Abstract
School choice policy is ubiquitous in urban school districts. Evidence suggests that it has not fully delivered on its proponents’ promises of equitable educational opportunity. While scholars and policymakers scrutinize data to determine school choice’s equity outcomes, little attention has been paid to how school choice policy directly influences youth understanding of educational equity and opportunity. This study therefore explores how youth who engage with school choice policy come to understand and act upon the distribution of educational opportunities, and the extent to which their understandings and actions vary by social identity, family resources, school resources and admissions outcomes. 36 youth, engaged in the high school choice process, participated in this study, which is guided by policy enactment theory. Across subgroups, participants overwhelmingly valued merit as the best principle by which to distribute educational opportunity. Alongside this near-universal embrace of merit and widespread participation in choice policy-required actions, those who accessed the highest-performing schools often did so by activating non-academic resources that required financial capital. These findings highlight a shared ritual that serves to instantiate and reinforce ideals of meritocracy. Findings inform our discussion of school choice policy’s educational equity and civic implications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
CPS uses U.S. Census data, divides all tracts in Chicago equally into four socioeconomic tiers. Data used to rank each census tract are: median family income, adult educational attainment, percentage of single-parent households, percentage of home-ownership, percentage of the population that speaks a language other than English, and a school performance variable calculated from the tract’s schools’ standardized test scores. CPS identified students’ socioeconomic tiers according to the address listed on their high school application.
References
Ali, T., & Watson, A. V. (2017). Less Than 25 Percent Of Chicago Kids Go To ‘Neighborhood High Schools’. Retrieved from https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170619/englewood/chicago-public-schools-neighborhood-high-school-enrollment-attendance-charter/
Anderson, E. (1999). What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109, 287–337.
Anyon, J. (2014). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Archbald, D. (2004). School choice, magnet Schools, and the liberation model: An empirical study. Sociology of Education, 77(4), 283–310.
Au, W., Dumas, M., Dixson, A., & Mayorga, E. (2016). Meritocracy 20: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39–62.
Baker, B. (2001). Gifted children in the current policy and fiscal context of public education: A national snapshot and state-level equity analysis of Texas. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 229–250.
Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactment in secondary schools. New York: Routledge.
Berube, A., & Holmes, N. (2015). Some cities are still more unequal than others-an update. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015/03/city-inequality-berube-holmes
Betts, J., & Loveless, T. (Eds.). (2005). Getting choice right: Ensuring equity and efficiency in education policy. Washington: Brookings Institution.
Bray, M., & Kwo, O. (2013). Behind the façade of fee-free education: Shadow education and its implications for social justice. Oxford Review of Education, 39(4), 480–497.
Burke, L., Ford, V.W., Lips, D., Marshall, J.A., Richine, J., Sheffield, R. & Walter, E. (2013). Choosing to succeed. Washington: The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/choosing-to-succeed-choosing-to-succeed.
Chicago Public Schools. (2011). Admissions policy for magnet, selective enrollment and other options for knowledge schools and programs. Chicago Public Schools Policy Manual. Retrieved from http://policy.cps.k12.il.us/documents/602.2.pdf
Chicago Public Schools. (2013). 2013–2014 CPS high school guide. Chicago, IL: Chicago Public Schools, Office of Access and Enrollment.
Chingos, M., & Blagg, K. (2017). Making sense of state school funding policy. Washington: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/94961/making-sense-of-state-school-funding-policy_0.pdf
Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington: Brookings Institution.
Corcoran, S., Jennings, J., Cohodes, S., & Sattin-Bajaj, C. (2018). Leveling the Playing Field for High School Choice: Results from a Field Experiment of Informational Interventions. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, 2018.
Cox, T. (2014). Payton College Prep toughest CPS selective-enrollment school to test into. DNAinfo. Retrieved from http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140225/downtown/payton-college-prep-toughest-cps-selective-enrollment-school-get-into
Danns, D. (2014). Desegregating Chicago’s public schools: Policy implementation, politics, and protest, 1965–1985 (First ed., Historical studies in education). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality : Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Di Leo, J. R., Giroux, H. A., McClennen, S. A., & Saltman, K. J. (2015). Neoliberalism, education, and terrorism: Contemporary dialogues. New York, NY: Routledge.
Donnor, J. (2012). Whose compelling interest? The ending of desegregation and the affirming of racial inequality in education. Education and Urban Society, 44(5), 535–552.
Duggan, L. (2003). The twilight of equality? Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ewing, E. (2018). Ghosts in the schoolyard: Racism and school closings on Chicago’s South Side. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Fine, M., Greene, C., & Sanchez, S. (2016). Neoliberal blues and prec(ar)ious knowledge. The Urban Review, 48(4), 499–519.
Fuller, H. (2002). Full court press: Why I am fighting for school choice. Education Next, 2(3), 88.
Gold, E., Evans, A., Haxton, C., Maluk, H., Mitchell, C., Simon, E., et al. (2010). Transition to high school: School “choice” and freshman year in Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action. Retrieved from http://www.researchforaction.org/wpcontent/uploads/publication-photos/110/Gold_E_Transition_to_High_School_School.pdf.
Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as creative destruction. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610(1), 21–44.
Jordan, R., & Gallagher, M. (2015). Does school choice affect gentrification? Posing the question and assessing the evidence. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/65841/2000374-Does-School-Choice-Affect-Gentrification.pdf
Koski, W., & Reich, R. (2007). When “adequate” isn’t: The retreat from equity in educational law and policy and why it matters. Emory Law Journal, 56(3), 545–617.
Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy (1st ed.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Leyva, R. (2009). No child left behind: A neoliberal repackaging of social Darwinism. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 7(1), 365–381.
Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the city. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mann, H. (1842). Fifth annual report of the secretary of the board of education of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The District School Journal of the State of New York (1840-1852), 2(11), 81.
Markovits, D. (2019). The meritocracy trap: How America’s foundational myth feeds inequality, dismantles the middle class, and devours the elite. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
Mazie, S. (2009). Equality, race and gifted education: An egalitarian critique of admission to New York City’s specialized high schools. Theory and Research in Education, 7(1), 5–25.
McCall, L. (2013). The undeserving rich: American beliefs about inequality, opportunity, and redistribution. Cambridge University Press.
Metz, M. (1989). Real School: A universal drama amid disparate experience. Journal of Education Policy, 4(5), 75–91.
Pacyga, D. (2009). Chicago: A biography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Phillippo, K. (2019). A contest without winners: How students experience competitive school choice policy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Phillippo, K., & Griffin, B. (2016). The social geography of choice: Neighborhoods’ role in students’ navigation of school choice policy in Chicago. The Urban Review, 48(5), 668–695.
Posey-Maddox, L. (2016). Beyond the consumer: Parents, privatization, and fundraising in US urban public schooling. Journal of Education Policy, 31(2), 178–197.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reardon, T. (2012). Comparative analysis of boston public school proposed assignment plans. Boston, MA: Metropolitan Area Planning Council.
Reeves, V., & Schobert, A. (2019). Elite or elitist? Lessons for colleges from selective high schools. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/elite-or-elitist-lessons-for-colleges-from-selective-high-schools/
Renzulli, L., & Evans, L. (2005). School choice, charter schools, and white flight. Social Problems, 52(3), 398–418.
Rury, J. (1999). Race, space, and the politics of Chicago’s public schools: Benjamin Willis and the tragedy of urban education. History of Education Quarterly, 39(2), 117–142.
Saporito, S. (2003). Private choices, public consequences: Magnet school choice and segregation by race and poverty. Social Problems, 50(2), 181–203.
Sattin-Bajaj, C. (2014). Unaccompanied minors: Immigrant youth, school choice and the pursuit of equity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Scott, J. (2011). Market-driven education reform and the racial politics of advocacy. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(5), 580–599.
Shiller, J. (2018). The disposability of Baltimore’s black communities: a participatory action research project on the impact of school closings. The Urban Review, 50(1), 23–44.
Stitzlein, S. M. (2017). American public education and the responsibility of its citizens: Supporting democracy in the age of accountability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Suspitsyna, T. (2010). Accountability in American education as a rhetoric and a technology of governmentality. Journal of Education Policy, 25(5), 567–586.
Veiga, C. (2019). Brown v. Board of Education turns 65 today. These students are still fighting for integration in NYC schools. Chalkbeat. Retrieved from https://chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2019/05/17/brown-vs-board-of-education-turns-65-today-these-students-are-still-fighting-for-integration-in-nyc-schools/
Yin, R., & Campbell, D. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Acknowledgments
Funding was provided by Spencer Foundation (Grant No. #201400022). The authors would like to thank Joseph Ferrare for his comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Phillippo, K., Griffin, B., Del Dotto, B.J. et al. Seeing Merit as a Vehicle for Opportunity and Equity: Youth Respond to School Choice Policy. Urban Rev 53, 591–616 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-020-00590-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-020-00590-y