(cont.) Response to interpellation 2024/25:7 on the population's access to education
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the population's access to education. L believes that they are investing in adult education through permanent funds for folk high schools and people with functional variations 1 2. L argues that folk high schools are important for giving people a second chance 1 2 and that study associations need increased transparency and democratic criteria due to previous cheating and crime 1 2 3. L wants the investigation to be sent to referral bodies 3 and that it is not in contradiction to investing resources that someone else wants to invest even more in study associations 3. S argues that the government's policy leads to fewer places at folk high schools and reduced funding for study associations 4 5 6. S argues that study associations constitute an important infrastructure for free and voluntary education 4 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Mr. Speaker! The subject of the interpellation is directed towards broad popular education. The subject of adult education is open for debate. We naturally have a focus on the folk high school and on study associations.
Initially, we heard, Mr. Speaker, about how the interpellor had listened to the radio and heard about people who felt that their access to a good rehearsal room had decreased. There are also other images from the mass media that tell of investments being made this autumn on rehearsal rooms and access to music in Central Sweden, for example in Västerås. There are, therefore, somewhat different images.
The reorganization and tightening occurring in the folk education policy does not happen like a bolt from the blue. It is due to the fact that we have a history where folk education has unfortunately, in some places, gone a bit astray. Not least, the study associations have a history of a fair amount of cheating and errors, if I express myself mildly. Together with the actors, both the Folkbildningsrådet and the study associations' own umbrella organization, we have a task to focus on increased transparency and traceability and that one takes their mandate for folk education and democracy seriously so that one does not enter into another activity that goes in the opposite direction. This is important to keep in mind when talking about the study associations' conditions.
The folk high schools are central when it comes to giving people a second chance and sometimes also another chance. It can be people who have difficulty accommodating the education at the upper secondary level or in adult education under municipal management. Therefore, the folk high schools are very important. There are plenty of available courses to apply for today.
We have allocated permanent funds for this year to alleviate the economically challenging situation that the folk high schools are facing. We have also included in our budget option a special initiative to support and help persons with a functional variation.
Mr. Speaker! One must remember that both the folk high schools and the study associations receive a portion of their funding from the state. There is also funding from municipalities, regions, other actors, various projects, IOPs, and the European Social Fund for activities that are important and that should take place in the name of folk education.
I note that the Social Democrats who are now present in the chamber naturally think that even more resources should be provided, but we believe that we are making a substantial investment in public education. We believe that the 4 billion from the state is a foundation for a good and strong public education.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! Johan Pehrson returns to the point that 4 billion is being allocated to popular education. This corresponds to approximately one-seventh of the income tax cuts proposed for the wealthy in next year's budget. It is less than what is allocated to remove the marginal tax for those with the very highest incomes.
I asked a question to Johan Pehrson in my previous post about which educations leading to jobs he prioritizes. The powerful investment in popular education that Johan Pehrson talks about led to a thousand fewer places within the folk high schools this year. There is also a plan to remove the funding for every third study circle, every third cultural event, conducted by study associations.
The government's past policy has already seen to it that a study association has had to close completely. What was reported today was indeed countless rehearsal rooms that are now being closed one by one.
Folkhögskolan represents a second and different chance for those who have not obtained a high school diploma after completing primary and secondary education. Study associations constitute an infrastructure for people's access to educating themselves freely and voluntarily and together with others, and it covers the entire country. Study associations - the largest being ABF - are in every municipality in the whole country. The only other common utility that exists in every municipality in the whole country is Systembolaget. But this will not be the case if the government gets what it wants. ABF and the other study associations will not be able to maintain the infrastructure they constitute for cultural events, study circles, and education in the whole country.
The question remains. Which educations that lead to jobs is it that Johan Pehrson refers to when he uses it as a motive to ruin the infrastructure for education and worsen the opportunities for a second and a third chance?
I thought I would conclude this contribution by returning to one of the main issues in the interpellation. It was the one regarding whether Johan Pehrson shares the view that an educated population is important for security reasons. It was also something that my colleague here took up earlier. Does Johan Pehrson assess that an educated population has greater resilience against influence operations from foreign powers or not? If he does, I wonder why he, in that case, wants to worsen access to education.
It is education that makes people perhaps think "Hm, who is the sender of this? Why is this message being sent to me?" and remain critical of disinformation and other types of destabilization of the Swedish social climate. Having an educated population vaccinates against those types of destabilization attempts.
Does Johan Pehrson share the view that an educated population is important for security policy reasons?
Lena Johansson (S)
Mr. Speaker! In my speech, I merely assumed that the Minister shared that view, but I nevertheless want to join Linus Sköld's question. Carl-Oskar Bohlin did, in fact, receive a question during the question period about how important he thought civil society was for the security of our country. He thought it was super important, to summarize the whole thing in my own way. I therefore merely assumed this.
Then I understand even less how the Minister can say that one is investing in the student unions. In the budget, the government proposes a gradual adjustment. The proposal implies 250 million less in the budget for the student unions for 2024, followed by further reductions of 100 million in 2025 and 150 million in 2026. This would mean a new level for the state grant to the student unions of 1.3 billion kronor in 2026 compared to 1.8 billion kronor for the current year. I do not know how that could be an investment.
My question follows Linus's question: Does the Minister consider that education is important for creating security in Sweden?
I also wonder how this can be an initiative. I was a bit surprised by that.
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Every time I speak with people who attend a folk high school, a similar picture emerges. Stories of lack of support in school, exclusion, and staying at home have been replaced by stories of community, motivation, and faith in the future. This is how it sounded among the participants when I visited Sommenbygdens folkhögskola last year:
I need to go to high school, but I have never fit in.
Gymnasiet is too much pressure and stress.
I have been given a second chance, and here, no one is judging me.
It is an asset that we are all different and learn from one another.
If you close the folk high school, you are killing my dreams.
This illustrates how crucial the folk high school is for those who participate in the courses offered there, perhaps especially the general course. It is an important form of education that can contribute to more people getting a second chance at development and learning. The folk high school could contribute to the skills supply to a greater extent if it were given the resources.
But what we see now is that it is going in the wrong direction. The fact remains, despite what Johan Pehrson highlights here: There are today 5,000 fewer places at Sweden's folk high schools than when this government took office. If the Minister for Education really means that popular education is important, he should ensure that the development is reversed and that more people again get the opportunity to participate in popular education.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Mr. Speaker! Semantically speaking, it is clear that we are allocating a state grant. I have great respect for the fact that there are parties in the Riksdag that intend to invest even more in folk education than what the government is investing. I want to repeat again that we added permanent resources to the folk high schools for the sake of their important role. We are now investing an additional 25 million specifically to help people with functional variations. Education at the folk high schools has, in much of its character, been a second chance, as the previous speaker skillfully and very nicely described.
When it comes to the study associations, we are making major changes. One must be careful here. Many resources have been misappropriated and gone directly to criminal activity. That is why we have this cooperation, as I said, and these things are happening in parallel. The Folkbildningsrådet takes this very seriously, they say. The purpose is to increase transparency, quality, and security and to counteract fraud and errors in folk education activities.
Again: These are not the study associations' only resources, but they have different sources of income. They also have quite a few courses that are free of charge. Nothing is free, Mr. Speaker. It is sometimes said that it is free, but it is actually free of charge. It is other money that finances the courses. It can be regional or municipal. It can be funds from the European Social Fund or IOP.
I hear what you are saying – you mean that we should increase even further. I also hear specifically that the interpellor Linus Sköld is concerned about Swedish security. That, Mr. Speaker, I want to promise Linus Sköld that I am too.
During the autumn, a large study association is organizing interesting study circles where, on five occasions, people will gather to discuss war and peace – why we politicians collectively talk so much about war and so rarely about peace. I have no views on that. It is probably a good topic. But to the questions: What is a weapons company doing at the university? How do you shut down a weapons company? I assume that Sweden is intended, since the study circle takes place in Sweden. This is supposed to lead to us taking up inspiring examples and discussing lessons for ourselves, it is said.
This is an activity that is quite serious, I mean, if one is to embark on shutting down weapons companies that reasonably are Swedish. I myself come from a part of Sweden where both Saab and BAE, old Bofors, are active. But we have more weapons companies in Sweden. It is clear that we must be careful that the public education focuses on how we are to strengthen Swedish security.
With that said, there is a broad palette. Study associations can do their part, folk high schools can do their part, primary school and upper secondary school can do their part, public service can do its part, and we in the Riksdag shall do our part to strengthen the Swedish civil defense and the resilience against what Linus Sköld enumerated as threats to Swedish democracy. I fully share that ambition.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! This was a staggering contribution by Johan Pehrson. He joins a not particularly flattering row of authoritarian leaders who set themselves out to control what people are allowed to learn and discuss in various associations.
The point of popular education is that it is free and voluntary. It is free in its content. What one learns in a study circle is not politically controlled. It is also voluntary to participate in.
Johan Pehrson is worried that a study circle will lay down some weapon - I don't know what it was - at some university. Good heavens! No, the only one laying anything down here is Johan Pehrson. He lays down study associations on an assembly line.
I think this is cheeky of Johan Pehrson. He should apologize for the transgression he made in the speaker's chair just now.
When it comes to "investing", I think one should be careful with words, just as Johan Pehrson says. There is a semantic meaning in the word "investing". When you have a declining scale of how many who can participate in the activity that you are financing, it is a lie to describe it as an investment. It is a lie to describe it as investing in folk education if it is a declining number of participants in the folk high schools' courses and at the same time you remove the funding for every third study circle and every third cultural arrangement.
Johan Pehrson began by saying that folkbildning is an important force in society. I hope that Johan Pehrson stands for it being an important force for free and voluntary education and nothing else.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Mr. Speaker! We are in the process of handling the investigation that we have received on our table regarding increasing the transparency and quality of popular education and ensuring that it has a democratic purpose.
It is of course clear that one is allowed to form opinions on whatever one wants, but we have introduced democratic criteria that are quite decisive. That does not mean that people are not allowed to gather and discuss whatever they want – it is clear that they are. But we have views on how, so to speak, this occurs when there is public funding. I hope that the Social Democrats will also stand behind this. It is about the strong democratic criteria – so that we can provide resources to the entire civil society and so that we do not, in any way, bite our own tails.
It is the Folkbildningsrådet that decides what should be approved. I do not interfere in that. They can do what they want. But I go through the catalogues, which also end up on my desk when I have collected the mail from the mailbox, with great interest, featuring exciting courses that are offered. Then I also encounter fantastic courses, if I may say so. It is about knowledge of association chairmanship and how an election committee works. These are important things for strengthening democracy and not least for having a strong connection to the political parties.
It is something that one can say one also thinks is good. But one must sometimes be able to question which topics have existed, especially with a history where there has been a lot of crime linked to this type of activity.
I know that there is no Social Democrat who wants this to come back. Now we shall ensure that we have this investigation scrutinized by referral bodies. Then I will return to the Chamber with proposals on how the public education can be shaped and strengthened even further. It is not contradictory that we invest these resources and that someone else wants to invest even more in study associations, for example.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.