Hispanic,English Learner,and Low-Income Parental Magnet Middle School Choice in a Majority Hispanic California Community

Abstract

Prior research suggests that parents of Hispanics, English learners, and students living in poverty exercise school choice less frequently than other parents, which may be a factor in the resegregation of public schools. This quasi-experimental, causal–comparative design tests whether ethnicity, language dominance, or socioeconomic status of the student are related to the exercise of parental choice of magnet middle school programs in a majority, minority community. The primary finding was that in this Hispanic, English learner, low-income majority California community, none of the independent variables studied predicted the exercise of parental magnet school choice. The discussion compares these findings with prior studies and suggests some possible explanations.

Keywords

school choice urban education educational policy school reform

Schools of choice have existed in America for 50 years as a tool for both segregating and desegregating public schools (Ayscue et al., 2017; Hiatt, 1994; Ravitch, 2001, 2010; Roda & Wells, 2013). Parents’ exercise of choice of their children’s school has been controversial for much of that time. Studies suggest that parental school choice is not exercised by all parents equally. Over three decades of studies, conducted in the United States and throughout the world, suggest that parental school choice is primarily exercised by middle-class, ethnic majority, dominant language–speaking families (Beabout & Cambre, 2013; Bernal, 2005; Bosetti & Pyryt, 2007; Gabay-Egozi, 2016; Goldring & Hausman, 1999; Morgan & Blackmore, 2007; Neild, 2005; Räty, 2013; Taylor Haynes et al., 2010; Vamstad, 2014; Varjo et al., 2014; Velliaris & Willis, 2013). Historically, magnet schools have served predominately Black and Anglo populations and little research exists on Latinx (Hispanic) parent’s engagement in school choice and their patterns of participation (Taylor Haynes et al., 2010).

Federal and state governments in the United States have expanded parental school choice options for nearly 30 years as the American population has become more ethnically and economically diverse (McShane, 2017). The population of Hispanics, students learning English as a second language, and children living in poverty are increasing throughout the nation (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2017; United States Census Bureau, 2017). The documented differentiation of parents who exercise school choice may be contributing to the resegregation of public schools. The question of who is exercising school choice is pertinent to the impact of parental school choice policies on the continued or increased ethnic, economic, and language-use segregation of public schools. This study investigates the question of which parents are exercising school choice for their children in a community that serves a school-aged population that exemplifies present multilingual, ethnically and economically diverse communities in California and the future of communities throughout the United States (Beabout & Cambre, 2013; United States Census Bureau, 2017).

Literature Review

The explicit practice of school choice in the United States came of age only in the early 1990s; however, parents living in North America have chosen the schooling for their children even before the founding of our nation. For multiple centuries, a child’s education has been seen by parents, and perhaps by society as a whole, as the responsibility of the child’s parents (Hiatt, 1994). The first and foremost tradition is that the family is primarily responsible for its children’s education, handing down basic skills, work skills, ethics and values, and religious beliefs (Ravitch, 2001). Many early American schools were organized by social class in an attempt to emulate British schools (Hiatt, 1994). These early roots generated the tradition of pluralism in American schools, wherein there is no single pattern of schooling but a variety of settings including public, private, church, libraries (Ravitch, 2001). The concept of universal public schools in the United States with equal educational opportunity for every child did not become majority opinion until the 19th century.

Segregated Schools and the First School Choice Movement

By the mid-20th century, public schools were viewed by most Americans as the melting pot for the diverse cultures of all ethnic groups, social backgrounds, and religions. At that time, a minority of opposing views continued to support differentiated schooling not only among America’s elite, who historically preferred private schools for their children, but also increasingly among the growing middle class (Hiatt, 1994). The combined forces of the growing American population, the growth of industrial centers, the urbanization of the nation, and the utilization of scientific management techniques in business and industry resulted in the emergence of the bureaucratization of the American educational system (Hiatt, 1994). It was during this era that the one-room, multiaged schoolhouse operated by a locally hired teacher gave way to the factory-model school that utilized graded curriculum and professional teachers that continues as the norm in the 21st century. During this era, the practice of most school boards in the United States was to assign students to schools by drawing boundaries that established specific attendance areas based on where one lived (Peterson, 2001).

Following the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision banning school segregation, some school districts in the South responded to the Court’s pressure to desegregate by adopting freedom-of-choice and tuition voucher policies that allowed students to enroll in any public school they wanted. These policies resulted in White students remaining in all-White schools and Black students remaining in all-Black schools (Roda & Wells, 2013). At this same time, private schools flourished to accommodate White students who did not want to attend an integrated school. These schools of choice were created to assure that schools remained segregated. During the 1950s and 1960s, the term school choice was stigmatized as a dodge invented to permit White students to escape to all-White public schools or all-White segregation academies (Ravitch, 2010; Roda & Wells, 2013).

The first serious proposal for universal choice within the American public school system came from economist Milton Friedman in 1955 with a voucher-like proposal, wherein government finances education but parents chose the school (Enlow, 2006). Friedman postulated that this system would lead to a more efficient education system by exerting market forces on schools (Peterson, 2001). Because public school districts created boundaries for each school, school choice was exercised by families by renting or purchasing a house in a place where they thought the schools were good. This practice created a highly inegalitarian system as higher home purchase and rental prices followed good school boundaries. The advent of efficient rail and highway systems in America allowed employees to live at significant distances from their work. Nearby suburban schools were viewed as amenities of nonurban areas. This led to de facto segregation, which resulted in court-ordered school busing in the 1970s and 1980s to integrate inner city and suburban schools by forcing families to send their children, by bus, to schools distant from their place of residence (Peterson, 2001).

The conceptual framework for parental school choice is the economic theory that the introduction of market forces will make for more efficient, responsive, and effective public education institutions. In this belief system, parents are viewed as rationally acting consumers, and public schools become businesses that compete for these customers in the open market. Economists who espouse this philosophy think that consumer satisfaction is the best measure of school quality. The conceptual framework for school choice assumes that (a) the parents of a school-aged child will make a choice of the school or program in which they want their child to participate, (b) parents of a school-aged child will act like consumers when making a purchase informing themselves and picking the best product, and (c) parents of a school-aged child have choices to select a school/program or not (Peterson, 2001).

Magnet Schools

The origin of the magnet school movement was in the 1960s era of political conflict and violence in America’s largest cities aimed at addressing the civil rights of minorities, racially segregated schools, and racial inequities (Olson Howard, 2014). Federal racial desegregation court orders, up until the early 1970s, had routinely ordered school systems to include student busing and redistribution of teachers and administrators, but offered little guidance relative to curriculum and instructional delivery. Mandatory school busing to achieve integration imposed by court order or federally approved voluntary desegregation plans in this era was very unpopular in many areas of the nation, which resulted in White flight to suburban schools. A court decision in Detroit, in this era, declined to approve a multiple district solution to segregation, instead approving voluntary special enrichment programs to help to overcome the effects of past discrimination. Following this decision, almost every court order, that mandated schools to desegregate, had a voluntary component. This voluntary component became known as a magnet school. The courts, faced with a failing forced busing program, discovered that by using a carrot instead of a stick, more desegregation would take place, and, at the same time, the quality of education would improve. Magnet schools with voluntary transfer plans were created as a way to address educational inequity, to promote racial integration, and to create more diverse schools without a parent and student mandate to participate (Roda & Wells, 2013).

This newfound support for voluntary programs gave way to federal legislation that encouraged magnet programs. Under the 1970 Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA) from 1972 to 1981, magnet schools were for the first time funded by the Federal government as a tool for desegregation. President Nixon, in a special message to the Congress proposing US$1.5 billion for educational programs to desegregate schools through the ESAA on May 21, 1970, included the call for enriched curricula in inner city schools that serve as a magnet for White students in especially attractive courses (Nixon, 1970). Federal funding, authorizing financial assistance to local education agencies to establish and operate magnet schools, encouraged voluntary elimination, reduction, or prevention of minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools, and the development of specialized courses of instruction in magnet schools continued through 2017 (Civic-Impulse, 2017). The theory behind magnet schools as a desegregations tool is simple: Establish a school so distinctive and appealing (so magnetic) to parents that it will draw a diverse range of families from throughout the area eager to enroll their children, even if it means having them bused to a different community. Magnet schools typically identified a specialty theme and instructional approaches that had wide appeal and then marketed the concept throughout the area. Over the years, a broad range of themes and instructional approaches have characterized magnet schools (United States Department of Education, 2018).

Federal funding for magnet schools did not increase significantly in the 2000s, whereas funding for other forms of school choice has increased significantly. In 2015, in California, there were 546 magnet school programs serving approximately 180,000 students. Despite the decreased interest by federal policy makers, studies show that intentionally diverse magnets remain the largest voluntary strategy for successfully desegregating public schools while improving student achievement (Ayscue et al., 2017). Magnet schools were designed and financially supported by the Federal government to attract White, middle-class students to desegregate minority and impoverished area schools.

Resegregation of America’s Public Schools

Historically, magnet schools have served predominately Black and Anglo populations and, therefore, little research exists on Latino parents’ engagement and participation in magnet school choice. Latino enrollment rates in magnet schools fall short of their representation within most urban populations as well as the population as a whole (Taylor Haynes et al., 2010). A study, using a large national data set, to examine relationships between magnet school choice and income stratification in school districts reported that only 12% of students were Hispanic, and family income segregation was worsened by providing magnet school choice (Archbald, 2004). In Nashville, Tennessee, Latino parents who participate in choice come from vastly different educational backgrounds, tend to be solidly middle income, are either second-generation immigrants or are married to one, and have social networks of educated Latino parents with access to magnet schools (Taylor Haynes et al., 2010). Latino parents who exercise magnet school choice have higher formal educational attainment and family income than other Latino, Black, and Anglo parents, and are typically second generation with unique and diverse social networks (Taylor Haynes et al., 2010).

Since the introduction of magnet schools, the concept of school choice has grown exponentially in America through a wide range of legislated options from which parents can choose. These options include semiautonomous public for-profit and nonprofit charter schools, vouchers, tuition tax credits, home schooling, interdistrict transfers, and districts of choice. The majority of research conducted to understand the impact of school choice on school segregation has focused on charter schools. A recent large-scale study of 40 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and several dozen metropolitan areas with large enrollments of charter school students reveals that charter schools are more racially isolated than traditional public schools in virtually every state and large metropolitan area in the nation (Frankenberg et al., 2010). Charter schools operated by Education Management Organizations (EMOs) tend to be strongly racially and economically segregated for both minority and majority students as compared with the sending district and underenrolled in special education and English language learner students than their home district (Miron et al., 2010). The study of contiguous charter and noncharter schools in urban areas in Florida and Washington, D.C., found that charters had significantly lower enrollment of free and reduced-price lunch–eligible students, limited English proficient students, and students with exceptional needs than their neighboring noncharters (Arcia, 2006; Jacobs, 2013). Similar segregation of English language learning students in charter schools was found in New York City (Buckley & Sattin-Bajaj, 2011).

The so-called color-blind postracial segregation school choice policies and procedures often exacerbate stratification and segregation. Attending racially and socioeconomically diverse schools benefits all students, including White students, and tends to result in higher academic achievement and attainment, and fosters other short- and long-term social benefits (Roda & Wells, 2013). If charters do not combat segregation, they could produce unequal opportunities, breed intolerance, and advance destructive stereotypes (Jacobs, 2013). A study using a national data set of 688 charter schools in 338 U.S. school districts concluded that White flight persists and concluded that charter schools, left to their own devices, may promote racial segregation in the public schools (Renzulli & Evans, 2005). School choice policies may or may not be creating greater segregation in schools; however, schools of choice, along with other public schools, continue to be segregated. The concept of parents as rational acting consumers of education, making choices of their children’s schools based on assessing best practices and outcomes, may not explain the entire school choice phenomenon (Renzulli & Evans, 2005).

Parental School Choice Practices

School choice has existed and been studied for at least three decades in the United States and throughout the world, pursuing questions about the equality of parent participation in school choice and the methods used by parents to make school choices.

Studies conducted in the United States suggest that parents’ background characteristics along with decision-making variables affect parent’s participation in making a school choice. A study in St. Louis, Missouri, found that parental school choice is not exercised the same or equally among families of different ethnic groups and socioeconomic status (SES; Goldring & Hausman, 1999). Studies in California, Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C., have documented similar results (Arcia, 2006; Beabout & Cambre, 2013; Buckley & Sattin-Bajaj, 2011; Frankenberg et al., 2010; Koedel et al., 2009; Neild, 2005; Roda & Wells, 2013; Saporito, 2003; Villavicencio, 2013). In addition, research has been conducted regarding how American parents choose a school.

Parents in San Diego, California, when provided an option of three types of choice schools, including magnet schools, make choices primarily based on geography and provision of busing from home to school. However, White parents also choose schools that have more White students, are higher achieving, have more highly educated parents, and fewer students who are learning English as a second language. Of the three types of choice options, the magnet option schools were less segregated than the open enrollment option (Koedel et al., 2009). White parents in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, avoided magnet schools with higher percentages of non-White students, and wealthier families avoided magnet schools with higher poverty, resulting in segregation based on racial and economic variables (Saporito, 2003).

Latino (Hispanic) parents in Nashville, Tennessee, decide to enroll their children in magnet schools based on their priorities and their social network involvement. These Latino parents are highly diverse, have high levels of formal education, and are solidly middle class. Their income and education are not correlated as they are often not employed in the same sector as the degree they hold and they are first- and second-generation immigrants. These Latino parents make their choice of magnet school based primarily on academic factors. Schools of choice are viewed as better than zoned schools, more academically rigorous, and safer by these parents. Convenience of location is only slightly more important to Latino parents than it is to Black and White parents. Although Latino parents had fewer friends and relatives who had sent their children to magnet schools, they sought out information and made the choice to send their child there. Second-generation Latino parents found out about magnet schools through friends and family. First-generation Latino parents, who had not acquired English language skills, had barriers to acquisition of information about magnet schools. The social networks of many Latino parents did not include people with experience with, or access to, magnet schools (Taylor Haynes et al., 2010).

Not all parents living in New York City’s choice-rich environment choose a school by weighing different options or applying a comprehensive search process (Villavicencio, 2013). Their charter school selection processes ranged from thorough searches and visits to schools to just filling out a one-page application. This finding calls into question the theory that parents are necessarily selecting schools based on quality, performance, or how well those schools actually compare with other schools. Parents with more social capital, who have more access to information or larger networks, typically considered a greater number of schools. Some parents need more support in finding and navigating the information that is available. Choice sets appear to be smaller and different for Black, Latino, and poor parents because they may not have access to the same sets of information, networks, or resources, which are shaped by social capital and other resources (Villavicencio, 2013). Another study found that New York City’s charter schools enroll a disproportionately higher number of reduced-price lunch–eligible students, about the same overall proportion of free lunch–eligible students, and disproportionately fewer limited English proficient students (Buckley & Sattin-Bajaj, 2011). The authors conclude that low enrollments of students who are learning English as a second language may result from immigrant parents’ lack of knowledge about the existence of charter schools and how to apply to them. In addition, they suggest that Latino parents with low levels of education tend to defer education decisions to educators, therefore, not seeking out information on their own to make school choice decisions. Overenrollment of minority students in some schools is explained by the school’s interest in securing financial incentives from the funding agency (Buckley & Sattin-Bajaj, 2011). Another study conducted in Washington, D.C., suggests that parents may consider test scores in making decisions, but ultimately most parents rely on other factors such as school location to select a choice school (Jacobs, 2013). Other studies point to the attributes of a particular school, satisfaction with public schools, and distance between home and school as variables that differentiate between parents who choose magnet schools (Goldring & Hausman, 1999).

Study of school choice throughout the world has derived similar results to those in the United States. A Canadian study found that there is no agreement among parents about what constitutes quality education (Bosetti, 2004). The majority of parents relied on their social network, school visits, and talks with teachers. Public school parents and low SES parents do not appear to be motivated to exercise their choice options and do not view themselves as consumers in the educational marketplace (Bosetti, 2004). The study concluded that parental school choice appears to be limited to children of middle and upper middle-class families and, therefore, does not enhance the educational achievement or experiences of all Canadian children (Bosetti, 2004). A study conducted on parental choice in Spain had similar findings. Middle- and upper class students go to private schools, whereas ethnic minorities, economically disadvantaged groups, and immigrants attend the public schools (Bernal, 2005). The study reported that Spanish parents’ expectations, experiences, and ideology play a key role in the school marketplace. Middle-class families, due to greater resources and cultural status, have more chances than families living in poverty to choose a school. They speculate that the struggle between a public education monopoly and a market system will produce greater differences between social classes and could provoke the decline of the public school in Spain (Bernal, 2005).

Choice is a politically attractive and deceptively simple notion that is now deeply embedded in public school sector practices in Australia. School choice advocates present such policies on the basis of equity in that everyone will be free to choose their child’s school; others see choice as being utilized unevenly across class groups because of the social and structural inequalities that frame individual and familial choices such as income, information, and location. Parental school choice favors middle-class families, higher population density, transport links, and a variety of schools present as necessary preconditions (Morgan & Blackmore, 2007). In rural Australia, noneducational factors play the largest part in the determination of patterns of school segregation resulting from school choice. The most important factors are geographical, including population density, the nature of local housing, the diversity of the local population, and local levels of residential segregation (Morgan & Blackmore, 2007). A study of parental school choice in Tokyo, Japan, found that transnational parents (non-Japanese born parents) experience barriers such as cultural, linguistic, and economic differences from the majority community that limit their ability to choose a school in an unfamiliar context (Velliaris & Willis, 2013). A study of school choice in Finland found that parental school choice may be more beneficial to some social classes than to others, concluding that families with high levels of education and income actively exercise parental choice resulting in elite separatism (Varjo et al., 2014). A study conducted in Sweden reported similar findings when parents’ use of the Swedish school vouchers system resulted in more socioeconomically segregated schools. The researchers concluded that parents born in Sweden who come from more affluent households with higher levels of education have gained more relevant experience for choosing a school and, therefore, exercise choice in ways similar to one another (Vamstad, 2014).

Studies conducted over the last three decades in the United States and throughout the world suggest that parental school choice is primarily exercised by middle-class, better educated, ethnic majority, dominant language–speaking families. These unequal school choice practices have been one factor that has contributed higher levels of segregation in public schools. Given the steady increase in students living in poverty, ethnic minorities, and English learners in public schools throughout the United States, the question of whether or not parental school choice is being exercised by ethnic and language minority and non–middle- and upper class parents is essential to predict the future effect of school choice policies on a variety of valued educational outcomes. Studying who is exercising school choice in multiethnic, high-poverty, English as a second-language learner communities in California will provide insight to legislators when considering policies to increase school choice as a vehicle for desegregating student populations, improving schools, and increasing achievement of all students.

Method

The research question guiding this study was as follows:

Research Question 1: Is the ethnicity, language dominance, or SES of the student related to the exercise of parental choice in selecting a magnet middle school program?

The null hypothesis (Hₒ) was as follows:

Hypothesis 1 (H_o): The SES, ethnicity, or English learner status of a student is not associated with the exercise of parental magnet middle school choice.

Alternative hypotheses included the following:

Hypothesis 2 (Hₐ): Parents of Hispanic students are less likely to exercise magnet middle school choice (do not make a choice).

Hypothesis 3 (Hₑ): Parents of students who are designated as English learners are less likely to exercise magnet middle school choice (do not make a choice).

Hypothesis 4 (Hₓ): Parents of students living in poverty are less likely to exercise magnet middle school choice (do not make a choice).

Research Design

A quasi-experimental, causal–comparative research design was selected to describe how demographically differentiated categories of parents differ in their exercise of magnet school choice. The multiple categorical independent variables (ethnicity, English language learner status, and SES) are associated with the dichotomous dependent variable of exercise of parental choice. The association of each independent variable with the exercise of parental choice was analyzed for each year, over a 3-year period (2015–2017). Analyzing 3 years of archived parental choice data provided greater confidence in the findings. Included in the analysis was the entire population of parents of students completing fifth grade in schools eligible to choose a magnet middle school program in the elementary school district over the 3 years prior to the conduct of this study. Parents of students in K–8 schools in the school district were not eligible to select a magnet middle school; therefore, their data were not included in this study.

Participants: Data Source

One of five school districts serving a city in California was selected because it was in close proximity to the university of the primary investigator of this study (convenience sample) and it implemented a parental choice magnet middle school program 3 years prior to conducting this study (Oxnard School District, 2013). Permission to conduct the study was provided by the school district in 2017.

The city is 26.6 square miles with its southwest border on the Pacific Ocean. It has about 200,390 residents living in a densely populated urban area adjacent to acres of commercial agriculture. The city’s population is estimated to be 73.5% Hispanic, 14.8% White, 7.3% Asian, 2.4% Black, and 1.8% Other (Oxnard Chamber of Commerce, 2018). The city is difficult to classify, as it has conditions that fit descriptions of both rural (agriculture) and urban (population density, gang activity, high levels of poverty) communities. The school district in this study exceeds the criteria for urban designation with a minority population of 96.1%, and 83.7% of students living in poverty (California Department of Education, 2018b). In the 2016–2017 school year, the school district in the study reported 92.5% of the student population as Hispanic, 53.6% of students were designated as English learners, and 83.7% were eligible for free or reduced-price meals (California Department of Education, 2018b).

The school district implemented a federally funded middle school magnet program in the 2014–2015 school year and had operated it for 3 years at the time of this study. Each magnet school program is designed to attract students with specific interests, such as math, science, or the arts. In addition, the school district was selected because it had maintained data on the variables pertinent to this research. Fifth-grade students transitioning to middle school were chosen for this study (vs. high school level) because parents are assumed to have more influence on the decision to choose a school at the middle school level.

Data Collection

This study utilized archived data that were collected by school district staff as part of their regular duties when inviting parents to select a magnet school program for their fifth grade student. Neither parents, nor staff who collected the data, had knowledge of the existence or purpose of this study when the data were collected. The data collection and storage began 3 years before this study was proposed and permission was sought to conduct the study. Parents’ magnet school program choice was entered into the school district database connected to each eligible student’s file. All independent variables identified for this study were coded by staff as part of their regular duties, without knowledge that they were variables in this study. The school district database manager, who archived the data and produced the pivot tables per the specifications of the primary investigator of this study, was not aware of the hypotheses of this study.

The variables were operationalized as follows: The determination of ethnicity is based on parents’ self-report per the categories provided by the California Department of Education (2018a); the determination of English language proficiency status was made by teachers and administrators based on the student’s Home Language Survey upon entrance to school, selected assessments, classroom academic performance, and professional judgment in applying the criteria established by the school district; SES of poverty was determined by the student’s eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch per Federal guidelines. Under Federal guidelines, parent’s self-reported family income and number of dependent children are used to determine eligibility. Although there are arguably some problems with this method of determining relative poverty of a family (Nicholson et al., 2014), this methodology is accepted by the Federal government for Title I fund distribution and by many research studies as a commonly available measure of family poverty.

Data Analysis

Utilizing the existing school district database maintained by the school district, the data were sorted by initial application requests by ethnic groups, as established by the California Department of Education, English learner (EL) classification (or not EL), and poverty (SES was indicated by eligibility for Federal free or reduced lunch). The district staff maintained control of the student database, at all times, by conducting the requested sorts by the three independent variables, and by providing pivot table printouts for each of the past 3 years to the researcher. At no time did any member of the research team have access to confidential information about students or parents.

The method for data provision limited the statistical analyses options available. A Fisher’s exact test was applied to the data because it is appropriate for the nominal, dichotomous categorical data in this study. The Fisher’s exact was selected because it is a nonparametric, inferential test of statistical significance that can be applied to the two-by-two contingency tables such as those created by the school district data manager and it provides information on the significance of the association between two classifications. This statistic allows for an exact calculation, which is valid for all sample sizes, of the significance of the deviation from the null hypothesis (Huck, 2012).

A confidence or alpha level (p value) was set at less than .01 to determine statistical significance. The analysis was conducted using the web-based Social Science Statistics calculator (retrieved at http://www.socscistatistics.com/Default.aspx). To determine whether an independent demographic variable was associated with the dependent variable of exercising parental school choice, the number of parents exercising school choice was compared with the total number of eligible parents in each independent variable demographic group.

Results

The following tables and figures describe the size and demographics of the sample and provide visuals of the data.

Year-Over-Year Change

The following tables and figures show that more than 1,100 students participated in each year of this study. Fifty-three percent of eligible students’ parents exercised choice of one of the magnet middle school programs in the first year, 73% in the second year, and 55% in the third year of the program. The data are displayed in Table 1 and Figure 1.

Table 1.

Total Number of Students Who Exercised Choice and Eligible to Choose by Year.

Year	Exercised choice	All eligible students	Percentage exercised choice
2015	699	1,179	59
2016	809	1,106	73
2017	642	1,159	55

Figure 1.

Total students who exercised choice and eligible to choose by year—number and percentage.

Students Living in Poverty

The parents of more than 930 students living in poverty were eligible to make a magnet school choice in each of the years under study. Fifty-eight percent of parents exercised choice of a magnet school in 2015, 74% in 2016, and 55% in 2017 (see Table 2 and Figure 2).

Table 2.

Students Living in Poverty Who Exercised Choice and Eligible to Choose by Year.

Year	Exercised choice	Eligible students	Percentage exercised choice
2015	565	972	58
2016	691	934	74
2017	525	958	55

Figure 2.

Students living in poverty who exercised choice and eligible to choose by year—number and percentage.

English Learners

The parents of more than 397 students who are learning English were eligible to make a choice of magnet school in each year studied. Fifty-three percent of parents of students who are learning English exercised choice of a magnet school in 2015, 70% in 2016, and 52% in 2017 (see Table 3 and Figure 3).

Table 3.

Students Learning English Who Exercised Choice and Eligible to Choose by Year.

Year	Exercised choice	Eligible students	Percentage exercised choice
2015	210	397	53
2016	290	417	70
2017	264	512	52

Figure 3.

Students learning English who exercised choice and eligible to choose by year—number and percentage.

Ethnicity

Students of four ethnic groups were disaggregated to determine whether ethnicity was associated with the exercise of magnet school choice by their parents.

Hispanic students

The parents of more than 985 students of Hispanic ethnicity were eligible to make a magnet school choice in each of the years under study. Sixty percent of parents exercised choice of a magnet school in 2015, 74% in 2016, and 73% in 2017 (see Table 4 and Figure 4).

Table 4.

Hispanic Students Who Exercised Choice and Eligible to Choose by Year.

Year	Exercised choice	Eligible students	Percentage exercised choice
2015	634	1,064	60
2016	730	985	74
2017	768	1,056	73

Figure 4.

Hispanic students who exercised choice and eligible to choose by year—number and percentage.

White non-Hispanic students

The parents of more than 38 students of White, non-Hispanic ethnicity were eligible to make a magnet school choice in each of the years under study. Forty-three percent of parents exercised choice of a magnet school in 2015, 74% in 2016, and 58% in 2017 (see Table 5 and Figure 5).

Table 5.

White, Non-Hispanic Students Who Exercised Choice and Eligible to Choose by Year.

Year	Exercised choice	Eligible students	Percentage exercised choice
2015	18	42	43
2016	28	38	74
2017	26	45	58

Figure 5.

White, non-Hispanic students who exercised choice and eligible to choose by year—number and percentage.

Asian students

The parents of more than 41 students of Asian ethnicity were eligible to make a magnet school choice in each of the years under study. Forty-three percent of parents exercised choice of a magnet school in 2015, 74% in 2016, and 58% in 2017 (see Table 6 and Figure 6).

Table 6.

Asian Students Who Exercised Choice and Eligible to Choose by Year.

Year	Exercised choice	Eligible students	Percentage exercised choice
2015	27	41	66
2016	34	49	69
2017	34	44	77

Figure 6.

Asian students who exercised choice and eligible to choose by year—number and percentage.

Black students

The parents of more than 15 students of Black ethnicity were eligible to make a magnet school choice in each of the years under study. Fifty-seven percent of parents exercised choice of a magnet school in 2015, 64% in 2016, and 67% in 2017 (see Table 7 and Figure 7).

Table 7.

Total Number of Black Students Eligible to Choose and Exercised Choice by Year.

Year	Exercised choice	Eligible students	Percentage exercised choice
2015	16	28	57
2016	14	22	64
2017	10	15	67

Figure 7.

Black students who exercised choice and eligible to choose by year—number and percentage.

The associations between independent variables and dependent variable were determined by applying Fisher exact tests to the multiple, dichotomous independent variables organized in two-by-two contingency tables. The number of students who exercised choice, by selecting a magnet school program, were compared with the total eligible to make a choice (which represented the expected response rate) by poverty indicators, English language skills, and ethnicity.

Year-Over-Year

The descriptive statistics shown in Table 1 and Figure 1 suggest a difference between the first year of the magnet school program, the second year, and the third year for all students. To determine whether the difference is significant, Fisher exact tests were applied to the number of students’ parents who exercised choice and those who were eligible to make a choice. Table 8 displays the contingency tables that were created to test for significant differences between the years 2015, 2016, and 2017 of the magnet school program implementation. The results suggest that the increase from 59% to 73% is a significant increase in parents exercising choice between the 2015 and 2016 school years and there is significant decrease from 73% to 55% in parents exercising choice between the 2016 and 2017 school years.

Table 8.

Fisher Exact Test Results for All Students.

Year	Exercised choice	Eligible to exercise	Marginal row totals
2015	699	1,179	1,878
2016	809	1,106	1,915
2017	642	1,159	1,801

Note. The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.0016. The results are significant at p < .01 (2015/2016 years). The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.0. The results are significant at p < .01 (2016/2017 years).

Poverty

The operational definition of poverty for this study was a family eligible for free or reduced-price meals. This indicator was established by the U.S. Department of Education based on self-reported family income and number of children in the household (California Department of Education, 2018a). Following the trend established by the entire sample, 58% of eligible parents of students living in poverty exercised choice of one of the magnet middle school programs in the first year (2015), 74% exercised choice in the second year (2016), and 58% did so in the third year (2017) as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. Fisher exact tests applied to each year for students living in poverty indicated that the difference between 2015 and 2016 demonstrated a statistically significant increase, and a significant decrease was found for the comparison of years 2016 and 2017 (see Table 9).

Table 9.

Fisher Exact Test Results of Students Living in Poverty Who Exercised Choice and Eligible to Choose by Year.

Year	Free/reduced meals exercised choice	Eligible students	Marginal row totals
2015	565	972	1,537
2016	691	934	1,625
2017	525	958	1,483

Note. The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.0009. The results are significant at p < .01 (2015/2016 years). The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.0001. The results are significant at p < .01 (2016/2017 years).

To determine whether parents of students living in poverty exercised choice equivalent to their eligibility to choose, a Fisher exact test comparing the number exercising choice with the eligible students for each year was applied. Table 10 suggests that parents living in poverty in this sample in 2015, 2016, and 2017 exercised choice as expected. The lack of significant difference resulted in acceptance of the null hypothesis for all 3 years. These findings indicate that parents of children living in poverty exercise choice with the same frequency as they exist in the sample, which suggests that poverty does not predict exercising magnet school choice. Overall, the independent variable of living in poverty does not seem to predict less participation in magnet school choice programs.

Table 10.

Fisher Exact Test Results for Students Living in Poverty in 2015, 2016, 2017.

Year	Exercised choice	Eligible to exercise	Marginal row totals
2015^a
Free/reduced meals	565	972	1,537
Not free/reduced	134	207	341
Marginal column totals	699	1,179	1,878 (grand total)
2016^b
Free/reduced meals	691	934	1,625
Not free/reduced	118	172	290
Marginal column totals	809	1,106	1,915 (grand total)
2017^c
Free/reduced meals	525	958	1,483
Not free/reduced	117	201	318
Marginal column totals	642	1,159	1,801 (grand total)

The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.3865. The result is not significant at p < .05.

The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.6058. The result is not significant at p < .05.

The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.6518. The result is not significant at p < .05.

English Learners

The operational definition of English learner in this study was determined by the school district in which that sample was drawn following guidelines by the California Department of Education (2018a). Following the trend established by the total sample, 53% of eligible parents of students learning English exercised choice of one of the magnet middle school programs in the first year (2015), 70% exercised choice in the second year (2016), and 52% did so in the third year (2017). Fisher exact tests that applied to each year for students learning English indicated that the difference between each year demonstrated a statistically significant difference (see Table 11).

Table 11.

Fisher Exact Test Results of Students Learning English Who Exercised Choice and Eligible to Choose by Year.

Year	English learners exercised choice	Eligible students	Marginal row totals
2015	210	397	607
2016	290	417	707
2017	264	512	776

Note. The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.0194. The results are significant at p < .05 (2015/2016 years). The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.0001. The results are significant at p < .05 (2016/2017 years).

To determine whether parents of students learning English as a second language exercised choice equivalent to their eligibility to choose, a Fisher exact test comparing the eligible students with the number exercising choice for each year was applied. Table 12 suggests that parents of students learning English as a second language in 2015, 2016, and 2017 exercised choice with the same frequency that they exist in the sample. The lack of significant difference resulted in acceptance of the null hypothesis for each of these 3 years. These findings indicate that students’ English language learning status does not predict parents exercising magnet school choice less than expected. Overall, the independent variable of students learning English as a second language does not seem to predict less parent choice participation in magnet school programs.

Table 12.

Fisher Exact Test Results for Students Learning English in 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Year	Exercised choice	Eligible to exercise	Marginal row totals
2015^a
English learners	210	397	607
Not English learners	489	782	1,271
Marginal column totals	699	1,179	1,878 (grand total)
2016^b
English learners	290	417	707
Not English learners	519	689	1,208
Marginal column totals	809	1,106	1,915 (grand total)
2017^c
English learners	264	512	776
Not English learners	378	647	1,025
Marginal column totals	642	1,159	1,801 (grand total)

The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.1136. The results are not significant at p < .05.

The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.4154. The results are not significant at p < .05.

The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.2146. The results are not significant at p < .05.

Ethnicity

The school district coded each student based on self-report from the parents into the following ethnic groups: Hispanic; White, non-Hispanic; Asian; and Black and Other groups that did not contain sufficient numbers to include in this study (California Department of Education, 2018a). Following the trend established by the entire sample, 60% of eligible Hispanic students’ parents exercised choice of one of the magnet middle school programs in the first year (2015), 74% exercised choice in the second year (2016), and 73% did so in the third year (2017) as shown in Table 4 and Figure 4. Fisher exact tests that applied to each year for Hispanic students indicated that the difference between Year 1 (2015) and Year 2 (2016) demonstrated a statistically significant difference (see Table 13). There was no statistically significant difference between Years 2 (2016) and 3 (2017). This finding indicates that Hispanic students’ parents behaved like the total sample.

Table 13.

Fisher Exact Test Results of Hispanic Students Who Exercised Choice and Eligible to Choose by Year.

Year	English learners exercised choice	Eligible students	Marginal row totals
2015	634	1,064	1,698
2016	730	985	1,715
2017	768	1,056	1,824

Note. The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.00019. The results are significant at p < .05 (2015/2016 years). The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.7855. The results are not significant at p < .05 (2016/2017 years).

To determine whether parents of Hispanic students exercised choice equivalent to their eligibility to choose, a Fisher exact test comparing the number exercising choice with the eligible students for each year was applied. Table 14 suggests that in all 3 years, parents of Hispanic students in this sample exercised choice as expected. The lack of significant difference resulted in acceptance of the null hypothesis for these 3 years. These findings indicate that parents of Hispanic students exercise choice with the same frequency that they exist in the population sample. Overall, the independent variable of ethnically Hispanic does not seem to predict less participation in these magnet school choice programs; therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. Subsequent analyses of White, non-Hispanic, Asian, and Black ethnicities showed the same results, with no significant differences between the parents who exercised choice and their expected participation. These findings suggest that the independent variable of ethnicity does not predict the exercise of choice in this magnet middle school program.

Table 14.

Fisher Exact Test Results for Hispanic Students in 2015, 2016, and 2017.

Year	Exercised choice	Eligible to exercise	Marginal row totals
2015^a
Hispanic students	634	1,064	1,698
Not Hispanic students	65	115	180
Marginal column totals	699	1,179	1,878 (grand total)
2016^b
Hispanic students	730	985	1,715
Not Hispanic students	79	121	200
Marginal column totals	809	1,106	1,915 (grand total)
2017^c
Hispanic students	768	1,056	1,824
Not Hispanic students	75	103	178
Marginal column totals	843	1,159	2,002 (grand total)

The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.8079. The results are not significant at p < .05.

The Fisher exact test statistic value is 0.4495. The results are not significant at p < .05.

The Fisher exact test statistic value is 1. The results are not significant at p < .05.

Discussion

This study attempted to detect patterns, if any, of parental use of magnet school choice. The literature reviewed in this study made the case that parental school choice is not exercised equally by all parents. Decades of studies, conducted in the United States and throughout the world, suggest that parental school choice is primarily exercised by middle-class, ethnic majority, dominant language–speaking families. Therefore, in diverse communities, parents living in poverty, speaking a language other than English, and identifying as Hispanic are predicted to not exercise choice of a magnet school with the same frequency as other parents.

The data analyzed for this study suggest a different story. In this Southern California community, which serves a school-aged population with a majority of students living in poverty, learning English as a second language, and of Hispanic ethnicity, parents exercise magnet middle school choice for their children equal to parents not in their demographic categories.

The descriptive and inferential statistical results over the 3 years studied suggest that each year, the percentage of eligible parents was significantly different. In the first year, approximately 60% of eligible parents made a choice of magnet school. The percentage was nearly three quarters of parents in the second year and dropped to just more than half of eligible parents in the third year. No explanation was explored regarding these differences and further study could assist the school district to solicit greater participation. Interestingly, these percentages did not vary significantly by the independent variables that were studied. Parents of students living in poverty, learning English as a second language, and Hispanic students responded in similar percentages to the total population. The parents of White, non-Hispanic, Asian, and Black students all reported higher response rates in the third-year data. These differential response rates may be unique to the community studied but deserve further exploration.

The research question that guided this study can be answered that the ethnicity, language dominance, or SES of the student is not related to the exercise of parental choice in selecting a magnet middle school program. Therefore, the null hypothesis that the SES, ethnicity, or English learner status of a student is not associated with the exercise of parental magnet middle school choice is accepted and all alternative hypotheses are rejected.

A clear and detailed explanation of these findings that are contrary to the preponderance of research on this topic is beyond the scope of this study. However, the following discussions offer some plausible explanations. Nearly all the studies cited in this article were conducted in Eastern and Southern state school choice communities wherein the number of students living in poverty, learning English as a second language, and/or are of Hispanic descent are proportionally significant minorities, whereas the White student population is the majority. Therefore, the demographics of the communities in the preponderance of studies on this topic are not similar to the community in this study. The study district is located in a stable 120-year-old urban setting, adjacent to rural commercial agricultural land. Hispanic families have constituted a majority of the population for at least 80 years. It is likely that, even though migrant farm workers’ families continue to move through, the significant majority (73.5%) of Hispanics are multigenerational residents of the city. These Hispanic residents and the school district are likely to have developed language support resources, social networks, and familial ties that translate to the social capital that researchers have described as lacking in communities where Hispanics do not exercise school choice (Goldring & Hausman, 1999; Taylor Haynes et al., 2010; Villavicencio, 2013). In addition, the city provides the high-density housing, transportation links, and a variety of choice schools without localized segregation by ethnicity described in studies (Morgan & Blackmore, 2007). Several researchers have an identified level of formal education as a predictor of exercising school choice (Buckley & Sattin-Bajaj, 2011). The unique population of stable Hispanics and families living in poverty in the study’s city suggests that higher levels of formal education may exist among these families. Finally, the type of school choice in this study may have affected the nonconforming results. Most parental school choice studies are conducted in charter school choice environments, which may be significantly different than magnet middle school choice decisions.

Implications

The conceptual framework for school choice in this study assumes that the parents of a school-aged child will make a choice of the school or program in which they want their child to participate, parents of a school-aged child will act like consumers when making a purchase informing themselves and picking the best product, and parents of a school-aged child have choices to select a school/program or not (Peterson, 2001). It is apparent that parents who exercised magnet middle school choice in this study had choices and acted like consumers by making a choice of the program in which they want their child to participate, and the demographic variables that were studied did not affect that choice. It is likely that because families living in poverty, speaking a language other than English with Hispanic descent make up a majority in this Southern California community, they behave like other majority cultures in school choice studies conducted throughout the world.

School districts serving high percentages of Hispanic students living in poverty and speaking a primary language other than English who are considering implementing magnet middle school choice programs should consider moving ahead while providing support for families and monitoring participation by all parent groups.

Limitations

As with all studies, this study has limitations on the applicability of results. First, this study was limited to a magnet middle school choice option and, therefore, the findings should not be applied to all school choice options. Second, the community described in this study is unique, and although it represents other Southern California, California Central Valley, and other Western states communities, it may not be representative of other parts of the United States. Third, the unique and limited access to student data and parents’ decisions regarding school choice (access only to contingency tables) restricted the type of inferential statistics that could be utilized and, therefore, the power of the findings.

Recommendations for Future Research

This study should be replicated in communities similar to and demographically different from the one in this study. Studies on this topic should include survey of the participating parents’ strategies and resources for making a school choice, paying specific attention to demographic differences among parent participants. Studies on a variety of topics in ethnic, language, and poverty majority school communities should be conducted to allow better understanding of the dynamics of such communities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

W. Charles Weis III

Author Biography

W. Charles Weis III earned a PhD at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UC Santa Barbara). In addition to serving as an assistant professor of educational leadership, he serves as coordinator of master’s and doctoral educational leadership and administrative services credential programs at California State University Channel Islands (CSUCI). Prior to joining CSUCI, he served as a public school administrator.

References

Archbald

D. A.

(2004). School choice, magnet schools, and the liberation model: An empirical study. Sociology of Education, 77(4), 283–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700402

Arcia

(2006). A test of the segregation premise: Comparison of enrollment percentages of charter and non-charter schools in a large urban school district. Journal of School Choice, 1(2), 33–45.

Ayscue

Levy

Siegel-Hawley

Woodward

(2017). Choices worth making: Creating, sustaining and expanding diverse magnet schools. Civil Rights Project.

Beabout

B. R.

Cambre

B. M.

(2013). Parental voucher enrollment decisions: Choice within choice in New Orleans. Journal of School Choice, 7(4), 560–588.

Bernal

J. L.

(2005). Parental choice, social class and market forces: The consequences of privatization of public services in education. Journal of Education Policy, 20(6), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500293825

Bosetti

(2005). School Choice: Public Education at a Crossroad. American Journal of Education, 111(4), 435-441.

Bosetti

Pyryt

M. C.

(2007). Parental motivation in school choice: Seeking the competitive edge. Journal of School Choice, 1(4), 89–108.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Buckley

Sattin-Bajaj

(2011). Are ELL students underrepresented in charter schools? Demographic trends in New York City, 2006-2008. Journal of School Choice, 5(1), 40–65.

10.

California Department of Education. (2018a). California basic educational data system.

11.

California Department of Education. (2018b). Selected district level data—5672538: Oxnard for the year 2017-18. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Cbeds3.asp?FreeLunch=on&Enroll=on&PctHisp=on&PctBlack=on&PctAm=on&PctAsian=on&PctFil=on&PctPac=on&cSelect=5672538–Oxnard&cChoice=DstProf1&cYear=2017-18&cLevel=District&cTopic=Profile&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit

12.

Civic-Impulse. (2017). H.R. 1310—98th Congress: Education for Economic Security Act. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/98/hr1310

13.

Enlow

R. C.

(2006). Liberty & learning: Milton Friedman’s voucher idea at fifty. Cato Institute.

14.

Frankenberg

Siegel-Hawley

Wang

(2010). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation and the need for civil rights standards. Civil Rights Project.

15.

Gabay-Egozi

(2016). School choice in a stratified geography: Class, geography, otherness, and moral boundaries. Journal of Education Policy, 31(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1047410

16.

Goldring

E. B.

Hausman

C. S.

(1999). Reasons for parental choice of urban schools. Journal of Education Policy, 14(5), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/026809399286161

17.

Hiatt

D. B.

(1994). Parent involvement in American public schools: An historical perspective 1642-1994. School Community Journal, 4(2), 27–38.

18.

Huck

S. W.

(2012). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Pearson.

19.

Jacobs

(2013). Understanding school choice: Location as a determinant of charter school racial, economic, and linguistic segregation. Education and Urban Society, 45(4), 459–482.

20.

Koedel

Betts

Rice

Zau

(2009). The integrating and segregating effects of school choice. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(2), 110–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560902810096

21.

McShane

(2017). Betsy DeVos, the (relatively mainstream) reformer. Education Next, 17(3). https://www.educationnext.org/betsy-devos-relatively-mainstream-reformer-education-secretary/

22.

Miron

Urschel

J. L.

Mathis

W. J.

Tornquist

(2010). Schools without diversity: Education management organizations, charter schools, and the demographic stratification of the American school system. Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit.

23.

Morgan

Blackmore

(2007). How rural education markets shape parental choice of schooling: An Australian case study. Paper presented at the AARE, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia. https://www.aare.edu.au/publications/aare-conference-papers/show/5460/how-rural-education-markets-shape-parental-choice-of-schooling-an-australian-case-study

24.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rbb.asp

25.

Neild

R. C.

(2005). Parent management of school choice in a large urban district. Urban Education, 40(3), 270–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085905274538

26.

Nicholson

L. M.

Slater

S. J.

Chriqui

J. F.

Chaloupka

(2014). Validating adolescent socioeconomic status: Comparing school free or reduced price lunch with community measures. Spatial Demography, 2(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03354904

27.

Nixon

(1970). Special message to the congress proposing the Emergency School Aid Act of 1970, May 21, 1970. The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-proposing-the-emergency-school-aid-act-1970

28.

Olson Howard

P. S.

(2014). Factors of sustainability for S.T.E.M. themed magnet schools [Doctoral dissertation, St. Cloud State University, The Repository at St. Cloud State University. http://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=edad_etds

29.

Oxnard Chamber of Commerce. (2018). Demographics. http://www.oxnardchamber.org/demographics.html

30.

Oxnard School District. (2013). Schools assistance program application packet (March 1, 2013).

31.

Peterson

(2001). Choice in American education. In Moe

(Ed.), A primer on America’s schools (pp. 249–284). Hoover Institution Press.

32.

Räty

(2013). Intention in school choice among Finnish parents. Educational Studies, 39(2), 219–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2012.717261

33.

Ravitch

(2001). American traditions of education. In Moe

(Ed.), A primer on America’s schools (pp. 1–14). Hoover Institution Press.

34.

Ravitch

(2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Basic Books.

35.

Renzulli

Evans

(2005). School choice, charter schools, and white flight. Social Problems, 52(3), 398–418. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2005.52.3.398

36.

Roda

Wells

A. S.

(2013). School choice policies and racial segregation: Where White parents’ good intentions, anxiety, and privilege collide. American Journal of Education, 119(2), 261–293. https://doi.org/10.1086/668753

37.

Saporito

(2003). Private choices, public consequences: Magnet school choice and segregation by race and poverty. Social Problems, 50(2), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.181

38.

Taylor Haynes

Phillips

K. J. R.

Goldring

E. B.

(2010). Latino parents’ choice of magnet school: How school choice differs across racial and ethnic boundaries. Education and Urban Society, 42(6), 758–789. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124510370943

39.

United States Census Bureau. (2017). Hispanic student enrollment on the rise: Percentage of total enrollment by level of school. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2017/comm/hispanic-school.html

40.

United States Department of Education. (2018). Magnet school assistance/awards. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/magnet/awards.html

41.

Vamstad

(2014). Too much information and too little knowledge? An attempt to explain findings from the Swedish Voucher System for Upper Secondary Education. Journal of School Choice, 8(4), 567–588.

42.

Varjo

Kalalahti

Silvennoinen

(2014). Families, school choice, and democratic iterations on the right to education and freedom of education in Finnish municipalities. Journal of School Choice, 8(1), 20–48.

43.

Velliaris

D. M.

Willis

C. R.

(2013). School choice for transnational parents in Tokyo. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(3), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240913511583

44.

Villavicencio

(2013). “It’s our best choice right now”: Exploring how charter school parents choose. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(81), 1–23.