Even though the Swedish Education System is usually considered fair, recent studies have shown a considerable deterioration of educational equity (Gustafsson & Yang Hansen, 2018; Yang Hansen & Gustafsson, 2019). For instance, quality differences between schools and an increase in school segregation in regards to educational achievement have been reported (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2009; Yang Hansen & Gustafsson, 2016). Further, the relationship between a student’s socio-economic background and their achievement, which is considered to be one indication of educational equity, has increased in recent decades (Yang Hansen & Gustafsson, 2019). As of the latest PISA study (Programme of International Student Assessment, initiated by the OECD) in 2018, 13% of the variation in mathematics and science performance could be explained by the students’ socio-economic status in Sweden (Avvisati et al., 2019). Borgonovi (2020) refers to this relationship as an association between the material well-being (i.e., the socio-economic background) and cognitive well-being (i.e., achievement) of a student.

Despite the troubling correlation between material well-being (as measured by the student’s socio-economic background) and achievement, some individual students manage to “beat the odds” and achieve high despite having a socio-economically disadvantaged background. These students are commonly referred to as academically resilient students (e.g., Agasisti et al., 2018; Martin, 2013; Martin & Marsh, 2006; Ye et al., 2021). Whilst most previous research focuses on resilient students at the individual student level, this study shifts the focus to what we will refer to as resilient schools, that demonstrate relatively high levels of average student achievement despite having a socio-economically challenged student body. This is an approach that has been applied more seldomly in existing literature (Drossel et al., 2020) but that bears the opportunity to analyze patterns of successful schools that may provide information that is essential for closing achievement gaps and moving towards educational equity.

Whilst the material well-being of the student body may explain parts of the variation in achievement outcomes between schools, we widen the scope for this study and explore additional aspects on school level. For this, we make use of the well-being framework by Borgonovi and Pál (2016), which states that the material dimension of well-being is more than just the students’ family background but should also include measures on school level, such as the human and material resources available at school. In analyzing school-level indicators of material well-being, this study aims at detecting similarities and differences between schools with favorable and less-favorable outcomes. By including PISA data from the past two decades, not only differences in resources between school groups can be analyzed but also whether these differences are constant over time. This may be especially interesting in light of the issues of deteriorating educational equity that Sweden currently faces (e.g., Swedish National Agency for Education, 2006; Yang Hansen & Gustafsson, 2019).

The main research questions guiding this study are:

• Can resilient schools be observed in Sweden and are there changes throughout PISA cycles?
• How do resilient schools compare to other school groups regarding their material well-being aspects?

Utilizing data from all seven cycles of the Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA), the present study first defines resilient schools and other school groups. Agasisti and colleagues (2018) define resilient students as those who fall in the bottom 25 percentile of the countries distribution of the Index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) and achieve at or above Level 3 in all three PISA domains; a proficiency level which is said to equip students for “success later in life” (Agasisti et al., 2018, p. 8). We apply this definition to the school level and define schools as resilient if the student body has an average ESCS in the bottom 25% of the Swedish schools’ ESCS distribution of that year, and the aggregated average achievement reaches Level 3 or above in all subjects. Socio-economically disadvantaged schools that do not reach Level 3 in at least one subject are declared non-resilient. More advantaged schools are split into high- and low-achieving groups respectively. The shares of resilient and non-resilient schools are then compared across all cycles. To answer the second research question, all subgroups are compared regarding their material well-being. For this, we apply Borgonovi and Pál’s (2016) framework for the analysis of student well-being. This framework states that the material dimension of well-being can be measured by the students individual socio-economic background, human resources at school (as measured by perceived teacher shortage and the proportion of fully certified teachers), material resources at school (as measured by the perceived lack of physical educational resources and computer availability) and extracurricular activities provided.

In the following, preliminary results are presented which may become subject to change as the study evolves. The study identified multiple resilient schools in each PISA cycle, indicating that there are, indeed, schools that successfully compensate for socio-economic disadvantages in their student body. Yet, the shares of resilient schools differ considerably throughout the years. Whilst in 2000, more than half of the schools with disadvantaged student composition were considered resilient, only one in ten disadvantaged schools could be defined as such in 2015. Considering the previously stated interpretation of Proficiency Level 3 in PISA, this underrepresentation of resilient schools indicate that a majority of socio-economically disadvantaged schools in Sweden fail to provide students with the skills that are deemed essential “for success later in life” (Agasisti et al., 2018, p. 8). The results further indicate no significant differences between resilient and non-resilient schools regarding their material well-being. Even more so, no significant differences between high- and low-performing schools within the same socio-economic level were found. However, significant differences in perceived staff shortages between socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged schools, as well as decreasing levels of fully certified teachers suggest a lack of compensatory allocation of teacher skills. The Swedish education system underwent major reforms in the 1990s which are believed to have had a negative influence on educational equity (SOU 2014:5, 2014; Yang Hansen & Gustafsson, 2019). The results of the current study will be discussed in light of these reforms.

Agasisti, T., Avvisati, F., Borgonovi, F., & Longobardi, S. (2018). Academic resilience: What schools and countries do to help disadvantaged students succeed in PISA. OECD Publishing. Avvisati, F., Echazarra, A., Givord, P., & Schwabe, M. (2019). Sweden. Country Note. PISA 2018 Results. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_SWE.pdf Borgonovi, F. (2020). Well-Being in International Large-Scale Assessments. In T. Nilsen, A. Stancel-Piątak, & J.-E. Gustafsson (Eds.), International Handbook of Comparative Large-Scale Studies in Education: Perspectives, Methods and Findings (pp. 1–26). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38298-8_45-1 Borgonovi, F., & Pál, J. (2016). A Framework for the Analysis of Student Well-Being in the PISA 2015 Study: Being 15 in 2015. OECD Education Working Papers, 140. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlpszwghvvb-en Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Vennemann, M. (2020). Schools overcoming the digital divide: In depth analyses towards organizational resilience in the computer and information literacy domain. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 8(1), 1–19. Gustafsson, J.-E., & Yang Hansen, K. (2018). Changes in the Impact of Family Education on Student Educational Achievement in Sweden 1988–2014. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(5), 719–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1306799 Martin, A. J. (2013). Academic buoyancy and academic resilience: Exploring “everyday” and “classic” resilience in the face of academic adversity. School Psychology International, 34(5), 488. Social Science Premium Collection. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034312472759 Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20149 SOU 2014:5. (2014). Staten får inte abdikera—Om kommunaliseringen av den svenska skolan [The state must not abdicate—About the municipalisation of Swedish school]. Utbildningsdepartementet. Swedish National Agency for Education. (2006). Equity trends in the Swedish school system. A quantitative analysis of variation in student performance and equity from a time perspective. Summary in English of report 275. https://www.skolverket.se/publikationsserier/rapporter/2006/equity-trends-in-the-swedish-school-system?id=1627 Swedish National Agency for Education. (2009). Vad påverkar resultaten i svensk grundskola? Kunskapsöversikt om betydelsen av olika faktorer [What affects the results in Swedish compulsory school? A review of the importance of various factors]. https://www.skolverket.se/publikationsserier/kunskapsoversikter/2009/vad-paverkar-resultaten-i-svensk-grundskola-kunskapsoversikt-om-betydelsen-av-olika-faktorer.?id=2260 Yang Hansen, K., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (2016). Causes of educational segregation in Sweden – school choice or residential segregation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(1–2), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1178589 Yang Hansen, K., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (2019). Identifying the key source of deteriorating educational equity in Sweden between 1998 and 2014. International Journal of Educational Research, 93, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.012 Ye, W., Strietholt, R., & Blömeke, S. (2021). Academic resilience: Underlying norms and validity of definitions. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33(1), 169–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09351-7