An%20Economic%20Analysis%20of%20Parental%20Choice%20of%20Primary%20School%20in%20England

1
An Economic Analysis of Parental Choice of
Primary School in England
Centre for Market and Public Organisation

• Burgess, Greaves, Vignoles, Wilson
• June 2009

2
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

3
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?

4
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?

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
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

9
Data

• MCS Sample longitudinal survey
• Random sample of electoral wards
• Born 1st September 2000 31st 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

10
Stated preferences
11
Variation by family type
12
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?)

13
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

14
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

15
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

16
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.

17

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

18
Stated vs. Revealed

• But different proportion of schools chosen

19
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

20
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?

21
Revealed preferences Model

• We use a conditional/multinomial logit
• Where schools indexed s1,,n , x varying
  characteristics of the schools, w represent the
  alternative invariant characteristics of the
  parent.

22
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

23
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, 2nd
  closest, furthest)

24
Revealed preferences Role of School
Characteristics
25
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
26
(No Transcript)
27
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
28
(No Transcript)
29
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
30
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

31
Any good schools left?
32
Any good schools left?
33
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

34
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