Growing Up and Getting By. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

      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 СКАЧАТЬ