For years, Swedish social democracy was held up in Labour circles as a model. Yet, more recently the clamour for Swedish-style reform has come as much from the right as from the left. While Swedish ‘free schools’ inspired Tony Blair’s 2005 education reforms, the Conservatives claim to be importing the Swedish model wholesale. But, is either party really embracing the Swedish experience, and would they be right to do so?
Until the late 1980s, Swedish education was highly centralised. Children were allocated to local schools, and schools enjoyed few autonomous financial decisions. The Social Democrats devolved responsibility for schools to 289 municipalities in 1989 and the Moderate party dramatically increased parental choice two years later with legislation requiring more choice of municipal schools and allowing ‘fristaende skola’ (free schools) to receive municipal financial support.
At first, free schools received 85 per cent of the funding given to municipal schools, and could charge fees to cover the difference. But the Social Democrats banned fees from 1997.
Free schools have grown rapidly because they are relatively easy to set up. Promoters need at least 20 pupils, decent premises and a commitment to national standards. They include private companies, charities, cooperatives, parents’ and voluntary groups. Two-thirds of free schools have fewer than 100 pupils (as do a third of public schools).
Eight per cent of primary and 15 per cent of secondary pupils attend free schools, and their numbers are growing. Over a third of Stockholm schools are independently-operated, and half the city’s 16-19-year-olds go to free schools.
Local government decides what to spend on education, and what weighting to give poorer students, with local free schools funded similarly. But choice is uneven: a quarter of municipalities have no free schools and free school transport is only provided to the local school.
Freedom is not unfettered. Free schools must meet the ‘minimum teaching times’ for each national curriculum subject, which dictates over 80 per cent of teaching hours – though schools decide on teaching styles and timetable; and religious schools must not indoctrinate. Schools must be non-selective and be approved by the National Agency for Education.
So, has Labour taken the best of the Swedish model, and what would the Tories do differently? As a result of Labour legislation, local authorities must hold competitions for new schools; they must help parent promoters of new schools; they must fund free transport for poorer students to their choice of at least three local schools; choice advisers help poorer parents to know their choices.
All English parents can access objective information about schools through league tables and inspection reports. Many Swedish parents complain about the lack of information in smaller municipalities, though Stockholm is a model of openness, publishing school-level test data, and a prospectus for all free and municipal schools.
Labour’s academies are funded by central government, with greater freedoms over teachers’ pay, land ownership, curriculum, school timetable and ethos. Although recently required to teach core national curriculum subjects, they are arguably freer in this respect than their Swedish counterparts. Indeed, the curriculum is far more flexible than is sometimes suggested: even non-academies have shown innovation by condensing three-year Key Stage 3 programmes into two years to focus on GCSEs for longer.
Diversity is growing. Chains of schools – run by not-for-profit organisations such as Ark, the Harris Trust and the United Learning Trust – are bringing a common ethos across geographically dispersed schools. ‘Kunskapsskolan’, a leading Swedish free schools promoter, plans to manage two academies in Richmond, south London. Academies are improving much faster than other schools, and are hugely popular with parents.
As in Sweden, there are more state-funded schools for Muslims and other non-Christian faiths. All-through schools for 3-18-year-olds are being introduced. Private schools are dropping fees and selection to join the state sector. Alternative providers are competing with local authorities to run new schools. And, parent-promoted schools have opened in south London.
The Conservatives say they would bring further freedoms. They want 220,000 extra school places – as school rolls fall – by allowing any not-for-profit body to set up a new school. Their ‘new academies’ would receive the same revenue as other local schools and a ‘pupil premium’ for poorer pupils to replace the complex formulae currently used to compensate for disadvantage.
In Sweden, for-profit corporations have invested in free schools and play a greater role in their development. But like Labour, the Tories have ruled out for-profit schools, proposing instead to siphon off £4.5bn from the Building Schools for the Future budget to provide all the capital costs of their new schools. There are tensions in the Tory policy. While talking greater freedom, they want longer Ofsted inspections, setting by subject ability and a more prescriptive national curriculum.
The Swedish system has undoubtedly increased choice and diversity. It has also made public schools more competitive, raising their standards as a result. But, the extent to which we can learn further from them is debatable: OECD data suggest that 15-year-olds in Sweden achieve broadly similar results in their national language and maths as their English counterparts, but perform worse in science. And there have been concerns that an unplanned approach has benefited the articulate middle classes most, increasing social segregation.
Labour has greatly extended diversity within state schools, and is expanding academies by 55 a year, reflecting local need: academies largely replace the 638 low-attaining schools where fewer than 30 per cent of pupils gain five good GCSEs. And academies reduce social segregation by attracting a more comprehensive intake than the sink schools they often replace.
The Tories’ approach is more laissez faire – and more expensive. Sweden doesn’t pay the capital costs of free schools. And this is the Achilles’ heel of the Tory approach: they will go into an election effectively scrapping planned new schools in dozens of constituencies. By providing 100 per cent capital, they reduce risk for the promoters and invest in a lot of failed projects. They also could greatly reduce the dynamism in the Swedish system, arguably only possible without huge state capital investment.
Nevertheless, there are lessons for Labour in the Swedish approach. Despite the 2006 Education and Inspections Act, it is still too difficult for diverse providers to establish new schools. Local authorities should move much more towards becoming commissioners.
The current system requires huge pressure from the centre on recalcitrant authorities – though attitudes are changing – and future reform should require authorities to respond more readily to demand for diversity from parents. Automatic capitation for sustainable proposals with clear parental backing would be a good start.
It would be unwise, as the Tories propose, to attach automatic capital funding. Easier access to suitable disused public buildings, though, might be a good alternative. Subsidised school transport should be extended to support all parents’ choices. More diversity would help primary as well as secondary schools. And councils should actively encourage parents interested in starting their own schools.
But we shouldn’t underestimate how much freer schools in England are than most of their international counterparts. Our level of financial delegation to head teachers – extended by Labour – is unusual. Our parents can access more objective information than most. And the diversity spearheaded by academies and trust schools places English schools in the forefront of education reform. Let’s learn what we can from Sweden, but don’t underestimate how far we’ve come.