Did the Egalitarian Reforms of the Swedish Educational System Equalise Levels of Democratic Citizenship?

Abstract

In the mid‐1990s an extensive reform of the Swedish educational system was initiated in order to create a ‘school for everyone’ intended to function like a ‘social equaliser’. The new unified gymnasium initiated longer educational programmes with an extended curriculum of social science courses. This article examines whether the well documented gap in levels of democratic citizenship indicators between students in theoretical and vocational gymnasium study programmes persisted after this massive reform. Given the vast amount of empirical research that has shown that education promotes democratic citizenship, the reform could be expected to result in a decreased civic gap. However, contrary to the conventional wisdom in research on the impact of education, little evidence is found linking the initiation of longer educational programmes with more social science courses to an increase in the levels of the examined dimensions of democratic citizenship. The egalitarian reform of the Swedish gymnasium, which provided more civic education, did not produce hypothesised positive effects on any of the dimensions under study (i.e., political participation, political knowledge and political attentiveness). Rather, results support the pre‐adult socialisation models since the gap between citizens from theoretical and vocational gymnasium study programmes remained after the unification of the educational system.

Education and Political Participation

“…Educational inflation is thus hypothesized to be the 46 Niemi and Hanmer 2010, 319. 47 Persson and Oscarsson 2010; this conclusion was also supported in a recent panel study by Persson (2012). 48 Hillygus 2005.…”

An Empirical Test of the Relative Education Model in Sweden

“…This article contributes to an emerging literature that questions the absolute effects of education on political participation (Berinsky and Lenz forthcoming;Burden 2009;Highton 2009;Kam and Palmer 2008;Luskin 1990;Persson and Oscarsson 2010;Tenn 2007). Recently, the relative education model has been a central matter of debate in this discussion (Campbell 2006(Campbell , 2009Desjardins 2008;Emler and Frazer 1999;Helliwell and Putnam 2007;Hillygus 2005;Nie and Hillygus 2001;Tenn 2005).…”

Inequalities in the education system and the reproduction of socioeconomic disparities in voting in England, Denmark and Germany: the influence of country context, tracking and self-efficacy on voting intentions of students age 16–18

“…Most studies claim that students in IVET have lower CPE levels than those in general education (e.g. Ichilov 2002;Stevens 2002;Lauglo and Øia 2006;van de Werfhorst 2007;Persson and Oscarsson 2010;Persson 2012). However, a study commissioned by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDE-FOP) shows civic participation levels in some countries to be higher amongst IVET students than those in general education (Mostafa et al 2011).…”

“…However, it has yet to be explored whether this relationship applies in countries differing in the prestige accorded to IVET, and whether inequalities in the education system prior to the allocation into different tracks also play a role. It could also be the case that socioeconomic status (SES) influences both track placement and CPE to the point of making the effect of track placement on CPE entirely spurious (Persson and Oscarsson 2010;Persson 2012). Drawing on quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data of 16-18-year-olds in IVET and post-compulsory general education in three countries, this article will perform some exploratory research to identify the extent to which inequalities in education generally, and the division of students into academic and general tracks in particular, contribute to the reproduction of inequalities in the intention to vote.…”

“…There has been research that explores the effect of tracking on CPE in continental Europe, where single-country studies have been carried out in Israel (Ichilov 2002), Belgium (Stevens 2002), the Netherlands (Ten Dam and Volman 2003), Sweden (Persson and Oscarsson 2010;Persson 2012) and Germany (Eckstein, Noack, and Gniewosz 2012). Our study comprises three countries: Denmark, England and Germany.…”