Going back a bit to the discovery vs knowledge thing, as a science teacher, I agree that part of the problem with discovery learning is that often you don't get the right results. Students are also far more likely to remember the process of doing the practical than what they found or the theory they are trying to link it to- in many ways, this makes sense. There are only so many things you can focus on at once!
FWIW, I'm not advocating scrapping practicals in science. I think it's really important to teach children about the scientific method and useful techniques (such as using a microscope)- but often that has to be the point of the lesson - the learning objective is "this is how we use a microscope". I do also think they have a role in getting students interested in and enthusiastic about science. And sometimes, they can learn things from them!
There's a practical that's often used to illustrate the relationship between surface area to volume ratio and the uptake of substances via diffusion. You use different sized cubes/cubiods of agar and a liquid, often something brightly coloured such as potassium permanganate and measure the time it takes to diffuse to the middle of the cube.
It's pretty reliable, and an able class can use this to figure out that in an object with a large surface area to volume ratio, diffusion happens quickly, and in one with a small surface area to volume ratio, diffusion happens slowly.
However, in a less able or even middle ability class, what can happen is:
-Many students have to be taught/reminded how to work out the volume and surface area of a cube.
-Many students don't fully understand ratios.
- Many students have forgotten what diffusion is/how it works.
These are all barriers to discovering the intended outcome, and if you're a student in that class who doesn't know how to work out the surface area of a cube, then you're never going to reach the intended learning outcome. So knowledge is required, even for discovery learning.
I work in a county where many parents don't really have a choice of school- effectively, usually, they can only access the closest school (rural county with lots of small towns and many children using buses etc to get to school). It's also an area with deprivation and low aspiration- in some schools at least. I would be intrigued to see how the model could work in an area like this!
I agree that the CompSci issue may partly be the shortage of teachers, especially specialist Computing teachers rather than IT teachers. It's also an expensive subject to resource. The same may well go for geography (although it's cheaper to teach).
I don't really object to the school fundraising though- many state schools in affluent areas ask their parents for voluntary contributions, for example and have active/successful PTAs. By fundraising in other ways, they're presumably intending to bridge this gap?