NationStates Jolt Archive

From Sweden, no less. Which might just give it enough lefty credentials. ;)

http://www.kunskapsgymnasiet.se/foretaget/inenglish.4.1d32e45f86b8ae04c7fff213.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunskapsskolan
In contrast to most of Sweden's other schools, Kunskapsskolan functions in a way more resembling the system in the Swedish gymnasium and university. It puts much more responsibility in the hands of the pupil by removing classrooms and letting the pupil choose when, where, and what to participate in. In addition, the pupil works on his own level, which is measured in "steps" ranging from 1-35. Many pupils in the public schools feel that they may be working ahead of their class in some subjects, while being slower in others, this is a problem not present in Kunskapsskolan. Although this may sometimes lead the pupils feeling stressed and the pressure is being greater than otherwise.

It is a mystery as to how Kunskapsskolan succeeds so well. Visiting a Kunskapsskolan school, you'll quickly notice that the atmosphere is very relaxed and many pupils seem to be mostly hanging around. It is true in a sense, but Kunskapsskolan sports an average grade of MVG (Translates roughly as "Very well accepted", an American "A", "pass with great distinction"), something few governmental schools do. Generally Kunskapsskolans students may be stressed but can often be described as more satisfied.

The pupil will work by themselves with support from the teachers for their own education plan. Even though the pupils mostly seem to hang around and it doesn't look like an organised school, the pupils have a very strict plan to follow. We call it a logbook. Every morning the pupils have to take up their logbook and plan the day. The pupil themselves plan the day like a to do list. Kunskapsskolan don't put their students in classes with a teacher lecturing the pupils. Even though the planning of the day is flexible there are some things that are compulsory, among these is the "Kommunikations pass" (En: Communication pass), this is like an ordinary class in any school in Sweden. The WS (Workshops) are not compulsory like the Communication passes but are chosen by the pupil.

The education at Kunskapsskolan is very IT based, instead of giving the pupils a couple of books to work with, they have to find the steps on a website called kunskapsporten and print out the step they are working with.

Kunskapsskolan has not only steps the pupils have to work with. To spice the education even more they add things called kurser (En: Courses). In these courses you study for example social studies, science and technique. The largest difference between courses and steps is that courses are set in the school schedule, with pupils working at the same time and often in groups. In the courses, the different subjects blend to create an overlapping study on a certain subject. For example, when students do a study on the World Wars, they would not only cover the history; they would also explain the science of the period, the social changes and the causes of the events. The key word is analysis, something that is largely missing in Swedish primary education.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article3689895.ece
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11535645
Like IKEA, a giant Swedish furniture-maker, Kunskapsskolan gets its customers to do much of the work themselves. The vital tool, though, is not an Allen key but the Kunskapsporten (“Knowledge Portal”), a website containing the entire syllabus. Youngsters spend 15 minutes each week with a tutor, reviewing the past week's progress and agreeing on goals and a timetable for the next one. This will include classes and lectures, but also a great deal of independent or small-group study. The Kunskapsporten allows each student to work at his own level, and spend less or more time on each subject, depending on his strengths and weakness. Each subject is divided into 35 steps. Students who reach step 25 graduate with a pass; those who make it to step 30 or 35 gain, respectively, a merit or distinction.

Again like IKEA, no money is wasted on fancy surroundings. Kunskapsskolan Enskede, a school for 11- to 16-year-olds in a suburb of Stockholm, is a former office block into which classrooms, open-study spaces and two small lecture-theatres have been squeezed (pictured). It is pleasant, but basic and rather bare. It rents fields nearby for football and basketball, and, like other schools in the chain, sends pupils away to one of two specially built facilities for a week each term for home economics, woodwork and art, rather than providing costly, little-used facilities in the school.

Teachers update and add new material to the website during school holidays and get just seven weeks off each year, roughly the same as the average Swedish office worker. “We don't want teachers preparing lessons during term-time,” says Per Ledin, the company's boss. “Instead we steal that preparation time, and use it so they can spend more time with students.”

Many schools would be horrified to be likened to IKEA, but Mr Ledin goes one better. “We do not mind being compared to McDonald's,” he says. “If we're religious about anything, it's standardisation. We tell our teachers it is more important to do things the same way than to do them well.” He then broadens the analogy to hotels and airlines, which make money only if they are popular enough to maintain high occupancy rates.

What do you reckon? An idea for fixing America's high school system?

So you have an entire school of ILPs... creative, I have to say. It could work really well for certain subjects, especially for getting some education that mirrors on-the-job training, but I see others that may not work so well. How does one work hands-on with philosophy, for example?

Is this one of those schools where the students can work at their own pace and do what they want to do? Well no wonder they have such high grades the student detirmines what they want to do and what they should learn during the year, very cushy school to me. One of those We can't let the child fail so we will drop the standards to make sure they don't fail.

Many schools would be horrified to be likened to IKEA, but Mr Ledin goes one better. “We do not mind being compared to McDonald's,” he says. “If we're religious about anything, it's standardisation. We tell our teachers it is more important to do things the same way than to do them well.”

Very Swedish - innovative only in discovering ways to make things the same.

Tried it in the 70s. It doesn't generally work.

In any case, the high school system in the US doesn't really need fixing. For the most part it works quite well. Trouble is where it is failing it is a spectacular failure and everyone gets fixated on that. Even then that's really symptomatic of the local community rather than a problem with the school system per se.

There are similar education systems in the US, and I've always been impressed at what they do and how students respond to them...

But, then, they always hit the same brick walls of: Too many kids (Which are too wide spread), not enough money, and kids that range all over the place.

Tried it in the 70s. It doesn't generally work.

In any case, the high school system in the US doesn't really need fixing. For the most part it works quite well. Trouble is where it is failing it is a spectacular failure and everyone gets fixated on that. Even then that's really symptomatic of the local community rather than a problem with the school system per se.

Agreed. What needs to be fixed is the way schools are funded. Failing schools, which are usually in poorer communities, are punished by receiving less money, or being taken over and made into charters which fail almost as spectacularly.

-snip-
There is a school like this in my school district, except it is public. Been like this for at least a decade.

I think that the people that go there either do really bad or really good. I think the people that do really good, also tend to do really good in University to. Not really surprising, as the highschool gives them all the skills they actually use in college: how to spend all day on Facebook, how to do an entire semester of coursework in a week and a half, how to pass a test on material you have never heard of last week.

Different students will respond to different forms of education, and sometimes, as I mentioned before, different subjects will be taught in different ways. One way cannot work for everybody. Some will thrive in a more open environment as is offered in these new Swedish schools, and some students need the order and structure of a traditional classroom. If the method and affordability of funding were to improve, perhaps more options for different students can be provided.

when i had gotten kicked out of high school I went to an alternative school that had something like this. no lectures really, except for a few guest lectures from the nation of Islam and the like (well he didn't get invited back). the guest lectures were largely focused on black or Hispanic pride.

All and all a good program in one year I went from being a Freshmen to being a senior.

Tried it in the 70s. It doesn't generally work.

I remember something along this line of thought. Do you remember what these types of schools were called back then? I only remember that they were loosely connected with the Humanistic school of psychological thought.

It's an interesting idea and certainly not the first time it's been tried (or indeed the only place it's currently going on). It does sound like they have a lot more structure than the experiments done like this in the 70s but that the structure is individual to the student.

In all honesty, like all things in education, I think it will depend on the pupil. Bright or self-motivated students, who enjoy learning will do really well in them. Especially those pupils who end up getting bored and switching off in normal classrooms. Other students may not do well at all and will need a greater level of structure. One-size does not fit all, this has always been the call in education. The trouble is getting the right sizes for each individual pupil costs a lot of money and is incredibly difficult to achieve.

I remember something along this line of thought. Do you remember what these types of schools were called back then? I only remember that they were loosely connected with the Humanistic school of psychological thought.

I think they were called open classroom schools.

Works with sufficiently small classes, in sufficiently small, well equipped and funded schools, with students from a certain background. Not a potential universal solution.

It's close to my own educational theory. The problem though with doing this, is the kids really have to like learning, which means you can't ruin them in elementary school with......well, elementary school. It's really sad how the joy of learning is taken away these days.

It reminds me of the Montessori method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_method).

The only problem with applying this with Americans is that Swedish society is probably a lot less anti-intellectual, thus more children will want to actually learn in school and will not try and get around the system. In the States, on the other hand, the kids will probably just take the minimal amount of courses to pass and learn nothing in the process, because they aren't being forced to learn and won't do it on their own.

Of course, you may say "Well, so what? They lose out in the end while the smart and dedicated kids prosper..." but the problem is that this represents the majority of Americans and not a minority. If you have a stupid majority, you end up with the reputation of ignorance the U.S.A. currently has, thus exaggerating the current state of idiocy.

From Sweden, no less. Which might just give it enough lefty credentials. ;)

http://www.kunskapsgymnasiet.se/foretaget/inenglish.4.1d32e45f86b8ae04c7fff213.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunskapsskolan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article3689895.ece
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11535645


What do you reckon? An idea for fixing America's high school system?

Holy shiz-pies of justice! The Swedes have made something that works! But speaking of IKEA, that reminds me of Hungary, since they consider IKEA luxury over there...

It reminds me of the Montessori method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_method).

Montresor!

Works with sufficiently small classes, in sufficiently small, well equipped and funded schools, with students from a certain background.

Say, B. Chris Jr., Esq.? :p

Say, B. Chris Jr., Esq.? :p

Children from a household in which there introduced to reading, academia and such at an early age, and encourage to pursue it for its own end, not simply for a practical end.

http://www.narutomania.com/gallery/data/1117/house-do-want_thumbnail.jpg

Let's get 'em in the US!
What do you reckon? An idea for fixing America's high school system?
A good idea, as the USAs high schools REALLY need to be fixed.:)

The only problem with applying this with Americans is that Swedish society is probably a lot less anti-intellectual, thus more children will want to actually learn in school and will not try and get around the system. In the States, on the other hand, the kids will probably just take the minimal amount of courses to pass and learn nothing in the process, because they aren't being forced to learn and won't do it on their own.

Of course, you may say "Well, so what? They lose out in the end while the smart and dedicated kids prosper..." but the problem is that this represents the majority of Americans and not a minority. If you have a stupid majority, you end up with the reputation of ignorance the U.S.A. currently has, thus exaggerating the current state of idiocy.

The anti-intellectualism in America is a vicious cycle that will never end as long as schools operate the way they have been. All we need is one good generation of children that come out undamaged. The sad thing is it might be 3-5 generations after the education revolution, so we'll have a bunch of uneducated idiots running around for a while.

Montresor!Hm. Perhaps we do need to teach schoolchildren to wall each other up...

Children from a household in which there introduced to reading,*giggle*

*giggle*

The thing is, though, if you only quote what, in a post, is convenient, and disregard anything else, it doesn't really count does it? Prick.

Children from a household in which there introduced to reading, academia and such at an early age, and encourage to pursue it for its own end, not simply for a practical end.

I was that child! I learned to read better then my mother can (And she went to college)!

BUt... It-it turned me into the horrible monster now known only as... CM! *Lightning flashes across, maniacal laughter* :p

There are similar education systems in the US, and I've always been impressed at what they do and how students respond to them...

But, then, they always hit the same brick walls of: Too many kids (Which are too wide spread), not enough money, and kids that range all over the place.

I'm going to shock everyone here but...

I agree with NER in an education-related thread.

No, money isn't everything in education, but it is one of the major limiting factors preventing the implementation of many programs and systems.

Too many kids...well, this ties to money and resources, as well as class size.

Range of abilities. While tracking has grown a little less popular in the US, it is still used in some way in most school districts. I only know of one that uses no tracking. Thusfar, teachers aren't loving it, though it is too soon to see how it will result. Not every student is motivated to learn. Is it fair to those that are that they are tied together?

I'm going to shock everyone here but...

I agree with NER in an education-related thread.

No, money isn't everything in education, but it is one of the major limiting factors preventing the implementation of many programs and systems.

Too many kids...well, this ties to money and resources, as well as class size.

Range of abilities. While tracking has grown a little less popular in the US, it is still used in some way in most school districts. I only know of one that uses no tracking. Thusfar, teachers aren't loving it, though it is too soon to see how it will result. Not every student is motivated to learn. Is it fair to those that are that they are tied together?

No fairer than shoehorning the intelligent and unintelligent in the same classes; it impinges upon the development, and prospects, of both.

The thing is, though, if you only quote what, in a post, is convenient, and disregard anything else, it doesn't really count does it?Are you saying you never nitpick?

There are similar education systems in the US, and I've always been impressed at what they do and how students respond to them...

But, then, they always hit the same brick walls of: Too many kids (Which are too wide spread), not enough money, and kids that range all over the place.

Open classroom was very popular in the 1970s when I was in school. Ten years later, they got rid of it.

I liked it, but I'm not sure it was a good thing for everyone. I was able to take classes ahead of my grade level whenever I wanted - something that isn't as easy to do in the current local curriculum.

I thought it was good for the students who wanted to learn, and who were interested in school, and bad for the rest of them.

No fairer than shoehorning the intelligent and unintelligent in the same classes; it impinges upon the development, and prospects, of both.
That's what I was saying...I'm for tracking. Sorry if I was unclear.

That's what I was saying...I'm for tracking. Sorry if I was unclear.

What, forgive me, is tracking?

I'm personally an advocate of selection.

I like the idea. Standard schooling practices hold some students back. If some excel under such a system as that in the OP, they should have the opportunity to make use of that system.

I like the idea. Standard schooling practices hold some students back. If some excel under such a system as that in the OP, they should have the opportunity to make use of that system.

The message I am getting from this thread is that education really needs to be privatized so schools can start competing and trying new things.

What, forgive me, is tracking?

I'm personally an advocate of selection.

Tracking is seperating students based on ability...for example, in my high school, freshmen could be in standard English or accelerated English...then sophomores and juniors could be in standard, accelerated, or honors, and seniors could be in standard, accelerated, honors, or AP. In order to jump up a level, you had to have a teacher reccomendation and an 85 or higher.

Basically, students are placed in classes where each student is on par with their achievement level. The classes are tailored to the ability of those students: standard classes move slower and have more guidance, honors and AP classes move quickly and have more independent work. The difference in ability is generally narrow.

Without tracking, the lowest achieving student may be in the same class as the highest...the lowest gets dragged along as the class moves too fast for them, while the highest are left bored.

Education theory says teach to the highest and the rest will catch up. Sadly, this is rarely the case as the lower students get frustrated.

Anyway, as far as my opinion goes, it seems like an interesting idea, but I don't think it would work for me personally. I do much better in a structured learning environment than one in which there is this much free time.

Basically, students are placed in classes where each student is on par with their achievement level. The classes are tailored to the ability of those students: standard classes move slower and have more guidance, honors and AP classes move quickly and have more independent work. The difference in ability is generally narrow.


It's an excellent idea, and I believe it is used a lot in the UK as well, although it's generally known as streaming.

I was educated in Belgium, where they don't stream as such. At least in "generale" although poor students tend to get held back a year and/or streamed off to vocational education training. It still means you get a wide-range of abilities in a single class and it did not benefit either the poor students, who would get into a cycle of failing the year and having to repeat or the really bright ones who got really really bored (I know I certainly did). Especially as it was mostly about learning facts rather than analysing information and thinking for yourself.

I don't think money spent on surroundings is money wasted. Even the look of a building has an effect on its occupants. The new main building of my high school looked more like a jail than Juvenile Hall did. And it definitely caused resentment because of that. How could we possibly take it seriously? It was low-ceilinged as well, causing a claustrophobic feel. Demoralizing, I'd say. The middle school I attended was a collection of squat cinder block buildings with hardly any windows, surrounded by a high fence. It frequently was compared to a concentration camp. I know kids will deride their school no matter how nice it looks, but why make it easy?

It's true at University level as well. Everybody I know hates it when their classes are in Classroom Unit 2 because it's an ugly piece of shit inside and out. Sorry, but surroundings matter.

Now, I know that wasn't the main point of the article, but I think maybe I was just waiting for a chance to rant on this, and the article just set me off.

the problem with the US is sports in high school. remove them and the only way to excel and get the girls is be academic.

The message I am getting from this thread is that education really needs to be privatized so schools can start competing and trying new things.

Nope, definitely not. Possibly give them more freedoms, within a common framework (some form of national curriculum). Free education for everyone is a principle upon which our nations were built and to remove that (which privatization inevitably would) will have severe consequences for both our society (with drastically reduced social mobility) and our economy.

I don't think money spent on surroundings is money wasted. Even the look of a building has an effect on its occupants. The new main building of my high school looked more like a jail than Juvenile Hall did. And it definitely caused resentment because of that. How could we possibly take it seriously? It was low-ceilinged as well, causing a claustrophobic feel. Demoralizing, I'd say. The middle school I attended was a collection of squat cinder block buildings with hardly any windows, surrounded by a high fence. It frequently was compared to a concentration camp. I know kids will deride their school no matter how nice it looks, but why make it easy?

It's true at University level as well. Everybody I know hates it when their classes are in Classroom Unit 2 because it's an ugly piece of shit inside and out. Sorry, but surroundings matter.

Now, I know that wasn't the main point of the article, but I think maybe I was just waiting for a chance to rant on this, and the article just set me off.
Milieu is one of the things discussed in modern education theory, as it has a huge impact upon school culture and climate.
the problem with the US is sports in high school. remove them and the only way to excel and get the girls is be academic.
Um...how do sports have any impact? If anything, the grade restrictions (you must carry a C or better in all classes in many school districts) motivate other students, as well as giving them an outlet and better relationships with the faculty.
The message I am getting from this thread is that education really needs to be privatized so schools can start competing and trying new things.
No. Privatized education would lead to the abandonment of rural communities, poor education for special ed students, and increased costs among other issues.

It's possible that regardless of the system, a certain number of slow or lazy or indifferent people will be left behind by any particular education system.

The question is, what percentage are you willing to leave in the dirt.

Haha, I just got around to reading the actual article in the economist (print version, excellent shitting material).

It's quite a bit more than just open classroom. And yes, it could fix a lot of things.