The capitalisation of school choice into property prices: A case study of grammar and all ability state schools in Buckinghamshire, UK

Neoliberalising Education: New Geographies of Private Tuition, Class Privilege, and Minority Ethnic Advancement

“…However, the dream of equality has not been delivered as state education continues to favour wealthier social groups. School choice, for example, favours those who can afford increased house prices proximate to academically high-performing schools, and those with the cultural and economic capital to choose out-of-catchment schools (Gamsu 2018;Orford 2018;Yoon et al 2018). Transition to secondary school (at age 11) remains a significant moment of social sorting, with educational markets particularly fraught in areas of gentrification (Butler et al 2013;Farrales 2017;Frank and Weck 2018).…”

“…The role of parental affluence in facilitating children's access to private tuitionand its concomitant economic, cultural and social capitalsraises urgent questions about class reproduction and social mobility (Craig et al 2014). Previous research demonstrates the importance of middle-class economic power in accessing high quality education through the purchase of homes proximate to high-attainment schools (Hamnett & Butler 2011;Orford 2018), but to this we must now add the capacity to purchase private tuition. These investments matter because structural changes in the education sector (e.g.…”

Situating social policy analysis: possibilities from quantitative and qualitative GIS

“…In many Western countries including the UK, parents have a choice as to which state school their children may attend and this can lead to competition for the more popular schools and thus the application of admissions criteria to select students. These criteria usually include catchment areas and distance to school (Singleton et al, ) and this can lead to some parents moving close to good schools, pushing up house prices and rents in those local areas (Cheshire and Sheppard, 2004;Glen and Nellis, 2010;Orford, 2018). This 'selection by mortgage' (Harris et al, 2016) can lead to residential sorting of neighbourhoods, reinforcing social class differences and, as a consequence, exacerbating existing inequalities in the state education system.…”

“…GIS can also be used to model both catchment areas and distance and relate this to educational performance (for example Burgess and Briggs, 2010), income identifiers (such as children in the receipt of free school meals -see Chapter [[chapter 8?]] and also Hamnett and Butler, 2011) and house prices (for example Glen and Nellis, 2010;Orford, 2018).…”

Tenure inequality, public facilities and housing prices: Evidence from Shenzhen, China

“…Since Tiebout’s landmark study on people voting with their feet (Tiebout, 1956), public facilities such as public transit (Connolly et al, 2019), schools (Chan et al, 2020; Orford, 2018), and public parks (Grilli et al, 2020) have been regarded as significant factors in shaping housing prices, which is known as the capitalization effect of public facilities. A growing body of literature has stressed that the capitalization effect of the same public facility within the same city varies across housing submarkets and time (Fernandez and Bucaram, 2019), and this heterogeneity stems from the varied housing demand among homebuyers and the regional supply structure.…”