The Swedish company given the go-ahead last week to run a Suffolk school is expecting to make £5m profits this year.

[mrz]

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/28/state-schools-private-sector-revolution?CMP=twt_gu

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister "Let me reassure you: yes to greater diversity; yes to more choice for parents. But no to running schools for profit, not in our state-funded education sector."

I am not really that surprised, since all this government seems to be interested in is privitisation. David Cameron wants to privatise everything and insists in railroading us down a model which has been proven to fail - ie capitalism in its most brutal form.

They and all the other Western leaders, should be focusing on revising they way we work as economies, reverse the trend for "money at all costs", rather than making us go even further down that path. It feels like they desperately cling on rather than innovate for the better.

Just wait until they privatise the NHS, and very little else that's left in the public domain. I think it will just finish us off frankly, and it will precipitate us even further into a nation full of extremes of poverty and wealth - we will end up losing all the rights and all the benefits we enjoy and have grown up to give for granted at this rate.

Thanks for posting this Mrz, even though it's made my blood boil.

What's the problem with this?

They can't make a profit from the UK school. The wider company's finances being on a good footing means they are unlikely to go belly up (which would endanger the school) and suggests they have good management standards.

I really don't care if someone makes a profit, or if money is wasted by a LEA.

The only thing I care about is the education the children receive.

It is perfectly possible that the company that owns the school makes a profit and the kids receive a superb education.

Equally it's possible that nobody makes a profit and the school is lousy.

If they can make a profit from the schools they are running why can't the government and plough it back into education?

Very few private schools I've come across make a profit, it's usually ploughed back into the school one way or another.
Why is this being allowed ?

The government is already privatizing education - every time a state school converts into an academy, it takes land and buildings that were paid for and maintained by the taxpayer into private hands. We will never get those assets back.

every time a state school converts into an academy, it takes land and buildings that were paid for and maintained by the taxpayer into private hands

Wrong. The land and buildings remain in public ownership. The academy usually gets a 125 year lease from the LA for a peppercorn rent.

Indigo- another scenario: The company makes a profit and the kids receive a crap education.

Somehow, no one will be held responsible, no heads will roll- even the 'disgraced' owners of the company will be able to 'hang their heads in shame' whilst comfortably sitting on the profits they made.

please look at the Swedish example - a similar scheme was set up in 1992 with companies making a profit and it was heavily challenged by both the socialist party and teachers. It was however so successful that now no party wants to change it.
Allowing parental choice is best - if the teaching is rubbish, parents move their kids.
I have never understood this opposition to a number of providers competing in a market. Imagine the state ran the food supply - one local supermarket, you were unable to go if oversubscribed and forced into another one.
No, we all value significant choice and flexability. Bad companies go bankrupt, good ones thrive and offer their choice to more people. Successful ideas are copied, bad ones driven out - what's not to like?

LittenTree - If a free school is failing the trust that runs it will be held responsible, even if they have contracted out the management of the school to a third party. If the school fails to improve the Secretary of State can appoint additional governors or terminate the free school's funding immediately.

In addition, remember that a school's income depends on the number of pupils on the roll. If a school becomes unpopular it will not be able to fill all its places and its income will go down. That is a strong incentive to make sure the school is attractive to parents.

failing schools will be taken over - the companies which invested and have gone bankrupt will lose all their money.
Please tell me why choice in schooling is wrong

LA-controlled schools which fail to manage their budget properly are bailed out by their LA using money that would otherwise have been spent on other schools or other services.

Why is the failure of an academy or free school worse than the failure of an LA-controlled school? The processes followed in both cases are identical, including what happens to the children involved.

My feeling is because once you introduce true 'market economy' to education, like they're trying to for health, you end up with situations like Fred the Shred walking off with £14,000,000 despite being at the helm of eye-wateringly poor risk taking and greed. His company Failed yet he is a very wealthy man. His successor has hardly had a stellar run yet is awarded almost £1,000,000 as a bonus.

I cannot imagine for the life of me why any company or body would want to take over the running of a school unless there was a profit to be made. So the 'failure' of a for-profit school means someone, somewhere will almost certainly walk away with bulging pockets whilst the tax payer (and the failed DCs ) mop up the mess. Like aviatrix says, privatising gains, socialising losses. FWIW I think we can be pretty sure this government will put into place 'arrangements' that encourage private companies into schooling- like despite all the initial rhetoric, apparently allowing the DCs of founders places at Free Schools, flying in the face of the intake rules.

As for DC deserting 'failing schools' in droves, there is an assumption of mobility that many parents simply do not have. The sharp elbowed will, as ever be in a position to reposition themselves, the less able will be stuck with what's left.

Finally, I thought I'd read that the Swedish model isn't quite as rosy as is being made out? I'll see if I can find a link. Oh, and models like that are horses for courses. They might work in a far more egalitarian society than ours will ever be.

What seems to be happening in the case of failing free schools in Sweden is that:

schools have folded leaving students without a school half-way through their final year

local schools have suddenly found themselves having to find room for students of failed schools, despite not having the space or the resources

I have all my family and many of my friends in Sweden and I can't find anyone who has a good word to say for the new educational model. And the local press haven't been too enthused either.

It has increased social division without doing a thing for improving results. In fact, Sweden, which used to be top of international league tables has now slipped down, whereas Finland, which retained the traditional system, is still on top.

Some of the main problems do seem to have been with Muslim schools who have used the less rigorous inspections to introduce systems of gender discrimination (excluding menstruating girls from lessons) and types of discipline (corporal punishment) which are not actually legal. A bad example was Römosseskolan, Gothenburg; as reported in the local press, its closure last year did put a lot of pressure on the other schools in the city.

Having said this, of course there is no guarantee that the same things would happen here. It would depend very much on the inspection system.

The Swedes were new to the game, they have continuous assessment rather than external exams (which lay them open to marking inflation unless teachers and headteachers are highly principled), they had virtually no previous experience of faith schools and the school inspection system has been allowed to lapse over the years.

I have run business's in the past and you have good years and bad years, the good sometimes makes up for the bad, not always. The children only have 5 years of secondary education, that is far too big a risk IMO.
I know schools get it badly wrong at the moment, but parents still have the option to move their child.

I don't need to link- cory has effectively done it for me!

prh7 - I'm a school governor, that's what we've been told. Plus, a 125 year lease is taking it out of public hands. If I leased my house to someone else for 125 years, I couldn't live here!

If that is what you've been told you have been told wrong. Academies get the land and buildings on a 125 year lease. If the academy trust's funding agreement is terminated, e.g. because the school is failing, the lease will also be terminated. The land and buildings will therefore continue to be available for use as a school whatever happens, including converting the school back to LA-control.

If the Swedish system is hated in Sweden, why is no party campaigning to change the system?
RBS was a different case, the owners (shareholders) lost their money, they did not pay enough attention to stop Fred doing what he wanted and paid him more the more risk he took. The government stepped in to protect all people with deposits in any bank.
With a school, I would expect parents to pay more attention and stop such behaviour.
As with mobility, most people would have a choice of schools within a reasonable distance. If you live in an area without sufficient children to support a number of schools, this doesn't mean the rest of us cannot benefit.
Private schools have existed for many years, are not run for profit, and few fail - why would free schools be different?

Private schools do shut - not hundreds of them every year but it does happen. What makes you think no party is campaigning to change the system in Sweden? I have no idea about Swedish politics, but you seem to assume there's no pressure for action without any evidence on this thread.

Parents aren't in a position to know about everything that goes on in schools - you only see the bit that directly concerns your own child day-to-day and very often only know a tiny fraction of that anyway. You can't expect parents to act like some sort of layperson's Ofsted. Choice of school within a reasonable distance would be nice but schools that are run as businesses won't be carrying surplus places in case anyone wants to move - that would be seen as an unnecessary cost.

evidence here, from a paper totally against the system here
private schools have places and would love to expand, but insufficient parents who can pay

edam - You have some strange ideas about business. The more children a school has the higher its revenue. So a school that was trying to run as a business would be foolhardy to tailor the number of places it has to exactly match the number of pupils on the roll.

Also the cost of an extra pupil is nil if you can fit them into an existing class, but more fee income. Cost only goes up if you need to start a new class

My DD goes to a for-profit school. There are problems with it, but those problems are not due to the for-profit nature of the organisation but rather to do with issues of corporate governance and accountability to customers (parents).

I suspect that the governance and accountability issues surrounding for-profit education have not been delved into in the UK, and for that reason alone (no other) I would be reluctant to send my child to a for-profit school in the UK.