Can someone in the know explain this much touted 'Swedish school system' please?

[ampere]

We are now constantly hearing ministers telling us about how this new 'parent led' school system will work, 'like the Swedish model' but no one has yet actually laid out WHAT that system is and how it works, what its strengths and weaknesses are.

My tuppence worth is scepticism that any system designed for an equal and egalitarian society will work here in competitive, class and wealth obsessed Britain!

We all say we want 'good schools' as an abstract concept, but we want our own DC's school to be better than the rest.

Swedish school system has changed quite a bit anyway in the last couple of decades, with the introduction of (partially) independent secondaries, so before anyone starts touting the system to you I would ask them which system they are actually touting. The system I remember from 40 years back is not entirely the same system that my young nephews are now being educated in, though many features have remained unchanged.

I suppose it could be argued that Swedish society wasn't at all equal and egalitarian when the equal and egalitarian school system (=the one I remember from 40 years back) was first introduced and that the schools were to a great extent instrumental in bringing this society about and that would imo be a fair point.

Otoh it was a very propitious time for social changes as they coincided with a poor and in many ways backwards society country into a rich and competitive nation: it was easy to get people to feel good about all kinds of changes that came with it. That is not to say that people in a totally different situation are going to feel the same.

And btw I have no recollection of the old Swedish model being parent led: as I remember it parents tended to go along with whatever the teacher suggested and not be terribly interested in rocking the boat.

The new independent Swedish secondaries do, I believe, have more parent involvement, but there is some debate about whether this is actually working all that well.

The main thing I know about it is that their schools offer a lot more, and can do so because of the much higher taxes people pay over there. I don't know any facts or figures though I'm afraid.

The choice of schools here in Sweden is overwhelming and I am forever wondering if I made the right choice because of this. In my kommun (council) alone I have a choice of around 20 schools, I am also able to look to other kommuns if I wish.

I don't think the schools have been watered down as a result, the class sizes are generally small and schools have a more villge school feel, in my experience.

My eldest goes to a private school, which doesn't cost us a penny, I chose it simply because I prefer their teaching method. Competition for attracting students is high, the better schools have waiting lists, and it is first come first served. Those schools which are less desirable, for whatever reason, do close eventually. There are excellent resources available in all of the schools I visited, nothing seems to be skimped on.

With regards to funding, each chid is allocated an amount per year to cover their school costs. I don't know the figures, but what I do know is we pay much higher taxes here than in England (dh pays 58% tax), to give you an idea.

This system, which I am still learning about seems to work, the parents are happy with it in general. I hear a lot of praise and folk saying it has vastly improved since their schools days.

However, i have my doubts as to whether it would work in England, mostly due to financial constraints though.

Thanks all, esp MrsMills!

The tax thing is interesting. I'm not sure if you have direct experience of the UK, but, though it may SEEM off OP, would you say that the gap between the 'rich' and the 'poor' is noticeably smaller in Sweden that in the UK? IS there a real feeling that people are more 'equal'?

I am not sure exactly what our new government means exactly regarding this new school model but it strikes me that it might well lead to, once again, the wealthier and more able grabbing advantage over the poorer and less able. I can't think that a predominantly Right leaning government would do anything that wouldn't allow the middle classes and above to seize advantage.

I read somewhere that Sweden was beginning to feel that the lavish Social benefits program in existence has lead to 'a generation with a elevated sense of entitlement'. Is there any truth in that?

I know that here in the UK there is perhaps a groundswell of belief that benefits are too high and there's insufficient incentive to work; that people's expectations of levels of social benefit are unsustainable. It's not necessarily my opinion, I repeat- it's not MY opinion, before I get flamed by the skim readers (though I readily concede that it's lunacy that a young couple with a baby are financially better off apart, and that a family's sole breadwinner, working full time, may STILL need income support for that family to survive!).

Finally, does having one street full of kids going to 20 different schools reduce the sense of community?

There won't be 20 different schools in every part of the country, ampere. Remember it is a vast country and mostly very sparsely populated. Where I come from, if you'd had 20 different schools, you'd have had about half a child in each

Ampere - the plan is that children from disadvantaged backgrounds will get more funding. There is therefore a positive incentive for anyone setting up a school to take on such children.

The current system in Sweden was set up by a centre-right government. It has helped to increase social mobility. Whatever you may think about right leaning governments, the fact is that one of the stated goals of the Conservative party under Cameron is to increase social mobility. Whether or not you believe him is up to you but he has said that is one of his aims. Indeed, historical evidence suggests that left wing governments tend to reduce social mobility and right wing governments tend to increase it. That is, of course, a huge simplification of a complex issue. I am definitely not saying that the right are right and the left are wrong. In my view there are elements of right and wrong on both sides.

For myself, I will watch these changes with interest. If they increase social mobility, help the disadvantaged, drive up standards, give greater choice and mean that more parents get their first choice school, I will judge them a success. As I understand it, these are Michael Gove's stated goals for the changes. If you are right and the changes mean the wealthier and more able benefit at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged, I will judge the changes a failure.

Is the 'more funding for disadvantaged DC' part of the same policy that will encourage the setting up of non-LEA schools?

Qs for the Swedish contingent here:

When you say you have all these schools to choose from, what differentiates them? Can they select according to an ability, religion, specialisation or trait?

Does the same amount of funding follow every child or is it dependent of family income? If so, do schools 'chase' poorer DCs to get more funding for their school?

It is indeed part of the same policy. There is a brief description of the Conservative's policy on schoolshere. Ignore the first paragraph - that's just an attack on Labour. The bit about new independent schools is in the fourth bullet point.

Don't know a whole lot about it and will obviously depend on which part of country you are in (small village in Lapland= not a lot of choice), but I do know that in Gothenburg some are definitely religious. Anecdotal evidence (nephews and nieces) also suggests that some children want to go private because they think they will get an easier ride.

There is relatively little motivation to try for schools that work you harder than average as Swedish pupils are not examined by outside examiners. Their marks (even for school leavers) are set by the class teacher based on continous assessment. In theory they are gauged against outside criteria, but in practice you are likely to get a high mark just for being among the best in your class, quite regardless of the class.

Having said this, the old Swedish system (my generation) which was based on this assessment system was still a world leader in education results, so in those days it clearly did work. Why I don't know. Probably because parents were not divided into care-about-education and don't-give-a-shit, but did, for the most part believe that education was a Good Thing. How this is going to work in a more fragmented system I do not know.

Thanks for the link.

Completely and utterly unaffordable, however!

Thanks cory, too.

Yes, to be honest, I do feel we in the UK do actually beat ourselves up about so much of our society, things that aren't actually that bad on a global scale. A nation's DCs apparently 'doing well' educationally when that 'very well' is internally examined and graded is a case in point!

A classic example of which I have experience is Australian state education versus English ed. You will always here said as a given that a major reason to go to Oz is the 'excellent education'- yet every single UK educated DC I have known who has spent a year or more in an Australian state school, then returned to the UK, has needed additional help to catch up! (I lived in Oz for 15 yrs).

And I also wonder how such a system can work fairly in our divided nation!

Just to quickly answer some of your questons ampere.

School funding has nothing to do with family income. I do not know if every kommun allocate the same amount per child, but it is a set rate afaik. Rebates can be given to after school care costs for those on a lower income but bearing in mind that most schools are open from 7.30 until 5p.m., and only close for a few weeks a year, child care is available year round, and it is still REALLY affordable.

Until the age of 14-15 schools only allocate places on a first come first served basis, the only lean would be towards those with siblings already in the school. After this age children then go up to a gymnasium (high school)where they can chose a school which specialises in a field, i.e. music, sports or science. Afaik these places are subject to minimum grade requirements nothing else.

In ds1's school, where there are about 80 pupils, the variety of wealth is vast. He has friends who have humongous houses, swimming pools, bentleys, helicopters etc, to friends who live in 2 bedroomed apartments with no car. Nobody seems to give a hoot, this may be me being naive however. So in my experience this type of schooling breaks down all those boundaries.

I have plenty of experience of the UK, we come from the Newcastle and have been living here for nearly 5 years.

I do agree about the community spirit however. On our road alone the children attend 4 different schools, but they do all know each other anyway. To get the community together we do different things, clean ups twice a year, bbqs arranged by the neighbour thingy, but I digress.

I have no experience of benefits here but I am not aware of the sense of entitlement as there can be in the UK(of which I have LOTS of experience trust me ;)). They have only just started to take benefit fraud seriously which may be an indication. Saying that it doesn't seem to be that newsworthy or mentioned much in the papers so I'm not sure it is such a hot potato as it is in the UK.

Yes, taxes are high here, the cost of living is one of the highest in the world, but we do seem to get quite a bit back for our money.

I don't know if it is unaffordable. I tend to the view that there is a lot of waste in government. I also understand that the Conservatives believe that this can be delivered without increasing funding. After all, it isn't the government that will fund these new schools. All the government has to do is provide funding for the pupils once the new schools have opened. My understanding is that no increase in funding was required to introduce this system in Sweden.

For what it is worth, Labour's attack on this wasn't that it is unaffordable. Their claim was that it would take money away from schools that are currently failing, leading to them getting worse and eventually closing. The Conservative's counter argument was that if these schools close it will be because the parents have voted with their feet and sent their children to better schools. They also have some specific measures in their manifesto to turn round failing schools.

As others have said on this thread, the fact that this approach has worked in Sweden doesn't necessarily mean it will work here. It may be that there is some factor vital to the success of this approach that the Conservatives have failed to understand. And it may be that you are correct that it needs more money to make it work.

I don't think we'll really know until these schools have been in operation for a while.

MrsMills, you use the term 'private' about your DC's school. How does that work?

Thanks for answering my questions thus far, all!

Sorry, what I mean is (as you have already explained a lot about how the system works in Sweden!)- Why do you use the term 'private' for the school? Is there a thing called 'state' for example?

Under the old system virtually all schools were state schools which followed a closely defined national curriculum and were inspected by state inspectors etc. Many of these schools are still around.

As cory states there are still many state ru schools, but a lot of other schools run by private companies.

DS1 is the the Vittra system. This is just a different way of teaching, not necessarily a better education but it suits him. I imagine if the swedish model is brought in, this is exactly the type of schooling that will be offered to your children.

Do you think it worked in Sweden because of the small population? Would this type of approach work in an over-populated area?

BTW, not sure I'd like to work in a school run by some of our parents! And what happens when those parents have no vested interest any more? Is it like a governing body made up of ever-changing parents? Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick.

It isn't just parents, despite the fact that the publicity seems to have concentrated on that aspect. The Conservative's policy actually says "educational charities, groups of parents and teachers, cooperatives and others". If parents do set up a school I think it is up to them how they organise it but they will clearly have to make some kind of provision for ongoing management.

We haven't seen how long this system will work well in Sweden yet.

Aren't 'educational charities' schools?

I am on the senior leadership team of a school, and the governing body. We have just 3 parent governors from a pool of about 360. From some of the comments at a governors' meeting last night, the parent governors had no idea whatsoever (although they are quite savvy women) of the headteacher's roles and responsibilities. They are unaware of the time she spends dealing with some extreme behaviour, the frustrations about a couple of members of staff, the worries she has about balancing the staffing structure, the infrastructure of the school, etc, etc.

I'm not sure who will jump at the chance to open a new school. Most of our parents and people in the local area are too apathetic to get involved with anything. I do however, see that 'Cambridge Education' will be happy to help.

I am a bit concerned that our education system may change every 5 minutes under this scheme!

I still don't see how a private company, other than a deeply altruistic one (or one offered very advantageous tax breaks!) could possibly want to set up a school! As for 'parent led', like Rolla, I certainly wouldn't want many of our school parents setting up a school, either! I sort of feel that our present system has the sorts of checks and balances in place, really, that I'd like to see. It's one of the things that I think sometimes private-choosing parents overlook: the supervision and accountability of the existing state sector. Experts in education are educationalists and teachers, not necessarily parents. In exactly the same way I don't want to see a 'patient led' NHS. You'd be hard pressed to find more illuminating example of self-interest at work!

I can so see endless state-finance draining 'enquiries' set up as parents find that what they imagined they'd chosen wasn't what was being delivered at their DC's school. I mean, the state has offered, thus the state is accountable, therefore the state must answer.

Personally I want to see the state provide my child's education BUT perhaps with a new perspective that doesn't imagine that all are 'born equal' therefore all must receive the same, regardless of 'fit'. However, perhaps this is where my scheme falls down. Within moments I will have teachers unions shouting 'selection by the back door!' when my DC (esp DS2!- bring it on!) is 'selected' to go to a technical school to study plumbing at 14 - which is the unions really saying 'we only recognise academia'.

Sorry, I'm rambling a bit here, but I can't see how a multitude of different education providers would work here: There will be, for example, schools set up with a strong academic focus. Though they will be required to take on all comers; the reality is some parents will feel disenfranchised as the curriculum is wa-a-y beyond their child- they will complain. Loudly. An enquiry about 'elitism' will follow. But the end result will be a a seriously watered down academic school, or de facto grammar, if sufficient middle class parents of clever enough children weigh in. ( I always smile at the idea that a 'successful school' should be forced to expand as it's so in demand. Bear in mind that we, in the UK, regard 'successful' as meaning 'academically high achieving'. BUT surely the reason that school achieves so well academically is because it SELECTS. Take every/all comers and suddenly the school doesn't do so well. Funny that.

We like academia in the UK. Here on MN we refer to academic schools as 'good'. We don't ask 'good for whom?'. We don't value technical or vocational ed. Til we do, anything but 'partnership' schools set up with anything other than academic selectivity in mind will fail.

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but have a look here, there are some really interesting videos re education in other countries compared with education here.

www.teachers.tv/series/how-do-they-do-it-in

www.teachers.tv/series/changing-teachers - I remember this one particularly because the Finnish teacher said that the school buildings in Finland are much more well-kept and she thought it was sad that the school buildings in England were so often run down and that it showed the underlying notion which was that schools aren't considered important or respected (I think it's probably more likely to be lack of funds, but the suggestion made me think).

TBH I like the Conservative point about closing down failing schools. It makes sense. What will then happen is someone will open up a shiny new school and the effect will be mostly psyhcological because people will want to go to the new school...

I think the UK has the worst of both systems - you don't automatically go to the school up the road like you do in some countries as there is some choice but it's limited. In other countries you can put your child's name down for any school you like.

IMO it's mostly a cultural attitude, not a gross failing of the system.

I personally would love to set up a school...