Setting Priorities in School Choice

To report on how newly qualified doctors' specialty choices, and factors that influenced them, varied by medical school. Postal questionnaires. United Kingdom. All doctors who graduated in the UK in 1999 and 2000. Choices of eventual career expressed 1 year after graduating, and factors influencing their choices. There were some significant differences between medical schools in the career choices made by their graduates. For example, the percentage of respondents who expressed the choice of general practice was significantly low among graduates of Oxford and Cambridge and high among graduates of Birmingham and Leicester. There was also significant variation between medical schools in choices for hospital medical and surgical specialties. There were significant differences, too, between medical schools in the extent to which career choices had been strongly influenced by graduates' inclinations before starting medical school and by their experience of their chosen specialty, particular teachers and departments at medical school. As well as the differences, however, there were also many similarities between the schools in graduates' career choices. Medical schools currently provide students with a broad training suited to any subsequent choice of specialty. We suggest that the similarities between schools in the career choices made by graduates are generally more striking than the differences. We raise the question of whether there should be any specialisation by individual schools to train students for careers in particular branches of medical practice.

The common school ideal is the source of one of the oldest educational debates in liberal democratic societies. The movement in favour of greater educational choice is the source of one of the most recent. Each has been the cause of major and enduring controversy, not only within philosophical thought but also within political, legal and social arenas. Echoing conclusions reached by Terry McLaughlin, but taking the historical and legal context of the United States as my backdrop, I argue that the ideal of common schooling and the existence of separate schools, which is to say, the existence of educational choice, are not merely compatible but necessarily co-exist in a liberal democratic society. In other words, we need both common schooling and educational choice. The essay proceeds in four parts. First, I explain why we need to understand something about pluralism in order to understand common schooling and school choice. In the second and third parts, I explore the normative significance of pluralism for common schooling and educational choice, respectively. In the fourth part, I show how the two can be reconciled, given a certain understanding of what pluralism demands.

Soulevant le paradoxe de l'obligation de l'education civique des enfants et de l'apprentissage des valeurs fondamentales du liberalisme telle que l'autonomie de l'individu, l'A. montre que la permissibilite de l'education civique pose probleme, tant du point de vue de l'autorite de l'ecole en matiere d'enseignement et de l'autorite des parents en matiere d'education, que du point de vue de la legitimite de l'etat liberal au regard du consentement hypothetique des citoyens. Examinant les arguments en faveur de l'education civique developpes par W. Galston et A. Gutmann, ainsi que l'argument instrumental en faveur de l'education falicitant l'autonomie, l'A. montre que le debat souleve la question de la place de la famille religieuse de l'enfant et la question des programmes scolaires dans le cadre limite de la doctrine liberale

The movement toward choice is the first step in a movement toward getting the incentives right in educationincentives for both the suppliers of educational services, that is, schools and their teachers, and for the consumers of education, that is, parents and children. The incentives for schools that a voucher system would introduce would include an interest in attracting and keeping the best students they could. The incentives for parents and students would include the ability to get into schools they find attractive and to remain in those schools. These incentives already exist, of course, but in the absence of choice by parents and schools, they can be implemented only by moving. That is, parents can implement their interests by moving to a school district or attendance zone within their financial reach that they find most attractive. Principals and teachers can implement their interests only by trying to get transferred to a school with a student body that is more to their liking. The results are unfortunate in several respects. For both the schools and the parents and child, an important incentive to improve is missing: The school cannot attract students by improving itself and cannot dismiss students who do not live up to its standards, and the student and parents have no incentive to perform and behave well for the student to be in the school they aspire to. This absence of appropriate incentives on both sides of the educational process means that an important source of educational improvement is missing. A second consequence of the absence of choice in education is that there is extensive stratification of schools, but unlike the comparison used by Astin of Caltech and low-status colleges, this stratification is based entirely on income and race. For example, the incomes of parents of children at New Trier High School in a wealthy Chicago suburb differ far more from those at Chicago's inner-city Dunbar High School than do those at the most selective colleges from those at the least selective. The result of choice in elementary and secondary education, whether confined to the public sector or including the private sector through vouchers, would not be to increase stratification; it would be to replace the current stratification by income and race by a stratification based on students' performance and behavior. To be sure, students' performance and behavior are correlated with income and race, but they are a different basis for stratification that both changes the grounds on which the competition for schools and students takes place and reduces the stratification by income and race. To use an example introduced by Astin, the top students at the selective Bronx High School of Science in New York City (as well as the student body as a whole) are far more diverse in income and race than are the top students (or all students) at New Trier High School or any other suburban school in North Shore Chicago. (I use Chicago-area schools as an example because I am familiar with them, but nearly comparable stratification can be found in almost any large metropolitan area in the United States.) It is perhaps time to be straightforward about stratification among schools more generally. Numerous scholars inveigh against choice on grounds of inequality or stratification, as does Astin.

This research focuses on the factors influencing international students’ decision to pursue education in China. Data were generated from a survey involving 109 first-year students who were studying in Shaanxi, China. The findings showed important family influences on the participants’ choice of Chinese education. The concerns over limited opportunities for further education in their home countries also pushed them to study in China. Results of factor analysis revealed that “information sources”, “quality of Chinese education”, “opportunities to gain admission”, “opportunities for intercultural communication”, and “possibilities of living in China upon graduation” were major factors attracting these students to China. The research helped to understand international students’ motivation for studying in China. It had implications for China to evaluate and further improve its international education.

School choice systems aspire to delink residential location and school assignments by allowing children to apply to schools outside of their neighborhood. However, choice programs also affect incentives to live in certain neighborhoods, and this feedback may undermine the goals of choice. We investigate this possibility by developing a model of public school and residential choice. School choice narrows the range between the highest and lowest quality schools compared to neighborhood assignment rules, and these changes in school quality are capitalized into equilibrium housing prices. This compressed distribution generates an ends-against-the-middle trade-off with school choice compared to neighborhood assignment. Paradoxically, even when choice results in improvement in the lowest-performing schools, the lowest type residents need not benefit. (JEL H75, I21, I28, R23, R31)

School choice systems aspire to delink residential location and school assignments by allowing children to apply to schools outside of their neighborhood. However, the introduction of choice programs affects incentives to live in certain neighborhoods, which may undermine the goals of choice programs. We investigate this possibility by developing a model of public school and residential choice. We consider two variants, one with an exogenous outside option and one endogenizing the outside option by considering interactions between two adjacent towns. In both cases, school choice rules narrow the range between the highest and lowest quality schools compared to neighborhood assignment rules, and these changes in school quality are capitalized into equilibrium housing prices. This compressed distribution generates incentives for both the highest and lowest types to move out of cities with school choice, typically producing worse outcomes for low types than neighborhood assignment rules. Paradoxically, even when choice results in improvement in the worst performing schools, the lowest type residents may not benefit.

Presentations from the 10th International Conference on Zebrafish Development and Genetics, Madison, Wisconsin, June 20–24, 2012

Background Over recent decades, school choice (the process by which parents select a school of their choosing for the child/children) has become a key component of education policy pursued in many countries, and a critical decision for many parents. While global scholarship has broadened understanding of how families engage with and experience school choice, less is known about how this choice operates in reciprocity with institutional practices, namely school admissions and selectivity procedures, particularly in non-Western contexts. Purpose This paper examines parents’ school choices in Iran – not in isolation, but in a reciprocal relationship with schools’ student choices. In this context, both parents and schools actively assess one another to decide whether the other is the right ‘fit’. The study posed two research questions: 1) How do parents think about and enact school choice in relation to schools’ selectivity? and 2) How do school personnel perceive and respond to parent’s affections, expectations, and preferences during the school choice process? Method Twenty-five in-depth interviews with parents and school personnel were conducted in Tehran, the capital of Iran, during autumn 2019. The data were analysed thematically, using the concepts of school cultural orders (instrumental and expressive), habitus, and distinction. Findings Parents’ school choice, as a complex social process, reciprocally influenced, and was influenced by, schools’ student choice. Through this reciprocity, parents and schools weighed one another up, expressed concerns and preferences, negotiated expectations, and sought an optimal ‘fit’; a dynamic that shaped the enrolment of the ‘right’ students, the composition of a particular student body, and the ongoing reproduction of both familial privileges and institutional culture. Conclusion These reciprocal mechanisms of school choice reveal that school choice is not merely about accessing educational resources but about securing boundary-making and distinction. Through practices of inclusion and exclusion, the interplay between parental and institutional decision making can contribute to the persistence of inequalities and the perpetuation of social reproduction and division.

Teachers have different conceptions on the different conditions that should be found in and around the schools in which they work, hence, preferences and choices made in selecting schools to work in. The study sought to examine factors influencing trainee teachers’ choice of school on deployment after training. A mixed method research paradigm was employed and a case study design was utilised. A convenient sample of sixty-one trainee teachers in one teacher training college in Zimbabwe participated in the study. Data were collected through a semi structured questionnaire. Quantitative data were analysed statistically with aid of SPSS version 21 statistical software. Qualitative data were analysed through thematic content analysis. The study found that factors related to basic living conditions and teaching and learning constituted the most important factors influencing respondents’ choice of schools. The study concludes that trainee teachers’ views on factors influencing their choices of schools on deployment had serious implications on teacher deployment policies and practices. Recommendations were made. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n16p346

This study assesses how increases in charter schooling and inter-district school choice relate to teacher characteristics and turnover using seven years (2012-13 to 2018-19) of student- and teacher-level data from the U.S. state of Michigan. It tests whether these relationships differ by sector (traditional public or charter) or by the extent to which collective bargaining agreements restrict personnel policies and decision making. Results indicate that growth in school choice is associated with primarily positive changes (e.g., an increase in teacher experience and education levels), occurring primarily in charter schools, with limited changes in the TPS teacher workforce, suggesting institutional isomorphism.

The history of private education and school choice in England is a long one. England is a country known historically for its centuries-old private school traditions embodied in institutions such as Eton College, Winchester College, Harrow and Westminster schools. Moreover, ever since the 1980s, it has been an international pioneer in promoting national education policy reforms that have sought increasingly to marketise and privatise state school education.

Contributions to the ‘school choice’ debate have exploded in the last ten years. Most of the recent contributions have come from the US on the back of the American revolution in market-led school choice experiments. However, the central idea has a long pedigree and understanding recent contributions like the new book edited by Caroline Hoxby requires some background. The first thing to understand is that in this book the phrase ‘school choice’ is used synonymously with the idea of a voucher system. Unlike in other countries, the context of the ‘school choice’ debate in the US refers to the extent to which market principles can and should be used in education and the details of the type of voucher (or charter school) scheme and its possible effects. This article explains where the school choice idea came from and briefly summarises the state of the debate. Of necessity, we review what is happening in the US in school choice reform, before examining what is new in the Hoxby volume. We then reflect on what is missing so far in this debate – exploring the idea that educational outputs are not uni-dimensional and that this can induce incentive problems. We also suggest that the key concept of accountability has been given insufficient attention in this debate.

Introduction by Simon Hakim, Paul Seidenstat, and Gary Bowman Concepts An Economic View of the Effectiveness of Public and Private by David Beers and Jerry Ellig Why Educational Choice: The Florida Experience by Tom Feeney Private School Choice: An Ineffective Path to Educational Reform by Albert Shanker and Bella Rosenberg Public by Contract: An Alternative to Privatization by Paul Hill Alternative Plans Three Privatization Models for Public by Tom Kean Redesigning the Financing of American Education to Raise Productivity: The Case for a Just Voucher by Peter Cookson A GI Bill for Educating All Children by Pierre duPont Blending the Neighborhood School Tradition with Within Schools by Ernest Boyer Privatizing Higher Education by Kevin Sontheimer Experiences The Evaluation of the New Hampshire Plan: An Early Voucher System by John Menge The Milwaukee Choice Program by Thomas Hetland A Public-Private Partnership: South Pointe Elementary School of Dade County, Florida by Thomas Peeler and Patricia Parham Making Choice an Option for All Parents, East Harlem, New York by William Ubinas Public Choice in Minnesota by Michael Rubenstein and Nancy Adelman Bibliography Index

The determinants of success in educational choice