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,
