Читать книгу Growing Up and Getting By - Группа авторов - Страница 10
ОглавлениеEric Larsson and Anki Bengtsson
Introduction
This chapter highlights how far-reaching educational marketisation and the uneven geography of the Stockholm region together affect the strategies deployed by young people, their families and schools. Drawing from a Bourdieusian framework, we explore geography as a symbolic asset and how the gentrified and wealthier inner-city of Stockholm (Lilja, 2011; Clark, 2013) has become a ‘melting-pot’ (Webber, 2007) to the forces of marketisation. In an era of choice and competition this creates social, symbolic and educational division, as many well-resourced students leave their local school settings. At the same time, schools located in stigmatised areas struggle to keep up and still provide a good educational environments for students (Bunar, 2009; 2011).
The chapter begins with a summary of educational marketisation in Stockholm and Sweden from 1992 to 2019, outlining the various regulations that existed during this period. Among other things, we illustrate that some public post-16 schools were regulated by proximity zones until 2011, while students could apply to any independent school already in 1992. Next, the theoretical framework and methodological approach is explained. This is followed by an empirical exploration of the various ways that schools appropriate and profit from the inner-city. Next, we discuss students’ perceptions of the inner-city and inner-city schooling. Finally, we will show that the term ‘inner-city school’ is more than a name in Stockholm. It is a consecrated and hierarchical title, that is given to a certain group of elite schools. This title is used by students, teachers and principals at these schools as a sign of distinction. By providing this analysis, we argue that the definition of inner-city schools is contextually linked to national education systems and geographical hierarchies. As shown in a socio-historical article by Gamsu (2015), when the geographical foundations of the city changes, so do the possibilities for schools to attract students.
A transforming, urban educational market
Swedish students usually start compulsory education at the age of 7 and graduate from secondary school at the age of 16. These nine years of school are mandatory. Following secondary education, around 98% of students then continue directly to post-16 school. In 2018, this meant a transition of 352,286 students nationwide (Swedish National Agency of Education, 2019). These students are spread throughout the country, yet a large proportion attends schools in the urban regions.
Of all regions Stockholm provides the largest post-16 educational market. Today it delivers education to approximately 77,000 students, and a prognosis states that the amount will increase to about 97,000 before 2027 (Storsthlm, 2019). At the same time, the number of schools have increased considerably in recent decades and will continue to do so. In 2019 the number of post-16 schools encompassed more than 200. Of these, 74 were public schools and 133 were independent schools (Larsson, 2019). This includes schools with a wide range of profiles, ownership and possibilities. Besides the public schools, which are run by the municipality, there are ideas-driven and non-profit schools, schools owned by private firms and large-scale educational enterprises governed by for-profit capitalists (Erixon Arreman and Holm, 2011a; 2011b). The latter has expanded vastly and continuously incorporates smaller educational firms throughout the country. One example is Academedia – a venture capitalist firm that provide education for about 56,600 secondary and post-16 students throughout the country. Among other things, this includes approximately 143 post-16 schools (Academedia, 20201). The idea-driven and non-profit schools are often run by foundations. Some of these provide pedagogics such as Montessori, others offer more conventional education, but make a point of not capitalising on vouchers.
The surge in independent schools (free-schools as they are called in the Swedish context), is linked to a range of socio-historic and political processes. By the early 1990s the number of older private schools had been reduced to nearly non-existent and when the first wave of marketisation was initiated in 1992 the number of post-16 independent schools nationwide totalled 42.2 While there had previously been a larger number, few had survived the post-war regulation of private welfare institutions (Blomqvist, 2004). Additionally, due to the interplay of policies aiming to limit the social boundaries of education, it became harder for families to rely on schooling as a means of reproducing social status (Hultqvist, 2017). Widening participation, heightened levels of education among the population and a lower degree of differentiation within the educational system all contributed to this change. As Hultqvist writes: ‘The transition from an elite school to a more inclusive and democratised school system, where both the external differentiation (parallel school types) and internal differentiation (programme division, alternative courses) have disappeared or been abolished raises interesting questions’ (Hultqvist, 2017: 80).
Accordingly, before the early 1990s there were few possibilities to surpass regulations and explore the potential ‘profits’ of school choice. Similar to other countries (Bridge, 2006; DeSena and Ansalone, 2009; Butler and Hamnett, 2011), one way was to live near to sought-after schools. Another was to attend any of the fee-paying private schools or to use resources and networks to ‘beat’ the regulations (Broccolichi and van Zanten, 2000). Therefore, most post-16 students attended schools close to home and applied for preferable programmes.3 Usually this meant either choosing the theoretical natural or social science programmes, semi-theoretical programmes such as technical or child and recreation programme or vocationally orientated programmes such as construction or electricity. Among students with high grades and higher levels of capital, the natural science programme became the more prestigious path (Palme, 2008). Despite this, there was an increasing demand for a more diverse educational system.
One of the arguments behind restructuring the educational system was the acclaimed benefits of independent schools and parental choice. These two characteristics, it was argued, would reduce the lack of progress and financial inefficiency in Swedish schools (Lundahl et al, 2013). Furthermore, it was suggested that independent schools and parental choice would decrease the effects of residential and educational segregation (Söderström and Uusitalo, 2005). Under the reforms enacted in 1992, parents/guardians, regardless of their social position, were expected to engage in the process of school choice since it was assumed to optimise the wellbeing of the child. To produce such a foundational change, a universal voucher was provided to parents/guardians. However, at the post-16 level, the voucher was not enough. To keep a system of ‘equal opportunities’, grades from secondary school are a key element of entrance requirements. Grades are seen as an indicator of quality, and schools could thus be judged in accordance with entrance requirements and the number of applicants.
The voucher also functioned as an incentive to motivate progress and development in schools, as it stipulated the financial underpinning of the organisation. This meant that there was a continuous need to attract students to stay afloat, since the number of students (that is, vouchers) provided the economic basis of the school. Swedish scholars have analysed the impact of this competitive environment and the strategies deployed to attract students. Among other things, they have shown the variation of strategies that schools owned by different stakeholders use (Lundahl et al, 2014). The strategies used by schools to attract pupils is also shown to be dependent upon the perceived hierarchy of schools (Palme, 2008; Forsberg, 2015). While prestigious schools can attract students with minor efforts and a low-key profile, others have relied more profoundly on marketing and gifts (Lund, 2007). The latter is often visible at promotional events such as school fairs and open houses (Harling, 2017).
The particularity of Stockholm’s expanding educational market is connected to the political and public support for pro-choice policies. Another reason is the increasing number of inhabitants. An equally important factor has been the emergence of a regional educational market between 2008 and 2011. The regional educational market consists of a collaboration between 28 different municipalities (Storsthlm, 2019). It includes all post-16 schools and produces competition at the regional level. However, competition existed before 2008. The difference resides in the size, sprawl, form and regulations of the educational market. The first generation of independent schools included ideas-driven schools with specific pedagogic visions and, furthermore, old private schools. These schools were predominantly placed in affluent areas and metropolitan regions. While the proximity zones of public schools were not fully eradicated until 2011, from 1992 young people could attend any independent school in the region. This led to an uneven competition and an advantage for many independent schools. As a consequence, independent schools continued to expand – often in profitable geographical areas.
When the regional educational market was introduced in 2008, regulation changed, and thus some public schools attracted an increasing number of students. Continuous changes in 2011 expanded the opportunities for school choice further. This means that young people are able to apply to any school in the Stockholm region and compete for a position based on grades. That is to say, higher grades equal more options and a greater probability to attend prestigious schools. The regional collaboration has fostered increasing possibilities for geographical mobility among young people. However, as research has suggested, social and educational differences persist (Söderström and Uusitalo, 2005; Forsberg, 2015). From this perspective, it becomes interesting to discuss the current state of schools in Stockholm, particularly, the phenomenon of inner-city schools.
Inner-city schools: a short introduction
Whereas the term ‘inner-city school’ typically insinuates something unfavourable, the opposite can be said for Stockholm and other major Swedish cities. This has, among other things, become obvious in the increasing number of post-16 schools situated in inner-city areas and the students attending these schools. Of the large number of post-16 schools in Stockholm, 59 are located within the inner-city area. This number has increased from 16 in the early 1990s. The same goes for students attending post-16 inner-city schools, which more than doubled between 1997 and 2017. Although many students still attend school close to home, this trend follows the general pattern of increasing geographical mobility among students in larger urban regions (The Swedish National Agency of Education, 2019). As Butler and Hamnett noted in 2007, ‘neighbourhood social solidarity’ has been ‘important’ in the Swedish context, however, ‘this is changing’ (p.1167). Nevertheless, as we will illustrate in this chapter, not all post-16 inner-city schools are equally prestigious. In fact, many rely on the profits of being located within wealthier areas to attract students. This ought to be contrasted with the post-16 inner-city elite schools, which rely on additional characteristics than just the geographical placement.
Theory: for a relational understanding of educational marketisations
Theoretically, our research takes inspiration from the scholarship of Pierre Bourdieu and successors. It includes concepts such as strategies, recognition and capitals (assets4) (Bourdieu, 1996). Analytically these concepts provide a relational foundation for understanding social phenomena. In our case, this relates to the hierarchical struggles of positions and positioning in the socially and symbolically uneven geography of Stockholm. The concepts of strategies, recognition and symbolic capital are useful to understand the notion of ‘profits of localization’ (Bourdieu, 1999) and how the inner-city schools are to be understood. But they also provide an analytical point of departure when analysing students’ perceptions.
In this chapter we have also been inspired by contemporary Bourdieusian scholars such as Mike Savage and colleagues in particular, and their work that concerns ‘emerging cultural capital’ and the city (see Prieur and Savage, 2013; Savage et al, 2018). That is to say, how the transformation and continuous gentrification of certain urban areas has made some cities areas of emerging cultural capital and with a certain cosmopolitan position. This could be seen in the awareness of urban aesthetics, but also in the social dynamics of gentrified cities such as transnational investment and segregation. As discussed before, there is a need to link the geographies of education to socio-political processes. When the city transforms, so do the possibilities to arrange education. This is particularly the case when dominant groups such as middle-class, upper middle-class and upper-class families are affected by these transformations and decide to move on to other places (Gamsu, 2015). But also, it change the possibilities for schools and students who stay behind and struggle with fewer resources and harder conditions (Bunar, 2009).
Research methods
This chapter draws from data collected in different stages between 2012 and 2019. It is predominantly based on a one-year ethnography in three post-16 elite schools. This combines interviews with 119 agents, such as students, teachers, principals and other staff members with observations in classrooms, meetings, hallways, open houses and several other events and locations. Furthermore, the data include secondary statistics, marketing pamphlets, school documents, year books, school papers and different artefacts. We have also complemented the dataset with a broader spectrum of school webpages, marketing pamphlets, photos,5 24 interviews with students from 2012 to 2013 and secondary statistics to illustrate the expanding sector of post-16 schools in Stockholm.
The ambition has been to gather an extensive dataset, to be able to map, analyse and understand the different segments of the post-16 inner-city schools. However, we are especially interested in the elite segment. This means that we have mainly focused on understanding the intersection of students’ educational strategies and schools’ institutional strategies. For us, it means a focus on recognition, positional struggles and variations in symbolic assets. Consequently, this work illuminates how the hierarchies of geography within Stockholm affects the inner-city schools and the regional educational market. We also explore the hierarchical differences between a small number of recognised ‘inner-city schools’ and the larger number of schools located in the inner-city area. In other words, between the elite segment and the other segments of schools.
A school situated in the ‘right place’
To grasp the expansion of post-16, inner-city schools, there are two important analytical features that need to be understood. The first of these are the ‘socio-symbolic’ boundaries (Wacquant, 2015) of the city. These boundaries define differences within the Stockholm region and affect all schools. As such, schools situated in the urban periphery become discredited by their proximity to low-income groups, the number of migrants and other social characteristics. If we also account for student group composition, elevated in- and outflow of students and performance rated struggles, peripheral schools are dually punished in the contemporary educational markets (Bunar, 2009; 2011). On the other hand, schools situated in affluent areas may ‘profit’ (Bourdieu, 1999) from locational advantages. While this is usually discussed in the literature about suburbia (Jellison Holme, 2002) and rural boarding schools (Gaztambide-Fernández, 2009), less has been written about wealthier urban areas.
Schools situated in the inner-city of Stockholm clearly illustrate how locational profits are accumulated. Besides profiting from the proximity to socio-economically well-off residents, many inner-city schools strategically appropriate the immediacy of the vibrant city as a competitive advantage. This includes references to lifestyles, shopping culture and outdoor eating on webpages and marketing pamphlets (Larsson and Hultqvist, 2017). As we will discuss later, these references echo the excitement of urbanity that some students long for. Nevertheless, these strategies differ, and the latter is generally referred to by recently established for-profit independent schools and in some cases also non-profit independent schools.
Our beautiful school is located in the corner of Kungstensgatan/Drottninggatan [two main streets], close to The Stockholm School of Economics. With Stadsbiblioteket [Stockholm city library] around the corner and restaurants, coffee houses and shops nearby, we have a perfect and central location. [Kungstensgymnasiet, 2019]6
Our school is located on a calm street, a stone’s throw from Odenplan [a central hub for commuters] and in proximity to Stockholm’s entire cultural supply. [Tillskärarakademin, 2019]7
Stockholm International School is located in the centre of Stockholm next to a park, on a hilltop near the main business/shopping area. [Stockholm International School, 2019]8
Additionally, the proximity to cultural and historical landmarks are used as references. In contrast to the vibrant city, the latter could more often be found amid elite schools. Among the older elite schools, it is manifest in anniversary books, documents, webpages and pamphlets where tradition is displayed as a sign of distinction and legacy. These schools frequently integrate their geographical, architectural and scholarly past with other historical events – drawing attention to their difference to more recently-established schools. The historical legacy of public elite schools is among other things demonstrated by references to the foundation of the school, followed by the key persons, the architectural layout and the inauguration. As one school states, ‘Östra Real’s current building was commissioned in 1910, but the official inauguration took place with the opening ceremony of Gustav V [Swedish king] in January 1911’ (Östra Reals gymnasium, 2019).9 Together with famous alumni, prestigious awards and stories of success, the historical legacy becomes an important institutionalised asset. As Rizvi (2014) shows, history can be an advantage when competing with schools that offer more contemporary assets. To continue this discussion in detail, we want to elaborate on the importance of architecture and school buildings, and, in particular, how these buildings are used strategically.
The strategic use of architecture and school buildings
The strategic manifestation of architecture and school buildings has been analysed before. Brooks and Waters (2015: 91), for instance, illustrate the use of images by elite schools and how these ‘support a narrative stressing tradition, stability and reliability’. Similar results could be found in the Swedish context, yet, in the contemporary Swedish system, the strategic use of architecture and school buildings varies substantially. Some schools put much effort into ‘the right location’, including the school buildings, whereas others rely more specifically on the geographical placement.
While many pre-1992 independent schools are housed in ordinary school buildings dating back to the late 1800s and early 1900s, recent schools either have to purchase or rent office and residential buildings. These buildings vary in age, appearance and location. In some cases, they have been thoroughly converted into schools. In other words, little separates them from the regular outline of the city. This makes it hard to define what constitutes a contemporary school building. There are several reasons for this development. Mostly it is related to limited opportunities due to restricted space and real estate prices within the inner-city. As a consequence, whereas public schools – with a few exceptions – have a permanent address, independent schools do occasionally re-locate.
The construction of a historical legacy
Schools and educational firms that are able to purchase or rent centrally located, historical buildings, regularly use the term ‘ancient’ as an imaginative description. It is a term with symbolic connotations, which is used to create a feeling of authenticity (Zukin, 2008) and security. Therefore, it is especially interesting when it is used by schools that have a limited history. One recent example comes from the re-location of Jensen Södra which is one of two hierarchically low–mid segment10 (Forsberg, 2015) inner-city schools, owned by a for-profit firm that provides education from pre-school level to adult extension studies. When Jensen Södra strategically re-located from a modest inner-city office building in 2017 to its current location in Gamla stan (‘Old town’), the term ancient became a signum. The webpage states ‘You can find us in ancient premises in the old town in the city centre of Stockholm’ (Jensen Södra, 201911). To a certain degree, the present building (Figure 2.1) does have a historical legacy and it is located in one of the older regions of Stockholm. Still, education has not been the primary use of the building. Rather, the location and building are used as a way to emulate older schools and gain prestige.
Figure 2.1: Jensen Södra school
In contrast, some prestigious independent schools have been able to purchase buildings that were once used as schools or converted houses that architecturally resemble schools. Accompanied by the ‘right’ symbolic assets, such as networks and renowned board members, these schools have grown to become prominent agents on the contemporary educational market. A further asset, and significant difference to other independent schools, is the non-profit marker. In other words, rather than capitalising on students and redistributing capital to shareholders, money is relocated into the organisation. This means a less commercialised brand, that mainly appeals to students from the higher social stratum. One example is centrally located Campus Manilla, with 88% of the students having highly educated parents (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2019). The school offers primary, secondary and post-16 education and has in recent years attracted the attention of well-known families – among others, the royal family. Today, Campus Manilla inhabits the premises of the historical institution, Manilla, a former school for children with hearing loss. To illustrate the importance, the building is firmly centred in the school insignia (Campus Manilla, 201912).
Another example is the Viktor Rydbergs School Foundation, with four sought-after post-16 schools in the Stockholm region. Two of these are located in the inner-city area. One of these two schools, Viktor Rydbergs gymnasium Odenplan is located in a former hospital building. The building has experienced substantial renovation and today looks strikingly similar to the prestigious public schools in Stockholm. As seen in Figure 2.2, both the architectural design with red bricks and the inscription over the main entrance of Viktor Rydbergs gymnasium Odenplan (on the right) emulates the design of public Norra Real (on the left) and Södra Latin, both dating back to the 1890s. Viktor Rydbergs gymnasium Odenplan even refers to the school as a ‘cultural landmark’ and continues by mentioning the construction date of 1885 (Viktor Rydberg Odenplan, 2019),13 creating a similar historical legacy as older elite schools.
Figure 2.2: Norra Real and Viktor Rydbergs gymnasium Odenplan
Something new, something borrowed
Most recently established inner-city independent schools do not have historical buildings. Typically, they provide educational settings in centrally located, residential or office buildings. As Figure 2.3 displays, sometimes store fronts are used as access points and entrances. Distinct from older inner-city elite schools or more recent schools inhabiting historical buildings, these schools also claim the profits from being centrally located. Consequently, there are several differences in how profits are made from the symbolic assets of geography and architecture.
Figure 2.3: Two independent schools inhabiting office and residential buildings
One other interesting strategy could be found in the appearance of certain independent schools. For instance, the effort to capitalise from locational profits leads some post-16 schools to share a common space. When the concentration is this intense, students can choose to attend one of several comparable schools in the same area. In fact, schools owned by the same or competing companies occasionally share the same building. These agglomerations are often used by for-profit enterprises who provide smaller educational settings, often supply specific educational programmes and attract fewer high-achieving students. An illustrative example is provided in Figure 2.4 where three different post-16 schools share an office building from the 1970s. Two of the schools, Snitz and Cybergymnasiet are owned by Swedish Education Group AB and the third school, NTI Handelsgymnasiet, is owned by formerly mentioned Academedia.
Figure 2.4: Three independent schools using a former office building
As these examples suggest, the use of school buildings varies substantially among the different post-16 schools. The point we want to make, is that these schools profit from being located within the inner-city. At the same time, schools located in low-income areas and so on, struggle to provide educational opportunities. This is related to the socio-symbolic boundaries of the city. Still, as we will show later, besides the variations in how schools appropriate space, there are also differences in the degree that schools are recognised as prestigious/sought-after inner-city schools.
Getting a ‘feeling’ for the city
To understand the strategies deployed by the different schools in the city centre of Stockholm, and the process of appropriating space, it is necessary to recognise students’ perception of the city. That is to say, there is a relationship between students’ strategies and opinions of preferable schools and the institutional strategies deployed by schools.
The geographical location of the school is not the only important feature for students. If it were, hierarchies between schools would be less observable. However, a large proportion of the interviewees make reference to their willingness to attend centrally located schools. For many students, the inner-city represent a hub, or the centre of the region and it delivers preferable schools within a reasonable distance due to the possibilities of public transport. There are many reasons for students’ willingness to be geographically mobile and these reasons could usually be summarised by the term ‘melting-pot’ (Webber, 2007).
‘Melting-pot’ includes both the previously mentioned socio-symbolic boundaries and characteristics such as historical legacy. Equally important are features of meeting, culture and consumption. That is to say, a transformative city that simultaneously represents intermingling, possibilities and prosperity (Franzén, 2007). These categories are often inseparable and encapsulate a place where interesting things occur while it also refers to the distinction between home and away. Or in other terms, the difference between attending a familiar neighbourhood school or parting with the comfort of the accustomed and exploring new things. One important factor here is the rhetoric of ‘freedom of choice’. Students often refer to school choice as a facilitator of mobility and pluralism. This does not necessarily mean a social pluralism, rather a geographical mixture. Therefore, they cite this as a reason for attending inner-city schools rather than neighbourhood schools (Larsson and Hultqvist, 2017).
‘Then when I thought about it, it was like this: why exactly the inner-city? … Then it was like this: yes, but maybe because it is in the middle – so it is in the city, that is simply where you have mostly central Stockholm. So, you have people from everywhere come here all the time and it is so mixed. It won’t be this kind of people from just the red [metro line] or people from just the green line but it’s so mixed up so it’s so fun getting to know other people than just the ones you’ve known in your [residential] area.’ (Male, working-class)
The term ‘melting-pot’ also includes the cultural-consumption dimension of the city. Students often recognise the importance of the proximity to opportunities such as shopping culture, coffee houses and restaurants. It is the added experience of what occurs outside of school and differences from routine, that become crucial. As a student explains:
‘But [attending a school in the city] is something different. I think just when school ends on a Friday. Then you can go out and do something fun instead of going home to someone. But when you go to where I live – then it is like this … Yes, but everyone meets up at someone’s home. Here [in the city] you can go to a café or walk around town. Thus, make more stuff as well. It is another thing; you feel more grown up as well.’ (Female, upper middle class)
In summary, there are a range of external forces that influence the process of choosing a school. These forces might not be directly accounted for when analysing the relationship between educational marketisation and segregation, for instance.
For students attending elite schools, pluralism and diversity are often perceived as an important feature. It is perceived to produce character, experience and insight and, as such, a cultivating part of adolescence (Khan 2011). Hence, school and the vibrant city become places for gathering awareness of the ‘other’. It follows the outlook of the urban as a cosmopolitan space where people have the possibility to meet and exchange ideas. This resembles what Guilluy (2019, p.5) calls ‘the myth of the open and egalitarian society of the cosmopolitan urban centres’. However, there are also social variations and limits to this openness. Arguably there are social boundaries that differ from the rhetorical emphasis of intermingling, experience and exchange. These boundaries are controlled with ‘a skilful game of control and proximity’ (Andreotti et al, 2015: 181). The willingness to meet and explore the experience of others is related to specific lifestyles and governed by a version of what Butler (2003) calls ‘people like us’. This applies to which schools to attend, which people to socialise with and how the city is perceived. In other words, it is affected by the social limits of familiarity and linked to the place of residence. Among students residing outside the inner-city, those with larger assets tend to be more acquainted with the dynamics of the city. For these students, the city provides more than shopping and restaurants. The same goes for students residing in the inner-city. They have more intensive knowledge about the different schools and the difference between neighbourhoods. Furthermore, they are often not that impressed by the typical features of the inner-city as those residing outside.
Recognition and entitlement
To conclude this empirical section, we want to illustrate how the term ‘inner-city school’ differs and highlight that there are multiple hierarchies included in it. To do so we will focus on the elite school segment.
The best way of understanding the hierarchy of inner-city schools is perhaps to start with a retrospection of Swedish grammar schools. Grammar schools were often placed centrally in larger cities and, before the 1960s, provided education to a small section of the Swedish population. However, due to the geographical placement, they also functioned as hubs and gathering points for local discussions and meetings (Florin and Johansson, 1993). Consequently, they operated beyond the limits of formal educational settings. Even though grammar schools no longer exist and have either been converted into post-16 or disassembled, they still endure a certain social standing. For instance, because of the architectural style, some schools have been transformed into hotels and conference centres. More importantly, ‘converted’ grammar schools are among the more sought-after post-16 schools in the Stockholm region. Regardless of problems with smaller student cohorts during the 1980s, the latter have continued to be a well-regarded option for families living nearby. This means that, while widening participation and low levels of differentiation broadened the social spectrum of students (Hultqvist, 2017), geographical zoning and limited numbers of private schools kept the student group composition relatively intact. As a consequence, when the competition increased from the 1990s and onwards, these prestigious public schools became even more selective. Together with a small group of non-profit independent schools, they now represent the elite segment of post-16 schools. With exceptions, the same segment also constitutes the recognised inner-city schools.
The particularity of the recognised ‘inner-city school’ could be located in what some scholars call ‘circuits of schooling’ or ‘circuits of education’ (Ball et al, 1995; Butler and Robson, 2003; Popeau et al, 2007; Gamsu, 2017). More specifically, they represent the demarcated school choices students or families consider. In this study, circuits of schooling refer to the numerical order that students with different social and educational backgrounds use to classify their choices of schools and educational programmes.14 With number one being the preferable option, most students attending post-16 elite schools choose from a limited segment of characteristically similar institutions. However, students from higher social classes and/or those who have attended prestigious secondary schools, are more often familiar with and aware of the norms regarding post-16 elite schools. This is also the reason why these schools could rely on a low-key profile and still attract the ‘right’ social and academic clientele; in a sense, making it harder for those less familiar to notice, recognise and identify them in the same way, even if they have grades that are good enough. Thus, these circuits create boundaries of belonging and exclusion. As one student describes: “I mean the big inner-city schools, the classics. Kungsholmen, Östra Real, Norra Real and Södra Latin. And there are some others who are quite popular, for example EG [Enskilda gymnasiet] or Viktor Rydberg, who just got bigger. They are very popular” (male, upper middle class). A second but related indication is the limited circuits of rivals and collaborators that elite schools have. In other words, there are schools that both compete for the same students and at the same time share commonalities. One example is that students who transfer between schools during the first year often change to other schools within the elite circuit (Larsson, 2019). Another is collaboration is the different sports events and contests that are engaged in by similar schools.
The elite segment of inner-city schools could be described by a spectrum of characteristics. Geographical location is only one such feature. First, for students attending these schools, the term ‘inner-city school’ represents selectivity and legacy. Thus, composition, or the social and academic configuration of former and contemporary students, are crucial. To simplify it further, it is important to be part of a collective that has similar ambitions and skills, or to put it in the vocabulary of Bourdieu, symbolic assets. Additionally, it includes lifestyle choices and educational achievements. This is also why merits or grades from secondary school become an important measure. When students argue for plurality and diversity, they do it in the name of being chosen. In other words, as a statement of equal opportunity and that privilege has little to do with educational success.
‘Well, I think it’s very important, especially with free choice. So, there is some talk about not being allowed to go to inner-city schools, if you do not live in the inner-city and I think that is bad, since I would not have the opportunity attend this school then. Because I do not live in Stockholm County … So, I think it is great that you have the chance to choose for yourself and because it creates a competition that makes the best students get in … from all over Stockholm.’ [Female, lower middle class]
Hence, middle-class, upper middle-class and upper-class students celebrate the possibilities of school choice, since it enables geographical mobility. For them, it usually means mobility due to academic ability even though social class differences remain a strong influence due to different opportunities at home and in secondary school. As one upper-class student argues, concerning possibilities of limiting school choice in Stockholm, “It would only contribute more to this kind of segregation and such things, as if not everyone is allowed ‘to show their feet’ kind of.” He continues “But in any case, I think [school choice] is great for post-16 schools, because it is an awakening for some as well, that you have to take school seriously. If you do not [take school seriously] then sorry, but then, you just have to learn [it] the hard way.”
As discussed before, new schools can also become accepted as inner-city schools. It is typically a question of being able to recruit students from higher social classes and/or with certain academic abilities. However, it also depends on the ability to mobilise enough other institutional assets. One such asset is legacy. Legacy does not necessarily mean a heritage, although recently established elite schools try to construct an authentic feeling of historical belonging. Rather, it means the possibility to create linage. A school needs to be up to date and continue to deliver knowledgeable students to high-status positions. One such way is to deliver students to prestigious universities. For students, this offers what Larsson (2019) has called ‘exchange potential’ or a hypothetical future. Bourdieu (1996) correspondingly describes how relationships between successful alumni and hypothetical futures foster a collective belief and therefore become an asset. This collective belief is important to be able to preserve the boundaries and hierarchies between inner-city schools. It provides a feeling of entitlement and more importantly, distinctively not being one among the others.
Conclusion
Educational marketisation is a significant part of Swedish society and is often taken for granted, especially in metropolitan regions such as Stockholm. This also means that the educational market is constantly changing and developing, and that there are continuous hierarchical struggles between schools. As new schools emerge, others change direction, re-locate, upscale, downsize or in some cases become obsolete. In this context, students and parents/guardians orientate between the different options and possibilities. They visit open houses and school fairs, gather information, consult friends, read webpages and are approached with marketing pamphlets containing a diverse array of promises. The latter might include offers to go abroad during the school year, gifts and prospects which have little to do with formal education. Prestigious schools often do the opposite and maintain a low-key profile with little explicit promotion. To navigate the educational market, students deploy various sets of strategies. These strategies are not rationally intentional (Bourdieu, 1990), rather class-based and governed by social factors such as familiarity, networks and lifestyle preferences. Schools on the other hand deploy strategies to attract students. This is done to keep up with competitors and avoid financial struggles. Except for the immediate marketing, schools compete by the means of institutional assets. Such assets include student group composition, respected teachers, specific educational programmes and successful alumni. Additionally, institutional assets could be related to the geography of the school. That is to say, where the school is situated, the history of the school and the architectural outline of the building.
This chapter has explored the phenomenon of post-16 inner-city schools. More specifically, how the uneven geography of the Stockholm region affects the strategies deployed by schools and students. The main theme has been related to the gentrified and wealthier inner-city of Stockholm and how it is used as a symbolic asset in the competition between schools. Our analysis shows that there are several hierarchies to account for. First of all, the socio-symbolic (Wacquant, 2015) boundaries that separates geographical regions and provides relational advantages for schools located in wealthier areas. Thus, schools placed in the inner-city profit from the locational setting. This is one significant reason for the growing number of inner-city schools since 1992. The same goes for the increasing number of students attending inner-city schools.
Besides the possibilities of public transport, inner-city schools profit from the proximity to a range of characteristics. Similar to what students argue, the city centre of Stockholm is portrayed as a melting-pot. Students see it as a place to meet, exchange ideas and consume. This is also why post-16 schools use the assets of geographical proximity as a comparative advantage (Larsson and Hultqvist, 2017). Some recent independent schools promote the vibrant city as an option with lots to offer while prestigious elite schools rely more heavily on culture and history. Simultaneously, school buildings and architecture also become important assets to attract potential students. Here, some older elite schools benefit by having history on their side. They can profit from a recognised legacy and stories that relate the school building to a history of education. More recent schools are forced to emulate a similar history to secure legitimacy. With the support of other institutional assets, some elite, independent schools have been able to do so with success. Others have not received the same amount of recognition. Most of the contemporary independent schools, however, are not able to obtain spacious and historical buildings. Instead, they are situated in regular office or residential buildings. Still, these schools profit from the location in the city and maintain a better position than they would elsewhere.
Yet, as we have shown in this chapter, there are also hierarchies among the post-16 inner-city schools. The term ‘inner-city school’ is socially and historically constituted and related to the circuit of post-16 elite schools. This means that not all schools are recognised or considered to be inner-city schools in spite of their placement in the city. For students attending schools within the elite circuit, the term ‘inner-city school’ indicates more than a geographical location and entails specific distinctive properties. Mostly these are related to the social, historical and academic foundation of the schools. As discussed earlier, the low-key profile of post-16 elite schools also means that they attract specific groups of students, often with higher levels of cultural capital. These students are aware of the hierarchies among the various post-16 schools in Stockholm and follow the norms created within the family, secondary school and among friends.
To conclude, the title inner-city school needs to be contextualised and related to the dynamics of the city. Furthermore, as shown in this chapter, it also needs to be discussed in relation to the hierarchies that exists among schools. When a city changes, so do the strategies of schools and students. For young people, these changes can be hard to evaluate which leads to some or them being marginalised by the system.
Notes
1 https://fakta.academedia.se/kortfakta/
2By the late 1980s it was calculated that only 0.2% of students attended privately managed schools (Blomqvist, 2004: 142).
3Swedish students both apply for schools and programmes. Different schools might have different programmes. However, the majority offer the natural or social science programmes.
4In this chapter we have choosen to use the term ‘assets’ instead of ‘capitals’. For discussion see Savage, Warde and Devine (2005).
5All the photos in this chapter are by Staffan Larsson.
6 https://www.folkuniversitetet.se/Skolor/gymnasieskolor/Kungstensgymnasiet/Om-KSG/
7 https://www.tillskararakademin.com/gymnasiet/om-skolan/
8 https://intsch.se/about-sis/school-profile/
9 https://ostrarealsgymnasium.stockholm.se/om-oss
10To illustrate, in 2018, 49% of the students at Jensen Södra had highly educated parents, which is 8% below the average in Stockholm (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2019).
11 https://www.jensengymnasium.se/sodra
12 http://campusmanilla.se/om-skolan/
13 https://vrskolor.se/alla-skolor/vrg-odenplan/
14Dependent on grades, number of positions and number of requests, students are sorted in relation to this list of choices. The first school and programme on the list is the primary choice. The opportunity to attend an elite school and secure the primary choice depends on the grades from secondary school. Higher grades equal better options.
References
Andreotti, A., Le Galès, P. and Moreno-Fuentes, F. J. (2015) Globalized minds, roots in the city: Urban upper-middles classes in Europe, Oxford: Blackwell.
Ball, S. J., Bowe, R. and Gewirtz, S. (1995) ‘Circuits of schooling: A sociological exploration of parental choice in social class contexts’, The Sociological Review, 43(1): 52–78.
Blomqvist, P. (2004) ‘The choice revolution: Privatization of Swedish welfare services in the 1990s’, Social Policy & Administration, 38(2): 139–155.
Bourdieu, P. (1990) The logic of practice, Cambridge: Polity.
Bourdieu, P. (1996) The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1999) ‘Site effects’, in: P. Bourdieu, A. Accardo and P. Ferguson (eds) The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp.123–129.
Bridge, G. (2006) ‘It’s not just a question of taste: Gentrification, the neighbourhood and cultural capital’, Environment and Planning A, 38(10): 1965–1978.
Broccolichi, S. and van Zanten, A. (2000) ‘School competition and pupil flight in the urban periphery’, Journal of Education Policy, 1(1): 51–60.
Bunar, N. (2009) När marknaden kom till förorten. Valfrihet, konkurrens och symboliskt kapital i mångkulturella områden, Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Bunar, N. (2011) ‘Multicultural urban schools in Sweden and their communities: Social predicaments, the power of stigma, and relational dilemmas’, Urban Education, 46(2): 141–164.
Butler, T. (2003) ‘Living in the bubble: Gentrification and its “other” in north London’, Urban Studies, 40(12): 2469–2486.
Butler, T. and Hamnett, C. (2007) ‘The geography of education: Introduction’, Urban Studies, 44(7): 1161–1174.
Butler, T. and Hamnett, C. (2011) ‘Location3 Education3: place, choice, constraint in London’, Children’s Geographies, 9 (1): 35–48.
Butler, T. and Robson, G. (2003) ‘Plotting the middle classes: Gentrification and circuits of education in London’, Housing Studies, 18(1): 5–28.
Clark, E. (2013) ‘Boendets nyliberalisering och sociala polarisering i Sverige’, Tidskriften Fronesis, 42–43: 151–170.
DeSena, J. N. and Ansalone, G. (2009) ‘Gentrification, schooling and social inequality’, Educational Research Quarterly, 33(1): 60–74.
Erixon Arreman, I. and Holm, A.-S. (2011a) ‘School as “edu-business”: Four “serious players” in the Swedish upper secondary school Market’, Education Inquiry, 2(4): 637–657.
Erixon Arreman, I. and Holm, A.-S. (2011b) ‘Privatisation of public education? The emergence of independent upper secondary schools in Sweden’, Journal of Education Policy, 26(2): 225–243.
Florin, C. and Johansson, U. (1993), ‘Där de härliga lagrarna gro …’. Kultur, klass och kön i det svenska läroverket 1850–1914, Stockholm: Tiden.
Forsberg, H. (2015) Kampen om eleverna. Gymnasiefältet och skolmarknadens framväxt i Stockholm 1987–2011, Uppsala: Uppsala universitetsbibliotek.
Franzén, M. (2007) ‘Partly Stockholm: The city synopsis’, in: S. Gustavsson (ed) Stockholm – Belgrade: Proceedings from the third Swedish-Serbian Symposium in Stockholm, April 21–25, 2004, Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets historie och antikvitets akademien.
Gamsu, S. (2015) ‘Moving up and moving out: The re-location of elite and middle-class schools from central London to the suburbs’, Urban Studies, 53(14): 2921–2938.
Gamsu, S. (2017) A historical geography of educational power: Comparing fields and circuits of education in Sheffield and London, London: King’s College London.
Gaztambide-Fernández, R. (2009) The best of the best: Becoming elite at an American boarding school, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Guilluy, C. (2019) Twilight of the elites: Prosperity, the periphery, and the future of France, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Harling, M. (2017) Välja vara. En studie om gymnasieval, mässor och kampen om framtiden, Norrköping: Institutionen för samhälls- och välfärdsstudier.
Hultqvist, E. (2017) ‘Educational restructuring and social boundaries: School and consumers of education’, in: E. Hultqvist, S. Lindblad and T. S. Popkewitz (eds) Critical analyses of educational reforms in an era of transnational governance, Cham: Springer.
Jellison Holme, J. (2002) ‘Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of school quality’, Harvard Educational Review, 72(2): 177–205.
Khan, S. (2011) Privilege: The making of an adolescent elite at St. Paul’s School, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Larsson, E. (2019) Innerstadsgymnasierna. En studie av tre elitpräglade gymnasieskolor I Stockholm och deras position på utbildningsmarknaden, Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.
Larsson, E. and Hultqvist, E. (2017) ‘Desirable places: Spatial representations and educational strategies in the inner city’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(5): 623–637.
Lilja, E. (2011) Den segregerade staden. Tre kvarter i Stockholms innerstad, Stockholm: Stockholmia.
Lund, S. (2007) ‘Valfrihet och konkurrens. Utvecklingstendenser inom gymnasieutbildningen’, Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 12(4): 281–300.
Lundahl, L., Erixon Arreman, I., Holm A.-S. and Lundström, U. (2013) ‘Educational marketization the Swedish way’, Education Inquiry, 4(3): 497–517.
Lundahl, L. Erixon Arreman, I., Holm A.-S. and Lundström, U. (2014) Gymnasiet som marknad, Umeå: Boréa.
Palme, M. (2008) Det kulturella kapitalet. Studier av symboliska tillgångar i det svenska utbildningssystemet 1988–2008, Uppsala: Uppsala universitetsbibliotek.
Poupeau, F., Francois, J.-C. and Couratier, E. (2007) ‘Making the right move: How families are using transfers to adapt to socio-spatial differentiation of schools in the greater Paris region’, Journal of Education Policy, 22(1): 31–47.
Prieur, A. and Savage, M. (2013) ‘Emerging forms of cultural capital’, European Societies, 15(2): 246–267.
Rizvi, F. (2014) ‘Old elite schools, history and the construction of a new imaginary’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 12(2): 290–308.
Savage, M., Warde, A. and Devine, F. (2005) ‘Capitals, assets, and resources: Some critical issues’, British Journal of Sociology, 56(1): 31–47.
Savage, M., Hanquinet, L., Cunningham, N. and Hjellbrekke, J. (2018) ‘Emerging cultural capital in the city: Profiling London and Brussels’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(1): 138–149.
Söderström, M. and Uusitalo, R. (2005) Vad innebär införandet av fritt skolval i Stockholm för segregeringen i skolan, Uppsala: IFAU.
Storsthlm (2019) Gymnasiebehovet 2019: Trender och kunskap om Stocholms läns gymnasieregion, Stockholm: Storsthlm.
Swedish National Agency of Education (2019) Skolmarknadens geografi. Om gymnasielevers pendling på lokala och regionala skolmarknader, Stockholm: The Swedish National Agency of Education.
Wacquant, L. (2010) ‘Crafting the neoliberal state: Workfare and prisonfare in the bureaucratic field’, in: M. Hilgers and E. Mangez (eds) Bourdieu’s theory of social fields: Concepts and applications, London: Routledge, pp.197–220.
Wacquant, L. (2015) ‘For a sociology of flesh and blood’, Qualitative Sociology, 38: 1–11.
Waters, J. and Brooks, R. (2015) ‘“The magical operation of separation”: English elite schools’ on-line geographies, internationalization and functional isolation’, Geoforum, 58: 86–94.
Webber, R. (2007) ‘The metropolitan habitus: Its manifestations, locations, and consumption profiles’, Environment and Planning A, 39(1): 182–207.
Zukin, S. (2008) ‘Consuming authenticity: From outpost of difference to means of exclusion’, Cultural Studies, 22(5): 724–748.
