Adapting School Siting to School Choice and Compact City Policies

Adapting School Siting to School Choice and Compact City Policies

PIA WESTFORD 

Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning

Page: 
329-337
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V13-N2-329-337
Received: 
N/A
|
Accepted: 
N/A
|
Published: 
1 February 2018
| Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

Many countries have adopted school reforms that give parents an extended opportunity to choose schools for their children. State schools are expected to compete. This gives rise to questions of how to organise and site state schools. In addition, many local and central governments have adopted poli- cies of compact and mixed-use urban development. The aim of this paper is to examine how local governments adapt school planning and the siting of schools to the school reforms, in combination with urban development policies. The paper is based on examination of strategic documents and semi- structured interviews with 17 strategic officials in five fast growing municipalities in Sweden. The result shows that local governments are adapting to school choice by planning for much larger schools in combination with compact urban development. A location criterion for schools for children aged 13–15 is in attractive, central parts of cities. The official location criterion for schools for children aged 6–12 is in proximity to the local need and in consideration of younger children’s limited reach. However, densification developments lead to difficulties in siting schools where they are needed. Areas in the periphery and sometimes socially deprived neighbourhoods are avoided. Moreover, plan- ners use subjective assessments of closeness, while objective proximity measurements are outdated. Proximity to a public park is a new location criterion complementing small school yards. The con- clusion is that local governments adapt to school reforms and to compact development policies with consequences for the size and location pattern of schools. Expectations are that travel distances to schools will increase. Whereas central districts may gain from an increasing supply of schools for children aged 13–15, peripheral districts may experience a declining supply. School children are expected to be more frequent users of public parks. The implication for local governments is that school planning needs to be better integrated with strategic urban planning.

Keywords: 

community school, compact city, distance to school, school choice, school competition, school location, school planning, school siting, school size, Sweden.

  References

[1] Perry, C.A., Housing for the Machine Age. Russel Sage Foundation, New York, 1929/1939.

[2] Bunar, N., The geographies of education and relationships in a multicultural city: enrolling in high-poverty, low-performing, urban schools and choosing to stay there. Acta Sociologica, 53(2), pp. 141–159, 2010. Available at: www.asj.sagepub.com (accessed 9 November 2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699310365732

[3] Holmlund, H., Häggblom, J., Lindahl, E., Martinson, S., Sjögren, A., Vikman, U. & Öckert, B., Decentralisering, skolval och fristående skolor: Resultat och likvärdighet i svensk skola, Institutet för arbetsmarknads- och utbildningpolitisk utvärdering. Rapport 2014:25.

[4] Böhlmark, A., Holmlund, H. & Lindahl, M., Skolsegregation och skolval. Institutet för arbetsmarknads- och utbildningpolitisk utvärdering. Rapport 2015:5.

[5] Skolverket, Skolmarknadens geografi: Om gymnasieelevers pendling på lokala och regionala skolmarknader, Stockholm, 2011.

[6] Gulisono, C. & Lubienski, C., School’s strategic responses to competition in segregated urban areas: patterns in school location in metropolitan detroit. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(13), 2011. Available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/829 (accessed 15 December 2016). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v19n13.2011

[7] Angelov, N. & Edmark, K., När skolan själv får välja: En ESO-rapport om friskolornas etableringsmönster. Expertgruppen för studier i offentlig ekonomi. Rapport 2016:3, Wolters Kluwers, Stockholm.

[8] Hellström, A., Det fria skolvalet ur ett fastighetsperspektiv. Sveriges kommuner och landsting, 2014.

[9] Vincent,  J.M.,  State  schools  as  public  infrastructure:  roles  for  planning   research. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(4), pp. 433–437, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x06288092

[10] Noreen C. McDonald., School siting: contested visions of the community school. Jour- nal of the American Planning Association, 76(2), 184–198, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003595991

[11] Statistiska centralbyrån, Sveriges framtida befolkning 2016–2060, Statistiska meddelanden, BE 18 SM 1601. 2016.

[12] Holmlund, H., Häggblom, J., Lindahl, E., Martinson, S., Sjögren, A., Vikman, U. & Öckert, B., Decentralisering, skolval och fristående skolor: Resultat och likvärdighet i svensk skola. Institutet för arbetsmarknads- och utbildningpolitisk utvärdering. Rapport 2014:25.

[13] The Education Act, (SFS 10 kap. 29 § 2010: 800).

[14] Westford, P., Neighborhood Design and Travel: A study of Residential Quality, Child Leisure Activity and Trips to School, Doctoral Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2010.

[15] Kairos Future, Ett val av vikt: Svenska föräldrars erfarenheter och tankar om att välja skola, juni 2014.

[16] Ewing, R., Schroeer, W.  & Greene W.,  School location and student travel analysis    of factors affecting mode choice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1895/2004, pp. 55–63, 2007. https://doi.org/10.3141/1895-08