EUS303994

Education and Urban Society http://eus.sagepub.com

Marketing Schools: Consumer Goods and Competitive Incentives for Consumer Information Christopher Lubienski Education and Urban Society 2007; 40; 118 originally published online Jun 29, 2007; DOI: 10.1177/0013124507303994 The online version of this article can be found at: http://eus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/118

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Education and Urban Society can be found at: Email Alerts: http://eus.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://eus.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 20 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://eus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/40/1/118

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 Š 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Marketing Schools Consumer Goods and Competitive Incentives for Consumer Information

Education and Urban Society Volume 40 Number 1 November 2007 118-141 © 2007 Corwin Press, Inc. 10.1177/0013124507303994 http://eus.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Christopher Lubienski University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Effective school-choice plans depend on the quality of information available to families. Examining the promotional materials provided by different schools in a highly competitive and diverse urban area tells us not only about the quality of that information but also how schools respond to competitive incentives. This analysis outlines an economic theory of goods as a framework for understanding information, focusing on the essential “search,” “experience,” and “credence” qualities of promotional materials. The information made available to families through commercial-style materials challenges the notion of parents making reasoned choices based on institutional effectiveness. Instead, more emotional themes and images dominate school marketing strategies, with implications for ethnic and socioeconomic sorting within diverse but competitive climates. Promotional strategies suggest that competition is creating an environment in which, rather than responding to incentives intended to improve education for more disadvantaged students, schools are instead attracting better performing students through their marketing campaigns.

Keywords: school choice; school marketing; family information; competition; charter schools

R

eforms using choice and competition to leverage change in education are indeed changing the ways in which schools operate, as was intended by reformers. Although not necessarily “privatization,” this “marketization” of schools has generated competitive climates that, in many Author’s Note: The author gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Spencer Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, through the Advanced Studies Fellowship Program at Brown University. The author wishes to thank Carl Kaestle, John Modell, and the other faculty and fellows at Brown, who offered helpful comments on this work. Of course, the author is responsible for all data, statements, and views, as well as any errors, presented in this article.

118 Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Lubienski / Marketing Schools

119

instances, present school leaders with a new set of incentives to shape and guide their decisions on school management (Whitty & Power, 2000). In these contexts, schools need to attract sufficient numbers of students (and the funding that accompanies them) to survive and succeed. So getting information to prospective consumers about the effectiveness of their programs would appear to be important. And schools in competitive climates are increasing their efforts around promotion and marketing (Lubienski, 2005).

But we know little about the propensity for competitive forces to produce good information useful for consumers trying to weigh the relative advantages of different schools. What types of information are different types of schools providing as they compete with each other? The answer to this question speaks to the appropriate role of government and markets in educational choice systems.

Schools in a number of areas are operating in more marketized environments and are increasingly responding with marketing strategies not unfamiliar to the higher education sector (Kirp, 2003). In fact, the economic logic underpinning competition-based reforms predicts organizations on the supply side will seek to satisfy consumer demand by providing better products or services. Certainly, competition in K-12 systems is intended to elicit a number of desirable responses from schools—increased achievement, improved efficiencies, and greater responsiveness to families. Although promotional activities are by no means ends in themselves, they do indicate a desire on the part of administrators to assume a more consumer-friendly orientation, and the specifics of individual marketing strategies suggest much about schools, their self-perceived relative strengths (and weaknesses), and positions within a local market. The problem is that although we know that marketing is becoming one of the most prominent features of competitionoriented school provision, we know little about the actual issues, information, and intentions of promotional activities, and even less about the implications of such activities for public education (Lubienski, 2005). This analysis of school marketing in a competitive, racialized education market indicates that rather than simply offering information on school effectiveness, marketing may instead be targeted more toward particular audiences, suggesting a degree of selectiveness on the part of schools in competitive environments.

This study examines the issue of the political economy—that is, the appropriate and optimal roles of government and markets—of consumer information through an economic lens on competitive incentives, organizational responses, and school marketing. First, after a brief examination of the issues emerging in the literature on education marketing, I introduce an

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

120

Education and Urban Society

economic theory of goods that offers a useful framework for examining the content of promotional messages. Rather than a static model of consumerdriven provision, this framework assumes a more dynamic relationship between supply and demand, where marketing serves as a conduit for conveying both consumer and producer preferences within competitive education markets. In the subsequent section, I describe the concept of local education markets in outlining an examination of school marketing that cuts across public and privately administered school sectors in a competitive and diverse urban area. The analysis suggests that the form and content of promotional strategies are shaped largely by a school’s position within a competitive market hierarchy. The information made available to parents through competitively driven, commercial-style materials does little to support the idealized model of rational parents choosing schools based on institutional effectiveness. Instead, the concluding discussion highlights the primary role of emotional themes and images in marketing strategies and considers the implications of such strategies for public education within diverse but competitive climates.

Whereas schools in this study generally declined to provide prospective parents with “hard” information in their promotional materials, but actually embraced themes that lend themselves to ethnic and economic sorting, the analysis of marketing materials highlights two significant findings about education markets and schooling. First, promotional strategies suggest that schools are operating in an environment where competitive incentives intended to improve education for the most disadvantaged students are instead inducing some schools to avoid such students, targeting better performing students in their marketing campaigns in order to improve the school’s market position. Second, promotional information indicates that schools in more deregulated environments are treating education as a type of consumer good that typically requires external, nonmarket regulation for the provision of useful consumer information. Together, these findings highlight the need for regulation in order for markets to work effectively in education.

A Theory of Goods There are many arguments for school choice, such as the professional empowerment of teachers, family-values concerns for elevating parental prerogatives in education, and civil rights claims about equitable access for disadvantaged students, for instance. However, the most prominent perspectives see choice as a way of inducing improvements in education by

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Lubienski / Marketing Schools

121

leveraging competition to change the incentive structures in which schools operate. The ultimate objectives will be seen in student achievement and consumer satisfaction, according to this line of thinking (Miron & Nelson, 2002).

But activity around intermediary goals such as organizational reform and curricular innovation will indicate how schools are responding to competitive incentives in changing their organizational behavior. Although evidence on the larger objectives such as student achievement is really just emerging, it is largely contested, usually along ideological lines (e.g., Howell & Peterson, 2004; Krueger & Zhu, 2004a, 2004b; Peterson & Howell, 2004). However, there is a growing consensus that cuts across conflicting perspectives on the notable impact competition is having on at least one of the intermediary goals: the increasing use of marketing by schools to attract students.

Indeed, the notion of marketing is central to—albeit understated in—any market-oriented reform agenda for education. The concept operates on the understanding that the relationship between producers and consumers is dynamic and that certain informational activities on the part of service providers can lead to a better “fit” for families. In that regard, marketing is a process of producers engaging and positioning themselves in the market— typically including such activities as product development, pricing, and advertising.1 In the K-12 education sector, price strategies are not very prominent, and many inherent structural factors preclude a high rate of product development or process innovations: for instance, the inability of innovators to protect and profit from their efforts, disincentives toward risk, and commonly held assumptions about the appropriate activities of schools (Brown, 1992; Lubienski, 2003). Of course, some would criticize the rise of promotional efforts as superficial, manipulative, or wasteful—and possibly detrimental to the goals and values of public education (Bird, 1999; Bradsher, 2002; Marchand, 1998; Schlosser, 2001; Tirole, 1988). However, as others have suggested, that schools are undertaking marketing efforts not only demonstrates that famously unresponsive institutions are reacting to competitive pressures by assuming a consumer orientation, but also suggests the emergence of a process that requires schools to define their mission and priorities (Harvey & Busher, 1996; Kates, 2001; Lehman, 1999; Savoye, 2001; e.g., Brouillette, 1999; Center for Education Reform, 2000; Gifford, Phillips, & Ogle, 2000; Lehman, 1999; Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 1999a, 1999b; Maranto, Milliman, Hess, & Gresham, 1999; Sack, 2002).

Yet, these conflicting perspectives are largely speculative, at least when it comes to marketing in the K-12 sector. In fact, probably due to the recent emergence of this phenomenon, the research literature in this area is relatively thin. By far the most developed research on school promotion comes

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

122

Education and Urban Society

from overseas, where choice-type reforms have gone further in reconfiguring the educational system (e.g., Lumby & Foskett, 1999; see also Davies & Ellison, 1997). (Most of the work published on school marketing in the United States is of the “how-to” variety, e.g., Holcomb, 1993; Kowalski, 2000; Lober, 1993.)

Still, insofar as marketing indicates that schools are taking on a consumer orientation, it is useful to consider what exactly is being consumed. Of course, theorists and others have debated the “public good” and “private good” aspects of education for some time, because the way we address that issue informs how education should be provided (Brighouse, 2000; Halchin, 1999; Labaree, 1997, 2000; Levin, 1987; Lubienski, 2000; Smith, 2003).

However, if we step away from the question of whether education should be treated as a consumer good and note that it is in fact being positioned exactly as such in competitive environments, it is important to consider how competitive forces are causing schools to conceptualize the service that they provide, especially relative to one another. This is particularly true as market theory elevates information about consumer goods as a central consideration in rational-choice models for the decision-making process that parents are expected to participate in with school-choice plans. Furthermore, understanding how schools are characterizing the service they provide, relative to one another, speaks to the appropriate role of market and nonmarket forces in supporting the goals of public education.

Because philosophical debates about the public- and private-good essence of education do not really help us understand what is happening—for better or for worse—in competitive education markets, this analysis turns instead to an economic typology of consumer goods. Inasmuch as choice reforms position schools along the model of private-style firms, the literature on industrial organization suggests different kinds of (or, more accurately, different qualities in) goods and services and outlines the implications that these qualities have for the types of information that producers and providers will offer to potential consumers (Kalra & Goodstein, 1998; Masters & Sanogo, 2002; Nelson, 1974; Tirole, 1988). The differences in goods are indicated by the types of marketing associated with them and are significant in that different types of goods require different levels of nonmarket (often government) intervention in order to guarantee adequate levels of consumer information so that market mechanisms may function effectively.

In this framework in Table 1, goods and services with “search” qualities have aspects that can be assessed by consumers prior to purchase (ingredients, durability, etc.). Examples of such goods would be clothing that consumers can try on or produce for which “freshness” can be easily detected. In these

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Lubienski / Marketing Schools

123

Table 1 A Typology of Consumer Goods Search Goods

Experience Goods

Credence Goods

Characteristics Qualities that are Qualities not readily Qualities that are apparent, can be apparent not apparent judged relative to Quality can be judged Quality that can never comparable options only after purchase be fully known or Quality can be judged appreciated before purchase Marketing Marketing based on Marketing based on Marketing based on “hard/direct” “soft/indirect” “soft/indirect” information: indicators information: emotion; information: emotion, of quality, price inclusion in affinity which can obscure comparisons, groups imperfections and ingredients, asymmetries of convenience information Implications Consumer information Lack of prior State intervention often often left to market information can lead necessary to mandate forces to diminishing quality, information for unless repeat purchases consumers occur; branding Examples Produce, clothes Books, entertainment, Octane in gasoline, restaurant, canned food effect of medicine Note: See, e.g., Darby & Karni, 1973; Nelson, 1974; Tirole, 1988.

cases, consumers have informational parity with producers, so providers tend to use direct or hard information—evidence that is “usable” or “actionable” for consumers in making comparisons between options—on aspects such as price, effectiveness, and availability in marketing these goods and services. Thus, because competition is an effective force for generating useful information on search goods and services, the production of usable consumer information is typically best left to market forces.

On the other hand, “experience” and “credence” qualities are not as readily apparent to consumers. Experience qualities are those that can be assessed only after a purchase (taste, long-term fit, etc.). For instance, books, entertainment, and prepared or canned food are said to have experience qualities. Likewise, goods or services that have credence qualities involve aspects that might never be fully assessed (e.g., the effects of some medicines or the impact of a gasoline additive on a given engine). Suppliers of goods that have primarily experience or credence qualities are positioned to capitalize on informational advantages over the consumer. With no

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

124

Education and Urban Society

reason to do otherwise, they often forego promotional efforts that use hard information in favor of less actionable information—emotional appeals, branding efforts, or appeals to the loyalty of affinity groups.

Thus, when left to their own devices, competitive market incentives may fail to force organizations that provide experience or credence goods to generate useful information from which a rational consumer can make informed decisions. In these cases, state intervention is necessary to compensate for market failures. For instance, government regulations regarding nutrition labeling, contraindications for pharmaceuticals, and licensing certain services can be justified when important qualities of a good or service are not apparent or may even never be known to prospective consumers (at least until it is too late). Unforeseeable and undesirable consequences are seen to outweigh the usual admonition of caveat emptor, thereby generating widespread acceptance of state regulation in these areas. Although there are some experience and credence goods without state regulation, these tend to be in consumer markets where other aspects—repeat purchases and product branding, for instance—give consumers opportunities to punish bad providers at relatively little cost. However, in instances where there are substantial costs associated with selecting products (opportunity and search costs), switching providers, or other substantial consequences for unfortunate decisions, external intervention is more often justified.

Theories and policies informing school choice generally assume a rather static view of the consumer–provider relationship, where providers respond to consumer preferences. This analysis, on the other hand, notes the need to envision a more dynamic interaction between supply and demand, as organizations not only respond to consumer preferences but also shape those preferences when they promote the service that they are offering. And the way those services are marketed indicates something important about (a) the nature of the good that is consumed, (b) the types of information that are being made available to consumers and, thus, how consumption is conceptualized, and (c) the nature of the market for this good, which has strong implications for the appropriate political economy of a given sector. In that regard, it is helpful to understand the specific types of goods or qualities that are being used to market educational services. If the types of information offered by schools in competitive environments embody search characteristics, then it would appear that competition is generating the types of information consumers need to make rational decisions between schools. If the information promotes schools on more emotional appeals, then the theory suggests the possibility that nonmarket (i.e., state) intervention is necessary to compel organizations to offer actionable information.

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Lubienski / Marketing Schools

125

School Informational Responses in a Competitive Local Education Market This study draws from an analysis of schools in a highly competitive local education market (LEM). Although an abstraction, the LEM is a useful concept for understanding how schools and other educational organizations are responding to competitive incentives in that it helps us understand not only how educational organizations respond to consumer demand but how they develop competitive strategies in response to each other. As Hesketh and Knight (1998) note, “if the workings of educational markets are to be understood, clusters of geographically close schools need to be studied.” Thus, for the present purposes, LEMs can be considered largely in terms of geographical proximity, where different schools are situated within policy and physical infrastructures that allow them to compete for a common pool of potential students. That is, students are free to choose from a range of schools, with either the proximity or the availability of transportation options making those choices real for students. Furthermore, although a K-12 education market is really a quasi-market in that the government subsidizes schools and consumers, key elements of choice and competition bring important market-style dynamics into play (Whitty, 1997; Whitty & Power, 1997). Thus, LEMs are enabled by policies allowing students to choose from a range of schools, and the per-pupil funding they bring with them provides schools with the incentive to compete for their patronage.

Although the specifics of these attributes (and thus the level of competition) will vary between LEMs, in order to understand the role of competition in producing information for consumers, this analysis examines one of the most competitive education markets in the country, where (a) policies provide students the ability to cross district and sector boundaries and (b) demographic changes have led to an oversupply of seats—with five schools closing in recent years—causing different schools to consciously engage the competitive market. Situated near the western shore of Michigan, the small metropolitan area of Holland has witnessed a remarkable rise in competition, according to various researchers (Horn & Miron, 2000; Lubienski, 2005; Rofes, 1998). Centered on a town of about 35,000, the central district straddles two counties with a combined population of more than 340,000 people. The metropolitan area covers all or parts of five public school districts in two counties. Michigan allows students to choose to attend school outside their home district, including those in adjacent counties, space permitting. And Michigan’s charter school program (public

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

126

Education and Urban Society

school academies), one of the strongest in the nation, has put particularly competitive pressures on schools in this area, with a higher proportion of charter schools than even the District of Columbia.

Altogether, there are 40 schools in the K-12 range in Holland. Two of those were excluded from this analysis because they are specialized schools for at-risk children and therefore do not compete with the other schools. Of the remaining 38, 23 are public schools from three different districts (6 secondary, including 2 high schools and 4 middle-level schools); 12 are private (including 9 that belong to religious school associations and 3 that are independent); and 3 are charter schools, 2 of which are run by a for-profit education management organization.

Using Sandström and Bergström’s (2002) framework, this LEM would appear then to be one of the most competitive in the nation, based on the proportion of students in independent schools, with all students having options of at least switching within the public sector as well. However, although charters were intended to provide competition for public schools, one unintended consequence in Michigan is that they often compete directly with private schools, offering a “private-style,” but tuition-free, education for families already in the private sector (Bracey, 2002; Horn & Miron, 2000).

And it appears that structural and policy factors are having an impact in increasing the level of competition between different types of schools.

According to data from the area (county-level) intermediate school district, when charters first arrived on the scene a decade ago, private schools held about 18.5% of student enrollment in the area. Although the immediate impact of charter school competition was apparent in the sudden decrease in public schools’ share of the market (see Table 2), continued growth of the charter sector came at the expense of private schools’ market share.

These dynamics are further evident in entry-level grades in the different sectors. Kindergarten enrollment has declined substantially for both Holland Christian and Holland public schools in recent years while growing in local charter schools and surrounding districts (see Table 3).

Thus, competition has risen significantly over the last decade since the introduction of charter schools and open enrollment, changing the nature of schooling in the area. As a local superintendent noted, Holland Christian Schools, St. Francis de Sales School and other private schools in the area joined with Holland Public Schools in a cooperative, neighbor-to-neighbor manner to open the doors of education to the children of this community. Competition was limited to the athletic field, and supporting

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Lubienski / Marketing Schools

127

Table 2 Market Share Trends for Public, Private, and Charter Schools % District Schools

% Private Schools

% Charter Schools

81.1 80.1 80.2 80.2 80.1 79.9 79.9 80.0

18.5 18.5 18.0 17.5 17.2 17.1 17.0 16.6

0.1 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.3

1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003

Table 3 5-Year Enrollment Trends for Kindergarten Year 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 5 year

Holland Christian

Holland Public

Eagle Crest Charter

Vanderbilt Charter

West Ottawa Public

140 131 128 162 124 –12%

463 414 426 433 427 –8%

71 76 76 76 76 +7%

52 55 54 55 56 +8%

584 574 611 596 641 +10%

the education and responsible citizenship of every student was a priority. . . .

The rules have changed. . . . This change in philosophy has resulted in a shift from the general community commitment for a traditional, broad-based, long-term support for public education to a new individualized era of a marketdriven, limited scope, short-term promotion of educational ‘consumerism.’2

The local Christian schools’ superintendent concurs, observing that his association of six schools had a cooperative relationship with the local public schools before the arrival of charter schools but now increasingly sees these former allies as adversaries (personal interview, May 2003). On the other hand, charter school officials believe that competition has forced local public schools to strengthen programs in order to stem the loss of students. Although schools did not report (nor do they advertise) programmatic responses to competition, the growth of marketing budgets in the area in recent years—upwards of $120,000 for the local Christian schools and a

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

128

Education and Urban Society

similar amount for the central district—indicates an emphasis on marketing as a strategic response to competition (Lubienski, 2005).

Data and Methods Background information on the racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and academic characteristics at schools was collected from the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) Private School Universe Survey and Common Core of Data (CCD) and from Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation Service, which contracts with Michigan to produce comprehensive schoollevel data. To better understand local competitive dynamics and dimensions, researchers conducted open-ended interviews with school administrators from a stratified random sample of 10 schools and associations (district and religious school offices), including 4 with public school administrators, 2 with charter school officials, and 4 with private school administrators.

Participants were asked about their competitors, the effects of competition on enrollment and curricula, and their marketing strategies. Researchers also visited schools for several open-house events.

The primary data for this study, however, are the promotional materials for the schools in the area. Material that would normally be offered to parents of prospective students was collected from all schools, with the exception of one small, independent, religious-sect school (for a participation rate of 97.4%). Schools provided a variety of materials, including pamphlets, videos and CD-ROMS, booklets, annual reports, links to Web sites, refrigerator magnets, and admission packets. In all, 107 materials were gathered.

To understand these data, this analysis drew from media studies in adapting a framework for content analysis, holding to a fourfold distinction between indications of context, content, target audience, and production values (see Hesketh & Knight, 1998). Each of these categories includes multiple items built around pertinent subthemes (see the appendix), with a total of 85 items that were used to code materials for this study. For each school, researchers noted the presence or absence of different types of information. Because of the low-inference nature of most items, interrater reliability was very high (95.71% agreement using consensus estimate; see Stemler, 2004). Data were thus arranged for analysis by column and row percentages to determine the frequency of use of different types of promotional information within and across different types of schools.

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Lubienski / Marketing Schools

129

Table 4 Most and Least Frequently Used Information Much Activity

Little Activity

+ Achievement + Instruction and academicsa + Symbols/logos + Student characteristicsa + Academic facilities + Human resources + Other parental concerns (e.g., character, safety, convenience) a

– Athletic facilities – Instructional innovation – Value added – Financial assistance – Patriotism – Entrance exams – Interviews with applicants

a. Required in annual reports.

Findings When looking simply at the raw numbers of occurrences of different types of information in promotional materials, certain themes begin to emerge, shedding some light on what schools believe will be important to prospective clients. Table 4 shows which types of information were most and least likely to be used, in general. Information on organizational inputs such as instruction and academics, student characteristics, academic facilities, and human resources were used quite frequently, as were raw outputs such as test scores. However, most of that information was provided in the annual reports required of public schools in the sample and appeared rarely in other materials. Symbols and logos and information on academic facilities were the most frequently used items that were not required of schools.

On the other hand, very little emphasis was placed on the instructional innovations in schools, the value-added effects, sports facilities, or admissions issues (because most schools are undersubscribed).

To understand how governance structure enables or predisposes different types of schools to use different information, the frequency with which different types of information were used by each school was calculated for all noncharter public, charter, and private schools. Table 5 lists the eight most frequently employed items for each school type.

Public schools tend to be relatively active in providing information on issues of organizational outputs and student characteristics. However— with the exception of logos and mottos, and information on facilities—most of this information was available only in the annual reports required by the state. Public schools are less active in promoting themselves through other

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

130

Education and Urban Society

Table 5 Most Frequently Used Information, by School Type Public a

Student characteristics Test scoresa Honors, accreditationa Parent involvementa Instructiona Retention ratea Facilities Logo, motto

Charter

Private

Instruction Test scores Honors, accreditation Safety Logo, motto Personal images Tuition free Uniforms/dress code

Logo, motto Tuition Religious symbols Personal images Community Religious themes Parent involvement Human resources

a. Required in annual reports.

types of information that are also of interest to prospective parents (academic programs, extracurricular activities, and other themes such as community and patriotism). Private schools are not bound by these reporting requirements and consequently stressed different types of information in seeking to attract students. Although they are less likely to use information on organizational inputs and outputs, private schools employ a relatively strong emphasis on more emotional themes such as community, religious values, and patriotism. Charter schools offer more commercialized materials in which they choose not to employ the information required of public schools in their annual reports. They are more likely to stress academic programs and themes, often in differentiating themselves from (perceptions of) public schools or equating themselves with private schools: character education and morality, safety, uniforms, patriotism, and their tuition-free nature. And although there are distinct differences between school types, it is also worthwhile to note areas of overlap. The use of logos and mottos was relatively prominent in the promotional materials of all types of schools, especially with private schools, and slightly less so for charter schools.

Discussion Perhaps the most notable pattern emerging from the data involves the differences and commonalities in the promotional materials across sectors.

The most direct or “hard” information is typically available in the annual reports that the public schools are required to produce. Outside of that format, public schools tend to focus on less substantive appeals through such

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Lubienski / Marketing Schools

131

devices as logos, or to capitalize on the advantages of superior facilities.

Private schools gravitate heavily toward symbolic or emotional appeals— as one private school official noted, they “have to sell to the heart, not to the head” (personal interview, May 2003). These schools typically used direct information only around issues of tuition and human resources. Information about tuition affordability is critical for these schools to counteract competition from tuition-free charter schools that seek to market a comparable educational experience.3 Likewise, human resource information on teaching (advanced degrees, class size) is important for the more established religious schools to demonstrate legitimacy and competency of their noncertified teaching staff. Charter schools, as the new player in the area, are more likely to mix direct information with appeals to other parental concerns on nonacademic issues and thereby juxtapose themselves with public schools (or common perceptions of problems in public schools). The local independent charter high school was established by parents to offer a college-prep option in the area, and emphasized its academic orientation and student achievement. However, this and the for-profit charter schools also played heavily upon concerns for safety, order, and discipline.

In fact, when considered within and across different sectors, it appears that most schools do not market their services in ways that would indicate that education in competitive environments exhibits substantial search qualities. Hard information available from public schools was typically that which was required in annual reports; other materials tended much more toward “softer,” more emotional appeals. Likewise, materials from private schools relied heavily on symbols and themes. Charter schools were most likely to use direct information on school processes or outcomes, but these schools represent less than 8% of the sample, and even these schools relied heavily on more emotional selling points having to do with images and symbols. Perhaps most important, although there was some mention of raw test scores for some of the schools, there was essentially no effort to inform prospective parents about a school’s actual effectiveness. That is, although achievement test scores may fulfill a role as proxy information for the hypothetical rational consumer seeking to find the most effective schools, they probably tell that consumer more about who attends the school rather than what value-added effects the school has for current or future students. From the information provided, it is not clear whether schools are producing or attracting “better” students, but the emphasis on marketing to particular types of students suggests that schools sense incentives to do the latter.

Indeed, in view of the types of information used to sell school services, parents are left with an inconsistent and uneven knowledge base from

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

132

Education and Urban Society

which to make reasonable judgments about the relative merits of different schools. Assessments of actual school effectiveness depend largely on transparency for consumers to make fully informed choices. But school processes are necessarily opaque, with schools enjoying informational advantages over consumers (Brown, 1992; Cobb, 1992; Hill, Pierce, & Guthrie, 1997; Walberg & Bast, 2003). Surrogate information provides a degree of translucency for consumers positioned to make a rational choice.

Yet, these advantages occur in uneven social landscapes, where schools compete to enhance their relative status. Consequently, schools have incentives to capitalize on informational advantages in playing to preferred consumers, whose patronage would enhance a school’s position in the market, through allusions to (if not actual evidence of) the things that they may value: orderliness, safety, symbols connoting prestige. Schools have disincentives to empower consumers with better, more actionable information.

Although this may be expected, it may also be dangerous. In a racialized context such as Holland, schools may play upon prejudicial attitudes regarding not only what makes a good school but also what type of student would attend one (and thus how a parent would know which is a “good” school). Traditionally a mostly White community, Holland has seen a substantial influx of Hispanic/Latino families in recent decades, now representing more than 20% of the population according to U.S. census data, but constituting about one third of the students enrolled in Holland public schools (White students currently make up a bit more than one half the enrollment).

Although one might think that parents are choosing other options for superior organizational effectiveness, even the best information available does not support this assumption. Consider the following examples (see Table 6).

Table 6 demonstrates that local elementary charter schools are growing, largely by attracting fewer minority students and fewer economically disadvantaged students than the closest neighboring public schools. This is despite the fact that test scores are very comparable—and not substantially superior—to neighboring public schools. (That is, the public schools have done a comparable job despite the fact that they are working with students with fewer English skills and higher rates of poverty—suggesting superior effectiveness.) It is important to note that the public school district provides promotional information in both English and Spanish and advertises in the Spanish-language newspaper. The charter schools do not.

Similar dynamics are evident with the personal images used in the marketing materials. All schools have promotional materials that include representations of students or teachers. The materials from charter schools significantly underrepresent Hispanic students, who make up 13% to 25%

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Lubienski / Marketing Schools

133

Table 6 Intake and Test Scores at Comparison Schools Vanderbilt Eagle Crest Pine Black River Holland Charter Van Raalte Charter Creek Holland Charter High High Elementary Elementary Elementary Elementary District School School School School School School % White % Hispanic % Economically disadvantaged MEAP participation rate MEAP pass rate

56 33

70 20

64 27

67 25

28 60

78 13

30 44

32

6

29

18

74

18

58

81 56

80 62

52 66

100 49

85 39

90 44

93 43

Note: MEAP = Michigan Educational Assessment Program.

of the enrollment at area charter schools but do not appear in any of the human images in these materials. The local private schools have almost no Hispanic students, which is reflected in the images in their promotional materials, but Asian American students (about 1.5%-3% of local private schools) are disproportionately represented in marketing efforts— for example, constituting 15% to 30% of the students in different promotional videos. This suggests the possibility that different types of students represent differing levels of value for schools in competitive markets (see Ball & Gewirtz, 1997; Rothstein, 2004). Although some have advanced controlled choice as a way to promote integration, competitive incentives may induce the opposite effect.

Implications Although reformers often speak of the market model for education, there are, in fact, different types of markets. The quasi-market that is emerging in K-12 education in the United States and elsewhere is often guided by the blunt application of what has become known as market theory—consumer choice, competition between organizations. But nuanced differences between different types of consumer markets are important, as are the peculiarities of public sectors such as education (Lubienski, 2005). Specifics of market structure guide the political economy of different sectors, where essential considerations such as number of providers, ease of entry, and consumer information indicate the appropriate role of market and nonmarket forces in optimizing the production and distribution of a good. Without taking into account such factors, the introduction of market forces into a previously

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

134

Education and Urban Society

nonmarket sector can have unpredictable and sometimes detrimental consequences.

As noted earlier, the types of qualities that a good exhibits informs the role of nonmarket interventions to guarantee adequate information to consumers of that good. Quite often, markets themselves generate the information necessary for consumers to make reasoned decisions. But certain goods and services produce informational asymmetries between consumers and producers, giving sellers an advantage in a world where the buyer must beware. These are more typical in goods and services based upon (a) substantial technical expertise or (b) where production processes are largely obscured from consumers’ oversight. For instance, medical care entails both of these attributes, where a high degree of expert knowledge is essential and consumers typically do not inspect how medicines are manufactured or how a magnetic resonance imaging machine operates. In such cases, consumers must trust providers.

In fact, many goods and services exhibit the characteristics. As Walberg and Bast (2003) note, markets often develop corrective mechanisms for these asymmetries over time: “The presence of asymmetric information is not uncommon in the marketplace, and it is routinely overcome by experience, producer reputations, guarantees and warranties, and personal and public sources of information” (p. 65). Advertising is a primary source of this information: Producers themselves provide vast amounts of information. . . .

[A]dvertising enables consumers to choose wisely among the many vehicles produced by car and truck manufacturers. Car companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on advertising to distinguish their products from those of competitors. This advertising routinely reports on awards and rankings issued by such third parties as Road and Driver and J. D. Power and Associates. (pp. 65-66)

(Of course, advertising can also be used to obscure—few would argue that political advertisements tell us much that is useful.)

Education depends on some level of technical expertise. To an even greater degree, however, the production processes in education are difficult to observe. Evidence of organizational effectiveness in schools is not clear, even with sophisticated research techniques, and furthermore is difficult to convey to parents. If markets cannot correct for these informational imbalances between providers and consumers, then the use of market mechanisms to produce or distribute public goods can be problematic: “There are dangers in the simplistic introduction of competition into areas of human

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Lubienski / Marketing Schools

135

services. In these areas the consumer’s knowledge is usually limited; it is more difficult for parents to evaluate education than, say, a can of beans” (Etzioni, quoted in Cobb, 1992, p. xi). Therefore, markets often need external regulation in order to operate effectively.

The question, then, is whether education markets self-correct information asymmetries through competitive incentives. The weight of the evidence from this case does not appear to lend support to that hope. In Holland, promotional information appears to suggest that schools in competitive environments market their services largely as a credence good, where, in lieu of hard evidence, consumers are left to choose between options simply on beliefs or presumptions. Relying on word-of-mouth is also likely to exacerbate inequities in access because social networks tend to be homogeneous. Understandably, families (along with researchers) have difficulty discerning institutional effectiveness (as distinguished from, say, family background or peer effects). In such cases, competition is not generating the information consumers need to make reasoned choices (in fact, most hard information typical of search goods in this case comes from government-required reporting). Furthermore, education does not really lend itself to the “experience” that comes from repeat purchases. Although there are constant opportunities in a place such as Holland to choose another school, there are also substantive costs associated with switching schools— costs borne by the students. Indeed, without qualities that are obvious to consumers, promotional efforts for credence goods may compete to further obscure imperfections and may further tilt informational advantages away from consumers by elevating style and symbols as primary determinants of choice. “Branding” and marketing to “affinity groups” are more common practices with credence goods, but such dynamics should cause some concern in a sector devoted to open access and integration (see Gee, 2001).

Credence goods typically require some sort of external, nonmarket intervention in order to provide consumers with useful information. This is often done through government regulation and requirements—consumer labels, Environmental Protection Agency mileage ratings, and so forth. Consumers can also be protected through nongovernment organizations such as consumer advocacy groups, ratings services, or professional organizations.

However, these often depend on government oversight or enforcement or take on quasigovernment functions such as licensing or professional standards. But competition alone does not always generate the incentives necessary for a rational consumer model to operate effectively. Although extramarket interventions (state requirements, accreditation) can serve to help generate some information for parents, the competitive incentives that encourage credence-type marketing strategies are still very much in play.

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

136

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Content

Student characteristics

Curriculum/pedagogy

Human resources

Facilities

Value-added outputs

Stated evidence of organizational outputs Raw outputs

Stated evidence of organizational inputs

Appendix Coding Items Technological resources (computers, labs) Academic facilities/resources (library, studio) Athletic facilities/resources (gym, pool) Other information on facilities (specify): Teacher–student ratio/class size Teacher expertise (credentials, advanced degrees) Noncore teachers/classes Race/ethnicity of teachers Other information on human resources (specify): Curriculum/pedagogy—reading Curriculum/pedagogy—math Other information on general curriculum/pedagogy (specify): Race/ethnicity of students Free/reduced-price meals Students receiving financial assistance Other allusions to variety (learning styles, etc.)

Other information on student characteristics (specify): Test scores Graduation rate Drop-out rate Honors List of universities % going to college Postgraduation jobs Other information on raw outputs (specify): Evidence of value-added Other (specify):

137

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Content

Nontext images

Other selling points

Symbols, photos, phrases

Extracurricular activities/options

Other parental concerns

Academics

Diversity

“Diversity” Ethnic/racial breakdowns Financial assistance available Other evidence of diversity (specify): “Traditional”/“basics” “Innovative” College prep Advance placement classes “Achievement”/“excellence”/“quality” Individualized Foreign language Fine arts “Alternative” Other information on academics (specify): Character/moral values Safety Extended care available Convenience Transportation Other indicators of parental concerns (specify): Sports Clubs Other information on extracurricular activities/options (specify): School symbol/logo School motto Year established Pictures of kids in uniforms Religious symbols Race/ethnicity of students Race/ethnicity of staff/teachers Adults as helpers Adults as leaders Other symbols, photos, or phrases (specify): (continued)

138

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Themes

Exclusivity/inclusivity

Miscellaneous notes

Production values

Expected reception

Indicators of target audience

Themes from text

Community

Implicit costs

Stated costs

Annual tuition Application fee “Tuition-free” Other information on stated costs (specify): Uniforms/dress code State of faith (noted or required) Parent involvement (required or expected) Applicant interviews Entrance exam Other information on implicit costs (specify): By educational interest By other pre-existing characteristics Other information on community (specify): Religion Patriotism Community Choice Other prominent themes from text Intended audience defined Reading difficulty score— Non-English language Other information on expected reception (specify): Glossy or photocopied?

Unique shapes, styles, formats Other info on production values (specify):

Appendix (continued)

Lubienski / Marketing Schools

139

Notes 1. The focus here is on informational strategies: what are often described as “advertising” but would be more appropriately termed “promotional efforts” in the current case. The terms are used somewhat interchangeably here, keeping with common usage.

2. Superintendent’s letter to the board of education, February 12, 2001.

3. Explicit price competition between private schools appears to be rather rare. One school was advertising discounts for families first enrolling, but denominational differences appeared to preclude the possibility that families were switching between private schools.

References Ball, S. J., & Gewirtz, S. (1997). Girls in the education market: Choice, competition and complexity. Gender and Education, 9(2), 207-222.

Bird, W. L. (1999). “Better living”: Advertising, media, and the new vocabulary of business leadership, 1935-1955. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Bracey, G. W. (2002). The war against America’s public schools: Privatizing schools, commercializing education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bradsher, K. (2002). High and mighty: SUVs—The world’s most dangerous vehicles and how they got that way. New York: Public Affairs.

Brighouse, H. (2000). School choice and social justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Brouillette, M. J. (1999, Fall). Public schools exchange monopoly power for marketing prowess. Michigan Education Report, 99. Retrieved July 10, 2003, from http://www .educationreport.org/print.asp?ID=2195 Brown, B. W. (1992). Why governments run schools. Economics of Education Review, 11(4), 287-300.

Center for Education Reform. (2000). Charter schools today: Changing the face of American education. Washington, DC: Author.

Cobb, C. W. (1992). Responsive schools, renewed communities. San Francisco: ICS Press.

Darby, M., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16, 67-88.

Davies, B., & Ellison, L. (1997). Strategic marketing for schools: How to harmonise marketing and strategic development for an effective school. London: Pitman.

Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. In W. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education, 2000-2001 (Vol. 25, pp. 99-125). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Gifford, M., Phillips, K., & Ogle, M. (2000). Five year charter school study: An overview. Arizona education analysis. Phoenix, AZ: Goldwater Institute, Center for Market-Based Education.

Halchin, L. E. (1999). And this parent went to market: Education as a public versus private good. In R. Maranto, S. Milliman, F. Hess, & A. Gresham (Eds.), School choice in the real world: Lessons from Arizona charter schools (pp. 19-38). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Harvey, J. A., & Busher, H. (1996). Marketing schools and consumer choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 10(4), 26-32.

Hesketh, A. J., & Knight, P. T. (1998). Secondary school prospectuses and educational markets. Cambridge Journal of Education, 28(1), 21-36.

Hill, P. T., Pierce, L. C., & Guthrie, J. W. (1997). Reinventing public education: How contracting can transform America’s schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

140

Education and Urban Society

Holcomb, J. H. (1993). Educational marketing. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Horn, J., & Miron, G. (2000). The impact of charter schools on public and parochial schools: Case studies of school districts in western and central Michigan. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, The Evaluation Center.

Howell, W. G., & Peterson, P. E. (2004). Uses of theory in randomized field trials: Lessons from school voucher research on disaggregation, missing data, and the generalization of findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 634-657.

Kalra, A., & Goodstein, R. C. (1998). The impact of advertising positioning strategies on consumer price sensitivity. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(2), 210-224.

Kates, W. (2001, August 29). Public schools respond to competition with marketing efforts.

Associated Press. Retrieved on September 3, 2001, from the www:asbj.com/extra/extra.html Kirp, D. L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kowalski, T. J. (Ed.). (2000). Public relations in schools (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Krueger, A. B., & Zhu, P. (2004a). Another look at the New York City school voucher experiment. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 658-698.

Krueger, A. B., & Zhu, P. (2004b). Inefficiency, subsample selection bias, and nonrobustness: A response to Paul E. Peterson and William G. Howell. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 718-728.

Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.

Labaree, D. F. (2000). No exit: Public education as an inescapably public good. In L. Cuban & D. Shipps (Eds.), Reconstructing the common good in education: Coping with intractable American dilemmas (pp. 110-129). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lehman, J. G. (1999). And now a word from our sponsors—Your local public schools.

Midland, MI: Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Levin, H. M. (1987). Education as a public and private good. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6, 628-641.

Lober, I. M. (1993). Promoting your school: A public relations handbook. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.

Lubienski, C. (2000). Whither the common good? A critique of home schooling. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1), 207-232.

Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395-443.

Lubienski, C. (2005). Public schools in marketized environments: Shifting incentives and unintended consequences of competition-based educational reforms. American Journal of Education, 111(4), 464-486.

Lumby, J., & Foskett, N. (Eds.). (1999). Managing external relations in schools and colleges.

London: Paul Chapman.

Mackinac Center for Public Policy. (1999a). Privatization in education (No. MPR1999-03).

Midland, MI: Author.

Mackinac Center for Public Policy. (1999b, January 18). Public schools step up marketing.

Michigan Education Report. Retrieved December 1, 2000, from http://www.mackinac.org/ article.asp?ID=1587 Maranto, R., Milliman, S., Hess, F., & Gresham, A. (1999). Do charter schools improve district schools? Three approaches to the question. In R. Maranto, S. Milliman, F. Hess, & A. Gresham (Eds.), School choice in the real world: Lessons from Arizona charter schools (pp. 129-141). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 Š 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Lubienski / Marketing Schools

141

Marchand, R. (1998). Creating the corporate soul: The rise of public relations and corporate imagery in American big business. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Masters, W. A., & Sanogo, D. (2002). Welfare gains from quality certification of infant foods: Results from a market experiment in Mali. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(4), 974-989.

Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2002). What’s public about charter schools? Lessons learned about choice and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Nelson, P. (1974). Advertising as information. Journal of Political Economy, 81(4), 729-754.

Peterson, P. E., & Howell, W. G. (2004). Efficiency, bias, and classification schemes: A response to Alan B. Krueger and Pei Zhu. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 699-717.

Rofes, E. (1998). How are school districts responding to charter laws and charter schools?

Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the Black–White achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Sack, J. L. (2002). Charter pioneers force public school officials to modify operations. Education Week, 21(32), 18-19.

Sandström, F. M., & Bergström, F. (2002). School vouchers in practice: Competition won’t hurt you! (Working Paper No. 578). Stockholm: Research Institute of Industrial Economics.

Savoye, C. (2001, April 26). Feeling heat of competition, public schools try advertising.

Christian Science Monitor Electronic Edition. Retrieved April 26, 2001, from http://www .csmonitor.com/durable/2001/2004/2024/text/p2015s2001.html Schlosser, E. (2001). Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Smith, K. B. (2003). The ideology of education: The commonwealth, the market, and America’s schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(4).

Retrieved March 5, 2004, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=4 Tirole, J. (1988). The theory of industrial organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Walberg, H. J., & Bast, J. L. (2003). Education and capitalism: How overcoming our fear of markets and economics can improve America’s schools. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

Whitty, G. (1997). Creating quasi-markets in education: A review of recent research on parental choice and school autonomy in three countries. In W. L. Boyd & J. G. Cibulka (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 22, pp. 3-47). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Whitty, G., & Power, S. (1997). Quasi-markets and curriculum control: Making sense of recent education reform in England and Wales. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(2), 219-240.

Whitty, G., & Power, S. (2000). Marketization and privatization in mass education systems.

International Journal of Educational Development, 20, 93-107.

Christopher Lubienski is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Organization and Leadership at the University of Illinois, where he is also a fellow at the Forum on the Future of Public Education. His research interests center on market mechanisms in education and the political economy of schooling. Recently, he has been focusing on schools’ organizational responses to competitive local education markets, particularly in school marketing. His work has appeared in the American Educational Research Journal (2006), the American Journal of Education (2005), Phi Delta Kappan (2005), and Educational Policy (2006). The research for this article was conducted while he was a postdoctoral fellow in the Advanced Studies Program at Brown University Downloaded from http://eus.sagepub.com by Juan Pardo on November 14, 2007 © 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.