Sociation Today

Choosing Schools and Criminalizing School Choice

by

Shelly Brown-Jeffy

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

    For much of American public educational history, students have attended a local or neighborhood school. Students were assigned to these local schools primarily based upon geographical attendance areas; however students could also be assigned to schools based upon their race in an effort to keep schools racially segregated (Weinberg 1967). Brown V. Board of Education ended forced racial segregation in American schools. However, neighborhood schools continued to be racially and socioeconomically segregated because of residential segregation (Orfield and Lee 2006; Rothstein 2014). Given school attendance is tied to neighborhood residence, the characteristics of school populations resemble the characteristics of neighborhoods. Schools in more affluent neighborhoods have a more affluent student population and poorer neighborhoods often contained schools with poorer students (Reardon 2016).

    For some parents, the local neighborhood school was not seen as a viable option. Parents who did not like their neighborhood school were free to send their children to private or parochial schools which were not tied to residential locations. Parents, however, paid a premium for these services. Parents with economic resources (often parents from the more affluent neighborhoods) were able to choose whether to send their children to the neighborhood school or to pay to send their children to private or parochial schools. Low-income parents did not have this option. However, beginning in the late 1900s the school choice movement began to gain ground and was touted as a way for disadvantaged parents to provide their children a better quality education. Proponents of school choice programs argued that competition for students would force underachieving schools to improve to remain viable (continuing to receive resources and maintain a student population (McArthur, Colopy, and Schlaline 1995). However, others argued that the choice program only saves a few students who are able to escape the disadvantaged neighborhood school and the less desirable schools "will neither improve nor close due to lack of resources, but that students in those schools will have access to fewer resources than before" (McArthur et al. 1995: 1).

    Socioeconomic status and educational opportunity are central to the school choice debate. With limited options for choice schools, many families have found alternative ways of obtaining a quality education for their children. These alternative ways, however, have been penalized by the criminal justice system. In 2011, Kelley Williams-Bolar was convicted of lying about her home address to enroll her children in a quality school district. As punishment, she was given ten days in jail, three years of probation, and ordered to complete community service. In that same year, Tanya McDowell, a woman without a permanent home address, was convicted of using a child care provider's address to register her child for school. In both cases, these parents (low-income single Black mothers) were convicted of grand larceny and falsifying documents which are felonies within the court system. These women were criminalized because they rejected the disadvantaged neighborhood school in favor of a better educational opportunity for their children.

    The structure of society has blocked many low-income families from quality schools. In this article I posit that low-income families who are left out of the school choice scheme attempt to garner the best outcomes for their children through the resources they have available within their social network. However, the act of sending a child to school has been criminalized for the Kelley Williams-Bolar and Tanya McDowell. Their cases are another example of social control for the disadvantaged and just another example of the over policing of the poor?

Schools and Choice

    All schools are not created equal. Poor urban schools are often at a disadvantage and poor, inner city families and their children are often relegated to this disadvantaged education. The socioeconomic status of the school impacts student outcomes and students who attend schools with concentrated poverty have more negative outcomes than students in schools with less poverty (Coleman et al. 1966; Kahlenberg 2001). The school choice program was envisioned to relieve families of the confinement of poor quality neighborhood schools. School choice open enrollment laws do not limit student attendance to neighborhood schools and in theory any student could attend any public school. In a school choice system parents of public school students have the choice of where to send their children to school, regardless of the neighborhood and sometimes district in which they reside. With pure open enrollment policies, low-income families do not have to be relegated to poor quality neighborhood schools.

    School choice, envisioned as a process where all students would be able to attend good quality schools without neighborhood zone restrictions, is often linked to economic market theory.   The development of a school system where parents choose where to send their children to school was suggested by Milton Friedman (1955) who proposed educational reform where parents are given a minimum amount of money (a voucher) to fund the type of school and education they wanted for their children. These vouchers could be used to provide viable options for the best education to some families or widen the range of choices for other parents. This type of educational reform would make it "easier for students to be mobile among schools" (Hoxby 2003: 3).

    Friedman (1955) insisted that competition among schools would "stimulate the development and improvement" of all schools. "Choice often makes a school's revenue directly dependent on its attracting students" (Hoxby 2003: 3) and families are consumes of educational options. Thus, public schools operating in a system of choice will compete for students and as a result, failing school would need to improve to maintain student enrollment for the benefit of receiving resources and funding. In response to the "pressures and incentives that the market generates" (Hoxby 2003: 4) schools would need to engage in behaviors that would increase the quality of education among their students.

    This US school choice movement led to development of three school choice option: the voucher program, magnet schools and charter schools. The voucher program exists when states agree to allow state public school educational funding to be used to fund the education of students at private schools (Viteritti 1999). Educational vouchers can be used to pay all or part of a student's education tuition at a private or religious school (Walberg 2007). Most often, these vouchers are offered to low-income families and their students (Viteritti 1999; Walberg 2007). Magnet schools are public schools that tend to have an enriched academic program (such as mathematics, science, or the performing arts) that are often used to racially integrate schools (Viteritti 1999). These magnet schools are often attractive to parents and students who want to focus on the specific aspects of the particular theme of the magnet program which is often not available in the local neighborhood school. Charter schools are established when parents, educators, nonprofit groups or for-profit entrepreneurs submit a proposal to a state or local chartering agency to operate a school that is managed by a private governing board instead of the local school board (Viteritti 1999; Walberg 2007).

    Most states offer some form of a school choice program with close to half of all school districts offering some form of mandatory or voluntary open enrollment (Davis 2013; Miron, Welner, Hinchey, and Mathis 2012). Yet, most students attend a neighborhood school with the National Center for Education Statistics (2016) reporting that 67% of children in public schools attend a neighborhood school. Thus, a good portion of children in disadvantaged neighborhoods are attending disadvantaged neighborhood schools.

    Disadvantaged children may be relegated to remain in disadvantaged neighborhoods schools because of the nature of the admissions process for school choice programs. Both charter and magnet schools (especially in elementary school) use a lottery system where those who apply are randomly selected for admission. At the middle and high school level, magnet schools can limit enrollment to those who have shown accomplishment in the specialized curricular focus of the school. When the necessary admission skills are not nurtured in elementary school, the chances of gaining entry in a magnet school for the higher grades are slim. If disadvantaged students do not get this higher quality educational opportunity in elementary school, they may not have earned the credentials necessary to attend magnet schools in the upper grades. In theory school choice seems equitable; however, exposure to less than ideal educational experiences (as a consequence of poorer quality neighborhood schools) often makes the choice to attend selective upper level magnet schools unattainable.

    Financial and transportation difficulties can also present barriers to choice school usage. The financial support of a voucher may not cover enough of the tuition for (the poorest) low-income families making vouchers financially useless. Unlike magnet schools and other public schools, most charter schools are not able to offer free transportation for their students. Hence, families without the means to supply transportation for their children may be "priced" out of these schooling options (Bell 2009). Families who do not have the means to transport their children to and from schools will not be able to choose charter schools that are not located within their neighborhood. When the limited seats in the most desirable schools are easily filled, less desirable schools will still be needed to educate those who are left without a choice. Thus, neighborhood schools in districts without an open enrolment structure may not have competition. Even within a school choice system that was developed to increase the range of opportunities for students beyond the neighborhood schools so that disadvantaged students could attend higher quality schools, social class inequality still exists. Some students win and others lose. Because there are never enough spaces in the most desirable schools, the neighborhood school will remain populated with the students who are left behind.

    In the absence of a system where all schools are created equal (through market demand) decisions about where students go to school are often the result of where families live. The majority of public school students attend their neighborhood school (Snyder, de Brey, and Dillow 2016) making residential location a major determinant of student enrollment. Because schools tend to be populated with students from the surrounding neighborhoods, disadvantaged families are relegated to neighborhoods with disadvantaged schools whereas middle class families have the ability to choose more affluent neighborhoods with prosperous schools. Although school choice was envisioned as a way to disrupt the relationship between where students reside and where they go to school and to make school options more equal for families regardless of their social class and neighborhood status, many families are left out of the school choice scheme. Disadvantaged children are "trapped" in inferior schools. Yet, in the absence of the ability to select a neighborhood with quality neighborhood schools and with a lack of ability use school choice options, low-income parents will attempt to garner the best outcomes for their children through the resources they have available. Many low-income parents use their individual capital that is held in the addresses of friends, family, and childcare providers who live in better school districts.   Unfortunately, this choice has been criminalized.

Innovation

    Robert Merton (1938) discussed the innovation of using unconventional means to achieve culturally approved goals to explain why people engage in deviant acts. He found that when individuals were confronted with a disjunction between their goals (often financial) and their resource means, frustration and even anger emerged as a result of differences in stratification resulting in pressure to seek non-conformist solutions to achieve a desired goal. Stated another way, the imbalance between cultural goals and institutional means to achieve these goals created strain. When faced with this strain, people often become innovative; this innovation, however, has been labeled as deviant.

    When middle class and low income families choose where to live, the neighborhood school can be either a sought after amenity or an unintended consequence. Both poor and middle class families have the same aspiration; they want to live in nice neighborhoods and have their children attend quality schools. To obtain this goal, middle class families select housing in desirable neighborhoods and the good quality of the neighborhood school is an important and necessary requirement of a desirable neighborhood. Poor families, however, are not able to prioritize or often even incorporate school choice into their housing decisions; instead, these families focus on whether the housing meets the basic needs of the family: affordable, close to childcare and safe (Rhodes and Deluca 2014). For poor families affordable housing is the priority and the neighborhood school is a consequence of that decision. Middle class neighborhoods are out of financial reach for them. Without other options, many low income parents became innovative with how obtained quality schooling for their children.

    To deal with the lack of available options to get their children enrolled in a desirable school, low-income families innovate by engaging their social capital. Social capital encompasses the interpersonal relationships that are an asset to an individual. Bourdieu (1986) defined social capital as "the aggregate of actual or potential resources linked to possession of a durable network of essentially institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance" (Dika and Singh 2002: 33). Coleman (1988) specified that that social capital included information channels that that are embedded in relations among persons. Both Bourdieu and Coleman highlight the importance of interpersonal relationships, social networks and their value for positive outcomes.

    When families asses or activate their social capital, social ties, linked thorough social networks, become a sources of social support (Briggs 1998; Domínguez and Watkins 2003). The social capital derived from interaction within social networks provides access to useful information that is valuable to the extent that it enhances parents' ability to support the education of their children (Coleman 1990; Diamond and Gomez 2004; Dika and Singh 2002). As a resource for parents, "social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible" (Coleman 1998:98). These families are able to give their children a quality education, in a quality school, by using their social capital to reach their goal. Social capital is embodied in relationships among people (Coleman 1988) and access to and use of social ties and networks reflects high levels of social capital (Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch 1995). Through leveraging the resources of those in their social network, these parents grant better outcomes for their children.

    Bell (2009) found that when parents realized that their preferences for their children's education could come into conflict with their geographical location (either through preference or necessity), schooling options were negotiated. In order to make certain schools possible, "many parents needed to draw on the social capital in their relationships with friends and relatives" (Bell 2009: 384). Similarly Rhodes and Deluca (2014) found that low-income families often selected neighborhoods to be close to family who provided after-school care because being close to childcare was important and practical. Parents activated their social networks in search of resources such as transportation and after school childcare. Kelley Williams-Bolar needed a safe after school environment for her children. Without the possibility of transportation from the neighborhood school to her father's house, Kelley Williams-Bolar needed to enroll her children in a school that would allow her children easy access to her father's residence. Similarly, Tanya McDowell needed her child to have easy access to the person that would provide afterschool care for her child. Both parents used the address of the afterschool care providers to enroll their children in school, which is an action that seems to be routinely practiced among low-income parents (Bell 2009; Rhodes and Deluca 2014).

    Low-income families face a limited number of options when they are disillusioned with the local neighborhood school and want to send their children elsewhere. Although these families may have to choose housing in unappealing areas with schools that are disadvantaged, they have become resourceful to get the things that they need for their children. Lower income parents are resourceful. They use the capital embodies in the residential circumstances of those on their social networks. This innovation creates a sense of choice for parents who do not have to be relegated to the confines of the disadvantaged neighborhood school. These networks give lower income families access to better schools through the use of alternate residential addresses. Low income families innovate by using the social networks. This innovation, however, has been criminalized.

Policing and Social Control

    All societies engage in social control in order to maintain social order and regulate behavior. The norms that maintain social order, however, typically benefit those in power, often to the disadvantage of the poor and powerless. Segments of society remain routinely disadvantaged by societal norms. The disadvantaged parts of society are also routinely monitored to ensure that they follow the rules set by those in power.

    Policing is a mechanism of social control used to ensure that citizens, particularly the poor, follow the rules of society. Policing of the poor has existed since anti-vagrancy, loitering and panhandling laws prevented the poor from displaying their deprivation within public view. Appearing publicly poor was regulated and criminalized. This habit of policing poverty is a problem from both a policy and a social perspective.

    Using the punitive criminal system to address the consequences of poverty is poor policy. Laws (rules, regulation and tools of the powerful) are ways for those who are not poor to protect themselves from (the needs) of the poor. Laws can keep the poor powerless, regulated and controlled. The criminal justice system, charged with enforcing law, coerces those without power to comply with the rules established by those in power.

    While policing the poor has often been appropriated for detecting and preventing inner city crimes (e.g., broken windows theory, the war on drugs, etc.), prosecuting these parents for sending their children to an out of district school appears to be more about controlling the movement of the poor than regulating harmful behavior. The criminalization of the behaviors of these parents is part of the expansion of state control over the movements of the poor. The social mobility of poor people have been regulated as they are priced out of housing in middle class neighborhoods and their movements have been regulated as they are often not able to get their children out of the neighborhood schools. The poor have been relegated to low income neighborhood with limited access to quality public services including quality schools. Because of this constant regulation, the poor are disproportionately on the receiving end of policing and punishment. The reality is that social control is normalized against the poor.

Conclusion

    Policing the poor has resulted in criminalizing all kinds of behaviors and the powerless tend to be the subjects of the endless management of their behaviors and movements. The simple act of sending a child to school is being policed under the purview of criminal law. Using legal mandates to address the social problem of inequality and unequal access to schooling is tragic.

    The landscape of power gives those in power the privilege to define what unacceptable behavior is for the poor. From this perspective, policing the poor is a way for privileged societal elites to suppress and control other. Robert Merton detailed that deviance was a normal behavior in a functioning society. If deviance is normal, it does not have to be criminalized. Poor parents are penalized for making rational choices. Bringing criminal charges against these parents is an excessively punitive response to their innovation.

    Is it a crime to be poor? Is it a crime to want more for your children? Is it a crime to do what you can to send your child to a better school? The answer to these questions may be yes if you are poor. Prosecuting Kelley Williams-Bolar and Tanya McDowell is a form of criminalizing the poor. Instead of over policing and criminalizing the poor, we should address the problem of inequality. Increased parental choice options will allow these families to escape the possibility of criminal punishment and select better schools for their children. Forcing conformity to the rules neighborhood school attendance is forcing continued inequality.

References

Bell, Courtney A. 2009. "All Choices Created Equal? The Role of Choice Sets in the Selection of Schools." Peabody Journal of Education 84:191-208.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 1998. "Brown kids in white suburbs: Housing mobility and the many faces of social capital." Housing Policy Debate 9:177–221.

Coleman, James S., Ernest Q. Campbell, Carol J. Hobson, James McPartland, Alexander M. Mood, Frederick D. Weinfeld, and Robert L. York. 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

Coleman, James S. 1988. "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Journal of Sociology 94:S95–120.

Davis, Jennifer. 2013. School Choice in the States: A Policy Landscape. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Diamond John B. and Kimberley Gomez. 2004. "African American Parents' Educational Orientations: The Importance of Social Class and Parents' Perceptions of Schools." Education and Urban Society 36: 383-427

Dika, Sandra L. and Kusum Singh. 2002. "Applications of Social Capital in Educational Literature: A Critical Synthesis." Review of Educational Research 72: 31-60

Domínguez, Silvia and Celeste Watkins. 2003. "Creating Networks for Survival and Mobility: Social Capital among African-American and Latin-American Low-Income Mothers." Social Problems 50:111-135

Friedman, Milton. 1955. "The Role of Government in Education," Pp. 123-144 in Economics and the Public Interest, edited Robert A. Solo. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Hoxby, Caroline. 2003. The Economics of School Choice. Chicago, IL: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. University of Chicago Press.

Kahlenberg, Richard. 2001. All Together Now: Creating Middle-Class Schools Through Public School Choice. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

McArthur Edith, Colopy Kelly W, Schlaline Beth. 1995. Use of School Choice. In: Education policy issues: statistical perspectives. National Center for Education Statistics.

Merton, Robert. 1938. "Social Structure and Anomie". American Sociological Review. 3: 672–682.

Miron, Gary, Kevin G. Welner, Patricia H. Hinchey, and William J. Mathis, eds. 2012. Exploring the School Choice Universe: Evidence and Recommendations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Orfield, Gary and Chungmei Lee. 2006. Racial transformation and the changing nature of segregation. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Reardon, Sean. 2016. School Segregation and Racial Academic Achievement Gaps." RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 2:34–57

Rothstein, Richard. 2015. "The Racial Achievement Gap, Segregated Schools, and Segregated Neighborhoods: A Constitutional Insult." Race and Social Problems 7: 21-30.

Rhodes, Anna and Stefanie DeLuca. 2014. "Residential Mobility and School Choice among Poor Families." Pp. 137-166 in Choosing Homes, Choosing Schools: Residential Segregation and the Search for a Good School, edited by Annette Lareau and Kimberly Goyette. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Snyder, Thomas D., Cristobal de Brey, and Sally A. Dillow. 2016. Digest of Education Statistics 2015 (NCES 2016-014). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Stanton-Salazar, Richard D. and Sanford M. Dornbusch. 1995. "Social Capital and the Social Reproduction of Inequality: The Formation of Informational Networks among Mexican-Origin High School Students." Sociology of Education 68: 116-135.

Viteritti, Joseph P. 1999. Choosing Equality: School Choice, the Constitution, and Civil Society. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press

Walberg, Herbert J. 2007. School Choice: The Findings. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.

Weinberg, Meyer. 1967. Race and Place: A Legal History of the Neighborhood School. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Return to the Home Page