School Choice and the Branding of Private Schools

Transcription

1 1 School Choice and the Branding of Milwaukee Private Schools Albert Cheng* Julie Trivitt Patrick J. Wolf University of Arkansas EDRE Working Paper No Last Updated August 2015 Abstract Objective. Brands communicate information to consumers about a good or service. As school choice policies become more widespread and more parents are faced with the task of choosing a school for their child, schools may be branding themselves to differentiate themselves from other schools. This article seeks to determine whether schools possess name brands that influence the choices of parents. Methods. We use multinomial logit to model the relationship between the educational preferences and the selection of schools for 2,600 parents participating in a large, urban private-school voucher program. Results. We find that parental choices are systematic. Parents who value particular school characteristics tend to choose schools with brands that espouse those characteristics. Conclusion. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that schools carry brands that communicate information to parents who then use the brands to help them select schools for their children. Keywords: Demand for Schooling, Privatization in Public Education, Religious Schools, School Choice *Corresponding Author; axc070@uark.edu

2 2 School Choice and the Branding of Milwaukee Private Schools Historically, Tiebout (1956) modelled school choice as a component of the housing location choice. School choice, however, has recently expanded from location-based to less restrictive forms including public charter schools and private-school choice. The fact that where a child lives is less determinative of where a child attends school is reshaping the institution of public education. Specifically, this growth of schooling alternatives is changing the behaviors of consumers and providers of schooling. Parents are increasingly tasked with choosing a school for their child that would best meet their needs, but information to guide school choosers is not always available, accurate, costless to acquire, or comprehendible (Stewart & Wolf 2014; Stigler, 196; Trivitt & Wolf, 2011). To facilitate information-gathering, providers in a product market sector often signal characteristics about their product through branding. Providers of schooling may be engaging in these branding practices. Previous research has found evidence of a Catholic-school brand among private schools in Washington DC. Parents desiring a highly-disciplined environment, high academic standards, and moral instruction are more likely to eventually send their children to a Catholic school (Trivitt & Wolf, 2011). The Catholic brand exists, in part, due to the highlyorganized, parochial nature of the Catholic Church and the concentration of Catholic schools in the area. In this paper, we investigate whether other private school brands, besides the Catholic school brand, exist and function to assist parents in choosing schools. We use surveys from a school voucher program in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that offers a broad array of schooling options to assess whether the selection of schools by parents reflect such a branding paradigm. In the next section, we discuss the role of market brands and describe existing school brands in order to propose research hypotheses. We then outline our research methodology

3 3 before presenting our findings that brand-based school characteristics valued by parents are predictive of the type of school that they select for their children. We conclude by discussing these findings, linking it to other findings from other research and suggesting some implications for policy and future inquiry. Background The Role of Brands Consumers seek to maximize their utility in choosing among options given a budget constraint. In the absence of search costs, increasing the choice set may make consumers better off and cannot make them worse off. If information is costly to acquire or process, the existence of a large choice set may lead to fewer options considered or choices not made, called the choice overload hypothesis. Consumers respond to choice overload by ignoring many of their options or failing to choose, resulting in a potential welfare loss (Iyenger & Lepper, 2000; Kuksov & Villas-Boas, 2010; Reutskaj & Hogarth, 2009; Scheibehenne, Greifenender, & Todd, 2010; Shah & Wolford, 2007; Stigler, 1961). When faced with potentially suboptimal consumer outcomes, brand affiliation can alter market outcomes and may help alleviate the welfare losses associated with choice overload by reducing information search costs. Brands play multiple roles in the consumer choice process (Erdem, Swait, & Louviere, 2002), particularly providing shortcuts that signal information about product characteristics (Spence, 1974). The more specific the brand signal is, the more heavily it is relied upon (Dawar & Parker, 1994). Brands are more successful information signals when the information they convey is accurate for goods and services (Leischnig, Geigenmuller, & Enke 2012; Triole, 1990).

4 4 Brands are especially influential when consumers (a) need to reduce purchase risk (Jacoby, Olson, & Haddock, 1971) and (b) lack the expertise to assess quality independently (Rao & Monroe, 1988). Those conditions apply to the choice of school, where the cost of a bad choice is high and few parents possess professional expertise with which to judge school quality. Brand affiliation may be even more important in the school decision for families when vouchers and public-school choice programs negate the information typically conveyed by product price. Previous research suggests that parents seek informational shortcuts when choosing schools or teachers (Jacob & Lefgren, 2007; Schneider, Teske, & Marschall, 2000; Schneider & Buckley, 2002). However, it is unclear how or even whether brands play a role in the process. Examples of School Brands and Research Hypotheses Brands and the value of brand equity have been widely studied in the product market but rarely examined in the service or non-profit sectors (Berry, 2000). Despite this lack of research, brand identities are now part of intentional marketing strategies of schools as school choice proliferates (National Association of Independent Schools, 2010). Some of the early examples of intentional school branding come from education management organizations, which are forprofit firms that contract to provide school administrative and management services. These firms, such as Edison Schools, Mosaica Education, and Aspire Public Schools, have relied on franchising expansion strategies with strong brand affiliations. We also see school branding through public charter school networks such as KIPP, YES Prep, Noble High Schools, and Success Academy Charter Schools (Bennett, 2008). Religious private schools have a particular brand because they are faith-based. Catholic schools, for instance, have been designed and implemented as a franchise, to operate similarly in key respects while serving communities of Catholic families throughout the country. The

5 5 National Catholic Education Association (2013) uses affiliation with the Catholic Church as a brand signal that denotes universally (a) high academic standards, (b) discipline and moral values, and (c) religious instruction (Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993; Cohen-Zada & Justman, 2005; Trivitt & Wolf, 2011; Sikkink, 2012). The Lutheran Church is similar to the Catholic Church in its highly-organized, parochial structure. A Lutheran education similarly encompasses both academic and religious instruction, emphasizing both the intellectual and the spiritual development of the child (Isch, 2002). However, Catholic schools are more oriented than other Christian schools towards pursuing the common good and social justice (Scanlan, 2008). These aims are demonstrated in the Catholic schools effort to make tuition affordable for families from low-income backgrounds (Bryk et al., 1993; Trivitt & Wolf, 2011). These observations lead to our first two hypotheses: H1: Parents who value strong disciplinary school climates and religious education tend to choose Catholic or Lutheran schools rather than secular private schools or public schools. Selection of a particular faith-based school also aligns with the personal religious preference of the parent. H2: Parents who are seeking an affordable private-school option are more likely to choose Catholic schools. Secular private schools in the U.S. also maintain distinctive brands. Waldorf and Montessori private schools are popular among parents who desire a child-centered and projectbased approach to their children s schooling (Parker, 2007). A non-religious school brand may likewise communicate characteristics of nonsectarian schools, such as a diverse student body (Reardon & Yun, 2003). Like traditional public schools, the nonsectarian nature of secular private schools may bring together children from a variety of backgrounds. Such an environment

6 6 stands in contrast to religious private schools, which may tend to serve more homogenous communities that ascribe to a particular religious tradition (Gutmann, 1978; but see Greene, 1998; Greene & Mellow 2000). As such, we make our third hypothesis: H3: Parents who more strongly desire racial and ethnic diversity in a student body will more likely select secular private schools and public schools than religious private schools. Public schools carry brand characteristics as well. Unlike private schools, they more frequently possess the economies of scale to offer extracurricular activities, special programs, and possess the resources to build extensive facilities (Fischel, 2009; Powell, Farrar, & Cohen, 1985). However, public schools are not known for their smaller class sizes, while private schools are (Kelly & Scafidi, 2013; Snyder & Dillow, 2013). Previous literature also suggests that parents, especially those who live in urban locales, send their children to private schools to ensure a safe environment (Kelly & Scafidi, 2013; Stewart & Wolf, 2014). Hence, we hypothesize the following: H4: Parents who seek a wide range of facilities, special programs, and extracurricular opportunities in their child s school are more likely to send their children to public schools than private schools. H5: Parents who value small class sizes are less likely to send their children to public schools than private schools. H6: Parents who value school safety are less likely to send their children to public schools than private schools. If a branding paradigm explains the schooling marketplace, then hypotheses H1-H6 should receive some empirical support. In the next section, we present the data and methods used to test these hypotheses.

7 7 Data and Methods The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Our research objective is to test for the presence of school brands. Milwaukee, Wisconsin is an ideal setting for such a test. Our data come from parents who participated in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP). Established in 1990, MPCP is the first means-tested urban private-school voucher program in the United States. The program served less than 350 students at its inception but has steadily expanded since. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2012) reports that at the beginning of the school year, 112 participating private schools enrolled nearly 25,000 students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The voucher was worth a maximum of $6,442 annually during the period of our study. Participating private schools are required to accept the voucher as full payment for the education of the child. Due to the length of time that MPCP has been in operation, school choice is a reality not only for parents but also for the schools that must respond to parental preferences. Furthermore, the Midwestern United States is home to large Lutheran and Catholic populations. The presence of Lutheran and Catholic parents, together with wide access to a variety of religious and secular schooling options, makes Milwaukee an ideal location to test for the presence of private-school brands. The MPCP also is an excellent testing ground for private-school brands because of the way it is designed and operates. During the data collection period of that informs our study, Milwaukee students in families with incomes below 175 percent of the poverty line were eligible for private school vouchers. A match against 2010 census data showed that almost 90 percent of Milwaukee students were income eligible for the program that year (Fleming et al. 2013). Although the MPCP was capped at a total enrollment of 22,500 students in , less

8 8 than 17,000 students were enrolled that year, so the cap likely did little to discourage interested parents from participating (Cowen et al. 2010). Participating private schools are required to admit eligible students by lottery if they are over-subscribed in specific grades, and cannot screen enrollees by their prior test scores. Our discussions with school leaders revealed that they tended to recruit voucher students up to their enrollment targets and then stopped, resulting in the need to conduct very few school-level/grade-level lotteries. Survey data collected about the students in the MPCP indicate that they tend to be lower-income and lower-performing compared to their peers in Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS), but have slightly more educated and involved parents (Fleming et al. 2013). The most distinctive feature about the MPCP is that students receive vouchers only after they have enrolled in their private school of choice. Most school voucher programs first award vouchers to students and only then do their families choose from among the participating schools. In Milwaukee, because almost all students meet the income qualification, new students enroll in particular private schools with the (reasonable) expectation that they will receive financial support and then apply for the voucher through the school that they have chosen. Thus, the process is similar to how college students receive financial aid and dissimilar to how most voucher programs operate. The fact that MPCP students enroll in a specific private school first, and then apply for and receive a voucher to cover their education expenses, makes it an excellent venue for studying parental preferences for schools. There are no voucher decliners, since voucher receipt comes after school enrollment. School choices clearly signal parental preferences. As a result, only five percent of MPCP students in our study changed from one private school to a different

9 9 private school from to a school-transfer rate dramatically lower than the 30 percent annual rate in MPS (Cowen et al. 2010, pp. 5-6). Study Sample and Survey Content We draw our data from surveys administered to parents in MPCP. A representative sample of over 2,500 MPCP students in grades 3-9 in was drawn and the parents of those students were administered telephone surveys. Nearly 75 percent of survey targets responded, a remarkably high response rate for a telephone survey. 1 Parents with multiple children participating in MPCP completed separate surveys for each child. 2 Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for the study sample based on demographic information provided through the survey. Table 1 About Here In addition to providing demographic information, parents identified the name of the school their child attends. Using surveys of school administrators, websites, or The Milwaukee School Chooser a consumer guide of schools located in Milwaukee, we were able to categorize schools by religious affiliation. Private schools were categorized as Lutheran, Catholic, other Protestant (non-lutheran), secular, or other religious school (primarily Jewish or Islamic schools). Table 2 lists the number of schools in each category. Note that some parents 1 Differences between the demographic characteristics of survey respondents and non-respondents were minor. The representation of various racial and ethnic groups differed by a few percentage points across the samples, with African Americans and members of the polyglot category other race slightly less likely to respond and whites and Hispanic participants slightly more likely to respond. Parents of students entering 3 rd grade were less likely to respond and, consequently, parents of students entering grades 4-8 were slightly more likely to respond. A previous study of a different issue, namely the characteristics that predicted participation in the MPCP, used the same survey sample and confirmed that the differences between the respondents and non-respondents were so small that the empirical results were not sensitive to whether or not sample weights were included (Fleming et al. 2013). Since they were unnecessary, we chose not to include sample weights to adjust for non-response because doing so would reduce data efficiency and thus estimation precision. Thus, we take our results to be representative of the full sample of MPCP parents. 2 Less than 5 percent of our analytic sample comprised of siblings and still fewer attended different types of schools. Excluding siblings does not alter the results.

10 10 still chose to send their child to a public school, even after being offered a private-school voucher. In our analysis, we treat these distinctive school types as the schools brand affiliations. Table 2 About Here Parents were also asked to rate the importance of various school characteristics, using the categories very important, important, somewhat important, or not important. Responses were coded 1 through 4, with 4 indicating that a school characteristic was very important. These importance ratings capture the preferences that parents desire in their children s schools. Table 3 shows how parents rated each school characteristic. Table 3 About Here Empirical Strategy We use multinomial logistic regression analysis to answer our primary research question: Does parental selection of schools fit a branding paradigm? We estimate the following equation: T i = β 0 + β 1 R i + β 2 D i + ϵ i, (1) where T i is the type of school that parent i has selected for her child, and ϵ i is the error term. D i is a vector controlling for the parent s demographic characteristics, including annual household income level, mother s highest attained level of education, racial background, and personal religious preference. R i is a vector of each parent s importance ratings for each school characteristic. These importance ratings are standardized to have a mean equal to 0 and a standard deviation equal to 1 to facilitate interpretation. R i comprises our independent variables of interest and estimates the odds that a parent selects a particular school type 3 conditional on the 3 This model assumes that all parents had the option to select any of type of school. There may be concern that the choices available to some parents may be restricted due to, say, transportation costs. This is a valid point, but we argue that it is not a significant issue in the MPCP context as Milwaukee is a small urban city with an extensive, accessible public transportation system (Greene & Marsh, 2009). Moreover, private schools were required to accept vouchers as full payment of tuition, further lowering cost burdens for parents and limitations of choice sets.

11 11 level of importance that he or she ascribes to a given school characteristic. We now turn to the results. Results Table 4 displays the coefficient estimates of the empirical model in terms of odds ratios when public schools are the excluded category. Each coefficient indicates the change in the odds that a parent selects a given type of school instead of a public school for a one standard deviation increase in his or her importance rating of the respective school characteristic. Results demonstrate that school characteristics valued by parents are predictive of the type of school to which they send their children. We find evidence for most, though not all, of our hypotheses. Table 4 About Here First, we find partial support for H1. All else equal, parents who value the offering of religious instruction are more likely to select Catholic, Lutheran, other Protestant, Islamic, or Jewish schools than public schools or secular private schools. The likelihood of selecting a faithbased school is approximately twice as large as the likelihood of selecting a public or secular private school for every one standard-deviation increase in the importance rating for the availability of religious instruction (p<0.01). The selected religious school also aligns with the religion practiced by the parent. We find that Catholic parents are about six times more likely to select Catholic schools than public schools (p<0.01). Similarly, Lutheran parents are over nine times more likely to select Lutheran schools than public schools (p<0.01). 4 Contrary to H1, parents who value strong disciplinary environments are not any more likely to select public 4 We conducted further analysis to examine whether preferences for religious instruction and subsequent school selection differed by the parent s religious background. We do this by re-estimating equation (1) and additionally including terms that interacted the parent s religious background with their importance rating for the availability of religious instruction. None of the interaction terms were significant, suggesting that stronger preferences for religious instruction among parents with a particular religious background are not associated with a tendency to select into a particular school brand. Put differently, stronger preferences for religious instruction in school is equally associated with an increased likelihood of selecting certain school brands across parents of all religious backgrounds.

12 12 schools than other types of schools. H2, however, possess empirical support. Parents who value affordability are more likely to send their children to Catholic schools than public schools; every standard-deviation increase also increases the likelihood of selecting a Catholic school by a factor of about 1.2. H3 also is confirmed by our analysis. Parents who prefer a more racially diverse school environment for their children are more likely to send their children to public schools than religious schools. All else equal, a one standard-deviation increase in the importance rating for racial diversity is associated with a decrease in the likelihood of, for instance, selecting a Catholic school and a Lutheran school instead of a public school by a factor of 0.75 (p<0.01) and 0.81 (p<0.05), respectively. Likewise, a one standard-deviation increase in the importance rating for racial diversity is associated with a decrease in the likelihood of selecting a Jewish or Islamic school instead of a public school by a factor of 0.57 (p<0.05). Notably, differences in preferences for racial diversity in the student body do not appear to lead parents to prefer public schools over secular private schools or vice-versa. 5 Finally, H4 through H6, which were hypotheses regarding aspects of a public school brand, received mixed support. As hypothesized in H4, there is suggestive evidence that parents who value the availability of extracurricular opportunities are more likely to select public schools than other types of private schools. Increasing the importance rating for the availability of extracurricular activities by one standard deviation decreases the likelihood of selecting non- Lutheran Protestant schools by a factor of 0.74 (p<0.01). There additionally appears to be a 5 Similar to our analysis in which we examined whether preferences for religious instruction and subsequent school selection differed by the parent s religious background (see footnote 4), we also investigated whether preferences for racial diversity and subsequent school selection differed by race. We did this by estimating equation (1) while including variables that interacted parent race with the importance rating for racial diversity. None of the interaction terms were significant, suggesting that stronger preferences for racial diversity among parents of a particular racial background are not associated with a tendency to select into a particular school brand. Put differently, stronger preferences for racial diversity in school is equally associated with an increased likelihood of selecting certain school brands across parents of all racial backgrounds.

13 13 lower likelihood of selecting Catholic and Lutheran schools, but coefficient estimates just miss conventional levels of statistical significance. H5, which predicted a relationship between class-size and school-type preferences, also received empirical support. The likelihood of selecting a Catholic, Lutheran, or secular private school instead of a public school increases by 1.2 to 1.5 times for every standard-deviation increase in the importance rating for class sizes. The likelihood of selecting a non-lutheran Protestant school is also about 1.2 times higher but not statistically significant. Yet H6 received essentially no empirical support. The preference for public as opposed to private schools is generally not associated with the availability of special programs, the quality or availability of various school facilities, and school safety. Though parents who preferred these qualities appear to prefer public schools, the differences are not statistically significant. The only exception is the case where selection of a secular private school is associated with a stronger preference school safety (p<0.05). Discussion and Conclusion We sought to investigate whether private school brands exist in a relatively mature school marketplace. Our results demonstrate that parents who value particular aspects in a school are more likely to send their children to a school that, according to its brand identity, offers them comparatively more of that condition. Many of these patterns are as we anticipated if school brands exist. For example, the provision of religious instruction is a well-known aspect of the brand identity of Catholic, Lutheran, and other types of Protestant schools but not of public or secular private schools (Sikkink, 2012). Our empirical results are consistent with this fact. Parents who value religious instruction in their schools are much more likely to send their children to schools

14 14 with a religious tradition instead of public or secular private schools. Our results also suggest that parents with a stronger preference for the availability of religious instruction are more likely to choose Lutheran schools rather than Catholic or other Protestant schools. This finding points to a stronger religious identity within Lutheran schools relative to Catholic and other Protestant schools. This difference may be expected given the long history of Lutherans in the Milwaukee area who have emphasized the teaching of their faith to their children (Isch, 2002). Other work suggests that when choosing whether to prioritize religious or academic goals, Protestant schools tend to choose the former whereas Catholic schools tend to choose the latter (Sikkink, 2012). Parents are also more likely to send their children to a school that offers religious instruction in their personal religious backgrounds, particularly Lutheran and Catholic parents. This pattern of religious matching between the school s and parent s respective religious traditions among MPCP participants contrasts with those from the Signature Scholarship Program (SSP), which offered privately-funded vouchers to students in Washington DC. Protestant parents participating in SSP tended to send their children to Catholic schools instead of Protestant schools because they were attracted to other non-religious aspects of the Catholicschool brand, such as a highly-disciplined environment and academic rigor (Trivitt & Wolf, 2011). The pattern of results in the two studies suggests that Catholic schools have a dominant brand identity among DC voucher schools but that Lutheran schools are a competing brand in the Milwaukee voucher program. In the DC program, only 13.9% of mothers indicated a preference for the Catholic religion but 55.9% of parents indicated a Catholic school was the first choice for their child. Of the schools participating in the voucher program 37.1% of schools were Catholic, but they ended up with 48.8% of the participating students enrolled. In the DC program, whenever a family chose a school affiliated with a different religion, it was overwhelmingly to

15 15 attend a Catholic school. In the current study of MPCP 31.2% of parents indicate a Catholic affiliation and 44.0% of voucher students enrolled in a Catholic school with 30% of participating schools being Catholic. Lutheran schools enrolled 19.1% of voucher students and made up 22% of participating schools despite only 6.92% of voucher parents indicating a Lutheran affiliation. In Milwaukee we see 51.1% of parents indicating a religious preference we classified as Other Protestant, but only 17.2% of voucher users attended a school classified as such. The programs are similar in that Protestant parents are sending children to schools that do not match their religious affiliation, but in Milwaukee they are going to Catholic and Lutheran schools in similarly disproportionate numbers with no statistically significant results on the other Protestant indicator relative to public schools in the multinomial model. Given the sectarian nature of religious private schools, it is not surprising that parents who value racial diversity in their schools are more likely to send their children to secular private or public schools rather than religious schools. Despite some empirical evidence that suggests that religious private schools are at least as racially-integrated as traditional public schools and instill racial tolerance in children (see Greene & Mellow, 1998; Greene, 2000; Candal & Glenn, 2012), parents do not appear to perceive religious schools as institutions that emphasize racial diversity. Parents more commonly perceive promoting diversity to be in the purview of nonsectarian schooling. Indeed, the system of traditional public schools ideally exists to bring all children together in a non-sectarian environment, bridging demographic differences (Gutmann, 1978). Secular private schools are non-sectarian and may hence communicate similar aims. Our results also comport with a theory that smaller class sizes are a part of the private school brand. The result is consistent with Kelly and Scafidi (2013) who find that offering smaller class sizes is one of the most popular reasons why parents enroll their children in private

16 16 schools. On the other hand, public schools are larger institutions and possess the economies of scale and resources to offer a wider range of extracurricular activities than smaller, standalone private schools (Fischel, 2009; Powell et al., 1985). Thus, the hypothesis that parents who value these goods are more likely to send their children to public schools instead of private schools is consistent with our results. Interestingly, however, a preference for school safety does not appear to be linked to a parent s preference for private over public schools. Stewart and Wolf (2014) propose a Maslowian framework for understanding how parents choose schools and suggest that school safety is a basic need. If MPCP parents already have that need satisfied, then it should not influence the type of school they select. Instead, they would move on to select schools based upon higher-order characteristics such as the availability of extracurricular activities or religious instruction. Whether this is true can only be ascertained by additional research. Parents for whom financial considerations are an important factor are less likely to send their children to secular private schools. Since the MPCP voucher must be accepted as the full cost of educating the child, we were somewhat surprised that affordability was salient for parents in our sample. The cost for MPCP parents is essentially zero, regardless of which type of school they select. If anything, this finding may underscore the power of school brands. Costconscious parents still tended to prefer Catholic schools, which have a reputation for being affordable (Bryk et al., 1993; Cohen-Zada & Justman, 2005). Although our initial inquiry into the presence of school brands has confirmed most of our hypotheses, the findings still raise additional questions. Importantly, the parents selection of schools is consistent with their preferences for various school characteristics. But such results cannot unequivocally prove that parents use brand identities to choose schools due to limitations in our data. It is possible that parents selected the current school for their child without using any

17 17 information communicated by a brand affiliation. At best, we provide descriptive evidence of the existence of brands by demonstrating that parents choose schools that, according to their widely recognized brand, possess qualities that those parents desire. That is, the dynamics of the school choice marketplace in Milwaukee, fit a branding paradigm. Beyond that, additional research, such as qualitative interviews of parents exercising choice, would be valuable to gain a finer-grained understanding of how parents use school brands in practice. These findings also bear upon several issues surrounding school choice policy. For example, policymakers have proposed that managers of school-choice programs should systematically collect and disseminating information about schools to help parents make ideal choices (Whitehurst, 2012; Hastings & Weinstein, 2008). Agencies that provide such information may help parents (Stewart & Wolf, 2014). Yet the costs and benefits associated with providing information are unclear. Nor is it clear how the dynamics of school branding will complement policies for school choice programs to collect and disseminate information. Finally, school marketplaces and the brands within those marketplaces vary widely across different locations and contexts. The idiosyncrasies and nuances of school branding are largely understudied both within the US. Only in Washington DC has a similar study been conducted (Trivitt & Wolf, 2011). Yet understanding this phenomenon will likely become an increasingly important issue as private school choice expands to more localities in the United States. We hope that our work here has provided insight into school branding and the broader issue of how parents select schools for their children as well as encouraged greater inquiry into these topics as educational markets continue to evolve.

18 18 References Bennett, Julie Brand-name charters. Education Next 8(3), Berry, Leonard Cultivating Service Brand Equity. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 28(1): Bryk, Anthony S., Valerie E. Lee and Peter B. Holland Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Candal, Cara and Charles Glenn Race Relations in High School. Journal of School Choice 6(1): Cohen-Zada, Danny and Moshe Justman The Religious Factor in Private Education. The Journal of Urban Economics 57(3): Cowen, Joshua M., David J. Fleming, John F. Witte, and Patrick J. Wolf School and Sector Switching in Milwaukee. Milwaukee Evaluation Report #16. School Choice Demonstration Project, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. Dawar, Niraj and Philip Parker Marketing Universals: Consumers Use of Brand Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality. Journal of Marketing 58(2): Erdem, Tülin, Joffre Swait and Jordan Louviere The Impact of Brand Credibility on Consumer Price Sensitivity. International Journal of Research in Marketing 19(1): Fischel, William Making the Grade: The Economic Evolution of American School Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fleming, David J., Joshua M. Cowen, John F. Witte, and Patrick J. Wolf Similar Students, Different Choices: Who Uses a School Voucher in an Otherwise Similar Population of Students? Education and Urban Society.

19 19 Greene, Jay P Civic Values in Public and Private Schools. Pp In Paul E. Peterson and Bryan C. Hassel, eds., Learning from School Choice. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Greene, J. P., & Marsh, R. (2009). The Effect of Milwaukee s Parental Choice Program on Student Achievement in Milwaukee Public Schools (SCDP Comprehensive Longitudinal Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program No. Report #11). Fayetteville, AR: School Choice Demonstration Project, University of Arkansas. Greene, Jay and Nichole Mellow Integration Where it Counts: A Study of Racial Integration in Public and Private School Lunchrooms. Texas Education Review 1(1): Gutmann, Amy Democratic Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hastings, J.S., & Jeffrey M. Weinstein Information, School Choice, and Academic Achievement: Evidence from Two Experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 123(4): Isch, John The Generation to Come: Lutheran Education in the United States. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice 5(4): Iyengar, Sheena S. and Mark R. Lepper When Choice is Demotivating: Can one Desire too Much of a Good Thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(6): Jacoby, Jacob, Jerry Olson and Rafael Haddock Price, Brand Name and Product Composition Characteristics as Determinants of Perceived Quality. Journal of Applied Psychology 55(6):

20 20 Jacob, Brian and Lars Lefgren What do Parents Value in Education? An Empirical Investigation of Parents Revealed Preferences for Teachers. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(4): Kelly, James and Brian Scafidi. More than Scores: An Analysis of Why Parents Choose Private Schools. Indianapolis, IN: The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Kuksov, Dmitri and Miguel Villas-Boas When More Alternatives Lead to Less Choice. Marketing Science 29(3): Leischnig, Alexander, Anja Geigenmuller and Margit Enke Brands you can rely on! An Empirical Investigation of Brand Credibility in Services. Schmalenback Business Review 64: National Association of Independent Schools Messaging and Branding: A How-to Guide. Washington, DC. National Catholic Educational Association. (2013). New Catholic Schools Week Theme Designed to Last a While: Multi-year Theme will Provide Schools Stability in Promoting Catholic Identity. March Parker, Deborah Navigating the Social/Cultural Politics of School Choice: Why do Parents Choose Montessori? A case study (Ph.D. dissertation). University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Powell, Arthur, Eleanor Farrar, and David Cohen The Shopping Mall High School: Winners and Losers in the Educational Marketplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rao, Akshay and Monroe, Kent The Modernizing Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research 15(2):

21 21 Reardon, Sean and John Yun Private School Racial Enrollments and Segregation. Pp in Richard Kahlenberg, ed., Public School Choice vs. Private School Vouchers. New York: Century Foundation Press. Reutskaja, Elena and Robin Hogarth Satisfaction in Choice as a Function of the Number of Alternatives: When Goods Satiate. Psychology and Marketing 26(3): Scanlan, Michael The Grammar of Catholic Schooling and Radically Catholic Schools. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice 12(1): Scheibehenne, Benjamin, Rainer Greifeneder and Peter Todd What Moderates the Too-Much-Choice Effect? Psychology and Marketing 26(3): Schneider, Mark and Jack Buckley What Do Parents Want from Schools? Evidence from the Internet. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 24(2): Schneider, Mark, Paul Teske and Melissa Marschall Choosing Schools: Consumer choice and the Quality of American Schools. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Shah, Avni and George Wolford Buying Behavior as a Function of Parametric Variation of Number of Choices. Psychological Science 18(5): Sikkink, David Religious School Differences in School Climate and Academic Mission: A Descriptive Overview of School Organization and Student Outcomes. Journal of School Choice 6(1): Spence, Michael Market signaling: Information Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Stewart, Thomas and Patrick J. Wolf The School Choice Journey: Vouchers and the Empowerment of Urban Families. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

22 22 Stigler, George The Economics of Information. Journal of Political Economy 69(3): Tiebout, Charles A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64(5): Triole, Jean The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Trivitt Julie R. and Patrick J. Wolf School Choice and the Branding of Catholic Schools. Education Finance and Policy 6(2): Snyder, Thomas D. and Sally A. Dillow Digest of Education Statistics Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Whitehurst, Grover J Let the Dollars Follow the Child. Education Next 12(2): Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction MPCP Facts and Figures for Accessed April 1, Retrieved from

23 23 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Surveyed Parents Percent of Parents Race American Indian 0.81 Asian or Pacific Islander 1.79 Black Hispanic White Religious Preference Lutheran 6.92 Catholic Other Protestant (non-lutheran) Atheist 6.46 Other Religion 4.33 Highest Level of Education Completed by Respondent Eighth Grade or Below 8.25 Some High School GED 3.46 High School Graduate Post High School (Vocational School) 4.10 Some College Four-year College Degree Post-Graduate Work 3.00 Annual Household Income Less than $5, $5,001 to $7, $7,501 to 10, $10,001 to 15, $15,001 to 20, $20,001 to 25, $25,001 to 35, $35,001 to 50, $50,001 or more 5.54

24 24 Table 2. Summary Statistics of School Type Type of School Percent of Parents Choosing School Type Private Schools Lutheran Catholic Other Protestant (non-lutheran) Secular Jewish or Islamic 4.10 Public Schools 4.85

25 25 Table 3. Parent Preferences for Various School Characteristics Percent of Parents Selecting Not Important Somewhat Important Important Very Important Strong Disciplinary Environment Religious Instruction Offered Affordability Racial Diversity Availability and Quality of School Facilities Availability of Special Programs Availability of Extra Curricular Activities Small Class Sizes Safety

26 26 Table 4. Estimates of Empirical Model Importance Ratings Strong Disciplinary Environment Availability of Religious Instruction Affordability Racial Diversity Availability of Extra Curricular Activities Small Class Sizes Catholic Lutheran School Type Other Protestant Secular Jewish or Islamic (0.095) (0.093) (0.090) (0.084) (0.173) 1.843** 2.343** 1.861** ** (0.157) (0.229) (0.161) (0.076) (0.360) 1.244* (0.111) (0.094) (0.099) (0.095) (0.141) 0.753** 0.811* ** (0.074) (0.085) (0.088) (0.097) (0.097) ** (0.088) (0.086) (0.074) (0.107) (0.137) 1.336** 1.251* ** (0.118) (0.118) (0.101) (0.143) (0.184) School Facilities (0.093) (0.102) (0.097) (0.091) (0.172) Availability of Special Programs (0.096) (0.102) (0.099) (0.123) (0.173) Safety * (0.089) (0.100) (0.114) (0.133) (0.166) Parent s Religious Preference Catholic 6.195** ** ** (2.597) (0.440) (0.074) (0.261) (0.026) Lutheran ** (0.705) (5.517) (0.418) (0.723) (0.000) Other Protestant ** (0.329) (0.322) (0.348) (0.256) (0.011) ** Atheist (0.893) (0.622) (0.574) (0.521) (0.101) Constant (0.953) (0.588) (1.295) (3.372) (0.000) Notes: Analysis includes 2,559 observations. Omitted category for school type is public school. Model also includes controls for parent s education level, income, and race. Omitted category for parent s religious preference predominantly consists of Jewish and Muslim parents. Standard errors in parenthesis. **p<0.01, *p<0.05.