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