The Choice-in-Context Model: An Interdisciplinary Theory of Decision-Making in School Choice Contexts

The Many Shapes of School Choice

School choice policies fall into two broad categories: providing families with financial resources to use in the private market, or expanding families’ options within the public market. In the former, parents are provided with school vouchers, education savings accounts (ESAs), and educational tax credits they can use for private schools. In the latter, parents can choose to enroll their children in any inter- or intra-district school, charter, and magnet schools (or provide homeschooling), which typically have individual application and enrollment processes. In most of these cases, families can enroll their child in their zoned district school or a different “choice” school (which can be a public or charter school). However, there are exceptions—for instance, New York City’s system requires families to apply at each schooling level (i.e., preschool, elementary, middle, and high schools) ² and consolidates public and charter high school applications (Abdulkadiroğlu, Agarwal. et al., 2017).

Whether systems are centralized or decentralized determines school choice policies’ most basic architecture: the mechanisms through which families exert choice. Centralized systems often streamline the application process but limit flexibility for families. Families submit an individual application which typically includes demographic information and school rankings by a deadline. All submitted rankings are then used to assign students to schools based on matching algorithms, which may give preference or priority to some groups over others depending on policymaker objectives (Abdulkadiroğlu & Andersson, 2022; Pathak, 2011). Families accept their offers and/or add themselves to waitlists for schools they prefer, and eventually finalize their enrollment. Conversely, decentralized systems offer more autonomy to families, who may apply to receive a voucher and determine eligibility or claim a tax credit, and typically must submit applications to each individual school in which they are interested (and whose deadlines and admissions decisions might differ)—requiring the navigation of multiple applications and deadlines. Families traverse centralized or (sometimes and) decentralized systems to access choice schools, systems that may influence families’ decision-making and their ability to exert choice appropriately.

Preferences

Families have preferences regarding the schools they want their children to attend, which determine the schools to which they apply and how they rank them against other preferable options. In this model, we define “preferences” as the observable school characteristics that families seek that allow them to differentiate school options and identify those which they favor (as defined in economic models). In choice contexts, parents identify the schools they prefer; the way in which they apply differs depending on the centralization of the system. In centralized systems, families rank schools in order preference. In decentralized systems, families apply to schools separately, not indicating their level of preference for each.

There is little consensus regarding what families seek and prefer in schools. Parental variation in preferences for a variety of school characteristics (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 2023; Bell, 2007; Hailey, 2022) makes it difficult to determine whether, and the degree to which, families value the school–child match and academic quality of that choice. Some research suggests that families who participate in choice programs apply to schools with high academic quality (D. J. Fleming et al., 2015; Schneider et al., 2002), others for quality levels that align with the ability of their child (Chakrabarti, 2013), while others choose schools based on features like student body diversity (Schneider & Buckley, 2002) and racial-ethnic composition (Chin, 2022). Many of these preferences differ across ethnic-racial groups (Bell, 2009a; Saporito & Lareau, 1999; Schneider et al., 2002) and choice policy contexts (e.g., Bifulco & Ladd, 2007; Frankenberg et al., 2010; Singer & Lenhoff, 2022). Of course, families’ choices are also confined by constraints, which we will address in the “Constraints” section below.

Importantly, parents can also choose not to participate in a choice system when such an opportunity is offered. Despite extensive research on the determinants of choice participation, comparatively little empirical work has examined why families remain in their local schools. Some research suggests that families from low-income and ethnic-racial minority backgrounds stay as an expression of loyalty, cultural fit, or community ties (Cooper, 2005, 2007; Posey-Maddox et al., 2016). Remaining can then represent an active choice shaped by families’ values, or reflect passive decision-making driven by status quo or default biases (S. M. Fleming et al., 2010; Johnson & Goldstein, 2003; Madrian & Shea, 2001; Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). Families may prefer their current school due to familiarity or loss aversion, or adhere to default options because choosing alternatives requires time and cognitive effort. When households face competing demands on their attention and resources, staying in the default school may simply be the path of least resistance (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013).

Constraints

Many constraints can influence families’ decision-making by limiting their choice sets, with important consequences to the equity of access to desirable schooling options. We posit that families juggle both contextual- and household-level constraints that might influence their decision-making. Contextual constraints are those typically associated with geography: families’ residential and neighborhood locations determine the economic and social resources available to them, such as transportation options and school availability (Bierbaum et al., 2021; Chyn & Katz, 2021; Evans, 2004). Place thus determines the schools that families can consider (e.g., Denice & Gross, 2016). Furthermore, household constraints, such as families’ socioeconomic status, work schedules, and time to engage in choice systems, also influence decision-making. These factors may further shrink the size of families’ choice sets by determining the schools families find affordable (Cheng et al., 2016) and those that are convenient, given time and resource constraints (Chaudry et al., 2010; D. J. Fleming et al., 2015).

Importantly, context- and household-level constraints are interrelated: socioeconomic status, which largely determines the amount of financial and time-related resources families can devote toward education, also determines their residential location. A family benefits from the availability of desirable schooling options with accessible transportation services in their neighborhood (e.g., Bell, 2007, 2009b; Trajkovski et al., 2021). However, families from disadvantaged backgrounds typically live in neighborhoods with fewer accessible high-quality schooling and transportation options (Evans, 2004; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Families from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to have inflexible and/or unpredictable work schedules (Ananat & Gassman-Pines, 2021) that could impact their ability to transport their children to schools, and thus further constrain their choice sets (Bierbaum et al., 2021).

The weight of constraints at the context and household levels in the decision-making process can vary across other factors, like child age. The importance of geographic constraints (i.e., distance between home and school) lowers as students age and gain independence. Research finds distance to schools is especially important in preschool (e.g., McCormick et al., 2023), but becomes less critical by secondary schooling (Corcoran, 2018). Time-related constraints may interact with geographic constraints, affecting families from disadvantaged backgrounds who tend to experience inflexible and unstable work schedules which limit their ability to get their children to/from school (Chaudry et al., 2011; Sandstrom & Chaudry, 2012).

Information

Information is crucial for families to know to participate in choice programs or systems, assess their options and make decisions about where to apply, navigate the choice process, and, ultimately, choose where their children will attend school (Corcoran & Jennings, 2020).

The factors that influence parents’ access to, and use of, information regarding choice contexts and options are associated with their socioeconomic advantage. In general, disadvantaged families have a more difficult time learning about and engaging with institutional systems (Keller & McDade, 2000; Moynihan et al., 2015), and less access to physical and social resources to do so. These families also have disparate access to technology or well-informed social networks (Fong, 2019), and may hesitate or struggle to seek additional information regarding school options and resources due to fear of judgement (Kim & Bianco, 2014) and language barriers (Balu et al., 2021). These factors likely influence families’ participation in choice and use of information throughout the choice process.

Little research has explicitly focused on the information to which families are privy prior to participating in choice systems. Instead, an extensive body of research investigates parental characteristics that are not strictly indicative of increased use of information, but that may represent increased access to information by virtue of experience about the system or more knowledge of options. Parents’ higher educational attainment (Bifulco & Ladd, 2006; Ladd et al., 2017) and more advantaged socioeconomic status (Lavery & Carlson, 2015), alongside higher student achievement (Cullen et al., 2005) are associated with increased participation in choice systems. These findings could be attributed to more advantaged groups’ (i.e., those with more education and higher socioeconomic status) tendency to have more and better knowledge regarding their education systems (Howell, 2006). Notably, however, information about the system or program alone is not sufficient to encourage participation—assistance through mentoring and counseling, one-on-one application support, or behavioral nudges may be needed (Herbaut & Geven, 2020; Weixler et al., 2020).

Parents may also need to be aware of school options to participate in—and exercise—choice, emphasizing the importance of the information they hold about their educational market (Corcoran & Jennings, 2020). Informational barriers regarding existing options have shown to influence whether parents participate in a choice process for early childhood schooling (e.g., Balu et al., 2021) and college (Bettinger et al., 2012; Carrell & Sacerdote, 2017). Experimental evidence, in tandem, shows that access to information about school options leads to improved application and/or educational outcomes. Interventions have led to increases in number of applicants to higher-performing schools by providing clear information regarding quality of options based on test scores (Cohodes et al., 2025; Hastings & Weinstein, 2008).

The Connections Between Preferences, Information, and Constraints

In our Choice-in-Context model, we posit that families’ preferences, constraints, and information influence one another in the decision-making process, as shown in Figure 3.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Interconnected components in the economic model of parental choice.

Constraints influence families’ preferences (Path A) and the information (Path B) they use throughout the decision-making process. Constraints can explicitly change preferences (Path A), as they are associated with consumers’ identities (Akerlof & Kranton, 2000), which are notably salient in educational choice (Akerlof & Kranton, 2002) and can impair the reasoning behind decision-making by altering preference order (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). In addition, families’ choice sets are typically bounded by schools they can access—for example, based on location, provision of special education, or dual language programming (e.g., Bell, 2009a; Lenhoff et al., 2022; Saporito & Lareau, 1999)—and so the schools that are feasible may not directly align with their true preferences. Constraints influence the information to which families have access and their ability to gather it throughout the decision-making process (Path B). The neighborhoods where families live shape the information to which they have access, as they often rely on social networks to gather it (e.g., Bader et al., 2019; D. J. Fleming et al., 2015; Fong, 2019). Constraints in time and resources can also decrease the time and effort that families can spend in information-seeking altogether.

Families’ preferences and information are also interconnected (Path C). The information families seek is likely related to their preferences—if families prefer schools with high student achievement, they are likely to seek information regarding quality metrics for schools in their educational market (Schneider & Buckley, 2002). Relatedly, when families are provided with useful and concise information regarding schooling options, their preferences, as measured using application behaviors, can shift (Cohodes et al., 2025; Hastings & Weinstein, 2008).

Schools as Places: Extending Preferences to Include Values

Although culture is typically seen as a macro-level dimension in systems theory (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), we rely on Velez-Agosto and colleagues’ (2017) conceptualization of the ecological model which embeds culture within all environments that influence a child’s development, including schools. This lens enables us to conceptualize choice as a process through which families identify, interpret, and select among the distinct cultural environments that schools offer. We recognize the cultural practices of children’s teachers and peers within school settings as highly influential factors in families’ decision-making. We use Rogoff’s (2003) definition of cultural practices in the context of human development. Rogoff views cultural practices as the tacit and subtle ways of doing and events in everyday human activities that are collectively coherent with one another and continue to evolve due to their mutually-constituting nature—“where people contribute to the creation of cultural processes and cultural processes contribute to the creation of people” (Rogoff, 2003, p. 51). To integrate cultural practices’ role, we draw from the psychological (e.g., Hughes et al., 2006) and sociology of education literatures (e.g., Anyon, 1980; Ball, 2003) on parents’ socialization practices and school cultures.

Although we conceptualize culture at the institutional and sociological levels, we draw on psychological theories of socialization to understand how parents interpret institutional cultures and evaluate their fit with their socialization goals for their children. While sociological frameworks illustrate cultural processes within schools, psychological frameworks elucidate how parents perceive and respond to them.

We conceptualize “preferences” to be the observable attributes that families seek and identify in schools which are, in turn, shaped by the values families consider of utmost importance to their children’s education, development, and socialization, often consequential of their own experiences in schools (see Figure 4). This conceptualization allows to understand how a preference for a racially diverse school is shaped by a families’ value of ensuring their child is not discriminated against at school. This, in turn, is a value-based expression shaped by families’ cultural practices, experiences, and socialization goals. In sum, we view preferences to be shaped by values, and values to be shaped—at least in part—by families’ experiences and understanding of schools’ cultures.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Parents consider both their preferences and values when making school choices.

Parents are typically conceptualized as having preferences for different types of schooling, but this approach fails to consider how families in choice contexts make choices both about schooling as services and about schools as places. Schooling involves several inputs, where teachers and their approaches play a role in student learning, and classrooms provide resources critical to development. However, learning does not occur in a vacuum: a student’s classroom is filled with other children whose background may (or may not) match theirs; teachers’ learning goals may (or may not) directly align with those of the student’s parents; and a school’s environment may be filled with images and text that represent (or fail to represent) the student. We see the compilation of such characteristics as the culture of the school—which parents evaluate when choosing the places in which their children will learn—that shape parental preferences for observable characteristics like racial diversity, teacher–student racial match, or the imagery and messaging along the school walls.

We conceptualize a school’s culture as the combination of behaviors, practices, and norms that shape the experiences of students, school staff, and even parents in the schooling environment. It encompasses a school’s sense of community, academic and racial climate, and disciplinary style, among other qualities—together setting the socially valued goals and outcomes children are expected to achieve (Lareau, 2003; Wentzel, 2015), as well as the collective sense of connectedness, inclusivity, and ethnic-racial climate, which can influence students’ sense of belonging (e.g., Walton & Cohen, 2011) and behavioral outcomes (e.g., Shukla et al., 2016). Within schools, teachers reinforce these expectations for students (e.g., Lewis-McCoy, 2014; Rubie-Davies et al., 2006) and peers influence and reinforce social behaviors and shape the learning environment (Hay et al., 2004; Mashburn et al., 2009; Ryan, 2000). A school’s culture ultimately determines what is considered “appropriate” behavior as a product of the interaction of a student and her setting (Sarason, 1977).

The cultural practices in a school contribute to children’s socialization (Wentzel, 2015), which we define as the process through which children learn and internalize norms, values, and skills that are necessary to function and participate in society. To understand how socialization affects decision-making, we draw from sociological and psychological theories, which offer complementary perspectives.

Sociologists view socialization as a structured and contextualized process shaped and reproduced by the social structure or hierarchy. Parents focus on socializing children to engage with institutions and their expectations, while schools socialize children into socially-constructed roles (e.g., by gender and class; Labaree, 1997; Lewis-McCoy, 2014). Schools socialize children through discipline, curriculum, and teacher expectation regarding their morality, identity, and hierarchical position within society (Bryk et al., 1993; Golann, 2021; Lareau, 2003). These mechanisms, in turn, reproduce social inequalities by socializing children into racialized and socially-constructed cultural identities (Anyon, 1980)—and helps explain why parents care deeply about schools’ cultural environments (Ball, 2003).

By contrast, psychologists view socialization as the set of messages and preparation provided to children to influence their beliefs and identity (Hughes et al., 2006; Huguley et al., 2019). Psychologists conceptualize parents as intentional agents who engage in conscious strategies to intentionally prepare their children for—and often counteract—the school cultures they encounter. When positioned within choice contexts, parents seek to examine the match between their socialization at home and that which is practiced in schools (Cooper, 2005; Posey-Maddox et al., 2021). The psychology literature, therefore, provides constructs (e.g., cultural pride, preparation for bias) that illustrate how parents interpret and evaluate school cultures.

The above helps explain why parents’ experiences inform the culture they want in their children’s schools: schools provide much of the socialization they would like their children to receive. Families prefer schools that would provide the type of educational experiences or socialization they, or their loved ones, would offer (Ball, 2003; Lareau, 2003), and dislike those that would mistreat or discriminate against them (e.g., Aggarwal, 2020). Relatedly, families also aim to teach their children the values, social skills, and behaviors they value through schools with certain cultural characteristics (Ball, 2003), like religious affiliation, a sports culture, or strict misconduct policies (e.g., no-excuses charter schools). These ultimately shape children’s identity, sense of morality, or priorities (Bryk et al., 1993; Golann, 2021; Golann et al., 2019).

Importantly, as families make decisions in complex social, political, and institutional contexts, they may deal with competing values or preferences—they can desire or steer away from certain school characteristics or cultures (Saatcioglu & Snethen, 2023). Accordingly, even when they prefer schools with strong quality-related characteristics, their children may contend with school cultures that conflict with their values (e.g., Lewis-McCoy, 2014). These tensions can be particularly salient for families from minoritized backgrounds, who often seek to protect their children from discrimination or stereotyping tied to ethnic-racial identity. These parents may engage in socialization practices that build resilience and prepare their children for racial mistrust and bias (Hughes et al., 2007). When exercising choice, parents with minoritized backgrounds report weighing characteristics of school cultures that shape children’s socialization (Hughes & Watford, 2021; Hughes et al., 2023), like racial climate (e.g., Posey-Maddox et al., 2021; Roda & Wells, 2013) and school safety (e.g., Billingham et al., 2020; Hamlin, 2017). In this way, schools can reinforce or undermine the socialization practices parents employ (Hamm, 2001), responsive to their ethnic-racial identities, cultural backgrounds, and broader social positions (Harding et al., 2017; Hughes et al., 2006).

In sum, variance in preferences, and the weight parents give them in the decision-making process, is shaped by families’ values. Families from ethnic-racial minority backgrounds may not only prioritize schools’ academic characteristics (Chin, 2022; Hastings et al., 2009); instead, they may seek schools in which their children will not experience racialized harm they, or those like them, have experienced (e.g., Cooper, 2007; Hamm, 2001; Posey-Maddox et al., 2021). As Cooper (2005) describes Black mothers’ experiences when engaging with choice systems, these families make positioned choices informed by their cultural, social, and racial standing in the education system, and thus represent a form of sociopolitical and cultural resistance.

Forms of Capital Contributing to Parents’ Values/Preferences, Constraints, and Information

Having now argued that schools do not only provide educational services but are places that reflect parental values and where parents can reinforce their socialization practices, we use sociological theory to consider how various forms of capital families hold influence their decision-making processes. Here we incorporate Bourdieu (1986), as capital explains certain social behaviors, the interactions between individuals and institutions, and, ultimately, the inequitable structure of society. ³ Below, we outline how capital influences families’ values and preferences for schools, the information families hold about schools, and the constraints that bind them when making decisions (see Figure 5).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

The roles of cultural, economic, and social capital.

Cultural Capital

Lareau and Weininger (2003) define cultural capital ⁴ as both the internalization of culture and knowledge through socialization and education, representative of the micro-interactional processes through which individuals use knowledge, skills, and competence strategically when in contact with institutions, which can ultimately promote social mobility. We posit that families’ cultural capital informs (1) their understanding of educational inputs, impacting the information (Path E) they use; (2) their preferences as shaped by their values (Paths E and C); alongside (3) their perspectives regarding the context of schooling (Path D).

When families hold more cultural capital by means of education, they are more likely to engage in choice and identify desirable available school options (Path E). Families’ higher educational achievement, and their highly correlated advantaged socioeconomic status, are associated with more participation in most choice contexts (e.g., Bifulco & Ladd, 2006; Ladd et al., 2017). These parents likely recognize the inputs that enable social mobility through schooling (e.g., Sattin-Bajaj & Roda, 2020) and leverage their knowledge to secure the “right” educational opportunities. This is not to say that parents who have accrued fewer amounts of cultural capital are unaware of the importance of certain inputs, like educational quality; rather, choice policies and reforms may be particularly appealing to them as alternatives to systematically low-resourced schools (Cooper, 2005, 2007) but their operationalization may be more challenging.

Beyond shaping access, parents’ own socialization and educational experiences also influence how they interpret and evaluate school options. Insofar as parents’ own socialization and educational experiences contribute to their cultural capital, they also set their expectations of what would constitute an appropriate or desirable schooling experience for their children (Bell, 2003). These experiences affect the information parents consider (Path E) and thereby the values/preferences they weigh (Path C). Parents’ personal, cultural, and educational experiences are often responsive to their perception of their children’s individual needs and wants, influencing the non-academic features they consider when selecting schools (Bulman, 2004; Rhodes et al., 2023). For instance, families tend to use their personal experiences to determine how they want their children’s schooling environment to feel (Cooper, 2005; Posey-Maddox et al., 2021; Potterton, 2020)—not just the form and quality of their education—and prioritize their children’s future satisfaction (e.g., Debs et al., 2023; Villavicencio, 2013).

Parents’ experiences also shape the specific school characteristics they value (Path D). Parents’ personal experiences in schools shape their views on the importance of non-academic schooling features, such as the role of play in classrooms (e.g., Metaferia et al., 2021), the appropriate (or not punitive) disciplinary practices (e.g., Golann et al., 2019; Schneider et al., 1998), and other cultural features. Parents’ experiences also inform the qualities in schooling environments they expect would make their children feel accepted and motivated to learn, prioritizing non-academic aspects foundational for their achievement in school (Bulman, 2004; Posey-Maddox et al., 2021; Rhodes et al., 2023) rather than educational quality per se. A positive learning environment often involves children’s feelings of belonging and positive, caring relationships with teachers and peers. These are associated with higher student achievement and motivation for learning, and improved (or at least unaffected) mental health outcomes (Eccles & Roeser, 2011).

Parents’ experiential knowledge and identities, especially for those who hold ethnic-racial and/or minoritized identities, can impact their perception of schools and the choice process more broadly. Parents from minoritized backgrounds may have experienced schooling in unequal, discriminatory, and segregated education systems and, thereby, make school choices considering their racially- or ethnically-charged experiences (Cooper, 2005; Posey-Maddox et al., 2021; Rhodes et al., 2023). These parents likely weigh non-academic factors highly to identify schools in which their children will thrive and develop positive ethnic-racial identities. When combined with a limited pool of high-quality schools in their neighborhoods (Chetty et al., 2020b), these parents must often weigh factors of school safety, discipline, and teacher support and care to optimize for quality rather than select for it explicitly (Pattillo, 2015; Posey-Maddox et al., 2021).

Notably, the provision of information or navigation support—intended to compensate for cultural capital—may not sufficiently enable families from disadvantaged backgrounds to circumvent the additional individual (e.g., Bettinger et al., 2012; Lenhoff et al., 2022) and system-level constraints (Bell, 2007, 2009a) they are more likely to experience.

Economic Capital

Variation in families’ economic capital influences enrollment behavior in choice contexts through a number of pathways. To expand on the constraints discussed above, families’ economic capital often determines their children’s schooling opportunities by determining residential location within a district school (Lareau, 2014; Rhodes & DeLuca, 2014) and, when choice options are available, those that surround them (Monarrez, 2023; Richards, 2014). As such, structurally, families’ own economic capital varies due to historically and systematically inequitable access to resources and educational opportunities (Baker & Corcoran, 2012; Chetty et al., 2020a; Owens, 2020). Ultimately, the link between property values and school funding plays a large role in reproducing inequity.

Foundationally, the ability to choose a neighborhood based on the quality of its school hinges on families’ economic capital. Families from disadvantaged backgrounds often do not—or cannot—consider schools or their quality when deciding where to move (DeLuca et al., 2024). Where families live may determine whether school choice is necessary, as participation often reflects dissatisfaction or mismatch with their default school.

Within this structurally unequal context, families face the context- and household-level constraints discussed above, which can intersect and amplify one another. For instance, at a context-level, families consider factors like distance when choosing schools. Considering these structural disparities, then, families can more easily access similarly-resourced schools as those within their school districts—so that high-quality schools are in higher supply in areas where high-income families live. In such cases, distance to choice schools may be less determinative of enrollment than for families from disadvantaged backgrounds (e.g., Singer & Lenhoff, 2022). At a household level, economic capital also enables families to afford conveniences that broaden their choice sets—addressing barriers like distance by paying for transportation services. Together, these interactions advantage families in resource-rich neighborhoods while compounding constraints for families with fewer resources (Evans, 2004).

Economic capital can also relieve families from constraints in ways that influence their preferences. Families with more economic resources may be more willing to “take a risk” on less academically strong schools. Economic resources provide families with the ability to supplement what is missing in schools that parents may desire—such as tutoring and extracurricular activities (Kimelberg, 2014a). Further, if dissatisfied with their public-school experience, these resources enable families to enroll their children in a private school—or even move to a different neighborhood with more eligible schooling options (Kimelberg, 2014b).

Social Capital

We posit that parents’ social capital impacts the information to which they have access (Path G) by means of social networks. We view social networks as useful to parents’ decision-making, regardless of their social standing, and thus we rely on Rios-Aguilar and colleagues’ (2011) conceptualization of social capital as also encompassing the funds of knowledge (Velez-Ibanez & Greenberg, 2006) families from disadvantaged communities accrue (e.g., Lareau, 2003; Ream & Palardy, 2008). Social networks influence whether families participate in choice (e.g., D. J. Fleming et al., 2015; Taylor Haynes et al., 2010), the schools they consider or list in applications (e.g., Bell, 2009a; Goldring & Phillips, 2008), and the role they play in informing families’ preferences and the values that shape them.

By considering the funds of knowledge framework, we acknowledge that information from social networks can be particularly useful to families from disadvantaged backgrounds. This information allows them to identify schools and navigate institutional processes in the context of complex economic, political, and social environments in which structural racism and systems of oppression are sustained (e.g., Domínguez & Watkins, 2003; Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011). Accordingly, parents’ networks allow them to learn both about schooling options’ availability and characteristics that align with their priorities (Lin, 1999) to choose where to apply and enroll their children.

Choice has been shown to incentivize families to seek information about schools. Families can access formal information sources that report on school characteristics, like academic achievement and diversity, but these sources typically omit non-academic measures (as discussed in the “Cultural Capital” section), like school climate, or student satisfaction and socioemotional outcomes. Living in a choice context has been shown to increase parental searches for “formal” school quality information online (Lovenheim & Walsh, 2018). However, information provision regarding only some school characteristics, especially those relevant to parents, may influence their preferences (Path C) when ranking schools. When achievement metrics are readily available and simplify the comparison of schools, families may rely on them in ways that accentuate perceived differences across schools, leading to biased or overly categorical decision-making (e.g., the “accentuation effect”; Spektor & Seidler, 2022).

Importantly, families may instead be skeptical of formal information sources (Sandstrom et al., 2024) and rely on word of mouth (i.e., their communities’ funds of knowledge) as a primary source of information. Evidence from public health shows that families are less likely to rely on formal informational sources regarding pediatrician quality, instead relying on social networks (Hanauer et al., 2014; Ossai et al., 2022). Those from racial-ethnic backgrounds who experienced systemic injustice, violence, and discrimination within school systems (Bryant-Davis, 2007; Smith & Freyd, 2014) might disparately distrust the information systems provide.

As mentioned above, families may seek information about schools’ cultures that is often not reported, and they must therefore rely on their networks. Reports from families across choice contexts overwhelmingly show that social networks are primary informational sources about school options and quality (e.g., D. J. Fleming et al., 2015; Goldring & Phillips, 2008). As measures for non-achievement-related constructs typically unavailable, families rely on information from experienced families they know (e.g., Bader et al., 2019; Fong, 2019). These families may be more attuned to the culture of their community’s schools, or can share information by communicating, for example, whether their own children (as students) perceived disciplinary disproportionality (Hughes & Watford, 2021) or faced racialized bias amongst teachers and peers in a given school (e.g., Hamm, 2001; Lewis-McCoy, 2014).

Notably, the quality or status of a school is also communicated through social networks and, thus, reified by them (Path C). A school’s status, which may (or may not) be related to its quality or resources, is socially constructed (Holme, 2002). The use of networks, both between and across families and school administrators, can thus shape family perspectives regarding schools (Jabbar, 2016; Jennings, 2010). This feedback loop benefits schools whose administrators activate their social networks and, for example, influence both the volume of applications they receive and the types of families who submit them.

Making Application Choices in Choice Markets

As parents select the schools in which they are interested, they participate in an application process (or multiple ones) that can influence their decision-making. Choice systems require families to consider application processes, like submission deadlines and requirements, and introduce additional complexities, including applicant priority and school ranking rules. Thus, systems’ features and assignment and admissions mechanisms may influence how parents choose and rank schools in their applications. Throughout this section, we focus on the two most fundamental types of choice markets—centralized and decentralized.

Navigating Aftermarkets

Provided the assignment mechanism has matched students to schools, or students have received (or failed to receive) admission decisions, aftermarkets serve as an allocative secondary market. ⁹ As families receive assignments or are admitted and are waitlisted in schools they preferred “more,” others are also assigned and waitlisted. As shown in Figure 1, decision-making is constrained by their assignment results and that of others’ who also submitted applications, all of which were determined by their application choices (Path K). Typically, two groups of families engage in aftermarkets: (1) families not given the opportunity to enroll their child in their top (or most preferred) choice may navigate the aftermarket to receive a different offer, and (2) families who did not submit applications must add themselves to waitlists in schools they are interested in or enroll in undersubscribed schools.

Decision-making in aftermarkets is similar to that within choice markets for applicant families with an important difference: families choose between accepting an offer or waiting for one through a waitlist. A few studies in sociology and education policy provide qualitative evidence that emphasizes the role that families’ capital can play in aftermarkets. Across systems, families leverage social capital and learn from their social networks how soon to add themselves to waitlists (Lareau et al., 2016) or who to talk to at schools (Brown, 2022) to secure offers. Families may have gained cultural capital from participating in the application process (Path L), which informs their understanding of the choice system, priority groups, and use of lotteries. Applicant characteristics can still be relevant in aftermarkets, as they tend to determine waitlist order in centralized systems. The accumulation of this capital likely benefits families who submitted applications and are waitlisted in the schools they prefer when compared against those who never submitted applications at all. Little understanding of the waitlist process may deter late-coming families from joining waitlists and instead might opt to enroll in undersubscribed schools, which are also likely to be of lower quality. Conversely, families hesitant about navigating the waitlist process, even after submitting applications, may instead settle for schools they do not prefer as strongly (Potterton, 2020).

Based on existing evidence, and the expectations from our model, families’ navigation of aftermarkets may lead to disparities in enrollment outcomes. More research is needed to understand who successfully navigates aftermarkets and the underlying decision-making processes in which families engage when traversing them.

Addressing the Role of Time and Timing

A full rendition of our theory would consider life course theory and developmental timing as they intersect with these processes, as we show in Figure 1. Life course theory perspective (Elder & Shanahan, 2007) adds how families’ capital, values, preferences, information, and constraints may differ between across the decision-making points in school choice processes, raising the importance of factors like household stability (DeLuca et al., 2019, 2024; Fong & Faude, 2018). By considering the child within her school and the recognizing schools as places, our model acknowledges how parents’ views and definitions of school quality and their related preferences for and values regarding schools (Paths J and J²) progressively shift in response to children’s developmental needs. Thus, our model can consider context at the level of choice markets and aftermarkets, and be positioned within and throughout families’ life course.

Macro-Level Features of, and Pathways Through, Choice Systems

These include the institutional architecture of systems and the pathways through which families navigate them, which together structure access to schooling options.

Design of the Choice Process

Beyond system architecture, the design of the choice process shapes how families participate in the system and their enrollment outcomes. These features influence application behavior, assignment outcomes, and enrollment decisions.

The effects of certain choice process features can depend on systems’ broader structural characteristics and the distribution of schooling options across educational markets.

Family-Level Navigation Within Systems

Resource-based differences in navigation reflect the interaction between system structure, educational markets, and family characteristics. Families with different forms of capital may engage with the same system in distinct ways, leading to divergent pathways and outcomes.

To illustrate how the proposed theoretical model can inform policy, system design, and future research, Table 1 identifies research gaps, proposes potential empirical studies, and outlines considerations for administrators and policymakers related to key system features.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1

Choice System Features, Research Gaps, Empirical Research Guidance, and Considerations for Administrator and City Agency Officials

1. Choice System Feature	2. Gaps in the Literature and Future Areas of Research	3. Illustrative Directions for Empirical Research	4. Considerations for Administrators and City Agency Officials
Application and Enrollment Deadlines	Descriptive evidence suggests that timing may affect disadvantaged families in particular (Fong & Faude, 2018; Shmoys et al., 2026). However, there is no causal research on how timing of application and enrollment affects parents’ decision-making and enrollment outcomes.	Researchers could leverage administrative data from centralized systems where deadline have changed, or where broader system reforms have altered deadline structures, to examine the effects on choice participation, enrollment outcomes, and family group representation across choice process pathways.	Consider families’ economic, housing, and work instability within the system’s context when determining administrative deadlines. If possible, test alternative deadline structures (e.g., rolling or extended windows) and/or provide additional flexibility for disadvantaged groups.
Information About School Options	Research has mostly focused on access to and the provision/display method of information (e.g., Corcoran & Jennings, 2020; Glazerman et al., 2020; Lovenheim & Walsh, 2018), but little is known about how different groups interpret or trust it when making decisions, especially regarding school culture/climate. There is also a need for the development and validation of tools that measure school climate (Wang & Degol, 2016) in ways that are responsive to families’ preferences within choice contexts.	Researchers could randomly sample applicants during the application window and measure their understanding of, and trust in, system-provided information. Mixed-methods designs (e.g., cognitive interviews with applicants as they interpret school profiles and submit applications) could illustrate how trust and comprehension vary across family groups. Researchers could also develop and validate measures of school climate that are both (a) psychometrically sound and (b) aligned with theorized family priorities within choice contexts. Finally, researchers could assess the predictive and behavioral relevance of these measures by testing whether providing them (across varying sources or formats) shifts ranking behavior and assignment or enrollment outcomes in experimental or quasi-experimental designs.	Consider collecting and reporting measures beyond those pertaining to achievement using validated tools (e.g., school and classroom climate assessment scores). In addition, consider avoiding the provision of oversimplified measures of quality—instead, provide explanations of how schools or classrooms were assessed, and how to use these measures to compare school options.
Information About Priority Groups	Causal evidence, limited to non-US contexts (e.g., Calsamiglia & Güell, 2018; Gortázar et al., 2023), shows how priority group shifts affect choice behaviors. Within U.S. contexts, there is no causal evidence on whether providing information about priority groups influences application behaviors. In addition, research has not yet examined how well families understand priority groups and how they shape assignment probability.	Researchers could exploit natural experiments using administrative data from choice systems to examine application and enrollment outcomes before and after policy changes affecting the use or ordering of priority groups, employing difference-in-differences or time-series designs (similar to approaches in studies conducted in European contexts). Lab experiments or cognitive interviewing could also serve as useful complements by allowing researchers to isolate how individuals interpret priority rules and incorporate them into application strategies. In addition, surveys of applicant families could measure whether families understand priority rules and assignment probabilities by prompting respondents to interpret statements about priority group eligibility and its implications for admission likelihood. This approach could uncover misperceptions of assignment chances and illustrate how these beliefs shape application behavior.	If using priority groups, consider developing visual tools or calculators that can simulate admissions probability based on priorities and share them with applicants. Also consider training support and school staff to explain priority groups to applicants appropriately.
Priority Groups and Their Order	A novel and growing body of research has investigated who benefits from priority groups and their order in specific program contexts (e.g., Shmoys et al., 2026; Valant & Walker, 2024). There is, however, a need for studies that assess families’ understanding of priority groups and evaluate how system-set priority group order affects decision-making during application processes.		Consider involving community stakeholders (e.g., elected officials, existing support staff, families) when determining priority groups and their order. In addition, consider partnering with researchers to revisit priority group order or internally simulate assignments (evaluating equity of outcomes) using an alternative order or a different set of priority groups altogether.
Provision and Training of Navigation/ Support Staff	Most existing research focuses on counselors as information providers in choice contexts (e.g., Sattin-Bajaj et al., 2018). A nascent literature has begun to examine the roles of navigational support staff within choice system, suggesting that implementation often focuses on providing equal, rather than equitable, supports to families (Faude, 2025). Evidence from other bureaucratic contexts has shown the importance of staff support for families (e.g., Bergman et al., 2024), highlighting a promising direction for future inquiry in choice contexts.	Researchers could leverage variation in access to support staff based on office closures, staffing changes, or distance to offices and, using quasi-experimental approaches, estimate their effect on application submission, ranking behavior, enrollment outcomes, and disparities in pathway use. More observational studies of navigator-family interactions are needed to (1) understand implementation differences across contexts and (2) to identify organizational practices that enable support staff to effectively and equitably assist families navigating choice systems.	Recognize the central role of support staff in your system and consider investing in ongoing professional learning and additional supports. In addition, consider funding additional staff in high-need communities and creating documentation to provide support to the most vulnerable families (e.g., multilingual documentation and step-by-step guides to navigate enrollment processes). Minimize constraints in support staff’s work to optimize their capacity to support all families.
Implementation and Navigation of the Waitlist Process	Waitlists are under-researched, with limited evidence on which families successfully navigate them, how information about waitlist status is communicated, and whether transparency affects enrollment follow-through. There is also a need to examine which families join waitlists after missing the application deadline, under what circumstances they do so, and whether they ultimately secure their preferred options.	Researchers could use administrative data from choice systems to examine which families join waitlists, how long they remain on them, and which families ultimately receive and accept waitlist offers. Survival analyses could be used to study how waitlist behavior evolves over time and whether the timing of waitlist offers affects enrollment decisions. Natural experiments arising from policy changes in waitlist transparency (e.g., the introduction of waitlist position visibility) could be used to estimate how additional information influences families’ decisions to remain on waitlists or accept offers.	Give careful attention to ensuring appropriate and clear communication of waitlist positions and that next steps for families are straightforward (e.g., by providing strict instructions to schools regarding seat offer acceptance deadlines and simplifying opt-in steps for families).