Improved support in school

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! We have established in the previous debate – and I can state it again – that one in four 15-year-olds in Sweden cannot read and write properly. These are horrible figures. It is clear that some of it is about what we debated earlier, but some of it is also about not having been able to get the right support and the right help to manage the teaching.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, our system for providing support to students who have difficulty in one or more subjects, or who for some other reason are unable to manage the teaching, has been far too blunt. The support and help have arrived far too late, and furthermore, it has often been the wrong help.

It can be a matter of a teacher being forced to make an endless number of extra adaptations in a classroom. These are extra adaptations that can cause the teaching for the other students to become worse, but at the same time do not reach the goal of helping the student who needs the extra adaptations. It can be a matter of aids, which should be there and have been there, being used for far too broad groups rather than for the individual students who need the aids. And it can be a matter of a bluntness, so that extra adaptations have been used for everything from school-refusal to low cognitive ability.

Madam Speaker! We must have a system to help students in the way they are best helped and in a way that does not disadvantage the other students, who do not need just that help in just that subject or just that day.

What we are doing now is to abolish this with extra adaptations and instead ensure that one receives support teaching directly. We ensure that the teacher who sees that a student needs support teaching can ensure that the student receives it without administrative hassle, without unnecessary documentation and without having to prove that this is needed. We place the responsibility, the trust and the ability to decide over the teaching and the extra support teaching with the teacher who sees the need.

We are also introducing standardized tests at the beginning of the terms, so that everyone gets an equal chance. It is about screening to provide teachers with support in assessing who needs different forms of extra interventions. One should not have to be dependent on having the means or resources to conduct a screening or to discover the need far too late. Therefore, this is an incredibly important part.

Madam Speaker! There are different situations where a student may need extra help. It could be a student who has a difficulty that can be remedied with an assistive device. In that case, it must be available. It could be a student who needs support teaching to, for example, learn to read properly, but once the student has learned to read, no support measures are needed anymore. It could also be a student who needs more long-term and long-lasting special support.

We are now ensuring that support is also provided outside the classroom. The starting point shall not be that it must take place in the classroom. We do this so that every student can receive the support that the student needs. It shall not become blunt, and everyone shall not receive extra adaptation after extra adaptation, even though that might not be what helps that specific student best.

Those who need support teaching should be able to get it. Those who need special support should be able to get it. And those who need assistive devices should be able to get it. It has been too blunt. It has taken too long. And all too often, students who have needed different forms of help and support have received the wrong intervention.

Madam Speaker! Therefore, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report. We place the power and the trust in the teachers, because we want to help more students pass the instruction and reach the learning objectives without it leading to the other students in any way receiving a less good education.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! My local junior high school happens to be in place in the gallery here in the chamber. I would like to send an extra greeting to the two classes from Attarpsskolan in Bankeryd. It is always just as fun to have a local audience.

With that, I return to the question to Joar Forssell.

We agree that proper and early support is needed in school. Therefore, we stand behind several parts of this report. But if this extra support is truly to become a reality and if one is to ensure that the right student actually receives the right support, the right type of resources will need to be allocated. This parliamentary term has not been reflected by the school actually having received the right conditions, neither for conducting regular teaching nor for being able to ensure that students receive the right support at the right time.

When one listens to Joar Forssell, one hears that this is also intended to be an expansion of the support that students are entitled to. More support should be given to those students who truly need it to manage in school. When we make these types of reforms, the fundamental question must still be how the Liberals will ensure that more resources are actually prioritized for the school. This will be necessary regardless of whether it is the regular teacher who is to conduct this support teaching, as it sometimes states in the report, or if it is other staff who are to conduct this support teaching, as it states in other parts of the report – because it could be both.

Therefore, the fundamental questions are: Will there be sufficient resources? Will there be enough teachers, special education teachers, and special educators to ensure that this becomes real and does not just exist in the policy documents that we are now deciding on?

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I want to state that the shift occurring now is, of course, about resources – I hope the member misunderstands me correctly – but it is also about an ideological shift. I hope that the Social Democrats can stand behind that.

It is, therefore, an ideological shift from the idea that, as it has been previously, one should make different forms of extra adaptations in the classroom and that one should provide the special support in the classroom, to saying that we will need support teaching – which can be given in the classroom but does not need to be given in the classroom; it can also be given outside – and that we change it so that the special support can be given in the classroom but is not to be given in the classroom as a starting point.

It is an ideological shift. We are increasing the efforts, but we do not want the teaching to be changed in a way that is negative for the students who do not need that specific support at that moment.

As I said in my opening remarks, support can look quite different because the needs look different. Some need special education to get over a threshold in their own learning but do not need it more after that. Others need assistive technology because they have a problem that will accompany them in different subjects, but where an assistive technology can remedy or support this problem. Others need a special support that is more long-term.

I think that resources should be added, and I hope that will be the case. Today, we are adding many resources to the school from the government. It is, however, also the case that the main responsibility for the funding of the school lies with the municipalities, and unfortunately, it is so that many municipalities all over Sweden simply do not put the money into the school that they should.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! As usual, when the Liberals speak, they shift the problem of funding onto the municipalities. We Social Democrats believe that the state needs to take a greater grip on both the funding and the regulation of the Swedish school system. We have pushed for this in proposal after proposal during this parliamentary term, because it is important that we as a state also actually take responsibility.

Tomorrow we will make decisions on – or at least debate – the regulation of teaching time for teachers. Depending on who is to carry out the special education that we are now deciding on, resources will need to be added if this reform is truly to be implemented. Otherwise, it will not be possible to both regulate teachers' teaching time and ensure that they also teach in this special education part.

This remains unclear for us in the chamber of the Riksdag, given the two different reports that are now on the table, and therefore resources will need to be added. Otherwise, the school will not be able to deliver enough trained teachers who can conduct regular teaching and support teaching, as well as enough special teachers and special educators who can be involved in this work.

It is a matter of completely bypassing the question of resources to the municipalities. In many cases, they actually have a surplus when it comes to the total economy, but when one looks at the tax-funded activities, they most often deliver a deficit when it comes to the work of committees and the like. There is quite a lot to be done from the state side.

I think the government's proposal regarding the financing of the various reforms is actually a bit hollow. The government needs to take greater responsibility to ensure that there are more teachers, because it will be needed given the reforms we are making now, and that there are more special education teachers and more special educators. Otherwise, we will not be able to implement the type of support teaching described in the report.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite agree with the description that we would shift the responsibility onto the municipalities, but we acknowledge that the municipalities have a responsibility.

It was the Social Democrats who pushed through the municipalization of the schools, that is, that the responsibility was placed on the municipalities. We were against it, and we continue to be against this. We believe that the school should be nationalized and that the entire responsibility should lie with the state. Then one would be able to control to a much greater extent both how much money the school receives and what the school uses the money for.

I mean that the government is not shifting the responsibility onto the municipalities, because we ensure that money is provided to the schools from the state. That is what we have done during this parliamentary term, and Member Sigvardsson is also aware of that. However, it is not always the case that this is then matched by the same increases in the schools' budgets out in the municipalities because the municipalities make changes within the framework of their budgets and move money around and do not want to agree to the initiatives that we are trying to make. When the school is municipalized, the problem, Madam Speaker, is that we do not have full control over how the municipalities use their resources for the school.

Today, a majority of Sweden's municipalities are running with a profit. It is also the case today that many municipalities do things and spend tax money on things that lie far outside the basic mandate of a municipality and far outside what is usually called the core of the welfare system, where the school is included. They do other things instead of spending money on the school.

I would like to call it waste. Someone else might call it election pork, and a third person would call it social democracy, but fundamentally I state that the state must continue to inject more money into the school. The municipalities must, however, also ensure that this money actually ends up in the school and goes to the students, and the municipalities must also ensure that they prioritize their core activities.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! We are debating a very important issue, namely improving the support for the country's school students. Today, there are 100,000 students who are not receiving the support they are entitled to.

It was the previous alliance government that introduced the system with special adaptations. Forssell said in the previous reply that an ideological shift is now occurring, and then I wonder what ideological shift the Liberals have made since that time, because it is your previous government that is responsible for the system we have now.

I would like to point out that the most important things to actually achieve good support for the students are not just to tweak the system, but it is to get the right resources to the schools out there. There must be enough teachers, special educators, and others who can teach the students who need the very best support.

The risk with the decision we make today is that this will not happen in reality but will become a paper tiger: that one says that students shall be entitled to more support, but still nothing happens. We see that the result of this government's mandate period is that more students leave grade 9 with the grade F. It is simply more students who fall behind.

How is the government going to ensure that this actually happens out there? Can you guarantee that you in your government will prioritize the school over tax cuts during the next mandate period? Because you have not done that during this mandate period.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I do not think it is so strange that one, as a human being or as a party, changes opinion on a certain issue, if one can justify it. Vänsterpartiet has also changed opinion on many issues, and if one can justify it, this is not a problem. I do not think voters or those who are watching this either think so.

I mean that this is an ideological shift in Swedish school policy. We are moving from having extra adaptations in the classroom and from saying that the special support for those who need long-term such support should be given in the classroom, to instead having special education. We have assistive devices for those who need them and not for broad groups, and we have the opportunity to provide the special support to a greater extent outside the classroom. I mean that it is a shift in Swedish policy.

I hope that it is not only the Liberals who are making that shift.

There has been a broad consensus in Sweden for a long time to devote oneself to this. It has been ideologically driven that everyone should remain and be included in the classroom.

It has led to the fact that none of the students have received the support they should have been entitled to, that none of them have been reached by the resources they should have been reached by, and that the other students have received a poorer education.

Madam Speaker! We intend to complete this. Today we are speaking primarily about legislation and regulations. It is also about resources. We have invested in the school during this parliamentary term.

I agree exactly with the Left Party that the school should be nationalized. I think it should be in a slightly different way and not with exactly the same organization, but the school should be nationalized so that we could have more control.

But the Left Party also sees that the main responsibility for the school's funding lies with the municipalities and that it is a problem that Sweden's municipalities do not invest enough in the school. Does the Left Party not agree with this?

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! I have received an answer to that. The previous reforms regarding the school have been ideologically driven and not based on facts and the best knowledge we have. That was what Forssell said.

I want to raise another issue here. It concerns the fact that the Liberals were out yesterday and said that there should be a cap of a maximum of 20 pupils in a class in primary school.

The Liberals hold government power and have the position of Minister for Education, yet you still do nothing in that direction. On the contrary, you have lowered taxes for the very richest while school students see teachers being laid off. They see more school students in every class instead of fewer.

You could have appointed an inquiry to look at class sizes. That was also suggested by the investigator who produced the inquiry that forms the basis for the report we are debating today. But the government has not moved forward with it. Had you been serious about this, you would have had every chance in the world to do so. You have had four years, and yet nothing is happening.

Madam Speaker! I am a bit tired of hearing the debate about how the municipalities in Sweden are running with such large surpluses. If one looks at what has happened during the mandate period, one sees that during the worst inflation crisis, Sweden's teachers warned about the worst cuts in 30 years.

The cuts remain in municipal Sweden. That is why one is now suddenly making a profit. It is because teachers have been laid off and preschools and schools have been shut down. When the economy suddenly turns around, one makes a profit.

I want to emphasize this. For example, Gnosjö, which has the lowest school results in all of Sweden, went down by 21 million in 2024, and went down by 44 million in 2023. That they make a small surplus this year is merely a recovery from the years in which they went into the negative. I want you to stop with that rhetoric.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I said initially in my previous contribution that Vänsterpartiet has changed its mind. But it does not seem to have changed regarding the Marxist idea and the Marxist rhetoric.

It is not the case, and we know that, that if you lower taxes, you get less money for the state. On the contrary. If you lower the right taxes, and we have done that, activity in the economy and investments in the economy increase, and then tax revenues can also increase. It is quite basic economic theory and practice.

Madam Speaker! It is also not the case that there are a lot of state-employed teachers that the government has fired. What is this misconception that we are hearing about here in the chamber?

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet wants to nationalize the school. It wants this, among other things, so that the teachers shall be employed through the state and not through the municipalities. But today, they are not employed through the state. Vänsterpartiet, which wants to nationalize the school, should be aware of that. They are employed through the municipalities.

It is the municipalities and the schools under the municipalities that have fired teachers. I am critical of this. I think we should take advantage of the opportunity that, for example, reduced child cohorts provide to simply reduce class sizes, to ensure that teachers stay in the school, that resources stay in the school and that the resources per pupil increase.

I wish I could get Sweden's municipalities on board with this. Unfortunately, I do not seem to be getting them on board. When we make large investments from the government, municipalities all too often choose to move money around, to cut back, to fire teachers, and to not give the students the resources they should be entitled to. It is an additional reason why I want to nationalize Swedish school.

Madam Speaker! The municipalities are making too much profit instead of spending the money on schools. The municipalities invest too little in the core of welfare and instead on other things. But that is also the case for, for example, certain independent school companies. That is why we want to limit the profits and ensure that the money ends up with the students.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I move for approval of reservation number 5.

Swedish schools face major challenges. Far too many students leave primary school without complete grades at an ever-increasing rate. Far too many students do not receive the support they need in time. Far too many teachers testify that they lack the conditions required to be able to give each student the support that is needed.

For the student who time and again fails to reach the school's goals, it is not about statistics, regulations and administrative systems. It is about faith in the future. It is about self-esteem and self-confidence. It is about the possibility to shape one's own life and one's own future. Therefore, we welcome the Social Democrats' ambition to strengthen the support for students in school.

More students need to receive help earlier, more students need to receive the right support, and more students need to be given the conditions to succeed. But when we discuss this bill, we must also ask ourselves the decisive question: Will the students actually receive better support? Or will we, above all, get a new set of regulations?

In the end, it is not the number of new regulations that determines whether a student succeeds in school. It is determined by whether the support is there when the student needs it. It is determined by whether the teacher has time and whether competence and resources are sufficient to help. It is determined by whether political reforms lead to real improvements in the classroom, not just to changes in the legal text.

Madam Speaker! The first objection we have to the bill concerns the legal text. In the purpose paragraph of the Education Act, Chapter 1, Section 4, it currently states that children and students shall be given support and stimulation so that they develop as far as possible. It is not just any formulation. It is an expression of one of the most fundamental principles we have in Swedish education policy.

It says that the school's task is not only to ensure that students reach a minimum level. It says that every student shall be given the opportunity to develop as far as possible based on their own circumstances. It is therefore remarkable that the government now chooses to remove that wording in the purpose paragraph.

I honestly find it difficult to understand why. What problem is the government actually trying to solve? Which students actually get better conditions when this principle disappears? Which teacher has requested that society's ambitions for the students' development should be lowered?

We Social Democrats therefore believe that the provision should remain. The school's mission shall also continue to be expressed in the purpose clause and be to provide every student with support and stimulation to develop as far as possible.

Ultimately, this is about what view we, from a political standpoint, have on the school. We Social Democrats believe in high expectations for every student. We believe in a school that sees potential, not limitations. We believe that society's ambition for our children should be that they are given the opportunity to develop as far as possible, not that we lower the bar in the legislation.

Madam Speaker! In the bill, the government also proposes changes to how support in schools shall be organized. We are moving from today's system with the guarantee of early support interventions and extra adaptations to a new system with standardized tests, support teaching, and new forms for identifying support needs.

There may be reasons to change the regulatory framework. We also want more students to succeed. But we must also ensure that the decisive question is answered in the right way: Will the students receive better support? For us Social Democrats, it is much more important that the answer to that question becomes "Yes, the students will receive better support" than how the systems are named or how the paragraphs are written.

It is therefore crucial that the changes currently being implemented receive sufficient resources and long-term funding. Otherwise, the reform risks only remaining at administrative changes while the reality in the classrooms remains the same.

When the government now abolishes the guarantee for early support interventions and removes the system of extra adaptations – which became an administrative burden, which was not the intention from the beginning – we must not end up in a situation where students' needs are detected later. We must instead ensure that the needs are detected in the right time so that the right support can be implemented.

However, new rules are not enough. Someone must also carry out the support, someone must conduct the support teaching, and someone must detect the student who begins to fall behind. Someone must also have time to follow up on the results. This someone is usually the teacher, the special education teacher, the special educator, or someone else in student health services.

The proposition is therefore closely linked to the larger issues of staffing and the school's resources, which I touched upon in a previous exchange of remarks. When teachers already today have difficulty making the time suffice, the government must also be able to answer the question of who is to carry out the new support measures so that they have a real effect. When many school providers already today have difficulty recruiting special pedagogical competence, the government must also be able to answer how this need is to be met.

If the result is only that we abolish extra adaptations and remove the guarantee for support measures without more students actually receiving help, we have not created improved support in school; then we have only created a different system. The students deserve better than that.

Madam Speaker! Another objection we Social Democrats have concerns about is regarding komvux. Komvux is an incredibly important form of study in the Swedish education system. It is a form of education that gives people a second chance, a new chance, and an opportunity to complement previous studies, to change career paths, or to prepare oneself to take the step forward to higher studies and work.

It is therefore problematic that we today, when we discuss changes in the extra accommodations, do not ensure that we guarantee good support even for those students who study at komvux. If we are serious about lifelong learning, we need to ensure that the support does not cease just because a student studies at komvux. The need for support does not disappear in adulthood.

We Social Democrats therefore consider that the government should investigate the question of how individual support in komvux can be strengthened and return with proposals to us in the Riksdag. The right to education must also entail a real possibility of completing the education.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: We Social Democrats want more students to receive the right support at the right time. We want more students to learn to read, write, and count. We want more students to reach the knowledge goals. But then it is not enough to change the regulations. Then the reforms must be able to be implemented in practice. Then the schools must have resources to hire teachers, special education teachers, and special pedagogues. Then the student health services must function. Then the support teaching must be able to be implemented in practice. Then the state and the principals must also take responsibility to ensure that the decisions we make here in the Riksdag become a reality in the classrooms all over our country.

That is why it is so important that the purpose clause of the Education Act also continues to state that every student has the opportunity to receive support and stimulation to develop as far as possible. It is not just a formulation in a legal text; it is a promise to Sweden's students. It is a promise of high expectations and a promise that every student shall be given the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Such promises are binding. If we mean business that every student should receive the support they need, the resources must also be there. That is why we Social Democrats fight so hard to ensure that the right resources are available. The money shall go to teaching, student health, and support measures. They shall go to more teachers, more special pedagogical competence, and better conditions for every student to succeed.

Every krona that leaves the school in the form of profit is a krona that could have been used to provide more students with support, get more students passed, and give more students the opportunity to reach their full potential.

(Applause)

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! I must say that it becomes a bit strange to listen to the Social Democrats' representatives here in the debate.

The members of the board describe all the problems we see in school: students who do not receive support in time, teachers who are exhausted, and systems that do not work. But you speak about it as if you have nothing to do with it.

The truth is that this is the result of the Social Democrats' policy and what you were responsible for for a very long time. Yet, you stand here today and propose more of the same thing. It is about a little more money into the same system and a little more resources in the same structures, and somewhere you hope the outcome will be different.

Madam Speaker! This is not directly a reform line from the Social Democrats, but rather it is turning a blind eye to reality. We know what is happening today. We know that the support is provided far too late, as has been pointed out here, we know that students fall through the cracks and we know that teachers get stuck in administration instead of teaching. It is a system that the government is now trying to do something about.

My question to the Social Democrats is therefore quite simple but also fundamental: Why should we continue with a system that you yourselves have been responsible for and which obviously does not work, instead of actually changing it so that students receive support in time?

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The most important issue is that we Social Democrats were given eight years in government to clean up after Jan Björklund's and the Alliance's school policy.

As we discussed in the previous matter, regarding the curricula, it is nevertheless this that we had to devote ourselves to during these eight years. We saw that the support measures that existed in Lgr 11 were not sufficient, and that was why we ensured the introduction of such as the literacy-numeracy guarantee and the guarantee for early support measures. We tried to establish a system with extra adaptations in order to be able to provide support as early as possible so that the students can receive the support they need to manage their studies.

Now one can observe – and we do too – that more needs to be done in Swedish schools. We tried to do that then, when we cleaned up after a coalition government. We did quite a few things during the previous two parliamentary terms, and we see that we need to do additional things so that every student receives the support they need. That is why we Social Democrats in all budgets have proposed more money also for things such as the equity grant, which shall be targeted at those students who have it toughest. In that way, we can reach out broadly in society.

The Leader of the Opposition says here that we Social Democrats only want to do more of the same thing and a few small things. That is not true. When a curriculum arrived and when we discovered that there were things to be done during our government's term, we implemented better and more support so that every student could get a share of it.

If the continued development and evaluation show that we need to take further steps, we will do so. It is a fairly wise line for a party, I think. We see the problems, and we try to solve the problems. We adjust further when we see that we need to do so, but we also ensure that there are more resources in the school. That is what we Social Democrats in this chamber have debated very clearly. We want to ensure that there is actually an opportunity to hire teachers, special teachers, and special educators.

I think Anders Alftberg's description of social democratic policy sounds quite false.

(Applause)

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

It always sounds like this. Let us reflect on the extra money that the Social Democrats would like to propose after the government has presented its budget. The opposition always proposes a little more. Would the additional money that you propose on top of our billions make any significant difference?

One must put it in perspective that the entire education system costs society approximately 500 billion. Primary school alone costs 160 billion. If you chip in some single extra billion without caring how the municipalities manage the money, it will disappear into thin air. That is, therefore, no direct reform.

It is clear in the debate that we face a crossroads. The government is currently carrying out a reform offensive within the school system; the departments and civil servants can attest to this. We are strengthening the support for the students, and we ensure that measures are implemented in a timely manner. We are restoring the focus on knowledge in the curriculum. We are providing teachers with better conditions to teach. We are working for increased equity in the grading system.

This is a coherent policy that will bring order to the school again. It stands in stark contrast to the eight years when the Social Democrats were in power. It was eight years when the problems deepened and eight years when more and more students left school without reaching the goals. It was eight years of a system with late support and increased administration.

What, specifically, do you feel worked in your own school policy during these eight years?

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! If one listens to Anders Alftberg, one could believe that the Sweden Democrats have been in genuine opposition for the past four years.

It is actually the case that when the Sweden Democrats say something, the government delivers it. It is therefore the Sweden Democrats who are responsible for the development looking the way it does over the last four years. One must remind oneself of this when listening to Anders Alftberg; he is a politician who has had responsibility for the school development that we have seen over the last four years.

We Social Democrats want to instead truly continue to reform the school. That is why, for example, we believe that a sector grant should be introduced so that one can both regulate and ensure that the money that is allocated from the state level goes to the school. That is why we want to truly deal with the profit-seeking, so that all the money that we together, both municipalities and the state, allocate to the school and to our children and students also goes to our children and students.

The Sweden Democrats do not want to do anything about this pursuit of profit, Madam Speaker. Therefore, it sounds quite false when the Sweden Democrats speak as they do in this exchange.

It is very clear that we Social Democrats will put school and welfare first. We have chosen not to lower the taxes by thousands of kronor every month for the very richest. In our budget alternative, we have instead tried to ensure that these funds go to school, healthcare, and elderly care. It is a very clear difference in priorities both in this debate and in practical politics.

We Social Democrats will very clearly continue to prioritize that all students should have a real opportunity to pass school. We want to ensure that more students get the opportunity to receive passing grades when they finish ninth grade, not fewer as it has been with this government.

(Applause)

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! When we talk about school, we are ultimately talking about the future – both the individual student's future and Sweden's future as a society.

Still, we know that far too many students today leave school without mastering the most basic elements. They cannot read with full comprehension, they do not have sufficiently good knowledge in mathematics, and they therefore lack the tools they need for the future.

This is not a marginal issue. It is not about a few students. It is about a recurring pattern that has emerged over time. The pattern shows that our current system for support in school does not function as intended.

Madam Speaker! Let us be honest in this debate. The problem is not that the ambitions have been too low. For a long time, we have had high goals, many different forms of support, and many good intentions, regardless of government. The problem is that the support all too often comes too late, that it is unclearly organized, and that in practice there becomes more focus on documentation than on teaching.

When a student begins to fall behind, it should be a matter of course that the school reacts immediately. Instead, we see all too often that the process drags on, that different forms of support replace one another without clear effect, and that both students and teachers get stuck in a system that does not deliver results. It is precisely this that we are now trying to remedy and change.

Madam Speaker! The government's proposal is fundamentally about returning the focus to what is the core of the school: the teaching and the student's learning. We therefore propose a more cohesive and clear system. Today's provisions on extra adaptations are removed, as is the current guarantee for early support measures, because in practice they have created ambiguity and delayed effective measures. They have simply been paper tigers, as we sometimes say in the school.

In their place, we present a simpler and more straightforward system, where students can receive support early based on clear signals. This is achieved, among other things, by having standardized tests, which have previously been said to be carried out in certain grade levels at the beginning of the school year. These tests should not be extensive or bureaucratic but function as a quick screening, a way to catch those students who risk falling behind before the problems become too large. "Wait and see, the child might mature during the summer break" is a phrasing that far too many parents have heard for decades.

When a need for support is identified, the school must be able to act immediately. Therefore, we are introducing a clear right to so-called support teaching. This means that a student who is at risk of not being able to follow the teaching must quickly receive extra teaching in the subjects where the difficulties lie, primarily Swedish, Swedish as a second language, and mathematics. This teaching shall be given in a small group or individually for a limited period and shall be followed up early so that it can be ensured that it actually works.

At the same time, we are strengthening the regulatory framework regarding special support. Teachers and mentors will receive a clearer responsibility to signal needs, and the principal shall ensure that investigations are carried out faster than today. We are also making it easier to use small-group instruction when it is pedagogically justified, instead of getting stuck in principles that do not always work for the individual student.

Madam Speaker! It has been said by the opposition that this is primarily a resource issue – that what is needed is more money, more teachers, and more of the system we already have. I mean that this reasoning misses the core of the problem. We already have a system where significant resources have been invested without us seeing the results we need. If we continue to do things in the same way but with somewhat more resources, there is unfortunately little to suggest that the outcome would suddenly become completely different.

What is being done now is something else. It is an attempt to use the resources better, to shorten the path between problem and action, and to free up time for what actually makes a difference: the teaching.

Madam Speaker! I also want to address the concern that has been raised regarding the teachers' situation. It is a concern that absolutely must be taken seriously. We have today a situation where many teachers experience a heavy workload and where administrative work takes up far too much time. Precisely for that reason, this reform is important. It does not mean that we add additional layers on top of what already exists. On the contrary, it means that we simplify and clarify. By removing a system that in practice has required extensive documentation and unclear boundaries, we give teachers a better opportunity to use their professional competence where it belongs: in the classroom. Ultimately, it is about respect for the teaching profession.

Madam Speaker! Concern has also been expressed that standardized tests would lead to a school governed more by measurement than by learning. I, my party, and the government do not share that view. The tests being introduced are not an end in themselves but a simple support to catch signals in time. They do not replace the teacher's assessment – they complement it. The alternative is not a school of tests. The alternative is a school where we risk missing the students who need support until it is too late to provide effective help.

Madam Speaker! At the bottom of this discussion there is also a question about the view on the school: Is the school primarily a system to be administered, or is it an institution of knowledge where students should receive the skills they need for life?

For me as a Sverigedemokrat, the answer is clear: School should be a place where knowledge is the focus, where clear requirements are set, and where all students receive the tools they need to build themselves a future.

It is not fair to let students go through school without receiving the support they actually need. It is not inclusive to let students fail in a system that does not meet their needs. It is also not sustainable to accept a situation where far too many leave school without basic skills and knowledge.

Madam Speaker! The reform we are now discussing is not a universal solution, we know that. But it is a clear step in the right direction. It means that we act earlier, make the support more concrete, and shift the focus from administration to teaching. Above all, it means that we take responsibility for ensuring that the school actually works for the students who risk falling behind. That is why I believe that this is not just a reasonable change, but a necessary change.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jörgen Grubb, Patrick Reslow and Robert Stenkvist (all SD) concurred.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! All students should receive the support they need to succeed in school. No student should be left behind. Unfortunately, that is not the case today. Far too many students leave primary school without eligibility for upper secondary school, and far too many parents testify that their children do not receive the support they need in school. The statistics speak for themselves: Nearly 20,000 students left ninth grade last year without upper secondary school eligibility.

The differences across the country are also large. 42 percent of the students in Gnosjö lacked eligibility, closely followed by Herrljunga and Haparanda. This tells us that resources were needed, especially in rural municipalities and in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas.

There are today several levels of support for students who need it. The first level is extra adaptations in class. This was introduced in 2014 when Björklund was Minister for Education. But now the government parties want to change the support system they themselves introduced. The system of extra adaptations has not turned out well, and we see that school results and the teachers' workload are catastrophic. Even though this was not intended to replace special support, it has led to the number of students receiving special support decreasing dramatically. Teachers also testify that it is very burdensome to make many adaptations, especially as class sizes have increased and the teacher is often alone in a classroom with very many students.

Today, it is a problem that few students receive the next level of support, that is, special support. Even though a diagnosis is not required according to the Education Act, the principal or other school leader often requires a diagnosis for special support to be implemented.

According to the bill that is now on the table, instead of making extra adaptations, one should go directly to special support when the teaching or the classroom environment does not work for the student. This is positive and can be good if it is done in the right way. But there is also a concern that the consequences of removing extra adaptations are not sufficiently investigated and, above all, that one cannot answer how the special support exactly shall be designed.

Economic resources and staff are needed in order to be able to provide special support. An expanded school health service is also required. Furthermore, class sizes need to decrease instead of more and more students being squeezed into every classroom. Then the number of students who need special support will also decrease.

Madam Speaker! With this change, there is a risk that the child will be thrown out with the bathwater. There are many different changes to be squeezed in by 2028: a new grading system, new curricula, and a new support system.

The big questions are: Can we ensure that students who are in need of support teaching also receive it? Can we ensure that students who are in need of special support also receive it? Are there special educators and special teachers available, and do the municipalities have sufficient resources to carry this out?

We must ensure that all students receive a good education from qualified teachers. Previously, it was common for untrained student assistants to take care of students with the greatest challenges, but that cannot be the answer when it comes to providing students with the right support.

What would truly make a difference in Swedish schools is to reduce class sizes and provide economic resources to the schools. Instead of the government lowering taxes for the very richest, these funds could have been spent on schools. Sweden has lost 100 billion through the government's tax cuts. Instead of shareholders taking out the school money as profit, these funds could have gone to support the students who need it. School money should go to the students, not to profits. A terrifying example is the independent schools in Malmö that Sydsvenskan has investigated. They had hardly any qualified teachers and denied students special support. Instead, luxury cars were bought with the money.

Madam Speaker! The approach in the bill is that special support shall be implemented faster, which is very positive. But the risk is that it will remain mere words if the municipalities are not given the conditions to implement this in practice. The Government points out in the bill that it is the municipalities' employer responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient staff in the form of teachers, special teachers, and special educators. When a bill implies changes for the structure of the school, I think it is weak to shift the responsibility onto the municipalities. The reform will, after all, increase the need for these staff categories.

The Children's Ombudsman writes in its referral response that there also need to be organizational prerequisites to provide children with support based on their actual needs of staff with adequate competence, and that an important part of this is that there are functioning and accessible support functions, for example staff with special pedagogical competence. The organization Funktionsrätt Sverige is concerned that this leads to more segregation in school.

The bill must also be seen in conjunction with the other changes the government is implementing in the school area, including the bill on safety and study environment that we debated last week. For example, more students will now be able to be shown out of the classroom without documentation. Several changes risk hitting children with, among other things, NPF.

In order to reduce the need for special solutions in schools, we need to reduce class sizes. Several referral bodies highlight the need to investigate class sizes, including Sveriges Lärare. The investigator whose investigation the proposition is based on also emphasizes that this would need to be investigated.

The Swedish National Agency for Special Needs Education highlights that support teaching requires extensive resources and that it risks occurring at the expense of other things.

If we truly want this to lead to improved support and not to us standing here again in eight years with a new proposition that is supposed to solve the problem, we must ensure that this becomes good in reality, not just on paper. Neither students nor society can afford to fail. A failed schooling affects the whole life, because one gets poorer opportunities in working life and has a higher risk of ending up in crime. Sveriges Lärare recently released the report F as in Prison, which shows that there is a 14 times higher probability of being sentenced to prison for those who do not have passing grades from primary school compared to those who have passing grades.

The government party Liberalerna says they want to reduce class sizes in schools. They have had four years, but the development has gone completely in the wrong direction, with the worst cuts in schools in 30 years. In the investigation that forms the basis for the bill we are now debating, the investigator states that there is a lack of regulation regarding the distribution of students into classes or groups and regarding class and group sizes in the current legislation.

The investigation's proposal on special education brings up the issue of group sizes and, if it is to be regulated, how large a regular class or group should be. Within the framework of this investigation, the investigator has the opportunity to investigate the issue but assesses that the question of class and group sizes needs further investigation. For me, it is a big question mark. Why has one not proceeded and looked at the issue? Why has the government not given such a mandate?

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 12.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by confessing one thing. I am a teacher's child. It was not always something one boasted about during one's upbringing. Furthermore, I am not just the daughter of a teacher but of two: a special education teacher and a physical education teacher. Now that I am an adult and have children of my own, I realize that it has, of course, shaped me to have grown up with two teachers. We talked a lot about school policy throughout my entire upbringing at home, but I also saw how the teacher's role changed during those years.

Much of what the Moderate-led government is doing today – establishing the knowledge school but also the teacher's role, reducing administration, introducing a more fair grading system, increasing trust in teachers and improving the teachers' conditions – I know that my parents and their colleagues would have wished for already during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Now they have been retired for a number of years, but they saw back then that the teacher's role changed and was also partially eroded.

The Moderates' and my hope is that all the reforms being made now – one of which we are debating today – give hope to a new generation of teachers. We see you, we hear you, we trust you and we want to give you the right conditions.

Teachers are important, but of course it is the children who are our future. All children deserve a proper chance in life. Very much begins in school. A safe and knowledge-focused school can change a child's future. It is there at the beginning of the child's life journey and can build self-confidence and create opportunities that would never have existed otherwise.

I and the Moderates are truly passionate about all children, regardless of background, having the opportunities to succeed. It is about early interventions, which we are discussing today, when needs arise. It is about skilled teachers, about study environments, but also about high expectations for every single student. We fail the children if we accept a school where students are left behind and do not receive the support they need in time.

I am therefore extra glad, Madam Speaker, to be able to debate this committee report and the bill on improved support in school.

The ability to read, write, and calculate constitutes completely fundamental skills that are central to students' continued knowledge development. Such skills are needed in order to be able to take in the teaching. Many students lack these skills, and furthermore, it is discovered far too late.

Madam Speaker! Reviews from the School Inspectorate show that support is often provided too late or not at all, and it is also not purposefully designed. In short, today we have a system for support and extra adaptations that does not work, and now we are changing it.

Madam Speaker! How will the improved support function going forward? It is a relevant question in this context, and perhaps some of those listening at home are wondering about this.

From and with 2028, standardized tests will be conducted at the beginning of the autumn term in certain grade levels. This is to be done to identify needs early. Support teaching shall be implemented faster, and it shall also be more accurate. Furthermore, we remove in the report the obstacles to providing support teaching in smaller groups. Students shall receive support teaching at an early stage in the subjects Swedish, Swedish as a second language, and mathematics.

When it comes to special support, we have trust in the teachers to see when the need exists and provide the support early. We do not need to make it administratively complicated.

Madam Speaker! The legislation we are debating today is not a lone satellite, but it is part of a much larger package. I want to shed light on some of the reforms that we are now implementing at a very rapid pace.

We are revising the curricula and the learning objectives for teacher education. We see that the absolute best method for reading learning is the one that is evidence-based, and it is reasonable that it is the one that should be used. That is also why we have a focus on cognitive science.

Sweden has the worst classroom discipline in all of Europe, according to the OECD. Therefore, we are now ensuring that we strengthen safety and study environment in classrooms all over the country. We clarify the principal's role, and we maintain safety and study environment. We make the school mobile-free. This will also make a big difference for the study environment. We also ensure that one can both suspend and relocate students for a longer period than today.

Let me say something about register checks. Today, one can perform a register check in the convictions register regarding crimes that have been committed. Now, it will also be possible to perform checks in the suspicion register, that is, regarding crimes that one is suspected of having committed. We want to ensure that the right people work within Swedish schools. It is fundamental. We do not want it to be possible for a person who, for example, is convicted of honor-related oppression to work with students in Swedish schools.

Tomorrow there is a new debate here in the chamber. It concerns the report Time for the teaching mission. It is a proposal that truly strengthens the teachers' professional role. Skilled teachers are the single most important factor for strengthening the quality of teaching. But in order to be able to do that, one must be given the right conditions to focus on the core mission of learning.

That is why it is important to have a ceiling for teaching time and a floor for planning time, which is now being introduced. We also ensure that the administrative burden is eased through reduced written requirements.

To establish the knowledge school, Madam Speaker, we are now, quite simply, implementing the largest reforms within Swedish school in 30 years. As previously mentioned, new curricula, a new grading system, and reformed teacher education are all part of this.

One of the most important changes is what we are debating today: No child shall fall behind without someone catching them. Therefore, we are reforming the support system fundamentally so that every child shall receive the right support and shall receive it at the right time.

In conclusion, it is the Moderaternas hope that all these reforms now give hope to a new generation of teachers. We see you, we hear you, we trust you, and as I said, we want to give you the right conditions. To the students who are in school or are about to start school, I want to say: You will also be given the right conditions to succeed. It is about early interventions, skilled teachers, study environments, and high expectations for every student.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Ulrika Heindorff!

It was a very broad approach regarding the reforms in the education sector that the Moderates are keen to speak warmly about. One of the reforms that was not discussed at all, but which nevertheless has bearing on a detailed part of the report, concerns the independent school system. It has been no great secret that the Moderates are not the biggest supporter of dealing with the pursuit of profit in Swedish schools.

The part of the report that deals with this, Madam Speaker, means that the purpose clause in Chapter 1, Section 4 of the Education Act is to be revised. It states there that every child and student shall be given the opportunity for support and stimulation as far as is possible.

It is also one of the paragraphs that we Social Democrats have most diligently used in this chamber to ask ourselves whether it is reasonable that we have a profit hunt in Swedish independent schools. It is actually stated in our general purpose paragraph that every child and student shall be given support and stimulation to develop as far as possible.

When the government in its bill writes that the mission must be purified, my question to the member and the Moderaterna is: Why then? Which students have requested a purification? Which teachers have requested a purification of the Education Act?

Is it because the friskolor do not want to be forced to provide support and stimulation to children and students as far as is possible? Is that why the Moderaterna think it is important that we remove that part in the school's purpose clause?

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question – a rather small and narrow question for me, which I can begin by answering quite concretely.

There is a corresponding provision in Chapter 3, Section 2, and it is correct as the member says that we are now streamlining the first chapter. The more detailed provisions, which actually say exactly the same thing, are now moving from the first to the third chapter.

It is the lawyer in me who says this; I think it is almost a technical legal matter to do it this way. One is welcome to make big concessions on that; the member and the Socialdemokrater are completely free to do so. But the question sheds light on something else that I find exciting, namely what the problem is in Swedish school.

Could the problem in Swedish school possibly be that a quarter of the students leave ninth grade without complete grades and that students cannot read, write, and count? Is it possibly so that it is one of the bigger problems in Swedish school?

This bill and the committee report answer exactly that: that it should not be unnecessary administration and that one should receive early and concrete interventions which shall also be evaluated, something that one can consider reasonable and quite fundamental. I therefore think that this somewhat narrower issue highlights that we have different views on what is the problem within Swedish school.

People often talk about more teachers and smaller groups of children, and it is essentially the same thing. We believe that all the reforms we are making now can partly attract back the tens of thousands of teachers who do not work within the Swedish school system today, and partly give hope to a new generation of teachers.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! When one listens to my speech in the curriculum debate and in this debate, I believe one will understand that the big problem in Swedish schools is that we do not provide enough students with the knowledge they need. That can be an answer to the member's rhetorical contribution.

The chairman listed everything that is important in school. In that case, it is interesting that the Moderaterna are not talking about addressing the leakage of money, because if we do not stop the leakage of money to independent schools, we will not be able to give every student the support they need. It is the entire logical consequence that is important here. For us, the goal itself is not that we should ensure that independent schools do not conduct teaching; we want to ensure that the profit does not leak out from the Swedish school. The money we allocate to the school shall stay there. That is why I must ask the possibly narrow question.

In the purpose clause of the Swedish Education Act, that is, where we state what is the general purpose of providing education and schooling, we Social Democrats want it to be very clearly established that every child and student shall be given support and stimulation to reach as far as possible.

The paragraph that the member refers to in their answer is a description of the individual support that comes later. We want the general picture: What is the Swedish school to be for? Yes, for all children and students to reach as far as possible, that they should meet the goals we have discussed here today, that they should receive the knowledge they need as we establish in curricula and that they should receive as high grades as their results actually allow them to receive. That is what we shall debate on Monday.

All of this is very important and no small technical legal detail, we Social Democrats believe. In his answer, the member did not speak about free schools and profit-seeking at all, despite the question being whether that is why the part in the first chapter is being removed.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! I heard perhaps no addition or any question in this second reply, so my somewhat more legal answer remains.

It is one thing to talk and have a well-oiled tongue and say that one wants a lot with Swedish school, and then it is a completely different thing what one does. This is the tenth major piece of legislation during the spring, or something like that. I am six weeks into my assignment, I might say, so I perhaps do not have the exact figures.

What we are doing is a major reforming of the school system, and I hope you can still agree that much of the legislation that is now being implemented will fundamentally change Swedish schools. And if one fundamentally changes Swedish schools, it will also become more attractive to work within Swedish schools. I know that there are tens of thousands of teachers who have completed a fairly long teacher education and trained for many years but perhaps never started working as teachers, or else they have worked for a few years and then felt that they did not have the right conditions. We want to lure them back to Swedish schools.

We also want all the students who today are in upper secondary school and are considering which education to choose to feel that the teaching profession seems to be a profession where one is given the conditions to succeed in their mission, and in that, we in politics can actually do quite a lot. We here in the chamber can do a good deal, but the school is, as was said, the municipality's responsibility. I have great confidence that many of our 290 municipalities out in the country can also make well-considered decisions.

What we do at the national level is to increase the resources. We have done that since 2023, and we have continued with that throughout the entire mandate period. It also provides the right conditions for our school principals out in the municipalities.

(Applause)

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! School is the strongest protective factor against crime, against unemployment, and against mental ill-health. There is actually nothing that reduces the risk of social exclusion as much as graduating from school with passing grades. It is the best protection that Sweden's youth can receive. Yet, it is a quarter of Sweden's youth who do not receive that protection. Every fourth student today finishes year 9 without complete grades, and around 16 percent do so without eligibility for upper secondary school. It is not good enough.

The way forward for more people to succeed is not about lowering the knowledge requirements. Swedish school needs high expectations of the students. We need to have teachers who have more time for the students and who can create peace in the lessons and safety in the corridors. Early knowledge checks and support measures are also needed so that more children get the opportunity to succeed. It is about support measures in the form of extended teaching time, homework help in school for those children who cannot do the homework at home, holiday school and, not least, special education teacher support and special teaching groups. To state the obvious, the parents and the family must also be involved and take responsibility. We also need to reverse the deeply worrying development regarding young people's mental health.

Some important steps towards all of this are taken in the bill that we are now debating, Madam Speaker. The school has for a long time been characterized by a striving for inclusion. It has been considered mean and undemocratic to single out certain students with special needs and give them special instruction in a special teaching group.

The idea of inclusion, which means that all students should preferably be taught in the same classroom, was certainly made with good intentions, but the result has been devastating. Many individual students have suffered, perhaps especially those who need school the most. Students with neuropsychiatric functional variations and within the autism spectrum can, in fact, be served by smaller groups with clear structure.

The inclusion principle has also affected the teachers' working situation. When all students are to be taught in the same classroom but with extra adaptations, it has many times become unsustainable.

It has led to extensive documentation and an increasing workload. At the same time, it has been shown that support is often implemented too late or does not have sufficient effect at all. Students may receive repeated minor interventions without their larger needs being identified in time.

Against this background, the abolition of extra adaptations is a central change. Now, a clearer structure is being created. Simpler support shall be provided within the framework of the teaching, and when that is not sufficient, remedial teaching or special support shall be implemented quickly. At the same time, standardized tests are being introduced in several grade levels. The purpose is to identify students with support needs earlier than today.

This is of great importance in practice. Many students today lose ground during the first school years without it being noticed quickly enough. By the time the difficulties lead to measures, the knowledge gaps have grown too large. With recurring tests, better opportunities are created to follow the development over time and to provide support before the problems deepen. It gives principals and teachers a more systematic basis for planning teaching and resources.

Today's bill marks a clear change of course, where support teaching is primarily to take place in smaller groups or individually. It is a major difference from the strong emphasis that has previously existed that support should primarily be given within the regular classroom.

But one must be honest and admit that it is an important balancing act here. Teaching is fundamentally a collective activity. The teacher needs to be able to plan and conduct teaching that works for the group. At the same time, students have different prerequisites. When the differences become too great, the teaching can become ineffective for everyone. By creating the opportunity for more targeted support during a limited time, more students can receive special support outside the classroom and then return to the regular teaching with better prerequisites.

The reform therefore entails a redistribution of support measures from individualized ongoing work within the classroom to more structured and delimited measures.

In a broader perspective, the changes are about the school's basic mission. Giving all students the opportunity to develop as far as possible requires both functional teaching and accurate support. When support is implemented too late, time is lost that can never be fully recovered. When responsibility is unclear, there is a risk that interventions will be omitted.

Madam Speaker! School bears a large part of the children's future. Therefore, it is crucial that support for the students who need it is implemented and functions. The changes we are debating today are an attempt to take responsibility for exactly this.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet has for many years pushed for relevant support to be provided early in schooling for those students who need extra support. We welcome reforms that make it easier for students to receive support when needs are identified. This has also been worked on during previous parliamentary terms, and that work is also included in these proposals.

It is important that the reforms lead to more people receiving the support they are entitled to and in no way reduce the right to support in school. Miljöpartiet particularly wants to emphasize the importance of students with special support needs receiving help from qualified teachers who have sufficient time and sufficient competence to provide the support that is needed.

A basic prerequisite for all students to receive the support they need is that teachers in the core mission have the opportunity to provide good teaching with time for planning and follow-up. To achieve this, investments in education are, of course, required, including for teachers, special education teachers, and special pedagogues. We have not really seen those investments during this parliamentary term. Miljöpartiet therefore shares the concern expressed by many referral bodies that lack of funding is a risk that the government's reforms will not have the intended effect and that the students simply will not receive the support they are entitled to.

A fundamental prerequisite for high quality of teaching in the classroom is that it is conducted by qualified and licensed teachers and is based on science and proven experience. It is also important that the teaching conducted in special teaching groups or individually maintains high quality.

I share the picture that was presented in a previous speech, namely that we all too often see that the one who needs the most support is taught by an inexperienced teacher or perhaps even by a person who does not even have education for the assignment.

A concern regarding the implementation of the reform concerns the quality of the teaching. Skolinspektionen's review of special education today shows that central parts of the teaching are not being carried out, and instead, students are often left alone with written assignments and do not receive support. I see a risk that this type of teaching will increase, based on the new curriculum's view on knowledge, which signals that the student is a passive recipient of knowledge rather than being active in processing and handling knowledge.

The risk that students in special teaching groups are not taught by qualified teachers is particularly great in municipalities that already have a teacher shortage. It is important that the school principals have the possibility to organize the support teaching, with special teaching groups and potentially adapted schooling, in the best way based on the conditions that exist locally – i.e., that the government does not intervene and micro-manage too much.

Something that, among other things, Sveriges Elevkårer presents as important in this context is that the support must be adapted to the student's needs and that the school simultaneously needs to work with the negative effects that teaching individually or in a special group can entail. That the students' needs are taken into account in the best way is particularly important, and it is grounded in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The reading-writing-arithmetic guarantee and the national tests are now replaced with standardized tests to be conducted during the autumn term in grade three to identify students who have a need for support in reading, writing, and mathematics. The important thing will also in the future be, just as it was when it concerned the reading-writing-arithmetic guarantee, that once the teachers have identified a need for support, the principal's answer cannot be that they cannot afford it. The core of this is that the support for which a need is identified must also be provided.

I want to give a summary comment on the large reform packages that we are debating these weeks. There is an overriding risk that these reforms will not lead to students becoming better at reading, writing, and calculating or at handling the challenges they are faced with. The risk is that it will only be reforms for the sake of reforms, because the government is not prepared to make the investments that are required.

Skilled teachers who have enough time with their students are needed. If quality is to increase, students must be met by qualified teachers, special education teachers, and special pedagogues. If the government does not do the homework, the reform means that certain students in certain parts of the country risk having more lessons with unqualified teachers and more cancelled lessons. So we simply cannot have that!

I do not see that the government is taking this seriously enough.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 4, which concerns ensuring that the support is adapted to the students' needs from a children's rights and disability rights perspective.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Let us first state that the foundation of Swedish school must be that all school students are given the same conditions regardless of where in the country they live, regardless of their socioeconomic conditions and regardless of their psychosocial health.

We welcome that the government has developed policy in the area of support in schools, and there is much that we can agree with. But we also have some views, some of which are quite serious.

Madam Speaker! In the bill, the government proposes that the provision that children and pupils shall be given support and stimulation so that they develop as far as possible shall be removed from the law's purpose clause. We consider it a dangerous change that risks weakening the view of the school's compensatory mission. The provision that all pupils shall receive support and stimulation to reach their full potential is one of the most fundamental principles in Swedish schooling. To move this principle further back in the Education Act signals to many a deprioritization of this central mission, which is not good.

Madam Speaker! The government's proposal regarding the support teaching is estimated to require more than 3,000 new teachers. At the same time, the government has, in another investigation, Time for the Teaching Assignment, presented proposals that require an additional almost 6,000 teachers. There are thus proposals for reforms that in total require 9,000 new teachers.

Parallel to these reforms, the government has decided to admit fewer students into the teacher training programs. This is an equation that simply does not add up. The government should, we in the Center Party believe, urgently return with measures to ensure the availability of qualified teachers within the framework of the support teaching.

Madam Speaker! We in the Center Party welcome the proposal to introduce standardized tests to identify students' support needs in reading, writing, and mathematics development at an early stage. This is in line with the Center Party's policy that students should be screened repeatedly so that the school can detect and meet each student's unique needs. We propose, however, that this arrangement should apply to all grade levels and not only certain grade levels, as the government proposes. Detecting special needs early is absolutely crucial so that the right interventions can be implemented.

With these words, I move for approval of reservation 6.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 19.)

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