In Swedish, "friskola" means a school separate from the normal primary/secondary school funding system, run by the kommun/council. So it can refer to a school funded by a private company, foundation, religious group etc.
Primary and secondary education in Sweden is free for the pupil or their guardians, it is payed through the tax system.
The current system, in place since a few decades, is akin to a voucher system. I.e. the funding is ultimately via the taxpayer, but through different organizations.
Wikipedia is using the US meaning of the word for some reason.
I'm don't think translating "firskola" to UK English as "charter school" would be correct, just like no one uses the term "charter school" to refer to institutions in the UK.
Maybe because it’s the common definition of the world for majority of English speakers. The UK is not the end all be all of the English language. Something can be a common term everywhere else in the world.
If nobody ever uses the term in the UK, then why would its definition matter or be different?
There is only one definition. If someone doesn’t know the term, they can look it up. Your original comment claimed that it means different things in different countries, but that just doesn’t seem to be the case. The term seems like the appropriate English translation, even if it doesn’t exist in the UK.
> The current system, in place since a few decades, is akin to a voucher system. I.e. the funding is ultimately via the taxpayer, but through different organizations.
As an American, this sounds like exactly like a charter school system is. Or do you mean that the word is used differently outside America in other anglophone countries? From looking up the term online, it seems like it's mainly an American term.
> The current system, in place since a few decades, is akin to a voucher system. I.e. the funding is ultimately via the taxpayer, but through different organizations.
Is it the system advocated by Milton Friedman or is it different?
> Is it the system advocated by Milton Friedman or is it different?
I think Milton Friedman's idea, was that parents would actually receive education 'vouchers' and be free to use them in whichever education context they chose for their children.
This is slightly different, as the private/public system is wholly handled by the State system: parents simply choose between alternative schools, and the state channels taxpayer's money to whichever school the child attends.
Unfortunately, in many cases this has simply led to corporations or individuals who employ fewer or less qualified teachers, who in turn hand out 'optimistic' grades to the kids (attracting more parents), and extracting enormous profits from the State system.
At the same time, the normal State schools are being starved of resources; standards are falling, leading to more parents putting their kids into the private schools, leading to an inevitable downward spiral.
This is basically the neoliberal story. I can't fathom for the life of me how people committed to historical concrete analysis can continue to advocate for these schemes. They always end up in exploitation.
People's commitment to ideologies seem to be stronger than any material evidence.
Then you don't live in or near school districts failing to educate their students for decades: Detroit, Baltimore, even parts of Seattle fail to graduate young people capable of reading and writing near grade level, let alone understand even algebra. Year-after-year they fail a new class.
And the solution would be to go to a tuition school, where the quality could be the same but grades higher because customer is king? No, it's not a solution, because there's no implicit causal relationship between tuition and quality - the Swedes just described their situation in the title. The real solution is to fix the failing school, whatever system it was.
Ah, thank you, I don't think anyone's tried to fix the failing schools before, so if they just get started on that this whole voucher thing is unnecessary.
I think a more honest analysis would not only look at other educational systems in other countries but use a unified metric, say, euclidean geometry or algebra comprehension, something that you can roll back the clock 60 years on and still get comparable data.
There's a multi armed bandit problem here of course but the law of large numbers should allow you to isolate what effect marketization has.
I'd be shocked if it was positive. Human motivation is sullied and distracted by profit so the actual goals become incidental. If the alignment is close, like in commodities, it's all good. If it's poorly related, such as in education, it seems to be a problem.
Privatization works poorly as a blunt magical instrument wielded on all problems
Sweden school system didn't particularly need to be fixed, especially if you compare it to peer European states.
The voucher stuff was introduced for ideological reasons, and failed like things rooted in ideology invariably do, no matter if the inspiration is Marx or Adam Smith.
Makes sense... parents (and kids) will tend to choose the schools where pupils have an easier time, good grades etc., not necessarily the schools which will give them a better education. So this is probably a case of misaligned incentives and another rebuke of the idea that "free competition benefits everyone".
> I think Milton Friedman's idea, was that parents would actually receive education 'vouchers' and be free to use them in whichever education context they chose for their children.
> This is slightly different, as the private/public system is wholly handled by the State system: parents simply choose between alternative schools, and the state channels taxpayer's money to whichever school the child attends.
I don't see the difference between those two situations. In your first sentence you talk about a “voucher”, but if it's a voucher, then there needs to be someone who emits the vouchers, and collect them in exchange for money, giving money back. And the “someone” is necessarily the state since it's financing the schools out of its own pocket.
I'd argue in favor of decoupling schools from summative assessment in general. If anything, I'd just have each course in each institution have its own well-specified entrance requirements/assessment, and have learners decide what institution/course of study would best prepare them.
uk public schools are public in the sense if you have the money for tuition you can go, wheras "private" schools are only open to invited families, no matter how wealthy they are
In the UK, public & private are pretty much synonyms in the schooling context, traditionally the public schools were the "grand institutions", Eton, Harrow etc, but you'd struggle to find anyone who would make that distinction in the present day. If you did, they probably went to one of them.
I must admit that I'm in Scotland and my son went to a couple of private schools (though they seem to call themselves "independent" schools) - never heard anyone referring to a public school other that in UK media discussing Eton etc.
Public schools - a handful of top level very expensive private schools, usually have existed for centuries, the children of the highest levels of society tend to go there, a great foundation for a career in public life. Examples include Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Marlborough.
Private schools - the rest of the private schools, less expensive, but less advantageous.
State schools - free, provided by the state for children in a local catchment area, this is where the rest of us go. Most are run by the local government, but there has been some experiments with 'foundation schools' which are tax payer funded but privately run.
How do you get your child into one of those public shcool? Do you need money, or connections, or does the child need be talented? (The Wikipedia article didn't tell.)
In general, lots of money. Most do scholarships, so if your kid is really bright you might get one of those (usually reduced rather than no fees), they do this to bump up their examination results. Connections seem less important now than it used to be, but many will give preference to those whose parents or siblings attended.
State Schools are also divided (in some parts of the country, such as Kent) into selective and non-selective at the age of 11.
If you pass a specific test (the 11+) you can go to a selective grammar school.
There also used to be government funded scholarships to private schools for the very brightest underprivileged children but that was stopped by Labour, the "party of the Working Class".
There are also a handful of true grammar schools left. These are free to attend, but are selective based on ability. There is debate about the extent to which raw ability is really being tested, and not preparedness for the test.
There are also private schools that call themselves grammar schools. These were once free and selective, but converted to fee-paying at some point. They like the prestige of being called a "grammar" but don't be fooled!
The lack of true grammar schools has been a big hit to social mobility in the UK. Now, getting into a grammar requires not just passing a test, but also having parents rich enough to buy a house in the catchment area. Public school alumni dominate top industries and government.
The UK "free school" approach has been a mixed bag. On the one hand, various academy chains have managed to turn around failing schools. On the other, some parents are left with no choice but to send their child to a religious school due to catchment areas and waiting lists.
As a tax payer, I don't want my contributions going towards religious institutions.
The loss of "special schools" for students with severe special needs has not helped anyone (imo).
UK also has "free schools" which are similar to state schools but unaffiliated with education trusts, normally setup by parents, locals, the community.
They are called public because they were opened to the public historically. The other institutions you needed to be clergy/royalty/peer of the realm or something like that.
"A charter school is a school that receives government funding but operates independently of the established state school system in which it is located. It is independent in the sense that it operates according to the basic principle of autonomy for accountability, that it is freed from the rules but accountable for results."
This is basically how the schooling system in the Netherlands works. Any group of people is free to found a school based on their own beliefs (religious, pedagogical, or otherwise), and such schools are quite common.
The historical reason for this freedom is that Christians wanted to found religious schools, but it has since widely been used by a variety of religious and non-religious groups.
I must admit that I do not know the specifics of the Swedish model of "friskolor", but I do know that a translation to "free schools" are so misleading that intentional deception seems to be the explanation.
We have a similar concept in Denmark, but here they are called "private schools", some of them are also called "Friskole", which can be translated the same way as the headline - the meaning is however that their metodes are "free" of the municipality decisions about education, not that they are free of payment, quite the opposite, they often require additional payment.
They get the same funding for each student as the public schools, if and only if, they meet certain requirements, basically the same law as public schools are required to meet. And specifically, they must be a "self owned" institution and all funding can only be used for the school and education. They are free to require the aforementioned additional payment, but they cannot be profit generating if they want funding from the government.
I'm English and I thought of financially independent schools when I read the headline. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by your own interpretation.
I don't know how my opinion of whether or not something is financially independent affects this. I didn't interpret the headline as a claim that "schools people don't have to pay for directly" are a failure.
«Free» as in freedom of the traditional, Scandinavian unity model that was pretty much the only option when the term was invented. To receive this privilege, you need to associate with a religious movement or alternative teaching style.
I can speak confidently only for Norway, but the level of almost totalitarian historical social unity will be very unfamiliar to Americans.
I am aware of the history. It is however a term that does not translate neatly to english, and in the context of the "Scandinavian model" with free, as in no payment, education, healthcare, and social security - it is already a loaded term, that an editor of an English newspaper very well know, that carry a preconceived notion.
They were in a coalition with Folkpartiet (now Liberalerna) back then as well, so this sounds like healthy self-critizism to me. That's a bit unexpected in our current political climate where you can't even admit you forgot your passport.
These "Private Schools" in Finland were famous for hosting bad boys from rich families who could not make in government schools. However the one I was in produced famed business leaders and prominent mathematicians like Raimo Lehti.
My problem was mild dyslexia, which was not diagnosed in any way 60 years ago. It took me 3 months to learn read and write, while other kids did it in 2 months.
It has been a disaster from the start, but it got worse and worse with time. I remember reading that the schools would give the children iPads and other things just so they would sign up for that school. Basically they would bribe the children to get the parents to send them so that they could make more money. And that's only the top of the iceberg ...
At the center of the issues lies with the way the school get founded. Every school, government or independent, get the same amount of money per student. However, government run schools and independent school have different requirement and regulations, which unsurprisingly leads to issues. Independent school are not outsourced education where the government issues the requirements and pays the bills. Government pays the pill and then the idea is that the students (children) are the ones that should issue requirements and thus move if they feel the school is not serving them.
Government run schools must exist and be located to serve everyone in society, including students that on average cost more than other students. Government schools must also over-allocate space so that changes in population can still be managed. Government run schools can not be secular, and in practice unable to reject students.
On top of this there are critique of rampant corruption and fraudulent grades given to students, both which looks quite bad when dealing with government money. In one case there was also connection to terrorism and IS funding.
> But in recent years, a drop in Swedish educational standards, rising inequality and growing discontent among teachers and parents has helped fuel political momentum for change.
Does this mean students on the charter schools are lacking in ability? Are there no rules for checking the results of those schools results, with independent tests? Or how exactly is this meant?
70 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadIn Swedish, "friskola" means a school separate from the normal primary/secondary school funding system, run by the kommun/council. So it can refer to a school funded by a private company, foundation, religious group etc.
Primary and secondary education in Sweden is free for the pupil or their guardians, it is payed through the tax system.
The current system, in place since a few decades, is akin to a voucher system. I.e. the funding is ultimately via the taxpayer, but through different organizations.
Which makes a lot more sense. Someone should change the headline, before the discussion turns south...
I didn't want to editorialize, so I used the original title.
I changed "free school" to "charter school" which may make contextually more sense.
I hope that's acceptable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school#Sweden
I'm don't think translating "firskola" to UK English as "charter school" would be correct, just like no one uses the term "charter school" to refer to institutions in the UK.
If nobody ever uses the term in the UK, then why would its definition matter or be different?
It matters because the original title was changed to a term only popular in one country.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...
There is only one definition. If someone doesn’t know the term, they can look it up. Your original comment claimed that it means different things in different countries, but that just doesn’t seem to be the case. The term seems like the appropriate English translation, even if it doesn’t exist in the UK.
As an American, this sounds like exactly like a charter school system is. Or do you mean that the word is used differently outside America in other anglophone countries? From looking up the term online, it seems like it's mainly an American term.
Is it the system advocated by Milton Friedman or is it different?
I think Milton Friedman's idea, was that parents would actually receive education 'vouchers' and be free to use them in whichever education context they chose for their children.
This is slightly different, as the private/public system is wholly handled by the State system: parents simply choose between alternative schools, and the state channels taxpayer's money to whichever school the child attends.
Unfortunately, in many cases this has simply led to corporations or individuals who employ fewer or less qualified teachers, who in turn hand out 'optimistic' grades to the kids (attracting more parents), and extracting enormous profits from the State system.
At the same time, the normal State schools are being starved of resources; standards are falling, leading to more parents putting their kids into the private schools, leading to an inevitable downward spiral.
People's commitment to ideologies seem to be stronger than any material evidence.
There's a multi armed bandit problem here of course but the law of large numbers should allow you to isolate what effect marketization has.
I'd be shocked if it was positive. Human motivation is sullied and distracted by profit so the actual goals become incidental. If the alignment is close, like in commodities, it's all good. If it's poorly related, such as in education, it seems to be a problem.
Privatization works poorly as a blunt magical instrument wielded on all problems
The voucher stuff was introduced for ideological reasons, and failed like things rooted in ideology invariably do, no matter if the inspiration is Marx or Adam Smith.
> This is slightly different, as the private/public system is wholly handled by the State system: parents simply choose between alternative schools, and the state channels taxpayer's money to whichever school the child attends.
I don't see the difference between those two situations. In your first sentence you talk about a “voucher”, but if it's a voucher, then there needs to be someone who emits the vouchers, and collect them in exchange for money, giving money back. And the “someone” is necessarily the state since it's financing the schools out of its own pocket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)
Public schools - a handful of top level very expensive private schools, usually have existed for centuries, the children of the highest levels of society tend to go there, a great foundation for a career in public life. Examples include Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Marlborough.
Private schools - the rest of the private schools, less expensive, but less advantageous.
State schools - free, provided by the state for children in a local catchment area, this is where the rest of us go. Most are run by the local government, but there has been some experiments with 'foundation schools' which are tax payer funded but privately run.
That's not to say that all things being equal you wouldn't stand slightly more chance if you were a member of the aristocracy.
If you pass a specific test (the 11+) you can go to a selective grammar school.
There also used to be government funded scholarships to private schools for the very brightest underprivileged children but that was stopped by Labour, the "party of the Working Class".
There are also a handful of true grammar schools left. These are free to attend, but are selective based on ability. There is debate about the extent to which raw ability is really being tested, and not preparedness for the test.
There are also private schools that call themselves grammar schools. These were once free and selective, but converted to fee-paying at some point. They like the prestige of being called a "grammar" but don't be fooled!
The lack of true grammar schools has been a big hit to social mobility in the UK. Now, getting into a grammar requires not just passing a test, but also having parents rich enough to buy a house in the catchment area. Public school alumni dominate top industries and government.
The UK "free school" approach has been a mixed bag. On the one hand, various academy chains have managed to turn around failing schools. On the other, some parents are left with no choice but to send their child to a religious school due to catchment areas and waiting lists.
As a tax payer, I don't want my contributions going towards religious institutions.
The loss of "special schools" for students with severe special needs has not helped anyone (imo).
You see a few parents suddenly get religion as their child turns 9 or 10 and they realise they are unlikely to get into a grammar school.
Contemporary usage is ridiculous, though.
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friskola
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school#Sweden
"A charter school is a school that receives government funding but operates independently of the established state school system in which it is located. It is independent in the sense that it operates according to the basic principle of autonomy for accountability, that it is freed from the rules but accountable for results."
The historical reason for this freedom is that Christians wanted to found religious schools, but it has since widely been used by a variety of religious and non-religious groups.
We have a similar concept in Denmark, but here they are called "private schools", some of them are also called "Friskole", which can be translated the same way as the headline - the meaning is however that their metodes are "free" of the municipality decisions about education, not that they are free of payment, quite the opposite, they often require additional payment.
They get the same funding for each student as the public schools, if and only if, they meet certain requirements, basically the same law as public schools are required to meet. And specifically, they must be a "self owned" institution and all funding can only be used for the school and education. They are free to require the aforementioned additional payment, but they cannot be profit generating if they want funding from the government.
I can speak confidently only for Norway, but the level of almost totalitarian historical social unity will be very unfamiliar to Americans.
Here's the proposal (in Swedish) from 1991 by Carl Bildt (PM) and Beatrice Ask (minister for schools).
https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/5277FE6D-7C0B-47CB-AE25-7B2234...
They were in a coalition with Folkpartiet (now Liberalerna) back then as well, so this sounds like healthy self-critizism to me. That's a bit unexpected in our current political climate where you can't even admit you forgot your passport.
("There was a logistical obstacle" is a hilarious euphemism that I will definitely steal though! https://www.thelocal.se/20231003/swedish-foreign-minister-mi...)
My problem was mild dyslexia, which was not diagnosed in any way 60 years ago. It took me 3 months to learn read and write, while other kids did it in 2 months.
Government run schools must exist and be located to serve everyone in society, including students that on average cost more than other students. Government schools must also over-allocate space so that changes in population can still be managed. Government run schools can not be secular, and in practice unable to reject students.
On top of this there are critique of rampant corruption and fraudulent grades given to students, both which looks quite bad when dealing with government money. In one case there was also connection to terrorism and IS funding.
It is actually private scrolls that are not directly controlled (fri = free as in not controlled) by the government.
They are is usually religious or otherwise connected to some methodology or believe system.
Does this mean students on the charter schools are lacking in ability? Are there no rules for checking the results of those schools results, with independent tests? Or how exactly is this meant?