Thanks, Joel
Joel sent us a terrific post here. I won't paste it here, as you can read it for yourself.
Very interesting situation in Sweden, evidently. I've yet to investigate it fully, but I can make a few tentative comments already.
1. Firstly, Sweden has a history - a LONG history - of fiscal rigour. Right- or left-wing, whatever side you like to take, it has to be said that, comparatively, they're pretty careful with their money. And Mr Emilsson's comments reflect that - "The Social Democrats changed that when they came to power and increased the value of the voucher to 100%, but with the limitation that not one single dollar extra can be paid," "There is a concensus (sic) in Sweden that taxpayers should bear the cost for educating the next generation. That we do together. Then parents and students can pick the school of their choice, and in that way we get better, more efficient use of taxpayers’ money", etc.
2. Note that no co-payments are allowed, the voucher covers ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the education costs, and the private schools are forced to take whoever enrols. Would that happen here / the US / the UK? Once again, we see that it could be argued to be a "Swedish" solution to the matter.
3. It's run by a Swedish company, thankfully, so the profits stay in Sweden. And we all know about those wonderful high Swedish taxes, so most likely much of the money flows back to the Swedish people anyway. And did you know that Sweden is considered one of the best places in the EU to do business? Why? Because the bureaucracy is so efficient, it's never a problem getting a permit or document processed quickly!
4. Now I'm exploring the cons. What will happen when businesses controlling many of these schools decide to enter into the education research debate, similar to the pharmaceutical companies and medical research? What if some of the educational findings don't suit the budget of these companies? This HAS happened in the pharma / medical field.
5. How will these schools be going in five years' time? Will we get the full story, or will it be a whitewash, like the spin job done on Blair's "successful" Academies? Once again, knowing that this is Sweden we're talking about, I think that regulation will actually be pretty tight. And if it is found that it's better to keep them in government control, there will possibly be some type of "buyback" from those companies to put them in government hands again.
6. I found it interesting how he talks about the "different" ways they learn at his schools: "We have based it on a very individual model. When a student comes to us, we very carefully examine his or her ways of learning and then put together an individual structure around it. The teachers are more than teachers, they are coaches;" as though this could NEVER happen in a government school. Maybe he should take a visit to the new Fitzroy High School, which is also taking bold new steps but totally within government control - it CAN happen, guys!
Back to you, Joel!
Joel sent us a terrific post here. I won't paste it here, as you can read it for yourself.
Very interesting situation in Sweden, evidently. I've yet to investigate it fully, but I can make a few tentative comments already.
1. Firstly, Sweden has a history - a LONG history - of fiscal rigour. Right- or left-wing, whatever side you like to take, it has to be said that, comparatively, they're pretty careful with their money. And Mr Emilsson's comments reflect that - "The Social Democrats changed that when they came to power and increased the value of the voucher to 100%, but with the limitation that not one single dollar extra can be paid," "There is a concensus (sic) in Sweden that taxpayers should bear the cost for educating the next generation. That we do together. Then parents and students can pick the school of their choice, and in that way we get better, more efficient use of taxpayers’ money", etc.
2. Note that no co-payments are allowed, the voucher covers ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the education costs, and the private schools are forced to take whoever enrols. Would that happen here / the US / the UK? Once again, we see that it could be argued to be a "Swedish" solution to the matter.
3. It's run by a Swedish company, thankfully, so the profits stay in Sweden. And we all know about those wonderful high Swedish taxes, so most likely much of the money flows back to the Swedish people anyway. And did you know that Sweden is considered one of the best places in the EU to do business? Why? Because the bureaucracy is so efficient, it's never a problem getting a permit or document processed quickly!
4. Now I'm exploring the cons. What will happen when businesses controlling many of these schools decide to enter into the education research debate, similar to the pharmaceutical companies and medical research? What if some of the educational findings don't suit the budget of these companies? This HAS happened in the pharma / medical field.
5. How will these schools be going in five years' time? Will we get the full story, or will it be a whitewash, like the spin job done on Blair's "successful" Academies? Once again, knowing that this is Sweden we're talking about, I think that regulation will actually be pretty tight. And if it is found that it's better to keep them in government control, there will possibly be some type of "buyback" from those companies to put them in government hands again.
6. I found it interesting how he talks about the "different" ways they learn at his schools: "We have based it on a very individual model. When a student comes to us, we very carefully examine his or her ways of learning and then put together an individual structure around it. The teachers are more than teachers, they are coaches;" as though this could NEVER happen in a government school. Maybe he should take a visit to the new Fitzroy High School, which is also taking bold new steps but totally within government control - it CAN happen, guys!
Back to you, Joel!
posted by Petal at 9:00 AM
5 Comments:
The Swedish model is admirable, but ignores facts such as:
(1) When parents make some contribution it increases the total amount spent on education. Everyone should applaud that outcome.
(2) Not every style of education costs as much, so some schools could actually run on less than the voucher amount.
(3) Forcing schools to accept whoever applies will sometimes be fine, but at other times not. Catholic schools for example limit the number of non-Catholics, because otherwise it diminishes the Catholic character of the school.
(4) Having a Swedish company administer the program is great, if it's the best company for the job. If it's not, you're much better off getting foreigners to manage it and have those displaced Swedes moved into jobs they can do better than the rest of the world, not worse.
Looking at the cons Petal identified, some things need to be pointed out:
(1) "What will happen when businesses controlling many of these schools decide to enter into the education research debate..." Because of course the public sector never twists the story to fit its own agenda! The Canberra Times reported a public schools group's release of statistics claiming that "networking opportunities" was the PRIME reason for choosing private schools for 55% of private school parents. Commonsense will tell you that result is nonsense - yet it was put forward as Gospel truth.
(2) " How will these schools be going in five years' time?" Hard to say, but parents will gravitate towards schools that produce demonstrable results, and will shy away from those that don't. That's how competition works. Public schools, in comparison, release no figures of attainment or standards, and there is absolutely no way to compare results from one year to the next due to teachers' unions.
Sweden introduced vouchers because it realised choice empowers parents and students, and it creates strong educational outcomes. Many elements of their voucher system are usual Scandinavian tosh about equality at all costs, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater in considering the idea.
Over thirteen years of schooling, I went to a whole range of different schools, from a public primary school in Albury, NSW to an intimate 70 student parent-run co-operative international school in Turkey to an outer suburban "Christian" school to doing my VCE at a large inner city, state funded selective school.
When I consider educating whatever future children I may have, I want to be able to 1) choose their school and 2) spend as much as I can afford to ensure they get as good an education as possible.
The ultra rich always have this opportunity, if you stop them contributing to their children's education, they will find the loopholes domestically or they will simply send their kids to Switzerland, the USA, the UK, wherever it is possible to educate their children as they see fit.
The question that education policy mainly deals with is whether or not the middle classes will get this opportunity as well, or whether they will be forced to compromise by their lack of financial firepower.
The poor will always be held captive by their dependence on someone else funding the education of their children, but that is no reason to drag the middle classes back into this position as well.
I would have thought that the idea is to drag the poor out of their position as best we can.
And Joel, not everyone has the opportunity to "choose" their school. People in rural areas is an oft-quoted example. It's a little hard to remember that sometimes from the comfort of urban Melbourne- or Canberra-based life.
And I can also say that school "choice" is a really misleading phrase. Don't like your kids' current school? Then CHOOSE another one! Look! There are PLENTY to choose from!
Kids really don't respond well to being shifted from one location to another on a parents' whim (which is what it often is). And please don't quote your own experience to show me that it's not the case, Joel. The overwhelming majority of kids need stability.
And WHY would parents exercise choice, anyway? What about a particular school causes them to choose that school over another? VCE / HSC results? We all know how accurate THEY can be ... School uniform? Facilities? Are these accurately showing what a school can offer to a child, or are they just showpieces?
This is why I just don't enter into these discussions about "a school is just another business", because it's not. And trying to make those comparisons that I've heard / read here and elsewhere just don't cut it with me.
Well, as to the stability argument, when I was 15 I pushed my parents very hard in regards to letting me change schools, and am incredibly thankful that they let me do so.
As to VCE results, no they aren't everything, but they are a lot of the equation. If you haven't noticed, most university course admittance is still on the basis of ENTER scores, and I for one am sure that changing schools for VCE increased my ENTER from the low 90s to the high 90s,
I never topped the class at my old school, and the dux there got 93.85. At the selective school I attended for VCE, the culture was right for me, it was a culture of people who were incredibly hungry to work hard and get good marks and excel. I was in the top sixth of my Year 12 class, which got me an ENTER of just over 99. Being at the right school made all the difference for me in terms of preparing me for university and helping me excel.
And you can tell the difference between a good school and a bad school. Talk to people who have been to a school, watch a school assembly, see how the kids behave in class. I have never attended school in the suburb where I currently live, but I know the reputations of the local secondary colleges.
At some, students run wild. You can see it as they walk around the suburb in the middle of the day when they should be in class.
At others, students are pushed to take pride in their uniform, are rarely absent and obey their teachers. You hear about that as past students complain about how their school was "so tight", yet they actually got into Uni and can survive, as opposed to students from less "tight" government schools who are stuck at TAFE or just working casually.
It would be hard to make a decision between two similar schools (i.e. between a Scotch College and a Geelong Grammar, or between a Latrobe Secondary College and a Greensborough Secondary College) but it is easy to make a decision ranking two schools. I knew before I attended it that Melbourne High School would be much better for me than Plenty Valley Christian School, from talking to my friends I knew they took pride in their studies, and that the focus of students was less on acting out and challenging authority than wanting to acheive their best.
... another thing I forgot:
1) When parents make some contribution it increases the total amount spent on education. Everyone should applaud that outcome.
Misleading!! You mean it increases the amount spent on their own kids. Asserting that this increases the "total amount" is just a laughable argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home