Bernie was a sheepdog after all.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

That may well be true but that doesn't mean that the model itself is bad, which is Donny's point.

I think it's inherently flawed. It is a vehicle for accessing public wealth. Tax funded entities, many of them for-profit, operating without public accountability is a bad idea kids.

Ok, if they're for profit its not the model I was thinking of. Afaik Scotland has 1 school that's comparable, Jordanhill which is publicly funded by the Scottish Govt, rather than Glasgow council, and thus is autonomous from local authority control. Its a state school tho, not a for-profit operation. Anything that's run as a for profit organisation in Scotland would be considered a private school I think.

It does seem weird to have publicly funded schools running as autonomous for profit organizations. That's just a weird model to follow.

Not that weird. It's the very successful Swedish model.

[Donny osmond]

I think it's inherently flawed. It is a vehicle for accessing public wealth. Tax funded entities, many of them for-profit, operating without public accountability is a bad idea kids.

Ok, if they're for profit its not the model I was thinking of. Afaik Scotland has 1 school that's comparable, Jordanhill which is publicly funded by the Scottish Govt, rather than Glasgow council, and thus is autonomous from local authority control. Its a state school tho, not a for-profit operation. Anything that's run as a for profit organisation in Scotland would be considered a private school I think.

It does seem weird to have publicly funded schools running as autonomous for profit organizations. That's just a weird model to follow.

Not that weird. It's the very successful Swedish model.

Public funded schools running autonomously I'm all for. Its the for-profit bit that confuses me. Although, as you said before the devil would be in the detail. I suppose its how the profit is created and handled.

If its handled by going to share holder dividends, well fuck that frankly. If the school is duty bound to put profits back into the school in some way then that might actually be a pretty good deal, depending on what its being used to pay for - teaching resources both inside and outside the classroom good, bonus payments to the governors/school burser bad, that sort of thing.

[canta_brian]

Ok, if they're for profit its not the model I was thinking of. Afaik Scotland has 1 school that's comparable, Jordanhill which is publicly funded by the Scottish Govt, rather than Glasgow council, and thus is autonomous from local authority control. Its a state school tho, not a for-profit operation. Anything that's run as a for profit organisation in Scotland would be considered a private school I think.

It does seem weird to have publicly funded schools running as autonomous for profit organizations. That's just a weird model to follow.

Not that weird. It's the very successful Swedish model.

Public funded schools running autonomously I'm all for. Its the for-profit bit that confuses me. Although, as you said before the devil would be in the detail. I suppose its how the profit is created and handled.

If its handled by going to share holder dividends, well fuck that frankly. If the school is duty bound to put profits back into the school in some way then that might actually be a pretty good deal, depending on what its being used to pay for - teaching resources both inside and outside the classroom good, bonus payments to the governors/school burser bad, that sort of thing.

Outside of the things you describe as bad, why would any business want to run a school?

The only thing I can think of is to enable them to push a particular world view or ideology. I'm not sure that allowing a diverse group of interests run schools in the manner they see fit is a remotely good idea.

[jared_7]

Not that weird. It's the very successful Swedish model.

Public funded schools running autonomously I'm all for. Its the for-profit bit that confuses me. Although, as you said before the devil would be in the detail. I suppose its how the profit is created and handled.

If its handled by going to share holder dividends, well fuck that frankly. If the school is duty bound to put profits back into the school in some way then that might actually be a pretty good deal, depending on what its being used to pay for - teaching resources both inside and outside the classroom good, bonus payments to the governors/school burser bad, that sort of thing.

Outside of the things you describe as bad, why would any business want to run a school?

The only thing I can think of is to enable them to push a particular world view or ideology. I'm not sure that allowing a diverse group of interests run schools in the manner they see fit is a remotely good idea.

My missus has a few friends who went to a chartered school sponsored by Meryll Lynch in Florida. Basically the bit in bold is exactly what goes on.

[Donny osmond]

Not that weird. It's the very successful Swedish model.

Public funded schools running autonomously I'm all for. Its the for-profit bit that confuses me. Although, as you said before the devil would be in the detail. I suppose its how the profit is created and handled.

If its handled by going to share holder dividends, well fuck that frankly. If the school is duty bound to put profits back into the school in some way then that might actually be a pretty good deal, depending on what its being used to pay for - teaching resources both inside and outside the classroom good, bonus payments to the governors/school burser bad, that sort of thing.

Outside of the things you describe as bad, why would any business want to run a school?

The only thing I can think of is to enable them to push a particular world view or ideology. I'm not sure that allowing a diverse group of interests run schools in the manner they see fit is a remotely good idea.

Again, I'm showing my naivety. I was thinking of schools running as businesses, social enterprises if you like, rather than thinking of outside business running a school.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Public funded schools running autonomously I'm all for. Its the for-profit bit that confuses me. Although, as you said before the devil would be in the detail. I suppose its how the profit is created and handled.

If its handled by going to share holder dividends, well fuck that frankly. If the school is duty bound to put profits back into the school in some way then that might actually be a pretty good deal, depending on what its being used to pay for - teaching resources both inside and outside the classroom good, bonus payments to the governors/school burser bad, that sort of thing.

Outside of the things you describe as bad, why would any business want to run a school?

The only thing I can think of is to enable them to push a particular world view or ideology. I'm not sure that allowing a diverse group of interests run schools in the manner they see fit is a remotely good idea.

Again, I'm showing my naivety. I was thinking of schools running as businesses, social enterprises if you like, rather than thinking of outside business running a school.

Then what's the problem with profit? The Swedish don't see a problem with it, and no one could sensibly accuse them have being die hard neo-liberals. The schools are still free to the users. They are still paid for by the state. They just allow the businesses who run them to make a profit.

[Digby]

Then what's the problem with profit? The Swedish don't see a problem with it, and no one could sensibly accuse them have being die hard neo-liberals. The schools are still free to the users. They are still paid for by the state. They just allow the businesses who run them to make a profit.

There are though problems with the Swedish system that's losing lots of money and seeing a general falling of standards which can't all be offloaded onto immigrants, though a fair amount can. And we'd have to allow a lot of the initial success of the Swedish system came from the state system with then some freed up options, but whilst some schools have continued to do well many have faltered, and there isn't competition such all parents actually have a choice, and at many but the leading schools we're seeing low levels of motivation, poor teacher pay, unqualified teachers, a greater segregation of society, and many wondering how they now try to correct an independent for profit social enterprise that's grown so large. Right now Sweden might only lead European education for managing both falling standards and rising inequality.

[Donny osmond]

Outside of the things you describe as bad, why would any business want to run a school?

The only thing I can think of is to enable them to push a particular world view or ideology. I'm not sure that allowing a diverse group of interests run schools in the manner they see fit is a remotely good idea.

Again, I'm showing my naivety. I was thinking of schools running as businesses, social enterprises if you like, rather than thinking of outside business running a school.

Then what's the problem with profit? The Swedish don't see a problem with it, and no one could sensibly accuse them have being die hard neo-liberals. The schools are still free to the users. They are still paid for by the state. They just allow the businesses who run them to make a profit.

I know hee haw about the swedish system, and tbh I'm a little fed up of just how fckin PERFECT everything in Scandinavia is, so I'm not going to look it up.

What I would say is that in the UK we do still have a lingering "greed is good" ethos among far too many businesses. Maybe I'm being too cynical there (just after being too naive; I know, I'm a mess) but I just wouldn't trust a british, far less multi-national like merryl lynch, business to run a school in the best interests of the pupils.

Some things we should be ideological about, even if that isn't necessarily always logical. For me education is one of those things. I don't have a problem with a school being run along business lines and making money in any one year, as long as that profit is put back into the school in its entirety. As soon as one starts using a school to make money for individual stakeholders to simply get richer, then one has lost sight of what education should be about.

[cashead]

Then what's the problem with profit? The Swedish don't see a problem with it, and no one could sensibly accuse them have being die hard neo-liberals. The schools are still free to the users. They are still paid for by the state. They just allow the businesses who run them to make a profit.

There are though problems with the Swedish system that's losing lots of money and seeing a general falling of standards which can't all be offloaded onto immigrants, though a fair amount can. And we'd have to allow a lot of the initial success of the Swedish system came from the state system with then some freed up options, but whilst some schools have continued to do well many have faltered, and there isn't competition such all parents actually have a choice, and at many but the leading schools we're seeing low levels of motivation, poor teacher pay, unqualified teachers, a greater segregation of society, and many wondering how they now try to correct an independent for profit social enterprise that's grown so large. Right now Sweden might only lead European education for managing both falling standards and rising inequality.

Pretty much. It seems that while people are arguing what exactly it is that caused Sweden's rankings in international standardised measurements like the PISA tests to plummet, the general consensus is that it has a lot to do with decentralisation, the introduction of independent organisations to the system, and pretty much free market reforms applied to a sector where it simply does not fit.

While the PISA rankings do not provide the full picture, the fact that they've dropped to 38th in the last test round is quite worrying, and one would probably be wise to rethink their stance when holding them up as a successful education model. The United States, with their charter schools, weren't that much better at 36.

[Stones of granite]

Then what's the problem with profit? The Swedish don't see a problem with it, and no one could sensibly accuse them have being die hard neo-liberals. The schools are still free to the users. They are still paid for by the state. They just allow the businesses who run them to make a profit.

There are though problems with the Swedish system that's losing lots of money and seeing a general falling of standards which can't all be offloaded onto immigrants, though a fair amount can. And we'd have to allow a lot of the initial success of the Swedish system came from the state system with then some freed up options, but whilst some schools have continued to do well many have faltered, and there isn't competition such all parents actually have a choice, and at many but the leading schools we're seeing low levels of motivation, poor teacher pay, unqualified teachers, a greater segregation of society, and many wondering how they now try to correct an independent for profit social enterprise that's grown so large. Right now Sweden might only lead European education for managing both falling standards and rising inequality.

Pretty much. It seems that while people are arguing what exactly it is that caused Sweden's rankings in international standardised measurements like the PISA tests to plummet, the general consensus is that it has a lot to do with decentralisation, the introduction of independent organisations to the system, and pretty much free market reforms applied to a sector where it simply does not fit.

While the PISA rankings do not provide the full picture, the fact that they've dropped to 38th in the last test round is quite worrying, and one would probably be wise to rethink their stance when holding them up as a successful education model. The United States, with their charter schools, weren't that much better at 36.

How many charter schools are there in the US? As a percentage?

[cashead]

There are though problems with the Swedish system that's losing lots of money and seeing a general falling of standards which can't all be offloaded onto immigrants, though a fair amount can. And we'd have to allow a lot of the initial success of the Swedish system came from the state system with then some freed up options, but whilst some schools have continued to do well many have faltered, and there isn't competition such all parents actually have a choice, and at many but the leading schools we're seeing low levels of motivation, poor teacher pay, unqualified teachers, a greater segregation of society, and many wondering how they now try to correct an independent for profit social enterprise that's grown so large. Right now Sweden might only lead European education for managing both falling standards and rising inequality.

Pretty much. It seems that while people are arguing what exactly it is that caused Sweden's rankings in international standardised measurements like the PISA tests to plummet, the general consensus is that it has a lot to do with decentralisation, the introduction of independent organisations to the system, and pretty much free market reforms applied to a sector where it simply does not fit.

While the PISA rankings do not provide the full picture, the fact that they've dropped to 38th in the last test round is quite worrying, and one would probably be wise to rethink their stance when holding them up as a successful education model. The United States, with their charter schools, weren't that much better at 36.

How many charter schools are there in the US? As a percentage?

Currently just over 6% but that number is growing (just under 7000 in 2014) so it's likely to be higher than that by now. However, it would also depend on where you're looking. For example, over half the schools in New Orleans post-Katrina are charter schools, while some states have either capped the numbers allowed, or have either outlawed them entirely or at least made it very difficult to get one open.

It's really a two-pronged issue - the public education system in the United States is failing as it is, and the charter schools are actually doing fuck-all to help the overall numbers. Actively hurting them, even.

[Stones of granite]

Pretty much. It seems that while people are arguing what exactly it is that caused Sweden's rankings in international standardised measurements like the PISA tests to plummet, the general consensus is that it has a lot to do with decentralisation, the introduction of independent organisations to the system, and pretty much free market reforms applied to a sector where it simply does not fit.

While the PISA rankings do not provide the full picture, the fact that they've dropped to 38th in the last test round is quite worrying, and one would probably be wise to rethink their stance when holding them up as a successful education model. The United States, with their charter schools, weren't that much better at 36.

How many charter schools are there in the US? As a percentage?

Currently just over 6% but that number is growing (just under 7000 in 2014) so it's likely to be higher than that by now. However, it would also depend on where you're looking. For example, over half the schools in New Orleans post-Katrina are charter schools, while some states have either capped the numbers allowed, or have either outlawed them entirely or at least made it very difficult to get one open.

It's really a two-pronged issue - the public education system in the United States is failing as it is, and the charter schools are actually doing fuck-all to help the overall numbers. Actively hurting them, even.

Thanks. I was just curious, as it's all very well blaming charter schools for the fall in the US' position in international metrics, but it's hard to believe that 6% has that much of an affect.
I don't remember there being charter schools in Houston when I was there, although they may not have been obvious as such to me.

[cashead]

How many charter schools are there in the US? As a percentage?

Currently just over 6% but that number is growing (just under 7000 in 2014) so it's likely to be higher than that by now. However, it would also depend on where you're looking. For example, over half the schools in New Orleans post-Katrina are charter schools, while some states have either capped the numbers allowed, or have either outlawed them entirely or at least made it very difficult to get one open.

It's really a two-pronged issue - the public education system in the United States is failing as it is, and the charter schools are actually doing fuck-all to help the overall numbers. Actively hurting them, even.

Thanks. I was just curious, as it's all very well blaming charter schools for the fall in the US' position in international metrics, but it's hard to believe that 6% has that much of an affect.
I don't remember there being charter schools in Houston when I was there, although they may not have been obvious as such to me.

The problem is that it's a growing issue in an already failing educational system that is long overdue a serious overhaul, and the more there are, the more they drain from the underfunded public schools that could really use those financial resources.

And as I've said, the PISA test scores don't paint a full picture - Finland is held up as one of the best educational systems in the world, despite the fact that China (Shanghai), South Korea and Japan have ranked higher in the basic maths, science and reading scores. Can't say about China, but I know that bullying and youth suicide is endemic in South Korea and Japan, and the students are required to gain curriculum knowledge that ends up being so vast, it can't actually be covered within school hours.

[Stones of granite]

Currently just over 6% but that number is growing (just under 7000 in 2014) so it's likely to be higher than that by now. However, it would also depend on where you're looking. For example, over half the schools in New Orleans post-Katrina are charter schools, while some states have either capped the numbers allowed, or have either outlawed them entirely or at least made it very difficult to get one open.

It's really a two-pronged issue - the public education system in the United States is failing as it is, and the charter schools are actually doing fuck-all to help the overall numbers. Actively hurting them, even.

Thanks. I was just curious, as it's all very well blaming charter schools for the fall in the US' position in international metrics, but it's hard to believe that 6% has that much of an affect.
I don't remember there being charter schools in Houston when I was there, although they may not have been obvious as such to me.

The problem is that it's a growing issue in an already failing educational system that is long overdue a serious overhaul, and the more there are, the more they drain from the underfunded public schools that could really use those financial resources.

And as I've said, the PISA test scores don't paint a full picture - Finland is held up as one of the best educational systems in the world, despite the fact that China (Shanghai), South Korea and Japan have ranked higher in the basic maths, science and reading scores. Can't say about China, but I know that bullying and youth suicide is endemic in South Korea and Japan, and the students are required to gain curriculum knowledge that ends up being so vast, it can't actually be covered within school hours.

Agreed. I'm not one to put too much emphasis on PISA scores.

I could be wrong, but I didn't get the impression that public schools in Houston are underfunded in the least. The facilities they have are fabulous, especially sports facilities. I do appreciate that the picture could be much different in other states.