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
