IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ieadps/313934.html

Schooling for money: Swedish education reform and the role of the profit motive

Author

Listed:
  • Sahlgren, Gabriel H.

Abstract

An analysis of how the profit motive drove competition and therefore improvements in the Swedish education systemThis IEA Discussion Paper looks at the role of for-profit schools in Sweden and for the first time provides quantitative evidence regarding how these schools perform. The competition that drove improvements in the Swedish system was only possible because of the high number of for-profit schools that were established.This research clearly shows that:Under a system where profit is allowed more children have access to schools that will improve their educational achievement.For-profit schools make the competition that drives up standards possible by increasing the supply of new schools.Importantly the impact of for-profit schools tends to be greatest on those from low socio-economic backgrounds.The educational outcomes of children going to for-profit and not-for-profit schools were significantly better than those of children going to state schools (measured in terms of average school GPA, which measures pupil achievement across a broad range of subjects).Not-for-profit schools did marginally better on average than for-profit schools (raising the GPA by 5.7 points compared with the for-profit schools' impact of 4.5 points), but among schools with pupils from lower socio-economic backgrounds, for-profit schools performed better (increasing the GPA by 11.6 points).In the English education system there are around 24,600 schools; back in August this year only 62 free school applications had been made. This highlights the desperate need to encourage new schools to start up. The case of Sweden shows that increasing the supply of new schools to create sufficient competition in the system to raise standards requires encouraging schools to start up with a profit motive, yet at present this is being excluded by the coalition. In Sweden during 2008/2009 13% of schools were for-profit, while only 6% were non-profit schools. If England encouraged for-profit schools we could see a similar take up which could mean around 3,200 new schools.

Suggested Citation

  • Sahlgren, Gabriel H., 2011. "Schooling for money: Swedish education reform and the role of the profit motive," IEA Discussion Papers 33, Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ieadps:313934
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/313934/1/iea-dp033.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andersson, Christian, 2007. "Teacher density and student achievement in Swedish compulsory schools," Working Paper Series 2007:4, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    2. Ahlin, Åsa, 2003. "Does School Competition Matter? Effects of a Large-Scale School Choice Reform on Student Performance," Working Paper Series 2003:2, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    3. Andersson, Christian & Waldenström, Nina, 2007. "Teacher certification and student achievement in Swedish compulsory schools," Working Paper Series 2007:6, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    4. Sandstrom, F. Mikael & Bergstrom, Fredrik, 2005. "School vouchers in practice: competition will not hurt you," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 351-380, February.
    5. Chumacero, Romulo & Paredes, Ricardo, 2008. "Should for-profit schools be banned?," MPRA Paper 15099, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Jacob M. Markman & Eric A. Hanushek & John F. Kain & Steven G. Rivkin, 2003. "Does peer ability affect student achievement?," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(5), pages 527-544.
    7. Hensvik, Lena, 2010. "Competition, wages and teacher sorting: four lessons learned from a voucher reform," Working Paper Series 2010:8, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Böhlmark, Anders & Lindahl, Mikael, 2008. "Does School Privatization Improve Educational Achievement? Evidence from Sweden's Voucher Reform," IZA Discussion Papers 3691, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Andersson, Christian, 2007. "Teacher density and student achievement in Swedish compulsory schools," Working Paper Series 2007:4, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    3. Willmore, Larry, 2008. "Basic education as a human right redux," MPRA Paper 40478, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Böhlmark, Anders & Lindahl, Mikael, 2007. "The Impact of School Choice on Pupil Achievement, Segregation and Costs: Swedish Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 2786, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Kaire Põder & Triin Lauri, 2014. "Will Choice Hurt? Compared to What? School Choice Experiment in Estonia," TUT Economic Research Series 11, Department of Finance and Economics, Tallinn University of Technology.
    6. Oliver Himmler, 2009. "The Effects of School Competition on Academic Achievement and Grading Standards," CESifo Working Paper Series 2676, CESifo.
    7. Stephen Machin & Olmo Silva, 2013. "School Structure, School Autonomy and the Tail," CEP Reports 29, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    8. Ludger Wößmann, 2006. "Bildungspolitische Lehren aus den internationalen Schülertests: Wettbewerb, Autonomie und externe Leistungsüberprüfung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 7(3), pages 417-444, August.
    9. Robert Schwager, 2005. "PISA‐Schock und Hochschulmisere – Hat der deutsche Bildungsföderalismus versagt?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 6(2), pages 189-205, May.
    10. Maria De Paola & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2010. "Peer group effects on the academic performance of Italian students," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(17), pages 2203-2215.
    11. Anne Ardila Brenøe & Ulf Zölitz, 2020. "Exposure to More Female Peers Widens the Gender Gap in STEM Participation," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(4), pages 1009-1054.
    12. Oded Stark & Wiktor Budzinski, 2021. "A social‐psychological reconstruction of Amartya Sen’s measures of inequality and social welfare," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(4), pages 552-566, November.
    13. Steven N. Durlauf & Yannis M. Ioannides, 2010. "Social Interactions," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 451-478, September.
    14. Martin Schlotter & Guido Schwerdt & Ludger Woessmann, 2011. "Econometric methods for causal evaluation of education policies and practices: a non-technical guide," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 109-137.
    15. repec:mpr:mprres:7547 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Rhys Murrian & Paul A. Raschky & Klaus Ackermann, 2024. "Friends, Key Players and the Adoption and Use of Experience Goods," Monash Economics Working Papers 2024-17, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    17. Clifton-Sprigg, Joanna, 2014. "Educational spillovers and parental migration," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-46, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Marco Tonello, 2011. "Mechanisms of peer interactions between native and non-native students: rejection or integration?," Working Papers 2011/21, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    19. David Card & Martin D. Dooley & A. Abigail Payne, 2010. "School Competition and Efficiency with Publicly Funded Catholic Schools," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 150-176, October.
    20. Yann Bramoullé & Habiba Djebbari & Bernard Fortin, 2020. "Peer Effects in Networks: A Survey," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 603-629, August.
    21. ,, 2009. "Monopolistic group design with peer effects," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 4(1), March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:ieadps:313934. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieaaauk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.