Socioeconomic and ethnic school segregation is a widely researched international phenomenon, both a consequence of, and a reason for, social inequalities (Holmlund & Öckert, 2021). Among the complex set of drivers behind school segregation, parental choice, the selective approach of schools and the structural characteristics of school systems all play a significant part (Jenkins et al., 2008). In Hungary, children’s school performance has been influenced by their family background to an extreme extent for decades (Csapó et al., 2019). This is due to systemic traits such as early tracking (Horn et al., 2016), liberal school choice policy and the consequent ‘quasi-market’ logic of schooling (Berényi, 2022), as well as social rejection of the ethnicized (Roma) poor (Feischmidt et al., 2010), outdated teacher education, and widespread deficit notions among professionals (Lannert, 2021).

The present paper is based on a comparative case study of two rural primary schools in Hungary, and their respective local contexts, which have suffered the consequences of increasing ethnic and socioeconomic segregation due to the deteriorating quality of public education, and school choice offered as an escape route for elites and lower middle classes. The research question addresses how the different levels of the ecological system (Bronfenbrenner, 1976) around segregated schools, and teachers working in them, are interconnected: the structural level (education and political system, societal values), the local level (local institutions, community and their relationship with the school, local value structure), and the school level (the characteristics and development of the school).

The theoretical framework of the study is based on the literature of school choice and its understanding as, rather than mere schooling policy, part of a wider neoliberal agenda, encouraging consumption and competition (Ball & Vincent, 1998; Dannefjord et al., 2023). School choice is inspired by strategies to avoid ‘social contamination’ (Butler & Hamnett, 2007) via separation from – often ethnicized or racialized – lower classes. In the Hungarian context, these processes have played a part in increasing social inequalities since the regime change: the liberalization of the school market has not been questioned by any political actor since 1985. Since 2010, the sociopolitical environment of public education has been shaped by explicitly pro-elite, neoconservative trends, and the efforts to fulfil the needs of an expanding labour market for low-skilled workers without offering social mobility through more equitable schooling (Illéssy et al., 2023; Neumann & Mészáros, 2019; Scheiring & Szombati, 2020).

The present study aims to uncover the inner workings of the system through the perceptions of teachers – understood as street-level bureaucrats, who develop different strategies to cope with systemic dysfunction (Lipsky, 1969) – and other local actors. The research, conducted within the qualitative paradigm, applies a critical realist ontological stance and contextualist epistemology. Methodologically, the process-oriented comparative case study approach of Bartlett and Vavrus (2017) was utilized, followed by a reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022) of data collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews, content analysis and observations.

In line with the EERA NW14’s call for papers, the study aims to provide a complex and detailed understanding of how local and school-level processes shape each other and how they are embedded in, and influenced by, the structural level. The findings suggest that factors such as local interethnic relations, communal traditions of geographic and social segregation, and the personal and professional background of school heads and teachers all play a part in how school segregation – encouraged by national education and economic policy – is perceived by rural communities.

The present research is rooted in the qualitative tradition of the sociology of education. It follows the Big Q approach as defined by Braun and Clarke (2022): the usage of qualitative techniques within a qualitative paradigm. It rejects the positivist idea of a singular truth, acknowledges the subjectivity of the researcher as a resource, and considers reflexivity – awareness of the impact of personal and disciplinary background on methodological and analytical choices – essential. For the comparative case study, the critical, process-oriented approach of Bartlett and Vavrus (2017) is applied. The approach implies a threefold methodology of comparison: horizontal (how similar processes unfold in different locations), vertical (across multiple scales) and transversal (across time). In the current study, the homologous horizontal comparison includes two villages, two schools, and their teachers. The nested arrangement (teachers–schools–villages–structural level) includes a vertical element. The transversal axis of comparison adds the aspect of time to the case study: attention has been given to uncovering similarities and differences in space and time. For the purposes of the analysis, the aim was to sample two institutions that – based on publicly available, statistical data – are ‘supposedly’ similar. Both researched schools are publicly maintained, found within the same school district; both villages have around 10–12% Roma population and only one school; and both schools have a similarly high proportion of disadvantaged students. Data collection was conducted primarily through semi-structured in-depth interviews, many of which were expert interviews, while life history interviews were conducted with teachers. Applied methods also included observations and content analysis. The reflexive thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2022) guidelines. In order to keep the horizontal, vertical and transversal comparative axes and not to get lost in the parallel description of the two cases, the analysis was completed by focusing on some subjectively chosen themes that helped ‘solve the problem set out by the cases’ (namely, interethnic relations, segregation processes, and leadership styles). Researcher reflexivity has been an essential aspect of the present research. This includes an acknowledgement of subjectivity and a value-based approach: the research has been inspired by the conviction that school and socio-ethnic segregation is unfair, and society needs to do more for affected families. Furthermore, the study provides full transparency of limitations, such as the discrepancy between the sampled interviewees in the two locations (local actors were more accessible in one village, teachers in the other).

The horizontal, vertical and transversal comparison of the two villages uncovered differences in local specificities of ethnic segregation and leadership styles. While Village A has a geographically and socially segregated Roma settlement, in Village B Roma and non-Roma have traditionally shared a living space. The mayor of Village A is actively increasing ethnic tensions, while that of Village B puts great emphasis on maintaining the façade of peace. This leaderships style is mirrored by the headmaster of the Village B school, who has held the title for decades and whose authority remains largely unquestioned in the community. The headmaster in Village A is a ‘newcomer’, who is widely blamed by the local community for the growing issue of segregation. This process causes a moral panic in Village A, where non-Roma fear about losing the school to the Roma. In Village B, segregation as a result of white flight began earlier and by now has become an unchallenged characteristic of the school. All in all, while the two villages are in many aspects similar and geographically proximate, they have adopted different strategies within a political system that actively divides society. While lower classes have been pacified by labour market expansion and the development of a clientelistic system in rural areas, the deterioration of public services, including education, has contributed to social inequalities. Although it was promised that rural ethnic tensions would be eased by pushing the ethnicized poor into low-skilled jobs, competition for resources has grown due to the unavailability of affordable social and educational services. In this context, responses of local communities to segregation processes are shaped by interethnic relations, traditions of social arrangements in villages, and, perhaps most importantly, local attitudes – characterized by trust versus mistrust – towards the school, its leadership and teachers.

Ball, S.J., & Vincent, C. (1998). ‘I Heard It on the Grapevine’: ‘Hot’ Knowledge and School Choice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(3), 377–400. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F.K. (2017). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Berényi, E. (2022). Social selection step by step: The case of the Early Selective Grammar Schools in Hungary. Intersections, 8(2), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.17356/ieejsp.v8i2.848 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The Experimental Ecology of Education. Educational Researcher, 5(9), 5–15. Butler, T., & Hamnett, C. (2007). The Geography of Education: Introduction. Urban Studies, 44(7), 1161–1174. Csapó, B., Fejes, J.B., Kinyó, L., & Tóth, E. (2019). Educational achievement in social and international contexts. In I.Gy. Tóth (Ed.), Social Report 2019 (pp. 217–236). TÁRKI Social Research Institute. Dannefjord, P., Persson, M., & Bertilsson, E. (2023). The immobility of the mobile teacher: How teachers change jobs in a segregated local school-market. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(7), 1013–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2115130 Feischmidt, M., Messing, V., & Neményi, M. (2010). Ethnic Differenves in Education in Hungary: Community Study [Community Studies]. EDUMIGROM. Holmlund, H., & Öckert, B. (2021). Patterns of school segregation in Europe. (45; EENEE Analytical Report). European Commission Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/269991 Horn, D., Keller, T., & Róbert, P. (2016). Early tracking and competition – A recipe for major inequalities in Hungary. In H.-P. Blossfeld, S. Buchholz, & J. Skopek (Eds.), Models of secondary education and social inequality: An international comparison. Edward Elgar Publishing. Illéssy, M., Huszár, Á., & Csizmadia, P. (2023). Flexibility without security: Labour market integration mechanisms in Hungary during the 2010s. Intersections, 9(4), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.17356/ieejsp.v9i4.1170 Jenkins, S.P., Micklewright, J., & Schnepf, S. V. (2008). Social segregation in secondary schools: How does England compare with other countries. Oxford Review of Education, 34(1), 21–37. Lannert, J. (2021). Human resources-scarcity in Hungarian public education. Final reserach report—Executive Summary. T-TUDOK. Lipsky, M. (1969). Toward a Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Neumann, E., & Mészáros, G. (2019). From Public Education to National Public Upbringing: The Neoconservative Turn of Hungarian Education After 2010. In J. Kenneth (Ed.), Austerity and the Remaking of European Education (pp. 117–146). Bloomsbury. Scheiring, G., & Szombati, K. (2020). From neoliberal disembedding to authoritarian re-embedding: The making of illiberal hegemony in Hungary. International Sociology, 35(6), 721–738. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580920930591