1997). Similarly, from an equity in education perspective, if equality of opportunity is viewed as a core component of equity (Demeuse, Crahay, and Monseur 2001; Savage, Sellar and Gorur, 2013), in the context of school choice, parents of students with and without disabilities ought to have equal opportunities of choice when shopping for schools. Market theory assumes that a free school choice will strengthen educational equity, by providing the possibility for all students to choose better schools outside of their zoning area (Cookson 1994; Waslander and Thrupp, 1995). It also assumes that a school choice system will produce a surplus in the supply of schools from which parents of students with disabilities can choose (Anastasiou and Kaufman, 2009). Meanwhile, others have argued that a school choice system will actually aggravate and deepen existing educational inequities (for example, Hanselman and Fiel 2017)

Furthermore, market theory postulates that school choice will improve individual agency and consumer empowerment (Chubb and Moe 1990; Barton and Slee;1999). School choice system gives individuals the possibility to exercise agency and thus appropriates power from schools to the parents. Since parental choice would allocate resources to the schools, essentially schools will be responsive to the parents if they want to attract them. Inclusion, equity, individual agency and consumer empowerment offer a framework within which constraints experienced by parents of students with disabilities when choosing schools can be discussed.

Methodology

Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with seven parents of children in need of special support, who had recently made a school choice for their children. Parents were recruited primarily through different disability organisations and social networks for parents of children with disabilities. A message was sent to these organisations and networks which was forwarded to parents. Six parents were recruited through this channel, and one parent was selected through the author’s network. The aim was to recruit more parents; however, the recruitment proved to be very challenging. All parents and children live and attend school within the Stockholm region and the children are within the pre-school class and the compulsory school system and have been diagnosed with a disability.  The interviews were conducted with parents at their suitability and lasted between 40 and 55 minutes. See Table 1 below for informants information. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim.

Data were analysed using thematic analysis. It is described as a method of data analysis where the researcher examines descriptions of a certain phenomenon and searches for common patterns or themes (Daly, Kellehear, and Gliksman 1997). The analysis used an inductive approach, respecting a six-step process of thematic analysis described in (Braun and Clarke 2006). Analysis was done for each question separately. First, the data were read and reread for refamiliarization, since the author conducted the interviews and transcribed the interviews. Portions of the data providing some insights into the research questions were then extracted from the data into a new matrix and coded. The coding process was semantic, describing closely the content of the data. Themes were constructed by clustering codes with a coherent meaning across interviewees relevant to answering the research question; e.g. for question one, all codes regarding special education teachers, special facilities, special approaches, etc., were clustered to form a theme. The themes were later reviewed for coherence, overlapping and responsiveness to the research question. The themes were then defined and named, and results report developed.

Results

The results are presented according to the research questions. Names of parents, children and schools have been changed to maintain anonymity. Parents are identified by numbers while fictive names have been given to children and schools. Citations from parents are used to give a voice to their descriptions.

Motivations of school choice

The motivations reflect shopping for schools irrespective of school form or provider. Three key themes emerged relating to motivations behind parental school choice; namely, friendship, special support system and school flexibility.

Friendship

Friendship was emphasised as a key motivation in choosing a school. Parents articulated the importance of friendship and were keen on choosing a school were their children would have friends and be part of the school community. Friendship is understood as both the maintenance of existing friendships and the possibility to establish new ones. The maintenance of friendships manifest in choosing a school where the child has friends or where friends are moving to in the case of transition from one school-level to the next. One parent described the school choice as a collegial process between herself and the parents of her daughter’s friends, allowing them to choose the same school for their children.

But in this age, it’s, the most important thing is what your friends- where are your friends going? So we talked a lot with all the other parents. Are there a group of friends? What type of school are they going to choose? Can we make a decision together, or? So of course, that was an important thing. When we decided that Maria should not go to a special school, then that was the most important thing for us: where are all the other friends, what school are they choosing? (Parent 5)

Another parent stressed the importance of maintaining her son’s social network of friends, since they know him and understand how he functions.

He would still have contact with all the children that he knew, and that would be about 60-70 children who knew who James was and who knew his sister, who knew signing, who were in tune to his needs. (Parent, 6)

Friendship also represents the possibility to make friends. This was the case where one child did not have friends at his current school, and the parent was motivated to choose one the child would be able to establish friendships and be part of a community of children with similar disabilities.

I think he needs a small environment, that he can relate and to get friends. Because that’s also a way that he’s different, he has no friends in school. He has no friends. He’s never invited to any birthday parties; he’s never invited to go home after school with someone to play, or during holidays, during weekends and so on. I think with children that have the same- I think they can get to understand each other better, and they have better understanding and he can get friends and get in this Asperger’s community, that I think he needs to be a part of, so he can find other persons who have Asperger’s and have this understanding of what’s important, what’s not important. (Parent 4)

Special support system

The special support system, referring to the availability, quality and organisation of special education support systems was an important motivation behind parental school choice. This would include the quantity and quality of school resources in terms of the number and experience of special education personnel, a supportive school environment and pedagogical approaches and adaptations in the curriculum, smaller class size and use of sign language. The special education support system demonstrates a school’s capacity to be responsive to the special needs of the child. One parent describes

I was walking through the classrooms and I saw the environment, I think ‘Well, this is a place that he can be calm and there are no stress factors there’. Like seating – they’re not sitting in a normal classroom where you’re facing the blackboard, they are sitting facing the walls around the classroom. So there are no distractions. And they have these, like, screens, so they have, like, sitting in small boxes. And I think the environment- and all the teachers there have special education for this kind of children. And they also have this; I think it’s called low-impact approach. (Parent 4)

Another parent had opted for a particular school because of the support system and how the school works:

I went to that one for autistic and then I went to North School. In North School we booked an appointment with the principal. They were very flexible, they were really nice. We met and we got the inside, how it worked, before we made our decision. So, I think it was that, the day we got the most information, because she could explain to me how that school worked and how the system worked, I’m remembering. Because then we came home, we talked and we felt that that could be the best option for George. (Parent 2)

Moreover, a relevant special support system as a motivation in choosing schools was viewed in relation to the possibility to promote learning. A parent chose to move her son from a regular to a special school motivated by the fact that the special school would have an adequate and relevant support system to promote learning. Similarly, another parent emphasised her choice of a regular school with a special unit that supports students within the Autism Spectrum Disorders, as this unit would provide the kind of support her child needs for his learning.

School flexibility

Parents expressed a preference for schools that showed flexibility by positively responding to their demands. The parents visited and discussed with the schools, and when necessary made demands regarding the specific needs of their child. Schools that were more flexible by positively responding to these demands sent positive signals to the parents. One parent, who visited a school together with his daughter, articulated that one of the motivations behind choosing this particular school, instead of another school which was also willing to admit her, was their flexibility in adjusting to their demands concerning the organisation of her education.

I think the difference is that in this school they let the child decide what they need. And they do after the child. The other school, they – not always, many times they let the child, but … Like mobiles. The school I said no to, they say ‘In here, you are not allowed to have mobile’. And for my daughter it would be not good, because that’s her thing to rest, to get energy. And the school I said yes to, they say yes to most of the things she wants, she needs. That’s why. (Parent, 1)

School choice information

Two themes were identified regarding the kinds of information parents were interested in when shopping for schools; namely, school-oriented information and information about consumer satisfaction. Regarding sources, parents used official and unofficial information sources.

School-based information

This relates to specific information about a school, regarding eligibility, availability of resources, environment and organisation of special education support. Information about eligibility was described by parents as the likely starting point in the shopping for schools. Moreover, parents wanted to know about the special educational system and the school environment, including available resources for special support, both in terms of quantity and quality, methods and approaches to support students with different disabilities, and capacities to meet child’s specific needs.

And of course, we are looking for a school that is accessible for Maria, who has a wheelchair and walking chair and a lot of different aids that she needs to use. And we also look at: how many special educators does that school have, and do they have any experience of the challenges that Maria has? (Parent 5)

Information about consumer satisfaction

Another key piece of information that the parents were interested in was about consumer satisfaction. Parents described seeking information about consumer (dis)satisfaction with a school, for example, by searching for ratings. One parent narrated that:

I remember one of the things we looked at was ratings. There is this rating of schools. Parents give every year rates about the school their kids go to and that feedback gets converted in a number/rate. Those values are available on the municipality’s website. We look for the highest rates. Rates about; kids’ happiness, schoolwork, children safety. We were interested in everything. (Parent 2)

Parents also talked with other parents of children who were attending or had attended schools they were prospecting to see how satisfied they were. This information seeking was on a broad range of aspects based on specific interests; such as materials and personnel to more affective issues such as student happiness and safety. This information provided an evaluation of the quality of service in the schools.

Official and unofficial information sources

Parents described using a variety of information sources to facilitate the school choice. Official sources refer to schools and other public authorities and recognised organisations such as disability organisations. Official information is acquired through schools, municipalities, organisations and parents’ associations, and websites showing school ratings (usually operated by the municipalities). Unofficial sources would refer to information from parents’ social networks such as friends and families and other parental and consumer social networks, on social media platforms such as Facebook and message boards. Both official and unofficial information sources provided parents with information at different stages of the school choice process. At the beginning parents would consult official sources of information such as a school website, school ranking websites, etc., but also their social networks and social media platforms to get initial information about schools. During the process parents will visit schools and have discussions with them about their child-specific needs and sometimes pose demands, this also occurred with the unofficial sources where parents will ask specific questions in their different networks and social media platforms.

Constraints in shopping for schools

The parents in this study expressed several challenges experienced in the process of shopping for schools. These challenges are themed as follows: experience of lack of choice, experience of information inadequacy and experience of lack of support.

An experience of lack of choice

Parents were critical of the existing system of free school choice in many ways. They did not necessarily consider that they had a choice at all, and several of them expressed that the school choice was by no means ‘free’ to them. Parents articulated that

I didn’t have any choice at all. I had no choice (Parent 5)

So it’s really- a lot of the school choices are a non-choice (Parent 6).

The parent describing it as a ‘non-choice’ further viewed her decision as coerced by the institutions of school choice.

So, school choice, I don’t even think of it as …, it felt like forced choice … But we didn’t really feel like we made a decision, we felt like we were forced into choosing to go to a ‘särskola’ (school for students with severe learning disabilities). It was too much for us to make that fight. (Parent 6)

Another parent situated the lack of choice as a supply-side problem in terms of a limited number of schools to choose from.

In one way, I didn’t have any free choice, no. Because if there were a number of schools, like there were ten schools that I could apply to, then I’d have a free choice. But since there are so few, we don’t have any choice at all … There is – what I know – there is just one school that takes them in when they are from fourth grade. So I applied and they said that we didn’t get in there. So then I decided, because I thought he would get better- get a better position in the queue for next year, so I decided that he should go to third grade a second time. (Parent 4)

This parent chose to make her son repeat the third grade because he did not get a place in the resource school that she wanted him to attend. She applied again this year hoping he gets into the school. The problem was also expressed in terms of some school’s unwillingness to see themselves as suitable options for her child.

We were outright told in some places that this was – without them even knowing our kid – that this was not the right place for him. (Parent, 3)

Generally, parents experienced limited supply of suitable schools stifles free choice.

An experience of information inadequacy

Another principal challenge that emerged was a lack of information. To make an informed school choice, consumers need to have access to adequate and relevant information. However, the parents in this study expressed a severe lack of information about schools relevant to them as consumers with disabilities.

And it’s also lacking, that there is no information. It’s really hard to get information. (Parent 4)

I would say there is no information available, you need to seek that out yourself. (Parent 5)

Lack of information was usually regarding eligible schools and the schools’ special support system.

An experience of lack of support

Parents complained not experiencing a supportive system that takes into consideration their needs as they shop for schools. The lack of such a system makes shopping for schools a challenging process, not due to their own making but a free choice system that has abandoned them to the fate of the market. Some parents consider themselves ill-informed or not knowledgeable enough to make the best school choice for their children. One parent noted that

They think that the parents know what to do. But the parents don’t know. We don’t know how school works. (Parent 1)

Moreover, the school choice process is seen as demanding and stressful, and adding responsibility to them.

I mean, choice also takes a lot of time, and if you have children with kind of special needs, you are very kind of time-strapped. (Parent 3)

I hate this process. I really, it … almost break down our family, because this process, in my mind, it’s not … The school is compulsory, so why should I do this process? (Parent 1)

Though most of the parents are favourable to choosing a school themselves, they articulate a need for support, especially from the public authorities.

Discussion and conclusion

The results of this study indicate that parents of students with disabilities are not necessarily motivated in their school of schools by the best academic possibilities or the school with the best academic credentials or the most effective schools as a rational choice perspective in market theory assumes (Chubb and Moe 1990; Bosetti 2004; Rowe and Lubienski). Parents seem to be motivated by the child’s personal and affective need, in this case friendship and the special support system and school’s flexibility.

Moreover, regarding information, the distinction between sources as official and unofficial reflects Bal and Vincent’s (1998) cold and hot knowledge typologies, where cold knowledge is official information and hot knowledge is unofficial information. However, this study indicates that official information may not be necessarily ‘cold’ as it does produce child-specific information when parents visit schools to discuss about their child´s needs and sometimes pose specific demands on the schools. This interaction with official sources produces tailor-made information and is ‘hot’ due to its usefulness in making the final choice school. It is suggested that official as well as unofficial sources may produce hot knowledge, especially for consumers with disabilities who will most likely visit and discuss with schools regarding their child´s specific needs.

Moreover, the constraints experienced by parents when shopping for schools, individually or in collusion, may impact negatively on inclusion and equity, contradicting the goals of inclusion and egalitarianism of the Swedish school system. The lack of choice, information and support risks reducing the opportunity to participate and the quality of participation. The limited supply of suitable schools and the lack of information are indicative of inequality of opportunities for parents of students with disabilities. Inequality in school choice for students in need of special support due to high rates of admission refusal by the independent schools has been demonstrated in a previous Swedish study (Magnússon 2015). Though the lack of information is seen as one of the school market’s imperfections (Scheinder, Teske and Marschall, 2000) and Bridge (1978) calls it the Achilles’ heel of the choice system and a barrier to its social equity goals, it seems to be an even more significant problem for consumers with disabilities. A recent Swedish study demonstrates how independent regular independent schools fail to market to students in need of special support (Andersson, et al. 2019). Moreover, the lack of support to parents of students with disabilities is questionable in the name of fairness. Is it fair that these parents, many of which are already facing difficulties in providing care to a child with disabilities, are left with the heavy responsibilities of spending additional time, energy and resources to shop for schools without support?

Finally, though market theorists view school choice as a means to empower consumers as it gives agency to the individual (Chubb and Moe 1990), the lack of choice and the coercion of the choice system may be erosive to consumer power. The choice rhetoric and consumer empowerment is also interrogated by studies from Australia and the UK. Lilley (2014) shows that professional decision rather than parental choice by and large placed children with disabilities in segregated settings, while Byrne (2013) writes that some parents of students with disabilities perceived a lack of choice, as professionals rather than parents decide on placement in special schools. Individual agency and consumer empowerment should not be reduced to the mere act of choosing a school, it should be accompanied by a system that provides several suitable alternatives, adequate information and freedom from coercion. Finally, the explorative nature of this study would require more research to further delve into some of the issues emerging discussed here.

To conclude, addressing these challenges will require some changes to the current free choice system. Policy reforms may be useful in eliciting adequate information to the consumers with disabilities, and in increasing public authority support at the local educational level to parents of students with disabilities in the school choice process. The problem of the limited supply of schools can be addressed through a rethinking of the funding system for students with disabilities. This could encourage more market entry in the special education market and enable existing schools to offer more places to prospective students. A more inclusive solution could be to provide more resources and support to the regular schools to have the capacity and willingness to accommodate and be responsive to the needs of students with disabilities.

Limitation of the study

A limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size, seven parents. The results of the study are therefore discussed with caution. More research is needed involving a bigger sample to confirm and strengthen the results. A quantitative study with parents could be useful to make some generalisations about the experiences of parents of students with disabilities when they shop for schools in the Swedish education market.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.