Which makes a lot more sense. Someone should change the headline, before the discussion turns south...
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.
I'm don't think translating "firskola" to UK English as "charter school" would be correct, just like no one uses the term "charter school" to refer to institutions in the UK.
If nobody ever uses the term in the UK, then why would its definition matter or be different?
It matters because the original title was changed to a term only popular in one country.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng...
There is only one definition. If someone doesn’t know the term, they can look it up. Your original comment claimed that it means different things in different countries, but that just doesn’t seem to be the case. The term seems like the appropriate English translation, even if it doesn’t exist in the UK.
As an American, this sounds like exactly like a charter school system is. Or do you mean that the word is used differently outside America in other anglophone countries? From looking up the term online, it seems like it's mainly an American term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)
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 state for children in a local catchment area, this is where the rest of us go. Most are run by the local government, but there has been some experiments with 'foundation schools' which are tax payer funded but privately run.
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).
You see a few parents suddenly get religion as their child turns 9 or 10 and they realise they are unlikely to get into a grammar school.
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".
That's not to say that all things being equal you wouldn't stand slightly more chance if you were a member of the aristocracy.
Contemporary usage is ridiculous, though.
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 taxpayer's money to whichever school the child attends.
Unfortunately, in many cases this has simply led to corporations or individuals who employ fewer or less qualified teachers, who in turn hand out 'optimistic' grades to the kids (attracting more parents), and extracting enormous profits from the State system.
At the same time, the normal State schools are being starved of resources; standards are falling, leading to more parents putting their kids into the private schools, leading to an inevitable downward spiral.
People's commitment to ideologies seem to be stronger than any material evidence.
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/city-student...
>People's commitment to ideologies seem to be stronger than any material evidence
Agreed
There's a multi armed bandit problem here of course but the law of large numbers should allow you to isolate what effect marketization has.
I'd be shocked if it was positive. Human motivation is sullied and distracted by profit so the actual goals become incidental. If the alignment is close, like in commodities, it's all good. If it's poorly related, such as in education, it seems to be a problem.
Privatization works poorly as a blunt magical instrument wielded on all problems
The voucher stuff was introduced for ideological reasons, and failed like things rooted in ideology invariably do, no matter if the inspiration is Marx or Adam Smith.
> 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 taxpayer's money to whichever school the child attends.
I don't see the difference between those two situations. In your first sentence you talk about a “voucher”, but if it's a voucher, then there needs to be someone who emits the vouchers, and collect them in exchange for money, giving money back. And the “someone” is necessarily the state since it's financing the schools out of its own pocket.
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 accountability, that it is freed from the rules but accountable for results."
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.
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 since a few decades, is akin to a voucher system. I.e. the funding is ultimately via the taxpayer, but through different organizations.