Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden's schools minister declares charter school 'system failure'

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Sweden's schools minister declares charter school 'system failure'

#31

Post by ReptileMan »

jjgreen wrote: post #7
gerikson wrote: post #3

Unfortunate use of Swenglish in the headline. 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 sinc…

UK English has "public schools" which are private fee-paying, so Swenglish has the edge here

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.

Re: Sweden's schools minister declares charter school 'system failure'

#32

Post by coryrc »

rob74 wrote: post #19
stringsandchars wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 tax…

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".

Why do you think that? My experience is the exact opposite: parents choose the toughest, best schools, to great cost to them.

Re: Sweden's schools minister declares charter school 'system failure'

#33

Post by dontlaugh »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #27
hef19898 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, it is basically a failure of non-public schools, and not a failure of "cost-free" schooling. Which makes a lot more sense. Someone should change the headline, before the discussion turns south...

Submitter here 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.

"Charter school" doesn't mean the same thing in different English speaking countries.

Re: Sweden's schools minister declares charter school 'system failure'

#34

Post by sampo »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #25
RugnirViking wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For clarity: 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 sta…

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.)

Re: Sweden's schools minister declares charter school 'system failure'

#35

Post by timonoko »

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.

Re: Sweden's schools minister declares charter school 'system failure'

#36

Post by jeena »

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 ...

Re: Sweden's schools minister declares charter school 'system failure'

#37

Post by [deleted] »

Tijdreiziger wrote: post #28
sampo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia translates the Swedish friskola as charter school in English. 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 account…

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.

[deleted]

Re: Sweden's schools minister declares charter school 'system failure'

#38

Post by gadders »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #25
RugnirViking wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For clarity: 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 sta…

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".

Re: Sweden's schools minister declares charter school 'system failure'

#39

Post by mynameisvlad »

dontlaugh wrote: post #33
CaptainZapp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Submitter here 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.

"Charter school" doesn't mean the same thing in different English speaking countries.

The English Wikipedia page for “charter school” specifically talks about friskola as an example of one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school#Sweden

Re: Sweden's schools minister declares charter school 'system failure'

#40

Post by lambda_garden »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #25
RugnirViking wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For clarity: 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 sta…

A good breakdown.

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).

Post reply on HN