School Choice Policies and Global Social Inequality: Case Analyses

The development and implementation of school choice policy have been widely studied and are of great concern. School education not only reproducces culture but also an important role in social redistribution (Connell, 2012). As a core policy affecting the educational opportunities and quality, there has been a longstanding controversy over whether school choice policies break the class segregation caused by previous policies or promote new inequality (Angus, 2013). This paper argues that the practical results of school choice policies generally show that this policy has caused significant class differentiation and social inequality. In the following sections, this paper will first identify and explain several core ideas that will frequently appear in the text: neoliberalism, the marketable education market under school choice policy, and the consumer identity of parents and students in the education market. Then, this article will deeply discuss the advantages and disadvantages of school choice policy from the perspective of both supporters and opponents. After that, this paper will summarize and discuss some representative literature in this field. Finally, this paper will analyze the practice of school choice policies in Australia and the Netherlands, and provide a critical comparative study of the two cases.

Key concepts:

Neoliberalism: Before discussing policies for school choice, several important concepts need to be explained. Neoliberalism first emerged in the US in 1970, just after the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. A few years later, Britain and the United States abolished capital controls, globalizing capital and economic markets (Mishra, 1999). The main characteristics of neoliberalism are the limitation of state power, the tendency towards a free market economy, and the view that everyone is self-interested (Ball, 2005).

Parents and students as consumers: Before discussing the concept of students and parents as consumers, there is a larger concept to begin with: neoliberal citizensip identity. Neoliberal citizens refer to those who are good at adaptation, can face new changes, and are good at calculating risks and taking responsibility for the consequences of risks (Olssen and Peters, 2005). Then, under the construction of the policy text of school choice, parents and students are regarded as consumers, while schools are the providers of educational services. The identity of consumers means that they have the right to make free choices, and the choices they make are supposed to maximize their own interests, but it also means that they are responsible for the consequences of their choices (Gulson, 2011).

School Choice in the Context of Neoliberal Ideas: School choice in the context of neoliberalism means marketizing education, privatizing schools, and believing in the ability of the market economy to develop independently. Parents and students are believed to realize their best interests as consumers through their own economic and cultural capital (Reay et al., 2007). As a provider in the education market, preset schools must improve their education quality to attract more consumers, to achieve the overall improvement of the educational level and academic performance of students (Adnett and Davies, 2014).

Key debate: School choice

Before discussing the policy debate over school choice, it is worth introducing the ideological context in which the debate emerged. In the 1990s, neoliberalism gained popularity, and dissatisfaction with the existing education policy of passive allocation of schools increased. The emergence of educational choice is very consistent with the ideological atmosphere of neo-liberal marketization, which attracted many supporters. (Olssen and Peters, 2005). 

Many people in the United States support the school-choice proposal, particularly in this market-oriented ideological context. These proposals include privatizing public schools, giving people a choice of state and sub-state public schools, and reducing private school tuition through tax credits. The main argument of supporters is that by putting all schools in the market to compete, schools can improve their educational quality and pay more attention to the requirements of parents under the pressure of the market economy (Ambler, 1994). In Britain's Conservative Party, there are also voices in favour of educational choice, arguing that putting school choice in the hands of the people gives disadvantaged groups more influence and the ability to seek a better education for their children, just as wealthy families do (Lawton, 2003). In addition, proponents of school choice argue that under traditional education policies, the rich can get a good education by buying houses in areas where good schools are available or by attending expensive private schools, while the disadvantaged are stuck in their local schools. School choice policies can break down the barriers of income and social class so that students can choose schools based on their academic performance (Coleman, Hoffer and Kilgore, 1982).

Despite the support of school choice policies, many scholars have also put forward comprehensive criticisms of this policy, particularly its impact on equality of opportunity. They have proposed that educational choice policies exacerbate social inequality because students and parents are largely influenced by their class, race, and educational background when choosing a school (Dovemark et al., 2018). Different social classes differ in their motivations for education, the amount of educational information they obtain, and their ability to analyze it, which also means that most of the beneficiaries of educational choice policies are still relatively wealthy middle classes (Ambler, 1994).

The debate over school choice is multifaceted, with arguments for and against the policy. While supporters argue that school choice policies can improve educational quality and provide disadvantaged groups with more opportunities, opponents argue that such policies exacerbate social inequality. As education policy continues to evolve, it is essential to consider the impact of school choice policies on equality of opportunity and the wider implications of these policies on society.

Literature Review

Numerous scholars have explored whether school choice policies can prmote equity by breaking down the barriers of class, race and region through different research. As for the school choice policy, Adams (2014) believes that although the school choice policy provides parents and children with a choice, the middle class has an advantage over the working class due to their ability to use social resources more skillfully, thus exacerbating class inequality. Education in the context of school choice policy as a means of social redistribution aggravates such class inequality (Adams, 2014). British research examined how the country's middle and working classes differ in their choice of childminders and schools. The research revealed that middle-class families have access to more information about school choice than working-class families and are more informed about school choice options and are "active" consumers in the education market, while working-class families lack access to such resources due to their limited social and cultural capital (Vincent, Braun and Ball, 2010). Given that they have more money and resources, they have much more freedom to choose schools than the working class (Reay et al., 2007). This disparity means that even with school choice reform, the middle class, especially the white middle class, still benefit from it and strengthen their class by providing their offspring with better educational resources (Ball, 2005).

Studies in other countries, not just Britain, have also found that school choice policies exacerbate social inequalities. In India, for instance, the privatization and marketization of education via school choice policies have led middle-class families to regard sending their children to expensive private schools as important means to inherit privilege and secure social status, further deepening social differentiation (Gupta, 2019). Similarly, some Nordic countries focus on social equality, and studies have found that the introduction of school choice policies will lead to the differentiation of school education quality, thus allowing parents and students to make different choices (Dovemark et al., 2018).

Despite the differences in national social backgrounds, these studies illustrate that school choice policies aggravate social inequalities and differences in the country. Next, this essay will critically analyze the school choice policy in two distinct countries and its impact on social equality.

Case Study of Australia

Since the 1980s, under the influence of neo-liberalism, Australian education policy has increasingly emphasized the market economy and consumer choice, attracting students through independent competition between schools, and making children and parents the main body of school choice (Angus, 2004). In 2010, Australia launched a website called "My School" to provide parents and students with transparent information on school performance to facilitate better school choices.. The website displays each school's grades, strengths, and student performance, and compares them with other schools (Mcgaw, 2008). Consequently, private schools with greater funding outperform public schools and attract more students, with over a third of students enrolling in private schools (Donnelly, 2012). Some scholars predict that private schools in Australia may eventually replace public schools and become the main provider of educational services in the future (Caldwell, 2010).

One of the main reasons for the disproportionately high enrollment of students in private schools is the competitive and market-driven nature of the Australian education system. The appearance of the My School website shows the requirements for transparency and school quality under the policy framework of neoliberalism in Australia, compelling schools to improve competitiveness and educational productivity (Mcgaw, 2008). However, the excellent academic performance of private schools mainly results from charging high tuition fees (Donnelly, 2012). The better schools tend to be more competitive, and students from disadvantaged backgrounds cannot afford to attend such schools, resulting in unequal access to quality education (Angus, 2013).

Case study of Netherlands

In contrast to Australia's market-oriented approach, the Netherlands’ education system adopts a different approach to school choice. In Netherlands, both public and private schools receive the same amount of government funding, and tuition fees are negligible (Koning and van der Wiel, 2013). And the government does not assign schools to children; instead, parents and children must choose which schools they want to attend. In terms of access to information about school quality, the Dutch mainly provide the public with the education quality of each school through newspapers and other publications, and each school also propagates its past educational achievements through its website (Denessen, Driessena and Sleegers, 2005).

Due to the unique education policy in the Netherlands, economic factors have little influence on school choice. Instead, social and cultural factors play a more significant role in determining school choice for families from different backgrounds (Boterman, 2012). When choosing a school, social and cultural capital are mainly reflected in the ability to obtain and analyze the school’s information. For example, the middle class, with a certain social status and educational background, is more likely to choose schools that align with their children's interests or have high educational quality, while families with relatively poor social and cultural capital tend to choose schools that are closer to their homes. This difference in school choice creates divisions among parents of different classes and exacerbates segregation between classes (Denessen, Driessena and Sleegers, 2005).

Critical analysis of case studies

In Australia's highly market-based education system, the quality of education available to students is largely determined by the financial capital of parents. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds have limited options for obtaining a quality education,as they must rely on low-fee private schools or high-performing public schools, which are both scarce in Australia. Because private schools have greater autonomy and more funds than public schools, they have more advantages than public schools in terms of administration and teacher-student ratio (Bunar, 2010). However, this education system tends to attribute poor academic performance to individual schools and families, rather than viewing it as a structural problem of the education system (Angus, 2013). This approach aligns with the ideology of neoliberalism, which promotes individual responsbility for the outcomes and risks of one's own choices (Gulson, 2011).

In the Dutch example, social and cultural capital plays a more important role in determining school choice. Compared with the working class, the middle class possesses advantages in selecting schools, as they are better equipped to navigate school consultations and have greater social recources thant the working class (Boterman, 2012). Even though Dutch education policies have largely decreased the influence of income on school choice, class inequality persists (Denessen, Driessena and Sleegers, 2005).

In general, whether in Australia or the Netherlands, school choice will cause different degrees of inequality regardless of whether the main factor affecting school choice is economic capital or social-cultural capital. In a market-based school choice system, middle-class families have the advantage in income, educational background and social resources, enabling their children to receive a better education. Although families from disadvantaged backgrounds ostensibly have the same choice, tuition fees, the ability to analyse school information and geographical factors all act as barriers to getting into good schools. This is also why school choice policy will aggravate educational inequality and enable the middle class to consolidate their class and privilege through educational choice, leading to greater social class differentiation (Vincent, Braun and Ball, 2010).

Although the original intention of school choice policy is to improve the quality of school education through competition, so that families from disadvantaged backgrounds do not have to be restricted by geography to choose schools, and to promote social equity and class mobility (Coleman, Hoffer and Kilgore, 1982). When put into practice, school choice policies failed to break down the barriers of classes, but instead promoted the segregation of different classes and the differentiation of society. As a means of social redistribution, education aggravated inequality (Vincent, Braun and Ball, 2010). As discussed above, the background of school choice policy is the privatization and marketization of education, regards every student and parent as a consumer, and believes in the adjustment and balancing ability of the market economy itself (Reay et al., 2007). However, not every consumer is created equal, and the resources available to middle-class consumers give them an advantage when it comes to choosing education services. In a completely free education market without policy control, the advantages of the middle class will be passed down through the generations through high-quality education, creating a cycle in which the children of the rich receive better education and then become richer (Angus, 2013). This is also why the inequality caused by school choice policies can lead to social polarization. Many scholars have proposed that the completely free school choice policy should be treated with more caution given the negative effects of school choice policy (Rinne, Kivirauma and Simola, 2002).

In general, as argued by Vincent, Braun and Ball (2010), although school choice policies aim to improve the quality of education and reduce inequality of opportunity, they produce a large degree of inequality and social differentiation in practice (2010). Under the ideology of neoliberalism, school choice policy is the representative of the marketization of education, where schools are the providers of educational services, while parents and students are the consumers who choose services and are responsible for their own choices (Olssen and Peters, 2005). The middle class occupies a favorable position in the choice, and can skillfully use their social resources to maximise their interests. In stark contrast, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are limited by the lack of money and resources (Adams, 2014). Whether it is India with a huge gap between the rich and the poor (Gupta, 2019) or relatively equal northern Europe, school choice policies have led to the differentiation of education quality and the entrenching of classes to some extent (Dovemark et al., 2018). Even though the educational policies and social backgrounds of different countries are different, such as Australia and the Netherlands in the case study section, the economic, social and cultural capital of the middle class makes it possible for them to choose better schools for their offspring (Angus, 2013). It also speaks highly of the pernicious nature of the inequalities brought about by school choice policies. In the context of school choice policies, the poor individual performance of students is attributed to the mistakes of families and individual schools, rather than institutional inequality (Angus, 2013), which is also the reason for extra caution in the formulation and implementation of school choice policies in the future (Connell, 2012).

Reference list

Adams, P. (2014). Policy and education. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Adnett, N. and Davies, P. (2014). Markets for schooling : an economic analysis. London: Routledge.

Ambler, J.S. (1994). Who Benefits from Educational Choice? Some Evidence from Europe. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(3), p.454. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3325386.

Angus , L. (2004). Globalization and educational change: bringing about the reshaping and re‐norming of practice. Journal of Education Policy, 19(1), pp.23–41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093042000182618.

Angus, L. (2013). School choice: neoliberal education policy and imagined futures. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(3), pp.395–413. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.823835.

Ball, S.J. (2005). Class strategies and the education market the middle classes and social advantage. London Routledgefalmer.

Boterman, W.R. (2012). Dealing with Diversity: Middle-class Family Households and the Issue of ‘Black’ and ‘White’ Schools in Amsterdam. Urban Studies, 50(6), pp.1130–1147. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012461673.

Boterman, W.R. (2019). The role of geography in school segregation in the free parental choice context of Dutch cities. Urban Studies, 56(15), pp.3074–3094. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019832201.

Bunar, N. (2010). Choosing for quality or inequality: current perspectives on the implementation of school choice policy in Sweden. Journal of Education Policy, 25(1), pp.1–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930903377415.

Caldwell, B.J. (2010). Is Private Schooling Becoming the Preferred Model of School Choice in Australia? Journal of School Choice, 4(4), pp.378–397. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2010.526840.

Connell, R. (2012). Just education. Journal of Education Policy, 27(5), pp.681– 683. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.710022.

Denessen , E., Driessena, G. and Sleegers, P. (2005). Segregation by choice? A study of group‐specific reasons for school choice. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), pp.347–368. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108981.

Donnelly, K. (2012). School Choice in Australia: An Overview of the Rules and Facts. Journal of School Choice, 6(2), pp.290–294. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2012.673935.

Dovemark, M., Kosunen, S., Kauko, J., Magnúsdóttir, B., Hansen, P. and Rasmussen, P. (2018). Deregulation, privatisation and marketisation of Nordic comprehensive education: social changes reflected in schooling. Education Inquiry, 9(1), pp.122–141. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1429768.

Gulson, K.N. (2011). Education Policy, Space and the City. Routledge. Gupta, A. (2019). Heterogeneous middle-class and disparate educational advantage: parental investment in their children’s schooling in Dehradun, India. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(1), pp.48–63. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1660142.

James Samuel Coleman, Hoffer, T. and Kilgore, S. (1982). High school achievement public, catholic, and private schools compared. New York Basic Books. Koning, P. and van der Wiel, K. (2013). RANKING THE SCHOOLS: HOW SCHOOL-QUALITY INFORMATION AFFECTS SCHOOL CHOICE IN THE NETHERLANDS. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(2), pp.466–493. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12005.

Lawton, D. (2003). Education And Politics For The 1990s. Routledge.

Mcgaw, B. (2008). My School Site Brings Fair Comparisons. [online] Available at: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/my-school-site-brings-faircomparisons.

Mishra, R. (1999). Globalization and the welfare state. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Olssen, M. and Peters, M.A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), pp.313–345. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108718.

Reay, D., Hollingworth, S., Williams, K., Crozier, G., Jamieson, F., James, D. and Beedell, P. (2007). `A Darker Shade of Pale?’ Whiteness, the Middle Classes and Multi-Ethnic Inner City Schooling. Sociology, 41(6), pp.1041–1060. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038507082314.

Rinne, R., Kivirauma, J. and Simola, H. (2002). Shoots of revisionist 1 education policy or just slow readjustment? The Finnish case of educational reconstruction. Journal of Education Policy, 17(6), pp.643–658. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000032292.

Seddon, T., Angus, L.B. and Australian Council For Educational Research (2000). Beyond nostalgia : reshaping Australian education. Camberwell, Vic.: Acer Press.

Vincent, C., Braun, A. and Ball, S. (2010). Local links, local knowledge: choosing care settings and schools. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), pp.279–298. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902919240.

Zhou, X., Mau, A. and Jordan, L. (2020). Gaming the no-choice system? School choice and persistent educational inequality in China. Research Papers in Education, 37(1), pp.1–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1814849.