Jump to content

Should Ontario adopt the Swedish school funding model?


Recommended Posts

For me the voucher system is the most natural structure, although there are many details to work out. The fixed funding is a particularly interesting aspect.

At first sight one could think this eliminates competition; but the competition is "who can make the best result from the given, fixed funding". As "best" has different meaning for different parents and students, these schools can structure the education targeted to a certain group of students and parents.

It would be nice to have such options everywhere, but the Canadian crabs don't tolerate anything like that. The Ontarians in particular have rejected even a much-much weaker form of this for a few years ago, namely the partial funding of denomination, not Roman Catholic schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the voucher system is the most natural structure, although there are many details to work out. The fixed funding is a particularly interesting aspect.

At first sight one could think this eliminates competition; but the competition is "who can make the best result from the given, fixed funding". As "best" has different meaning for different parents and students, these schools can structure the education targeted to a certain group of students and parents.

It would be nice to have such options everywhere, but the Canadian crabs don't tolerate anything like that. The Ontarians in particular have rejected even a much-much weaker form of this for a few years ago, namely the partial funding of denomination, not Roman Catholic schools.

IMHO, the Ontario system is extremely stiffling compared to the European systems. Just to compare:

Sweden: The voucher system described in the link. I'm guessing it must all be in Swedish, but then again, that is the only and indigenous language of the country.

Ontario: You get to choose between the nearest French-medium secular, French-medium Catholic, English-medium secular, or English-medium Catholic school.

Hungary: Each school is free to teach the second-language of its choice as long as it can present a course plan for that language to be approved by the Ministry of Education to ensure its pedagogical quality; and pupils can choose to sit the second-language test of their choice among the languages available. The Hungarian model is generally considered the most progressive one on the European continent at the momeent, comparable to the British model.

This is s lightly improved version of the British model; and many other European countries, as well as some Canadian provinces, also give at least a few choices of second-languages to fulfil second-language requirements for highschool graduation.

Ontario: English-medium pupils must learn French, and French-medium pupils must learn English, with schools not even free to offer the lcoal Aboriginal language or sign languages to fulfil high-school second-language requirements.

I don't see why the left opposes the voucher system. Europe is generally considered more to the left than Ontario, though it may be that whereas Ontario's left is a more authoritatrian variety, the European variety is more libertarian. The left could benefit from such freedom and a voucher system too. For example, it coudl allow more choice among media of instruction, including not only English and French, but First Nations languages soo; and it could allow First Nations languages and sign languages as alternatives to French as a second language too, along with the social benefits that would come with that.

Looking at it that way, the only reason for the left to oppose the voucher system is to spite itself, a kind of 'drown him even if I drown with him' mentality. Pure spite.

So what if the right might benefit from a voucher system? The left could too. Yet the left chooses to sacrifice itself just to hurt the right. How spiteful can it get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ontario: English-medium pupils must learn French, and French-medium pupils must learn English, with schools not even free to offer the lcoal Aboriginal language or sign languages to fulfil high-school second-language requirements.

Naturally. Otherwise they might teach equally obscure but entirelly more relevant languages like latin and gaelic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naturally. Otherwise they might teach equally obscure but entirelly more relevant languages like latin and gaelic.

If you look at StatsCan, few Ontarians succeed in learning their second language anyway.

Also, would it not save the government money to integrate policies? Why spend so much money to have so many pupils fial at French and then spend even more money trying to develop the local Aboriginal languages. If they would just offer it as an option in school instead of French, then it could kill two birds with one stone and in that way either achieve the same results with less money or better results with the same money. I remember hearing of one non-Aboriginal woman who'd learnt Cree because many of her friends were Cree. So why not allow schools to exploit the local environment so as to increase the pupils' chances of success in their second language. That non-native woman, by the way, taught Cree full time too, so for some it could give employment opportunities.

As for Latin, I don't know; but I have met some Christian families that do have their children learn Greek. Again, why not just let them do it in school, killing two birds with one stone?

That's why government is so expensive today; everything is dealt with piecemeal rather than in an integrated manner with policies re-inforcing each other as they should. We should look at policy as an integrated whole rather than thousands of unrelated parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article:

Parents can use this "voucher" to "buy" a place at the school of their choice. The idea is that funding follows the pupil and, in this way, the state supports the schools that are most popular with parents.

Like the Conservatives' proposals in England, the Swedish voucher cannot be "topped up". In other words, any private school participating in the scheme cannot charge any additional fees.

Nor can the private schools select pupils on any basis other than first-come-first-served.

While the idea of vouchers seems reasonable as part of the basis for a public/private education system, I don't agree with these restrictions. What if a school wants to provide better, more expensive, facilities to its students, and there are parents that are willing to pay for that privilege? This seems to disallow such a circumstance. Some private schools charge many times more than what the state school cost, per student, and parents should be allowed to send their kids to such schools.

And, of course, schools most definitely should be allowed to select students on criteria besides first-come first-serve. How about schools specifically for gifted learners, or for children with specific learning disabilities, or schools that emphasize excellence in athletics, or excellence in music or other types of artistic pursuits?

Also, the purpose of private schools is generally to provide a different quality or formality of education, or to focus on certain aspects of education. That is all well and good, but your emphasis seems rather to be on providing for learning in a variety of different languages and cultures, in separate, segregated, schools. This seems to me to be the wrong approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article:

While the idea of vouchers seems reasonable as part of the basis for a public/private education system, I don't agree with these restrictions. What if a school wants to provide better, more expensive, facilities to its students, and there are parents that are willing to pay for that privilege? This seems to disallow such a circumstance. Some private schools charge many times more than what the state school cost, per student, and parents should be allowed to send their kids to such schools.

And, of course, schools most definitely should be allowed to select students on criteria besides first-come first-serve. How about schools specifically for gifted learners, or for children with specific learning disabilities, or schools that emphasize excellence in athletics, or excellence in music or other types of artistic pursuits?

Also, the purpose of private schools is generally to provide a different quality or formality of education, or to focus on certain aspects of education. That is all well and good, but your emphasis seems rather to be on providing for learning in a variety of different languages and cultures, in separate, segregated, schools. This seems to me to be the wrong approach.

A few thing here:

1. as for not allowing schools to 'top up', though I personally might be open to the idea of a school charging more money, I can see too that seeing how politically unpalatable any voucher system would be to voters, I could imagine one that allows 'topping up' to be even more unpalatable. From that pragmatic standpoint, this condition would likely be absolutely necessary for such an idea to fly. And there is another phylosophical element, being that all children should have the same opportunity, so this restriction could make richer parents more open to increased public funding for education. I'm guessing this might in fact have been one of the strategic considerations in this restriction. I think the same strategic consideration is applied to opposition to two-tiered healthcare in Canada (though Europeans seem to be open to it).

2. As for selecting students, seeing that one purpose of education is in fact to teach students to live in society, it would seem that selecting them on any basis other than first-come-first-served would defeat that goal, so there is in fact a societal function to that restriction.

3. Unlike Sweden, where there is generally but one language, and the majority language is also the indigenous language, in Canada, we have two founding languages plus many First Nations languages, with different majority languages in different parts of the country (e.g. English in Ontario, French in Quebec), and the majority language is usually not the indigenous language. That being the case, a voucher system could help to put all these languages on an equal footing, as an extention of social justice for Canada's indigenous and majority language communities, as well as the deaf (sign language), while also recognizing Caanda's international communication needs in the global markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there is another phylosophical element, being that all children should have the same opportunity

Parents can and should be able to use their own prosperity to give their children extra opportunities. All children should be provided the same good public education, yes, but parents that can afford to spend their own money to do better, should be able to do so.

2. As for selecting students, seeing that one purpose of education is in fact to teach students to live in society, it would seem that selecting them on any basis other than first-come-first-served would defeat that goal, so there is in fact a societal function to that restriction.

And yet parents and students can pick the school. That lets them segregate themselves, rather than "living in society". For example, French students going to French schools, Aboriginal students going to Aboriginal schools, Muslim students going to Muslim schools, etc. That is not "living in society". What is living in society is competing for limited placements based on your own merit. That is much like finding a job, etc, and why top schools should be able to select the best and brightest, just as they can at the post-secondary level.

3. Unlike Sweden, where there is generally but one language, and the majority language is also the indigenous language, in Canada, we have two founding languages plus many First Nations languages, with different majority languages in different parts of the country (e.g. English in Ontario, French in Quebec), and the majority language is usually not the indigenous language. That being the case, a voucher system could help to put all these languages on an equal footing, as an extention of social justice for Canada's indigenous and majority language communities, as well as the deaf (sign language), while also recognizing Caanda's international communication needs in the global markets.

Learning the majority language of Canada (or, at least, one of its two official languages) is economically beneficial to all people in Canada. Other languages can be taught as second languages in schools, but more importantly, can be taught by parents and by private institutions outside of school hours (i.e. Saturday schools). Many parents of many ethnic and lingual backgrounds who seek to preserve their language in their children do precisely this, and often succeed in their efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents can and should be able to use their own prosperity to give their children extra opportunities.

I could agree with that, but could also see that it would not be politically feasible in Canada. Also, the Swedish system does not force schools to participate in the voucher ssytem, so a school could charge more than the value of the voucher, but then the parent would have to pay all of it out of pocket. Is it just? That's debatable. But like I said, it's not likely to go anywhere politically in the foreseeable future.

All children should be provided the same good public education, yes, but parents that can afford to spend their own money to do better, should be able to do so.

I'm as yet undecided which I agree with, but I can't agree with both statements as they contradict one another.

And yet parents and students can pick the school. That lets them segregate themselves, rather than "living in society". For example, French students going to French schools, Aboriginal students going to Aboriginal schools, Muslim students going to Muslim schools, etc. That is not "living in society". What is living in society is competing for limited placements based on your own merit. That is much like finding a job, etc, and why top schools should be able to select the best and brightest, just as they can at the post-secondary level.

You do have a point there. But then which culture do we impose among the options available? Like I said, Canada has many cultural layers owing to its history. Also, language segregation is different from that based on ability, in that in each school, different-abilitied students could work together. While ability segregation might be acceptable in post-compulsory education, it's hard to agree with in compulsory education for all. What would happen in a town where all schools refused to accept a child who didn't meet their standards? Rejectied? No education for him? Again, the Swedish system would allow for that if the school accepts not to participate in the voucher syste,. And again, is it just? I don't know.

Learning the majority language of Canada (or, at least, one of its two official languages) is economically beneficial to all people in Canada. Other languages can be taught as second languages in schools, but more importantly, can be taught by parents and by private institutions outside of school hours (i.e. Saturday schools). Many parents of many ethnic and lingual backgrounds who seek to preserve their language in their children do precisely this, and often succeed in their efforts.

We have to avoid making our predictions true too though. Is English important because we've forced everyone to learn it or is everyone forced to learn it because it's important? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? From that standpoint, if more students should choose an alternative language, then clearly there' be more jobs for that language in those schools. They could still choose to teach English as a second languge. If English is that important in the community, that will likely naturally reinforce their learning too. And if not, then English-speakers might find themselves out of the local job market just as unilingual French-speaking Quebecers are shut out of the English job market and vice versa. All should be equal here as a matter of principle, It should be up to the FN themselves, not their paternalistic guardians, to impose English on them if that's what they want to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why the left opposes the voucher system. Europe is generally considered more to the left than Ontario, though it may be that whereas Ontario's left is a more authoritatrian variety, the European variety is more libertarian. The left could benefit from such freedom and a voucher system too. For example, it coudl allow more choice among media of instruction, including not only English and French, but First Nations languages soo; and it could allow First Nations languages and sign languages as alternatives to French as a second language too, along with the social benefits that would come with that.

Looking at it that way, the only reason for the left to oppose the voucher system is to spite itself, a kind of 'drown him even if I drown with him' mentality. Pure spite.

So what if the right might benefit from a voucher system? The left could too. Yet the left chooses to sacrifice itself just to hurt the right. How spiteful can it get?

The left opposes any loss of a monopoly and any seeming disintegration of equality (sameness).

The left is comprised of different ideologies within it, from the socialist democracy to the total socialist state. within it is communism and fascism. The current socialists, especially in the social democracies are like any other political group in that they do not wish to lose political domination and they wish ideological homogeneity. It is like when the Bolsheviks took control of the politburo from the Mensheviks. They were both socialist parties but the Bolsheviks were the revolutionary Communists wishing to install Marx's totalitarian state on a right now basis. The Mensheviks were not so ambitious as the Communists, they were content to install socialism in Russia alone on a more evolutionary but forceful basis.

You stated one of the purposes of education as being "teaching students to live in society". In order to do that society must be of a stagnant nature otherwise teaching students to live in society might be useless by the time of graduation. The State of course would foster this stagnation of society as it attempts to teach students exactly what society is and means. Is society the same in Halifax as in Vancouver or Toronto? There are basic similarities perhaps but they are different societies in within the definition of society. The child can simply observe and experience society for himself by being a participant by the time he is an adult he should have experienced enough of society to know what is expected of him. Thus I don't think he needs to be taught how to live in society. The Communists made a whole new society in Russia almost overnight.

Another thing I take issue with is the cliche that "every child deserves the same opportunity" in education. First ask yourself if every one wants the same opportunity. Do they all want the same education? Can the same opportunity be delivered to children in Halifax and ? Education in my view should be only about teaching how to learn so that the passion of learning is not stifled. All the basics tools of learning how to learn should be made available to every child, with that I will agree, and I don't believe that would be expensive, but not the general and vague "every child desreves the same opportunity"above mentioned cliche.

Languages? How many have been lost? Species? How many have been lost? The dinosaurs are gone. It is an evolutionary process as is society. Preservationists are merely attempting to stop the vibrant evolutionary process of life and society. It may appear necessary and it may be generally supported but that too is part of the process. It means a different synthesis will evolve.

No change is what the totalitarian state and monopolistic state would attempt and does attempt to impose upon society. Only one ideal is considered valid.

Why so much debate about education and the system of delivery? I note it is mostly about the system of delivery and not so much about education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are fostering debate on the subject and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to express my point of view. I believe that all angles of an issue should be given hearing. Of course, my point of view is that government is self serving. Cost, and availability of resources and the maintenance of monopoly then become the entire concern of management. Purpose becomes a secondary concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are fostering debate on the subject and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to express my point of view. I believe that all angles of an issue should be given hearing. Of course, my point of view is that government is self serving. Cost, and availability of resources and the maintenance of monopoly then become the entire concern of management. Purpose becomes a secondary concern.

But in the end, it's the people who choose this kind of government fully cognisant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally have mixed feelings about this.

My favorite aspects are it gives more power to the parents, instead of the teachers union. Changes I've seen in the schools today are changes that I don't agree with. I am really not a fan of the no failing grades in elementary. I even have a nephew who has a learning disability who is now at least a year behind his classmates and his parents weren't allowed to hold him back a year to allow him to catch up. Nor is the school really doing much to help him with his disability. I fear he'll be pushed through to high school where I would expect him to drop out as he'll be so far behind by then.

I am also not a fan of Teachers dress like they are going to the bar. What happened to shirt and tie? I wish I could put my kid in a school that ran along a philosophy that I agreed with.

Also, any time that the competitive spirit of free enterprise enters the government. I think this warrants further investigation.

Although the Teachers union would lobby as hard against this change as the US insurance industry is against "Socialized" Healthcare.

I just wonder how expensive this change would be and would there be schools for parents who don't care and segregation based on race or religion??? Not a fan of segregation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents can and should be able to use their own prosperity to give their children extra opportunities. All children should be provided the same good public education, yes, but parents that can afford to spend their own money to do better, should be able to do so.

I think the result would be a stratification of schools. The best schools would be for the richest (as already exists in our society). They'd have the best equipment and the lowest ration of teachers to students. Then there would be the upper middle class and middle class schools. 'Free' public schooling would be looked down upon and marginalized. It would become a ghetto of the poor. In other words a great way to rebuild a classist society. The effect would be very corrosive to our way of life.

Life is already staggeringly unfair. Some kids grow up with all the advantages while others have a struggle just to get to school every day. There are two great equalizers. One is access to health care and the other is access to education. As long as you are healthy and can afford a decent education, you can dream of improving your lot in life. Take this away and you'll create a lot of disillusioned kids. Kids who just might grow up to be angry revolutionaries.

Equality of access to healthcare and education are both under attack. Those of you who support the attack, whether your motivating philosophy be economic darwinism, libertarianism, or just plain government hating (or, in many cases all of the above) are helping to undermine Canadian society.

The Swedish model is an excellent example of a healthy tradeoff between choice and equality of access. Leave well enough alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The left opposes any loss of a monopoly and any seeming disintegration of equality (sameness).

The left is comprised of different ideologies within it, from the socialist democracy to the total socialist state. within it is communism and fascism. The current socialists, especially in the social democracies are like any other political group in that they do not wish to lose political domination and they wish ideological homogeneity. It is like when the Bolsheviks took control of the politburo from the Mensheviks. They were both socialist parties but the Bolsheviks were the revolutionary Communists wishing to install Marx's totalitarian state on a right now basis. The Mensheviks were not so ambitious as the Communists, they were content to install socialism in Russia alone on a more evolutionary but forceful basis.

Pliny

It's clear that you've lumped everyone whose views you despise into the category of 'left'. It lets you lump all of your opponents into one category and smear them by association. Of course, this is much easier than actually reading the points someone makes and debating them on their merits. I encourage you to abandon this lazy and pointless debating style.

By the way, the Swedes (those clever fascists! :rolleyes: ) have managed to allow choice while still maintaining a level playing field. How is that a monopoly on anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life is already staggeringly unfair. Some kids grow up with all the advantages while others have a struggle just to get to school every day. There are two great equalizers. One is access to health care and the other is access to education. As long as you are healthy and can afford a decent education, you can dream of improving your lot in life. Take this away and you'll create a lot of disillusioned kids. Kids who just might grow up to be angry revolutionaries.

I actually think we should take the leveling one step further for children. I think the schools should provide a free healthy breakfast and lunch for the children. All children... That way there won't be hungry kids having a problem learning... And the rich benefit equally by there children receiving the identical benefit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny

It's clear that you've lumped everyone whose views you despise into the category of 'left'. It lets you lump all of your opponents into one category and smear them by association. Of course, this is much easier than actually reading the points someone makes and debating them on their merits. I encourage you to abandon this lazy and pointless debating style.

By the way, the Swedes (those clever fascists! :rolleyes: ) have managed to allow choice while still maintaining a level playing field. How is that a monopoly on anything?

I speak in terms of the left and the right as that is how people understand the political spectrum. The right on the political spectrum also have their special interests for which they like to lobby government.

Since the left is currently more progressive (soon to become the new conservatives to "conserve" their progress) and demanding the growth of the State in leaps and bounds I generally find myself on the right side of this spectrum. Soon I will be on the left side of the spectrum.

The current political spectrum isn't really indicative of the position of political parties. Go ahead and try and fit them all in. The only way to make sense of it all is as a gradation from no government to total government. I am pretty far away from the total government side.

What are the choices in Swedish schools? Location? The method of teaching? The method of learning? They all must fulfill a minimum government standard and that is all they do fulfill a minimum standard. It's a monopoly because government dictates those standards - education is mostly about "relationships" these days and "getting along with others". Caring-sharing nations are in vogue. They wish a level playing field after all! I assume by "level playing field" you mean "equality". A level playing field is not something manufactured by government. It is a system of favor and privilege for some and ineligibility for others as deemed by government and whatever is expected to be cultivated from whatever it's determined level playing field is. Basically it is to keep the weak weak and make the strong just as weak. Only the strong kept strong will hold up the weak and support a Government. When the government says it will hold up the weak and make them strong, they can't. They only tax the strong making them weak as well and eventually the economy collapses.

Did you read any of the points I made? I don't see a debate on their merit. You can be lazy once more and say there is no merit in any of my posts.

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think we should take the leveling one step further for children. I think the schools should provide a free healthy breakfast and lunch for the children. All children... That way there won't be hungry kids having a problem learning... And the rich benefit equally by there children receiving the identical benefit...

This would mean raising the value of the voucher though, which in turn could mean a tax increase. That said, I could still support it; a brain running on an empty stomach doesn't learn efficiently.

One issue I could see with it would be to cater to various philosophical (e.g. vegan, vegetarian), health (e.g. allergies), and religious (e.g. vegetarian, vegan, halal, kosher, etc.). But I could still support the idea in principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a point about all the restrictions placed on the Swedish model:

1. You need to realise that Sweden is a social democratic society after all.

2. The current NDP, Green Party, and Liberal Party in Ontario are totally opposed to vouchers, and even the Progressive Conservative Party was marred in controversy over it. Seeing that the Swedish social democratic party is already more 'capitalist' than even Ontario's Progressive Conservative Party on this front, good luck trying to introduce a no-ceiling voucher in Ontario! Just achieving a Swedish voucher system woudl be quite the accomplishment in Ontario to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a point about all the restrictions placed on the Swedish model:

1. You need to realise that Sweden is a social democratic society after all.

With virtual no immigration compared to Canada.
2. The current NDP, Green Party, and Liberal Party in Ontario are totally opposed to vouchers, and even the Progressive Conservative Party was marred in controversy over it.
McGuinty was for a voucher system, and it was Liberal Strategists that jumped upon the policy that the PCs were backing in a Campaign. However, the Liberals have since chosen to give Public Funds to the tune of $2.7 Million so that a private school can have a DOMED soccer stadium.
Seeing that the Swedish social democratic party is already more 'capitalist' than even Ontario's Progressive Conservative Party on this front, good luck trying to introduce a no-ceiling voucher in Ontario! Just achieving a Swedish voucher system woudl be quite the accomplishment in Ontario to say the least.

The voucher system is a very bad idea.

The voucher system has helped to create segregation in southern US states, by allowing private schools to do the discrimination that public schools are not allowed to do.

The Southern Public schools became a place for the Negro Population and the Private Schools for the whites with a handful of Negro's so as to not look totally racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The voucher system has helped to create segregation in southern US states, by allowing private schools to do the discrimination that public schools are not allowed to do.

The Southern Public schools became a place for the Negro Population and the Private Schools for the whites with a handful of Negro's so as to not look totally racist.

That's why one of the rules in the Swedish system is first come first served. Of course a private school is not forced to participate in the voucher system, but if it chooses to participate, then that's one of the rules it must abide by. Some US 'Republican-style' vouchers systems have much more liberal rules than the Swedish one does. They don't compare. In the Swedish system, a school that chooses not to participate in the voucher system gets no government funding, and those in the voucher programme must accept the first come first served policy in student applications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people actually read the article and are providing informed opinions. Those who haven't read the article may find that your concerns are addressed if you do - eg madmax.

There are things I like about this, and things that still concern me.

Any scheme like this in Britain would attract fierce opposition from the teacher unions. Not so in Sweden.

The Swedish Teachers Union, Lärarförbundet, supports the school choice policy.

According to its president, Eva-lis Preisz, members were "a little suspicious at first" but are now satisfied by the restrictions which prevent private schools from charging top-up fees or selecting students.

However she does point to reports from the Swedish National Agency for Education which warn that it is mostly better-educated, middle-class parents who [CAN] take advantage of the right to choose schools.

This can mean children from middle-class backgrounds congregating in the same few, highly popular, schools.

I like the restrictions. It covers the big issue of equal opportunity regardless of income ... almost. I would add to the plan the two meals a day that CFcaper suggested, and I would add a bus pass or other transportation for students: Specialized programs/schools, even free ones, do not tend to draw students from lower income homes, because parents can't afford the transportation.

With those two qualifications, I don't mind this model, though I think the schools should operate on a not-for-profit basis. Clearly, I oppose two-tier education, where kids from higher income homes go to more expensive schools. I think that cheats everybody: The research is clear that yes, you can see more sophisticated academic products/results when students with higher skills students are grouped together. However, those products are limited in the range of intelligences they tap: Intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences, however, shine in mixed ability groupings and are absolutely necessary in a peaceful and harmonious society and in workplaces - esp management skills.

Mixed skill groupings or a variety of groupings provide more variety of models for students to learn from, and do benefit students with lower and moderate skills.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=14_K5WpKQa...ity&f=false

I see problems in implementing this model in Canada, however. First, Sweden had no private schools before implementing this model with its restrictions. I'm pretty sure our private schools would not accept those restrictions. Maybe they would just go out of business, though, and be replaced by others who operate within the restrictions.

I think there would be greater skepticism among unions here too, since we already have expensive elite and specialized private schools and it would be hard for them to grasp that this is a different model. There will be concern about schools in lower income areas being drained of all their better students, and that's not good for anyone, imo. However, if funding is equal, those schools should be able to design new programs to draw students back or keep them there too, following the open and individualized model of Sweden.

Most importantly, though, I think the two meals a day should be mandatory in all schools and meet Canada's food guidelines, regardless of whether we change the model or not. Far too much of the 'disadvantage' experienced by many students is due to hunger and malnourishment: Kraft dinner is just not a balanced meal. Schools that can implement a nutrition program notice the differences immediately: Students are more alert, less volatile, and have better concentration, more interest, and just do better work.

We don't need to change our system much to do that, and I believe it will have greater and faster benefits than the complicated changes proposed.

I would assume, then, that people in Sweden who want to send their kids to 'elite' schools would send them out of the country to private schools. That happens here too.

Edited by tango
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see problems in implementing this model in Canada, however. First, Sweden had no private schools before implementing this model with its restrictions. I'm pretty sure our private schools would not accept those restrictions. Maybe they would just go out of business, though, and be replaced by others who operate within the restrictions.

I saw nothing in the article stating that private schools are obligated to participate in the voucher programme though; so I guess any school that disagrees with the rules would be free to opt out, and any parent willing to choose not to use their voucher woudl be free to pay out of pocket. I'd see no problem with that. Though I suppose some already established private elite schools might feel a little threatened by this new model, as it would force them into having to decide whether to stay as is or conform to the rules of the voucher programme, and as we know, change can be scary.

I think there would be greater skepticism among unions here too, since we already have expensive elite and specialized private schools and it would be hard for them to grasp that this is a different model. There will be concern about schools in lower income areas being drained of all their better students, and that's not good for anyone, imo. However, if funding is equal, those schools should be able to design new programs to draw students back or keep them there too, following the open and individualized model of Sweden.

You do have some points here. We should remember too that Sweden is much more socialist than Canada overall, with much higher taxes and a high quality social safety net. With that, Swedish teachers would not fear losing their jobs because even if they did, they know they could count on their government to provide them with the retraining needed to get back into the job market while being generously supported throughout the course. Not so in Canada, at least not nearly to the same degree, so of course Canadian teachers' unions will be more focussed on just preserving their jobs. This is probably one reason Sweden is much more open to experimenting with new ideas. With Canada being much more capitalist than Sweden overall, the NDP and unions aver oversensitive to anything that suggests further liberalization of markets, which may explain a fanatical opposition to vouchers in Canada, or any kind of increased private sector involvmeent in health care, etc. In Sweden, people have faith in that if the private sector steps out of line, their government is not afraid to reel it in, and so as a result, they have less fear of giving the private sector a chance to prove itself.

Most importantly, though, I think the two meals a day should be mandatory in all schools and meet Canada's food guidelines, regardless of whether we change the model or not. Far too much of the 'disadvantage' experienced by many students is due to hunger and malnourishment: Kraft dinner is just not a balanced meal. Schools that can implement a nutrition program notice the differences immediately: Students are more alert, less volatile, and have better concentration, more interest, and just do better work.

As mentioned above, I could agree to it in principle, and would have no issue with seeing my taxes go up to see an increase in the value of the vouchers. However, to avoid disputes in the matter, it would likely be necesasary for the meals to meet the highest ethical, health, and religious guidelines, which would certainly mean limited options, though probably still not that limited (you'd be surprised at the range of healthy meals that can be made according to even vegan standards), with students being free to bring extra food from home to supplement if their parents insist on junk food or other.

Also, as for concerns about too rapid a shift to private schools, in the initial stages we could even add aditional restrictions, such as requiring private schools participating in the voucher programme to offer sign language courses or courses in the local indigenous language. After a few years of the voucher programme, once society feels more comfortable with the idea, we could then consider lifting these restrictions. This would allow us to ease into the idea more gradually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...