Better adapted teaching time in primary school, special school, and the Sámi school
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L motions for the proposal to remove the student's choice in order to reduce curriculum congestion in schools 1. Curriculum congestion means that the timetable is insufficient to cover the core content, which creates stress and affects equity 1. Time that was previously used for the student's choice should instead be distributed to subjects that need more time, for example history 1. S considers the student's choice to be dysfunctional as it varies too much between schools and is often driven by practical conditions rather than the student's interests 2. S motions for a reservation as the change risks weakening practical-aesthetic subjects, culture, and sports 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Fredrik Malm (L)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report.
According to Skolverket, there is so-called "stoffträngsel" in certain subjects in school. Then one wonders what on earth "stoffträngsel" is, and there is actually an article about this word in Språktidningen from August 2019. It is described there that "stoffträngsel" first appeared in Swedish media in 1992 and thereafter reappeared on average once a year.
Then the word took a significant leap into consciousness in 2019, when there was a debate about Skolverket's proposal to remove antiquity from the history subject. At that point, the word became somewhat more widely known. Språktidningen adds, however, that "stoffträngsel" had previously been discussed internally within Skolverket.
What is "stoffträngsel" then? We all know what "trängsel" (congestion/crowding) is, now that we are out shopping for Christmas presents. "Stoffträngsel" simply means that the time available in the timetable is not sufficient to cover the core content required for a certain subject in school.
This will obviously be problematic in Swedish schools. It can create stress among students and teachers. It can lead to teachers being forced to prioritize away parts of the subject content, which in turn leads to students learning different things in school depending on which teacher they have or which school they attend and so on. It hits equality, quite simply.
At the same time, one does not want to prioritize away too much of the central content in order to get rid of the curriculum congestion. Skolverket was therefore given a mandate by the government three years ago to conduct a review of the timetable for primary school and corresponding school forms in the Sámi school and the special school. Skolverket was then to analyze the need for a redistribution of time between different subjects in order to achieve a better balance, that is, less curriculum congestion.
The assignment was to specifically look at the teaching time for the student's choice. What happened one and a half years ago was that the time for the student's choice was halved. When it comes to the report we now have to discuss and debate and then vote on, it means that the student's choice disappears completely and that the 177 hours in primary school can be distributed among other subjects, in order to reduce exactly the content congestion.
Madam Speaker! According to the Education Act, the teaching in what is called the student's choice shall aim to deepen and broaden the student's knowledge in one or more subjects, but in the review that Skolverket conducted, it is noted that the activity is very varied and that the hours are used for very many different things.
Skolverket notes that it is not possible to make a universally valid description of the activity as it differs significantly between principals and between different schools. The Government therefore proposes that the student's choice shall be removed and that these hours in primary school - approximately half an hour a week - shall be distributed among subjects deemed to need more time, not least history because we, so to speak, do not want to march antiquity out of our consciousness. It has nevertheless contributed quite a lot to the civilization that we constantly live in.
With this, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! The student choice was introduced in 1994. At that time, the then Minister for Education Beatrice Ask wrote the following:
"The space for the student's choice means that a student shall be able to deepen and broaden their knowledge within one or more of the curriculum's subjects. This deepening will, with our proposal, be able to occur earlier than today, while we consider that the space for individual choices should of course increase in the higher grades. The Government sees the possibility of individual choices as a very important development in the school. The school shall hereby be able to take advantage of the students' special interests and give them opportunities to devote themselves, during a part of the school time, to studies that they themselves have desired and chosen. Hereby, their interests, initiative, and commitment can be stimulated, which should increase the students' study motivation."
This is retrieved from the proposition in connection with the Chamber's decision on Lpo 94. This wording partially reflects a spirit of the times and an over-reliance on choice as freedom, but they are likely still correct in the conclusion that learning that students choose themselves or choose out of their own interest makes them more motivated.
The students' choice has consequently remained since then. This was not problematized at all in the major reorganization of school policy in 2010, when a new curriculum and a new school act were introduced, but it was simply transferred in existing form, in principle, until we during our years in power began to carve out time to, for example, prioritize teaching in physical education and health and mathematics.
It is with the students' choices, like with so much else in the Swedish school system: It is incredibly different. In some places, it works excellently, and the students have the opportunity to choose from a wide range and can deepen or broaden their knowledge within school subjects that actually interest them.
In many other places, it is really not so. Principals tell Skolverket in the review that they have difficulty making it work, and I imagine that the selection that students have to choose from is governed more by which teachers have spare time in the staffing allocation at the respective school than by what the students have as requests. Students do not therefore choose what interests them, but what the principal has the best practical conditions to provide.
In addition to the deepening that can be accommodated, the student's choice is practically used for things such as theme days or theme periods, life skills, mentor time, or other information to the students. That was not the intention. That was not what it was to be used for.
When we have a phenomenon in school that has repeatedly been identified as dysfunctional, it is worth thinking that we should use the time more equitably and more effectively, for important learning. It also becomes a partial solution to the "stuff-cramming" that Fredrik Malm so exemplarily spoke about earlier. I read the same article in Språktidningen about the week's new words in October 2019, linked precisely to the discussion on whether antiquity fits into the history curriculum when the post-war period is also to be included. Obviously, both need to fit, and perhaps the timetable needs to be adjusted for that very reason. What do I know!
As a consequence of overcrowding, our government tasked Skolverket with reviewing the timetables so that the overcrowding can be reduced. What we are dealing with today is the result of that review.
I would, however, like to flag that there is a risk. Several referral bodies have pointed out the risk that culture and the practical-aesthetic subjects will receive a weakened position in the school with this change. The possibility for a school to profile itself is diminished. Since practical-aesthetic subjects are commonly available in the students' choices, the students' opportunities to receive that type of education risk being weakened by the change.
Regarding classes with music profiles of various kinds, fifty have already been discontinued or will be discontinued after the memorandum was sent for consultation in the spring – either in the autumn of 2023 or the autumn of 2024. The risk is that this development continues. A follow-up should truly be conducted where the relationship between the abolition of the student's choice and the death of the music profile that is imminent in the Swedish school system is clarified. In the same way, the possibility for profiling in sports or other subjects is decreasing.
One can also fear that removing the possibility of choosing practical-aesthetic specialization will increase the sedentary lifestyle for an already sedentary growing generation. The risk of negative public health effects should be considered.
When looking at this, one can observe that the newspaper Ämnesläraren has conducted a review of how teaching time is distributed between theoretical and practical subjects in schools. With this change, it shifts from how the division was in 1994, with 70 percent theoretical subjects and 30 percent practical subjects, to a division with 80 percent theoretical subjects and 20 percent practical subjects. The risk of a weakened position for culture and sports in schools needs to be considered, and the government should take this issue seriously and follow up.
Culture in school should instead be strengthened. Culture is linked to education and should be offered regardless of socioeconomic background to everyone in the growing generation. In the same way, it is with movement, sports, and health. They are distributed unevenly based on the family's socioeconomic situation. It is clear that the school plays a role in leveling the difference here as well.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.