There is considerable knowledge about the central factors when it comes to dropout from upper secondary education. We know that there is a relationship between parents’ educational level, gender, study program, study points, geographic background and propensity to complete upper secondary education. However, pointing out these central background factors is not enough in order to understand variations in completion of upper secondary education. In this paper I therefore propose to attack the problem from a different angle. My main research question is why students with identical scores on the background factors listed above may end up with different educational trajectories in the sense that some drop out and some complete. In order to disentangle this question I will look at students’ stories about their own school experiences and their own educational trajectories, as these are expressed through both quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data.

At a theoretical and conceptual level I will discuss whether capital differences, as in cultural and social capital, or more precisely, the utilization of such capital, can explain how such background variables come to play out differently for individual students. In my interpretation and elaboration on utilization of different forms of capital I take into account Lee’s (2014) work on social capital and symbolic interactionism as analytical tools. Also, I relate the discussion to sociocultural theories on identity development, learning and knowledge. Sociocultural theories emphasize the actors’ role as a social being that develops and constructs its understanding (learns) through social interaction within specific sociocultural settings (Pollard, 2004). Knowledge is contextually grounded and the acquisition of knowledge and skills – learning – is therefore an essentially social process (Guile and Young, 1998; Young, 1998; Guile and Young, 2003). This social constructivist and sociocultural understanding is often contrasted with a more traditional perspective on learning as transmission of specific knowledge (Bæck, 2011)

The two mainobjectives of this paper is (1) to discuss why students with identical scores on central background factors may end up with different educational trajectories and (2) to discuss utilization of capital as an analytical starting point for explaining differences in educational trajectories. In this sense, I seek to move forward from a focus on structural background variables and structural mechanisms, in order to further open up for both the variability and the patterns of individual student careers. Lifting up the mobility factors, in addition to the reproduction factors in this way, is important in a time with, after all, relatively high social mobility, but will also in my opinion provide further knowledge into the dropout processes. The paper suggests that differences in individuals’ ability to utilize cultural and social capital is a key element in order to capture this phenomena.

Bæck, U.-D. K. (2011): Om sosiale prestasjonsforskjeller og den sosiale konstruksjonen av intelligente barn. (On social achievement differences and the social construction of intelligent children). Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift (Norwegian Journal of Pedagogy), 95(6): 412-423. Guile, D. & M. Young (1998). Apprenticeship as a conceptual basis for a social theory of learning. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 50, 2, 173-193. Guile, D. & M. Young (2003). Transfer and transition in vocational education: Some theoretical considerations. I T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engeström (Eds.). Between school and work. New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Lee M. (2014) Bringing the Best of Two Worlds Together for Social Capital Research in Education: Social Network Analysis and Symbolic Interactionism. Educational Researcher 43: 454-464. Pollard, A. (2004). Towards a sociology of learning in primary schools. I S. J. Ball (Ed.). The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Sociology of Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Young, M. (1998). The curriculum of the future. Brighton: Falmer Press.