1

School Choice and the Branding of Milwaukee Private Schools

Albert Cheng*

Julie Trivitt

Patrick J. Wolf

University of Arkansas

EDRE Working Paper No. 2014-04

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; Email: axc070@uark.edu

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 highly-

organized, 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

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

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 for-

profit 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

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 project-

based 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

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

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 2012-2013 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 2006-07 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 2006-07, less

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

private school from 2006-07 to 2007-08 – 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 2006-07 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 3rd

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. 2Less 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

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:

Ti = β0 + β1Ri + β2Di + ϵi, (1)

where Ti is the type of school that parent i has selected for her child, and ϵi is the error term. Di 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. Ri 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. Ri comprises our independent variables

of interest and estimates the odds that a parent selects a particular school type3 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

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 faith-

based 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

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

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

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 Catholic-

school 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

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 non-

sectarian 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

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. Cost-

conscious 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

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

References

Bennett, Julie. 2008. “Brand-name charters.” Education Next 8(3), 28-34.

Berry, Leonard. 2000. “Cultivating Service Brand Equity.” Journal of Academy of Marketing

Science 28(1): 128-127.

Bryk, Anthony S., Valerie E. Lee and Peter B. Holland. 1993. Catholic Schools and the Common

Good. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Candal, Cara and Charles Glenn. 2012. “Race Relations in High School.” Journal of School

Choice 6(1): 82-103.

Cohen-Zada, Danny and Moshe Justman. 2005. “The Religious Factor in Private Education.”

The Journal of Urban Economics 57(3): 391-418.

Cowen, Joshua M., David J. Fleming, John F. Witte, and Patrick J. Wolf. 2010. School and Sector

Switching in Milwaukee. Milwaukee Evaluation Report #16. School Choice Demonstration

Project, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

Dawar, Niraj and Philip Parker. 1994. “Marketing Universals: Consumers’ Use of Brand Name,

Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality.”

Journal of Marketing 58(2): 81-95.

Erdem, Tülin, Joffre Swait and Jordan Louviere. 2002. “The Impact of Brand Credibility on

Consumer Price Sensitivity.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 19(1): 1-19.

Fischel, William. 2009. 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. 2013. “Similar Students,

Different Choices: Who Uses a School Voucher in an Otherwise Similar Population of Students?”

Education and Urban Society.

19

Greene, Jay P. 1998. “Civic Values in Public and Private Schools.” Pp. 83-106. 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. 2000. “Integration Where it Counts: A Study of Racial

Integration in Public and Private School Lunchrooms.” Texas Education Review 1(1): 15-

26.

Gutmann, Amy. 1987. Democratic Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hastings, J.S., & Jeffrey M. Weinstein. 2008. “Information, School Choice, and Academic

Achievement: Evidence from Two Experiments.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics

123(4): 1373-1414.

Isch, John. 2002. The Generation to Come: “Lutheran Education in the United States.” Catholic

Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice 5(4): 527-40.

Iyengar, Sheena S. and Mark R. Lepper. 2000. “When Choice is Demotivating: Can one Desire

too Much of a Good Thing?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(6): 995-

1006.

Jacoby, Jacob, Jerry Olson and Rafael Haddock. 1971. “Price, Brand Name and Product

Composition Characteristics as Determinants of Perceived Quality.” Journal of Applied

Psychology 55(6): 570-79.

20

Jacob, Brian and Lars Lefgren. 2007. “What do Parents Value in Education? An Empirical

Investigation of Parents’ Revealed Preferences for Teachers.” The Quarterly Journal of

Economics 122(4): 1603–37.

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. 2010. “When More Alternatives Lead to Less

Choice.” Marketing Science 29(3): 507-24.

Leischnig, Alexander, Anja Geigenmuller and Margit Enke. 2012. “Brands you can rely on! An

Empirical Investigation of Brand Credibility in Services.” Schmalenback Business

Review 64: 44-58.

National Association of Independent Schools. 2010. 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 31. http://www.ncea.org/news/new-catholic-schools-week-

theme-designed-last-while

Parker, Deborah. 2007. 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. 1985. The Shopping Mall High School:

Winners and Losers in the Educational Marketplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rao, Akshay and Monroe, Kent. 1988. “The Modernizing Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue

Utilization in Product Evaluations.” Journal of Consumer Research 15(2): 253-264.

21

Reardon, Sean and John Yun. 2003. “Private School Racial Enrollments and Segregation.” Pp.

71-80 in Richard Kahlenberg, ed., Public School Choice vs. Private School Vouchers.

New York: Century Foundation Press.

Reutskaja, Elena and Robin Hogarth. 2009. “Satisfaction in Choice as a Function of the

Number of Alternatives: When ‘Goods Satiate’.” Psychology and Marketing 26(3): 197–

203.

Scanlan, Michael. 2008. “The Grammar of Catholic Schooling and Radically ‘Catholic’

Schools.” Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice 12(1): 25-54.

Scheibehenne, Benjamin, Rainer Greifeneder and Peter Todd. 2009. “What Moderates the

Too-Much-Choice Effect?” Psychology and Marketing 26(3): 229–253.

Schneider, Mark and Jack Buckley. 2002. “What Do Parents Want from Schools? Evidence from

the Internet.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 24(2): 133-144.

Schneider, Mark, Paul Teske and Melissa Marschall. 2000. Choosing Schools: Consumer choice

and the Quality of American Schools. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Shah, Avni and George Wolford. 2007. Buying Behavior as a Function of Parametric Variation

of Number of Choices. Psychological Science 18(5): 369–370.

Sikkink, David. 2012. “Religious School Differences in School Climate and Academic Mission:

A Descriptive Overview of School Organization and Student Outcomes.” Journal of

School Choice 6(1): 20-39.

Spence, Michael. 1974. Market signaling: Information Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening

Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Stewart, Thomas and Patrick J. Wolf. 2014. The School Choice Journey: Vouchers and the

Empowerment of Urban Families. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

22

Stigler, George. 1961. The Economics of Information. Journal of Political Economy 69(3): 213-

225.

Tiebout, Charles. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy

64(5): 416-424.

Triole, Jean. 1990. The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Trivitt Julie R. and Patrick J. Wolf. 2011. “School Choice and the Branding of Catholic

Schools.” Education Finance and Policy 6(2): 202-245.

Snyder, Thomas D. and Sally A. Dillow. 2013. Digest of Education Statistics 2012. Washington

DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US

Department of Education.

Whitehurst, Grover J. 2012. “Let the Dollars Follow the Child.” Education Next 12(2): 9-15.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. 2012. “MPCP Facts and Figures for 2012-2013.

Accessed April 1, 2014.” Retrieved from http://sms.dpi.wi.gov/sms_geninfo

23

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Surveyed Parents

Percent of Parents

Race

American Indian 0.81

Asian or Pacific Islander 1.79

Black 56.26

Hispanic 24.24

White 16.91

Religious Preference

Lutheran 6.92

Catholic 31.16

Other Protestant (non-Lutheran) 51.13

Atheist 6.46

Other Religion 4.33

Highest Level of Education Completed by Respondent

Eighth Grade or Below 8.25

Some High School 13.44

GED 3.46

High School Graduate 25.68

Post High School (Vocational School) 4.10

Some College 31.33

Four-year College Degree 10.73

Post-Graduate Work 3.00

Annual Household Income

Less than $5,000 9.75

$5,001 to $7,500 6.52

$7,501 to 10,000 6.06

$10,001 to 15,000 12.52

$15,001 to 20,000 12.81

$20,001 to 25,000 12.52

$25,001 to 35,000 20.54

$35,001 to 50,000 13.73

$50,001 or more 5.54

24

Table 2. Summary Statistics of School Type

Type of School Percent of Parents

Choosing School Type

Private Schools

Lutheran 19.10

Catholic 43.97

Other Protestant (non-Lutheran) 17.20

Secular 10.79

Jewish or Islamic 4.10

Public Schools 4.85

25

Table 3. Parent Preferences for Various School Characteristics

Percent of Parents Selecting

Not

Important

Somewhat

Important

Important Very

Important

Strong Disciplinary Environment 0.76 2.32 21.15 75.77

Religious Instruction Offered 5.98 8.16 26.62 59.23

Affordability 2.58 7.07 32.39 57.96

Racial Diversity 11.35 8.23 27.20 53.21

Availability and Quality of School

Facilities

0.94 4.61 30.79 63.66

Availability of Special Programs 2.14 7.51 32.32 58.03

Availability of Extra Curricular Activities 2.68 13.57 38.70 45.05

Small Class Sizes 2.87 8.23 30.07 58.83

Safety 0.07 0.54 11.46 87.92

26

Table 4. Estimates of Empirical Model

School Type

Catholic Lutheran

Other

Protestant Secular

Jewish or

Islamic

Importance Ratings

Strong Disciplinary

Environment 0.987 0.929 0.935 0.862 0.980

(0.095) (0.093) (0.090) (0.084) (0.173)

Availability of

Religious Instruction 1.843** 2.343** 1.861** 0.925 2.091**

(0.157) (0.229) (0.161) (0.076) (0.360)

Affordability 1.244* 1.012 1.107 1.020 0.928

(0.111) (0.094) (0.099) (0.095) (0.141)

Racial Diversity 0.753** 0.811* 0.870 0.920 0.569**

(0.074) (0.085) (0.088) (0.097) (0.097)

Availability of Extra

Curricular Activities

0.879 0.829 0.740** 0.989 0.794

(0.088) (0.086) (0.074) (0.107) (0.137)

Small Class Sizes 1.336** 1.251* 1.155 1.484** 1.092

(0.118) (0.118) (0.101) (0.143) (0.184)

School Facilities 0.919 0.944 0.930 0.843 1.043

(0.093) (0.102) (0.097) (0.091) (0.172)

Availability of Special

Programs 0.958 0.967 0.980 1.126 0.993

(0.096) (0.102) (0.099) (0.123) (0.173)

Safety 0.980 1.021 1.183 1.273* 1.015

(0.089) (0.100) (0.114) (0.133) (0.166)

Parent’s Religious Preference

Catholic 6.195** 0.956 0.132** 0.540 0.042**

(2.597) (0.440) (0.074) (0.261) (0.026)

Lutheran 1.163 9.478** 0.646 1.110 0.000

(0.705) (5.517) (0.418) (0.723) (0.000)

Other Protestant 0.993 0.944 1.063 0.755 0.023**

(0.329) (0.322) (0.348) (0.256) (0.011)

Atheist 2.064 1.343 1.324 1.196 0.157**

(0.893) (0.622) (0.574) (0.521) (0.101)

Constant 1.056 0.559 1.242 3.354 0.000

(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.