School Choice and the Social Construction of Racially Minoritized Families

• In Event: Equity, Race, and Access Within the School Choice Landscape: The Next Wave of Research

Abstract

Objectives
Although advocates argue that market-based policies, such as school choice, are better for poor children and children of color (Scott, 2011), the results are mixed (Berends, 2015). Furthermore, previous scholarship on the racial politics of choice identifies networks of powerful, elite actors (Scott, 2009; Au & Ferrare, 2015), and examines how policies are promoted by elite white actors in ways that disempower communities of color including students, parents, and educators (Buras, 2011; Henry & Dixson, 2016). Yet, we know little about how elite actors, policymakers, and leaders describe the targets of school-choice policies, and how their conceptions are shaped by race.

Theoretical Framework
We draw on theories of the social construction of the target population. Schneider and Ingram’s (1993) germinal piece argues that how targets of policy are socially constructed—shaped by popular stereotypes and images in politics, culture, and media—matters for policy design and outcomes. Schneider and Ingram acknowledge that racial stereotypes shape policy, and that policy designs and approaches can reproduce these stereotypes. However, Soss et al. (2008) build on this model to highlight the role of race in social construction of policy targets, examining how policymakers’ assumptions about racial groups, and those group reputations and stereotypes, shape their expectations of “how such people are likely to respond to a particular intervention” (p. 539), and, therefore, influence policy design.

Data Sources and Methods
We examine how key stakeholders construct the target population for school-choice policies across five states, examining how constructions vary by race, by whether the “target” is conceived of as the child or their parents, and by type of school choice policy (e.g., charter school, private school voucher, open enrollment). We draw on data from interviews with 58 state-level stakeholders (policymakers, advocacy groups, teachers’ unions, and state school board members) in Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan and Oregon.

Findings
We applied Schneider and Ingram’s categories of target populations, which are viewed as either “weak” or “strong,” and either “positive” or “negative.” Although in prior research children and mothers are typically viewed as dependents (Soss, 1999)—as positive but weak actors—in our study, policymakers sometimes also viewed black children and mothers as deviant (weak and negative)—contradictory views that are racialized. We also find that when the original target population was “all families,” but in practice the policy was used most by students of color, there was less political will to improve equity and access in choice policies. Thus, a colorblind description of the target population had real implications for how policy was designed, with implications for how minoritized families could fare under choice policy.

Significance
Public support and funding for social welfare policies decline when minorities are perceived to be the targets (Katz, 1989; Keiser, Mueser, & Choi, 2004; Quadagno, 1994). Policymakers are guided by social constructions, and they may support policies that help groups viewed as deserving, or punish those seen as undeserving (Brown, 2013). Our work, too, shows how social constructions matter for equity in choice policy.

Authors

• Huriya Jabbar, The University of Texas at Austin

• Eupha Jeanne Daramola, University of Southern California

• Taylor Enoch-Stevens, University of Southern California

• Jacob Alonso, University of Southern California