An equitable grading system

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I haven't checked this, but I can imagine there are clay tablets with Sumerian cuneiform where a parent complains about the grading for one of their youths. The grading system is an eternal debate.

Today we are going to debate a new grading system that aims to increase equivalence, better reflect the students' knowledge, and ensure that students are not knocked out but can continue their studies if they have the ability to do so.

Madam Speaker! No grading system is perfect, but I can state that the grading system we have had is less perfect than the grading system we will have when the House approves this proposal. I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

Madam Speaker! Today we have problems with grade inflation and "joy grades," that is to say that the grades do not reflect the students' knowledge. This means that when the grades are then used to apply for further studies, it is not equivalent and fair between students, but the grades depend on which teacher one has had and which school one has attended. The grades simply do not reflect the students' actual knowledge to a sufficiently high degree.

Madam Speaker! Today's grading system also means that there are students who are knocked out. They could have continued their studies, but they will not be able to do so because of the F grade. This is what we want to put an end to. We want the grades to better reflect the students' knowledge and that students can continue their studies even if they have been poorer in some subject.

In the general debate, it has sounded a bit as if we are abolishing the Fb grade, but that is not actually what we are doing. What we are doing is introducing a new, ten-grade grading system where the equivalent of the Fb grade is not included. This is instead reflected by a couple of other grade levels.

This means that one can apply for and gain admission to further studies even if one has knowledge that today would correspond to an Fb grade. One can simply have it counted towards one's merit value anyway. It is very unusual, Madam Speaker, to have no knowledge at all. Therefore, the Fb grade becomes very blunt. We are thus introducing a new, ten-grade grading system.

Madam Speaker! We also ensure that the grades are calibrated with a final exam. This means a stop to, or at least a significant reduction in, the possibilities for "joy grades" and grade inflation.

Madam Speaker! Today, one does not know if a grade that a student has received corresponds to the same grade that another student has received at another school, in another part of the country, or by another teacher. What we do is to ensure that the merit value that is subsequently used for application is also calibrated with a final exam. The purpose of this is to move away from and counteract grade inflation and "joy grades" and obtain merit values that better reflect the students' knowledge.

Madam Speaker! Grading is difficult. It will never be the case that everyone assesses in exactly the same way and that one teacher's assessment is completely identical to another teacher's. One part of the new grading system is that the grading criteria become somewhat less detailed, while at the same time the course plans and curricula weigh more heavily in some sense when it comes to how the content of the education is guided.

I believe it is positive. It means that the teachers get a slightly larger scope of action, but it also means – together with the final exams – that grade inflation and "joy grades" are countered. It means, therefore, that the teachers get a clearer role and more to say about, while at the same time the students get more comparable grades when they compare themselves with other students – after all, that is what one does when applying for further education.

Madam Speaker! I would like to move for the approval of the proposal, so that we thereby take important steps to tackle both the grade inflation and the "joy grades," as well as the elimination that the Fbetyg has entailed.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I intended to dwell a little on a rather central part of the construction of the new grading system, namely the national final exam.

During parts of the investigation period, it was very important that the final exam should be included in the digital testing part that we have worked with for quite many years and which during the recent years has completely failed. We talk very much about that the grading system is an important and central part of the education system. We must be able to trust that the grading system holds together, especially when one places great confidence in a large national final exam that is to be a fairly large part of both the individual grade and the calibration system to counteract what the member was touching upon regarding grade inflation and the like.

Therefore, I must ask: How worried are the Liberals that such a vital part as the national final exam will be possible to conduct digitally without contributing to more administration for teachers? How can that work given that it actually constitutes at least 30 percent of the new grading system? So far, we have not been anywhere near being able to conduct such an extensive and large-scale work as the national exams digitally. How is that going to fit together with a national final exam?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Sigvardsson for a good and well-motivated question.

There have been problems with the digital exams – that is absolutely correct. It does make me feel somewhat worried, but I have no problem admitting that it has been so. It is not the government that has designed the IT systems or the exams in detail. It lies possibly partly outside what both a L-government and an S-government can do. Fundamentally, one must have confidence that the authorities can fulfill their task. It is also important that there is a possibility for some form of backup, that is, that one does not do it digitally if it does not work.

Madam Speaker! With that said, I also think it should be remembered that the grading system we are debating today is part of a whole. The Member is concerned about the teachers' administrative burden. That also concerns me, and it is among other reasons why we in the Chamber last week debated regulating teachers' teaching time and thereby also their time for administration, planning, and so on.

The ambition is not for this to lead to an increased administrative burden, but if it does, we will of course have to return to that. That is not the purpose, and I do not believe that it will be the case either.

All grading systems involve some form of administrative burden. It is quite laborious and difficult to assign grades. The ambition with this system is that the teachers should not experience an increased workload.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the concern that Joar Forssell speaks about, it becomes interesting to see what preparedness one intends to have in order to potentially be able to change and improve so that one does not end up in the wrong situation.

Digital national tests would have been carried out, which meant massive measures and administrative burdens for teachers all over the country. Teachers had to spend hours copying new tests and administering them. If we are to be able to work with central grading, which I know the Liberals think is reasonable, as well as ensure that it becomes as fair as the grading system is portrayed to be here, we need to be able to ensure that we have a national system in place so that it does not become an even larger administrative colossus than the one we already have.

Many of the reforms that we here in the chamber have jointly voted through or will vote through are indeed important. I believe, however, Madam Speaker, that one underestimates what it could mean to lock in a national final exam that is to be digital in its planning phase when we cannot be certain that this is in place.

In Skolverket's reporting from the last month, it sounds as if there is no reasonableness at all in having it in place when one is about to start introducing these systems from 2028 onwards; that is the time horizon we are talking about. Therefore, it is reasonable to wonder whether one should lock the grading system so firmly when we cannot be certain that the system will function in a sensible way without creating extreme administrative burdens for teachers and other school staff during the time of the year when many final exams are to be taken. This period – May and June – is very intense. Everyone works and toils after an entire school year.

This is a bit of a disregard for the concern and the question that the government has an obligation to answer: Will it become an organizational chaos when digital final exams perhaps do not work and manual handling must take place?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! There are problems with grade inflation and "joy grades"; as far as that goes, I believe the member and I are in agreement. This is due to several things. One reason is the independent school system, where we are now carrying out a complete renovation.

Another reason is that it is difficult, not to say impossible, to achieve a grading that is exactly the same across the entire country. There is a measure of freedom in the assessment; after all, it is assessment we are talking about. Something was needed as a tool if we are to move away from this, at least a little bit, so that we get more equivalence as well as grades and merit values that better reflect the students' actual knowledge, so that one can compare themselves and so that it becomes fair when one seeks further in the education system. I believe that final exams are needed for us to achieve this. I see no other possibility than to have final exams to create equivalence across the whole country between students and schools with different teachers. So it is.

Could this mean an administrative burden? I do not doubt that Sweden has the ability to carry out digital final exams. It would be very strange. Many other countries manage this. I have visited Ukraine a number of times during the war. They have digitized despite Russia's ongoing war of attack. It is clear that Sweden also has this ability.

Do I think it will be able to happen completely painlessly in all situations? No, I cannot guarantee that. Therefore, one needs to be prepared that we may need regular manual paper tests. That is how reality looks. I do believe, however, that the alternative of not having a new grading system and not having final exams is much worse. We will do other things to reduce the teachers' burden.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joar Forssell, for the speech and the exchange of remarks!

I am also interested in the national final exams, but perhaps from a slightly different perspective. National final exams become very significant for the students. In English, they are often called high-stakes tests. These tests weigh very heavily for the students' future. This is highlighted as a risk by the referral bodies. Sveriges Elevkårer and Sveriges Elevråd describe in their referral response that these tests cause incredibly high stress for our school students. Now, more and even heavier tests are coming. There will be tests that have incredibly great weight and that affect the students' future incredibly much.

What measures is the government taking regarding these tests so that they do not cause more stress for Sweden's students, who already – due to the school system – are described as experiencing more stress than students in Sweden's neighboring countries?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! This is a very interesting question. To begin with, I believe that school will always involve stress for students. That is how reality looks, that is how it has always looked, and that is how it will always look. Shall we reduce that stress as much as we can? Yes, we shall do that. Shall we ensure that students feel as well as possible? Yes, we shall do that.

My experience from having been active in student unions and student councils myself – I do not doubt that member Hansén has also been active in such organizations – is that grade inflation and "joy grades" have led to a great deal of stress over a very long period. One might compare oneself with students from other, perhaps nearby, schools and note that a student at another school received a different grade than one received oneself, even though one thinks one is better. This also creates enormous stress, because one then wants to use the grades to move on to another education or move forward in life. That stress, I believe, we can partially address with this system of final exams.

Is it possible to create a school that is completely free from stress? No, it is not – it is impossible. Is it possible to create a school that is more equitable and where the merit value reflects the students' knowledge to a greater extent? Yes, I believe so. Will this be good for reducing stress? Yes, I believe so.

Madam Speaker! We will, of course, do everything we can to support students and provide them with the support, the instruction, and the focus on knowledge required so that they can be secure in knowing that they are given good chances and equal opportunities to obtain good grades, knowledge, and opportunities to move forward in life. I believe that this leads to less stress. I am aware that a test can be stressful, but it is even more stressful with "joy grades" and grade inflation.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! For me, it is a different matter to feel tension before one is to perform something. Perhaps both Joar Forssell and I feel such tension when we are to step up to the rostrum. It is a stress one should have in order to perform better.

The report. The only thing I am thinking about is stress, and school is about unhealthy stress. We do not want such stress, whether in working life, here in the Riksdag, or in school. What I am focusing on is that even more weight is being placed on something that already causes mental ill-health among students. However, I also do not believe that one can make life into some kind of ride on a trapeze through school, where everything is wonderful all the time, but it is clear that there will be tough challenges sometimes.

I want to hear what measures the government is taking to improve the mental health of young people in relation to the decision made here that we shall have more tests that have a greater impact on the students' future. Several referral bodies have pointed out that this also risks affecting teaching negatively. Everyone will know that the national final exams are very important for the school, for the individual student, and for the teachers. The risk is that teaching is structured in such a way that it yields good test results, and this risk is pointed out and is real.

Proofs must also be adapted to be able to be digital and corrected digitally, which means that the range of what can be tested with these formats becomes narrower.

How does the government want to prepare for this so that the negative consequences are avoided?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I agree that a test can be very stressful, but I do not agree with the rest of the description.

The grade one receives from a teacher can today differ from the grade one would have received from another teacher at another school, which creates great stress. Grade inflation and "joy grades" create great stress. It is reasonable, because one is obviously stressed that the system is not legally secure and that what one performs does not yield the grade one should receive.

Even though the final exam becomes very important, there are still more components that are important than today, so in a way, students get more chances to show what knowledge they have and what they can perform. I believe therefore that this system will lead to less stress structurally.

The government is taking a lot of different measures in the school area which, overall, are good. There shall be smaller classes, and students who disturb, cause trouble, and create stress in the school environment shall be able to be expelled from the classroom and receive their instruction somewhere else. Peace and quiet is an extremely important factor to avoid becoming stressed and to meet the knowledge requirements. The students shall also have access to counselors. Furthermore: That teachers become less stressed now that teaching time is regulated also leads to better teaching and less stress among the students.

We are therefore doing a lot, and I believe that the new grading system is part of the improvement.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I move initially for approval of reservation 5.

Today's debate is about a new grading system. A grading system must be fair, reliable, and equivalent. A student's knowledge must be assessed in the same way regardless of which school the student attends or where in the country the student lives.

Unfortunately, that is not how it works today. Today's grading system has for a long time been characterized by a sharp divide between pass and fail. In 1994, the passing grade was introduced, and in 2011, the then-bourgeois government pushed through the grade F. The idea was that clearer requirements would spur more students, but the result has instead been that far too many young people have been sorted out. It is not a reasonable system. For decades, many young people have had their futures limited, not because they lacked the ability to complete upper secondary school, but because the grading system has been built on an excessively harsh and rigid barrier.

That is why a reform of the Swedish grading system was needed. It is positive that the sharp F-grade is now removed and that the students' cumulative knowledge will be given greater importance. But, Madam Speaker, the decisive question is whether the new system will truly address the weeding out of students in the Swedish school.

Will it remove the roadblock that the hard border has entailed?

Today, 15–20 percent of students leave primary school without being eligible for the national programs of upper secondary school. This concerns approximately 20,000 students every year who cannot take the step directly from primary school to upper secondary school.

Much remains for the government to prove. From the investigation and the preparatory works for the bill on an equivalent grading system, it appears that 8–10 percent of students will also continue to be ineligible. This is naturally an improvement, but 8–10 percent still means that thousands of students every year risk being excluded from the high school's national programs. This is far from the picture the government parties have tried to give when they claim that they are now settling the Fb-grade and its exclusionary effects.

Even if the proportion decreases to 8–10 percent, in accordance with the investigation's scenario, Sweden would still be at the bottom of the EU, yes, even worst when it comes to layoffs.

This is not good enough. The new grading system can therefore not be regarded as an endpoint, but it must be the beginning of an ongoing effort to ensure that significantly more students can proceed from grade 9 to the national programs of upper secondary school.

We know what the consequences can be for the student who does not move forward. The one who lacks a complete upper secondary education finds it significantly harder to establish themselves on the labor market, runs a greater risk of ending up in long-term unemployment, and has more limited opportunities to shape their own life. It is a failure not only for the individual student but also for society. We cannot afford to let thousands of young people fall aside from education and work every year.

Therefore, the most important questions moving forward must be how we continue to reduce the dropout rate and how we ensure that the dropout rate does not continue with the new system. A new grading system must ultimately be judged based on whether it opens more doors for young people, not just based on letters, numbers, and calculation models.

Madam Speaker! The problems with the grading system are not only about the hard Fgräns. They are also about equivalence, grade inflation, and the economic drivers that exist in the market school. When schools compete for students and school money, a strong incentive is created to give higher grades – something we have seen in recent decades. The grades then risk becoming a marketing tool in the pursuit of new students and increased profits.

We have seen how grade manipulation and grade inflation have eroded trust in the system. Students at some schools have received higher grades than their results justify. Grades have become a currency in the school market, which is deeply problematic. Grades should be a measure of students' knowledge, not a means of competition between schools. Grades should be accurate and reliable for admission to the next level of education. They should not be used to lure students in order to increase the profitability of school companies.

Therefore, it is not enough to change the grading scale or introduce new technical models. To achieve a fair and equitable grading system, we must also address the drivers that create grade inflation. As long as the pursuit of profit and the competition for students persist, the pressure to award unjustifiably high grades will also remain.

We Social Democrats want a grading system that is fair and reliable, which reduces dropouts and is not corrupted by grade cheating and the pursuit of profit.

There are also questions about how this grading system shall function in practice. The calibration must be understandable for teachers, students, and guardians. A grading system that few understand risks quickly losing its legitimacy.

Furthermore, the model relies heavily on national final exams. They were intended to be conducted digitally, but the introduction of the digital national exams has failed. This naturally raises questions about how robust the system is.

There is also a risk that teaching is focused to an excessive extent on students performing as well as possible on a single final exam. But the school's task is greater than that. The teaching should provide students with broad and lasting knowledge, not be reduced to exam preparation.

Therefore, the reform must be followed carefully and deficiencies must be corrected over time.

We Social Democrats believe that since there was a lack of broad parliamentary anchoring during the work of developing the new grading system, a broad parliamentary group needs to work during the implementation so that it becomes as good as possible.

Madam Speaker! Something that lies somewhat aside from the main debate is how the grading system shall function in municipal adult education. We Social Democrats believe that quite a lot of work remains to ensure that the new grading system also becomes fair and reliable for those who study within komvux.

Adult education has specific conditions. Students start and finish at different times, study at different paces, and often combine education with work and family life. Komvux also has a central role in the supply of skills.

Therefore, there are reasons to be concerned about a model where the number of final exams and the timing of the exams are limited. It risks creating waiting times and bottlenecks. Students are forced to wait for exams in order to be able to complete a course and proceed to the next step in their education.

We also see a risk that the grading will to an all-too-great extent rest on a single final exam and not a weighted assessment of both the final exam and the teacher's grading. But even within komvux, the grade must be a collective assessment of the student's knowledge. Therefore, the issue needs to be investigated further. The Government needs to return with proposals on how it should function within adult education.

Madam Speaker! Behind every figure in this debate is a student, a young person who has fought their way through primary school or upper secondary school, who has dreams for the future and who wants to get the chance to move forward. Therefore, we must never treat the grading system as a question of merely scales and calculation models. It is about people's lives and futures, about students who dream of becoming nursing assistants, electricians, teachers, engineers, or perhaps even Nobel Prize winners, and also those who have had it tough in school must have their knowledge and opportunities fairly assessed.

The Social Democrats believe that we should have a new grading system that can be relied upon, which opens more doors than it closes and which reduces the dropout rate. But the grading system cannot be viewed in isolation. We must move forward with addressing the systemic error in the Swedish market school. As long as the pursuit of students and profits is allowed to rule, there is a risk that grades will be used as competitive tools, and then we risk continued grade inflation, segregation, and market chaos.

School resources should go to teaching, teachers and support for the students, not to corporate profits. No student should have to feel that the future ended already in grade 9 because of a grading system that did not see the student's collective knowledge.

The school's task must be to give more young people a way forward, not to sort them out before adulthood has even started.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Niklas Sigvardsson for the speech.

I remember when one had debates with SSU members in the 80s and 90s. Back then, one was met with the message that grades were almost completely wrong and something ugly, but now I feel a completely different spirit in Niklas Sigvardsson. He still implies and asserts that grades are important. It is pleasing to hear that the Social Democrats stand firm on the fact that it is important to have grades in school. Then we can make different assessments of how it should look, but I am satisfied when I hear that the Social Democrats, for the most part, agree to the system that is now proposed and see the positive in it. There is therefore a good basis for the fact that it will turn out well in the end.

I would like to comment on that matter regarding Skolverket. I agree with Niklas Sigvardsson that the handling of the digital tests has been below all criticism and that there are strong reasons to criticize Skolverket for this. One has not only wasted millions on a system where one lacks the ability to deliver, but now it is also being said that one intends to scrap many of the ideas and that some tests shall be graded at the schools while others shall be graded centrally. So, we obviously cannot have that.

I want to ask Niklas Sigvardsson, just to clarify: Do the Social Democrats also see the need to grade the national tests centrally? If they cannot be graded digitally, are the Social Democrats then for finding an analog way to grade them centrally?

When it comes to the new system and eligibility, we sometimes forget in the debate that there unfortunately are students who do not have the ability to accommodate education. In those cases, other paths must be found. My question to Niklas Sigvardsson is: Are the Social Democrats opening up for other paths into vocational programs, for example, removed eligibility requirements and shorter two-year educations that allow one to quickly enter the workforce?

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the first question, we Social Democrats are positive about centrally administered tests. It is an important step toward creating equality in assessment throughout the school system. It has been important now that we have had national tests, for example, and it will continue to be so in this system. It is an important part of ensuring that grades are fair across the entire country.

Just as I said at the beginning of my speech, it is about the fact that a student must be able to feel secure that the assessment made in school, for example in Jönköping, where I come from, is the same as the one made in Member Reslow's Malmö. One must be able to trust that the systems work, and centrally corrected tests are part of this.

Ensuring that it becomes fair is important, but the part concerning exclusion is also important. There we must continue. We Social Democrats have had many and frequent dialogues with the parties in the labor market during this parliamentary term to see how we can find a system that ensures the labor market receives the competence it needs. It is about what was needed in a vocational program or similar so that one can take a job.

We must not undervalue taking a vocational program. These programs are a difficult education for many. Personally, I can say that I suit a theoretical program much better than a practical program, given how I function. It is therefore important to have a dialogue with the parties in the labor market about what is needed to be able to take a job in the future's labor market. What competence is needed? What security is needed when it comes to knowledge of the work environment and the like?

So far, the response from the labor market parties has been that they do not think the two-year solution is a good idea. They see that a lot of competence is needed even in subjects that may not be purely practical, such as Swedish, English, mathematics, and social studies, in order to be able to function on the Swedish labor market. It is important, Madam Speaker, that we as a society want young people to be able to enter adulthood with good skills that make them capable and functioning members of society.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I note that Niklas Sigvardsson and I have one thing in common: We are probably both very theoretically inclined rather than practically inclined. I am completely fine with that. I think, just like Niklas Sigvardsson, that it is important regardless.

It is pleasing to hear that the Social Democrats are on board and think it is important with centrally administered tests. Then we must ensure that it becomes so, even if it requires it to be done analogously, pending the digital. This is important because Skolverket is now unable to manage such a fundamental matter.

If we were to go back to a situation where it is suddenly the individual schools that are to grade the national tests, the entire idea of equivalence falls apart. That is why it is very good that we have a broad consensus on this issue. It is also important that we signal to Skolverket that it is not an acceptable way forward.

When it comes to the parties in the labor market, we know that Svenskt Näringsliv has one view and the industries have another. When we meet the latter, we rarely hear anything suggesting that three-year lines or theoretical knowledge would be important, but on the contrary, they are calling for precisely the practical skills.

It is important that we create opportunities for that part of students who cannot become eligible for a national program and who will have problems with the theoretical subjects, no matter how much we change the system. We believe that there must be a way in through shorter vocational programs. The main task must nevertheless be to ensure that they get a job in the future and do not get stuck in unemployment or exclusion. There, we must think further than the labor market parties sometimes do.

My question to Niklas Sigvardsson is therefore still: Can he imagine introducing shorter vocational programs for this group of students in consultation with, for example, the industries?

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! There is no doubt that the elimination of students will be one of the most important tasks regarding the school for a social democratically led government. Regardless of what the grading system looks like and what the system looks like overall, it will be important.

It is interesting. Even though the investigation speaks of 8–10 percent, we are still extremely far above the average on the European education side. The average for the EU is 5 percent, but in the current situation, we are up to 18–20 percent in some cases. In the investigation's best-case scenario, we might come down to 8–10 percent. There is therefore an incredible amount to be done here.

We Social Democrats are always open to looking at how we can find the best possible opportunities for students – children and young people – to be able to study and receive a secure education that they can rely on for a long time during their working lives. If there is one thing we know about the changing labor market, it is that one needs to have good knowledge with them when entering it. The labor market changes extremely much during a lifetime today. Having good basic knowledge ensures that one will be able to switch jobs during one's professional life but also get a good entry into the labor market.

We Social Democrats will continue to work together with the industries and the labor market partners to find the very best solution so that more young people can move forward with good knowledge both in upper secondary school, to upper secondary school, and after upper secondary school. Then we can enable a good labor market for a long time.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! It is completely obvious that Sweden has major problems today with a grading system that is not legally secure. For nearly 30 years, we have seen an increasing degree of grade inflation in the Swedish education system. It is not fair that a student who truly puts in the effort risks receiving a lower grade than another student who perhaps actually knows less but happens to attend a school that gives more generous grades.

It is not entirely simple to settle this. I believe we agree on the problem, but the question is how we can solve this together. This is something that governments of both party colors have struggled with and, with my hand on my heart, should have done something about for quite many years.

Now we are doing it. We asked the national economist Magnus Henrekson to appoint an inquiry with him at the head, which was to produce a new system based on the latest research and international experience.

We know that teachers are very skilled at setting their own grades and ranking their own students in their class. But to expect a teacher in one class to know what yardstick another teacher has in another class in another part of the country is not reasonable and is also not possible. That is also the background to the proposals we have here today. It is the background to externally graded central exams. It is the background to the calibration that is proposed in the model.

Jonas Vlachos stated in a debate article recently: "A better system does not need to be flawless." This is a better system because it addresses many of the problems we see today.

When I listen to Niklas Sigvardsson, I hear a lot about problems and risks that may exist with this system. But in Jonas Vlachos' words, it is a better system and does not need to be flawless.

My question to Niklas Sigvardsson is: Does he share that view, and will the new grading system continue to be implemented even if the Socialdemokraterna gain power over the Ministry of Education?

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Josefin Malmqvist, for the question!

What we can take away from tomorrow's vote is that we Social Democrats are voting yes to the legislation behind this grading system. We are voting yes for a ten-point scale from 1 to 10.

That we as the opposition highlight what we see as concerns and problems, I believe belongs to an opposition's role. But we have also read Skolverkets evaluation, which was carried out earlier than the investigation to look at possible models for working with increased equality.

We took, for example, centralised tests as part of the system already during our government's time in order to actually enable a more equitable assessment. One can therefore be confident that we Social Democrats vote yes to the bill that is on the table.

Then we can say this: That this system would have been secured if we had sat together and implemented it. We also see the problem that we need to work on the equivalence broadly across the system. That is why we vote yes to this.

I do not think that Josefin Malmqvist needs to be so worried that this change will not be permanent if the Social Democrats get power over the Ministry of Education. But that we highlight fears about a proposition that we have not participated in the work on at all, I think is quite logical from the standpoint that we are an opposition party.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! I wish I could feel somewhat more secure with Niklas Sigvardsson's words than I actually do here today.

Niklas Sigvardsson answers my question that the Social Democrats support us moving from having letters to having numbers, from A–F to 1–10. Absolutely, that's good, but the core part of this bill is about quality-assuring and anchoring the grades in something. We cannot have thousands of different yardsticks, but we must find a national yardstick if the grades are also to continue being usable for applications to further studies.

That is why it makes me worried that the Social Democrats reserve themselves against the calibration and against the centrally adjusted national tests. I want to give Niklas Sigvardsson an opportunity to explain. Does it mean that the Socialdemokraterna do not stand behind those parts of the reform? Or does it mean that we can feel secure that a new grading system will be able to be implemented and will give Swedish schools, teachers, and students peace of mind in the implementation moving forward? Can one feel secure that this grading system, even if it may not be completely perfect, is good enough to be able to function for the foreseeable future?

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Josefin Malmqvist, even though she expressed some concern.

It is quite clear that we Social Democrats run for election as a consensus party. We want to create broad agreements. That is why, for example, we have a reservation in this report that we should have a broad parliamentary review also in the implementation work so that we, together in this chamber and in the political landscape, can sit down and reflect: Is this becoming what was intended? What happens with the digital national final exams if nothing is delivered at all when the grading system is implemented? What happens when we look at the system and see the instructions from Skolverket to all thousands of teachers? What happens in the reform then?

That is why we want a broad parliamentary committee during the implementation work. It is so that we can reach a long-term, broad agreement so that the grading system – which perhaps is one of the fundamental pillars in how we measure knowledge and how we ensure that it becomes fair – actually holds up over time. It is such an ambition that I believe one must be able to have as a politician. When we carry out such overarching changes, the grading system should be a part where we can reach an agreement together, because it is something that affects generations and decades of students who go through the Swedish school system. Many of them have not even started Swedish school today, and some are not even born yet by those who will implement this type of grading system.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! Much has, of course, already been said about the grading system. But a good grading system is important for the trust in it and for creating a schooling that is good for the students so that they feel secure that the assessments being made are also the correct assessments.

Today we can state that we have problems. We have heard that there are problems with exclusion and that there are problems with inequality. For us Sverigedemokrater, inequality has been the absolute most important of the two. It is not reasonable that one sees differences from school to school or between different municipalities or between different schools in a municipality. It is not reasonable that one sees differences between independent schools and municipal schools or between different municipal schools or different independent schools. None of that is good, because in the end it is about what opportunities the student who leaves grade 9 or who leaves grade 3 for upper secondary school has to move forward in the system. Then we must be sure that we have a fair system that provides equal conditions.

In the current system, an A should be an A and an E an E, but that is not always the case. We have seen that an A can be an A in some schools, but in some other schools, an E can also be an A. So we cannot have that. Then we must do something.

During the previous parliamentary term, we discussed the grade scale quite a bit. The problem with that debate was that one did not get to the bottom of the real problem, namely the detailed descriptions of each grade level that existed. As long as one has such a system, it is reasonable that one actually reaches all the goals inscribed in the grade levels. Otherwise, it is unreasonable. It was actually that which should be corrected rather than abolishing the system as such. From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we said several times that we wanted to have back a system with some form of relative element.

I remember that during a presentation at Svenskt Näringsliv, I spoke about how we should look at the states in the USA where they have a percentage system, meaning that 90 percent give a certain grade and 80 percent another, and that this would be more equitable. The problem with that is that it leads to a lot of testing, and that is something we in Sverigedemokraterna do not want to see. We do not want it to become an entry point to testing hysteria in schools.

There has also been a problem with the system we have today. Much has revolved around the grading scale, and thus the teaching has also been characterized by preparing the students for the national tests. There has also been a very strong emphasis on testing. We believe that this will change.

Equality is the most important of all. Grades should be equal regardless of where one is in the country or at which school one is.

The grading investigation has done a solid job, I would like to say. It is a very good job. One has also been extremely transparent in that work. We now hear from the opposition that the government should have included the opposition more and had discussions and the like. In this case, I do not think it would have been necessary, because the grading investigation has also had discussions with the opposition. I am sure that you have met the grading investigation at least as much as we have, perhaps the department excepted. For us other parties, it has probably been roughly the same contact.

One has been very transparent. One has been out in debate articles and accounted for how this is to look. One has received comments and the like. Unlike in some other investigations, I would like to say that in this one it has been very clear what the driving force has been and what the end goal was to be. One has also taken in some of the opinions that have come in.

We in the Sweden Democrats have had views on some things. We still, for example, question how we should handle, for instance, modern languages. Today we have a merit evaluation system that guarantees that one can receive 20 extra merit points if one studies modern languages, that is, for example Spanish, French or German, in primary school. It is the same if one studies it in upper secondary school. Why is that? Well, because when the new grading system was introduced at one time, it was seen that students chose to opt out of modern languages, and then it was necessary to have something that functions as a carrot.

This disappears in the new grading system, and we will keep this under supervision and ensure that the students do not lose the modern languages. It is still a humanistic element that we think is important to safeguard.

We are, of course, also interested in that this really has an effect and becomes equivalent – otherwise, one has to adjust. One can adjust the calibration further until one obtains a fully equivalent system. There are, therefore, possibilities to tweak the system if one wishes.

The system that we have heard about and that is proposed is a combination of teacher-assigned grades and a merit value, and it is the merit value that is important. It will be given in grade 9 and in grade 3 of upper secondary school, and the purpose is only to obtain a selection to upper secondary school or higher education. This does not mean that one does not receive teacher-assigned grades. One continues to receive a grade transcript in hand when finishing school, but it is therefore not that grade that one applies with; instead, it shall be calibrated. The average of the student's results on the national tests shall be compared with the average at the school precisely in order to create the important equivalence.

It is sometimes claimed that the national tests will govern the teaching very much, but then I don't think one really understands how it works today. Today, it is actually the case that the national tests govern the teaching quite a bit. The entire grading system is set up so that it is the national test that governs. One must especially consider the national test, and with the grading criteria that exist in the current curriculum, it is also the case that one focuses quite a bit on the national test.

Now, it is the case that we have changed the curriculum. We made the decision on that last week, and now there are much simpler descriptions of what applies. They are overall assessments, the syllabi are much clearer and the teaching shall be based on the curricula. The national tests – the final exams that will come – shall be based on what is stated in the curriculum. The risk that there would be more focus on the national tests in the teaching, I think, is therefore quite small compared to how it is today.

So, it will be a grading system with a scale of 1–10, and an average of 4.0 will be required to obtain a degree. A grade of 4 will also be required on the thesis or the vocational test.

We believe that this is good, but we also have a fear here. It must not be the case that the municipalities – when they expand their educations and, at the expense of other things, expand the social sciences program or whatever it is – let through students who will not pass high school. This is one of the reasons why we have defended the Fbetyg until the very end, i.e., because it has been a guarantee that the knowledge the students carry with them also has relevance in high school. There we can see a small risk.

We would have liked to see some form of special eligibility, for example for the theoretical programs. Now we have not landed there, but this is something that we will keep under observation to ensure that we do not create difficulties for the students by making it so easy to enter a theoretical program that it means one is just pushing the problems ahead of oneself. No one benefits from that.

I also note that criticism of Skolverket is emerging from the opposition side, and as I said in an exchange of remarks earlier, we have been extremely critical of Skolverket. Skolverket is not capable of this task. We must have centrally corrected tests – there is nothing else.

We have also asked several times in negotiations whether there is any backup plan if one does not manage to achieve centrally graded digital tests. We have said that in such cases we want centrally graded analogue tests.

I am pleased to hear that the opposition is on the same line. If this were to fall, yes, then the entire system falls. It is important that we stand united in this chamber and demand of Skolverket that they follow the directives that have been laid down. They must actually carry out the centrally regulated tests and not come up with any hybrid solutions – as we could read about in the media some months ago.

That there should be a broad parliamentary committee and that this should be followed up is important for the opposition when one is in opposition, but when the opposition itself sits in the majority, one is not particularly interested in having broad solutions. When, during the last parliamentary term, the proposals to abolish the grade F were presented, there was no talk of inviting political parties to that discussion; instead, one contented oneself with stating that the grade F would be removed. It is therefore one thing what one says in opposition and another thing what one says in a majority position.

I do think, however, that it is good that there is an agreement to have a broad support around such an important reform, and therefore it is pleasing that the opposition stands for almost everything, even if one can be critical. Just as Niklas Sigvardsson said, it is also the opposition's role to be that.

When it comes to follow-up, I would like to emphasize that this will be followed up. We will monitor this reform closely and ensure that there is nothing that grates anywhere, that does not work, or that goes wrong. The opposition, therefore, does not need to worry, but I believe we have the same interest in ensuring that we create a system that is equitable and that provides fair grades for all students in the future.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! We are to equip today's students for life. They are the ones who will subsequently work in our hospitals and schools and who will drive our buses as well as work in shops and at construction companies. They need the very best knowledge to manage that.

Knowledge is not obtained through grades, but it is a way to measure that students have the knowledge they need. Today, far too many students are ruled out long before adult life even begins. Nearly 20,000 of the students who complete grade 9 lack eligibility for upper secondary school. This corresponds to 16 percent of the students.

Madam Speaker! Today's grading system was introduced by the bourgeois government in 2011 and has led to a minor catastrophe for all those students who are now being branded with an F on their foreheads. These are students who do not move on to upper secondary school and who see their future crushed. A completed upper secondary education is almost a necessity to enter the labor market today. In the same way, a failed schooling is a highway to exclusion.

The most important thing we need to do is to ensure that all students receive the support they need to succeed in school. It is also good that we are now getting rid of the Fbetyget – F for Fatal failure. A new grading system will not resolve the unequal Swedish school system, but it is a step towards ensuring that more students avoid failing.

The investigation that forms the basis for the proposal we are now debating was also commissioned to address grade inflation and "pleasure grades." It is a problem that has grown significantly in recent years, and it is not surprising. When students become customers in a market, "pleasure grades" also become a way to attract new customers. "Come to our school! Here, everyone gets an A!"

Some examples are that almost all students at a friskola in Gothenburg received an A grade in physical education, even though the school did not even have a gymnasium. It was a mile to the sports hall where they had lessons, and the students did not receive as much instruction time as they should have in physical education.

At Jönsbergska idrottsskolan in Östergötland, all students received an A in handicrafts. It seems very unrealistic that everyone would be so extremely gifted in handicrafts just at that school.

At the same time, a report from Skolverket made in 2024 shows that students who have attended a friskola perform worse in higher education.

The new grading system is intended to address grade inflation and "joy grades," and it is necessary. But to fundamentally address the problem, it is not enough to put duct tape on a broken school system; we need to scrap the market school. Grades should never be a way to buy students for a certain school, but we now also risk building an over-administrative grading system to prevent the grade-fiddling that the independent schools have engaged in. Assessment councils shall be introduced, along with central grading of national tests and national final exams.

A prerequisite for the intended grading system to function as intended is that digital national tests can be carried out, and the introduction of them has certainly not gone particularly well. Nine years after the project to develop digital national tests was started, and 900 million kronor later, the project has now been scrapped because the system did not hold up. I believe we agree that this is a total failure, and no one seems to really be able to answer why.

So, we are now going to make a decision on a new grading system that presupposes digital national tests and digital final exams. That makes one a little concerned, and it probably stresses the country's teachers and principals even more than it stresses me. The government must ensure that Skolverket has sufficient resources and competence to develop and administer digital national final exams. It is completely incomprehensible how this has been allowed to continue for so long with such poor results.

The government seems to want to wash its hands of this. Instead of taking responsibility, several of the parties in the government have stated that Skolverket should be abolished. The government now needs to ensure that the digital platforms will function when a new grading system is introduced.

One also needs to ensure that digital national tests and final exams are accessible to all students. Earlier this spring, I visited Härnösand and one of the country's special schools with students who are deaf or have a hearing impairment. At that time, it was not yet clear that the digital national tests would not take place this year, and when I spoke with the principal, she expressed concern that the intended digital tests were not accessible for students with hearing impairments. It is fundamental that national tests and final exams can be completed by all students.

Madam Speaker! Increasing the amount of testing in Swedish schools also means that teachers' time for instruction risks being consumed by even more focus on testing occasions, and students' instruction risks being increasingly directed towards practicing for tests. In several legislative proposals now coming from the government, there is also an obvious risk that, for example, students with NPF diagnoses will be disadvantaged. Even in the proposal for a new grading system, there is such a risk as one or a couple of testing occasions are to be given greater significance for the student's grade. The student who does not perform well on a specific test risks being disadvantaged.

In the bill, the government has also not answered sufficiently to the question of how the new grading system shall be implemented and used in komvux. We believe that that question is not at all sufficiently investigated and that the consequences risk hitting komvux's operations and the students who attend there. Therefore, we want an investigation to be appointed that looks at how the implementation in komvux shall take place. It is important that a continuous intake at komvux shall still be possible and that one shall be able to progress continuously.

Madam Speaker! The government is now implementing a large number of reforms that will affect Swedish schools for a long time to come. The implementation needs to be followed closely, and adjustments need to be made if necessary. The implementation needs to be good for the students who will be affected by the new grading system.

There are also many other things that need to be put in place in the coming years: a new curriculum, a new support structure, and a new grading system. The country's school leaders and teachers will be heavily burdened if this is to be implemented in a good way, and it is necessary that resources are added to the schools so that this does not become another failure for Swedish school.

In order for us to truly tackle the problems in Swedish schools, we need to scrap the market school. We need to invest money in schools, and we need to ensure that every student receives the support they need instead of distributing profits to shareholders.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 8.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I reacted when Isabell Mixter said that there are certain parties that, instead of taking responsibility, advocate for Skolverket to be abolished.

Madam Speaker! Taking responsibility might also mean acting against a dysfunctional agency. It is clear that changes can be made within the agency's framework, but we have seen that there have been problems with Skolverket. There were problems when the new curricula were to be adopted in 2011, and there were problems, not least with the digital national tests.

I otherwise agree with everything Isabell Mixter says about the digital national tests; it is terrible that so much money has been spent and that it has resulted in nothing. Now, in hindsight, it also emerges that problems with implementing this were seen from the very beginning, but they were not flagged or anything was said. It is extremely serious.

That is why I mean that this is something that is embedded in the walls of the agency, and it is not washed away so easily. Instead, one must do something else. Are we going to shut down Skolverket overnight? No, it is clear that we are not going to do that. But taking responsibility must also be able to mean saying: An agency that cannot even deliver what we say it should deliver in fundamental areas, we cannot keep, but then we must build up something new. I think that is taking responsibility.

The question is what Isabell Mixter wants. Does one want to continue polishing the walls at Skolverket, or is the Left Party also ready to make a decision to do something about the problem once and for all?

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! The big question is who is going to implement all your reforms if Skolverket is not going to do it, Patrick Reslow. I note that in the investigation there was a proposal for another agency – an implementation agency. I find it a bit difficult to see how the situation would become better by replacing one agency with another agency.

It is, after all, the sitting government that issues regulatory letters to agencies and the sitting government that is supposed to have a dialogue with agencies about what they should implement. Somewhere, it is therefore you who have failed in the dialogue with Skolverket, Patrick Reslow. It is your minister who has not been able to have a sufficiently good dialogue with the director-general and ensure that this is implemented.

You are now presenting a proposal for a new grading system that presupposes digital national tests and final exams, and you cannot say that it is guaranteed to be feasible. It is a bill that this government is presenting, Madam Speaker, and one therefore cannot answer whether it will be possible or not.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that in a regulatory letter one can regulate what an authority shall do, but we do not have ministerial rule in Sweden. If the authority does not want to follow what is stated in the regulatory letter, there is therefore very little that can be done about it. It is a weakness, and it would be pleasing if Isabell Mixter wanted to start working with us Sverigedemokrater for ministerial rule in Sweden. It would have been good. I believe that it would have been needed.

Isabell Mixter says that there has not been a dialogue. There have been many dialogues, but even the director-general who was appointed stated that there were problems at the agency and tried to address them. However, he resigned voluntarily. That was obviously a concern in itself, but it also shows that there is something in the walls that is not right.

Should Skolverket be abolished now, during this implementation phase? No, probably not. But perhaps one must start building up a parallel structure that can then take over the tasks that Skolverket has today. I believe that is necessary. Otherwise, we will see continued problems ahead. This should not just be implemented. It must also be followed up continuously. If one cannot manage the most basic things, how will one then manage to follow up the regulatory framework moving forward?

I am sure that we will get the final exams; I have no doubts about that. On the other hand, there is doubt as to whether they will be digital or analog. I think Skolverket has been very unclear about what they mean here. Do they even have the ability to carry out digital national final exams? Despite all the money they have received, despite all the resources that have been allocated and despite having worked on it under two governments, they have still not succeeded.

I am, however, convinced that there will be a final exam. That question has also been asked many times, and we have received evasive answers. Whether it will be digital or analog, for starters, we shall see. That depends on what Skolverket is capable of handling.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! I am extremely concerned when Member Reslow says that the government cannot guarantee that there will be digital national final exams and national tests. How are the schools going to succeed with this if they are to do it analogously? If the government cannot guarantee that it will be digital, there is zero anchoring in the decision we are to make. It will become an impossible administrative burden for the country's schools if they are to manage it analogously even in the future.

I am not surprised that the Sweden Democrats speak of ministerial rule or about closing down several agencies. It is a story that repeats itself.

I also become hesitant when it is said that one cannot do anything about the fact that Skolverket has not succeeded with this task, and the answer is that we do not have ministerial rule. But in other contexts, one has been very quick, for example, to replace directors-general or issue new regulatory letters to different agencies.

I think it is very weak of the government not to take responsibility for this, which has cost 900 million and taken nine years. Despite that, one can stand here in the chamber today and say: We do not know if there will be digital national final exams and digital national tests in 2028. Yet it was a prerequisite in the investigation that forms the basis for what we are now going to make decisions on. I think it is incredibly weak.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! Imagine a student who exerts themselves and every evening sits at the kitchen table and does their homework in order to get the grades they truly deserve. Then that child is competed out by another student, who knows no more but just happens to have attended a school that gives more generous grades.

It is not a hypothetical situation. It is the reality for thousands of students in Sweden today. The chance for a good education has partly become a lottery. We are now addressing that.

Madam Speaker! Every year, almost 20,000 students leave primary school without eligibility for upper secondary school. It is a failing grade for the Swedish school system. It is unacceptable. The system we have inherited is a failure. In that system, grade inflation has been allowed to emerge and increase year after year without anyone taking responsibility for it.

We Moderates want the student who puts in the effort to know that it pays off. We want a grading system where the grade actually says something about what the child can do, not about which school the child happened to attend. That is the basis for the bill that we are debating here today.

Madam Speaker! This bill rests on three pillars. The first is about us developing a new grading scale. We are replacing the current six-step model with a scale from 1 to 10. When teachers have more steps to use, they get better tools to reflect what the students actually can do with increased precision. Today, the difference between two children with clearly different knowledge can be rendered invisible within the framework of the same grade level. It is not fair to either the children or, in that respect, the teachers who set the grades.

It is also about justice for those students who cannot know as much. The children who receive grade level 3 in the new grading system do not reach the level of acceptable knowledge at level 4. But now, the effort will still pay off. If one is right on the border of acceptable levels, the effort will be counted in the total grade report. It is a large and tangible difference compared to today.

In the same way, students who are far from passing receive a clear signal about it early on, and there is an opportunity to provide support at the right time.

The second leg is about us now introducing national final exams, which are graded centrally and which – we hope – can be largely automated. No individual teachers or schools shall be able to influence the outcome. The exams shall provide an independent, objective measure of what the students actually can do. They can be used to calibrate grade values and be included as part of every child's merit value. It will be an external receipt of the knowledge.

The national final exams are also a tool to safeguard the authority of the teaching role. We believe that an objective measure to adhere to reduces the pressure from students, parents, and principals to award more generous grades than are justified. It contributes to strengthening the teachers.

The third leg concerns the calibration, which has also been the subject of discussion here today. It sounds technical, but the meaning is simple. What is to be counted is what one can do, not where someone went to school. If a school consistently gives higher grades than the final exams show, the grades will be calibrated down in the merit value calculation. If the relationship is the opposite, they are adjusted up. The model is based on 70 percent calibrated grade value and 30 percent final exam result. The calibration creates the equivalence between schools that we believe is crucial to tackle the "joy grades" we see today.

The assessment consultation that we are now introducing, where teachers who teach the same subject shall consult with each other before grading, also creates equality within schools. Together, the two systems cover the entire picture.

Madam Speaker! Let me also say something about the eligibility rules, as it is an issue that engages here in the chamber. Today, a single weak subject can close the door to upper secondary school for a child who otherwise performs well. It is not fair, and we are changing that now.

With a minimum merit value of 4 as an eligibility requirement, more children get a real chance to enter upper secondary school. Strong results in other subjects can, in fact, compensate for those that are weakest. We estimate that the number of students who lack eligibility for the upper secondary school's national programs will be approximately halved with the new system.

I hear the criticism from the opposition. It is said that the system is complex, that it lacks parliamentary anchoring, and that the calibration risks undermining the teachers. Let me just briefly respond to that.

The calibration does not undermine the teachers' role. It strengthens it. Teachers continue to issue grades based on their own knowledge base, just as they do today. It is then a state authority that carries out the calibration. The teachers' collective assessment continues to constitute a central part of the merit value. But as I mentioned in a previous exchange of remarks, we cannot have thousands of different yardsticks for what a student in Sweden should be able to do. We must have a common yardstick. It is hoped that we can achieve this with this system.

Madam Speaker! The opposition calls the current grading system a historical failure. I agree with that. But it raises a natural question: Why did they do nothing about this during their eight years in power? Apparently, it takes a bourgeois government for it to actually be delivered even in this area.

The pattern is unfortunately familiar. The principle of public access for independent schools is finally in place, thanks to a bourgeois government. The ten-year primary school is finally in place, thanks to a bourgeois government. The register checks in schools are now tightened, and the new grading system is now reformed – all thanks to a bourgeois government.

Madam Speaker! This is the last of the major school policy propositions that we are debating this spring, and it is no small matter. The new grading system is part of something much larger. Together with knowledge-based curricula, an improved support system, a new teacher education that equips teachers for the classroom, more measures for safety and study in the Swedish school, and a regulation of the teachers' teaching mandate, this constitutes the largest improvement of the Swedish school in 30 years.

We do this to ensure that all children get the best opportunity to reach as far as they can and as far as it is possible. We do it for all parents who entrust their children in the hope that the children will get the opportunity to be equipped for the future. We do it for all teachers out there, who shall be given the best possible conditions for perhaps the most important mission one can have: to educate the next generation.

Once upon a time, Sweden was built strong by equalizing life chances – it didn't matter where you came from, what mattered was your effort and where you were headed. In school, that journey happens for real, and that school we are building now. With that, I move to approve the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Malmqvist spoke about how the Social Democrats and the other current opposition parties did nothing during their eight years in power. It is interesting that the member stayed for quite some time on why it is good and fair that we are now abolishing the grade F – that the one who receives a three in assessment with the new grading system shall receive credit for it. It is then worth reminding that the Moderaterna opposed the previous government's steps toward opening up for a less sharp F-limit. There were proposals, but the Moderaterna actively said in the debate: Here we shall not abolish any F-limit – it lowers the requirements!

It is interesting to hear Moderaterna talk about how the previous government, led by the Socialdemokraterna, did nothing. In fact, we Socialdemokraterna did quite a lot of what the member is mentioning. For example, we introduced register checks at the upper secondary level, which did not exist before. We reformed much of Björklund's school from 2011 – that was the one we took over. Now Moderaterna often stands and talks about how it is too bad. But it was Moderaterna's school. It was the government where Fredrik Reinfeldt was Prime Minister that in 2011 introduced the grading system with a hard F-limit, which has ruled out children and students for over a decade. It was not the Socialdemokraterna who introduced it.

Madam Speaker! From Josefin Malmqvist, it sounds as if one is finally settling accounts with a system that we Social Democrats have built. But the fact is that the majority wants to tear down the school that they themselves have been involved in building up during both the 1990s and the 2010s.

What was it that made the Moderates see that the F:et is so unfair, as it apparently never was during the eight years when we were in power?

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! Now we are beginning to glimpse what has been the major political dividing line in both this chamber and its predecessors regarding grades, namely: Should we have grades or not? That was what our parties stuck to for very many years, instead of what we are discussing today: How should the grades be designed?

When the Social Democrat Anders Ygeman, today vice chairman of the Education Committee, entered the Riksdag, he submitted a motion that we should have no grades at all in Sweden, and I know that was something that SSU pushed hard. I am happy and grateful that we are now in agreement that grades are important and that we shall have a knowledge school. But during the 90s, much of the debate was about just that, and I think that is worth keeping in mind when Niklas Sigvardsson talks about reforms.

Now we do not have time for any further historical exposé on who has done what. But when the former communist Ylva Johansson took over the Ministry of Education, then as a Social Democrat, the grade reform that the previous school minister Beatrice Ask had prepared did not become any better, to put it diplomatically.

As I said in my previous exchange, we have a common responsibility across party lines to address the problems we see in the Swedish grading system. I wish the previous government had taken the holistic approach that we have taken by giving the economist Magnus Henrekson and his team a broad mandate to review the problems we see in the Swedish grading system. This is the background to the bill we are debating. Tomorrow we will vote on this in the chamber, and that pleases me.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to pose a question back to Niklas Sigvardsson, who is speaking about dropouts. I wonder what your position is on vocational school, which is a way forward for students who may not have sufficient prior knowledge.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe I received an answer to the question of why the Moderaterna have changed their minds regarding the grade F and the fallout and hard limits that we actually see.

During these decades, it has been bourgeois curricula and grading systems that have been leading. The idea with Lpo 94 was school for education – I believe the report was called that. I believe we would have all stood up for that in today's situation. We want a school that values knowledge and stands up for education and long-term knowledge that lasts over time.

That is why it is interesting that the Moderaterna want to do this. In Josefin Malmqvist's reply, we heard one thing after another and names of different parties and representatives were listed from the rostrum. But the most important thing is that we Social Democrats have wanted to remove the F-gräns ever since Jan Björklund's school with a hard F-limit was introduced in 2011. We have worked in that direction, but during this mandate period, we are accused time and again of not having done anything.

Those who say that the Social Democrats have done nothing and who now want to make it seem as if it is they themselves who are implementing this, such as Member of Parliament Malmqvist himself, are those who have ensured that we have not been able to implement anything. We Social Democrats have wanted to abolish the harsh grade F, which means that approximately 20,000 students are dropped out of the Swedish school system. With the reform being made today, it will still be perhaps 10,000 students who are dropped out.

This is the important part. How do we work with this without worsening the possibility for long-term knowledge moving forward? That is what we want. We want the upper secondary school to give students the opportunity to make changes in the future. One should be able to get a job but also have "substance" for further education after the upper secondary period. That is what is important. We have, together with the parties, long discussions about what is the best way forward to ensure that we reduce the dropout rates in the Swedish school.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! This touches upon an issue where we still stand quite far apart. From the Moderates' side, we argue that effort should always pay off and that prior knowledge still plays a role. The reform we are now making means that we are removing the sharp F-limit and saying that it is the total background knowledge that should be taken into account when seeking to progress in one's studies. Unlike the Social Democrats, we are not prepared to say that everyone should be allowed to attend upper secondary school. In that case, we would need to lower the knowledge requirements for upper secondary school – otherwise, far too many students would not have the opportunity to get through upper secondary school. There is therefore a difference in our perspectives. We still think it is reasonable to have a limit on what prior knowledge should be required to be able to apply to upper secondary school. But we think that more than today should be able to do so, and we think that greater flexibility was needed.

At the same time, we propose a new third track in upper secondary school. The group that does not have sufficient prior knowledge to be able to attend a regular national program, such as a vocational program, should be able to attend a two-year vocational school that does not require upper secondary eligibility but also does not grant higher education eligibility. This third track ensures that more students get chances and opportunities to contribute to society. I hope that the Social Democrats change their minds and join this line. In this way, we create opportunities for all students to succeed and contribute. Even if one does not have sufficient prior knowledge to be able to attend a theoretical program, one should still be given the opportunity to contribute. Therefore, a new national vocational school is needed.

(Applause)

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a new grading system that contains various interesting parts intended to make school more fair. In my speech, I intend to focus on a reasoning regarding the F grade and the eligibility requirements for entering upper secondary school.

In the current system, as is well known, there is a sharp boundary between pass and fail. It is the famous F-grade that has become the symbol for it. It is awarded to those who have not demonstrated sufficient knowledge to reach the passing threshold.

It means that a student who is just below passing thus receives the same grade as a student who is far below. Both receive the grade F, which results in zero points being added to the merit value. It is as few points as one receives if they have not attended the lessons or have not even shown up at school.

There we have one of the problems with today's grading system. A large amount of actually acquired knowledge is not reflected in the grade, nor in the merit value. A student may have worked their way up from a very low level, made great progress and come very close to reaching the goals and the passing mark, but still receive a result that provides no reward whatsoever in the merit value. I find that a bit difficult to justify.

The new grading scale involves ten steps. Knowledge is made visible in more levels. Progression becomes clearer, and the assessment gains greater precision. The student who is below what was previously the passing level now receives a grade that corresponds to the actual knowledge. It creates better feedback, stronger incentives to exert effort, and provides a fairer picture of what the student actually can do.

Even if one has knowledge that is below today's passing limit, in the new grading system, one will accumulate points toward one's merit value, which is then used to gain admission to a upper secondary school program.

When it comes to the eligibility for the upper secondary school programs, there will be changes there as well. In today's system, Madam Speaker, the requirements are built around individual subjects. To become eligible for upper secondary school, a pass in Swedish, mathematics, and English is required, as well as an additional number of subjects.

Those who do not meet one of the requirements are effectively excluded from the national programs, even if the results otherwise would be good. This means that a student may have sufficient prerequisites to complete further education but is hindered by a single deficiency.

The new system, on the other hand, is instead based on a cumulative merit value where the whole carries more weight. Strengths in several subjects can compensate for some individual weakness in other subjects. This means that knowledge is seen as something slightly more composite and multifaceted. It becomes a more realistic view of how people function and learn.

Madam Speaker! At its core, this is about giving people and students as much knowledge as possible. Everyone should be given the chance to continue their studies at an appropriate level after primary school. What constitutes an appropriate level depends on where one stands in their educational development. But we can state that many of those who complete ninth grade today and do not get into upper secondary school would be able to manage a further upper secondary education.

With the new system for calculating eligibility for upper secondary school, it is estimated that every year several thousand students, who today cannot proceed directly to a national upper secondary program, will be able to have that opportunity in the future. These are students who today fall on the margin, who may have a failing grade in a core subject but have good results otherwise.

It could be a student who has a somewhat uneven knowledge profile, or a student who has developed but hasn't quite reached the threshold. For those students, the future becomes a bit brighter with the new grading system.

Madam Speaker! We must also be honest. There is an important principle that must be upheld even going forward. Upper secondary school requires a certain level of knowledge. The education is based on the student being able to take in the teaching, work independently, and complete the courses at the upper secondary school.

If the requirements are set too low, students risk ending up in educations where they do not have the prerequisites to succeed. That helps no one. It only leads to more dropouts, more failures and, in the long run, a weaker establishment in the working life.

In that respect, this bill on the grading system is balanced. It notes exactly those two things: Today, too many students are excluded by the system's design. At the same time, not everyone can be let through regardless of knowledge level. A school that does not set requirements risks being dishonest towards the students if one were to end up in that ditch. But the important thing is that the requirements that are set are designed in the right way.

It also leads to a rather obvious follow-up question, which we have touched upon earlier in this debate: What happens to the students who do not reach the knowledge requirements? Here, the report and the government's bill are open about the fact that today's solutions are not sufficient.

The introductory programs that exist may work for some students, but they often become a dead end. There is a need here for an alternative educational path alongside the introductory programs. The government writes in the bill that they will analyze it more closely. I would say it is quite crucial that they work on it as quickly as possible.

A system that clearly sets a limit, as today's grading system does, must also offer a meaningful way forward for those who do not reach that limit. All people have the capacity to develop, but it is different capacity depending on who you are as a person. It must be possible to find a shorter, more practical and more vocation-oriented path for many of those who do not become eligible for upper secondary school.

It is in any case the Christian Democrats' policy. When this grading system is now in place, we must as quickly as possible establish an alternative track for those who do not reach the eligibility for upper secondary school. One can imagine something apprenticeship-oriented, where one can more or less acquire just the knowledge required to master a specific profession and enter the labor market. It is extremely important that we get it in place as quickly as possible.

Madam Speaker! The important thing is that all students are given the best possible path to acquire as much knowledge as possible in different parts of the educational chain. This report goes far. Then there will be much more to do after that. I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are now approaching the end of the handling of the large reform package that the government has launched during this mandate period.

As those of you who have sat here in the chamber know, Miljöpartiet stands behind most of the reforms, such as regulating teachers' working hours, ensuring that students receive the right support at the right time, creating calm and peace in the classroom, and reviewing the curricula. That does not mean we are satisfied, but I want to be clear that there is broad political support for several of the reforms.

I want to emphasize that because there are those who want to cast doubt on the consensus that exists. I imagine it is to demonstrate some kind of vulnerability and arouse mistrust about what might happen after the election. As the opposition, our role is not to be some kind of hallelujah choir behind the Minister for Education. Our task is, after all, to scrutinize the government's policy.

In the next parliamentary term, I hope that we who are responsible for implementing these reforms will take it seriously. We will need to take a holistic approach to the reforms regarding implementation, follow-up, and evaluation.

Today we conclude the Riksdag's school debates before the summer by debating an equitable grading system. Swedish school needs a new grading system. There is no doubt about that. The need has been palpable for a long time.

The evaluator Magnus Henrekson put into words my thoughts on our current grading system in Vi Lärare towards the end of the investigation period. He said: ”Today's grading system is among the most demoralizing that exists in Sweden. It is arbitrary, harmful and corrupting. I also think that it is emotionally very offensive.”

Miljöpartiet agrees that a new grading system is needed. The current one is harmful to young people's knowledge development, primarily through what is called the sharp F-limit. The purpose of the new grading system is described as shifting the focus of teachers and students from grades to knowledge. That is an important ambition. Here, Miljöpartiet wants to emphasize the importance of it being qualified and licensed teachers who conduct teaching and grading. That is the most important thing to put the focus on knowledge. It is a fundamental prerequisite, and here greater political unity is required.

The Green Party has always been critical of the belief that all important knowledge can be weighed and measured and turned into a figure in a table. Society's task is to strive for all children and students, regardless of background and place of residence, to be given equal opportunities to reach the school's goals and develop based on their own circumstances. Assessment in school should primarily be about promoting learning and development, not about sorting for the next step. Grades should also not be the only possible selection instrument for further studies, and the Green Party does not want grades to be given before upper primary school.

Miljöpartiet has pushed to remove the sharp F-limit, and we are positive that the government is now proposing to remove it. But it is unclear whether this system will lead to more focus on knowledge and less focus on tests and grades. For example, it is not clear how a ten-grade scale is to become clearer for the teacher to use and simpler for the student to understand. It is also not clear how the fact that Sweden still has a market school, where grades will continue to be a means of competition, will affect the grading system in the long run.

The new grading system is also based on digital national tests. It is unclear whether Skolverket has the capacity required to ensure digital systems to handle the large number of students who are to take many tests at the same time. It must be questioned whether the capacity exists to produce this type of national final exam.

The proposed system places great emphasis on the national final exams, which are primarily to be graded digitally and consequently have questions based on the exams functioning with digital grading, with a large proportion of multiple-choice questions and short answers.

Several referral bodies point out the risk of how this may affect teachers' teaching methods. It could lead to the teaching being designed to achieve good results on the test instead of keeping the focus on the entire breadth of the subject and on different ways of demonstrating knowledge. Students risk learning for the test rather than learning for life. This stands in contrast to the government's intention that the new grading system should focus more on knowledge than on grades.

Madam Speaker! The students describe stress linked to exams. In the report "The only thing I think about is stress and school" from the Tim Bergling Foundation, Sveriges Elevkårer, and Sveriges Elevråd, it clearly emerges that exams already affect many young people's health negatively today, with the teachers' own exams and the national exams.

To have a grading system that places great weight on individual extra decisive tests, what are called high-stakes tests, is to expose young people to greater stress because the new national final exams will be even more decisive.

To prevent the negative consequences of this expected increased testing load, it is required – and I repeat – that the assessment is carried out by competent and authorized teachers who are trained for the task. In addition to that basic prerequisite, large-scale information efforts are required regarding the new grading system's ten-point grading scale and the calculation of merit values to avoid unnecessary stress not only among students but also among teachers and parents.

I want to highlight two special circumstances that also need to be taken into account.

The Royal College of Music has stated in its referral response that they are concerned about how the artistic subjects are handled in the new grading system. They see risks that there will be more types of tests in artistic subjects where there is no need to measure knowledge in that way and where there are other ways to progress.

We have already touched upon national tests for the deaf and hard of hearing. Here, accessibility needs to be increased, for example by having the tests translated into sign language, which is the students' first language.

Madam Speaker! Now we stand here in the final important debate on the government's major reform package. This should be an occasion for pride over shared responsibility and faith in the future, but what I feel is disappointment. I feel disappointment that we cannot provide what many teachers, principals, parents, and students want and ask for: broad, secure agreements that we know will hold over time because we have all been part of developing them.

The government's way of working has been characterized by a focus on gaining a majority on its side of politics instead of the broad agreements that it entails when one, for example, includes all parties in a parliamentary inquiry. Perhaps that is why the Minister for Education is not here to debate one of her major signature reforms. Her job is done; she has secured the majority on her side in politics.

The government's work has been about pushing out reform after reform at a high pace with the vision that the school should return to the basics. It is a rather sad variant of a vision – to back into the future.

An important task for a future government will be to, together with students, teachers, parents, employers, researchers, yes, together with Sweden, formulate a forward-looking vision of what the school of the future shall be – a vision of what role the school shall fill and what knowledge is needed, both new and old, in a changing world.

This is what we need to do during the next mandate period, and it is a task that I look forward to doing together.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 6, which concerns the implementation, follow-up, and evaluation of the new grades.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I note the English expressions that were used in the context. There are Swedish ones, and the language here is Swedish. "High stakes" I do not perceive as an impossible translation.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to request the floor, but then I heard Camilla Hansén conclude by saying that we are now moving into the future.

She speaks about what role education should have and what view on knowledge should apply, and she looks forward to changing it all during the next mandate period. One becomes a bit skeptical here. Is Miljöpartiets position that they should tear up the reforms that we are now launching? Should they tear up the curriculum proposal? Should they tear up the proposal on safety and study environments? Should they tear up this proposal on grades? Is this what Miljöpartiet is after?

Then I think one is backing into the past. One drives into the garage door, drives straight through it and through the wall on the other side, out onto the slope and down the hill with all that entails. It is a total crash, in other words. Miljöpartiet is welcome to explain what one actually means.

I believe that this government, together with us Sweden Democrats, has carried out good work that has been aimed at creating knowledge in Swedish schools, creating safety and study, creating conditions for learning and teachers, and creating conditions for school leaders to be school leaders. We will continue this work even after September.

I think we are creating the conditions for a good grading system – the one we are talking about today. There is a similarity between the curriculum, national final exams, and the design of the grading system in quite loose descriptions of what each grading system should consist of. I think that is good.

The question is: What does Miljöpartiet want to do with all these reforms?

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I understand that there are good reasons for the Tidö government to try to cast doubt as to whether the Green Party can vote for law reforms in the spring and then stand by them after September 13. If this had been a conflict I sought, we would have rejected your propositions all the way this spring and taken that conflict into the election campaign. Now, it is not a conflict I am seeking because it does not exist. There are no reasons to let it appear that there are doubts regarding this.

I began my speech by stating that Miljöpartiet stands behind most of the government's reforms – to regulate working hours, to ensure that students receive the right support at the right time, to create calm and peace in the classrooms, and to review the curricula. But as I also said, my, Miljöpartiets, and the opposition's task is not to act as a choir of hallelujahs for the Tidöre government. We see flaws in the reforms you are presenting. We harbor concerns regarding their implementation.

We have talked about the financing regarding working time regulations for teachers. We do not see that you have taken it seriously. This exposes Swedish students and Swedish teachers to risks. This needs a new government to take action on.

I hope, of course, as we are now in an election campaign, that it will be a different government than the one currently in power that takes over the work of implementing the important decisions we have made. I also hope that we can leave behind the way of working "Here is my side of politics." School requires broad agreements, and in that case, one must work in that manner all the way through.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I hear what Camilla Hansén is saying. I must interpret it as that what was said earlier was more of empty words. Camilla Hansén said that we are moving into the future with the reforms we are implementing. Then she stands here and says that one stands for them and certifies that one does not intend to do anything about them in the event that one, God forbid, should end up in a government position. At least that is what is being said here today; perhaps it will sound different once the misfortune has actually occurred.

To back into the future would in that case, with Camilla Hansén's own interpretation here today, mean that Miljöpartiet is also sitting and backing into the future. I do not believe that is what she means, and therefore she does not mean that about us either. Camilla Hansén is satisfied that we have arrived at such good proposals as we have anyway.

We have succeeded in getting proposals on safety and study environment, proposals on regulated teaching time, proposals on new curricula, and now proposals on a new grading system on the table. It is a good news that one does not want to tear this up. It is a very good confirmation of the work that Sverigedemokraterna and the government parties have done during the mandate period.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The basis for the government's policy has been: Back to basics! That is why I refer to backing down. We have also criticized some of the reforms that involve backing down, such as withdrawing support for student influence. It is also believed that what is needed for a good school is more tools for disciplining students. That is backing down. Others may well debate how far back in time the Tidö government has wanted to back down.

When I speak about what I want to come next, it is about a vision for the school that is forward-looking. It is about what we want from the school in Sweden, now and in the future. What is required of a school that educates those who will live into the next century? What values do we want them to carry with them? What do we think about the social problems they will have to solve?

It is a forward-looking vision. It is about a school that gives children the tools to handle what is to come. Those who are young now, those who are children now, and those who are not yet born will have very large problems to solve because we in our generation do not manage to handle, for example, the climate crisis or the nature crisis. In the worst case, it will lead to a social unrest that they need to have the tools to handle.

What kind of tools do they need? What kind of knowledge? That is what I want us to talk about in Sweden in order to inspire confidence in the future. There, school is something that we all have a vision of, that we dream of, and that we feel makes us strong.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! A bit of self-criticism and humility would have been appropriate. Since 2010, 2011, or whenever it was that the latest grading system was introduced, 250,000–300,000 students have left Swedish primary school without grades and had their future put on pause at best.

Sitting and listening to this debate – I do not normally work with education issues – was actually quite sad. Not a single member reflected on the fact that every party in this chamber bears a responsibility for the fact that several hundred thousand students have been left behind.

School, Madam Speaker, is not just about getting grades. It is actually about learning things – things that one has use for in adult life and in life in general.

Madam Speaker! This week, Sweden's students are leaving school for summer break. For the vast majority, it is with a wonderful feeling that they now leave behind yet another year in the world of school, not least for those who are now leaving grade nine and primary school for good. But for around 20,000 students, it will instead be with a lump in their throats. So many students, in fact, are given a "no" every year to proceed to upper secondary school and the education that would take them to studies or work. And it has never been so many as during the Tidö Government.

Let me be crystal clear here, Madam Speaker: Never in Swedish history has the school system delivered so many failures as it has under this government. Therefore, it has also never been more important than now to replace the government in September. Today, however, we begin by replacing our deplorable grading system.

"Deserving" might sound a bit harsh, but this is a grading system that has extinguished futures and ruined school careers for hundreds of thousands of students – entirely unnecessarily, it should be added.

Previously, a student who was less theoretically inclined could proceed to vocational education with what was then called a one or a two, even though a three was actually required for a pass. Today, that door is completely closed. We exclude almost every sixth student from proceeding to upper secondary school – to a profession, to a future. In our neighboring countries, it is every 20th student or fewer.

That we are now taking a step away from this is very pleasing. But it must be stated that the Tidö parties have hindered this transition year after year and have been roadblocks even in previous grade investigations.

I see that my speaking time is running out. I conclude by moving for approval of reservation 1.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! Here Alireza Akhondi dances into an education policy debate. He pours out words about it being a deplorable grading system, and he says that the Tidö parties have a responsibility for the fact that nothing has been done about this.

I want first and foremost to remind the members that the Center Party stood on our side during the previous parliamentary term. At that time, they said no to the proposals to change the grade F, just as we others did. The criticism directed at the Tidö parties, Alireza Akhondi should direct towards his own party, meaning that even the Center Party has stood behind what they define as a "reprehensible grading system." I think it is far too harsh to describe it that way.

The fact is that the grading system has also delivered results. If one compares like with like, Sweden performs among the best in the world in many subjects. There is research that supports this. For example, in the natural sciences, we compete well with the Southeast Asian tigers. These are very good results.

Where we have seen problems is primarily among those students who do not have Swedish parents. There, one can see differences. There I must say that there is another party that has a great responsibility when it comes to whom you have let into the country. It is not the Sverigedemokraterna, but it is another party whose representative is standing quite close to me here in the chamber right now.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Since Patrick Reslow brought up dancing, I would like to take the opportunity to inform the members that I am quite good at dancing. Perhaps the members should try it. One becomes happy from dancing.

If the member had devoted themselves to listening to what was being said from the rostrum, the member would have heard that the criticism also applied to the Center Party. It applied to all of us in the chamber. As a collective, we have for 15 years failed to prevent that 20,000 children are dropped out every year. Every thinking politician should reflect on this day in and day out.

If I have understood the new grading system correctly, it will be fully introduced in six years. An additional 120,000 students will manage to be knocked out in the meantime. But the Tidögänget says that there shall be no transitional provisions, and that we shall continue to bang our heads against the wall that until now has destroyed the future dreams of many children.

To repeatedly return to migration in every single policy debate shows how meager Sverigedemokratisk policy de facto is.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! If one does not understand the effects of migration policy on the school, one has a major problem in the premises of the discussion.

There is a major problem, and it shows up in the loss of knowledge. What Alireza Akhondi points out in a "deplorable grading system" is in many and much ways attributable to a group of students who do not master the Swedish language sufficiently, who do not have Swedish parents, who perform worse. What Alireza Akhondi forgets in this "deplorable grading system" are all the fantastic results that are achieved, all the high-performing students, all those who are at an A, B, C and D, and those who struggle to get an E. All those achievements are worth nothing because the grading system is deplorable.

I think it is strange. Perhaps one should stick to the committee where one usually is.

It is said here that the Sweden Democrats have a meager policy because we emphasize the problems that migration has brought with it. If we do not see the problems that migration has brought with it, we also cannot achieve solutions to the problems. What we need more of in Swedish schools is to implement the measures required in Swedish language instruction at an early stage. The Centre Party has previously been involved in that, but now they have completely aligned themselves with some form of far-left in those values. They even want to have a compulsory upper secondary school.

Alireza Akhondi criticized this when he said that all parties should show humility, but he specifically pointed out the Tidö parties for us not doing anything about the "reprehensible grading system." But the Center Party itself stood by the reprehensible grading system, as Alireza Akhondi described it, throughout the entire previous term.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! The problems have not been unknown to politicians in general and education politicians in particular. That it should be required for a housing politician to lecture Patrick Reslow says more about Patrick Reslow and Sverigedemokraterna than about the housing politician.

Madam Speaker! I think as follows. When one experiences that there are problems in an area – what does one do then? Does one blame previous officials? Yes, that can be super fun once, twice, a hundred times. But in the end, one must have the courage to tackle the problem, to allocate resources where they are needed. Instead, the Sverigedemokraterna come and say that those with a foreign background are the root of the problems that exist today.

But do something about the matter! Is the grading system the solution? What happens to the resources for the school? What happens to creating the conditions for the students to learn? Grades are just a measure. It is not grades that we want the children to take with them into adult life, but it is knowledge.

If I am to give a grade, it is F, and Patrick Reslow shall be dragged along for another six years.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to make a mark.

I do not know how it is usually done in the Committee on Civil Affairs, but in the Committee on Education, we do not give grades to other members. It is not the custom in this chamber. So we do not do that.

I could give a grade to Alireza Akhondi, but I do not do that. Somewhere there is also a sense of decency among us Members of Parliament when conducting a debate.

It is strange to come in and not have understood anything of what we are discussing. Here, it is brought up to invest in knowledge and other things, but we have discussed that all spring. Last week we had a major debate about strengthening knowledge in Swedish schools. We adopted new curricula, and we have had a focus on safety and order in schools. That is also a recipe.

But Alireza Akhondi does not seem to have followed the Education Committee's debates. Nevertheless, he stands up here and expresses opinions. Not only that; he grades his colleagues. It is incomprehensible and horrible.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 9 June.)

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