Geographic Information Systems as a Bridge, Not an Alternative

• In Event: 35.038 - Critical Geographies of School Choice: Methodologies Toward a More Democratic Education Policy Making

Abstract

Purposes
School choice policy promises to ameliorate inequalities attributable to the traditional scheme of school enrollment by residence which has reinforced spatial injustice (Brunner, Cho, & Reback, 2012; Chubb & Moe, 1990; Henig & Sugarman, 1999; Walberg & Bast, 2003). To assess the spatial effects of school choice policy, I have taken the geo-socioeconomic approach and employed diverse spatial research techniques. In this paper, I aim to provide a critical assessment of the geo-socioeconomic approaches based on my research experiences as well as review of the literature as an effort to provide a critical appraisal of the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) in school choice research.

Methods
To summarize adoption and diffusion of GIS in school choice, this paper begins by reflections on my own research experiences, e.g. looking into the distribution of repeatedly underperforming schools under the public school choice provision of the NCLB and measuring accessibility of charter schools in segregated areas. And I review the recent peer-reviewed journal articles published since 1990. For the deliberation of GIS usage, the paper pays special attention on the methodological concerns and limitations. By explaining the significance of utilizing GIS in school choice research, I suggest an integrative approach to enhance research on school choice from a geographic perspective.

Preliminary findings
Since the most differentiated feature of GIS is visualization, the current school choice studies mostly offer descriptive analyses. In particular, the early stage of GIS research in school choice presented clustering, or dispersion, of locations of choosable schools, and suggested summative maps illustrating the relationship between these schools and students with certain characteristics. However, visualization does not sufficiently indicate causal relationships. As such, recently growing GIS research employs quantitative methodologies and qualitative techniques.

Based on my review, I note two important concerns about GIS approaches. The first concern is that access to school is multifaceted. Yet, due to the availability of data, many studies restrict an accessible area of a school to a census tract or school district. As such, the lack of in-depth understanding human and organizational behaviors in markets is likely to oversimplify determinants in affecting a decision as only proximity. The second concern is that we underestimate the interaction of non-spatial characteristics in space. In reality, a school location, its community and the surrounding communities are highly interconnected by being segregated or integrated, rather than existing independently. Yet, ordinary quantitative methodologies such as correlation and regression statistics tend to overlook the value of human geography.

Significance
This paper will help understand how GIS in school choice research has identified the relationship between location, place and network, and further how it helps understand the availability and quality of public education services are discriminated by race and income as well as by geography (Clark, 1992; Iceland & Wilkes, 2006; Massey & Denton, 1993; Wilson, 2011). Yet, there are notable limitations as mentioned above. As such, my paper will help discuss how we may move the usage of GIS forward to making a bridge with other social and human geography research.

Author

• Jin Lee, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign