<p>Symbolic resources transform in to social power and material resources through the educational system. This entails that all students should have equal access to it.</p><p>The essay compares Swedish didactics in “immigrant” and “white” schools, all situated in socio-economically underprivileged areas, analysing interviews with eight Swedish teachers about their didactics regarding restricted and elaborated language code.</p><p>Understanding teacher’s work in the class room requires attention to the intersections between race and class, and of both to the distribution of symbolic resources in general.</p><p>The essay finds that the practice of the” immigrant” school teachers differs from the “white” school teachers’. The former are active, providing intellectual tools, scaffolding and driving force while the later choose a more passive attitude, letting students decide for themselves what to do and what goals to reach. Consequently “white” schools allow the reproduction of unequal distribution of symbolic resources while practice in immigrant schools aim to compensate for disadvantages.</p><p>Practice seems to win legitimacy by different sets of conceptualisations. Immigrant students are envisaged like persons in need of help with low self-esteem and low drive. “White” students are looked upon as self-sufficient hedonists with a “natural” language competence.</p>

Symbolic resources transform in to social power and material resources through the educational system. This entails that all students should have equal access to it. The essay compares Swedish didactics in “immigrant” and “white” schools, all situated in socio-economically underprivileged areas, analysing interviews with eight Swedish teachers about their didactics regarding restricted and elaborated language code. Understanding teacher’s work in the class room requires attention to the intersections between race and class, and of both to the distribution of symbolic resources in general. The essay finds that the practice of the” immigrant” school teachers differs from the “white” school teachers’. The former are active, providing intellectual tools, scaffolding and driving force while the later choose a more passive attitude, letting students decide for themselves what to do and what goals to reach. Consequently “white” schools allow the reproduction of unequal distribution of symbolic resources while practice in immigrant schools aim to compensate for disadvantages. Practice seems to win legitimacy by different sets of conceptualisations. Immigrant students are envisaged like persons in need of help with low self-esteem and low drive. “White” students are looked upon as self-sufficient hedonists with a “natural” language competence.