Quasi-Markets, Competition, and School Choice Lotteries

Abstract

This article problematizes the lottery as a taken-for-granted concept, which is normatively understood as a neutral process rewarding its participant based on luck. The article adopts a policy problematization frame that interrogates the limits of normative concepts. To problematize the lottery system, this article engages with the two movies on school choice, The Lottery and Waiting for “Superman”, as “instances” through the conceptual lens of a quasi-market. The main argument is that the lottery is a particular discursive practice co-constituting the competitive frame of education quasi-markets. In identifying how the spirit of competitiveness underlies a competition, and by extension the lottery system, the article posits that in a competitive setting, competitors are primarily concerned with maximizing inequality among each other.

Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Globalization on National Education Policy

“…The results of this study indicate that the model of national education policies carried out shows diversity in responding to the effects of globalization, namely funding for education, curriculum, social culture, teachers, politics, quality of education, educational technology, students, dissemination of education, science education, and higher education. Globalization is often only accepted as a necessity, even though as Chew (2019) states that the problems of education policy are only understood as an examination of the main assumptions that underlie the concept that is taken for granted. Ramirez (2019) states that an approach with consideration of educational policy initiatives separately has caused many policy conflicts, complications, and unintended consequences, that ineffective policies are often because they have input losses.…”

Social Justice Leadership in Educational Market Contexts

“…First, markets typically require the integration of performance-based accountability systems with standardized curricula and testing. This coupling allows consumers (i.e., families) to differentiate among products (i.e., individual schools) (Chew 2019). Furthermore, these accountability systems serve as a mechanism that allow for "under-performing" schools to be replaced with better options (Quinn and Ogburn 2020).…”

“…First, the ideals of equity and justice (and public education) are ultimately irreconcilable with those of the market, which creates "winners" and "losers" (Quinn and Ogburn 2020). Within markets, winners are students who get into desirable schools while others inevitably lose (Chew 2019). Describing how this system is at odds with the ideals of education, Connell (2013) writes, "The exclusive rights needed to establish ownership of something, and therefore, the possibility of buying and selling it, are antithetical to the inclusive character of educational relationships" (p. 283).…”

“…To address the need to perform, schools may seek out students who can enhance accountability scores while avoiding those requiring additional resourcestypically traditionally marginalized students (DiMartino and Jessen 2016; Jennings 2010; Robenstine 2000;Sanders et al 2018). While market proponents claim that educational markets should "lift all boats," in reality the choice process systematically privileges certain families in a way that perpetuates class and racial segregation (Chew 2019).…”

Disrupting the representational limit of abductively-driven research: A problematization of the link between abduction and representational thought

“…As such, for researchers who are interested in the 'new', there is a focus on allowing research to be driven abductively (e.g., Brinkmann, 2014;Reichertz, 2014;Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2012). As an education researcher who is interested in alternative, or new, understandings of social phenomena (Chew, 2020), I have enlisted abduction in a qualitative study of the school choice lottery system in the United States (Chew, 2019). In adopting abduction to drive my study, I also began exploring if abduction is indeed the be all and end all for allowing the creation of new concepts, ideas and insights.…”