Against the background of a liberalization of Swedish compulsory education, this paper analyses post-1991 shifts in the way compulsory education performance in Sweden has been shaped by parental background, residential context and school context. We can document increasing school and residential segregation of foreign background students and, after 2008, increasing segregation by income, employment status and social allowance reception. Over time, educational performance has become increasingly linked to family, neighbourhood and school context. The greatest change has been for parental background, but the importance of school context and neighbourhood context has also increased. A noteworthy finding is that residential context consistently has a stronger effect on student performance than school context. Student grades were found to be most strongly influenced by the closest (12 or 25) residential peers of the school leavers as compared to larger peer groups. The increase in the influence of family, neighbourhood and residential context has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in the between-school variation (intra-class correlation) in student performance, but it was not until after 2005 that this increased variability became clearly linked to the social composition of the schools. This study’s results suggest that the restructuring of Swedish compulsory education has had consequences for equality, possibly because disadvantaged social groups have not been as able as advantaged groups to navigate and benefit from the educational landscape created by the school reforms.
Andersson EK and Malmberg B (2015) Contextual Effects on Educational Attainment in I ndividualised, Scalable Neighbourhoods: Differences across Gender and Social Class. Urban Studies 52(12): 2117–2133.
2.
Andersson EK and Malmberg B (2018) Segregation and the effects of adolescent residential context on poverty risks and early income career: A study of the Swedish 1980 cohort, Urban Studies 55: 365–383.
3.
Andersson E, Malmberg B and Osth J (2012) Travel-to-School Distances in Sweden 2000-2006: Changing School Geography with Equality Implications. Journal of Transport Geography 23: 35–43.
4.
Andersson E and Subramanian SV (2006) Explorations of Neighbourhood and Educational Outcomes for Young Swedes. Urban Studies 43: 2013–2025.
5.
AinsworthJW (2002)
Why does it take a village? The mediation of neighborhood effects on educational achievement. Social Forces81: 117–152.
6.
AlegreMAFerrerG (2010)
School regimes and education equity: Some insights based on PISA 2006. British Educational Research Journal36: 433–461.
7.
ÅslundOEdinP-AFredrikssonP (2011)
Peers, neighborhoods, and immigrant student achievement: Evidence from a placement policy. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics3: 67–95.
8.
BarthonCMonfroyB (2010)
Sociospatial schooling practices: A spatial capital approach. Educational Research and Evaluation16: 177–196.
9.
BergstenZ (2010) Better Prospects Through Social Mix? Mixed Neighbourhoods and Neighbourhood Effects: An Analysis of the Purpose and Effects of Social Mix Policy.
Uppsala:
Uppsala University, Department of Social and Economic Geography, p.358.
10.
Bernelius V and Kauppinen TM (2012) School outcomes and neighbourhood effects: a new approach using data from Finland. In: van Ham M, Manley D, Bailey N, et al. (eds) Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 225–247.
11.
BerneliusVVaattovaaraM (2016)
Choice and segregation in the ‘most egalitarian’ schools: Cumulative decline in urban schools and neighbourhoods of Helsinki, Finland. Urban Studies53(15): 3155–3171.
12.
BöhlmarkAHolmlundHLindahlM (2016)
Parental choice, neighbourhood segregation or cream skimming? An analysis of school segregation after a generalized choice reform. Journal of Population Economics29(4): 1155–1190.
13.
Böhlmark A and Lindahl M (2015) Independent schools and long-run educational outcomes: Evidence from Sweden’s large-scale voucher reform. Economica 82(327): 508–551.
14.
BourdieuPPasseronJ-C (2008) Reproduktionen. Bidrag till en Teori om Utbildningssystemet.
Lund:
Arkiv förlag.
15.
Brännström L (2008) Making their mark: The effects of neighbourhood and upper secondary school on educational achievement. European Sociological Review 24(4): 463–478.
16.
BreenRJonssonJO (2005)
Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology31: 223–243.
17.
BunarN (2010)
The controlled school market and urban schools in Sweden. Journal of School Choice4: 47–73.
18.
Bunar N and Ambrose A (2016) Schools, choice and reputation: Local school markets and the distribution of symbolic capital in segregated cities. Research in comparative and international education 11(1): 34–51.
19.
ButlerTHamnettC (2010)
‘You take what you are given’: The limits to parental choice in education in East London. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space42: 2431–2450.
20.
ByunS-YKimK-K (2010) Educational Inequality in South Korea: The Widening Socioeconomic Gap in Student Achievement. Globalization, Changing Demographics, and Educational Challenges in East Asia.
Bingley:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 155–182.
21.
CaughyMOBLeonardTBeronKJ, et al. (2013)
Defining neighborhood boundaries in studies of spatial dependence in child behavior problems. International Journal of Health Geographics12: 24.
22.
Chetty R and Hendren N (2016) The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility II: County-level estimates. NBER Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research. No. 23002. http://www.nber.org/papers/w23002
23.
DowneyDBCondronDJ (2016)
Fifty years since the Coleman report: Rethinking the relationship between schools and inequality. Sociology of Education89(3): 207–220.
24.
EriksonRJonssonJO (1996) Can Education Be Equalized? The Swedish Case in Comparative Perspective.
Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
25.
FekjaerSNBirkelundGE (2007)
Does the ethnic composition of upper secondary schools influence educational achievement and attainment? A multilevel analysis of the Norwegian case. European Sociological Review23: 309–323.
26.
Forsberg H (2015) Kampen om eleverna: Gymnasiefältet och skolmarknadens framväxt i Stockholm, 1987–2011. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala.
27.
FowlerCS (2018)
Key assumptions in multiscale segregation measures: How zoning and strength of spatial association condition outcomes. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science45(6): 1055–1072.
28.
FriedrichsJ (2016)
Neighbourhood effects: Lost in transition?Analyse & Kritik38: 73–90.
29.
GamoranA (2001)
American schooling and educational inequality: A forecast for the 21st century. Sociology of Education 74: 135–153.
30.
GorardSSmithE (2004)
An international comparison of equity in educational systems. Comparative Education40: 15–28.
31.
HanushekEAKainJFMarkmanJM, et al. (2003)
Does peer ability affect student achievement?Journal of Applied Econometrics18: 527–544.
32.
HarrisRJohnstonRBurgessS (2007)
Neighborhoods, ethnicity and school choice: Developing a statistical framework for geodemographic analysis. Population Research and Policy Review26: 553–579.
33.
Hedman L and Andersson R (2015) Etnisk segregation och inkomstsegregation i Sveriges tio största arbetsmarknadsregioner 1990-2010. In: Andersson R, Bengtsson B and Myrberg G (eds) Mångfaldens dilemman: Boendesegregation och områdespolitik. Malmö: Gleerups Utbildning AB, pp. 15–38.
34.
HolmeJJ (2002)
Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review72: 177–206.
35.
JacksonMJonssonJORudolphiF (2012)
Ethnic inequality in choice-driven education systems: A longitudinal study of performance and choice in England and Sweden. Sociology of Education85(2): 158–178.
36.
KallusRLaw-YoneH (2000)
What is a neighbourhood? The structure and function of an idea. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design27(6): 815–826.
37.
KauppinenT (2008)
Schools as mediators of neighbourhood effects on choice between vocational and academic tracks of secondary education in Helsinki. European Sociological Review24: 379–391.
38.
KwanM-P (2012)
The uncertain geographic context problem. Annals of the Association of American Geographers102: 958–968.
39.
LareauA (2011) Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life.
Berkeley:
University of California Press.
40.
LeventhalTBrooks-GunnJ (2000)
The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin126: 309–337.
41.
Liu S and Apple MW (2016) Parental Choice of School, Class Strategies, and Educational Inequality: An Essay Review of School Choice in China–A Different Tale? (X Wu, New York, NY: Routledge, 2014, 168 pp. ISBN 978-0-415-81769-1). Educational Policy 30(6): 940–955
42.
LubienskiCGulosinoCWeitzelP (2009)
School choice and competitive incentives: Mapping the distribution of educational opportunities across local education markets. American Journal of Education115: 601–647.
43.
LucasSR (2001)
Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology106: 1642–1690.
44.
LundahlL (2002)
Sweden: Decentralization, deregulation, quasi-markets-and then what?Journal of Education Policy17(6): 687–697.
45.
LundahlL (2016)
Equality, inclusion and marketization of Nordic education: Introductory notes. Research in Comparative and International Education11(1): 3–12.
46.
Malmberg B, Andersson EK, Nielsen MM, et al. (2018) Residential Segregation of European and Non-European Migrants in Sweden: 1990-2012. European Journal of Population 34(2): 169–193.
47.
Malmberg B, Andersson EK and Zara Bergsten (2014) Composite Geographical Context and School Choice Attitudes in Sweden: A Study Based on Individually Defined, Scalable Neighborhoods. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104: 869–888.
48.
MaloutasT (2007)
Middle class education strategies and residential segregation in Athens. Journal of Education Policy22(1): 49–68.
49.
MarksGN (2013)
Evaluating effectively maintained inequality: School and post-school transitions, socioeconomic background, academic ability and curricular placement. Social Science Research42: 1635–1649.
50.
MenardS (2000)
Coefficients of determination for multiple logistic regression analysis. The American Statistician54: 17–24.
51.
NagelkerkeNJ (1991)
A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika78: 691–692.
52.
NieuwenhuisJKleinepierTvan HamM (2019) Neighbourhood and school poverty simultaneously predicting educational achievement, taking into account timing and duration of exposure. IZA – Institute of Labor Economics. Available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp12396.pdf (accessed 28 June 2019).
53.
NordinM (2013)
Immigrant school segregation in Sweden. Population Research and Policy Review32: 415–435.
54.
OríaACardinibABallaS, et al. (2007)
Urban education, the middle classes and their dilemmas of school choice. Journal of Education Policy22: 91–105.
55.
OrloffJBloomJ (2014) Maximum likelihood estimates class 10. In: OrloffJBloomJ (eds) 18.05 Introduction to Probability and Statistics.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT OpenCourseWare. Available at: https://ocw.mit.edu (accessed 23 January 2019).
56.
Östh, John, Eva Andersson and Bo Malmberg (2013) School Choice and Increasing Performance Difference: A Counterfactual Approach. Urban Studies 50(2): 407–425.
57.
PalmeM (2008) Det Kulturella Kapitalet: Studier av Symboliska Tillgångar i Det Svenska Utbildningssystemet 1988–2008.
Uppsala:
Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis (AUU).
58.
PoupeauFFrancoisJCCouratierE (2007)
Making the right move: How families are using transfers to adapt to socio-spatial differentiation of schools in the greater Paris region. Journal of Education Policy22: 31–47.
59.
RangvidBS (2007)
Living and learning separately? Ethnic segregation of school children in Copenhagen. Urban Studies44(7): 1329–1354.
60.
ReayDBallSJ (1997) ‘
Spoilt for choice’: The working classes and educational markets. Oxford Review of Education23: 89–101.
61.
Regeringskansliet (2010) Skollag 2010:800 (Education Act) Utbildningsdepartementet (Ministry of Education and Research). Stockholm, 20. Available at: http://www.skolverket.se/content/21/c26/02/05/52/kap21.pdf (accessed 12 October 2016).
62.
Rudolphi, F and Erikson R (2016) Social selection in formal and informal tracking in Sweden. In: Blossfeld H-P, Buchholz S, Skopek J, et al. (eds) Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality: An International Comparison. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 165–180.
63.
SampsonRJ (2012) Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect.
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
64.
SaporitoSSohoniD (2007)
Mapping educational inequality: Concentrations of poverty among poor and minority students in public schools. Social Forces85: 1227–1253.
65.
SingletonADLongleyPAAllenR, et al. (2011)
Estimating secondary school catchment areas and the spatial equity of access. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems35: 241–249.
66.
Skolverket (2017) SIRIS, the National Agency for Education’s online information system on results and quality, has been in operation since 21 September 2001. Skolverket (National Agency for Education). Available at: http://siris.skolverket.se/siris/f?p=Siris:1:0 (accessed 20 September 2017).
67.
SpielmanSEYooE-HLinkletterC (2013)
Neighborhood contexts, health, and behavior: Understanding the role of scale and residential sorting. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design40(3): 489–506.
68.
Statistics Sweden (2015) Geographical Context. MONA (Micro Data on-Line Access).
Örebro:
Statistics Sweden.
69.
SykesBMusterdS (2011)
Examining neighbourhood and school effects simultaneously: What does the Dutch evidence show?Urban Studies48: 1307–1331.
70.
Van HamMManleyDBaileyN, et al. (2012) Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives.
Berlin:
Springer.
71.
Van ZantenA (2005)
New modes of reproducing social inequality in education: The changing role of parents, teachers, schools and educational policies. European Educational Research Journal4: 155–169.
72.
WiborgS (2013)
Neo-liberalism and universal state education: The cases of Denmark, Norway and Sweden 1980–2011. Comparative Education49: 407–423.
73.
WilsonWJ (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy.
Chicago, IL and London:
The University of Chicago Press.
