To be able to read more easily at a faster pace and at a higher level

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has had a pilot project for twelve years in primary school, in practice upper secondary school, and in upper secondary school. This means that in about thirty schools in Sweden, there are advanced classes. It means that the students who study in such a class in primary school, in practice, study at an upper secondary level, and in upper secondary school, they study at a significantly faster pace than in a standard national upper secondary program. This exists in natural science subjects, social studies subjects, and even in some languages.

This is very good. We introduced it when we had a coalition government. It was in 2012 that it entered into force. It has been a pilot project. Our ambition from the Liberals' side has constantly been that it should become permanent. That is our view. We also see from the evaluations and surveys that are conducted that people are very positive about this.

There is a group of students in Swedish schools who are very high-performing. They must be given more stamina and greater challenges and opportunities than they often receive in the regular classroom, if I put it that way. The advanced classes provide an opportunity for students who are very talented. Often, entrance exams are required to be admitted to such an education.

Even when my party and the Centre Party had a budget cooperation with the Social Democrats and the Green Party - that is, what was called the January Agreement - we had the ambition to make the peak classes permanent, but that did not happen, because the agreement collapsed prematurely. But now the government is submitting a bill so that they can become permanent. From the Liberals' side, we think it is very important.

The proposal in the bill also means that it shall be possible to read certain subjects at a high school level in primary school. We are therefore also opening up for this. In the Government Offices, this is now being prepared and work is being done on how different regulations should be designed for those who are to be able to conduct these educations. A school or a municipality shall be able to submit an application for this to Skolverket, and in that case, it is of course important how the regulations look, so that this is not watered down but that we, on the contrary, have very high ambitions.

The students who are very talented and high-performing should be given the opportunity to attend a specialized class. Ultimately, it is about Sweden and our future as a country of innovation. The fact that we have talented young people who need to receive more challenges in school should definitely not be set in opposition to others who need important interventions in school, for example students who need more support and so on. They shall also receive it.

From the Liberals' side, this is about our view on knowledge and education – that every student, every child and every youth should constantly be able to receive new challenges and that we should have high ambitions – and also about a view of humanity where we do not want to mold everyone into the same form. We have today a school where we know that some students need more support, but there are also some students who can move faster forward. That is the background to the bill.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Vänsterpartiet considers the part of the bill concerning the establishment of permanent and nationally recruiting elite educations to be insufficiently prepared. Crucial risk assessments, delimitations, and consequence analyses are missing. Vänsterpartiet also does not think that the recommendations from Skolverket's previous reports have been taken into account, except for the one concerning making the educations permanent. This is perhaps not actually so strange, as it would mean that one expands the market school, which the Liberalerna and the government in large do not seem to have anything against. One also does not define which target group is to benefit from the proposal.

The proposals to establish special national recruitment elite programs were not included in the memorandum that was referred to a broader group, but were added afterwards. Consequently, few actors and referral bodies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. One only has to look at the referral responses.

Now, Member Fredrik Malm is the chairman of the Education Committee. My question is: Does the Member think that the proposal now being presented is well-reasoned by the government?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have noted that there is some criticism that primarily focuses on procedural and preparatory issues. In practice, it is probably better if one is honest from the Left Party's side and says that one did not want this. It is thought that it contributes to increased inequality in society that the students who are most high-performing and learn the fastest get more "tuggmotstånd" (resistance/challenge).

This challenges the Left Party's entire view on school, on society, and on people. We have different views here.

From the Liberals' side, we start from the individual - the individual student in this case. If a student is very good at, for example, mathematics and technology, that student should be able to apply to a nationally recruiting education in a top-class program with this proposal. Otherwise, these children and young people risk only being held back. They learn in no time, and school becomes no challenge for them.

This is what the Left Party is fundamentally against, Mr. Speaker, but they sugarcoat it and say that the proposal is poorly presented or that it is an unclear target group. The target group is not at all unclear in this! The target group is those who seek such an education. To define it in advance is actually not possible or desirable. It is the young people who seek the education. The criteria that shall apply for admission and such are now being prepared in the Government Offices. Everything cannot be in the Education Act, but different types of regulations are drawn up.

I find it very difficult to understand the Left Party's criticism. The Council on Legislation has had no objections. The vast majority of referral bodies are positive. It is a completely conventional legislative product. Then the Left Party is against this for ideological reasons. I can understand that, but I think it is a good proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Member Fredrik Malm did not answer my question. Does he think the proposal is well-founded?

Fredrik Malm says that Vänsterpartiet would in some way be against all students receiving an equal education. That is not true. Vänsterpartiet has not said anything about students who have a hard time in school or students who need greater challenges and need to study at a more advanced level not being allowed to receive an equal education.

The Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) has pointed out in its reports on these specialized educations for over ten years that they are not against making them permanent, but that the problems existing with today's pilot projects must be addressed. But this is not mentioned by the government. Problems that several primary and secondary schools raise are that specialized education costs more than other education, which is due to extended teaching time, that classes are not always full, that teaching takes place in smaller groups than a full class, that one incurs increased costs for staff and teaching materials, and so on. Another problem is the selection process and what gives, for example, a primary school student the right to take a secondary school course in mathematics. Here, there is a risk that subjective interests play a role. The possibility of offering student housing is also a problem.

If the government had taken into account Skolverket's previous reports and recommendations, in addition to the one concerning making the training permanent, one could have presented a much better proposal. But the government has not done so. I therefore ask again: Does the member not think that something should have been done differently when the bill was drafted?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is almost a bit touching with the Left Party's great commitment to rectifying the shortcomings in this system. The truth is that the Left Party has been against this from day one. On one hand, it is said that this will become a market school and that a lot of actors will enter with the aim of making a profit. On the other hand, it is said that the educations are expensive and require more resources. Yes, it definitely requires a commitment from the school. High demands are set, and that is the whole point of the elite classes. The state subsidy for these educations does not cover all costs, but is somewhere between 20 million and 30 million kronor for this year.

Mr. Speaker! If we give this form of education a firmer structure, it will be clearer for those who run the elite classes what the rules are. Then they can avoid the unpredictability and uncertainty. With a pilot project, they do not know, for example, if the Vänsterpartiet in a future government will stop it. If it becomes permanent, it also provides a greater opportunity for follow-up, and if there are deficiencies in the system, they must, of course, be corrected.

The core of this, however, is that we have a group of students who are very good in school, learn quickly, and would benefit from being in an intellectual environment where they receive more challenges and can be accommodated to learn even more in the future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that a basic requirement for a bill on a completely new school form should be that it defines which students are to attend this school form. Fredrik Malm makes it very easy for himself and says that those who apply are the target group. In the government's bill, there is talk of 0.1 percent of the students in a year group, but also of 20 percent of the students in a year group. It does matter somewhat for how the system is to function in practice whether it is one or the other that applies, or if it is even the case that everyone who applies is the target group. Who is actually the target group, Fredrik Malm?

To further demonstrate how poorly thought out and strange the proposal is, I shall pose another question. When a student is admitted to a specialized education in a subject, the specialized education provider must procure a school path for the student somewhere else in the country with another provider. If the providers do not reach an agreement, what right does the student then have to complete the specialized education? And who shall resolve the dispute over who is to pay what for the student? This basic information is completely missing from the government's bill, and I think it is quite important to clarify this before we make a decision.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I noted the Left Party's objections earlier, and now I note the Social Democrats' objections and say the same thing: fundamentally, this is your way of saying that you do not want to give the talented students this opportunity because it threatens your basic view on Swedish school. This is classic, and there is even an expression for it in Sweden: the law of Jante. The Social Democrats' basic assumption is that if a student who is very talented is allowed to move faster, it jeopardizes the opportunities for the large student collective to develop in school. I am completely against that basic assumption and argue that every student must be met with as high expectations as possible in Swedish school.

The pilot project has existed for twelve years, and now we want to make it permanent. In the Government Offices, the various provisions are being prepared, for example, for entrance exams and such contractual matters as Åsa Westlund mentions, for instance what happens if a student studies for half the time and then wants to return to a regular class. There are certainly some parts that must be looked at more closely, but the pilot project has existed for twelve years. Now we are making it permanent, which I am very positive about.

In conclusion: The target group will be the students who apply for these programs. The Government must return to where the bar should be set regarding prior knowledge requirements in order to be admitted.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am actually dismayed. We are not discussing making the pilot project permanent without the government establishing a completely new school form, and the government's basis does not even seem to have understood that.

The Liberals are now cooperating with a party that operates a troll factory. A well-known procedure when one cannot argue for one's position is to invent a position that the opponent does not have and argue against it. That is exactly what Fredrik Malm is doing now.

Fredrik Malm does not answer any of my rather fundamental questions. Which students shall attend this school form? Previously, Fredrik Malm said that it does not need to be defined in the Education Act. But it is defined for other school forms. Why not for this one?

Fredrik Malm also invents that the Social Democrats are actually against this entire idea. But the truth is that during the January cooperation we established the possibility for this pilot project, and we stand behind the investigated and fully processed proposals the government has presented to guarantee that students across the country will be able to get ahead and develop faster. But we say no to very rushed proposals that risk exacerbating today's situation where profit-driven actors try to cherry-pick the raisins from the cake and deliver a substandard quality for the students.

I will give Fredrik Malm a chance. Who is it that is going to attend this form of school? It does, after all, matter for the Riksdag as an institution whether it is 20 percent or 50 percent of Sweden's students who are going to attend this form of school? It must be possible to answer that.

The second question is: What rights do students have when there is a discrepancy regarding who bears the responsibility for ensuring they receive the education they have been admitted to?

There are two fundamental things that the government does not answer in the bill. Fredrik Malm is given a turn.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! We are establishing a completely new school form, say the Social Democrats. That is not quite right. The pilot project that has existed for twelve years corresponds to approximately 750 students for primary school if all these 25 schools have a cap of 30 students. One school year in Sweden consists of just over 100,000 young people, and it is therefore 750 in each school year that today have the opportunity to attend such a specialized class.

I think that is a bit little, Mr. Speaker. I would gladly see more such advanced classes, because it is obvious that we have youths in Sweden who would benefit from attending such a class and truly receiving those challenges in their schooling.

In the proposal, one also sees that it is consistently about there being an opportunity to attend such a class. If one attends upper secondary school, one should not have to move to another city; instead, opportunities should be given to contracting solutions and other measures so that one can at least study certain subjects at a faster pace and stay at home with one's parents in the home town.

Åsa Westlund speaks about low quality. I do not understand that, Mr. Speaker. The whole point of this is that we are to have high quality in this teaching directed at students who are very high-performing, in order to give them the opportunity to develop further in school.

Every time such questions come up, the Social Democrats get a bit uneasy. They think it is okay that students who are good at singing can attend Adolf Fredriks music classes or that those who are good at sports can attend a national sports gymnasium. But if you are good at mathematics? If you are good at Swedish and humanities, should you not be able to attend a specialized class then? Is it only about sports and music? Why not also theoretical subjects?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party thinks that in substance it is very good that there is an opportunity for students who have an extra talent and skill to be able to receive stimulation and study at a level that corresponds to their abilities. In substance, we are therefore in agreement with the government that this is an important proposition.

One can say that there are two things to consider when submitting bills and propositions. One is to do the right things. Here, we believe that the government has done the right thing. The other is to do the things right, and that is where it starts to become problematic.

I am also in agreement with the Social Democratic member regarding how large the reform actually is. It is being spoken of as a target group of between 0.1 and 20 percent for a new school form where we do not really know how many who will be affected, how much it will cost, or how the financing will be handled.

We find it unfortunate that a half-finished proposal is being placed on the floor of the Riksdag. I would very much like Member Fredrik Malm to further comment on the following: How large is this reform? What will it cost the Swedish state? How many students will be affected?

A completely new school form is to be introduced and become part of Swedish law. The law is to enter into force on July 2, and the system is intended to start functioning by the autumn. But there are still an enormous number of uncertainties. How large is the reform?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! In primary school, this concerns, as I mentioned, a little more than 700 students. The scope is similar in upper secondary school. These classes have been conducted as pilot projects that governments have extended, and one is always a bit worried about whether the activity will be extended so that a new intake can be made for the autumn and so on. One has always lived in a certain uncertainty.

This pilot project is now becoming permanent, and since we see that there are very many capable, committed, high-performing, and intelligent young people who should also be given the opportunity to attend such a class, we think that there should be opportunities for an additional number of such classes. We therefore open up for further such classes to be started. The regulatory framework for this is now being prepared within the Government Offices, and the responsible authority will be Skolverket.

The opposition interprets this as meaning that every fifth student will attend a top-class. Yes - if it were the case that 20 percent of Sweden's youth performed that well, that would be one thing. My view is that it will be significantly fewer than that. Today we are talking about 1,500 young people who attend such top-classes. But we also open up for the possibility that certain subjects can be studied at a faster pace in primary school.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is the Centre Party's. Unlike the Social Democrats and the Left Party, the Centre Party says that they think this is good in substance. But after the next election, the Centre Party wants to govern with the Social Democrats and the Left Party, who want to tear all of this up. In their reservation, they want to reject the entire bill. It will probably be a bit problematic for the Centre Party to put that together, I believe.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! There we also got a bit of game theory for free!

Our objection concerns how the government prepares the matters and specifically this matter regarding a new school form to be studied at a faster pace at a higher level.

"Today's major societal challenges require long-term and well-considered political decisions. Therefore, Saco and the 21 Saco federations view with concern how the investigation and referral system is being eroded. The risk is obvious that we will get poorly substantiated laws that cannot be applied to the problems they are intended to solve."

This is what Saco says, and it is quite much on point, as is the Centerpartiet's criticism. Here we have a long-awaited reform to provide the opportunity to study at a higher level, but there is an obvious risk that everything will turn into a mess, Mr. Speaker. We do not know how it will turn out. On July 2, this is to become law. By the autumn, authorities, municipalities, and schools shall work according to the new law.

We find it incomprehensible that a proposal can be placed on the Riksdag's table that is not fully prepared. We do not even know the size of the reform. How many will be affected? How much money will be required? How large is the financing?

Does Fredrik Malm see any problems with the fact that it has gone too fast and that it is an unfinished product that the Riksdag is forced to make decisions on? That is actually the central criticism.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! This is becoming a bit tiresome. We have had a pilot project that has been running for twelve years. We are now making this activity permanent. Then the Center Party says that it will all turn into a mess.

We are therefore opening up so that one can apply to start such a training program. It will become a mess of everything, says Centerpartiet, and the target group is too weakly defined. But that is not the case. The target group is those who apply for these programs. If there is space and one meets the admission requirements, one gets in.

I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, that in Sweden there are no problems whatsoever with young people who are very good at football being able to play in academies and attend football high schools. If you are very good at swimming, you can attend a swimming high school. If you are good at singing, you can attend music classes with national admission.

When it comes to sports and music, one can be as skilled as one likes. Then one should be pressured. Everyone is to become the next Zlatan and so on. But when it comes to theoretical subjects, it always starts to grate a bit on the left side, Mr. Speaker. Is this really good? Should we? When I grew up, Mr. Speaker, it was the question of general and specific mathematics that was said to challenge the entire equality in Sweden and so on.

In the Education Act, our most important legislative document for schools, it is very clearly stated that students shall be given stimulation so that they develop as far as possible. What the bill does now, Mr. Speaker, is to give our school providers better opportunities to live up to that obligation. The providers have the responsibility to ensure that all students develop as far as possible. Now we are giving them additional opportunities. It is voluntary to participate, and it is voluntary to apply for the courses. That is, of course, great.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservations number 1 and 3.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats want to build a school where no student falls behind or is held back. It already appears in the Education Act today that all children and students have the right to guidance and stimulation in order to be able to develop as far as possible. This means that children shall be given the conditions to succeed regardless of who they are, where they come from, or which school they attend.

The school must therefore ensure that students who need extra support receive it and ensure that extra challenges are given to those students who can and want to run ahead. Unfortunately, it often fails in both ends today. Many students receive neither the support they need nor the challenge they need in today's school. Crucial for more to receive it is that the school receives sufficient financial resources and that the school is organized in a way that makes as much as possible of the resources actually go to teaching. But it also requires certain state regulatory changes.

During the previous parliamentary term, the Social Democratic-led government worked to ensure that students in multiple school forms could more easily study at a faster pace and at a higher level. Parts of the proposals are now being continued by the government. We stand behind the parts that concern clarifying and enabling students in both primary schools and upper secondary schools to study at a faster pace and at a higher level within the framework of regular school.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the government's proposal on national recruitment elite educations, it is unfortunately another matter. We Social Democrats believe that properly designed national recruitment elite educations would be a way for more students to be able to study at a more challenging level, not least in upper secondary school. It is important to give exceptionally gifted children, who often fare poorly in the Swedish school system, a better education than they receive today. But the proposal that the government has now laid before the Riksdag is so deficient that we Social Democrats do not stand behind it. The reasons are as follows.

The part of the bill concerning the establishment of permanent and nationally recruiting elite educations is both poorly prepared and designed in a way that risks reinforcing the quality problems that we already see in Swedish schools. The bill does not address anywhere the obvious risk of increased marketization and profit-seeking that the government's proposal would lead to.

Profit-making schools already use unfair selection systems and grade manipulation as marketing to raise their status and attract profitable students. Although the government is practically proposing that an entirely new and unlimited market system for elite education be opened, risk assessments, delimitations, and consequence analyses of how this will function in a system with profit-making actors are lacking.

Nowhere in the bill are the risks and specific challenges that the proposal may entail in a system where it is not the students' best interests that are decisive for all actors, but rather the profit interest. Despite recurring reports on how independent schools act to increase profitability at the expense of the quality of the students' education, the government ignores that many school owners have profit as their primary purpose.

There are more serious deficiencies in the preparation of the bill. The proposals to establish special recruitment-oriented elite educations were not included in the memorandum that was referred to a broader group, but they were added afterwards. Few actors have thus been given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Many have surely, just as we have heard previously, interpreted it as a permanent status for the pilot project, neither more nor less. But that is not the case, rather, here the government proposes a completely new form of schooling.

Another fatal flaw is that the target group for the nationally recruiting elite educations is not defined in the government's proposal. It does not appear from the government's proposal whether the target group for the elite education is the 20 percent of students described as high-performing or the 0.1-0.5 percent described as extremely gifted. It also does not state how the students are to be selected.

Since the target group is not defined, it is completely impossible for the Riksdag to, based on the proposal, get a picture of how this will affect the students' knowledge acquisition and the Swedish school system as a whole. We Social Democrats believe that the Riksdag cannot make decisions on a new form of education without even knowing which target group the new school form is intended for.

Another deficiency is that there is an obvious risk of quality problems. The government's choice to allow the majority of a student's education, all subjects except one, to be outsourced to a location other than where the principal is located, i.e., the nationally recruiting elite education and its principal, raises major questions about how the quality at the other end shall be guaranteed.

The government is unconcerned in its proposal regarding the contracting procedure in primary schools, and it is noted that there are rules for schools' quality in other legislations. This despite the fact that we already today know and have many examples of schools with quality problems, not least profit-driven ones, even though education on a contract basis places completely different demands on the principals than conducting the education within the framework of the same organization and geographical area.

Specialized education is currently being conducted as a pilot project. But the government's bill therefore goes significantly further and makes the activity permanent and opens it up to as many actors as desired. The experiences from the pilot project also say nothing about what consequences a further extent of unregulated activity with nationally recruiting specialized education would have for the school system and the students' learning outcomes.

The proposal that the government now intends to push through in the Riksdag risks impoverishing the quality in both the specialized education and in other school activities, fueling the destructive pursuit of profit in schools, and contributing to a further decrease in equality in Swedish schools. This is happening completely without a solid investigation. Therefore, I argue that these proposals must be rejected so that the government, after having conducted a solid impact analysis and a proper preparatory process, can return to the Riksdag with proposals on how students' right to read at a faster and higher pace can be further strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! When the Moderate-led government pushed through the market school in the early 1990s, the OECD warned that the consequences of the insufficiently investigated proposals would result in school segregation and reduced equality. At that time, the right-wing parties ignored the warnings and pushed through the market school anyway.

When a Moderate-led government once again puts forward poorly investigated proposals that risk further marketizing Swedish schools and increasing the pursuit of profit at the expense of quality, equity, and resource efficiency, it shows that they have learned nothing from their mistakes. It also shows that the School Minister's speech about the government now having opened its eyes to the destructive impact of profit interests on Swedish schools is merely empty words, which in no way affect the government's actual actions. Instead, the government's proposals, with the School Minister at the helm, open up new markets for profit-driven actors.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! What is there to say?

We should probably start with a correction, so that Åsa Westlund does not engage in any disinformation in the chamber. It is mentioned that the target group should be 20 percent, but if one reads the documents properly, the definition of high-performing students shows that they are somewhere between 15 and 20 percent, that is to say, not 20 percent. This figure can also vary depending on which year one belongs to and the like. It is 15-20 percent. The particularly gifted are counted as 2-10 percent, and the extremely gifted are 0.1-0.5 percent. If we are to adhere to the proposition and the figures that appear there, I think we should be accurate. It is not 20 percent, but it is 15-20 percent.

But I wonder about something - if what the government is doing is so dangerous and terrible. The Social Democrats are now saying that they have nothing against investing in high-performance as well. Why didn't they present a proposal last mandate period? Why did no proposal come to make the elite educations permanent last period? Then one could have worked out this in the way that the Social Democrats wanted. Why didn't it come? You would have received support for it. We would have voted for it. You would have received support for this. But nothing came. Why did nothing come?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! The proposals that we are voting on today have been very much elaborated by the Social Democratic government. All the proposals that we Social Democrats say yes to here are thoroughly investigated, prepared, and elaborated by the Social Democratic government.

You have added an extra item about not only making the pilot project with specialized education permanent but also introducing a completely new school form - with very short notice. We oppose that.

There is much, Mr. Speaker, that I wish we Social Democrats had been able to do and had time for during the years we sat in government. But this is an area where we have nevertheless done quite a lot. We have prepared for the government. One might ask why the government delayed so long in presenting this proposal. Almost half of the parliamentary term has passed. This was essentially finished in the Government Offices.

I have a question for Patrick Reslow. He is part of the government base and therefore stands behind the government when it says that one has been naive regarding independent schools, that it is now necessary to reform, that schools actually do not belong on the stock exchange and that profit is a destructive driver in Swedish schools. How has this new perspective entered the government's work with this bill, Patrick Reslow? That is what I wonder.

Mr. Speaker! I wonder if Patrick Reslow has reflected at all on the fact that this is completely missing from the bill, since it is now being said that one has opened one's eyes to the destructive power of profit interests.

Here we have a form of education that is super important for the students who need it, but it also risks attracting students who feel pressured. There is a risk that parents will pressure the school and so on, and that in different ways, people will want to cherry-pick the cake to get more profitable students. One should, therefore, have considered the destructive power of profit interests. How does this manifest in this bill, Patrick Reslow?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We do not share the description of profit interests and the like that the Social Democrats do. We have had that debate several times, so we shall leave it there.

The interesting thing here is that Åsa Westlund is now saying that this was finished in the Government Offices. Why did it take so long? Yes, it was not finished. It was not the case that there was anything so that one could start this directly. Why was that not there? It was not the Social Democrats who were driving this issue. It was the Liberals who were driving this issue in the January agreement. Then the Liberals dropped out, and all of a sudden there was no interest from the Social Democrats' side to implement this. They did not want any permanent status for the elite classes, because this does not lie in the Social Democrats' ideology. That is why.

But if the Social Democrats had wanted to have a proposal on the table that could have entered into force much earlier, it could have been presented during the autumn of 2021 or the spring of 2022, and one could have sought support from the Sweden Democrats. We would have voted for it.

The important thing is that high-performing students receive all the challenges they can get. This country needs it. But the Social Democrats were not interested, and now one hides behind the Liberals and tries to make it seem as if it was the Social Democrats who pushed this through and that it was already settled in the Government Offices. This only shows a lack of agility from the Social Democrats.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is very clearly stated in the committee report and in the bill that it is based on the memorandum that the Social Democratic-led government prepared and which has been processed in the proper order.

I note that Patrick Reslow has no answers to the questions that are quite fundamental if one is to establish a completely new form of education in Sweden, for which there should be support in the law.

What is the target group? Even Patrick Reslow talks about student groups of between 0.1 and 20 percent of a year group. This plays a certain role for us in the Riksdag to be able to assess the proposal and whether the mechanisms presented there are sufficient or even relevant to be able to handle such a student group. We cannot do this because the government cannot even answer who is to attend these schools.

It is completely absurd that the Sweden Democrats accept that a government submits such poorly prepared proposals, which lack the most basic information for the Riksdag, which is Sweden's highest decision-making body, to be able to make a fully informed decision.

There are also no rights for these students. They might take an entrance exam - we do not know if it is to take place, as it is not stated in the legislation - and are eventually admitted to these elite educations. What happens if their home municipality or school nearby does not want to enter into an agreement with the elite education organizer? Do the students then no longer have this right? Who is to provide this? Neither that do we find out in this proposition.

I think it is quite remarkable that Members of Parliament feel secure with this product. It lacks answers to essential questions, and it definitely does not take into account that we do not only have schools that care about the students' best interests, but also those that see their own profit as the most important.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish school has many big problems. We have a gigantic need for reforms in Swedish school. It is about getting the safety problems and the lack of study environment in order, about getting more skilled teachers who can and want to teach in Swedish school, and about getting the knowledge results in order. I have only mentioned a few of the large reform areas that we are now tackling.

A piece of this is in the bill we are debating today. It concerns the possibility for skilled students to study at a slightly faster pace and to receive a bit more stimulation in their studies.

I should perhaps not be too surprised that the Social Democrats also land on wins and win prohibitions here. It is, so to speak, what all issues in Swedish school seem to be about. One lands on this instead of actually tackling the real problems that exist in Swedish school and which the Social Democrats have turned a blind eye to for years.

But it actually shines through when Åsa Westlund now debates that what perhaps actually chafes in this is about something else. It is about that one actually does not want to see the possibility for skilled students to read at a faster pace.

Åsa Westlund talks about parents who pressure their children to read a little faster. Why, Åsa Westlund and the Social Democrats, are you not honest and state that you do not want to see this opportunity for students to get additional stimulation and to read at a faster pace? Your entire worldview turns against this. Everyone is to be pressed into the same mold.

This is a fantastic opportunity for students, and it has been shown during the twelve years of pilot activity that it is something that is in demand. Why do you not want to see this, Åsa Westlund?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! One might then ask why we Social Democrats vote for exactly that which Josefin Malmqvist accuses us of being against - when we vote on this proposition. We are voting for a large number of students' opportunity to study at a higher level and at a faster pace.

What we are saying no to is the new school form. Josefin Malmqvist and the rest of the government base unfortunately cannot even explain which target group it is for or how it is supposed to work in practice. I think it is a requirement of integrity that the Riksdag says no to such poor proposals.

We do not say no to students being able to read at a faster pace. We say yes to it. It is clearly stated in the report - Josefin Malmqvist would have known that if she had taken an interest in this instead of painting completely untrue pictures.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask questions to Josefin Malmqvist. The government has been very clear that there is a destructive force with profit interests in Swedish schools. In what way will it be expressed that the government has that insight when it now presents a proposal for a completely new school form? Can Josefin Malmqvist give an example of how, in the government's proposition, they have reflected on how the new school form should function in a school market where actors do not have the students' best interests in mind, but profit according to the articles of association?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! I actually do not know where to begin. Åsa Westlund refers to the committee report and asks if I have read it. Of course I have! I therefore intended to read a bit aloud for Åsa Westlund because many questions are actually preserved in the committee report - as it happens!

On page 21, among other things, the concern that Åsa Westlund expresses here regarding the so-called profit-seeking in Swedish schools is described. This is an area that the government has addressed. We have appointed an inquiry which is now working to tackle the deviations that exist within Swedish schools. It will present its inquiry proposal on 28 February 2025. At that time, Åsa Westlund and we others in this chamber will again have the opportunity – also this time by reason of an inquiry appointed by this government which is now tackling the problems we see in Swedish schools – to discuss concrete proposals on how we can close the gaps we see in Swedish schools specifically regarding that issue.

The second question mentioned by Åsa Westlund is answered on page 20 of the report. It concerns the preparation process for the nationally recruiting elite educations. There, it is quite well described which process has been carried out in the preparatory work. It concerns the assignment that Skolverket has had between the years 2015 and 2023, during which Skolverket has provided an annual report. Åsa Westlund can read more about the scope and design of this on page 20 of the report.

I return to my question. It is quite obvious that Åsa Westlund, between the lines, is arguing against students being given extra stimulation and extra opportunity to read further. That is also why you are now reserving yourselves against the proposal in the report. Can Åsa Westlund here, with a straight back, say why you have not pushed for this earlier? Why have we not previously had this opportunity in Sweden, if you are actually in favor of this?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Josefin Malmqvist would have gladly read all the pages in the report; she still would not have been able to answer the question that I asked. One can refer to other things, but it does not help if one cannot answer the question, namely how consideration has been taken of the fact that there are profit-driven actors in this market when the proposal on specialized educations, which are to take effect this summer, was designed.

The answer to this is: Not at all. It is not possible to read in the report, because it is not there. One assumes that there are only schools that want all students' well-being, despite the government in article after article speaking about having now come to an insight. One has been naive, and one has realized that there are profit-driven actors who care about other things.

Debate articles are going well, but when it comes to concrete action, we see that the government is presenting a proposal that completely lacks insight and does not even touch upon this issue. One therefore cannot also foresee how this proposal is to function in practice.

The Social Democrats write in the report – and it is also our serious intention – that students shall be able to take the lead and shall receive support and guidance in that work.

It is somewhat distressing that the Moderaterna list all the problems that exist in Swedish schools today – and there are quite a few – without ever touching upon the structure itself, namely that the school's money should go to the school, that the school should have sufficient resources, that the resources we provide should actually go to teaching and not to beachfront plots and hunting lodges and whatever it is, and that the teachers should be able to use all their time to focus on the students.

I hope that the Riksdag takes its mandate seriously and thinks further before saying yes to this product. I think, as I have said several times in this debate, that a fundamental requirement for a parliamentary decision is that one must be able to know what it is one is voting yes to. Unfortunately, that is not the case in this product, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are considering the Education Committee's report "To be able to read at a faster pace and at a higher level." It has emerged quite clearly in the debate so far that it is partly about us wanting to make the pilot projects with specialized education in both primary school and upper secondary school permanent, partly about our desire, alongside nationally recruiting specialized education, that students in primary school should be able to read at a higher level, partly about upper secondary students being able to read at a faster pace than three years, and finally about our desire to have a clear regulatory framework to enable this.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

In the middle of April this year, a large seminar was organized in the Riksdag regarding the issue of artificial intelligence. Each participating committee also had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the issue during separate committee presentations delivered by researchers at the country's educational institutions. At the end of the Education Committee's presentation, the researchers present a clear message and a clear request, namely that Sweden must invest much more in excellence and to a much greater extent highlight those students who have special talent or who are high-performing.

The researchers also criticized that Swedish school is characterized by the fact that these students are not stimulated to a sufficient extent, while the focus is to an excessively high degree on those students who have difficulty reaching grade E. The message was that if we in the future want to have our own specialized competence within complicated vocational areas, these students must be highlighted.

It has been somewhat unclear here, I think, regarding what applies when it comes to students' ability to be able to study at a faster pace. The then Alliance government decided in 2008 to introduce nationally recruiting elite educations at the upper secondary level on a trial basis. Today, this activity is conducted at just over twenty upper secondary schools in the country within widely different areas such as mathematics, physics, natural science, technology, economics, social studies, languages, history, aesthetics, music, theater and dance.

A few years later, in 2011, the same government decided to introduce specialized education on a trial basis also at the upper secondary level (högstadiet). Here, students are to be given a special deepening and broadening within one or more subjects that the education is oriented towards. The students can study one or more upper secondary courses and receive grades, but otherwise follow the regular instruction. The education can be oriented towards some subjects such as mathematics, nature-oriented or social-oriented subjects, English or language choices.

The Sweden Democrats have for a long time championed the issue of making the specialized education at the upper secondary level permanent and expanding it. We can unfortunately observe that the previous Social Democratic government did not lift a finger to practically make the activity permanent. They hid it in some memo and in some investigation, but they did not put forward any proposals. Not even before the 2022 election, when we demanded an answer, could the Social Democrats give a clear and distinct answer on whether they intended to make the specialized education permanent.

The risk was great that the pilot project would continue as just a pilot project or, in the worst case, disappear. It is a strange attitude, not least against the background of the research community crying out for cutting-edge expertise.

Even though our focus has been precisely on upper secondary school, we in Sverigedemokrater are positively inclined towards high-performing students at the primary school level also receiving increased opportunities to study subjects at a higher level. Unlike the Social Democratic school policy, we do not believe in a system where high-performing students are forced to wait for the other students.

It is actually how it is described. Not so long ago, a report was released about the Social Democrats' delightful project of mixing students. There, examples were highlighted that had gone well, but if one read between the lines, it stated that students had to wait for the other students.

The idea with high-performing students is not that they should be teaching assistants to those who are struggling, but that they should move faster forward. Here, the entire Socialdemokraternas view on education is limping. This does not stimulate these students' thirst for knowledge, and in the worst case, it could mean that the interest in school becomes smaller and perhaps even disappears, and one might not be interested at all in the subject that one is incredibly good at.

There is also no logic in following a certain level in a subject where one already possesses complete knowledge if one already knows that much. Why should one sit and wait for the other students? It is a waste of time and a waste of resources. Now that we are talking about money – why is it not mentioned that it is a waste of resources? One does not think that is interesting.

Social Democratic school policy is, as is well known, mostly about low-performing students and ensuring that students are mixed. In Social Democratic policy, no consideration is given to those who stand out. It is fundamentally a completely knowledge-hostile policy.

That better and clearer conditions are now being created for primary school students to study subjects at a high level, that upper secondary school students shall be able to study at a faster pace, and that the specialized educations are being made permanent while flexible solutions are opened up to implement this, we see as extremely positive and a step in the completely right direction.

For this reason, we have chosen not to reserve ourselves regarding our motion to adapt the teaching for high-performing students in upper secondary school, but we consider that our motion 9 in motion 2023/24:368 is fulfilled by the proposition. We therefore stand behind the committee report in its entirety.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! Few have missed the Sweden Democrats' delight in pitting groups and issues against each other to manufacture a conflict line. One only has to ask the immigrants, the Muslims, and the climate activists about what they have had to endure for many years with the fierce and conflict-generating debate that has taken place both in the open political landscape and via anonymous accounts.

Now the Sweden Democrats do this even when it concerns children and young people and when it concerns students and their right to an equal education. The Sweden Democrats write in their special statement that they consider that Swedish school to a large extent has been characterized by a strong focus on students who are in need of support to manage the teaching, but that high-performing students often miss out on corresponding investments and that this in the long run harms Sweden's international competitiveness.

My question to the Sweden Democrats' Patrick Reslow is: Can the member explain in more detail why the party thinks it is relevant to pit students against each other when politics has an obligation to create an equal school for all children and young people?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that Nadja Awad and Vänsterpartiet find it difficult to see what is meant by this. In their world, everything is about not promoting knowledge or the students who are good. Everything is about focusing on that group of students who have grades E.

We Sverigedemokraterna have no problem with doing both. We think that one should invest in the students who have problems, and this is done to a large extent. Perhaps it is so that one should demand more from these students. It is about the own initiative. What distinguishes the two student groups is that many – not all – in the group that do not manage to get a passing grade perhaps do not exert themselves at all in the way they should. But the students who are high-performing are not even given the opportunity to exert themselves that much because they have to wait for the students that Nadja Awad and Vänsterpartiet rave about so strongly in every debate.

This is not about pitting group against group. Politics is also about making investments in the right things. One thing is about ensuring that as many as possible leave primary school with passing grades. The other thing is about ensuring that we also have a group of strong students who can manage to fill the need for specialized competence in the country. But I understand that Vänsterpartiet would rather receive people who come from outside to Sweden to fill this gap than educate Swedish students who are very successful.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am extremely upset to hear the Sweden Democrats' Patrick Reslow paint it as if the students who are struggling in school are not making enough of an effort.

I was actually afraid that Patrick Reslow would do the opposite and not stand by his words, that is, stand up for the specific statement where groups are pitted against each other, but Patrick Reslow makes it very clear that it is exactly this that is being done. One creates a fictitious conflict line where groups are pitted against each other – children and young people who all have the right to an equal school and for whom the politicians have an obligation to pave the way.

It is incredibly upsetting to hear that people talk about children and young people in that way, but as I began the debate by saying, it is not strange. That is how the Sweden Democrats have always done it. They have used the immigrants, they have used the Muslims, and they have used the climate activists to create a line of conflict, but at the same time, they are supposed to enable cuts and tax reductions that only benefit the very richest and the most privileged in society. Is it really them that Patrick Reslow wants to turn to?

I want to go back to the point that the reason students do not reach the goals in school is that they do not make an effort. Students with neuropsychiatric functional impairments such as ADHD and autism are overrepresented among those prone to suicide, largely due to the mental ill health they experience from their schooling.

Students with needs for adaptations and special support do not receive this in time or at all. Students leave primary school or upper secondary school without complete grades. In what way can it facilitate and enable us to create an equal school across the country to set these students against other students, who feel that they need to be challenged in the teaching? I would very much like to have an answer to that question, Patrick Reslow.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to distinctly remember that Nadja Awad, not so many minutes ago in another exchange of remarks, spoke about that there is a party that engages in disinformation, but if it is anything that Nadja Awad does here, it is to engage in disinformation.

I never said that we are pitting groups against each other. I did not say that all students who do not manage to get a passing grade do not make an effort, but I said that there are students who do not make an effort.

Nadja Awad must nevertheless realize this: If one skips, if one is absent, if one does not take exams and if one does not do things according to the teachers' instructions, one is not making an effort. What is so wrong with that? Otherwise, we always talk about high expectations. What are high expectations for Vänsterpartiet? It must mean that one is supposed to make an effort, but there are those who do not.

Then I regret that the Left Party cannot focus on two things at the same time. One cannot focus on both students who are in need of support and on students who are high-performing. One cannot manage to focus on both things at the same time. It is not strange that we have a problem in Swedish schools if the Left Party, which is a support party for the Social Democrats who have a vague interest in these issues, cannot even manage to do two things at the same time.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: If the Left Party and its member are upset by what I say, then my message has surely been received. In that case, I am satisfied.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! All students in all school forms and in after-school centers shall be given the guidance and stimulation they need in their learning and their personal development in order to be able to develop as far as possible according to the goals of the education, based on their own circumstances.

Students who, as a result of a disability or other difficulties in the school situation, have difficulty fulfilling the criteria for assessment of knowledge that apply shall be given support aimed at counteracting the consequences of the disability as far as possible.

Students who easily meet the criteria for assessment of the minimum knowledge to be met shall also be given guidance and stimulation to be able to go further in their knowledge development. This means that even students who develop quickly towards the educational goals shall be given challenges in the school work.

Differentiated instruction plays a central role in the work of developing an inclusive learning environment for all students. Differentiation means, for those who do not know, a common teaching and a common content but with varying methods of work and tasks so that all students can participate on their own terms based on varying abilities and functions.

But today, it is being signaled that not all students receive the guidance and stimulation to which they are entitled. This applies to both students who experience that it is difficult in school and students who experience that they need to be challenged. The conclusion is that the teaching is not differentiated to the extent required to meet the students' needs and wishes. It is therefore that I want to highlight the teachers' conditions to be able to catch all students within a differentiated teaching, Mr. Speaker.

The Government bases its proposal today, among other things, on a report from the School Inspectorate from 2018, which revealed that 28 percent of students in grade 9 and 23 percent of students in grade 2 of upper secondary school indicated that they did not receive sufficient challenges in their schoolwork. This does not necessarily mean that all these students are high-performing or particularly gifted. There are students who need to be moved up a level. But it can also be a matter of the teaching they participate in not reaching the quality that can be desired. Often, the cause is the working conditions that make it difficult for teachers to conduct high-quality teaching. It can involve a lack of time for preparatory and follow-up work, heavy workload with work tasks other than teaching, large requirements for documentation, lack of support for students with needs of such, and so on.

It is also important to highlight the fact that there are limits to how large variations can be managed in a classroom with one teacher and many students. In a reality with ever larger classes and more teaching hours, it can be difficult for teachers to meet the requirements for individualization that characterize Swedish schools today. It is one aspect of the underfunding of the school. In 2024, there is a billion-kronor deficit in just one year. This leads to staff being laid off, the work teams and student health services becoming smaller, the teaching groups becoming larger, and the availability of teaching materials and good premises being lacking. It is also the case that Swedish school does not regulate teaching time, the size of teaching groups, planning time, etc.

Today, the proposals that the government has regarding creating better opportunities for students in school to, among other things, study at a higher level are presented. Vänsterpartiet sees that nationally recruiting elite educations could be a way to enable more students to study at a more challenging level, not least in upper secondary school. Skolverket also assesses that there are no obstacles to making the pilot project with elite educations permanent, provided that the problems that have emerged in previous investigations are addressed. But the government does not present in the bill how they are to be addressed. The problems are not acknowledged at all.

Several primary and secondary schools point out that the specialized education costs more than the corresponding education. This is due to extended teaching time, the fact that classes are not always full, and that the teaching takes place in smaller groups than in full classes. It is also due to personnel costs, costs for teaching materials, and costs related to study trips or lectures. Vänsterpartiet fears that the government will not take its state funding responsibility by providing the resources required.

Another problem is the selection process and what determines the right for, for example, a primary school student in mathematics to take a course at the upper secondary school. If this is not formalized and functioning, there is a risk that, due to subjective interests, one tries to influence the principal to make a decision regarding advancement. Such pressures can, for example, come from a parent. It is important to remember that, by definition, being high-performing is associated with high status. The Equality Ombudsman argues that there is a risk that certain particularly gifted students are missed by the school for reasons that may be related to any of the grounds for discrimination protected by the Discrimination Act, for example, ethnic origin, disability, and gender.

It has been highlighted in previous follow-ups that national recruitment is hindered by the fact that schools do not have the possibility to offer student housing to students from another home municipality. If virtually all teaching takes place in the form of distance learning, it is not ensured that these students receive the instruction they need to progress as far as possible in their studies. Conducting education on a contract basis also places completely different demands on the primary provider than conducting education within the framework of the same organization and geographical area.

Nowhere in the bill are the risks and specific challenges that the school market in Sweden poses for the proposal addressed. It is even designed in a way that marketizes even larger parts of the Swedish school system with the risk of increased profit-seeking and reduced equality. In practice, the government proposes that an entirely new and unrestricted market system for specialized education be opened up, despite the recurring reports that many school owners have profit as their primary goal and act to increase profitability at the expense of the quality of the students' education. The proposal therefore also completely ignores the risk that unserious actors will exploit the regulatory changes. It is also noteworthy how the government proceeds with expanding the market school when it currently claims to be investigating a ban on profit distribution or other profit distribution limitations during the first years.

In summary, it is the case that the part of the bill concerning the establishment of permanent and nationally recruiting elite training programs is insufficiently prepared. Crucial risk assessments, delimitations, and consequence analyses are missing. The proposal to establish special nationally recruiting elite training programs was not even included in the memorandum referred to a broader group, but has been added subsequently. Few actors have thus been given the opportunity to comment on the proposal.

Therefore, Vänsterpartiet moves for approval of reservation 2 regarding deficiencies in the preparatory documents and risk and consequence analyses, as well as the need to carry out a thorough evaluation of the pilot projects.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden should have the world's best school. In many classrooms, world-class teaching is also being conducted – I maintain that. But that is not the case everywhere. The Swedish school is in a knowledge crisis. The results have fallen for over 20 years. If we do not take powerful measures, generations risk growing up without sufficient knowledge, and all of Sweden's growth and competitiveness risk falling behind.

That each individual should be given the opportunity to develop to their full potential should be a self-evident matter in the Swedish school system. But that is not the case today. The proportion of high-performing students performing at a high or advanced level has fallen sharply in recent decades according to international knowledge measurements. This means that students fall behind, but fewer students performing at a high level also means that Sweden loses in competitiveness.

This image is shared by the students themselves. Already six years ago, the School Inspectorate stated in a review that a quarter of the students in the second year of upper secondary school considered that they did not receive sufficient challenges in their schoolwork. A stimulating environment was not created where students were given the opportunity to acquire new knowledge. The review showed that it was particularly the teaching in mathematics and natural science subjects that was not adapted for high-performing students.

How have we actually ended up here? For far too long, the school has been focused on everyone fitting into the same mold. This creates limitations for both the students who are low-performing and need extra support and the students who want extra stimulation and to move faster forward. This is limiting for both groups simultaneously. We are now settling the score with the Jante school. We want all students to be given the opportunity to develop and shape their lives according to their full potential and ability. Students who perform at the top need to be given the opportunity to read at a faster pace and become truly skilled.

The proposals we are discussing here today are partly about being able to take individual courses at a higher level. For example, a skilled upper secondary school student should be able to take high school mathematics. But it is also about skipping entire grade levels or, for example, completing high school in a shorter time than three years.

National recruitment elite educations have existed since 2009 and 2012 respectively. Today, they are located in a few places. The fact that they have not been permanent has made it difficult to invest permanently in developing this teaching. This is now becoming permanent. This is important for all those students who want to have the opportunity to study faster and receive extra stimulation and an extra opportunity to develop.

In order for more people to be able to shape their education according to their full ability and potential, the school must allow students to study at a faster pace than what has previously been possible. The moderately led government makes this permanently possible with the now presented bill.

It gives every individual student the conditions to receive stimulation to be able to develop based on their own ability, but it also creates opportunities for growth and competitiveness in all of Sweden. We need more people who are given the opportunity to develop. It is a future issue for all of Sweden.

With this, I move for the approval of the bill in its entirety.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! A wise basic model for developing Swedish school policy is to divide the task into three parts. Most important and most central is the overall school policy.

Imagine that we have a normal distribution curve. The great task for us is then to lift the entire curve together, that is to strengthen the entire school system. But it also needs to be strengthened at the ends. We need a specific policy to strengthen the situation in school for those who have it the toughest, and we need a specific policy to strengthen the situation for those who need more stimulation and are extra gifted.

Thus, the Centre Party supports that new policies are developed for those who find it extra easy, who need more stimulation, and who can read at a faster pace and at a higher level. Fundamentally, we welcome that the government has developed a bill with that purpose.

Mr. Speaker! It is, however, with disappointment that we are forced to state that the bill suffers from a number of serious flaws that risk overturning the entire good purpose. Something that could have become very good has instead become a rush job that can exacerbate an increasingly less equal school system. It is about flaws that lead to unequal conditions between city and country, between small municipality and large municipality.

Mr. Speaker! Whether one can respond to the intentions of the bill varies greatly in the country. A student's opportunities to study at a faster pace and at a higher level depend on the municipality's size, competence, and conditions. Small municipalities are disadvantaged.

It is not a good basis for building an equivalent school. The government has not clarified in the bill how the financing is to look. There are very many uncertainties and a weak impact assessment. The implementation will likely entail more administration for the principals and significant additional costs for the municipalities. The announced state grants are far too low.

The losers will be, just as with targeted state grants, the small municipalities and the smaller schools. And the real losers will, of course, be the boys and girls who have it extra easy and who live in smaller towns and in the countryside. Will they even be affected by the reform? Much is unclear.

If the government is serious in its intention that more children should be able to study at a faster pace and at a higher level, the financing and implementation must be clarified. It becomes extra strenuous and doubtful when the introduction of a new law is also to take place in just a month and a half, on July 2. How is the school system to be given a chance to prepare? A new law is no small matter for our authorities, municipalities, and school providers. The uncertainties are so deep that it risks becoming a minor chaos before the autumn term. Or chaos, for that matter – probably not much happens because the prerequisites are not given.

When a piece of legislation is not thoroughly prepared, a reform risks backfiring rather than developing our society. When it is also introduced very hastily, the risk increases even more. With the proposal, Swedish school is forced into an unfinished system whose consequences now actually cannot be foreseen.

Saco is, like me, generally concerned about the deteriorated quality in the preparation of government bills. Saco says: "Today's major societal challenges require long-term and well-considered political decisions. Therefore, Saco and the 21 Saco federations view with concern how the investigation and referral system is being eroded. The risk is obvious that we will get poorly substantiated laws that cannot be applied to the problems they are intended to solve."

This is exactly how it is in this matter. When a good intention that students should be able to read at a faster pace and at a higher level is instead rushed through in a new law, the entire point is risked. We will be left with high costs and students without opportunities.

Mr. Speaker! Gifted students should have an equal opportunity to receive sufficient challenges regardless of where in the country they live. That is why a more flexible regulatory framework for both remote and distance education is important. The Government proposes improved opportunities for remote education. That is good. But distance education is met with a cold shoulder. That is not good. It is bad because it shuts out students in rural areas. It is unwise not to use digital tools when they can make a difference and bridge Sweden's vast geography.

Centerpartiet agrees with SKR, which says: "Distance learning would further strengthen the possibilities for flexible solutions to meet the students' prerequisites and needs. In previous contexts, SKR has pointed out the need for expanded opportunities to use distance learning as special support."

To give more high-performing students across the country the opportunity to receive a specialized education, the Center Party believes that specialized classes at a distance should be introduced, either by reserving certain places for distance students or by tasking certain schools with arranging specialized education at a distance.

I vote in favor of reservation 7.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Centre Party are not alone in thinking that the preparation is sloppy. Several referral bodies point to a lack of impact assessments. One example is the Federation of Independent Schools, which argues that "it is not possible to understand how the funding and the school fee are affected for independent principals, or for that matter even smaller municipal principals, who may need to arrange teaching on a contract basis."

Mr. Speaker! Something that could have become very good has instead become a risky rush job. The best thing would have been if the government turned back and did the right thing, because now it is our most gifted students who will be affected and, in the long run, because it is so important, society as a whole.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish school system faces an important challenge, namely to provide all students with the tools and opportunities they need to develop to their maximum potential based on their individual circumstances. However, the Swedish Schools Inspectorate's supervision and quality reviews show that many students do not receive sufficiently stimulating teaching. This applies above all to students who are high-performing, have special interests, or are judged to be particularly gifted.

This is naturally a problem for these students, who are not given the opportunity to fulfill their full potential, but it is also a problem for society as a whole. If we do not take advantage of all children's full potential, we lose an important resource for future innovation and development. To meet the need, there has since 2012, among other things, been a pilot project with so-called "spetsutbildningar" (specialized educations), where students have been allowed to study certain subjects at a higher level and at a faster pace.

International comparisons show that the countries that are best at identifying high-performing students have specialized education, and these are distinctive for those countries. By offering an environment where students can be challenged and develop, we can raise the general level of education in Sweden and ensure that we remain competitive on a global scale.

One of the greatest advantages of specialized education is that it brings together students and teachers with common interests. It creates dynamics and synergies that cannot be achieved in a regular classroom by simply giving an individual student particularly challenging and advanced tasks. Something happens when students with similar ambitions and interests meet in the same classroom. They can motivate and inspire each other, which leads to a more stimulating and productive learning environment.

Schools that have participated in the pilot project have good experiences and consider the specialized educations to constitute a valuable environment for the students. The students themselves are satisfied that they receive greater challenges and can delve deeper into subjects that they are particularly interested in. They highlight, among other things, that the common interest among classmates contributes to creating a positive atmosphere and a positive spirit in the lessons. It creates motivation and inspiration.

The schools that have participated in the pilot project have, however, felt a certain uncertainty regarding the planning of the specialized educations, as it has still been just a pilot project. This has made it difficult for them to invest long-term in these educations. Therefore, it is an important step that the government is now taking by making the specialized educations permanent so that the schools can plan and develop their programs with greater certainty and long-term perspective. I believe that clearer regulation can also mean better quality assurance and equivalence across the entire country, which is crucial for all students to receive as equal opportunities as possible regardless of where they live.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as we strengthen the conditions for the specialized education programs, we are improving the opportunities for students to study at a faster pace or at a higher level within their existing school. Current opportunities simply do not quite suffice to provide students with the stimulation they need. The Government proposes that principals should be able to decide that a student may study one or more subjects at the upper secondary level, even though the student attends a lower secondary school, provided that there are qualified teachers who can provide the instruction. I believe that this would mean that more students can receive the adaptation they need to keep their interest and motivation up throughout their schooling. It could also lead to reduced stress and mental ill-health among high-performing students, who might otherwise feel bored or under-stimulated in the standard instruction.

By encouraging and supporting high-performing students, we show that we value every person's unique talents and strive to create a school where all students can succeed. This is not just a matter of fairness but also about building a strong and successful country and society. This is how we build a school where no one is held back and no one is left behind.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Society's expectations of the school system are high. Education in a rapidly changing world is something complex that must be given the very best conditions.

All students' right to education is a fundamental issue, and it is a political responsibility to, through relevant regulations and stable funding, provide the school with the conditions to follow the laws and regulations that exist.

One way for the state to take greater responsibility for equal education across the entire country is to ensure that the school principals receive the funding needed to conduct the operations. It is a major deficiency that the government's bill does not contain a realistic analysis of the costs and does not have a holistic perspective on the actual implementation of the reform. This is pointed out by several smaller municipalities, for example Ragunda in Jämtland and Ljusnarsberg in my own home county of Örebro. It is also pointed out by the students' organizations and by the trade union organizations within the school system.

Skolverket also needs good conditions to provide schools with active support to work on developing their operations to provide all students with education based on their individual circumstances. This includes both students who need more support to reach a sufficient level and students who need greater challenges because they are very skilled in school. Continuous and systematic quality work was needed at every school that contributes to high quality, high equity, and high knowledge results.

The school also has a compensatory mission, which means that it is to level out differences in students' backgrounds. Everyone is different, and in school, one must therefore be able to take into account and take advantage of differences in interests, strengths, and learning methods. This is best achieved by increasing equality and combating segregation in the Swedish school as a whole.

Mr. Speaker! In this work, the government needs to consider that Sweden's school principals are different and that the conditions are different in different parts of the country. Small municipalities and large municipalities differ fundamentally. The state needs to ensure the financing of this reform so that it reaches the school principals where the affected students are, whether it is in rural areas, in suburbs, in large cities or in archipelagos.

According to the Education Act, everyone, regardless of where they live and regardless of social and economic conditions, shall have equal access to education. Education shall be of equal value regardless of where in the country it is organized. The Education Act also regulates all students' right to develop as far as possible based on their own circumstances in accordance with the goals of the education. That right covers all students, including those who attend adapted school and those who easily achieve high grades and fulfill the knowledge goals. Given the school's mission and the content of the Education Act, it is positive with political proposals that contribute to the school's mission and activities truly following the Education Act.

Mr. Speaker! The proposals in the government's bill are welcome for the students they concern. It is important to establish that all students have the right to be met at their level without having to seek special courses or move anywhere else in the country to have their needs met. It should be the government's highest priority.

It is good that the knowledge acquisition of particularly gifted students is met with more advanced tasks for increased intellectual stimulation. This is also a mission that the Swedish school already has. This reform will be an additional way to meet these needs.

With society's socioeconomic differences and varying education levels, the consequences of inequality also affect students' schooling. It is therefore likely that particularly gifted children and young people from socioeconomically well-off home environments who attend well-functioning schools and have guardians with high education will more easily be identified and offered more stimulating school assignments or other types of education. Equality needs to increase in the Swedish school across the entire country. It should be clear that one does not need to change schools or move to another location to receive the education one is entitled to.

There is probably a greater risk that the needs of certain particularly gifted students will not be met to the same extent by this reform. It could be about students whose socioeconomic conditions are poorer, or that certain guardians and schools will not be able to attend to their needs for intellectual stimulation, which is greater than other children's. Some schools do not have the capacity to attend to their needs or offer the specialized education that they should have the chance to participate in.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants it to be easier to read at a faster pace and at a higher level, but there are deficiencies in the government's proposal. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants it ensured that the government's proposition is systematically followed up and evaluated in line with the school's basic mission and the Education Act. The follow-ups need to be broad and cover funding, equity, all students' social situation in the short and long term, throughput, and results.

I move for approval of reservation 6, which concerns the fact that the school needs to be sufficiently funded so that it can meet all students where they are and that this reform shall be followed up carefully.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 22 May.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)