Centre for Market and Public Organisation An Economic Analysis of Parental Choice of Primary School in England Burgess, Greaves, Vignoles, Wilson June 2009

Introduction: School Choice in England Education Reform Act of 1988 –school choice mechanism by which parents can choose the school their child attends. Funding follows the pupil. –Competitive pressure for schools to exert greater effort to improve their academic achievement levels. Limited market –No indefinite expansion of good schools –Failing schools supported with additional resources –Not necessarily the case that academic standards are key determinant of school choice by parents

Introduction: School Choice in England Parents preferences for schools matter for outcomes of school choice In theory, schools compete according to parents preferences This may lead to social stratification under some conditions What constraints do parents face in school choice? Small catchment areas for the best schools? Transport? Information?

Introduction: School Choice in England We look at parents stated and revealed preferences for schools Are stated and revealed preferences consistent? What constraints matter in parents decisions?

Literature Markets in education and the role of school choice Rothstein, 2005, Hoxby, 2005 Impact of competition minimal in England Lavy, 2006, Gibbons et al., 2006, Burgess and Slater, 2006; Allen and Vignoles, 2009 For contrary early evidence see Bradley, Johnes and Millington, 2001 Competition potentially leads to greater sorting but no evidence it increased in UK post 1988 Söderström and Uusitalo, 2004, Burgess et al, 2006; Allen and Vignoles, 2007

Literature Stated parental preferences vary by socio- economic background and ethnicity Ball 2003; Gerwitz et al 1995; Hastings et al., 2005; Weekes-Bernard 2007; Reay, 2004; Butler and Robson 2003; West and Pennell 1999 and Coldon and Boulton 1991 BUT Stated preferences may differ from their true preferences

Data Combine survey and administrative data Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC) EduBase This is an excellent combination. We have: Detailed family level survey responses and background controls Detailed administrative information on all primary schools in England We essentially have the local market/choice set

Data MCS provides information on: –Up to 3 nominated schools on preference form (LA) –Other truly preferred schools not on form –Non-nominated schools that are feasible (more on this later) –Stated reasons for preferences (all; most important) –Rich set of controls for families –Rich set of data on all schools –Actual school attended

Data MCS : Sample longitudinal survey Random sample of electoral wards Born 1 st September 2000 – 31 st August 2001 Over-sampled from deprived areas and areas with over 30% black or Asian families Wave 3 – children are aged 5, primary school age We look at England only Final sample is 9,468 children

Stated preferences

Variation by family type

Stated Preferences: Problems Actual behaviour (or revealed preference) is not observed Revealed and stated preferences may diverge: –Only socially desirable responses may be given (Jacob and Lefgren, 2007) –Stated preferences do not require parents to make realistic trade-offs –Parents may conflate preferences: Proximity (did they move to a desirable catchment area first?) Older siblings (what was the initial choice based on?)

Revealed Preferences Use information from MCS wave 3 What school was put as the first preference on the LA application form? Look at characteristics of this school, in relation to other schools in the feasible choice set What type of school is chosen? need to define feasible choice set

Feasible choice set All schools for which: The pupil lives within 3km of the school The pupil lives in the same LA as the school Ignores geography within this boundary

Feasible choice set All schools for which –The pupil lives within the schools catchment area, defined by the straight line distance in which 80% of pupils live The pupil lives within 20km of the school The pupil lives in the same LA as the school Useful to compare results from each

Type of school 8 types of school Defined relative to the median in the feasible choice set Above/below median %FSM Above/below median average KS2 score Faith/non-faith So we have: Low FSM, high scoring, non-faith schools High FSM, low scoring non-faith schools….

Not all pupils have each type of school in their feasible choice set but most have common types

Stated vs. Revealed But different proportion of schools chosen…

Stated vs. Revealed Interesting similarities/differences Parents that state academic standards are more likely to choose the rich, high scoring non-faith school Parents that state proximity are more likely to choose the poor, low scoring non-faith school Parents who claim to want high academic standards are much more likely to choose rich high scoring schools than poor high scoring schools. Parents that state religious grounds are much more likely to choose the rich, high scoring faith school but much less likely to choose the poor, high scoring faith school than the rich, high scoring faith school So more than religious considerations

Revealed preferences: Model What school type is chosen? –Discrete choice modelling –Random utility framework How do school characteristics affect this choice? How do parental characteristics affect this choice?

Revealed preferences: Model We use a conditional/multinomial logit: Where schools indexed s=1,…,n, x varying characteristics of the schools, w represent the alternative invariant characteristics of the parent.

Revealed preferences: specification What family characteristics affect the type of school chosen? Parents SES Parents education Parents religion Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) of area Child characteristics

Revealed preferences: specification What school characteristics affect the type of school chosen? % of pupils with FSM % of pupils with SEN % of pupils with EAL % of pupils that are White British Proportion of school that achieves all level 5 (highest level) at KS2 Rank of distance from the home (closest, 2 nd closest…, furthest)

Revealed preferences: Role of School Characteristics

Revealed preferences: Role of Parental Characteristics 1. Rich, low scoring non-faith school 2. Rich, high scoring non-faith school 3. Poor, low scoring non-faith school 4. Poor, high scoring non-faith school 5. Rich, low scoring faith school 6. Rich, high scoring faith school

Revealed preferences: Role of Parental Characteristics 1. Rich, low scoring non-faith school 2. Rich, high scoring non-faith school 3. Poor, low scoring non-faith school 4. Poor, high scoring non-faith school 5. Rich, low scoring faith school 6. Rich, high scoring faith school

Importance of distance/feasible choice 1. Rich, low scoring non-faith school 2. Rich, high scoring non-faith school 3. Poor, low scoring non-faith school 4. Poor, high scoring non-faith school 5. Rich, low scoring faith school 6. Rich, high scoring faith school

Ongoing work A more accurate definition of catchment areas Catchment area in which 80% of pupils live Define the feasible choice set as all schools for which the pupil lives inside the catchment area

Any good schools left?

Conclusions Stated and revealed preferences vary Parents socio-economic status and education do play a role in their preferences –rich and poor do not have same preferences for school factors High scoring advantaged schools are more likely to be chosen by high SES individuals –Limit market forces in some areas –Increase social sorting

Conclusions Geography is crucial –are we really capturing genuine choice or constrained choice We know that school de facto catchment areas have a big effect on the feasible choice set Disproportionately for low SES families more work needed