Peabody Journal of Education

ISSN: 0161-956X (Print) 1532-7930 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20

School Marketing as a Sorting Mechanism: A

Critical Discourse Analysis of Charter School
Websites

Terri S. Wilson & Robert L. Carlsen

To cite this article: Terri S. Wilson & Robert L. Carlsen (2016) School Marketing as a Sorting
Mechanism: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Charter School Websites, Peabody Journal of
Education, 91:1, 24-46, DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2016.1119564

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1119564

Published online: 20 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1731

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 23 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hpje20
PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 91: 24–46, 2016
Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0161-956X print / 1532-7930 online
DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2016.1119564

School Marketing as a Sorting Mechanism: A Critical

Discourse Analysis of Charter School Websites
Terri S. Wilson
University of Colorado–Boulder

Robert L. Carlsen
Southern Illinois University–Carbondale

An emerging body of research has explored “supply side” questions of school choice, or how schools
and systems shape enrollment through locational decisions, recruitment, and marketing. This study
focuses on how school websites market and communicate the distinct missions of charter schools to
prospective families. Through a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of 55 elementary charter school
websites in one demographically diverse metropolitan area, we explore how school websites operate
as discursive texts that signal the potential “fit” between particular schools and particular families.
Guided by a critical discourse analysis framework, we emphasize how websites (a) employ implicit
discourses of race, culture, and diversity; (b) draw on different meanings of academic achievement,
and (c) emphasize different ideologies of individualized learning. We argue that websites act as one
mechanism that contributes to the segmentation and differentiation of an emerging local marketplace
of school options.

Instead of a “one size fits all” approach, charter schools often adopt particular curricular ap-
proaches, school models, or missions that appeal to the different interests of families (Gewirtz,
2002; Savage, 2012). For example, some families may be drawn toward a Montessori school;
others may prefer a STEM-focused school, or one that emphasizes dual-language immer-
sion. Choice policy proposes that these differences might help schools improve in two ways:
(a) internally, by organizing schools into coherent communities around shared commitments; and
(b) externally, through market competition with other schools (Chubb & Moe, 1990). In a system
of market-based competition, schools must compete for a minimum share of student enrollment
in order to remain financially solvent. In such a system, schools are incentivized not only to be
“better than” other schools, but to find ways to differentiate themselves from the competition. As
Chubb and Moe (1990) argue, “To be successful [schools] need to find their niche—a specialized
segment of the market to which they can appeal and attract support” (p. 55).
Indeed, early studies of school marketing have suggested that schools in competitive envi-
ronments target particular audiences with symbolic and emotional messages, rather than offer

Correspondence should be sent to Terri S. Wilson, School of Education, University of Colorado–Boulder, UCB 249,
Boulder, CO 80309. E-mail: terri.wilson@colorado.edu
 SCHOOL MARKETING AS A SORTING MECHANISM 25

information about school effectiveness (Lubienski, 2007). In effect, schools in marketized envi-
ronments may not be competing against all other schools to attract potential students. Instead,
these schools might be competing against smaller subsets of schools for particular students. Mar-
keting offers schools a way to shape their enrollments; such efforts, taken as a whole, contribute
to the segmentation of a marketplace.1 As a result, the competitive incentives created by marke-
tization may be more likely lead to patterns of segregation and sorting than school improvement.
Indeed, research has demonstrated that choice exacerbates patterns of segregation along lines of
race and class (e.g., Bifulco & Ladd, 2007; Garcia, 2008; Ni, 2012).
Although we know that patterns of school segregation exist, we know less about the mech-
anisms that shape these patterns. In particular, how do schools differentiate themselves from
competitors? How are differences between schools communicated to potential families? How
might these communication strategies shape choices? Patterns of charter school segregation, in
this sense, raise questions not just about how parents choose schools, but also how schools appeal
to different families. An extensive body of research has examined some of the “demand-side”
mechanisms of choice, including how parents choose certain schools (Bell, 2007, 2009) and how
these choices intersect with race and class (Holme, 2002; Roda & Wells, 2013; Schneider &
Buckley, 2002; Weiher & Tedin, 2002). A comparatively smaller body of research has explored
“supply side” questions of school choice, or how schools and school systems shape parents’
choices through locational decisions (Gulosino & d’Entremont, 2012; Henig & MacDonald, 2002;
Lubienski, Gulosino, & Weitzel, 2009), student recruitment (Jennings, 2010; Lacireno-Paquet,
Holyoke, Moser, & Henig, 2002), and marketing efforts (Lubienski, 2005, 2007; Wilkins, 2012).
Building on this research, this study focuses on one dimension of “supply-side” school behav-
ior: how websites market and communicate the distinct missions of charter schools to prospective
families. Through a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of 55 elementary charter school websites
in one demographically diverse metropolitan area, we explore how school websites operate as
discursive texts that signal the potential “fit” between particular schools and particular families.
Our focus, in this sense, is neither the intentions of school leaders, nor the perceptions of parents.
In contrast, we aim to show how school websites can be “read” discursively, as texts that evoke
and employ a range of social and cultural meanings in appealing to particular families. While
preliminary, our study shows how school websites act as mechanisms that shape the segmentation
of an emerging local marketplace of school options.
This paper is organized in the following way: We first provide a brief review of the relevant
literature on charter school marketing. We then describe the methodological approach we used
to select and analyze websites. We then report our findings in two parts: First, we describe four
categories of websites that differed by the school curricular approaches and demographic char-
acteristics. We then describe three themes in school marketing strategies, focusing on differences

1We employ the term “market segmentation” to describe how schools in a given marketplace may not compete against

all other schools in that market. In contrast, schools may have incentives to target particular subsets of students and
families. This term has long been employed in economic literature on marketing (see Smith, 1956; Wedel, 2000), but less
often in the literature on education marketing (exceptions include Batie, 2009; Scott & Wells 2013). In their review of the
research on marketing, Oplatka and Hemsley-Brown (2012) note a few examples of marketing segmentation strategies
(e.g., Bagley et al., 1996; Maguire, Ball, & Macrae, 2001), but conclude that schools are unlikely to employ systematic
approaches to marketing research, positioning, and segmentation (2012, pp. 15–16).
26 T. S. WILSON AND R. L. CARLSEN

between and across groups. In the discussion section, we delineate the implications of these
differentiated marketing strategies for questions about school choice and equity.

BACKGROUND

The “supply side” study of school choice explores, in broad terms, how schools respond to
market incentives and act to shape their enrollments. Much of this research hypothesizes that
choice creates incentives for schools to proactively shape their clienteles in ways that recruit
“easier”—usually less costly—students to educate (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002). Researchers
have explored the strategies schools have used to “cream,” “crop,” and shape their enrollments
through targeting particular students and opening in strategic locations (Gulosino & d’Entremont,
2012; Henig & MacDonald, 2002; Jacobs, 2011; Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002; Lubienski et al.,
2009). Schools have also employed other—less visible—strategies to subtly discourage certain
families from applying (Jennings, 2010; Jessen, 2013) or “counsel out” students who may be more
difficult to educate (Estes, 2004). Schools also try to proactively recruit certain kinds of families
and students. In their study of several choice-based schools in New York City, DiMartino and
Jessen (2014) found that schools sought out “high performing” students, as well as “well-behaved
and focused students who ‘understand the culture of the school”’ (p. 22).
Choice asks schools to take on a new responsibility: to market their distinctive features and
attract families in a competitive marketplace (Gewirtz, Ball, & Bowe, 1995; Lubienski, 2007).
Studies in this area have demonstrated how charter schools use marketing strategies to shape
student enrollment (Batie, 2009; Johnsson & Lindgren, 2010; Lubienski, 2005, 2006, 2007;
Oplatka & Helmsley-Brown, 2012; Wilkins, 2012). Notably, Lubienski et al. (2009) found that
schools in competitive markets increase promotional efforts and marketization creates incentive
structures that encourage schools to shape enrollment, not provide equitable access.
Marketing materials are an important potential source of information for families making
school choices, especially when other sources of data (e.g., school report cards) may be less
immediately accessible. However, school-generated information is often partial and incomplete
(Lubienski, 2007), and families may not have the skills to sift through complex information
(Gewirtz, 2002; Schneider & Buckley, 2002). In the absence of high-quality information, families
often make decisions based on vague understandings about the “reputation” or “feel” of the
school (Bell, 2009; Gewirtz et al., 1995; Holme, 2002). In such an environment of partial
and flawed information, marketing has substantial power to shape and influence choices. In
particular, marketing materials can both target and exclude particular families by employing
subtle language and symbols that telegraph the right “fit” between a school and certain families
(DiMartino & Jessen, 2014; Jennings, 2010). Here, an important subset of “supply side” research
has focused on symbols and visual images in school marketing materials (Drew, 2013; Gottschall,
Wardman, Edgeworth, Hutchesson, & Saltmarsh, 2010; Graham, 2013; Symes, 1998; Wilkins,
2012). Symes (1998) contends that promotional materials are one way that schools engage
in sophisticated advertising strategies and “image management.” Gewirtz et al. (1995) employ
the term “glossification” to describe how schools project a particular image or brand, often
without reference to substantive features of the school. Here, too, a largely international group of
scholars has drawn on techniques from semiotics—the study of signs and symbols—to analyze
 SCHOOL MARKETING AS A SORTING MECHANISM 27

school promotional materials (Drew, 2013; Gottschall et al., 1995; Johnsson & Lindgren, 2010;
Wardman, Hutchesson, Gottschall, Drew, & Saltmarsh, 2010).
Marketing happens at a school level, but it also has systemic effects. As Lubienski and
Weitzel (2009) argue, marketing effects can be understood on two levels: (a) how individual
schools recruit particular students and families, and (b) how these school-level actions shape the
overall distribution of school options within a “local education quasi-market” (p. 362). Marketing
materials make different appeals to different families, depending on the unique competitive
features of particular communities. Lubienski (2007) examined the information provided to
parents in one competitive, racialized market in Michigan. He argues that schools used marketing
materials to target—and in effect, select—particular students and families, often along lines
of race and class. Similarly, DiMartino and Jessen (2014) documented how small schools in
New York City used marketing to create “boutique” or “niche” identities within an educational
system, in ways that exacerbated segregation. Here, the literature points to connections between
school-based marketing and the segregation of schools within an educational market.
Building on these areas of research, our study explores how school marketing practices
communicate differences between schools in ways that contribute to the segmentation of a local
educational market. We focus on one marketing mechanism, charter school websites, in one
demographically diverse metropolitan area. This study explores two questions:
1. How do schools communicate their missions and curricular approaches through their
websites? What information, symbols, and images do schools use to describe their foci?
2. How do marketing materials appeal to particular groups of students and families, along
lines of race, ethnicity, language background, gender, status, etc.?
In sum, we seek to document how schools utilize their websites to describe their distinct
missions, as well as how websites might appeal to different families and students. In these ways,
a primary goal of our study is to explore possible connections between marketing strategies and
patterns of segregation between charter schools in this metropolitan area.

METHODS

To explore these questions, we undertook a qualitative document analysis of the websites of 55

charter schools in the Minneapolis and St. Paul (Twin Cities) metropolitan area. In this section, we
first describe some of the relevant features of this metropolitan area. We provide a brief overview
of the theoretical framework of critical discourse analysis that guided our analysis, and outline
practical procedures for how we limited, organized, and coded data.

Metropolitan Context

The Twin Cities offer an important context for this study in three ways: the extent of available
choices, the particular demographic context of the metropolitan area, and patterns of differenti-
ation between schools. Taken together, these three features offer a rich possible site to explore
the potential for segmentation and differentiation in a local educational market. First, parents
in the Twin Cities have widespread access to choice through a significant number of charter
28 T. S. WILSON AND R. L. CARLSEN

TABLE 1
2014 Enrollment by Ethnicity (Minneapolis and St. Paul Public School Districts)

St. Paul Public Schools Minneapolis Public Schools

Ethnicity Count Percent Ethnicity Count Percent

American Indian/Alaskan Native 678 1.8% American Indian/Alaskan Native 1,558 4.3%
Asian/Pacific Islander 11,818 31.2% Asian/Pacific Islander 2,609 7.2%
Hispanic 5,252 13.9% Hispanic 6,723 18.5%
Black, not of Hispanic origin 11,429 30.2% Black, not of Hispanic origin 13,379 36.9%
White, not of Hispanic origin 8,688 22.9% White, not of Hispanic origin 12,014 33.1%

school options, many magnet schools, and inter- and intra-district choice plans. Both Min-
neapolis and St. Paul school districts offer extensive choice options for students. Minnesota’s
open-enrollment law (passed in 1991) allows for out-of-district registration of students, but does
not pay for transportation. In addition, close to 35,000 students attended charter schools in the
Twin Cities in the 2012–2013 school year (IMO, 2013). Students are able to attend charter
schools across district lines, although transportation options vary by school. Although we fo-
cus on charter schools marketing in this study, the local context offers a competitive array of
options.
Second, compared to other metropolitan areas with widespread choice (i.e., Washington DC,
Philadelphia, New Orleans), schools in this area enroll a wider range of different racial and
ethnic groups (see Table 1 for the demographics of Minneapolis and St. Paul districts). In
addition, the Twin Cities metropolitan area includes a number of suburban school districts with
increasing percentages of minority student enrollments. Charter schools have recently expanded
in diversifying suburbs, often enrolling more White students than surrounding districts (IMO,
2013). In Minnesota, charter schools are required to admit all students and to use a lottery system,
if there are more applicants than spaces. Schools can offer preferential enrollment to siblings
of current students. Although technically open to all, outreach efforts influence who knows
about the school and when they apply (getting in requires applying in time for a school’s lottery
process).
Third, there is evidence that the growing charter school sector in the Twin Cities has ex-
acerbated patterns of segregation. In particular, researchers at the Institute on Metropolitan
Opportunity (IMO) at the University of Minnesota have found that charter schools are much
more likely to be segregated than district schools in the Twin Cities (IMO, 2013). Examining
a larger group of 124 metro-area charter schools (versus the 55 in this study), the IMO report
(2013) found that 40 charter schools were “predominately White,” (with a non-White student
share of less than 20%) and 63 other charter schools were “non-White segregated” (with a
non-White student share of more than 60%). Twenty-one charter schools, or 17% of the group,
were classified as “integrated,” with a non-White student share between 20%–60%. In effect,
certain charter schools over-enroll White students while other charter schools over-enroll mi-
nority students (compared to surrounding districts). The result is that charter schools intensify
patterns of segregation by grouping particular types of students into particular schools (IMO,
2013).
 SCHOOL MARKETING AS A SORTING MECHANISM 29

Websites as Qualitative Documents

In this study, we treat charter school websites as “documents” that can be analyzed qualitatively.
Although websites are only one source of information, they play an increasingly visible and
important role in a school’s effort to craft a unified and positive image for prospective students
(McDonald, Pini, & Mayes, 2012). Websites offer a window into how a school wants to be
understood by an external audience. As Winter, Saunders, and Hart (2003) contend, “websites are
on-stage work areas where a performance is given to an actual or implied audience of potential
customers. .. they provide frames of symbolic representations that inform and lure these potential
stakeholders in to take a closer look” (p. 311). In treating charter school websites as qualitative
documents, we draw on an emerging body of qualitative studies of school websites (Drew, 2013;
Gottschall et al., 2010; Johnsson & Lindgren, 2010; Lund, 2008; Maguire, Ball, & Macrae, 1999;
Symes, 1998; Wardman et al., 2010; Wilkins, 2012).

Critical Discourse Analysis

In addition to “reading” the content of a document, qualitative studies include an analysis of the
document’s context, author, point of view, intended audience, and objectives. Here, a text is always
a cultural, political, and social object. These insights also draw on a tradition of critical discourse
analysis. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) analyzes the production and reception of discourse
with an eye toward explicating taken-for-granted assumptions and both explicit and latent mean-
ings. CDA is premised on understanding discourses (spoken or written language, or iconography)
as kinds of social practices (Gee, 2005). It studies the relationship between discursive acts and the
situations, institutions, and social structures in which they are embedded (Fairclough & Wodak,
1997). In this sense, CDA has been used to analyze messages communicated by school and
university websites (e.g., Lund, 2008; Zhang & O’Halloran, 2013).
Among various approaches to CDA, we draw on Fairclough’s (1992, 1995) three-dimensional
methodology in this study. Fairclough sees discourse as an amalgamation of three interrelated
dimensions: text, discursive practices, and social practices. The first of Fairclough’s three dimen-
sions, the text, is simply the object of analysis, a record of an event where some fact or belief
is communicated, and is analyzed descriptively through textual analysis. The second dimension,
discursive practices, focuses on the processes involved in the production and reception of the text,
and is analyzed interpretively. The third dimension, social practices, is understood as the larger
social context (cultural, political, or economic) that bears upon the text and governs the produc-
tion and reception of the discursive practices. Here, analysis focuses on the influence of social
events, practices, and structures on the text (Fairclough, 1995, 2003). In short, CDA understands
a text as a description of something occurring within a wider cultural context that is interpreted
and acted upon by social actors within a field of rules and norms.
We drew on Fairclough’s three-dimensional approach to CDA in our analysis process, as
we worked from relatively specific and literal textual codes to more analytic categories and
interpretive claims. Of particular interest to this study is Fairclough’s (1992) claim that documents
do not just represent the world, but help to shape it. As he writes, “Discourse is a practice not just
of representing the world, but of signifying the world, constituting and constructing the world of
meaning” (p. 64; cited in Lund, 2008, p. 637). In this sense, school websites do not just describe
30 T. S. WILSON AND R. L. CARLSEN

a field of choice options; they act to shape the availability, meaning, and nature of those choices.
Websites, in effect, both describe and shape choices.

Organizing, Coding, and Data Analysis

We limited our study to schools that were open in the 2012–2013 school year and located in
the immediate metropolitan area (inside the two major cities and close-in suburban areas). We
also focused on schools open to kindergarten enrollment. We chose to focus our analysis on K–8
websites because they explicitly focus their messaging to parents (contrasted with upper grades,
which also market to students). With these limitations, our data set included 55 charter schools
with some combination of elementary and intermediate (K–8) grade levels. Of these schools,
40 were in the two major cities; 15 were in adjacent suburban communities. We first created a
comprehensive catalog of each school’s website information and connected it to available school
demographic data from the Minnesota Department of Education. We then created PDF versions
of every “page” of each school’s website in January 2014. Combining insights from grounded
theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) and Fairclough’s understanding of CDA, we conducted a three-
stage coding process. Corbin and Strauss (2008) recommend starting with an open-ended phase
of analysis, followed by successively more analytic phases of coding, phases they term “axial”
and “selective” coding. Although not perfectly aligned, we connected to the three levels of coding
to Fairclough’s three-dimensional view of CDA: description, interpretation, and explanation.
Deliberately trying to start with a less-restrictive approach to the data, we first did a round
of “open-coding” on all 55 of the school’s websites. Each of the websites were initially read
and coded by two researchers, who met periodically to discuss and revise emerging codes.
In this initial phase, we made note of possible codes and categories that might describe the
information provided by the website. For example, we would note references to “diversity” or
the use of particular visual symbols. Our codes—at this phase—were “close to the data,” and
almost literal (e.g., sample codes included “diversity” and “symbol”). Although this initial phase
was deliberately “open,” our interpretation of the school websites was shaped by the concerns
of sorting and segregation that framed our study; our reading was thus sensitized to these issues
from the start.
After open coding, we moved to what Corbin and Strauss refer to as “axial” coding, and what
Fairclough terms “interpretation.” Dividing schools between two researchers, we recoded websites
with the goal of developing and testing more analytic categories. These analytic categories were
developed in conversation with the research questions and theoretical framework of the study.
For example, “diversity” became connected to a more analytic category, “discourses of race and
diversity.” See Table 2 for sample analytic categories and corresponding data.
From these initial coding exercises, we developed a final “website coding profile.” This profile
systemized some of the themes we found across schools, and (guided by CDA) also asked key
interpretive questions of each website. Questions included, for instance, “How does the website
understand and position its audience?” and “How are discourses of race and diversity portrayed
through visual information?” Using this format, we then developed, in a more systematic fashion,
a profile for each website that could be compared with profiles from other schools.
 SCHOOL MARKETING AS A SORTING MECHANISM 31

TABLE 2
Sample Analytic Categories and Text

Category Text

Discourses of race and “Variety in race, religion, ethnicity, economic means, and sexual orientation strengthens
diversity and enriches experiences and learning” (Great River School)
Academic language “. . .a rigorous, content-rich, educational program, an environment that fosters academic
excellence, habits of discipline and thoroughness, the willingness to work, and the
perseverance to complete difficult tasks” (Parnassus Academy)
Individualized/ “It is the national model of inclusive and tailored education for all children with an
personalized learning emphasis on individual attention” (Fraser Academy)

FINDINGS

Drawing on our analysis of 55 school websites, we highlight how websites employed various
images, symbols, and narratives to market schools to prospective families. We first describe four
broad groups of schools noting some differences in school mission, curricular approach, and
student enrollment. We then explore how charter school websites communicated their distinct
approaches to families and highlight three themes that varied across groups.

Typologies of Schools

Echoing other researchers (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002; Lubienski, 2007; Savage, 2012), we
suggest that schools in this metropolitan area are targeting particular segments or subgroups of
students within an increasingly competitive marketplace. In our review of schools, we observed
similarities between different “types” of schools. Based on early coding, alongside a subsequent
review of school demographic information, we separated the 55 schools into four groups:
(1) elite/international, (2) culturally specific, (3) results-oriented, and (4) progressive. Although
we draw schools into these four major groups, it is important to note that each of these groups is
made up of an incredibly diverse and heterogeneous mix of schools. In many cases, schools fit
easily and naturally into these groups; in a few other cases, it was difficult to classify a school.
Although sometimes challenging, we classified each school into a single category. Even though
there are important differences within groups, these categories allowed us to compare and draw
out key differences in marketing strategies. Each of the 55 schools is listed in the appendix, along
with a brief description of its curricular approach, demographics, and grade configuration.

Group 1: Elite and International

This group included eight schools that emphasized “classical” or Core Knowledge education,
as well as six schools that focused on immersion language learning (Mandarin, German, and
Spanish) and/or International Baccalaureate (IB) curricula. With few exceptions, this group of
schools enrolled—relative to other charter schools and surrounding district schools—more White
students and fewer poor students. In several ways, these school websites evoke dimensions
32 T. S. WILSON AND R. L. CARLSEN

of private education, with extensive information on the school’s curricular approaches, family
expectations, and competitive registration processes. In general, these schools present themselves
as institutions that will prepare students for success in an increasingly competitive globalized
world, either through the acquisition of linguistic skills (immersion schools), global knowledge
and competencies (IB), or a classically trained mind (classical education/Core Knowledge). In
different ways, each of these schools also emphasizes the importance of curricular knowledge,
often in contrast to more “experience”-centered approaches. These schools appeal to a sense of
academic excellence—in terms of intellectual rigor or international norms—beyond objectives
set in state academic standards.

Group 2: Culturally Specific

This group included 17 schools that deliberately served less privileged cultural or ethnic mi-
nority groups. These included schools designed to serve Somali and East African or Hmong
immigrant families, as well as Latino students and families. These schools enrolled primarily
immigrant families with higher proportions of students who qualified for free and reduced lunch
(FRL) and were classified as having limited English proficiency (LEP). These schools empha-
sized, to varying degrees, the importance of students learning about their culture, heritage and
background. For example, Academia Cesar Chavez aims to prepare “critically thinking, socially
competent, values driven, and culturally aware bilingual and bi-literate learners by advocating
Latino cultural values in an environment of familia and community.” These schools highlight the
challenges facing minority and immigrant students while emphasizing the importance of a cultur-
ally responsive and affirming curriculum. This group also includes three schools that emphasize
an Afrocentric curriculum and enroll a range of students. One, Sojourner Truth Academy, enrolls
both African American and Latino students; another draws both African American and African
immigrant students.

Group 3: Results-Oriented

This group included a growing group of “no excuses” and results-oriented charter schools in
the Twin Cities area (nine in total). Some of these schools are modeled on schools in networks
such as KIPP and Uncommon Schools. In some cases, these schools employed culturally specific
strategies and overlapped with schools more easily categorized as “culturally specific” (Group 2).
For example, the BEST Academy emphasizes a no-excuses approach to academic achievement,
but also draws on curriculum that affirms and supports the specific cultural background of its
students (African American boys). Hiawatha Academies does not name a particular cultural focus,
but aims to help students “climb the mountain to college.” Including three campuses, it describes
itself as “a network of high performing college preparatory charter schools.” Invoking language
similar to other results-oriented networks, Hiawatha aims to empower its “scholars” with “the
knowledge, character, and leadership skills to graduate from college and serve the common good.”
Geared particularly to Latino families, the network enrolls close to 90% Hispanic students. Several
 SCHOOL MARKETING AS A SORTING MECHANISM 33

other schools in this group emphasized a more general orientation to academic achievement, rather
than a targeted focus on results.

Group 4: The Progressives

This was perhaps the most heterogeneous grouping of schools. The 13 schools in this group
include three Montessori charter schools, a few “green” or environmental learning schools, as
well as other schools that emphasize their integrated and multicultural student body. Bright Water
Montessori, for example, described themselves “an intentionally diverse Montessori community
of children.” This school chose their location, in part, to appeal to diverse families. A few schools
in this group deliberately aimed to integrate social justice into their curricula; other schools in
this group emphasized individualized approaches to learning, as well as the importance of the
social dimensions of education.

Differentiated Marketing: Themes Across Groups

How did these different groups of school websites communicate with families? Guided by a critical
discourse analysis framework, we emphasize how websites (a) explicitly and implicitly mark race,
culture, and ethnicity; (b) advance contrasting understandings of academic achievement; and (c)
communicate different meanings of individualization. We describe how each theme was present
across the four broad groups of school websites.

Discourses of Race, Culture, and Diversity

School websites engaged in a variety of explicit and implicit discourses of race, culture,
and diversity. These practices emerged as some of the clearest differences between the four
groups of websites. First, the elite and international school websites (Group 1) rarely mentioned
race, culture, or diversity. This was particularly the case with the classical and Core Knowledge
schools. One small exception was Nova Classical Academy’s website, which named a desire to
recruit a diverse student population. Yet, in general, what was most striking was the absence of any
mention of race, culture, or diversity on these websites. An absence can also be a statement. In this
sense, critical discourse analysis asks us to “read” websites as texts that participate within—and
employ—a variety of cultural meanings and codes. Whiteness, in particular, becomes understood
as “normal” to the degree that it is not marked or named (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). In not
naming “Whiteness,” the absence of race marks out these schools as environments more likely to
be made up of White families. Indeed, as a group, these schools enrolled more privileged families
(by measures of FRL & ELL status), who were also more likely to be White. These websites also
employed visual codes (e.g., school crests) and iconography associated with elite independent
schools. Every school in this group also used the term “academy” or “preparatory” in its name.
The internationally oriented immersion and IB school websites emphasized the “global
diversity” found in an increasingly international world. International Spanish Academy aims,
for example, to prepare students to “thrive in a diverse, global society”; Yinghua Academy, for
34 T. S. WILSON AND R. L. CARLSEN

students to “be engaged global citizens”; Twin Cities German Immersion School, for students
to develop “international awareness” and “become global citizens.” An awareness of diversity
is a key part of these schools’ missions. Diversity, however, is understood in general and global
terms; it is not framed in terms of diversity in the school environments or local communities.
The culturally specific school websites in Group 2 explicitly named particular cultural
approaches as one of the defining features of their schools. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these were
the most obvious and straightforward discourses of race and culture. For example, the mission of
New Millennium Academy is “to build a better life for our students by creating an environment of
high academic achievement while preserving Hmong culture and literacy.” In addition to explicit
statements, these websites also communicated their cultural orientations through images, sym-
bols, and other discursive strategies, highlighting, for example, Hmong cultural symbols from
traditional needlework, or colors evoking a school’s Afrocentric curriculum. These websites also
employed—relative to others—more student photographs and highlighted cultural celebrations.
The results-oriented school websites in Group 3 emphasized the language of academic achieve-
ment. Importantly, this language was framed by concerns of equity and justice. In this sense, these
schools aimed to tackle the “achievement gap” and help low-income students achieve high lev-
els of academic achievement. The mission of Hiawatha Academies, for instance, was to help
students “climb the mountain to college.” Similarly, KIPP Stand Academy cited its network’s
“record of preparing students in underserved communities for success in college and life.” These
websites focused on the needs of disadvantaged students and appealed to families who understood
themselves or their children as part of such groups.
With certain exceptions, the fourth group, the progressive websites, were notable for high-
lighting diversity—in terms of a multicultural vision of diversity—as a positive feature of their
schools. Many of these websites explicitly highlighted their diverse student enrollments. Bright-
water Montessori described itself as “intentionally diverse” and St. Paul City School called itself
“a multicultural learning community.” One of the explicit program goals of the New City School
was to “teach an ethnic and socioeconomic mix of students in an urban setting.” While most of
these school websites highlighted their diverse student populations, they also implied that their
diverse school communities play a central role in their student learning outcomes.

Academic Language and Its Absence

Academic language was a second area that differed across school websites. First, the elite and
international school websites emphasized academic goals beyond those found in state standards.
In this sense, they positioned themselves outside of the accountability discourses adopted by
other schools. These websites posed academic achievement against other standards: intellectual
excellence, mastery of rigorous curriculum, or international norms. The classical school web-
sites particularly employed a language of “academic rigor.” Eagle Ridge Academy, for example,
emphasized an “academically rigorous, time-tested classical, liberal arts curriculum.” The other
school websites in this group, often drawing on IB, immersion language learning, or internation-
ally oriented curricula, more often emphasized international norms of academic excellence, often
paired with a focus on “global citizenship.” ISLA promised “academic excellence with a global
vision,” while Yinghua Academy offered “an international perspective and outstanding results.”
 SCHOOL MARKETING AS A SORTING MECHANISM 35

The culturally specific websites (Group 3) emphasized academic achievement, but in general
terms, and within the context of their diverse curricular approaches. Strikingly, very few of
these websites included detailed information about their academic results. Although sometimes
including links to assessment information (e.g., test schedules and test-taking strategies), these
schools did not highlight student results or make comparisons with other schools. In addition,
photos highlighted cultural and academic celebrations (i.e., students in graduation caps and
traditional dress), rather than students engaged in academic work (i.e., writing at a desk).
The results-oriented school websites in Group 3 offered the most direct emphasis on external
measures of academic achievement. A number of these websites explicitly highlighted their
assessment results. The most explicit was the website for the Hiawatha Academies network
of schools. This network dedicated a tab on its website to “results,” which included the last
three years of the network’s results on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs). In
addition, the website explicitly compared Hiawatha with results from the local district, the state
as a whole, and other district schools with more than 85% of students who qualify for free and
reduced lunch. The websites of Harvest Prep and BEST Academy also posted similar district
and neighborhood comparisons, and highlighted their statuses as “top gap closing” schools in the
state.
The progressive school websites in the final group incorporated diverse understandings of
academic success. In general, these schools emphasized experiential learning, problem-solving,
and critical thinking. For example, Laura Jeffrey Academy posed that “students learn through
rigorous study, by asking questions, solving problems, and participating in the community.” In
similar ways, many of these websites emphasized the process—in distinction to the outcomes—of
education. Many of these websites, for instance, highlighted the responsive classroom model or
emphasized the cooperative learning of the Montessori model.

Individualized and Personalized Learning

Third, the groups of school websites employed different discourses of individualized learning.
In a sense, the websites framed the learning needs of individual students in different ways and
to different degrees. The elite and international websites in Group 1 emphasized the individual-
istic goals of education: as preparation for advancement in an academically competitive world.
This sense of competition was more implicit in the schools that emphasized classical learning.
These websites stressed high standards of “intellectual” (not necessarily academic) achievement,
and named how they held students to these standards. For instance, the “philosophy” of Par-
nassus Academy is that all students “benefit from the highest standards of academic integrity
and from a rigorous, content-rich, educational program that develops their intellectual capacity,
personal character, and leadership skills.” The immersion and IB schools explicitly emphasized
the competitive demands of an increasingly global world. Global Academy, for example, offers
its students “access to an internationally competitive education that will prepare them for life in
a global economy.”
These schools presented generally uniform approaches to teaching and learning with little
attention to the unique learning styles and needs of particular children. Indeed, some of these
schools deliberately positioned themselves as “teacher” or “curriculum-centered.” For example,
the website of Parnassus Academy explicitly named the “role of the teacher” in their school as
36 T. S. WILSON AND R. L. CARLSEN

in the “knowledge-centered/intellectualist” tradition, as opposed to the “student-centered/anti-

intellectualist” one. The teacher helps students to acquire knowledge from the past, not structure
learning around their interests. Although internationally oriented schools in this group did not
emphasize teacher-centered curriculum to the same degree as the classical schools, curriculum
was still prescribed mostly in advance and often organized by reference to international norms.
In contrast to these individualistic accounts of education, the websites of culturally specific
schools in Group 2 emphasized students as members of specific groups. Although they focused
on the needs of students, these needs were framed as ones shared across particular cultural groups
of students. In this sense, these schools sought to make learning “relevant” to particular groups
of students. Noble Academy, a charter school focused on Hmong cultural heritage, for example,
stated on its website “that each student will reach his/her highest potential through an educa-
tional program guiding upon their learning styles, language development, life experiences, and
cultural backgrounds.” Although framed in terms of individual achievement, learning strategies
are understood as shared within a particular cultural group.
In other cases, schools sought to understand the more general “urban” or “diverse” backgrounds
of students. The results-oriented school websites in Group 3 also emphasized group-based in-
structional approaches in slightly different ways. The BEST Academy, for example, focuses on
the unique ways that African American boys learn. Curriculum is adapted, but to the needs of
a particular group. Yet, in general, these schools emphasized the importance of a consistent and
coherent school culture as a key driver of individual academic achievement.
The progressive schools of Group 4 offered the clearest commitments to personalizing educa-
tion around the unique needs of specific children. In these schools, students were framed as unique
learners and individuals with specific interests. In several cases, these schools were founded to
serve diverse—even divergent—student needs. Individualization is understood both in terms of
uniqueness (every student is an individual learner) and of helping each individual develop into
a critical thinker and responsible citizen. Other websites echoed an emphasis on independent
and critical thinking. Great River, for instance, fosters “independence, critical thinking, respect,
responsibility to self, to others, and to the earth.”

DISCUSSION

The websites of these 55 charter schools varied widely, but in ways that reveal distinct patterns be-
tween schools. Guided by a critical discourse analysis framework, we highlight three dimensions
that varied systematically across schools. These themes and the patterns across groups of school
websites are briefly summarized in Table 3. In grouping school websites into four categories, we
are necessarily drawing imperfect lines around very diverse schools. Although imperfect, these
groups nonetheless describe and categorize different types of charter schools emerging within
one segmented metropolitan choice system. Communication and marketing messages vary, in
systematic ways, across these groups.
These differences work, we contend, to signal the potential “fit” between particular schools
and particular families. Our claim here is specific and limited. This study does not examine the
intentions of school leaders who may have designed such marketing materials, nor does it focus
on the perceptions of parents who might be reading them. In addition, this study also does not
address the real structural constraints that influence the websites schools are able to create and the
 SCHOOL MARKETING AS A SORTING MECHANISM 37

TABLE 3
Summary of Website Discourse Variation by Group

Discourses of race, culture, Academic language and its Individual/personalized

and diversity absence learning

Group 1: Classical schools had an Emphasis on academic rigor Emphasized the

Elite/international absence of diversity
discourse. International/IB
schools framed diversity in
terms of global difference.
Group 2: Culturally Cultural focus as central.
specific Emphasis on creating safe
and positive space for the
development of
(marginalized) identities.
Group 3: Results- Emphasis on “achievement
oriented gap” for low-income
students—implicitly
appealing to families that
identify with this
demographic.
Group 4: Progressive Multicultural diversity as a
positive and central feature of
curriculum and school
design.
and intellectual achievement
beyond state standards.
Vague, understated view of
achievement. Images of
academic success (e.g.,
graduation pictures) rather
than practices of teaching and
learning.
Most direct emphasis on
academic achievement.
References to external and
comparative accountability
measures.
Diverse understandings of
academic work. Stress
process of learning over
specific outcomes.
individualistic goals of
education as success in a
competitive world.
Emphasized students as
members of specific cultural
groups. Student needs framed
as needs of all students from
a particular group.
Emphasized group-based
instructional strategies; a
consistent and coherent
school culture as key to
individual student success.
Students framed as unique
learners with individual
interests and abilities.

access that parents have to these websites. These are important limitations. Nonetheless, guided
by discourse analysis, we suggest that school websites can be “read” discursively as texts that
evoke and employ a range of social and cultural meanings in appealing to particular families.
In this sense, we contend that websites both shape and reinforce differences between schools,
and act as one mechanism through which distinctive schools are more likely to draw particular
families into increasingly segregated school communities. In the remainder of this section, we
discuss four potential contributions of this study. This study offers: (a) a more nuanced view of a
segmented marketplace, (b) insight into how markets might shape preferences, (c) implications
for marketization as a means of class and race positioning, and (d) cautionary notes about how
marketing may exacerbate inequities in school choice.

Segmented Markets

First, this study reveals patterns of market segmentation and differentiation in one metro area.
Although other research (IMO, 2013) has pointed to patterns of segregation in this particular
metropolitan area, this study offers additional evidence about some of the mechanisms—of mar-
keting and market segmentation—that may contribute to such patterns. Echoing other studies
of market segmentation (Bagley, Woods, & Glatter 1996; Batie, 2009, Lubienski, 2007), our
study suggests that these schools are not necessarily competing against all other schools to
38 T. S. WILSON AND R. L. CARLSEN

attract potential students. Instead, these charter schools are competing against smaller subsets
of schools for particular students. Evidence for this claim can be seen in the different discur-
sive strategies employed by various websites, how these strategies differ systematically across
four subsets of school websites, and the different demographic profiles of schools (see the
appendix).
We are not arguing—in any simplistic sense—that marketing strategies cause such patterns of
segregation. Rather, marketing strategies are one mechanism through which schools can actively
distinguish themselves from (and position themselves in relation to) other schools. In this sense,
we argue that a competitive educational marketplace is better understood as a collection of
distinct, sometimes overlapping, submarkets. Previous research has demonstrated multiple ways
in which schools in competitive markets proactively shape their enrollments in ways that recruit
“preferred” students, or ones easier to educate (DiMartino & Jessen, 2014; Henig & MacDonald,
2002; Jacobs, 2011; Jennings, 2010; Jessen, 2013; Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002). Our study adds
new texture to this research by describing how school websites appeal, discursively, not only to
“preferred” students, but also to different subsets of students and families, including low-income
families and members of particular immigrant communities. In particular, this study suggests
that schools’ marketing messages might work against and/or with each other to form submarkets
of schools. Market theory makes certain predictions about competitive incentives and school
improvement (Lubienski, 2005). But as Lubienski, Gulosino, and Weitzel (2009) remind us:
“While the theory of competition in education is compelling, we understand very little about how
competitive incentives actually play out in local contexts” (p. 602). Our study helps to show how
schools in one local context are—through their websites—differentiating themselves from each
other, and appealing to distinct groups of families. Our study suggests that schools in this metro
area are not competing against other schools on commonly recognized measures of academic
achievement, but are instead appealing to (and shaping) divergent preferences for education.
Here, we argue that choice is likely to lead to the segmentation and stratification of educational
options, with negative results for equity.

Shaping Preferences

Although this study focuses on the “supply side” actions of schools, it also has the potential
to shape our understanding of the “demand side” of choice: those students and parents making
school decisions. As Lubienski (2007) contends, researchers “need to envision a more dynamic
interaction between supply and demand, as organizations not only respond to consumer prefer-
ences but also shape those preferences when they promote the service that they are offering” (p.
124). Indeed, the messages offered by these schools—in emphasizing different meanings of aca-
demic achievement, for example—also have the potential to shape how their school communities
understand the meaning (and relative weight) of different school features. For instance, should
parents take standardized test scores into account when making a choice? The groups of school
websites in this study offer four different responses to that question. These responses, no doubt,
appeal to the different values or concerns of different parents, but they also have potential to shift
and “educate” the preferences of parents in particular directions.
 SCHOOL MARKETING AS A SORTING MECHANISM 39

Class and Race Positioning

The different messages communicated by school websites are not just neutral descriptions of each
school’s mission and approach. These texts are also coded with references about class, race, and
parenting. Take, for instance, a website’s claim to focus on “academic excellence,” combined by
photographs of students in jackets with a school crest. A statement about “academic excellence”
is never a neutral expression of content, but a message, especially when combined with other
visual cues, that may be understood in very different ways by different groups of people. In
what ways does this message signal the potential fit for various families, and work to exclude
others? Here, we contend that websites must be read with an eye to how they are shaped by—and
act to shape—a broader cultural field that is itself shaped by power and privilege. In this study,
the websites of classical academies, emphasizing academic excellence, intellectual rigor, and a
“timeless” curriculum, are appealing to very different groups of families than the “no-excuses”
academies, with their focus on excelling on state standardized tests. While exploratory, this study
builds on an extensive tradition of research in how choice offers mechanisms for schools to
draw class distinctions and for families to engage in class (as well as racial) positioning (Ball,
2003). Semiotic and discourse-analysis studies have been particularly valuable in shedding light
on the visually mediated (Wilkins, 2012), culturally saturated, and often symbolic work done by
marketing. Our study connects this research—largely from the UK and Australia—to the U.S.
context, and the charter school sector more specifically. Future studies of school marketing may
benefit from similar critical discourse analysis frameworks.

Marketization and Concerns of Equity

In all three of the above ways, this study highlights the weaknesses of overly simplistic notions of
market competition and school choice. Theories of market competition often make assumptions
about the availability of information, the stability of preferences, and how choice might work to
improve schools. Evidence about how markets actually work, however, has called these assump-
tions into question (Lubienski, 2005, 2007; Scott & Wells, 2013). As Scott and Wells (2013)
contend, a market-driven model of education:
. . . [I]gnores the complex political dynamics that shape schools, communities and markets. Indeed,
because of the lack of transportation or student-recruitment efforts that transcend segregated commu-
nities, the educational “market”—like most markets—is highly segmented both in terms of targets
and geography. In other words, educational entrepreneurs are targeting market niches in a manner
that may maximize their short-term success and their bottom line, but may not enhance educational
opportunities or equality across the board and, in fact, contribute to even greater stratification within
low-income and urban communities. (p. 124)

This study raises similar concerns. By showing how marketing messages varied systematically
across different types of schools, this study also illustrates the complex cultural dynamics at play
within one emerging quasi-market of school options. This metropolitan area offers a diverse and
segmented range of school options; however, there is evidence that these school options are not
distributed—or chosen—evenly. In contrast, charter schools in this area have further exacerbated
patterns of segregation (IMO, 2013). While preliminary, our study shows how school websites act
40 T. S. WILSON AND R. L. CARLSEN

as one mechanism shaping the segmentation of a local marketplace of school options. This study
thus echoes long-standing concerns about how choice might exacerbate patterns of segregation
and sorting in education, and deepen inequality of educational opportunities.

AUTHOR BIOS

Terri S. Wilson is Assistant Professor in the School of Education at the University of

Colorado–Boulder. Her research focuses on the philosophical foundations of education pol-
icy, including issues raised by school choice, marketization, and parent engagement. Her cur-
rent research project explores how to balance the interests of families in choosing distinctive
schools—especially ones that affirm ethnic, linguistic, or cultural identities—against arguments
for a common, integrated school system. She received her Ph.D. in philosophy and education from
Teachers College, Columbia University and was a 2012–2014 National Academy of Education/
Spencer Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow.

Robert L. Carlsen is a doctoral candidate in communication studies at Southern Illinois

University–Carbondale. He is currently completing his doctoral program where his research
focuses on the interaction between communication and culture with an emphasis on the relation-
ship between discourse and identity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Xiuying Cai, Mercedes Alvear, and Joshua Rivera provided valuable research assistance during
different phases of this project. The authors also wish to thank Huriya Jabbar, Jeanne Powell, the
guest editors of this issue, and the reviewers of this manuscript for many valuable suggestions.

FUNDING

Different parts of this research were supported by a National Academy of Education/Spencer

Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship and the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program at
Southern Illinois University–Carbondale.

REFERENCES

Bagley, C., Woods, P., & Glatter, R. (1996). Scanning the market. Educational Management and Administration, 24(2),
125–138.
Ball, S. J. (2003). Class strategies and the educational marketplace: The middle classes and social advantage. London,
UK: Routledge.
Batie, M. (2009). Charter schools and market segmentation (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Riverside.
Bell, C. (2007). Space and place: Urban parents’ geographical preferences for schools. Urban Review, 39(4), 375–404.
Bell, C. (2009). All choices created equal? The role of choice sets in the selection of schools. Peabody Journal of
Education, 84(2), 191–208.
 SCHOOL MARKETING AS A SORTING MECHANISM 41

Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2007). School choice, racial segregation and test-score gaps: Evidence from North Carolina’s
charter school program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(1), 31–56.
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, & America’s schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
DiMartino, C., & Jessen, S. B. (2014). School brand management: The policies, practices, and perceptions of branding
and marketing in New York City’s public high schools. Urban Education. doi:10.1177/0042085914543112
Drew, C. (2013). Elitism for sale: Promoting the elite school online in the competitive educational marketplace. Australian
Journal of Education, 57(2), 174–184.
Estes, M. B. (2004). Choice for all? Charter schools and students with special needs. Journal of Special Education, 37(4),
257–267.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. New York, NY: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction: A
multidisciplinary introductory (pp. 258–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Garcia, D. (2008). The impact of school choice on racial segregation in charter schools. Educational Policy, 22(6),
805–829.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gewirtz, S. (2002). The managerial school: Post-welfarism and social justice in education. London, UK: Routledge.
Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. J., & Bowe, R. (1995). Markets, choice and equity in education. Buckingham, England: Open
University Press.
Gottschall, K., Wardman, N., Edgeworth, K., Hutchesson, R., & Saltmarsh, S. (2010). Hard lines and soft scenes:
Constituting masculinities in the prospectuses of all-boys elite private schools. Australian Journal of Education,
54(1), 18–30.
Graham, C. (2013). Discourses of widening participation in the prospectus documents and websites of six English higher
education institutions. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(1), 76–83.
Gulosino, C., & d’Entremont, C. (2012). Circles of influence: An analysis of charter school location and racial patterns
at varying geographic scales. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(8), 1–25.
Henig, J., & MacDonald, J. (2002). Locational decisions of charter schools: Probing the market metaphor. Social Studies
Quarterly, 83(4), 962–980.
Holme, J. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of school quality. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(2), 177–206.
IMO (Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity). (2013). Failed promises: Assessing charter schools in the Twin Cities,
Updated report. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Law School.
Jacobs, N. (2011). Understanding school choice: Location as determinant of charter school racial, economic, and linguistic
segregation. Education and Urban Society, 45, 459–482.
Jennings, J. (2010). School choice or schools’ choice?: Managing in an era of accountability. Sociology of Education,
83(3), 227–247.
Jessen, S. B. (2013). Special education & school choice: The complex effects of small schools, school choice and public
high school policy in New York City. Educational Policy, 27(3), 427–466.
Johnsson, M., & Lindgren, J. (2010). “Great location, beautiful surroundings!” Making sense of information materials
intended as guidance for school choice. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(2), 173–187.
Lacireno-Paquet, N., Holyoke, T., Moser, M., & Henig, J. (2002). Creaming versus cropping: Charter school enrollment
practices in response to market incentives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 145–158.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W., IV. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1),
47–68.
Lubienski, C. (2005). Public schools in marketized environments: Shifting incentives and unintended consequences of
competition-based educational reforms. American Journal of Education, 111(4), 464–486.
Lubienski, C. (2006). School diversification in second-best education markets. Educational Policy, 20(2), 323–344.
Lubienski, C. (2007). Marketing schools: Consumer goods and competitive incentives for consumer information. Educa-
tion and Urban Society, 40(1), 118–141.
Lubienski, C., Gulosino, C., & Weitzel, P. (2009). School choice and competitive incentives: Mapping the distribution of
educational opportunities across local education markets. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 601–647.
42 T. S. WILSON AND R. L. CARLSEN

Lubienski, C., & Weitzel, P. (2009). Choice, integration, and educational opportunity: Evidence on competitive incentives
for student sorting in charter schools. Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice, 11, 351–376.
Lund, S. (2008). Choice paths in the Swedish upper secondary education—A critical discourse analysis of recent reforms.
Journal of Education Policy, 23(6), 633–648.
Maguire, M., Ball, S. J., & Macrae, S. (1999). Promotion, persuasion and class-taste: Marketing (in) the UK post-
compulsory sector. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(3), 291–308.
Maguire, M., Ball, S., & Macrae, S. (2001). “In all our interests”: Internal marketing at Northwark Park School. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(1), 35–50.
McDonald, P., Pini, B., & Mayes, R. (2012). Organizational rhetoric in the prospectuses of elite private schools: Unpacking
strategies of persuasion. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(1), 1–20.
Ni, T. (2012). The sorting effect of charter schools on student composition in traditional public schools. Educational
Policy, 26(2), 215–242.
Oplatka, I., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2012). The research on school marketing: Current issues and future directions—An
updated version. Advances in Educational Administration, 15, 3–35.
Roda, A., & Wells, A. S. (2013). School choice policies and racial segregation: Where White parents’ good intentions,
anxiety, and privilege collide. American Journal of Education, 119(2), 261–293.
Savage, G. (2012). Being different and the same? The paradoxes of “tailoring” in education quasi-markets. Journal of
Pedagogy, 3(2), 279–302.
Schneider, M., & Buckley, J. (2002). What do parents want from schools? Evidence from the Internet. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 133–144.
Scott, J. T., & Wells, A. S. (2013). A more perfect union: Reconciling school choice policy with equality of opportunity
goals. In P. Carter & K. Welner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What American must do to give every child an
even chance (pp. 123–142). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Smith, W. R. (1956). Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. Journal of
Marketing, 21, 3–8.
Symes, C. (1998). Education for sale: A semiotic analysis of school prospectuses and other forms of educational marketing.
Australian Journal of Education, 42(2), 133–152.
Wardman, N., Hutchesson, R., Gottschall, K., Drew, C., & Saltmarsh, S. (2010). Starry eyes and subservient selves:
Portraits of “well-rounded” girlhood in the prospectuses of all-girl elite private schools. Australian Journal of
Education, 54(3), 18–30.
Wedel, M. (2000). Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations. New York: Springer Science &
Business Media.
Weiher, G. R., & Tedin, K. L. (2002). Does choice lead to racially distinctive schools? Charter schools and household
preferences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(1), 79–92.
Wilkins, A. (2012). School choice and the commodification of education: A visual approach to school brochures and
websites. Critical Social Policy, 1 (32), 69–86.
Winter, S. J., Saunders, C., & Hart, P. (2003). Electronic window dressing: Impression management with websites.
European Journal of Information Systems, 12(4), 309–322.
Zhang, Y., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2013). “Toward a global knowledge enterprise”: University websites as portals to the
ongoing marketization of higher education. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(4), 468–485.
 APPENDIX

Metro Area Charter Schools in Study, by Group

Demographic characteristics
Group # School name Curricular approach Grades Enrolls AMI API HIS BLK WHT FRL ELL SPED

Group 1: Elite and 1 Nova Classical Classical education K–12 469 0.2% 7.0% 3.0% 4.7% 85.1% 12.4% 1.7% 5.3%
international Academy (K–8)
2 Parnassus Classical education K–7 611 0.3% 6.1% 3.9% 8.2% 81.50% 11.3% 3.3% 5.6%
Preparatory
Charter School
3 Seven Hills Classical Classical education K–5 427 0.7% 3.3% 3.0% 8.9% 84.10% 20.8% 2.3% 7.3%
Academy
4 Eagle Ridge Classical education K–12 395 0.5% 12.6% 1.0% 4.6% 81.4% 15.9% 0% 7.8%
Academy Charter
School
5 Beacon Preparatory Core knowledge 6–8 160 1.3% 5.6% 6.9% 10.6% 75.6% 20% 0% 15.6
School
6 Paideia Academy Core knowledge K–8 379 0.3% 6.1% 4.7% 7.9% 81.0% 15.6% 0% 16.9%
Charter School
7 Beacon Academy Core knowledge K–8 160 0.5% 2.1% 2.4% 8.9% 85.4% 18.2% 3.8% 12.2%
8 Athlos Leadership College-prep, Pre-K–8 136 1.7% 7.5% 5.7% 48.5% 36.7% 54.4% 12.6% 8.6%
Academy classically inspired
9 Yinghua Academy Immersion (Chinese) K–8 564 1.1% 46.5% 2.3% 4.1% 46.1% 11.0% 2.0% 8.3%
10 Twin Cities German Immersion (German) K–8 376 0.0% 5.3% 2.1% 1.1% 91.5% 8.5% 0.5% 9.3%
Immersion Charter
11 International Spanish Immersion (Spanish) K–6 286 0.0% 1.0% 26.9% 3.5% 68.5% 8.0% 0.0% 5.6%
Language
Academy
12 Global Academy IB K–8 427 0.0% 1.9% 0.5% 68.6% 29.0% 92.5% 48.5% 8.4%
13 Prairie Seeds IB, College prep K–12 791 0.0% 72.3% 9.4% 16.2% 2.1% 74.2% 42.6% 7.3%
Academy
14 Stonebridge IB, Responsive K–6 203 3.9% 0.44% 18.3% 70.3% 6.9% 96.6% 23.2% 17.2%
Community classroom
School
(Continued on next page)

43
 Metro Area Charter Schools in Study, by Group (Continued)

44
Demographic characteristics
Group # School name Curricular approach Grades Enrolls AMI API HIS BLK WHT FRL ELL SPED

Group 2: 15 Higher Ground Culturally specific K–2 619 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.8% 0.2% 97.1% 12.6% 3.7%
Culturally Academy (Afrocentric)
specific
16 Woodson Institute Culturally specific K–8 238 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 98.3% 0.0% 99.6% 0.0% 18.1%
For Excellence (Afrocentric)
Charter
17 Sojourner Truth Culturally specific K–8 422 0.2% 0.0% 21.6% 77% 1.2% 98.6% 18.5% 15.9%
Academy (Afrocentric)
18 Dugsi Academy Culturally specific K–8 356 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% 98.3% 64.9% 2.8%
(East African)
19 MN International Culturally specific 5–8 406 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 97.8% 2.2% 97.5% 73.2% 7.7%
Middle Charter (East African)
20 Twin Cities Culturally specific K–4 593 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.5% 0.5% 97% 82.5% 3.0%
International Elem (East African)
Sch.
21 Hmong College Prep Culturally specific K–12 396 0.0% 98.2% 0.3% 1.3% 0.3% 91.4% 23.2% 12.4%
Academy (Hmong)
22 HOPE Community Culturally specific K–8 492 0.0% 73% 1.6% 4.0% 22.9% 82.2% 46.6% 9.6%
Academy (Hmong)
23 New Millennium Culturally specific K–8 435 1.4% 96.6% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 77.5% 84.8% 8.7%
Acad Charter (Hmong)
School
24 Noble Academy Culturally specific K–8 475 0.0% 87.2% 0.2% 12.0% 0.6% 77.7% 82.1% 4.6%
(Hmong)
25 Community School Culturally specific K–8 975 0.0% 99.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 90.7% 86.2% 6.1%
of Excellence (Hmong), IB
26 College Preparatory Culturally specific K–6 295 1.4% 80.% 0.7% 15.3% 2.7% 97.6% 70.2% 11.9%
Elementary (Hmong, STEM)
27 Academia Cesar Culturally specific K–6 389 2.3% 1.5% 90.2% 3.3% 2.6% 96.9% 74.8% 10.8%
Chavez Charter (Latino)
School
28 Aurora Charter Culturally specific K–8 203 0.0% 0.0% 98.5% 0.5% 1.0% 95.6% 99% 3.9%
School (Latino)
 29 Nasha Shkola Charter Culturally specific K–8 161 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 67.7% 41.9% 4.3%
School (Russian)
30 Urban Academy Culturally specific K–6 267 0.7% 17.9% 0.7% 76.9% 3.4% 97% 15.2% 12.2%
Charter School (Urban Ed)
31 Achieve Language Culture (Spanish/ K–8 424 0.9% 39.6% 35.1% 13.9% 10.4% 89.6% 56.4% 8.5%
Academy Hmong)
32 Partnership Academy Family partnership, K–5 282 0.0% 0.7% 91.8% 6.7% 0.7% 99.3% 83.0% 9.6%
Latino
33 Cedar Riverside Location, immigrant K–8 161 0.0% 1.9% 4.3% 93.2% 0.6% 99.4% 64% 10.6%
Community families
School
Group 3: Results- 34 Hennepin Elementary Results driven K–2 218 0.0% 0.0% 28.3% 68.8% 2.4% 98.2% 78.9% 8.3%
oriented School
35 KIPP Minnesota Results driven 5–8 199 1.5% 0.5% 2.0% 94.0% 2.0% 95.0% 0.0% 22.1%
Charter School
36 Hiawatha Academies Results driven K–8 655 1.7% 0.6% 87.8% 9.0% 0.9% 96.5% 75.4% 7.5%
37 Harvest PreparatoryResults driven, K–6 369 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 98.4% 0.8% 94.9% 0.0% 6.0%
School culturally specific
38 Mastery School Results driven, K–2 199 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99% 1.0% 88.4% 0.5% 7.5%
culturally specific
39 Best Academy Results driven, K–8 497 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 99.2% 0.2% 89.9% 39.8% 8.5%
culturally specific
40 LoveWorks Academy Results driven, arts K–8 281 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 98.2% 0.0% 87.9% 0.0% 12.5%
for Arts
41 Friendship Academy Results driven, arts K–6 127 0.8% 0.0% 3.1% 95.3% 0.8% 91.3% 0.0% 10.2%
of Fine Arts
Charter
42 Excell Academy None (academic K–8 363 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 96.1% 0.6% 93.4% 36.1% 7.4%
Charter achievement)
(Continued on next page)

45
46
Metro Area Charter Schools in Study, by Group (Continued)

Demographic characteristics
Group # School name Curricular approach Grades Enrolls AMI API HIS BLK WHT FRL ELL SPED

Group 4: 43 Bright Water Montessori K–6 163 2.5% 2.5% 9.8% 39.9% 45.4% 46.6% 3.1% 17.2%
Progressive Elementary
44 Cornerstone Montessori K–3 106 3.7% 17% 29.2% 27.4% 24.4% 31.1% 4.2% 16.2%
Montessori
Elementary
45 Great River School Montessori, IB∗ 1–12 416 0.5% 4.1% 6.7% 3.6% 85.1% 11.1% 5.5% 11.8%
46 St. Paul City School Multicultural K–8 393 1.8% 32.6% 32.9% 23.4% 6.9% 97.7% 55.5% 12.2%%
47 Laura Jeffrey Single-gender, 5–8 162 3.3% 6.5% 8.2% 30.7% 51.9% 43.8% 0.0% 18.5%
Academy Charter multicultural
48 Community of Peace Social justice, K–8 498 1.0% 44.4% 19.9% 23.9% 10.8% 87.1% 40.2% 12.2%
Academy multicultural
49 Southside Family Social justice K–8 109 0.9% 6.4% 9.8% 32.1% 50.8% 44% 3.7% 14.7%
Charter School
50 New City School Responsive K–8 184 2.2% 2.8% 3.5% 7.8% 84.4% 44% 10.9% 8.2%
classroom
51 Natural Science Environmental K–8 60 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 94.3% 21.7% 1.7% 13.3%
Academy learning
52 Life Prep Individualized, K–6 417 1.7% 30.8% 9.5% 42.9% 16.1% 76.5% 5.8% 11.0%
multicultural
53 Odyssey Academy Individualized K–8 367 2.5% 6.0% 4.9% 71.7% 15.0% 81.5% 15.5% 9.8%
learning
54 Fraser Academy Individualized K–5 77 1.3% 2.6% 6.5% 35.1% 54.5% 39.0% 0.0% 90.9%
learning, SPED
55 Learning for Individualized K–12 206 3.4% 0.0% 7.3% 72.3% 17% 86.5% 42.9% 17.4%
Leadership Charter learning, SPED