Responding to the opponents of “Swedish schools”
Fraser Nelson 1:50pm
Given how potentially transformative the Tory schools policy could be, it’s surprising it hasn’t attracted more enemies. But in school policy, silence is deceptive. The enemies of reform tend to operate under the radar. Local authorities, whose grip over state education is threatened, will lobby their local MP. It’s crucial to understand here that Tory councils are just as bad. They fought Kenneth Baker’s plans for direct grant (i.e. quasi-independent) schools with as much energy as Labour councils did. And already, you can hear Tory MPs voicing questions about the Gove “Swedish schools” policy – and they join a harder Labour critique. I thought I’d run through a few here.
1. That Sweden is a tiny country with very different dynamics, and what works in Scandi wonderland won’t work in Sunderland. The Swedish school policy was carried out at a grassroots level, not a local or national level. The state simply gave communities the right to set up a new school with minimum restrictions – and, at the time, didn’t think anyone would really do it. The communities responded. There is no national template to fit one country or another, the only factor is how dissastified communities are with their school.
2. Existing schools have a tough enough job as it is without losing pupils to new entrants. Yes, and we have to ask whose side the government should be on: that of the parents, or the local authorities who fear competition? The pupil-teacher ratio in England has remained broadly the same since 1979 – if new schools are set up then the smaller class sizes would be no bad thing.
3. Unpopular schools would close. Yes, if parents judge them of inferior quality. We have to remember that schools in England are falling already. The number of pupils is falling (4.14m in 1997, 3.8m now) and the current bureaucratic system reduces the number of schools in line with this.
The cull of schools is exacerbated by a bureaucratic trend to shepherd kids into sprawing Grange Hill-style secondaries (average school roll has jumped from 861 to 974 under Labour), all the time keeping the pupil-teacher ratio around 16. This is not good for teachers, not good for schools, not good for the education sector in England in general. The Swedish system saw a proliferation of new schools, with perhaps a couple of hundred kids in them, multiplying job opportunities for teachers and choice for parents. If this were to happen in England the only people it would upset would be the bureaucratic planners.
Now, the next bit I’d like to take from Polly Toynbee’s article in yesterday’s Guardian. Labour hasn’t quite worked out how to attack Michael Gove’s ‘Swedish schools’ policy. So one should pay attention to her on the subject because her critique is by far the most advanced.
4. “Their flagship plan to introduce private schools into the state system follows a scheme introduced by Swedish conservatives in the mid-1990s, allowing parents or private providers to start a school, commanding funding from the local authority – regardless of whether new places are required.”
Note this idea of whether “new places are required” – required by whom? UK demographics means fewer kids each year. Bureaucrats dislike opening new schools if there are places to fill in bad ones. The concept of places being “required” is responsibe for the school cull (which has been happening since the 1970. In 1979 there were 4,170 more primaries and 1,300 more secondaries than there are today). Anyway, back to Toynbee.
5. “In Sweden small pockets of middle class schools sprang up, at high cost, breaking the even class mix in existing schools. When I interviewed the Swedish education minister, I found the current conservative government not keen to extend the scheme, regarding it as essentially irrelevant.”
This gives the impression that the Swedish “free schools” (as they are known) were a small middle-class experiment, now defunct. In fact these independent schools are so popular that while they accounted for less than 1.5% of the sector in 1992 they now educate 9% of primary pupils and 17% of upper secondary schools. It is hard to see how such a share could be regarded as "essentially irrelevant". The sector is large, and growing. And, crucially, it is doing so with very little input from any minister. There is an independent licensing body which grants approvals, and hears (and usually dismisses) complaints from local authorities who fear competition. The Swedish definition of socialism is being on the side of the small people who want their kids educated well – as opposed to the government bureaucracy.
6. That the new schools have come “at high cost”. The schools were, at first, given 85% of what it cost local authorities to educate kids. Now it's the same - not a penny more. As the above graphs show in Britain, the state-run sector handles contraction very well. It’s being doing nothing else for at least three decades.
We’re in the lucky position with Sweden where we don’t need to rely on anecdotage or interviews. It’s paradise for academics who want to study the effect of school choice - years of data, hundreds of thousands of pupils whose cases we can examine. There are books and studies detailing how these new “free schools” tend to pop up where the quality of education was lowest (and, ergo, dissatisfaction was highest). As to who benefits, studies suggest that it’s the immigrants in Sweden – not the middle classes - who have fared the best.
So the Tories are very well prepared for a debate about education. The facts, figures, precedent and potential are all there. This at the centre of the social mobility debate, it’s the most radical policy David Cameron has and I hope it’s one that will be aired a lot more during the party conference season.
Previous
MGR
August 18th, 2009 2:40pm Report this commentInteresting that there has been a 5 to 6.5% decline in school numbers. Has there been an equivalent shrinkage in the number of bureaucrats employed in the education sector?
Ray
August 18th, 2009 2:53pm Report this commentUnfortunately, under the present regime even Conservative councils have been forced to close schools because government funding is predicated (and hence 'passported' by the local authority) on the basis of pupil numbers (school rolls). Therefore, Conservative councils have also found themselves falling in with the "bureaucrat knows best" mentality because it is the only way to maintain the necessary economies of scale to deliver the national curriculum.
Under a Gove regime, it would be interesting to see how a school with falling rolls that is threatened with closure could possibly turn things around on a dwindling 'passport' of funds so that it might therefore attract additional pupils (and hence the additional money to pay for more and better teachers in order to reverse the vicious circle by boosting standards and attracting even more pupils - and thus more funds still).
Sunder Katwala
August 18th, 2009 3:03pm Report this commentFraser
Interesting that you seem disappointed that there is not more of a political flame-war about this policy.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are under pressure for possible Hannanite radicalism on health, which (though it does reflect both a wider internal displeasure at their NHS policy, and some hostility to the scale of Labour's health spending) is also somewhat ironic, as they have no health policy whatsoever to speak of (except less reform, no local reorganisation, whatever the BMA wants, and more money than Labour, to the extent that they mean that), while the pressure has solidified this bold Cameroonian position.
Presumably you think that a public argument about education will see them develop a radical policy rather than retreat from it.
But why then do the leadership appear to have opposing strategies in the two policy areas?
Andy Carpark
August 18th, 2009 3:23pm Report this commentMichael Gove = Slithy tove.
He gyres and gimbles in the wabe.
I suppose we should at least be thankful that he does not gyre and gimble on a Russian oligarch's yacht.
Kittler
August 18th, 2009 3:54pm Report this commentSo Fraser, the Gove/Swedish schools policy will see the proliferation of new schools popping up from the communities and in Sweden it's immigrants who have fared best.
So that's Tory policy then, thousands of madrasas in England.
Jeremy
August 18th, 2009 3:56pm Report this commentWell I suppose that from the socialist perspective, if you stuff more kids into fewer and larger modernist blocks, then it is that much easier to propagandise, politicise and standardise them. In terms of schools, smallness and idiosyncracy - with their attendant suggestions of individuality and uniqueness - are to be discouraged and, where possible, destroyed. The object of the exercise, after all, is to produce masses of Labour voters who all think alike and respond alike and are, for all political intents and purposes, indistinguishable from one another. It is much easier to produce this standardised, mass-mindset in large factory schools which have been built especially for the purpose. Independence, by its very nature, is the enemy of such standardization.
As you indicate, in Britain the conflict of ideas (and aspirations) is between "the small people who want their kids educated well" and "the bureaucratic planners."
Sally Chatterjee
August 18th, 2009 3:58pm Report this commentSunder, presumably a radical policy is needed on schools because some - not all - are failing badly and the vested interests and inertia need a shake-up?
On the NHS things are not so bad, there are problems but perpetual failure is not entrenched. The gains to be had are incremental, not revolutionary.
Elf
August 18th, 2009 4:01pm Report this commentThe current pupil-teacher ratio is 16? The vast majority of the classes - except in the sixth form - at the comprehensive I left this summer had at least 25 pupils and sometimes more than 30 per class.
David
August 18th, 2009 4:13pm Report this comment"But why then do the leadership appear to have opposing strategies in the two policy areas?"
Why aren't apples oranges?
Chris
August 18th, 2009 4:19pm Report this commentAs ever, you write about education IN ENGLAND as if there were a British educational system. There isn't. Gove's reforms may happen in England; they will never happen in Scotland, alas, thanks to an electoral system that permanently embeds government of the idiots, for the idiots, by the idiots.
David Lindsay
August 18th, 2009 4:46pm Report this commentWho cares? He'll never do it, anyway. If people who know local government and the public sector unions inside out can still be seen off, these dilettantes stand no chance.
HJ
August 18th, 2009 4:55pm Report this commentThe Tories really need a clear message on education. Most people (unfortunately) won't look into the details of education policy.
I suggest big posters with a photo of Ed Balls on them. Underneath should be the simple question "Do you trust this man to make the important decisions about your child's education, or would you rather make them yourself?"
That should do the trick.
Draughtsman
August 18th, 2009 6:15pm Report this commentElf - I was born just after the second war and thus of the 'baby boom' generation. There were 54 of us per class in junior school and later when I attended a Technical High School (the premises are now a Media Arts College) I was astounded that there were only 33 of us per class. Even so, most if not all of us, managed to obtain a a good clutch of 'O' Level GCEs. It was quality and rigour of teaching and classroom discipline that made the difference in those days.
After the 'O' level results came through, those who were not going on to 'A' levels attended a Careers Day and I recall the personnel managers from the various local companies falling over themselves to offer apprenticeships, jobs and training. It must seem like Alice in Wonderland today, but of course then the country had a large industrial base.
John, France
August 18th, 2009 6:53pm Report this commentHere's a quote: "Rev. J. Whitely, principal of St. Augustine School, Hull, ... spoke of ... the danger in the present educational policy of our country of cramming rather than opening the intellect of our youth, and concluded with a warm appeal to the young men and women present to become thinkers, and thus general benefactors of their village and nation. The audience was large, and listened throughout with rapt attention, broken only by frequent bursts of applause, which demonstrations were loud and long. We are glad to learn that the lecturer has promised to pay the village another visit during the coming season."
Date? 1881!
After this (and a national debate) the then current system of having Governments dictate the minutiae of the curriculum and other aspects of school was abandoned, and schools became free to use the professional judgement of the teachers.
Of course, Thatcher, Blair and Brown, none of whom can have bothered to read about this debate from more than a century ago, thought they knew best and returned to a system that had been abandoned as unfit for purpose by 1885!
There is a simple solution. Get politicians to set the broadest of aims, and leave it to the schools to deliver in their own way. No need then for the Gestapo of Ofsted, National Curriculum after failed National Curriculum, and no Government heaping ever more PC requirements on schools. Get rid of non-teaching heads (or pay them the going rate for an admin assistant with limited computer skills), and Britain might return to the superb era where the schools produced men and women who made 30% to 55% of all the world's inventions and discoveries!
I wonder, under the present system, how many of the world's inventions and discoveries have been made by Britons?
Answer that, and the education system might just advance to independent thought and often excellence instead of mass mediocrity in passing easily-marked tests.
Trumpeter Lanfried
August 18th, 2009 8:02pm Report this commentThe state should not be running schools, any more than Wimpy bars.
Education should be entirely optional. But able-bodied men and women, over the age of 15, should not be entitled to any welfare benefits until they can demonstrate proficiency in reading and writing.
Andy Leeds
August 18th, 2009 9:25pm Report this commentDestroying the power of the Local Educational Mafia is more essential then ever. Radical reform is called for and that means transferring power to parents. Education vouchers and privatisation is the key.
Guinevere
August 18th, 2009 9:45pm Report this commentAs a Scandi, I can only wish the Tories would learn as much as possible from the Scandinavian education system.
Most importantly, which seems so hard for some Brits to grasp, the key to 'Scandinavian' education is NOT more rules, more guidelines, more guangos, more paperwork - very much the opposite. To become a teacher you undergo rigorous training, and thereafter spend your time teaching, not doing risk-assessments, sitting in meetings and ticking boxes. Your school will have a very shallow structure in terms of hierarchy, which will make it very quick to get things done and if needeed, changing them. Anyone from cleaners upwards is allowed to speak up if they have concerns. You can hug pupils and stick a plaster on them if required after injury. Pupils will take competitive sports, and the expectation for certain skills, like reading and maths is high - you will not leave second grade until you can read, and primary school (approx age 12) if you fail your basic maths. Illiteracy and innumeracy are virtually unheard of - you will be directed to 'special needs' 1-2-1 tutoring if all else fails.
I could continue... Scandinavia is not a paradise out of the reach of normal human beings, neither is it so much a socialist utopia it is sometimes labelled, in fact it carries very much a conservative streak within its core values. There are plenty of problems too, and money is by far not as superfluous as people may imagine. However, when it comes to education and health, Scandis think what is worth doing is worth doing well and that in my opinion makes a difference.
Mark M
August 18th, 2009 10:49pm Report this commentOf note, the average number of pupils in secondary schools is up 13.5% between 1998 and 2007. By contrast, the average number of pupils in independent schools went up by only 1.4%.
The result is that the average secondary school has nearly 4 times more pupils than the average independent school.
Schools that size cannot possibly offer all the help each pupil needs individually.
Neil Davidson
August 19th, 2009 12:36am Report this commentJohn, France, if you're still reading: where did you get the figure about Britain producing 30% to 55% of the world's discoveries? I recall about 30 years ago reading that some Japanese firm had done a study and come up with some such figure, but have never been able to pin the source down since, I'd be very interested to know.
Fergus Pickering
August 19th, 2009 6:39am Report this commentHeavens, Guinevere, is that really true. It sounds a paradise. Maybe it's your terrible weather encourages you to work so constructively. Alas, ours is so improving through global warming that we sit on our atrses all day like South Sea Islanders, thinking about sex.
Jim
August 19th, 2009 7:32am Report this comment@ Neil Davidson
According to Forbes, Japan is the worlds most innovative nation
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/05/16/afx3725835.html
Which is interesting because having worked in the Japanese school system, it is mostly based on rote learning, whilst universities seem to be be big alcohol parties. Their technical colleges must be good.
Poppy Kock
August 19th, 2009 10:00am Report this commentEducation begins at home!
luke
August 19th, 2009 11:06am Report this commentOh come on! Gove is promising at most 220,000 extra school places (there are 7.3 million pupils in English schools at the moment).
And he is promising a shrinking schools budget.
The main challenge will be to stop standards falling as class sizes rise and wage restraint means fewer high-flying graduates are attracted to the profession.
A transformation of education in this country, this plan is not!
Henry Wood
August 19th, 2009 6:11pm Report this commentHow about taking a look at the *real* Swedish question, the allegation by a Swedish left-wing "newspaper" that the Israeli Defence Force is kidnapping Palestinians for the purpose of stealing their internal organs? Maybe you could incorporate a recipe for blood-matzos if you dig deep enough? So long as Sweden has a "newspaper" reporting such disgusting allegations then Sweden in my view is beyond the Pale.
I never, ever thought I would say such a thing. In the 1960s I worked for a shipbroker who was the Swedish Vice Consul in a North-East coal port. I even fell in love with a Swedish girl, Erica Maria Christine Sjo****. Swedes were treated with great respect in those days. If they now read such newspapers they have changed beyond belief.
Back to top