The past decade has seen many changes in our K-12 education system. Prompted by persistent concerns about the ability of our students to compete in a global economy, all provinces undertook initiatives to improve the quality of learning. The reforms were primarily directed at strengthening provincial curricula and developing accountability systems based on regular assessment of achievement and school improvement planning processes linked to this information. Recent international testing results show these efforts are bearing fruit. Canadian students as a group have moved from the middle of the pack to among the best in the world.

Despite this positive news, Canadians should not be complacent about their schools. A closer look at the data shows progress is uneven. There are significant differences in achievement levels among the various provinces and between large groups of students. In general, the Atlantic and northern regions perform at lower levels than other provinces, boys achieve less well than girls, and francophone and aboriginal students are lagging well behind their peers. Statistics Canada reports that the achievement gap between socio-economic groups remains significant, although this divide is less pronounced than in many countries. While our dropout rate has declined to 12 percent from 18 percent, it still represents an unacceptably large number of Canadian students leaving school with little chance of leading productive, fulfilling lives in the new economy.

The well-established link between education and future success suggests we can best contribute to a vibrant and more equitable society by ensuring all Canadian students receive high quality instruction appropriate for their needs. Rethinking our policies related to school choice and school management can assist in meeting this goal.

The degree of educational choice in Canada is limited primarily by provincial funding frameworks and local school board policies. Canada’s public education system serves the majority of Canadian families, approximately 95 percent of students. The remainder— primarily those from wealthy families or those prepared to make financial sacrifices— pay tuition to attend private schools.

Depending upon the province, government subsidies for independent schools vary from 0 to 60 percent, a factor that largely determines the affordability of this choice for parents. Catholic schools in several provinces, however, are fully funded, removing the tuition barrier to families desiring this option.

At the district level, rigid attendance boundaries and a deliberately onerous transfer process often restrict choice. Although the neighbourhood school will continue to be the first option for many families, diverse parental expectations and student needs have generated a demand for additional choices of learning environments inside the public system. Schools that specialize in a particular methodology or client focus (such as single sex schools, rigorous academies, fine arts or technical schools, etc.) are generally over-subscribed wherever available. Even in districts with open enrolment policies, the supply of options remains limited because school boards commonly view proposals for alternative schools as criticism of the neighbourhood school and lack policies and protocols for establishing new types of learning environments.

The public charter school option is available to a limited number of parents in Alberta, where charter legislation was enacted in 1994. Twelve charter schools offer a diverse range of programs under five-year performance contracts (called a charter) between Alberta Learning and the school’s own governing body. Their funding is provided by Alberta Learning based on enrollment and does not include capital funds, although some facility leasing assistance is available. Originally intended to be sponsored and supervised as district-level innovations, their approval and monitoring has been solely assumed by Alberta Learning in the face of intractable opposition by the province’s school boards. Legislation restricts the number of charter schools to 15, despite lengthy waiting lists, high satisfaction levels and generally strong performance results. To receive approval, new charter schools must offer a program unique from all existing district schools. Once established, their status is far from permanent, as charter renewal is an onerous process and the legislation contemplates their potential assimilation by the local school board.

With the sole exception of a handful of charter schools, the governance and management of public education in Canada is the exclusive purview of local school boards. The majority of public schools are provided little real flexibility or decision-making powers over the allocation of their most important resources. As our accountability systems mature and the school is increasingly viewed as the unit of improvement, this lack of autonomy impedes school progress. New management theories of empowering those closest to the delivery to make decisions, the understanding that every school faces unique challenges, and recent advances in our knowledge about the processes and structures that support site-based improvement, all suggest our policies on school governance should be revisited.

In that regard, Sweden’s educational experiment with mixed management models may intrigue Canadians. Who are the new players? Are there significant differences in the operation or performance of municipal and non-municipal public schools? What is the impact on equity and resources? What factors caused Sweden’s nonmunicipal schools to flourish while Canadian charter schools stalled? A look at the Swedish experience provides some interesting answers.

In 1992, sweeping educational reforms in Sweden permitted the establishment of publicly funded alternatives to the municipally-managed school system. Independent public schools under a range of providers multiplied rapidly, offering parents new choices for the education of their children without paying tuition. By the year 2002, there were over 800 such schools, enrolling about five percent of the K-12 population overall, reaching 18 percent in some urban areas. This new mix of public and private delivery of public education reflected the Swedish government’s desire to expand choices for citizens and encourage community institutions to play a larger role in public life.

Independently managed schools in Sweden may be operated by societies, community cooperatives, associations or corporations. Subject to approval and monitoring by the National Agency for Education, they must teach the national curriculum but are permitted to specialize in educational methods, or have a language, ethnic or religious emphasis. As part of the public education system, they are open to all students and charge no tuition.

Providers wishing to establish an independent school must apply to the National Agency for Education (NAE) for approval. The local municipality is invited to respond to this application, but has no veto power, even if an adverse impact is predicted. Once approved by the NAE, schools obtain their financial support from the municipality, receiving per-pupil funding similar to municipal schools, minus an administrative holdback of approximately five percent. Having no designated capital funding, it is common for independent schools to lease a building and arrange for use of public libraries and recreational facilities instead of owning such costly features. They are forced to be more cost-effective as they are not permitted to run a deficit, but they have more flexibility over their expenditures. Surveys show they spend less on facilities, more on materials, about the same on teachers, less on support staff, the same or more on administrators, and often have smaller class sizes.

The government has prohibited schools from selective admissions based on student grades prior to grade 10 to prevent elitist tendencies and ensure equity. Non-municipal schools generally admit students in the order in which applications are received and may not refuse to enroll a student except in cases where there are great costs for special needs programs for which the municipality has not provided funds. Recent statistics show non-municipal schools have a higher percentage of single parent and immigrant families and special needs students than municipal schools.

The quality of education provided by a non-municipal school is regularly evaluated against the national standards through assessments and inspections. The schools are required to administer national exams and many also participate in municipal assessments. They receive a government inspection every two years and are subject to closure if they fail to implement any recommendations of the inspection report. They are generally inspected by the municipality as well and required to submit an annual financial and quality report.

Sweden’s decentralization of school management has had a number of observable effects. It has demonstrably increased the range of educational approaches available to families (selfpaced learning, Waldorf methods, English-only instruction, performing arts, religious or cultural foci, etc.). The outcomes with respect to student achievement, municipal management practices, labour relations and community involvement are also worth examining.

Although academic results vary by school, nonmunicipal schools generally outperform their municipal counterparts. Thirteen nonmunicipal schools are found among the top 20 secondary schools in Sweden. At the K-9 level, graduation rates and national exam scores are superior to those of municipal schools. Only one independent school has been closed for failure to provide an education meeting national standards. Economists Bergstrà¶m and Sandstrà¶m (2000) suggest the existence of independently managed schools has a positive effect on the performance of municipal schools in a region. Their statistical analysis of the achievement records for more than 30,000 students over five years concludes that “students in municipal schools benefit from the competition from independent schools…[which] has thus led municipal schools to improve the way in which they utilize their resources and, as a result, has raised the standard of education.”

The mixed-management model has been generally well accepted by Swedish society. Parent surveys at independent schools indicate high satisfaction levels. Although some municipal councils perceive the alternative schools as threats to existing schools, many councils see benefits in reduced management and capital costs. Some value the independent schools for enhancing social and economic conditions in the community by attracting new families; others value them for their ability to stimulate innovation in municipal schools. Although teachers’ unions have successfully argued that all teachers must be certified, they have not actively opposed nonmunicipal schools, which employ over 4,000 teachers, or about 4 percent of the teaching force. Some of the schools offer smaller class sizes and better working conditions, and are generally viewed as placing upward pressure on salaries and increasing opportunities for teachers.

As might be expected, they are largely an urban phenomenon, with the highest concentrations in the urbanized areas of south and central Sweden. The number of nonmunicipal schools continues to grow, with increasing demand coming from lower-income neighbourhoods and immigrant families in recent years. The most successful schools are adding new campuses to accommodate waiting lists. An education management company currently operating 15 public schools has plans to expand to a hundred sites. Bergstrà¶m and Sandstrà¶m have summarized the environmental factors that contributed to this dynamic expansion over the past decade and the widespread acceptance of privately managed public schools:

• The government regarded seriously the United Nations convention that all parents should have access to choices of free schooling for their children. Choices for all resonated with Swedish social justice values, and the concept of funding entitlements following the student was framed in terms of equity.

• Nonmunicipal schools created intriguing opportunities for experimentation and innovation in the public education system, and were not limited to special groups of students.

• The entry of firms and school chains added capital and business management expertise, entrepreneurialism, economies of scale and new ways of organizing schools.

• Immigrant populations were demanding good schools; in the absence of private schools, they were attracted to the nonmunicipal schools.

• No municipal veto was allowed: the government authorized these schools and the municipalities were required to hand over the attached funding.

• Some local education authorities viewed non-municipal schools as the ideal site-based management model desired for all schools. It relieved municipalities of the management and construction of new schools, and the experimentation and competition engen dered were perceived as beneficial stimuli to municipal schools.

• The innovation was introduced during a relatively stable time of labour peace, and teachers’ unions remained open to the opportunities they present for their members.

Additionally, Canadians will observe there are significant differences from the regulations governing Alberta’s public charter schools. Sweden has no legislative cap on the number of schools that may be approved. There are no term limits on the schools; they are expected to be permanent entities. Very few restrictions are imposed, and only minimum enrollments required (20). Most importantly, local authorities do not hold the veto over school proposals, a condition which has proven to be fundamental to their expansion.

Although there are important differences in context which must be acknowledged, the Swedish experience offers useful lessons for education policy makers in Canada about school governance and choice. The evidence suggests a number of important features of our school system could be strengthened as a result of introducing a form of Sweden’s mixed-management model. In particular, it appears to offer potential solutions to the complex challenges of improving equity, district management, labour relations and community engagement in public education.

Improving equity: Full funding for approved alternate public schools would help equalize opportunities for Canadian families of all income levels to choose their children’s schools. It would satisfy parental demands for more diverse learning environments while preserving the government’s right to set standards and monitor outcomes. It will encourage innovative approaches in areas of underachievement and narrow the socioeconomic gap by increasing success rates for at-risk students through better provision for their varied aptitudes and learning styles.

District management issues: The Swedish model offers solutions to a number of problems commonly experienced at the local level. It removes the power of local school boards to veto alternative public schools where sufficient demand exists, a present source of frustration for parents. As schools demonstrate the capacity for self-management and achieve autonomy, the administrative overhead of their local districts will be reduced. Competition from these schools could prompt districts to strengthen their systems to support school improvement and foster innovation and efficiencies. As for the troubling issue of school closures in areas of declining enrolment, small schools that opt for self-management could harness new resources and avert the long-term damage to the community entailed in the closure of the local school.

Productive labour relations: Public schools in Canada are prone to low teacher morale, job action that impedes services to students, and a chronically counterproductive labour relations climate. In contrast, Swedish teachers have strong incentives to ensure their school sustains its enrolment base by operating at optimum levels of productivity. As well, selfgoverned schools appear to have made advances in union-management cooperation. A survey of Swedish teachers who transferred from municipal to non-municipal schools found that although half the respondents stated the pace of work was faster in their new schools, more than 70 percent stated that working conditions were better in the new environment. Among the positive changes reported were that they had more influence on their own work, they received more encouragement, the school responded more positively to teacher initiatives, teacher-parent relationships were stronger and school management was better.

Strengthening community involvement: With fewer taxpayers having children in the school system than at any other time in Canadian history, attracting broadened support for education is essential. The mixedmanagement model would provide community groups the opportunity to become active players in public education and harness new resources for schools. It would, for example, permit the YMCA and other community service agencies to create unique schools in conjunction with the services they already provide to at-risk children and youth. Schools in disadvantaged neighbourhoods could remain open year-round, offering many needed community and social services for children and families. (The flexibility required to operate such “full service” schools is not currently possible under most school board policies and collective agreements.) Under wellregulated conditions that protect students and families from shoddy operators or profiteers, education management companies could contribute their expertise, and cultural and religious groups could strengthen community values and traditions through establishing public schools. Universities and teacher training institutions could develop and manage schools as educational laboratories, conducting advanced research whose findings on best practices could be shared across the system.

Today’s schools must be focused on excellence to attract and retain students and to generate the continuous progress we now expect for all groups of students. Sweden’s experience offers evidence that decentralized school management improves opportunities and outcomes for students, satisfies parental and societal expectations, harnesses new community resources and stimulates innovations and efficiencies across the system. Carefully crafted policies in Canada could be expected to achieve similar benefits.

This article is based on, Decentralization and Choice in Sweden’s School System: Policy Lessons for Canada (2002), available at www.saee.ca