Promoted by John. Excellent points. Good discussion

The Adam Smith Institute (naturally, based in Edinburgh) recently came out with a piece highlighting the approach undertaken by Sweden's government in regards to school choice .

First, does any of this sound familiar?

Our state education system is not fit for purpose: too many of our children leave school without the skills they need for life, work, or further education. Examinations are becoming ever easier, and our students’ grades are ever less reflective of their knowledge. Children from low–income families have very few educational options.

Schools are not faced with enough competition and have little incentive to improve. Many teachers are unmotivated, and are constrained by an overly elaborate National Curriculum.

It is sad that, in the UK, only the wealthiest can afford to send their child to a private school, or move into the catchment area of a good state school. The disadvantaged, however, have no choice but to have their children assigned to a state school by their Local Education Authority, even if its quality is low. Regulations prevent good state schools from expanding and make the establishment of a new school all but impossible when there are spare places in an existing state school nearby.

As a result, social mobility in the UK has been declining, and with it the prospect of living in a truly meritocratic society where skills and motivation matter more than the circumstances into which one was born.

These trends ought to be reversed. Our education system needs a thorough–going reform.

What does this have to do with Swedes?

In 1992, the Swedish government implemented an ambitious programme of education reform. Their universal open access scheme allowed parents to send their children to any approved school of their choice — whether state, private or religious — and made these schools eligible for government funding on a per–pupil basis.

Fifteen years later, it is clear that the Swedish reform has been a great success. All parents — not only those with a high enough income — now have a much wider choice of schools for their children. Greater competition has improved standards in existing state schools. The independent school sector has expanded rapidly, and many new schools have introduced innovative curricula focused on the needs and abilities of individual students. Most parents value the reform and its basic principles are now embraced by all major political parties in Sweden.

I wanted to highlight that last part in bold. It's alwas struck me as an odd thing that Democrats oppose school choice.

In 1992, the Swedish government, led by Carl Bildt of the centre–right Moderate Party, implemented a sweeping education reform: it extended school choice to all parents by introducing a universal open access scheme. These reforms were the consequence of growing popular dissatisfaction with a state–run education system, in which standards had been low and schools had paid little attention to parental concerns.

Since the Government bill on Freedom of Choice and Independent Schools and the Government bill on School Choice were passed into law by the Swedish parliament, parents have been able to send their children to state schools outside of their own municipalities or, alternatively, could take their municipality–provided funding to any non–government school of their choice.

The schools are obliged to meet some basic requirements: they cannot discriminate based on ability, ethnic origin or religion, for instance, they must enroll their students on a first–come, first–served basis, and have to be approved by the National Agency of Education (NAE). Each year, the NAE receives hundreds of requests to approve new schools. Often they are being established by teachers or parents disappointed with the education provided by their local state schools. On the list of approved schools, we find ones administered by teacher–student cooperatives, non–profit charities, as well as by private firms. All schools are, furthermore, required to meet the government–set educational standards, and to profess the fundamental values of the school system. Municipalities can comment on whether a newly proposed school would threaten, in some way, existing state schools. They do not have the right, however, to veto the NAE’s approval decision, and some new schools have been approved against the wishes of the municipalities.

Under the 1992 Swedish open access plan, NAE–approved independent schools would, for every child they enrolled, receive 85 per cent of the cost of educating a student in the municipal system. This amount was later changed: first it dropped to 75 per cent; and then, in 1997, it was increased to 100 per cent. Since 2001, the funding of independent schools has been decided on the same basis as that of municipal schools — namely, based on the specific undertaking of the school and the needs of its pupils.

The education reform in Sweden in 1992 was initially opposed by the Social Democrats (then in opposition) and other left–of–center parties. By the time that the Social Democrats returned to power in 1994, however, it had become clear that the Moderate Party’s reform had been beneficial. After all, a 1993 opinion poll conducted by the NAE found that as many as 85 per cent of Swedes “valued their new school choice rights” and 59 per cent of parents thought that the teachers “worked harder” under the new system.

The Adam Smith Institute also makes what I think is a pragmatic suggestion that I'm not sure is available in the current Swedish system. Schools within the system can not accept additional fees.

The actual study linked within this diary gives further details on participation in the program and student achievment in Sweden since implementation of the program.