Community language schools have grown to become significant educational language providers worldwide. Schools operate as global grassroot initiatives (Liddicoat and Taylor-Leech [2014]. "Micro Language Planning for Multilingual Education: Agency in Local Contexts." "Current Issues in Language Planning" 15 (3): 237-244.), and the last 20 years has seen a steep incline of important research in these schools, exploring their aims, purposes, practices, and how they serve their communities. A sturdy body of research is thus emerging, focussing primarily on schools within large immigrant communities of Asian background. This study aims to contribute to our understanding of the aims and purpose of these schools by drawing on findings from a study situated within with in a smaller, immigrant community. Taking a poststructural approach to language learning, this ethnographic study drew on investment theory (Norton [2010]. "Identity, Literacy, and English-language Teaching." TESL Canada Journal 28 (1): 1-13; [2013]. "Identity and Language Learning: Extending the Conversation." 2nd ed. Bristol: Multilingual Matters; Norton and Toohey [2011]. "Identity, Language Learning, and Social Change." "Language Teaching" 44 (4): 412-446) and in particular imagined communities (Anderson [1983]. Imagined Communities. London: Verso; [1991]. "Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism." Rev ed. New York: Verso) and cultural capital (Bourdieu [1985]. "The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups." "Social Science Information" 24 (2): 195-220) to understand students' reasons for attending a Swedish community language school in Australia. Seven students (aged 12-16) were interviewed. Findings from the thematic analysis that students were able to re-invest their heritage language proficiencies as bilingual markers of distinction, thus liberating themselves from monoglossic ideologies often underpinning these schools (e.g. Blackledge and Creese [2010]. "Multilingualism: A Critical Perspective." London: Continuum).