Motives and Judgments: A Contextualized Phenomenological Study on Parental Choice in Arizona’s Education Market

Abstract

Arizona’s K-12 education system touts expansive choice options for its families using a statewide open enrollment policy, numerous charter school options, and state-sponsored private school funding. Meanwhile, Arizona continues to rank low in public education when compared to other states throughout the United States. Though many parents acknowledge the negative impacts of school choice on public education, parents still opt for choice options for their own children. This qualitative phenomenological study on the personal conscious experiences of Arizona families investigates the seemingly partial motives in school choice, which conflict with their more altruistic judgments about the state’s public education system. Informed by frameworks of philosophical hermeneutical phenomenology, partial sympathy, and a racialized feedback framework for policy analysis, this study uses a hermeneutical phenomenological research design with methodological procedures modeled on interpretive phenomenological analysis, IPA, counterstorytelling. The 19 study participants, representing a variety of identities, personal histories, and lived experiences, provided experiences, motives, and judgments that led to several key findings: Arizona parents have negative views and judgments about the state’s education system, parents are largely motivated by what they think is best for their children and families, and there are differences in motives among individuals depending on identity, personal histories, and past experiences. Parent motives, judgments, and experiences shed light on inequities in quality education and funding, which are exacerbated by the combination of market-based education policies in the state.