Growing Up and Getting By. Группа авторов

the gentrified city

      Eric 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