School choice is one of the most discussed issues in sociology of education in all developed countries. The original idea behind the concept was that government's role is “to preserve the rules of the game by enforcing contracts, preventing coercion, and keeping markets free” (Friedman, 1955). Friedman and his followers argued that introducing market mechanism to education would help to reduce the class distinction caused by the residential stratification and promote the quality of education. Opponents on the other hand point out that school choice can intensify inequities (e.g. Ball 2003). Markets have limited nature in schools (Gorard 1999) and inevitably, school choice can lead to worsening social justice. Well-off parents with more sources can reach for better school for their children thanks to their economic, social and cultural capital (Holme 2002).

Mechanism of school choice has been widely investigated at the secondary school level, however much less attention was dedicated to the primary school level. Unlike the secondary school level, one of the main identified criterion for primary school choice was the child happiness at school (Bussel 2004). The nearest school is often seen as good enough at the primary level and parents know that they can make their choice later (Komulainen 2012).  However, the school choice mechanisms differ between socioeconomic groups – parents from different backgrounds use different resources to choose the “right” school for their children (Walker & Clark 2010).  The access to the school is determined not only by proximity, but also by their socio-economic status –with higher socio-economic background pupils are more likely to be accepted into nearer more advantaged schools (Burgess et al, 2011).  The school choice can contribute to reproducing privileged position of families with higher level of cultural capital (Alegre & Benito 2012).

Before 1989, in the Czech Republic children were assigned to their primary schools according to catchment areas. At the end of the second grade of primary school they could apply for schools or classrooms with extended education of foreign languages, at the end of fourth grade for schools and classrooms with extended education of mathematics and several other subjects. At the same time, students that were diagnosed as slightly mentally retarded were educated in so called special schools with reduced curricula. During the socialist era, about 10 % of students finished compulsory education in schools with extended curricula and about 5 % of students in special schools. Since 1989 parents can choose primary school for their children. Catchment areas still exist and schools are obliged to prefer students from their catchment area in enrollment procedure. Primary schools have been differentiating and specializing (e.g. bilingual schools, schools with extended English curriculum, schools for talented children), some of them organize entrance examinations. Schools and classrooms with reduced curricula for students with slight mental retardation still exist. At the same time, students at the end of grade 5 can apply for grammar schools – a long academic track leading to tertiary education. Parents are encouraged to select school for their children carefully. Idea of high quality education for each student in every school has not been promoted. School choice has been regarded as an important civic right. Public opinion polls show that the idea of obligatory catchment areas and comprehensive education is dismissed as a return to socialist ideology by all societal groups. With respect to high and growing educational inequalities in the Czech Republic it is important to learn more about the mechanisms of school choice and its contribution to educational inequalities.

Alegre, M. A., & Benito, R. (2012). 'The best school for my child?' positions, dispositions and inequalities in school choice in the city of barcelona. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33(6), 849-871. Ball, S. J. (2003). Class strategies and the education market: The middle classes and social advantage. Routledge. Burgess, S., Greaves, E., Vignoles, A., & Wilson, D. (2011). Parental choice of primary school in England: what types of school do different types of family really have available to them? Policy Studies, 32(5), 531-547. doi:10.1080/01442872.2011.601215 Bussell, H. (1998). Parental Choice of Primary School: An Application of Q-Methodology. Service Industries Journal, 18(3), 135-147. Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In Solo, R. A. (Ed.), Economics and the Public Interest (p. 123-144). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Gorard, S. (1999). Well. That about wraps it up for school choice research: A state of the art review. School Leadership & Management 19(1), 25-47. Holme, J. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 177-205. Komulainen, S. (2012). “White flight“ in Finland? A qualitative study into Finnish-born families housing and school choice in Turku. Finnish Yearbook of Population Research, 47, 51-64. Walker, M., & Clark, G. (2010). Parental choice and the rural primary school: Lifestyle, locality and loyalty. Journal of Rural Studies, 26, 241–249. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.12.002