A ten-year primary school

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to express my support for the committee's proposal.

Sweden has for several decades struggled with declining knowledge results in school. We have become accustomed to headlines about Pisa-fall, lack of equity, and students who graduate from ninth grade without being able to read, write, and count sufficiently well. The Pisa survey 2022 showed that almost one in four Swedish 15-year-olds does not reach basic levels in reading and mathematics.

It is a school policy failure, Madam Speaker, but it is also a wake-up call. It is not enough to stand by and watch as the decline in knowledge continues. Therefore, the government, with the Liberals as the driving school party, is now taking the next step to restore the knowledge school in Sweden.

School must return to the basics, with a reinforced teacher role where the teacher both instructs and is allowed to maintain order in the classrooms, with real textbooks instead of screens and iPads, and with new curricula that focus on basic knowledge and adapt to children's actual cognitive development. Children must learn the basics, that is to read, write, and count, at an early age. With a ten-year primary school, we take steps towards exactly this.

From the autumn term of 2028, Madam Speaker, the preschool class will be replaced by a new first grade in primary school. This means more cohesive teaching, an earlier focus on basic skills, and a more equal schooling for all children, regardless of where in the country they live. This is not a symbolic reform but a concrete and far-reaching change in the structure of the Swedish school system that has great significance for how we meet the students during their very first school years.

The preschool class was introduced in 1998 as a bridge between preschool and school. The purpose was good: to give the children a soft transition. But in practice, the preschool class has become an unclear intermediate thing with large variations in the content, quality, and purpose of the teaching. In some schools, the preschool class is already today very similar to primary school, with structured teaching and a focus on reading and arithmetic. In others, it is more of an extension of the preschool, with less teacher support and a weaker connection to the school's curricula.

This is a problem from an equality perspective, Madam Speaker. All children should have the right to the same start, the same level of ambition, and the same opportunity to succeed regardless of how many shelf meters of books they have at home. The school's compensatory knowledge mission is strengthened when the school now returns to the basics.

Therefore, we are now introducing a new year 1, integrated into the primary school and with a clear educational mandate. This means that the students receive instruction based on the school's subjects and curricula from day one, and it means that they are covered by the same regulatory framework as the rest of the primary school.

Removing the preschool class and instead expanding the primary school will lead to the school's traditional methods of work and pedagogy appearing stronger than what is currently the case in the preschool class. More traditional teaching occurs in many places today, but through this change, we create greater equality for all students.

It is however important to point out, Madam Speaker, that structured teaching does not mean that we force six-year-olds to sit still in the school desk all day. The new year 1 shall, of course, be adapted to the students' age and needs. Play, movement, creativity and security will be natural elements, and it is fully compatible with a clear focus on knowledge.

A major gain with this reform is that it reduces the number of transitions in children's schooling. Moving from preschool to preschool class and then to primary school means entering three different activities over three years – with different regulations, different pedagogy, and often different staff. Each such shift risks disrupting the child's development and progression. By removing one school form, we get a more coherent schooling. Another positive consequence is that the same teacher can follow a student for a longer period, which is good for the students, the teachers, and the school results.

We are also carrying out the reform in an orderly and responsible manner. It will enter into force first in the autumn term of 2028, which gives time for school administrators and teachers to prepare and for Skolverket to develop new curricula and steering documents.

We are also increasing the guaranteed teaching time by 534 hours in primary school. For Swedish students, who have relatively little compulsory teaching time compared to many other countries, it is good to receive more instruction in primary school subjects. It is valuable time that will be used for reading, writing, and arithmetic, and for identifying which students need support early on. This reform will help us provide support to the students who truly need it and to provide that support earlier. That is good.

Madam Speaker! This reform is also important for children who are to attend adapted primary school, that is to say, what was previously called the special school. Today, there is no preschool class for those students, which creates lack of clarity and a lack of equality. With a ten-year primary school, these children will also have a clear schooling from the start, adapted to their needs.

The Liberals have long championed the issue of a ten-year primary school. For us, school policy is always about equalizing life chances and giving every child, regardless of background, a fair chance to succeed. We know that the key is knowledge – early knowledge. Basic skills are the foundation for all other learning.

The new, ten-year primary school is a tool in this work, and it means that we take the school back to the basics – to reading, writing, and arithmetic, as well as to order, safety, and a school start that equips the students and does not leave them in the lurch. I am very proud, Madam Speaker, that the Liberals in a government position are now participating in and implementing this reform. This is completely the right path for Swedish school.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: This is the Education Committee's final debate. We do have a debate immediately following this, but for that one, there is no registered speaking time. I would really like to thank all the committee members for an excellent cooperation, and I want to thank our eminent secretariat at the Education Committee. Of course, I also want to thank our speakers, who lead our debates, and the entire Riksdag Administration for the extremely important and professional work that everyone there performs. It helps Swedish democracy and helps us in our work.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Do you remember your first day of school? I imagine many do. It is a big and important day, and it is a tingling day for the vast majority.

In order to make that day – the entry into the school world – as good and smooth as possible for the very youngest schoolchildren, a voluntary six-year activity was created which would unite the different characteristics of preschool and primary school and build a bridge between the two activities. The preschool's teaching, which is based on the children's play, creative movement, learning with the student as the starting point, as well as social and emotional training, would be combined with the school's teaching, which is guided by fixed knowledge goals. In this way, all children would be given the opportunity to participate in a ten-year pedagogical activity that would provide better opportunities to ultimately reach the primary school's goals.

In 1998, preschool became mandatory for the municipalities, but it was still voluntary for the children at that time. The purpose was, as stated, to stimulate every child's development and learning and to facilitate the integration between preschool and school.

The preschool class received the same curriculum as the primary school and the after-school center – Lpo 94 – and the same goals to strive towards. However, there were no goals to achieve for the individual six-year-old. In the curriculum Lgr 11, that basic idea remained unchanged – the preschool class still worked with the same values and mission as the primary school but without syllabi and without subjecting the individual six-year-old to knowledge requirements.

In 2016, the preschool class then received its own part in the curriculum to clarify an otherwise quite freely held management.

In 2018, preschool became compulsory to fulfill the original purpose that every child should have the opportunity for a ten-year pedagogical activity aimed at achieving the primary school's goals. The start of compulsory school was moved forward by one year; since then, six-year-olds shall normally begin their fulfillment of compulsory school in the preschool class.

Madam Speaker! A one-year school form has its own problems at the same time.

Firstly, what was supposed to be a bridge has become a resource ditch. The average cost for a student in the preschool class corresponds to a little over one-third of the average cost for a student in preschool and barely half of the average cost for a student in primary school.

Secondly, the inequality is great. Even though the school form now has its own section in the curriculum, it is comparatively weakly regulated. The design of the activities and the ambitions with it vary greatly between different principals, school units, and classrooms. In some places, ambitious and costly teaching takes place. In other places, the activities are squeezed so that the students only attend half-days at school or do not attend school every day of the week. In some places, the activity is very similar to the teaching that takes place in primary school. In other places, free play seems to characterize a large part of the school day.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, a one-year school form means that the continuity we usually strive for in educational activities, not least for small children, is worse than it should be. The preschool class involves an extra transition between school forms, in new premises, with new staff and with new classmates. Each such transition risks leading to insecurity and a break in the students' knowledge development, yet the whole is repeated again a year later.

Against that background, we Social Democrats support the creation of a ten-year primary school, but the government now has a responsibility not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The idea that led to the creation of the preschool class is still a good idea. Therefore, we believe it is important that the government in the ongoing work – when regulatory texts are to be written, when curricula are to be revised, and when course plans and other types of governance are to be changed – ensures that the meeting between the different pedagogical starting points and methods of the preschool and the primary school continues to characterize the work in the six-year-old activities, or rather said, the new year 1, so that social and emotional skills are kept in focus.

The majority of the staff who conduct teaching in the preschool class are qualified preschool teachers. It is important that their competence is taken into account and that the work of offering them qualification-granting continuing education, which we initiated in 2021, continues. But it is not enough to continue with what the Social Democratic government initiated. If the reform's purpose of creating greater continuity is not to go to waste, a validation process must be put in place that leads to the majority of preschool teachers who now teach in the preschool class, and who have long experience of it, being able to become qualified to teach in the entire lower primary school as simply as possible.

However, that is not enough either. In order for the new year group 1 also to continue to unite the pedagogical starting points of preschool and primary school, unite play and learning, take the children's understanding of the world and their need for movement as a starting point, and build the foundation for a lifelong joy of learning, primary school teachers need to be given the opportunity for a preschool pedagogical boost in accordance with what was proposed in the government investigation that preceded this proposition.

In summary, Madam Speaker: A longer continuum of knowledge development towards the goals of the lower primary school, fewer transitions between activities, fewer staff and group changes, and increased equality are added values that this reform has the capacity to provide. Continued focus on the youngest schoolchildren's needs for play and movement, as well as emotional and social development, is however necessary, in our opinion. To achieve this, continuing education opportunities, transition rules, and validation processes need to meet the needs of preschool teachers and primary school teachers who are to teach in the lower primary school after 2028. To enable this, curricula and other regulations must now be revised with this in mind.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to point out that we Social Democrats in every budget since this government took office have shown that we believe it is important to resource the school. In this year's budget, we directed 3 billion more than the government to the school, and in addition to that, we proposed an increase of the general state grants by 6 billion.

The government has repeatedly claimed to be making historical investments in schools, but time and again it has been revealed that they are actually cutting back. Now, major referral bodies point out that the funds the government intends to provide will not cover the school heads' upcoming costs for this reform.

The purpose of this rather large reform must be to raise the quality during the first school year for all students without it compromising the quality in the rest of primary school. If the reform is not to lead to quality deterioration, it is important that it is not underfunded. Therefore, I want to emphasize, Madam Speaker, how important it is that this does not become yet another of the Sweden Democrat-led and Moderate-led government's austerity attacks on the school.

We Social Democrats naturally stand behind all three of our reservations in the report, but for the sake of time, I will content myself with moving for approval of reservation 3.

(Applause)

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

Kent Kumpula (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the proposal in the bill.

We believe that this is a very good and well-thought-out proposal from the Tidö parties and a reform that will make school more equal across the country, but it is of course nothing that automatically improves the introduction to school that many children already receive today in the current form of preschool class. In some cases, in practice, it will almost only function as a name change.

However, it concerns those children who today have the luck of ending up in a good school and in a good preschool class with a well-adjusted focus on knowledge learning. By a well-adjusted focus, I mean that there should not be either too strong or too weak a focus on knowledge learning, because it is very young children we are talking about. Play and movement should be a large part of the day for children that young.

But, Madam Speaker, it should not be chance or luck that determines whether a child gets the right conditions. It is something all children have a right to, at least in the target image that Sverigedemokrater have for Sweden and for the Swedish school.

Do not all children already have equal conditions in their respective preschool classes today, regardless of which school they attend? The answer is unfortunately no. There are very many good schools where this reform perhaps will not make any major difference at all. But that is not the case everywhere. The reform will make certain schools better, and that is positive. The staff will receive further education, and some schools may perhaps have to replace the staff who do not pass the further education. That will show. Some schools may perhaps need to rethink and recalibrate the distribution between play and movement on one hand and knowledge learning on the other.

By including the preschool class in the regular primary school, the Sámi school with several as an extra school year, we can ensure greater equality across the entire country in a completely different way.

Madam Speaker! Through this reform, children who otherwise would have had the misfortune of ending up in a preschool class that perhaps was not optimally calibrated will get a better start to their schooling, and that is positive. I actually see no risk that anything will become worse for the children as a result of the reform, and that is the most important thing. It simply becomes a greater equality and a greater predictability when it comes to how the very first school year for all children will be and function.

I believe that all parties are quite in agreement that the reform for a ten-year primary school is good and should be implemented. The motions and reservations that exist regarding the bill feel somewhat contrived and unnecessary. It is argued, among other things, that one should safeguard the preschool's pedagogy and look at qualifications, competence development, and validation of existing staff. But all of that is already both noted and addressed in the bill.

I read out: ”Skolverket shall further be tasked to develop proposals for amendments to the curricula of primary school, primary special school, special school, and Sámi school in such a way that it should appear that the first year shall contain significant elements of physical activity and outdoor stay, play, interaction and social training as well as creativity. The teaching shall have a rich variation of forms of expression and methods of work – but also provide a good introduction to the school environment and a preparation for continued schooling.”

This sounds to my ears as if one is doing exactly what is being requested. One takes advantage of and ensures the preschool's pedagogy with outdoor stays, play, creativity, and social training. All of that is, therefore, already taken care of.

Furthermore, one can read about the planned opportunities for further education and validation of existing staff: ”The investigation proposes that a qualified preschool teacher who, at the time of the new regulations' implementation, has employment in the preschool class and who has additionally taught in the preschool class or new grade 1 for at least five school years, shall be qualified as a teacher to teach in all subjects in grade 1 and 2 in primary school and the Sámi school if he or she has supplemented his or her degree with completed qualification-granting continuing education.”

Further: ”Preschool teachers who have taught for less than five years shall, according to the investigation's proposal, be able to become qualified to teach in primary school by completing supplementary qualification-granting higher education.”

This matter regarding fast-track training and validation of existing and experienced personnel is also addressed in the bill.

I feel confident that this will turn out well.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I thought there was a fairly large consensus between the parties that this reform is desirable and that there would therefore be no exchanges of remarks. But since Kumpula could not restrain himself and called our reservations superfluous, it is necessary that I clarify why I do not think they are superfluous. I may also ask Kent Kumpula in which direction he sees the continued work should take.

The questions regarding eligibility and competence development measures are completely omitted from the bill in favor of regulatory changes. What Kumpula cited was from the investigation, but in the bill that lies on the Riksdag's table, these writings are not present. The Minister for Education also writes in a response to a written question included in the committee report that the regulations are being prepared in the Government Offices. We can therefore not get any answers on what changes are to be made in the eligibility regulation and what opportunities will exist for a preschool teacher who has worked for many years in preschool class to quickly become eligible to teach in all four grade levels of the new primary school. If Kumpula seeks continuity, he must agree that the same teacher must be able to follow all the way. Otherwise, there is no point in moving from preschool class and primary school to a four-year primary school.

The over 5,000 preschool teachers who are now teaching in preschool class are likely interested in whether they will be able to be validated in a simple way and become qualified for all four years or if they should seek other jobs.

What does Kent Kumpula say about this?

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

Kent Kumpula (SD)

Madam Speaker! Curricula and steering documents shall be developed. It is not until 2028 that the ten-year primary school shall be introduced, and obviously, one thing is taken at a time. First, we shall decide that the primary school shall become ten years. The next step is to develop steering documents, curricula, and so on. Only after that shall it be established how the teacher training shall proceed. To specify how the teacher training shall proceed before one even has curricula and steering documents in detail would be a very backward way of doing things.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Curricula will not answer the question I just asked: How will preschool teachers with extensive experience in teaching in preschool class easily become qualified?

What direction does the government have? What influence will Kent Kumpula have over this process, and what is his proposal on how this should proceed?

We do not want to lose a lot of people who are now qualified. It is about people who have experience working in work teams with qualified primary school teachers, and then one should be able to carry out a faster validation process with fairly simple means so that they do not have to undergo a three and a half year education to become a primary school teacher. What is Kent Kumpula's and the government's answer to this?

When we are talking about curricula and steering documents: The proposal we are now taking a position on is that the new year 1 shall be subject to the same rules as the rest of primary school. The rest of the work, i.e., that which may potentially lead to the preschool's pedagogy being part of the new year 1 and that there may remain a distinct character concerning social and emotional development, shall be handed over entirely to the government.

Then it would be interesting to hear if Kent Kumpula will fight for it to be so. Shall six-year-olds be allowed to continue learning to stand in line and wait for their turn to throw the die? Shall they be allowed to continue working with such skills, take their learning point from play, and have their movement needs met? Will it be so? Will Kent Kumpula fight for it in the preparation of the new curriculum texts?

We leave this process entirely to the government, because what we are now going to decide on is only that there shall be the same rules for the new year 1 as for the rest of primary school.

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

Kent Kumpula (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Linus did not quite listen. I have to repeat myself: One must do the right thing in the right order. First, one must decide that something is to be done, and then one develops curricula and so on. Then one develops validation methods. To already now, in detail, say how it is to be done, what the educational paths are to be, what the requirements are to be, and how this is to be managed in detail without knowing what the curricula and steering documents are going to look like is very strange. It is a backward way of doing it.

No one has said that six-year-olds should sit in a school desk for eight hours a day and study mathematics intensely, and I honestly do not believe that Linus thinks that either. I do not believe it either. We do not need to act foolish here in the speaker's chair.

(Applause)

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind you of the address in the chamber with both first and last names.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the adoption of reservation 4 from us and Miljöpartiet. I also, of course, stand behind our second reservation, but another member will move for its adoption later in this debate.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating, as everyone has heard, the question of the introduction of a ten-year primary school.

The preschool class has played and continues to play a central role as a transition between preschool and primary school. It is clear that the Swedish school system needs more interventions, and a ten-year primary school could contribute to this, provided that the reform is implemented in a thoughtful and responsible manner. But unfortunately, the government's current proposal and handling raise some concerns. I want to highlight some of these.

The proposal means that the preschool class ceases to be a separate school form and instead transitions to being the first grade in primary school and corresponding school forms. A crucial detail in this is who shall have the qualification to teach in the new grade 1 and the lower grades. There, I argue that the government's proposal has far-reaching consequences both for the teacher supply in general and for the individuals who today work as or are training to be preschool teachers and teachers.

The eligibility requirements for the new year 1, as well as the possibility of providing further education and continuing education, thus become crucial. The Government now needs to clarify how it intends to ensure that the youngest students will be met by teachers with the right competence. Otherwise, the risk is that the reform's ambition, which is intended to be increased knowledge development among other things, will not be achieved. It would also be very unfortunate if teachers with long experience of pedagogical work with six-year-olds are suddenly considered ineligible for just this teaching despite their actual competence.

We must not end up in a situation where the competence of preschool teachers is lost. On the contrary, it must be valued and developed within the framework of the new ten-year primary school. At the same time, primary school teachers who have not previously taught the youngest pupils may also need to be given the opportunity to build up their competence in play-based pedagogy, which is also crucial in the teaching of just the youngest children.

For the autumn term 2023, it could be seen in the statistics that only 35 percent of the affected teachers in the preschool class had the qualification required by the proposal to be able to teach in the new grade 1. This clearly shows the need for generous transition rules and good opportunities for validation, further education, and competence development, so that everyone is given a reasonable chance to become qualified well in advance of the reform's entry into force.

Madam Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet see great value in that the reform can create – I say can create – a more cohesive schooling for the children. Avoiding a change of school form after one year could strengthen the sense of continuity and security. But it must not happen at the expense of the strengths that the preschool class has today and its unique combination of preschool and school pedagogy.

The preschool class's mission to promote children's learning and development is crucial for the reform to be successful. Therefore, the teaching in the new grade 1 must continue to integrate methods and pedagogy from both preschool and school. Those who are to teach there must be able to use the strengths of preschool class pedagogy in a purposeful way. This presupposes, however, that the curriculum for the preschool class is also preserved.

The combination of play and learning is not only a pedagogical success model – it is also supported by research. Building further on that curriculum also provides better conditions for the children's transition between preschool and primary school and ensures that the positive experiences of the preschool class are not lost.

Madam Speaker! At the same time as we discuss the changes in the primary school's structure, we must speak plainly about the biggest problem in today's Swedish school, namely an experiment that has bad consequences regardless of whether we have a ten-year primary school or not. I believe everyone here knows what I am going to mention, namely the market school experiment.

It is not just the number of school years or whether we have a coherent primary school or not that determines the quality of schooling. The question is significantly larger than that. It is about how we distribute the resources, how equality is secured, and how we guarantee that every student receives the education they have a right to. It is about what working environment the school's staff has.

Today's market school system, where schools compete for school funding, has led to segregation, grade cheating, and a deep inequality in the Swedish school system. That private actors can also take unlimited profits from the tax-funded education is a fundamental systemic flaw that will not be solved with this reform.

We in Vänsterpartiet believe that reforms concerning the school's future must have their starting point in the students' needs, not in market logic. Expanding primary school to ten consecutive years can be good, but if we do not simultaneously address the fundamental structural problems, above all the school system, whose logic has become market logic, all good ambitions risk coming to nothing.

School should not be a market – it should be a place for knowledge, equality, and safety for all children in the entire country. Therefore, I wish to once again move for approval of reservation 4.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! Literacy among Swedish children is declining. Literacy is declining along with the knowledge results in the Swedish school. Today, one in five fourth graders cannot read properly. The problems are greatest among those students who do not always speak Swedish at home. There we see an even greater need to strengthen the focus on reading instruction early on.

We know that the ability to read is completely necessary in order to be able to manage school, but also in order to be able to take an active part in our community. It is absolutely crucial that one can read properly. Therefore, we need to do what we can to reverse this development.

We are investing in more books, more physical teaching materials and physical books. We are investing in staffed school libraries, which will be in place this summer, as well as in ensuring that teacher education includes something as obvious as teaching our future teachers which learning method works best to get our children to learn to read.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating another of these proposals. We are debating the government's reform – in fact, one of the most extensive reforms of Swedish school in decades. With the bill on a ten-year primary school, we are now taking important steps to strengthen the Swedish knowledge school. We want to increase equality and create better conditions for all children to succeed in school, regardless of background or place of residence.

It is also about something as fundamental as every student's first encounter with school, about the first contact with primary school and about laying the foundation for lifelong learning. It is about taking responsibility for Sweden's future. It may sound lofty. It is also, because it is about building a school that gives every student the support they need in our school. It is about a structure that creates a focus on knowledge and the opportunity for every student to grow and become their best self.

For us Moderates, education is the path to freedom. School is the path to the opportunity to shape one's own life, to become the architect of one's own fortune or to achieve one's dreams. This should be possible regardless of background, upbringing, what one's parents are named or where they were born. It should be possible to build the life one wants to live, and that journey begins in school. An equal and knowledge-focused school is a prerequisite for exactly this.

Madam Speaker! Today we see that every sixth child leaves primary school without eligibility for upper secondary school. We know that every fourth student in grade 6 has failed in at least one subject. It is completely unacceptable. These figures represent all those thousands of individuals who today risk being left behind and whose future opportunities are drastically limited at an early age.

With the ten-year primary school, we take decisive steps to break this development. By providing children with a more structured education already from the age of six, with a focus on reading and writing learning and early mathematics instruction, we lay the foundation for success in future schooling. We know that early interventions are crucial. Research shows that children who receive the right support at an early age have significantly better prospects of succeeding later in school.

When we now replace the preschool class with a new first-grade class in primary school, six-year-olds will have access to the primary school's staff, competence, curriculum, and resources in a completely different way. This means that we get the opportunity to strengthen the pedagogical content and clarify the knowledge mission right from the start.

Madam Speaker! As several have previously pointed out here in the debate, today's school structure is based on you first attending preschool, then a one-year preschool class, and then primary school, where you start in grade 1. The preschool class became, as we have heard, compulsory only in 2018. But despite that, it continued to be a separate school form with its own curriculum and its own rules. This creates problems in the transitions between the different stages.

We mean that we cannot have a school system where the transitions between the school forms create this type of gap in the teaching. It creates an ambiguity in the distribution of responsibility and differences in quality. We mean that it is not worthy of a country like Sweden, which puts knowledge at the center.

Let me therefore be clear about what this reform actually entails.

Firstly, the ten-year primary school means that we give all children opportunities to have a longer and more coherent schooling with a focus on knowledge. Secondly, we strengthen the reading and writing learning and also the mathematics teaching. It creates a crucial opportunity for the students to then manage the rest of their schooling. Thirdly, it is about continuity. These students now get better conditions to keep the same teachers for more years during the early schooling, which we believe also promotes progression in the learning.

We believe that this is a clear and important signal, and we believe that it creates good conditions to meet these students early.

Madam Speaker! I hear the criticism from the opposition here in the chamber. They argue that the special pedagogy of the preschool class risks being lost. Let me then be clear. There is nothing in this bill that strengthens that concern or that apprehension. This reform does not prevent us from also taking with us the best of the preschool class. There is no obstacle to that. There is nothing that prevents one from also being able to use the preschool class's methods of work and take parts of it into the new first grade. We believe that the teaching in the new grade 1 shall be characterized by a variation of different forms of expression and methods of work, where play and movement are a natural part of the school day.

But the difference, Madam Speaker, is that we are now giving the children a structured teaching in subjects. Above all, writing and reading learning and mathematics get a much clearer focus already for the six-year-olds. We know that it is crucial to give the children a strong knowledge base to stand on. It is also important for the country Sweden and our growth and competitiveness. It is about how we shall stand in relation to other countries.

Madam Speaker! This question has been shouted for a long time. It is quite telling that it is now the Moderate-led government that is launching the reform – finally. Previous governments have been incapable, just as in so many other issues. But this government has the power of action to deliver and to implement changes.

With a ten-year primary school, we are now further strengthening the knowledge focus in school. It is a knowledge school where every child is given the opportunity to reach their full potential, where there are high expectations for all students, regardless of background, and where clear knowledge requirements go hand in hand with relevant and correct support so that the set goals can be achieved.

Madam Speaker! We are now moving from words to action. The ten-year primary school is a reform that will be able to make a real difference for the children of the future, together with many other central reforms that this government is now launching.

We believe that the reform will contribute to giving six-year-olds a stronger start in school, and it strengthens the knowledge mission. Sweden shall have a world-class knowledge school, a school where all children, regardless of background, are given the opportunity to succeed.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move for the approval of the government bill and the committee's proposal in the report.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank you for a pleasant term. I want to thank the committee's secretariat for an exemplary job and my colleagues in the committee for good cooperation during the past term.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Just as when it concerned Kent Kumpula, I had not intended to request a reply – until our policy was mentioned. It was mentioned in this context by Josefin Malmqvist. She said this: There is no obstacle to taking advantage of the distinctiveness that the preschool class's pedagogy has entailed. I cannot say that it was an exact quote, but it was something in that style.

There is no obstacle to taking the best from the preschool class. No, that is quite right. There is none. There are also no guarantees that it will happen.

However, there are guarantees that it will be structured teaching. All representatives for the government side have long maintained this in their speeches. And there are guarantees that there will be teaching in subjects. There will be curricula. There will be knowledge requirements, which the individual child shall achieve. There will be a timetable. All those things are guaranteed in the proposal that we are now going to decide on.

But there are no guarantees that one will take with them the best from the preschool class's pedagogy, from that which would become the bridge between preschool and primary school – that which is the young child's entry into a new school activity, that which concerns social and emotional training and that which concerns taking the children's play as a starting point. There are no guarantees for this.

I have a simple question for Josefin Malmqvist. Can she provide such a guarantee? Will the curriculum include these values? Will it be clarified that these perspectives shall be included in the pedagogy and in the operations in the new grade 1? Can she guarantee that?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! In much of the discussion it sounds as if we are in agreement, but now it is shining through what Linus Sköld and the Social Democrats actually think.

The reform has not come about by chance but for a reason. We believe that today's preschool class has not quite lived up to expectations. It has become a kind of intermediate year, a kind of waiting room between preschool and school, where many children miss out on valuable time for learning. This does not apply to all children. In some places, the preschool class works perfectly well. There, several schools have already chosen today to employ primary school teachers who are trained to teach children reading and mathematics. Already today, they conduct that type of instruction in the preschool class, but other children do not receive that type of instruction at all.

It is this that we want to achieve with this reform. We want all six-year-olds to become full-fledged students in primary school and make better use of this teaching time. That is the goal.

Which methods are used to teach knowledge in primary school and in preschool class, and also in other classes, which methods are used, is primarily a matter for the profession to take a stand on.

That is why I said in my speech that there is nothing preventing us from taking the best from what is today preschool class when we convert and create a new grade 1. It is a change that we welcome, and it is also part of the background to the reform.

I have the following question for Linus Sköld. Do you not stand behind the development that the new year 1 will have an increased focus on precisely knowledge?

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Josefin Malmqvist patted herself on the chest in her speech and said that it is this fantastically proactive government that is implementing the reform. Yes, the investigation has been finished since we left government power. What has happened over the last three years? Why is the proposal coming now, if this government is so fantastically proactive? It was our government that did the preparatory work so that this government could rush what we had started into completion.

Josefin Malmqvist could not have heard me either – or she is making things up to be against things I say – when I pointed out that we have also identified deficiencies in the preschool class as it is currently constructed. It is a matter of lack of continuity, a resource gap, and a great inequality in the operations. Those were the three main reasons I gave for why we support the introduction of a ten-year primary school.

But there are proposals from the investigation that could help the profession to preserve that part of the preschool class's uniqueness that we are talking about – the best of the preschool class. The investigation proposed that a preschool pedagogical boost be introduced for the primary school teachers who are now to become qualified to teach six-year-olds. Such a proposal is not included in the reform.

Josefin Malmqvist categorically refused to answer my question. She can guarantee that there will be subject plans, curricula, knowledge requirements, and timetables. But can she guarantee that we will take the best from the preschool class into the new grade 1, when there will be no preschool pedagogical lift?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! It may become a bit parodical for those listening to the debate, when Linus Sköld chooses and picks out among the parts of the post that he wants to listen to. So be it.

It is true that there is an investigation that forms the basis for the reform. A previous Social Democratic government had plenty of time to launch it, but they chose not to do so. I note that, and I state now that it is a Moderate-led government that ensures we get the reform in place.

The most important thing for me is that our six-year-olds now get an increased focus on knowledge in school and better opportunities to prepare for their future academic and professional lives. I believe that making primary school ten years long is a first small piece of the puzzle to get there.

It is no coincidence that we are talking about an increased focus on knowledge. That is what we want to achieve with the reform. We want there to be more focus on reading and writing learning than there is in today's preschool class. We want there to be a focus on early mathematics skills to lay a good foundation for future studies. What Linus Sköld stands here and laments is the purpose of this. It is something we strive for with this reform.

I can repeat again that which methods the teachers choose to use in the classroom is primarily a matter for the teachers to decide. What we say, and what the Education Act says, is that the teaching shall be based on evidence and proven experience, and we continue to stand behind that. This means that the teaching will be conducted in a different way in grade 1 than in grade 9. This already happens today because the teaching is adapted to children's ability to acquire knowledge. The profession can handle this, and we look forward to getting this in place.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! School is the strongest protective factor against crime, unemployment, and mental ill-health. There is nothing that reduces the risk of exclusion as much as graduating from the Swedish school with passing grades. It is the best protection that Sweden's youth can receive. But unfortunately, a quarter of the youth do not receive that protection.

Every fourth student today completes grade 9 without complete grades, and 16 percent do so without eligibility for upper secondary school. It is not good enough. Behind every percent are thousands of children and young people who are missing out on a future full of opportunities.

We must get to the bottom of the question of how the number of students with eligibility for upper secondary school can increase. We cannot afford to let a generation fall through the cracks. Sweden needs a school where no one is held back and no one lags behind.

Madam Speaker! One step in this is that the government is now introducing a ten-year primary school. The idea behind the preschool class has been good. It was intended to create a soft transition to school and begin learning in a playful form. But in practice, the education in the preschool class has not functioned as intended. Reviews show that it is only in a quarter of the preschool classes that students receive instruction that truly stems from the curriculum's goals. The pedagogical cooperation between the preschool class teachers and the primary school staff often falls short. This leads to lack of clarity for both children and staff. Therefore, a clear structure was needed from the start with a common school form, a coherent curriculum, and a shared responsibility.

With a ten-year primary school, students receive a coherent schooling where the focus early on lies on learning to read, write, and calculate. These are the tools every student needs to conquer the rest of school – and the rest of life. It is not about removing play, curiosity, or creativity. On the contrary, it is about building a clear framework where there is room for all of this, but where knowledge development always stands at the center.

It is also about the school being there earlier with clear teaching, with high expectations and with professional support that sees each child's needs. All children have the right to succeed in school, and it is our responsibility as legislators to create the conditions for that.

By moving up the start of primary school, with a coherent curriculum and clear subject teaching, we strengthen the students' opportunity to develop their reading and writing skills from a young age. And that is exactly where it begins: with the words, the sentences, and the ability to understand and make oneself understood. Language is the key to all other knowledge. Those who have a rich vocabulary have a greater chance of keeping up with the teaching, understanding social information, and participating in social life. The earlier we begin to build the linguistic foundation, the stronger it becomes.

When we strengthen early learning in a coherent school form, we give more children a better chance to meet the knowledge goals. We know that it is precisely in the early years that the foundation is laid for school success later in life. It is at an early age, before the problems have had time to grow large, that we can discover which students need extra support. It is then that we can catch the signals, implement interventions, and make a difference.

A ten-year primary school also creates greater equality. Today, the conditions for students in preschool class vary to an all-too-great extent between different municipalities, schools, and classrooms. It is not reasonable that the quality of children's first school years should depend on which school or which classroom they end up in.

Through a common school start with joint governance of content, goals, and follow-up, we can ensure that all children are met with the same high level of ambition. This also applies to the teachers. With a common educational form, we ensure that those who teach the youngest pupils have the right competence, the right tools, and the right mandate. Teaching in languages, mathematics, and other basic skills requires skilled educators who know how to meet children's different needs and how to follow their development.

Another advantage of a ten-year primary school is fewer transitions between school forms, which creates greater security and better continuity. We know that every change, every new school, every new teacher, and every new environment can mean uncertainty or insecurity for some students.

With a cohesive primary school, the same teacher or work team can follow the students over a longer period. This provides better opportunities to build relationships, adapt the teaching to each student's needs, and monitor development over time. It also provides a safer school environment where students can feel seen and understood, not just as children in a crowd but as unique individuals with different strengths and challenges.

When the teaching is based on a common plan and common goals, it becomes easier for teachers to work systematically, follow the students' progression, and provide the right support at the right time. It also sends a clearer signal to students and parents about what the school is for, namely to equip children with knowledge, skills, and abilities that carry them through life.

Madam Speaker! With this reform, a ten-year primary school, we take an important step towards a school that holds together from beginning to end. It is a school that gives all children the chance to succeed regardless of where they come from or what circumstances they bring with them.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee members, the committee secretariat, and the chair's office for the good cooperation during the past term, wish everyone a pleasant summer, and move for the approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! This has been a very exciting debate to listen to. I am pleased that the government parties feel such pride in implementing this reform, which the Green Party and the Social Democrats laid the foundation for. It was not even last parliamentary term that we began working on developing the preschool class, but the one before that. It resulted in the preschool class becoming compulsory. In May 2021, the investigation that forms the basis for the reform was released.

It is clear that one can think that our previous government, or for all I care the Social Democrats last year after the Green Party left the government, could have put in some effort. I do not know if you remember anything else that occurred in 2020 or 2021, which was some kind of effort for our society to handle. There was a pandemic ongoing, which occupied quite a lot of resources here in the Riksdag, at the Government Offices, and in society at large. It is possible that the most pressing matter just then was not to carry out this. But we have heard how the governing parties are passionate about this reform, and they have still had quite a long time. The investigation was there ready to be handled when this government took office.

We have also heard a rather animated debate about the point of the opposition's reservations against the background of the fact that everyone still wants the primary school to become ten-year, for the reasons that have been presented and which made the S-MP government begin to work on the issue. It has sounded as if it would be a bit unnecessary for the opposition to keep going and interfering.

Miljöpartiet and I feel a responsibility to nurture this reform. That is why we point out which important parts are needed. We believe in this reform. But, Madam Speaker, I will admit that I am not sure if I believe in it as much as the government parties do. What we are hearing are presentations that the reform will solve almost everything that can be solved when it comes to Swedish school. But it will not do that during this government either.

What is needed in Swedish schools are skilled teachers who have enough time for their students. We can make all other possible reforms, but if we do not solve that, they do not matter. Therefore, I find it a bit difficult to interpret the messages. Does the government really want to achieve a truly good ten-year primary school, or is it something that one just ticks off?

There are two things that we particularly want to highlight regarding this reform. They concern safeguarding the preschool's pedagogy. I have reacted a bit to the fact that it sounds in the debate as if children's education begins in the preschool class, or possibly as if the preschool class is a vacuum and that the education begins in what is now grade 1. But Swedish children's education begins when they start preschool. In preschool, one works systematically with language, mathematics, natural sciences, and aesthetic forms of expression. The preschool class's role has been to be a bridge over to school.

We, or at least I, have on some occasions referred to the Riksdag's research day, when we spoke about the skills of the future. One thing that I have noted when I have looked at, for example, STEM subjects, i.e., mathematics and natural sciences and so on, is that the interest in those subjects is falling. When children start school, very many of them are interested in those subjects, but then the graphs drop like a stone. The interest falls sharply until they finish ninth grade.

I think that one should ask oneself if there is something in Swedish school that we are doing wrong, which causes children to lose interest in the subjects that provide what we judge to be very important knowledge in the society they are to live in. I actually believe that one can say that we take them a bit too seriously. We perhaps want to turn children, who still need play, movement, and aesthetic opportunities for expression to learn what they need, into small university students.

When we talk about safeguarding preschool pedagogy, it is about ensuring that those who have worked in preschool classes and experienced preschool teachers can continue to work in the early grades of primary school, meaning not just the new grades 1 and 2. One must ensure that there is validation that is generous towards experienced professionals. There must be suitable supplementary education so that they can follow through throughout the entire primary school.

I also want to highlight, based on what I said earlier, that Swedish school does something with the motivation to learn. It is important that those who are primary school teachers now also embrace pedagogy based on play. I believe that it can be a key.

We have discussed what is reasonable to do in the reform regarding transitional rules for qualifications and credentials. We want to see truly generous conditions. We want, in fact, to safeguard the reform's purpose of merging the primary school so that there is a continuity for the students. It needs to happen based on each person's individual competence. One should not need to read a whole education if there are no competence gaps, but rather one should be able to follow along with the children further up in the education.

One can wonder if it is reasonable to carry out such reform work already now. My answer is yes. I think it is completely reasonable. When one carries out such a large reform that affects many teachers, one should do the whole job. One cannot say that it should be done later and that we will see how it turns out. It is still about people's professional lives, and I think we should show respect for that. It is reasonable to have it clear for oneself when one puts a proposition like this on the table. There is nothing preventing the government from doing so.

Madam Speaker! I would like to move for the approval of the common reservation 2 of the Green Party and the Left Party regarding the preschool's pedagogy and the importance of it still being a supporting part in the new ten-year primary school.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 18 June.)

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