Fundamentals of education

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! We are now considering a report from the Education Committee on a number of different issues regarding Swedish schools. It is everything from values to safety issues, grades, teaching materials, and instruction in the mother tongue. It is a number of different issues.

I would like to say initially that we are in the middle of a very serious situation for Swedish schools. The results from the latest PISA surveys show a clear downward trend in knowledge results. One in four students who leave primary school – that is, grade 9 in Sweden – lacks sufficient skills in reading and arithmetic. For a country like Sweden, which has very high ambitions and wants to be a knowledge nation, this is a huge problem. It is one of the absolute biggest challenges our country faces.

The Liberals are the school party in Swedish politics, Madam Speaker. In a government position, we have ensured that the school now takes steps back to the basics: real textbooks in every classroom, staffed school libraries and strengthened student health, but also clearer rules, better order and discipline, and an end to screen madness. We have initiated work to regulate teachers' time, reduce their administrative burden, and provide more focus on teaching. We are also pushing to introduce a national cap regarding the number of students in each class. It is about both peace of work for the students and a more reasonable working situation for the teachers.

Swedish schools have long struggled with an overly fragmented ownership. That is why the Liberals' firm conviction is that the state must, in the long run, take back the primary responsibility. It could have gladly happened yesterday, but when I say in the long run, it is because we have a few more here inside whom we need to convince of this.

This is crucial, Madam Speaker, to guarantee equality, break today's unacceptable differences between the municipalities, and ensure that all students get access to high-quality education, regardless of where in the country they live.

One of the most important reforms we have pushed through concerns textbooks. Last summer, we wrote into the Education Act that students shall have access to proper teaching materials – of course without cost to the student. Teaching materials shall be clearly defined in the law. This means that municipalities can no longer interpret the law arbitrarily or let iPads and crumpled-up stencils take the place of proper teaching materials.

We are also carrying out a concrete textbook initiative of 755 million kronor for real, physical books. This means over 1.3 million new textbooks in Swedish classrooms. This raises the quality of teaching, it reduces the teachers' workload, and it improves parents' opportunities to support their children and help them with their homework.

We must simultaneously reduce screen time. We want a school where the focus is on concentration, presence, and deep thinking. We want to move from screen to folder, because for the students' mental health, concentration ability, and study results, this is required. It is also very clear in the research now that especially during the youngest years – the preschool years and primary school age – it is very important to have less screen time in order to in this way improve the opportunity to learn to read, write, and count in more analog ways. It is also better for mental health.

There is no quick fix, Madam Speaker, to remedy the school's problems. It requires perseverance, long-term thinking and a clear course. It requires the courage to re-establish the school as an institution of knowledge where teachers lead, where students learn and where society stands behind both. We will continue to drive this work for a school of absolute world-class standard.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude by saying that in this report there are a number of motions concerning issues regarding racism, antisemitism, honor-based oppression, and so on. We have, in a government position, given Skolverket, Skolinspektionen, and Forum för levande historia new and reinforced mandates regarding this.

Let me touch upon this a little further, Madam Speaker. Swedish schools' steering documents are very clear regarding our democratic values. It is, of course, completely unreasonable that there is such widespread racism and intolerance in Swedish society.

Since October 7, 2023, with Hamas's pogroms and terror attacks against Israel and Israel's response to this, we have seen how we in many schools in Sweden have experienced a very polarized and uncomfortable situation. Teachers report – and they did so even earlier – that they do not dare or can not discuss with students issues concerning, for example, the Holocaust. We have had concrete examples, including at one school in Malmö, where a teacher was chased out in the corridor by students who shouted deeply antisemitic things. We have examples of Jewish children who do not openly dare to show their Jewishness.

This is completely unacceptable. We have an obligation in this assembly and in the municipalities and independent actors who are the principals for schools to uphold democratic norms, tolerance, and a respect for all people's equal value. It is absolutely crucial, Madam Speaker.

We must also consider that our children and youth have a compulsory school attendance. This means that we have an obligation to ensure that school is a safe place. It means that children and youth between the ages of nine and twelve are, for the most part, in the same place five days a week, ten months a year for seven to eight hours a day. It is such a large proportion of young people's time that it is completely unacceptable that there are schools that do not, for example, report racist hate crimes or the intolerance that occurs to the police.

The same thing actually applies to the issue of honor, that is, what is called violence and oppression in the name of honor. This follows from a social order – a reactionary, deeply conservative order – which implies that girls should be subordinate to boys and that they do not have freedom and autonomy in their own everyday lives. It is a control mania that is displayed, which today affects tens of thousands of young people in Sweden – both girls and boys. It often affects boys too, because they are forced by others in their vicinity to control their sisters, cousins, or whoever it may be, so that they go home immediately after school. They also control the girls' social circles and so on.

Madam Speaker! If we go back 100–150 years, Sweden was also governed – in fact, the whole world was – by this type of social reactionary pattern. Women were not even allowed to vote in Sweden more than 100 years ago, for example. We had dowries and a number of different social control mechanisms to protect the family's honor and the family's glory.

What we then saw in Sweden was a democratization – a mass of reforms and a diligent work with values. We got a development, a modernity and so on that made us, during those years, reject much of this. Now we have a situation where this is partly habits that, through a demographic change, come in from societies that have not made the journey that Sweden has made – that have not had democracy, that have had a totalitarian state or that have lived under war and conflicts. One has still had strong clan structures that have maintained this deeply reactionary social order.

What Sweden has shown, however, is that this can be changed. No culture is static, Madam Speaker, but we all have every opportunity in the world, through laborious and persistent work, to ensure that we phase out the phenomena that exist in our country and which are deeply destructive and mean that young girls and boys are deprived of their freedom and independence during their young years. Sweden is a good example that it is possible.

What it is about is clarity in the legislation and cooperation between school and social services. It is about being able to have more interventionist legislation, and we are now moving forward with, for example, what is called intermediate coercion in the Social Services Act. It is about intervening on streets and squares if one sees things and events, and about us getting clear legal precedents.

Seventhly and finally, Madam Speaker, this is however a question of whether every individual person in Sweden, around their kitchen tables, should come to the conclusion that all persons in Sweden – even a 14-year-old girl – should be able to go to the cinema with their friends without the family intervening. One should be allowed to date whoever one wants and so on. One should be allowed to have a social autonomy and one's own bubble of privacy where no one else steps in and scrutinizes exactly everything one does.

School is absolutely crucial for these processes, Madam Speaker. If we want to break the problems we see with honor-related violence and oppression and if we want to nurture the young generation to become more tolerant and respect all people as they are, regardless of what sexual orientation they have, what skin color they have, what religion they have and so on – yes, then school is absolutely crucial.

It is the school that is the institution for knowledge in Sweden, but it is also the school that is the most important institution for anchoring values in Sweden. It is the values that make this country stand strong, and it is the values that make medieval or ancient customs and structures – intolerance and so on – can be phased out of Sweden once and for all.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Although Fredrik Malm exceeded the allotted speaking time, his speech dealt to a very small extent with what is addressed in today's report.

I thought it would be excellent to touch upon a point specifically today that is actually addressed in this report. It is because today is the day of the after-school center (fritidshem). It is worth noting the effort that all heroes, that is to say the staff at our after-school centers, make so that all children who attend the after-school center have a meaningful leisure time, good care, and an extension of the school day that can be complemented with not exactly the same but other learning. It creates better results and better quality of life for the children who are there.

In that way, the after-school centers have a capacity to level out differences in children's living conditions. But that capacity goes almost to nothing because of which children it is that have the right to be at the after-school center. Children who have parents who are on parental leave, children who have parents who are unemployed, children who have parents who are on long-term sick leave, and children who have parents who are on social welfare or find themselves in other socially vulnerable situations have less right to the after-school center. They do not have the right to participate in the after-school center's activities and thus have less right to education than children of those in employment or studying.

On 29 November 2022, Lotta Edholm received the investigation on an expanded right to after-school care, and in it, the introduction of a general after-school care is proposed. The Government sent the investigation out for consultation, and since then, nothing more has happened. In the report we are discussing today, Fredrik Malm's party and the Tidö majority want to reject our motion that the right to participate in after-school care activities should be gradually expanded to include all children. This is intended with reference to the fact that the investigation's proposal is being prepared in the Government Offices. When will we receive such a proposal on the floor of the Riksdag?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, Linus Sköld!

It is very true that this is now being prepared. An investigation has been conducted where an expanded right to leisure time is proposed, which I think is fundamentally good. The after-school centers play a very important role and complement the regular teaching in the school, which is curriculum-guided, in various ways. It is also a different environment – one does not need to sit still and listen, but can get help with homework, do different activities and make social contacts. One plays games and so on.

I also believe, Madam Speaker, that those who work at the fritidshem in many cases can actually be better than some subject teachers at handling some students who are a bit more rowdy and so on. They can also contribute with support in social development in a way that a teacher, who is more focused on scheduling and driving the lessons, cannot always do. The fritidshem therefore play a very important role.

To put this into a bit of perspective, Madam Speaker, I also think we should keep in mind that we have a very well-developed childcare system in Sweden compared to many other countries, which hardly offer anything of this at all – or offer it in the form of activities that must be entirely financed by the children's own parents. We already have a very well-developed extracurricular activity system. Then, I naturally hope that we can take more steps. We will see exactly when it reaches the Riksdag, but I hope it will come here soon.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! If Fredrik Malm thinks it is a good proposal to gradually expand the right for all children to participate in after-school activities, he should move for the approval of our reservation number 30 in today's report. In that, we are proposing a referral to the government to do exactly this.

The government has sat on its hands for two and a half years since this bill landed on the government's desk, and the governing parties want to reject this motion with reference to the need to reflect a bit more. But that something is being prepared in the Government Offices is government speak for "We do not intend to do anything with this," so I actually do not care much that Fredrik Malm says he thinks it is a legitimate approach. Here, actions speak louder than words, I would say.

I would say that the activity of the after-school center is about children's learning and play and creating a meaningful leisure time. It is prioritized in the after-school center's activity. As a natural extension of the school day, the after-school center's activity would need to be prioritized and valued.

The compensatory capacity that exists in the activities of the after-school center – that is, building a meaningful leisure time with learning and play for all children, even those in the most socially disadvantaged situations – is going to waste while the government sits on its hands and refuses to do anything in this issue.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I agree with much of what Linus Sköld says regarding the leveling effect, the compensatory effect, or however one chooses to name it. That was also exactly what I described in my first response in this exchange of remarks.

Since it is the case, as Linus Sköld himself points out, Madam Speaker, that it is also different, for example in preschool, for children of parents on parental leave compared to other children. But the starting point should be that the right to leisure activities should be expanded. I think that is a reasonable starting value.

Then, someone has to pay for this in the end. That is how it is, and we also do not want groups that are too large at the after-school centers.

It is ultimately the principals who decide this. I noted that there are different proposals in the committee report on regulating this, but from the government basis' side, we believe the current order is reasonable.

Madam Speaker! I understand that the Social Democrats would like to paint this as a very large conflict, but I would not say that it is. There is a very broad consensus on the importance of after-school centers. I went to fritis myself; they were fantastic years during my schooling. I hope that Linus Sköld also did. Above all, one got to play a lot of couronne, Den försvunna diamanten, and such things. I think there was a very great value in all those years when I went to fritis.

I do not think there is any major conflict in this. We will have to see when the investigation arrives, but the objective must, of course, be that the after-school centers shall be strengthened.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Fredrik Malm for the speech.

I have a question. As is customary, what is the government's strategy regarding the digitalization of the school system? It is a rather easy question, because there is no strategy from the government regarding the digitalization of the school system.

There is a mandate for Skolverket to issue general advice and guidance regarding the choice of teaching materials in the classroom. I wonder when these general guidelines will arrive. A report was to be submitted to the government on April 30. Today is May 13. Since I am interested in the area, I have been a bit curious, but I have not found this.

There are signs that the government does not intend to take any strategic leadership regarding the digitalization of the school system. It is a pity; it is a rather large risk one is taking. One has even been so careful that the AI commission was not allowed to submit proposals in the school's area. They still came up with some recommendations, which was good. A strategy should have been presented – it was absolutely necessary – but then it was not done, and then the assignment went to Skolverket.

I expect a strategy where the government takes leadership. The government does a great deal to steer the digitalization of schools at a detailed level in the classroom, but I mean that it is the teacher who has the assignment to perform this work.

After this approach, my question is: Where are the general guidelines and the guidance that Skolverket was supposed to report to the government on 30 April?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! It has been a few weeks. Camilla Hansén mentioned a deadline, approximately around Walpurgis Night, and now we are well into May. During the wait, Camilla Hansén can perhaps amuse herself by looking at the World Health Organization's general advice regarding screen use for children. She can also look at what the world-leading researchers at the Karolinska Institute have to say about screen time for children. It might be a useful thought exercise for Miljöpartiet, which seems to be sailing up as the great standard-bearer for us to move from folder to screen – that is, in the opposite direction, Madam Speaker.

The truth is that we are talking about somewhat different things here. The first part is about digitizing structures and about municipal administrations, statistics and so on. That is one thing. This was, among other things, what the AI commission looked at for the public sector. We are all in agreement that it is good if we, in different ways, through digitalization, artificial intelligence and much more, can make processes in administration and governance more efficient.

The second part is actually divided into two. It concerns the issue of digital devices and other things in the teaching situation. My perception is no stranger than this: If one has a PowerPoint presentation or in some way has a digitized teaching aid within the framework of teaching for students in upper secondary school or upper secondary school, it is not strange at all. What we need to address is the excessive use of digital teaching materials at a young age, as this has very large negative consequences.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I prefer when Fredrik Malm does not act as an interpreter of the Green Party's policy, especially when the interpretations are grossly incorrect. It could be an interesting conversation if there were any truth to the interpretations.

The AI Commission was actually allowed to submit proposals on almost anything within, for example, higher education, but was explicitly forbidden from submitting proposals regarding the entire secondary school system. One might find that surprising.

Now it sounds like Fredrik Malm is suggesting that I should stand here and advocate for harmful educational methods. I actually think it is a rather dishonest debating technique that we can stay away from.

I asked for strategic leadership at the government level; it is still a rather straightforward question. I also asked for the promised reports. However, I hear some kind of underlying tone from Fredrik Malm that some learning materials are nice while others are ugly, depending on how one categorizes them.

Educational materials are educational materials. Digital educational materials are digital educational materials. They can be bad or good. When it comes to novels on paper, I want to say: I’ve got news for you – they can also be terribly bad in every possible way. I apologize for the English outburst, but they can completely kill the desire to read. It is not this that determines the quality of an educational material.

We are all concerned about social media and how much people get stuck in their screens. However, we in the Education Committee do not need to have that debate, as this does not concern our area of responsibility. We prepare matters that occur within school and education, not those that belong to leisure time. I think it is very important that other committees really delve into it and provide good guidance.

I want to know if there will be any leadership from the government regarding digitalization as a whole.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The Member spoke about how some teaching materials would be nice while others would be ugly. That is quite possible if one looks at the front cover of the teaching materials, but that is not what this is about. It is about the fact that there are evidence-based methods that are better than other methods, for example, for teaching. There are methods for teaching children to read, write, and count that are better than other methods. Camilla Hansén does not want to see that but says: Let the teachers decide everything themselves – it is up to the profession! However, that is not quite how I see it. If there are evidence-based methods that are better than other methods, those methods should be used in teaching to a greater extent.

Camilla Hansén said that a novel can be bad. It is clear that it can be, and it is at least as bad if one listens to it because one has not learned to read and because the teacher says that, within the framework of extra adaptations, one is allowed to have listening reading instead. Then the novel is just as bad. The problem is that one learns even less to read by listening to a bad novel instead of reading it. I believe that it can be useful to read even bad books, if I am to be honest. One often discovers it after a while, and then it is good not to stop reading altogether too early. One must also have the stamina to plow through books. It could be that the novel suddenly becomes very good in the fourth or fifth chapter. It could be that it turns and that one begins to understand the plot in a better way.

We have a problem, Madam Speaker, but the Green Party does not really want to see this problem. The Green Party simply says that the issue of screens in school does not even fall within the Education Committee's preparatory area. Which committee should be responsible for it then? Is it not a problem for the Green Party if we have a problem in school with students sitting on Snapchat or TikTok, sitting and scrolling in general, or playing Candy Crush during lesson time? The laxity regarding this issue almost defies my understanding, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Imagine that you are a completely ordinary child in a completely ordinary Swedish town. You wake up, get dressed, and head to school. Whether your steps are heavy and dragging or whether you hop with joyful strides all the way there is determined by what you encounter when you come inside the doors.

The Swedish school's core values state that the equal value and rights of all people shall be respected. But those who have a foreign background, a different belief system than the majority, or a different mother tongue than Swedish are more often subjected to harassment, insults, and other violations. And in recent times, antisemitism, which was the very reason why Swedish school during the post-war period was constructed to create independent, democratic, and questioning citizens, has more and more frequently shown its ugly face.

So we cannot have that. The school shall be a safe place where students and teachers can feel secure and focus on learning. It shall be a place where democracy's ideals of all people's equal value prevail.

Therefore, the government needs to ensure that the school authorities have both sufficient resources and a mandate to support the schools in their work to counter both antisemitism and racism as well as honor-related issues.

Imagine that you have a mother tongue other than Swedish. The language you speak with your parents when you are at home is probably the language you are best at and the tool for your thoughts, at least the spontaneous ones. It is good that you then have an hour a week where you get to practice your language and that you receive study guidance from someone who can explain to you in the language of your thoughts when the Swedish NO-concepts become too tricky. It makes it easier to keep up with the school subjects, and it also makes it easier for you to learn Swedish.

The Sweden Democrats want to abolish mother tongue instruction for ideological reasons. The government backed down in the Tidö negotiations and tasked an investigator to examine whether mother tongue instruction negatively affects second language learning or integration. The investigator concluded that no such connection can be substantiated, and instead, those who participate in mother tongue instruction have better school results than those who are entitled to mother tongue instruction but do not participate. The investigator therefore refrained from submitting any legislative proposals. As far as I know, the Sweden Democrats still want to abolish mother tongue instruction. For my part, I want to strengthen it.

Imagine that you start a new work area in a school subject and are told that it is important for your grade. You receive a matrix of what the goals for the work area are and how your work will be assessed. But the goals are strange and difficult to understand, and the adults cannot really explain them in a way that makes them comprehensible. You ask time and again what you need to do to get a C. The adults point at the matrix and say that you need to provide developed arguments with some degree of certainty, so you struggle on and read and read and write and write. Finally, the day comes when you are to receive the result, and you get an E. When you ask the teacher why, you get the answer that it was not possible to discern the core of your text because you wrote about everything you could think of. Your desk neighbor is devastated because he got an F and knows that it could determine whether he gets into high school in the autumn, and everyone knows that one must get into high school if one wants to do well later in life.

The goal-related grading system is unclear and unfair. For those who are ambitious, the lack of clarity creates an endless demand to exert more effort. Stress and mental ill-health follow in its wake. For those who are struggling, the lack of clarity creates despair. It is not even worth trying.

The private schools push up their grade averages completely arbitrarily to gain a competitive advantage, and the failing grade level combined with all-too-strict eligibility requirements for upper secondary school creates an equally arbitrary threshold to upper secondary school that knocks out between 15 and 18 percent of each year's cohort from continued studies and makes the path to the labor market crooked and difficult.

A goal-related grading system with completely decentralized decisions on grades will never be able to become equivalent and fair. OECD and IFAU have both stated that the failing grade level, in addition to creating human suffering and perceived failures, is socio-economically inefficient.

Gymnasieskolan must be for everyone and the path to the labor market as straight as possible for all young people.

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned earlier, today is the day of the leisure center. The staff at the country's leisure centers deserve to be honored every day for their tireless work in creating meaningful leisure time, providing good care, and constituting a complement to the school. But today we highlight them a little extra.

We Social Democrats want the after-school centers to be re-evaluated and become an obvious part of the school day. The after-school centers should offer more time for learning for all children, which has great potential to strengthen equality in the education system and improve the upbringing conditions for many children. The after-school centers need to be given higher priority, more resources, and more qualified teachers and staff.

The right to after-school care needs to be progressively expanded to include all students so that this right does not become dependent on what the students' parents do for a living and so that children with great needs or with risk factors of ending up on the wrong track are given greater opportunity to attend after-school care.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that I am well aware that this is not a budget debate. But I still want to point out the obvious that whether it concerns the work against antisemitism, the work for safety, security, and peace, the work with the quality of after-school centers, or the opportunities for second-language teachers to learn Swedish quickly and well, resources are crucial. It means that regardless of what the government says it wants to achieve, its cuts, now for the third year in a row, will result in fewer completely ordinary children skipping rope on their way to school.

I naturally stand behind all the Social Democrats' reservations, but for the sake of time, I will content myself with moving for approval of reservation 30.

(Applause)

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! We shall have a Swedish school where children learn to read, write, count, and preferably also speak. We shall also have a school where children dare to raise their hands and where the teachers have the power in the classroom, not the student with the loudest voice or the most secret photos on the phone. We shall have a school where parents feel secure that their children not only go to school but also receive instruction in peace and quiet.

Safety has been sidelined for far too long, and that is why the government has made the re-establishment of order in the classroom a primary task. We see, after all, what happens when safety fails. Teachers quit, students fall behind, and violence and harassment become commonplace. In that case, it is not strange that trust in the school is eroded.

That is why we act. We introduce a mobile phone ban in the classrooms – for reduced distraction and strengthened concentration. We give teachers and principals better tools to intervene against disruption and threats – to return control to the adults. We invest particularly in schools in vulnerable areas where the problems are greatest – so that every student shall get a reasonable chance.

We take school absenteeism seriously. The Government has tasked Skolverket with carrying out a national mapping of school absenteeism, and we want to introduce a national absence register so that no student can disappear without it being noticed.

Madam Speaker! This is not just security policy. It is knowledge policy, for without security, there is no knowledge. But we do not stop there. We have also begun the largest knowledge initiative in a long time within the Swedish school system. We are strengthening the core subjects. We have removed the student's choice, a course that has been too vague and inefficient. That time has now been transferred to subjects such as social studies, biology, physics, and music – subjects that are central to a broad general education.

We are introducing a ten-year primary school. The preschool class shall become a new first grade, with a clear pedagogical structure and real learning objectives. We know that early interventions make the biggest difference, especially for children who do not have sufficient support from home.

We are investing in learning materials. It should not matter whether you attend a municipal or an independent school – you shall have access to real, quality-assured textbooks. We have now ensured this through clarifications in the legislation and specific investments. And we are reviewing the grading system. It shall be equivalent, fair, and reflect knowledge. We want to counter grade inflation and strengthen the legitimacy of the system as well as ensure that national tests have a greater impact.

Madam Speaker! All of this is connected. Safety creates the conditions for learning, and knowledge creates opportunities for the individual and society.

We stand behind the committee's proposal. We reject the motions in the report because the government is already acting, powerfully and with breadth.

We shall have a Swedish school where the teacher leads the teaching, where the student dares to be ambitious and where every child can feel safe, regardless of background and place of residence.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! As I said in my speech, the grading system in combination with the eligibility rules for upper secondary school has had dramatic consequences. It is primarily the failing grade of the goal-related grading system, that is, the grade F, which has had these dramatic consequences, both for the individual student and for the economy of society. It is simply inefficient to make the path to the labor market longer for young people.

Those who do not get into upper secondary school are given an unnecessarily long or perhaps even non-existent path to the labor market. What makes this even more dramatic is that the cutoff point is made up. It is simply arbitrary which 16-year-olds are excluded from continued studies.

For the SD government, it has been important to maintain the distinction between failed and passed in primary school. It states in the Tidö Agreement that it shall be so, even though neither researchers nor the government's own investigator advocate for a sharp passing grade. Sorting students as passed or failed benefits neither learning nor motivation, and neither the individual nor society.

Therefore, my question to Noria Manouchi is: Will the government present a proposal for a new grading system that allows the elimination to continue?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying how important I think it is that parents and students gain a very great understanding of where they stand in their studies. It is extremely important for a student to know if they will succeed, if they will not succeed, if they have learned enough, and whether the final exam is what will decide everything or not, as well as to receive guidance from teachers and the school that makes it possible for them to land the grade they strive for and acquire the knowledge they are entitled to. This is important not only for the students but also for the parents, who are to help, support, and guide their child through school.

In order for early measures to be taken in a student's learning, I believe it is extremely important that one can follow one's knowledge development. I want to start by saying this when we talk about drawing boundaries for whether one should pass a course or a subject or not. Then we must not overlook the importance of this.

We are looking at a new grading system, and we will present a new grading system. The ambition will, of course, not be any kind of automatic weeding out of students. I do not believe there is any party that has as a goal or ambition that is how it should go. On the contrary, I believe we are all here in agreement that the absolute best system is the one that enables every student to benefit from Swedish school.

When it comes to the result, what we see today is not good enough. That is why we are investigating the issue of grading systems, and we will return to that.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Those who know their contemporary history in Swedish education have delved into how it happened when the goal-related grading system was introduced. It was created to be a feedback mechanism for students and parents regarding how the student's learning is progressing. No effort was spent on making it fair, because it was not to be used for selection in the next step in the educational chain. That was simply not the intention when the goal-related grading system was created.

If the grading system only has the task of providing feedback to the students on how they are doing, we have a grading system that works perfectly well. But because the grading system also has the task of ranking students for the next step in the educational chain and, for that part, providing a measure of the quality of education – that is how we use the grade results and compare schools' performances with one another – every grade needs to be equivalent and fair. In that case, a goal-related system where every individual teacher makes the assessment of what constitutes developed knowledge with some degree of certainty is not sufficient.

The question I am asking is whether the government, in the proposal for a new grading system that is being developed, will allow the weeding out to continue. If Noria Manouchi is serious about the weeding out being to cease, why should there then be a difference between a passing and a failing grade, which the Moderaterna, Sverigedemokraterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna have agreed that there should be?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! It can absolutely be as Linus Sköld describes. I know that the member has a long background within Swedish schooling. So was the purpose of the school system, but the effect of the grading system – or the reality, as it looks out there – is not quite as it is stated or as it is intended to be.

Even though the idea perhaps was that it should be easy to follow and that it should be easy to be aware and ensure that one can keep up or whatever it is one needs to do, that is not how reality looks. We have heaps of students out there who have no idea where they stand right now and who, only at the last moment, when they begin to approach the final year, suddenly realize that they are going to fail in the first, second, and third subject, and the parents have no idea where their children stand.

I therefore think it is important not to forget that that type of follow-up is also extremely important in this regard. But it is not just about us having a new grading system, which we are currently working to introduce. It is something that the Social Democrats had eight years to do but still failed at. It is not just about us having a new grading system that is to be equivalent and fair and that is to reflect the students' knowledge.

It is also about ensuring that we create a Swedish school that allows every child to take with them the knowledge they need to the next step. Or is it? It cannot just be that it says one thing and another on paper. We must ensure that we invest in the right things: to reintroduce the knowledge focus that you have erased and invest in the staff to bring in special educators and support in early grades so that every student gets a chance to actually pass school – not just in the big cities but also in the countryside and in our marginalized areas, where students are hit harder. This is the government's policy.

(Applause)

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to move for approval of reservation 5.

Madam Speaker! More than 23 years ago, I stepped into a classroom for the first time as a teaching teacher after my education. It was at a school in a particularly vulnerable area, a school where I otherwise chose to continue working for 16 years.

It was wonderful children from all corners of the earth! Sure, there were perhaps only one or two Swedish children or children with Swedish parents. But it was also the case that no ethnic group dominated. There was a student from Finland, one from Denmark and one from Poland. Someone was from the former Yugoslavia and someone from Vietnam. A couple were from Somalia and so on.

Madam Speaker! In this seemingly divided classroom, there was a strong force that united: the Swedish language. It was a self-evident fact, despite everyone's different backgrounds, that we communicated, socialized, and learned new knowledge through the Swedish language. Through the Swedish language, we also strengthened a common Swedish identity in the classroom. With that, we received shared values and norms as a bonus. Together with clear leadership and what is sometimes called lecture-based teaching, we got things moving forward despite all the challenges and difficulties we had in the classroom.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, our politicians chose to put in another gear in their ambitions to create a more multicultural society, as it was so beautifully called. Mass immigration accelerated over two decades. The Swedish language was devalued not only in society but also in the classroom. It no longer mattered whether one learned history, geography, and social studies in Swedish or in Arabic or Somali.

The left's identity politics also worked its way steadily into the classroom. The student's ethnicity and cultural distinctiveness were to be highlighted and reinforced even further. The Swedish was contemptuously swept aside. There is no Swedish culture, certain leading politicians declared at the time. So bad was it. So blind was it.

Madam Speaker! When I, 16 years later, in 2018, left the classroom for the last time, Swedish society, the suburb where I was, and even my classroom had undergone revolutionary changes. I had a divided classroom, where two ethnic groups more and more frequently stood against each other and where more and more of the lesson time was spent dampening disturbances and latent conflicts. Arabic and Somali were the most common languages heard in the classroom, in the corridors, and on the schoolyard. The Swedish language and the Swedish majority culture shone ever more with their absence. Young boys ran around and acted as moral police on my schoolyard and scolded girls if their hair poked out from under the veil. Multiculturalism had now become honor culture.

Madam Speaker! The situation that Swedish society and the Swedish school are now in has not arisen by itself but is a result of consciously made political decisions. And it is with practical, politically made decisions that we shall now step by step reverse the development.

Madam Speaker! Since entering the Riksdag in 2010, the Sweden Democrats have presented and advocated for a number of proposals to reverse this negative development – a development that is due to decades of school policy decisions and mass immigration – because we want to recreate a world-class school. We once had it. We have presented proposals to strengthen students' knowledge and give students and teachers the long-awaited peace to work, as well as making the school a safe workplace.

We can joyfully state that the majority of our proposals concerning the reintroduced focus on knowledge and the maintenance of order and safety, and more than that, now seem to be becoming a reality. The school's development is thus moving towards a new and somewhat more hopeful state, and the Sweden Democrats are an active part of that.

Madam Speaker! In the Tidö Agreement, many Sweden Democrat proposals can be found: reforming the curriculum, focus on knowledge and education, early support measures, better access to small teaching groups for those students who need it most and targeted support for gifted students, behavior contracts between school, student and parents, increased powers for principals and teachers, rules of order decided by the school's adults, reinforced student health, increased equality through national quality requirements and the introduction of a national school funding norm, increased investment in the Swedish Schools Inspectorate and, in addition, tightened supervision of schools with a confessional orientation regarding extremism and Islamism, increased measures against honor-related oppression, relocation of students who bully or pose a danger – and this for a longer period than current legislation allows – and a reporting obligation for crimes at school, requirements for an economic buffer and tightened ownership review for independent schools, reduced workload and more time for teachers to devote themselves to their core mission, as well as raised teacher status through raised admission requirements to teacher training programs. The list can be made long – significantly longer than what other governments have achieved so far.

Madam Speaker! I would like to return to the question of the Swedish language and mother tongue instruction. We Sverigedemokrater stand firm on the abolition of state-funded mother tongue instruction. Of course, one can choose to read and learn one's mother tongue freely, but it is not the public sector that should finance it.

The introduction of mother tongue instruction has never been about strengthening the students' ability to learn Swedish. It is an afterthought to legitimize that we should maintain this instruction. Mother tongue instruction has always primarily been about strengthening the immigrants' linguistic identity and thus their cultural identity. We see the result today.

Madam Speaker! An important component of the multicultural project is the tax-funded mother tongue education. The claim that students who read in their mother tongue perform better has long been maintained, even now in this chamber, as an argument for mother tongue education. However, there may be another simple explanation, namely that it is to a greater extent students who are motivated to study who choose to read in their mother tongue. This was already shown by Skolverket in 2008.

Madam Speaker! If the tax-funded mother tongue instruction is the miracle cure that our political opponents claim it is, it is very strange that reality looks the way it does: Swedish skills are plummeting, and so is the students' reading comprehension. About one-fifth of all students do not even reach what Skolverket calls the basic level in reading comprehension. How are they then supposed to manage further in upper secondary school?

Madam Speaker! The state and the municipalities spend more than 2.2 billion of our tax money on mother tongue instruction. That is more than double what the state usually invests in the continuing education of teachers and preschool staff. It is three times more than what is invested in teaching materials in the school system in a normal budget year. We Sverigedemokrater are convinced, and will continue to be, that these billions can be used in a better way to strengthen our students' knowledge and learning in the Swedish school.

Madam Speaker! The work of rebuilding a knowledge-focused school with peace of mind and security will require both clarity and courage. We are ready to take on that conflict with our political opponents. The school must even more contribute to a cohesion based on Swedish norms and values in a time when the country is being torn apart, even in the school environment. We know the reason why this has happened: the great experiment with multiculturalism and unregulated immigration at its core.

The road is long, Madam Speaker. We will not stand here and promise to save the Swedish school in a hundred days, as a certain school minister from a certain party did a number of years ago. A restoration of the Swedish school system will take time and effort. But hopefully, when I return to my classroom in a few years and begin teaching, I will find a classroom that is a little more like the one I first entered over 23 years ago.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals went to the 2022 election on the basis of considering mother tongue instruction as a prioritized integration policy measure, according to a party decision at their national convention the year before. The Sweden Democrats went to the 2022 election on the basis of abolishing mother tongue instruction entirely. They have, in any case, thought that before for ideological reasons. If one listens to the reasons Anders Alftberg presents here in the rostrum, it appears on the surface as racist reasons. He wants to take people's identity away; that is why they should not be allowed to receive instruction in their language.

The compromise between these two parties in the Tidö Agreement became an investigation that was to analyze whether mother tongue instruction had a negative impact on second language learning or integration. The investigator returned a few months ago with this finding: "Participation in mother tongue instruction has not been shown to have any negative impact on integration, study results, or knowledge development in the Swedish language."

The investigator refrained from submitting any constitutional proposals regarding mother tongue instruction.

Despite the fact that the investigator was not tasked with proposing reinforcements or improvements, she nevertheless pointed out some of the most pressing improvements that would be needed, for example that the subject mother tongue should be regulated in the curriculum, that students who come to Sweden without a guardian shall have the right to instruction in mother tongue and that distance learning should be developed.

So there are a number of quality improvement proposals from the investigator, despite the fact that she refrained from submitting proposals in SD's direction, so to speak.

My question to Anders Alftberg is quite simply: What is going to happen with the mother tongue instruction now, when the investigation came back and had no proposal to abolish it?

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am not entirely unfamiliar with social democrats and left-wing party members calling me a racist in some unrefined way. I do not know if my students over all the years would see me as that.

It is strange that it is considered racism to invite children from other countries to take part in and become a part of the Swedish identity. That those children receive an identity as Swedes is quite excellent – that one opens the door for those girls in the suburbs who live in a cultural context that is directly hostile to women and harmful to their existence. Of course, we should have the door open to a Swedish inclusion and a Swedish identity, even if mom and dad come from another country.

It is regrettable but symptomatic that the left have difficulty seeing this connection.

Then it is of course so that the Liberals and the Sweden Democrats stand on quite opposite sides when it comes to precisely the view on the mother tongue subject's existence or non-existence, its possibilities and its potential harmfulness. That is the case in all government cooperation. We have much in common. We have many issues that the liberals in the committee – I was about to say we liberals, but we are all liberals in one way or another sometimes – and we Sweden Democrats completely share with each other. The unifying points are much stronger and many more than the contradictions are. Then there are contradictions, and there it becomes a matter of negotiation. So it was also during your government.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to correct Anders Alftberg. What I said was that he cited nearly racist reasons for wanting to abolish mother tongue instruction. I did not say that Anders Alftberg was a racist. There is an important difference between the two. Whether he is or not, only he himself can answer that.

The compromise made in the Tidö Agreement led to an investigator conducting a review of the state of knowledge, that is, the research that exists linked to mother tongue instruction, integration, and second language learning. Even though the investigator notes that a better state of research would have been needed – we would have needed more research to be able to say anything with complete certainty about this – she says that the state of knowledge does not provide grounds to assert anything of what Anders Alftberg says.

The Sweden Democrats have thus now ended up in a difficult position because they made this compromise. Now it is clear to everyone who can read that the research does not support the line they have previously asserted. It is very troublesome when the Sweden Democrats' hobby analysis that abolished mother tongue instruction leads to better Swedish learning cannot be substantiated by research. It must be very difficult.

I would recommend that the Sweden Democrats drop the hobby analysis, refrain from demanding the abolition of mother tongue instruction, and instead look at how mother tongue instruction can be improved so that it can achieve better results both for people's identity development and for their language learning.

The question I asked remains. It left Anders Alftberg completely unanswered. What will happen with the mother tongue instruction now?

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are not engaging in any hobby analysis. The previous government stood behind the analysis that nuclear power was obsolete and should be phased out completely. Everyone who in some way was an advocate for preserving nuclear power was considered to have no connection to reality. Now you bow down and realize that you have made a mistake.

Regarding the question of mother tongue, the conclusion of what has emerged is that the enormous extent of publicly funded mother tongue teaching is unique. There is no research. There is not sufficiently good underlying data. A compilation of reports does not say very much. The realities in our society clearly show that despite these enormous amounts that year after year have been pumped into this multicultural project in terms of mother tongue, no clear results have emerged.

Sweden was supposed to have become a super-economy after the mass immigration of refugees. That didn't happen. What about the mother tongue? We have seen that exclusion has been reinforced with instruction in the mother tongue. We have only deepened the ignorance of the Swedish language among young people. Thus, we have closed the door for further studies.

It is not the grade F that is the problem, but the problem is the Social Democratic policy. We must return to the knowledge school. It should not be the soft fluff that has taken place over many decades.

(Applause)

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is the month of May. The trees are greening, the gravel is being swept from the roads, and there are only a few weeks left before Sweden's students get their long-awaited summer break. Many children long for swimming trips, ice cream in the sun, family parties, and the freedom to sleep as long as they want. But at the same time as many children long for something, there are far too many children who long away from something, namely from school for reasons other than just wanting to be off. Far too many children in Sweden go to school with a lump in their stomachs. It is not a lump in the stomach before a math test, but because they do not know what will happen in the corridor afterwards. Will someone mock them, push them, film them secretly and post it on the internet and social media?

Madam Speaker! It is not worthy of a country like Sweden that so many children experience their school environment as unsafe. The school should be a place where children get to grow and where they receive support, knowledge, and faith in the future. The school should be a place where safety, respect, and structure are as self-evident as pens and school desks.

The organization Friends' latest report shows that almost every other student in middle school has been subjected to some form of harassment in the past year. 14 percent report that they have been subjected to bullying. More than one in ten students feel unsafe in the Swedish school. And over half say that rowdiness and disruptive behavior in the classroom makes it difficult to work in peace and quiet.

We Christian Democrats take this very seriously. For what does it say about our society, if not even the school environment – the children's workplace – can guarantee safety, peace of mind, and respect? Teachers testify that they need to act as security guards rather than educators and that they themselves are subjected to threats and violence. Sometimes it feels as if they are left alone in the struggle to maintain the teaching where students, instead of treating the teacher with respect, choose to cause trouble and test boundaries.

Madam Speaker! We have a crisis of values in Swedish schools. It is a crisis where the authority of adults has been eroded, where boundaries have been blurred, and where students respect each other to a too small extent. For every student who causes a disturbance, there is another who is not allowed peace to work. For every student who subjects another student to a violation, there is a student who finds it harder to go to school the next day. For every rule violation that is not followed up, a sense of hopelessness is built among both students and staff. The students who want to learn and who try to do the right thing also become silent losers in this situation. We must never accept a school where children are held back because adults do not have the tools, the time, or the courage to act.

In order for the school to be able to fulfill its mission, to educate and nurture, structure, clarity and common norms are required. We must create a school where knowledge is once again allowed to be at the center and where every child is treated with respect.

Madam Speaker! We need more time for the children, more adults in the school, smaller teaching groups, more special education teachers, more support staff, as well as more safe adults who can build relationships, prevent conflicts, and intervene when necessary. We also need to ensure that teachers and other school staff are ready to intervene against bullying and harassment. The anti-bullying programs that exist in schools must be evidence-based, but training in leadership and conflict management is also needed already in teacher education and as continuing education. School staff also need the authority to intervene against students who disturb the order. The powers that school staff have today need to be clarified and sharpened.

Madam Speaker! I would also like to mention parental responsibility. I recently spoke with a teacher who expressed it roughly like this: If all parents ensured that the children slept at night and ate breakfast in the morning, much would be solved. This may sound simplified, but it says something important, namely that the school cannot alone bear the responsibility for children's upbringing without it primarily lying with the parents.

The Christian Democrats and the government are putting forward a proposal where schools shall be able to establish a commitment document – a kind of contract between student, parents and school – where it clearly states what is expected in terms of conduct, respect and study, but also what the parents are expected to contribute. Parents need to be clearly involved and know that their role does not end at the school gate. Schooling is a collaboration between school and parents.

Madam Speaker! Schools must have zero tolerance for bullying and harassment. Every case must be taken seriously, so that every child shall feel that the adult world stands on their side. Behind every figure in the statistics is a child. There is a boy or girl with a backpack, a gym bag, and dreams – perhaps dreams of becoming a veterinarian, a football star, or a history teacher. Maybe it is someone who already feels lonely, misunderstood, and vulnerable. Our duty as the adult world – and as politicians – is to never turn away our gaze but to see the students and equip them for life.

Madam Speaker! The school's values rest on a deep ethical tradition – with roots in Judeo-Christian ethics and Western humanism. It highlights all people's equal value, care for the weak, and responsibility for the common good. The ethical principles must be translated into practical action, every day and in all classrooms. And it needs to have greater consequences when the school's values are not respected and students instead choose to treat others poorly or break the school's rules. Without order, compliance, and respect for others, a situation is quickly created where boundaries are blurred. The sense of responsibility and the school community are weakened. In that situation, it is the most vulnerable children who get caught in the crossfire. Instead, it is in a school with firm and clear frameworks that warmth, care, and learning are allowed to take place. We therefore need to do more to create order and safety in the school, so that more children get the chance to succeed in school, gain power over their lives, and can realize their dreams.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a school with order, with heart, and with backbone.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 8 from Vänsterpartiet on racism, antisemitism and discrimination in schools.

Madam Speaker! Harassment and discrimination are a major societal problem, and some groups are more vulnerable than others. That is how I intended to begin my speech. But I am going to do something I often do: a parenthesis. Certain things have happened during the debate that I need to address.

We have heard parties from the SD-led, blue-brown government talk about ethical principles and about how we should take care of each other and the weak in accordance with Christian values. But we have also heard representatives from the same blue-brown mess speak in a very racist way about taking away rights from children who look like me in the school that also belongs to them, a school that also has a mandate to strengthen those children.

It becomes clear that there is a "us" and a "them" in the politics that the blue-browns advocate for. But it also becomes quite unclear when different representatives for the same government speak about the same issue but from different ends.

Madam Speaker! According to the Equality Ombudsman's report Occurrence of Discrimination 2024, very many Afro-Swedish children have stated that they have been subjected to ethnic discrimination and harassment in school. It is also well known that schools in economically difficult times deprioritize work against, for example, racism.

Over the years, mappings from the foundation Friends have several times shown that violations linked to ethnicity, that is, of a racist nature, are the most common basis for harassment of children in both middle and upper secondary school. Save the Children has also shown and presented in its reports year after year.

Despite this, and despite research studies from among others Harvard University showing how racism and its consequences harm children's mental and physical health, many schools in Sweden still lack concrete tools and plans to work consciously and preventively to handle violations, harassment, and racism that have their roots in, for example, afrophobia and Islamophobia.

According to the Equality Ombudsman, during 2020–2023, there were 514 reports of discrimination involving ethnic origin and specifically school. Of the reports, the largest group concerned Afro-Swedish children. 20 percent of the cases specifically concerned Afrophobia and hatred against black and brown children.

Several of the examples that the Equality Ombudsman highlights in its report also point to a very serious situation for specifically Afro-Swedish students. It concerns everything from students being subjected to harassment and being urged to avoid those who subject them to racism, to school staff judging their future visions and goals and referring to the fact that they still will not succeed.

Vänsterpartiet has long criticized the arrangement that violations in schools based on any of the grounds for discrimination are handled by the Equality Ombudsman, while all other violations are handled by the County Schools Inspectorate. We believe that Skolverket should be tasked with developing an action plan for schools and that the County Schools Inspectorate should take over the Equality Ombudsman's responsibilities, so that it is included in the regular inspection work. Today, school inspectors can visit schools where racism occurs, but no remarks are made because it is not part of their mandate to pay attention to these issues. We believe that this is particularly serious.

Madam Speaker! With that said, I want to be clear that this racism and discrimination, which is not only a school problem but also a societal problem, is fueled by the fact that we have a government supported by a party founded in Nazism and by the fact that even in 2025 there are representatives in the Swedish Riksdag who speak about people as if the year were 1930.

Madam Speaker! I also need to touch upon some other issues, to begin with Swedish as a second language.

Both the School Inspectorate and the National Agency for Education have pointed out that there are deficiencies in the practice regarding the assessment of which students should be allowed to study Swedish as a second language in school. The official decision on whether a student is in need of instruction in Swedish as a second language shall be made by the principal. We think that is very good.

The assessment of the student's needs should, however, be based on what best serves the student's language and knowledge development. But in several reports, including from Skolinspektionen, it has been shown that the quality of the assessments is not sufficiently good. They have reviewed 30 schools and been able to state that only 8 schools had high quality in their assessments of which Swedish subject the students should read. In a couple of schools, Skolinspektionen could, for example, see that the schools, based on the students' foreign background, had stereotypically assessed that the students should read Swedish as a second language, regardless of how good language skills they have.

The Swedish Schools Inspectorate also notes that once an assessment has been made as to which Swedish subject a student should study, that assessment remains later in the school. If it has been assessed in the middle school that the student should study Swedish as a second language, the student therefore needs to study it also in the upper school or later. It is, in fact, most common that the students continue to study Swedish as a second language – again, in a standardized manner.

This is a problem. I therefore believe that an investigation should be commissioned which shall clearly state how we are to achieve a more equivalent and equal assessment of the students' instruction in Swedish, that is, of which students should study Swedish as a second language and which do not need to do so.

Madam Speaker! The next topic I shall speak about must be the last. It concerns mother tongue instruction and study guidance in the mother tongue.

Unlike perhaps one party here in the Swedish Riksdag, which has its specific roots, all of us others know that mother tongue instruction is an important starting point for all learning in school. Therefore, mother tongue instruction must be strengthened instead of being weakened or, as some want, abolished.

In the school's timetable, mother tongue instruction unfortunately does not have the same status as other school subjects with guaranteed teaching time, even though, just like for all other subjects, there are knowledge requirements and grading criteria for the subject. The government's previous investigation on mother tongue and study guidance showed that mother tongue instruction should be regulated in the timetables. This means, among other things, that the instruction is linked more closely to the school's other activities and that the mother tongue subject receives a guaranteed teaching time, that is to say that the children receive guaranteed time to learn their mother tongue.

I and the Left Party consider and have long considered it important to introduce a minimum guaranteed teaching time, in order to strengthen mother tongue instruction. It should apply to all children, both those who receive mother tongue instruction and the national minorities.

Madam Speaker! If a student has difficulty accommodating instruction because they have a mother tongue other than Swedish, the student today has a right to study guidance in the mother tongue. This can, for example, involve getting help with mathematics in the mother tongue or in the language spoken at home. But there is a large gap right now in how this right is granted to all children across the country.

According to the Swedish Schools Inspectorate's reviews, there are many schools that even today do not even know that they must provide study guidance as a form of support. The Swedish Schools Inspectorate has also noted that schools that offer study guidance do not always base it on the students' needs but often base it on the school's routines. I believe that the government must return with proposals aimed at strengthening study guidance in the mother tongue, so that it is equivalent across the entire country; all children shall have this right.

In conclusion: Regardless of what thoughts are put forward here from certain parties in the speaker's chair without basis in research and proven experience, I am certain that it is ultimately facts and research that will emerge victorious. We will also see this in the next election when the blue-brown government is voted out.

(Applause)

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

Anne-Li Sjölund (C)

Madam Speaker! The most fundamental thing in education is to create conditions for everyone to be able to embark on a life journey based on their own merits. This happens through knowledge and understanding of the society one grows up in and by being given the tools to build a life.

But today, unfortunately, many life journeys are hindered in our education system. The Swedish grading system shuts out approximately every fifth child from further studies every year. This ruins the future for the many students who do not get to continue their studies, costs society great resources, and creates an enormous recruitment base for criminal gangs. Today's system means that the students who have it hardest in school and who do not meet the requirements risk being cast out into exclusion.

There is nothing that says it must be so. We previously had a grading system that allowed even those who had a low primary school grade to continue with vocational education. In Norway, for example, there is no distinction between pass and fail. The Center Party therefore wants to remove the hard pass limit in primary school, so that even those who have received the grade F shall have the opportunity, with their other grades as a basis, to seek further education in the upper secondary school's vocational programs. The government has also investigated a new grading system, but we are still waiting to see what the government will actually deliver.

Centerpartiet considers that the new grading system cannot be built on today's national tests. The national tests need to be developed if they are to be as decisive as they are now proposed to become. Today's tests are intended to be used as a basis for calibrating teachers' grading, not as a basis for the entire grading.

Madam Speaker! A fundamental part of a good education is good teaching materials. The Centre Party therefore believes that the availability of teaching materials, both physical and digital, needs to be strengthened in schools. Furthermore, a central review of teaching materials needs to be introduced. Well-structured and quality-assured teaching materials facilitate the teacher's work and provide more time for pedagogical activities. With a clear supervisory mandate, Skolverket can ensure quality and see to it that the teaching materials reflect the curriculum and that they are based on current research and the knowledge that exists on how students learn best.

It becomes particularly important when more students are taught by unqualified teachers. It is a major problem. Unfortunately, the government has not shown interest in adopting the Center Party's proposal to reward the schools that employ qualified teachers and set requirements for further education for those teachers who are not qualified.

Madam Speaker! Feeling safe in school is a completely fundamental right that we unfortunately do not succeed in today. The Centre Party therefore wants to strengthen the teacher's position in the classroom, give the teacher better opportunities to act against disruptive students and strengthen the inspections of those schools where safety is lacking. The Centre Party wants to introduce a national plan against bullying in school. There must be zero tolerance for violence and harassment. All children have the right to safety and self-confidence, and the teacher must have the mandate to act. We want to strengthen the teacher's position in the classroom and sharpen the supervision of schools where safety is lacking.

Centerpartiet also considers that repressive measures in school should be based on facts and evidence. Evidence-based repressive measures are important because they ensure that the interventions used are effective and have support in research. We also see that the majority of the children and young people who cause disruption in school have not received the support they are entitled to in school. Here, we as the adult world must take responsibility. Therefore, we want to strengthen the right to support regardless of whether there is a diagnosis or not.

For the Centre Party, it is clear that all children should have the right to a schooling that is not only about knowledge but also about movement, nature experiences, joy, sports, and outdoor life. We want to break down the barriers to an active lifestyle and create schools where movement is a natural part of everyday life. It strengthens both public health and community and gives our children better conditions to succeed in life.

At the same time, I want to point out that far too many children are exposed to threats, violence, or harassment, both physically and digitally. Figures from 2022 showed that 140,000 children and young people between 9 and 18 years of age had been subjected to bullying in school or online during the preceding months. In 2015, the figure was 60,000. According to research, the school does not work as preventatively as it did previously, while the climate online has become much harsher. Active and concrete measures to prevent and counteract violations and insecurity cannot be decoupled from the work on knowledge results. They must be a part of the school's systematic quality work.

Madam Speaker! A good school is fundamentally built on trust between students and teachers. A good society is built on trust between citizens as well as between the citizens and the authorities. Unfortunately, several surveys show decreased trust in and confidence for politics and society's institutions.

Centerpartiet considers this to be a worrying development that must be taken seriously. A network of political solutions must be put in place in order for the trend to be reversed. Above all, it is about reducing exclusion and strengthening the belief in the future among those who are furthest away from society. It is also about giving children and young people an understanding of the value of democracy from an early age. School should be a place where one can practice responsibility, participation, and influence. Swedish school pupils have had influence over their schooling since as early as the 1950s. It is a right that must be defended.

Madam Speaker! Having power over one's own life is a fundamental right, but for many children in our country, this right is restricted in the name of honor. The fight against honor-based oppression must be strengthened further. Honor-related violence and oppression are included in the curriculum for primary school and upper secondary school but are not included in the preschool curriculum. This is a major mistake, as honor-related issues often arise as early as when children are of preschool age. Since the preschool has a social mission just like primary and upper secondary school, the Centre Party considers that this needs to be included in the curriculum for preschool as well.

Madam Speaker! The after-school center is an important but underutilized resource that today risks increasing inequality. Children of parents who are on sick leave or parental leave do not have the right to after-school care despite the great need. 85 percent of all six- to nine-year-olds are enrolled, but in vulnerable areas, the figure is only 68 percent. This creates an unequal start in life and hinders integration.

Fritis shall also open doors for association life, culture, and outdoor life. For children who do not receive this at home, fritis plays a particularly important compensatory role, which is also established in the investigation Strengthened quality and equality in after-school care and pedagogical care. Therefore, Centerpartiet wants that all children from preschool class up to grade 3 shall have the right to at least ten hours of after-school activities per week and that it shall be free of charge even for children of unemployed and parents on parental leave.

We must dare to see the whole picture. A good school is not just about grades, but about safety, movement, faith in the future, and opportunities for all children. It requires investments in teachers, learning materials, and student support, but also in extracurricular activities, outdoor life, and student influence.

School is the foundation for a society where people believe in themselves and in each other. It is time to give all children a good and equal start in school. It should be quite fundamental.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 8.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The motions we are dealing with in the report we are debating today, Basic Education, have a very great breadth, and so do the motions from my committed party colleagues. We have submitted motions on the democratic mission, gender pedagogy, media and information literacy, reduced bullying, increased knowledge of nature, outdoor life and the right of public access, as well as mother tongues and minority languages. It is a broad report.

Madam Speaker! Education and learning are fundamental parts of a socially sustainable society, and the fourth of the UN's global sustainability goals. In light of the global megatrends and what Sweden and the world's countries agreed upon with Agenda 2030, we believe that those who today are children, pupils and students need to develop a competence for action when it comes to sustainable development.

Among those that are called global megatrends, climate change, globalization, digitalization and demographic changes are often mentioned. Today's children and students are global citizens and power holders who have the ability to be part of the sustainable society building in light of these trends that will affect them and our society throughout their entire lives.

The school system's mission is clear, and the work of increasing awareness of the overarching goal for environmental policy – to hand over a society to the next generation where the major environmental problems are solved – is part of our constitution. It is of the utmost importance that children and students are strongly equipped to live in and lead a society.

The environmental perspective is clear in the school's governing documents, and in practice, work is already being done with the broader concept of sustainability as a perspective. Miljöpartiet wants it to be clearer in the school system's mandate, which includes all forms of schooling for children, students, and adults, that the education shall have sustainable development with the dimensions of social, economic, and ecological sustainability as a fundamental perspective, something that already exists for children in preschool.

Naturskyddsföreningen has produced a report titled How is the school keeping up with the transition? It shows that there are clear mandates for the school but that the pace of implementation needs to increase.

The report shows, for example, that only six out of ten municipalities state that they have specific goals or initiatives for the work with sustainable development in primary school. The majority of the municipalities, 80 percent, do not make any specific initiatives for competence development for teachers or school leaders to lead the learning about sustainable development.

The Swedish Schools Inspectorate has also conducted a review titled Schools' work with learning for sustainable development. It concludes that teachers need to have good knowledge of sustainable development in order to be able to provide students with tools so that they, in turn, can make independent and reflective choices in various sustainability issues.

It also shows that few schools reach high quality in the work with learning for sustainable development. More explicit governance or more support could promote the schools' work with this subject area.

Another part of the global megatrends is digitalization. Sweden has, during the decades that digitalization has been ongoing, been at the forefront. You may perhaps remember the home PC reform which forms the basis for a large, broad competence in handling computers. It feels like it was about a hundred years ago, but it actually wasn't that long ago. It was at the time when modems almost sounded like some kind of birdsong. We hardly remember it anymore.

We now risk falling behind when it comes to digitalization and AI due to the government's lack of leadership in these areas within the school system. There is no steady course. No strategy is coming from the government.

I asked a question to the chairman of the Liberals in the Education Committee, Fredrik Malm, about when the general guidelines from Skolverket will arrive. They were supposed to be here two weeks ago. They were to come instead of a strategy from the government. I am curious about what these are going to be. But the guidelines are, therefore, not available.

To achieve an equitable school, all teachers and students need good access to both analogue and digital teaching materials of equal and high quality. We should not have any teaching materials of poor quality. With reference to the previous exchange of remarks, I want to clarify that Miljöpartiet's policy is not that we should have poor teaching materials, so perhaps we do not need to discuss it further. Now, the committee chairman is not here and can respond to it, but all of you others are.

Educational materials are an important support in the teaching situation and for the students' independent learning. Thus, they are an important tool to increase equality between students and equity between schools.

Educational materials constitute a base that the teacher can work from and provide a foundation for both teachers and students. Together with good teacher guides, they relieve the teachers, who get more time for teaching instead of inventing new educational materials or standing at the copier.

Teachers and students must always have access to good, objective and high-quality learning materials. There is no exception to the requirement for a scientific basis and proven experience when it comes to the choice of learning materials. Research and professional knowledge shall guide the didactic choices in the classroom; ministers shall not do it.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by reminding what is fundamental when it comes to education: skilled teachers who have enough time with their students. This requires that the state takes greater responsibility for the school's funding, but that the details of the implementation of teaching in the classroom are left to the professionals in preschool and school.

Here, the government chooses a different path with a popcorn policy of detailed measures but not the economic conditions required. It is a choice one can make. It is perfectly okay. I think it is a bad choice. In Miljöpartiet, we want to make a different choice where we strengthen the schools' finances, leave the classroom work to the teachers, and give the teachers the conditions to do their job.

Finally: Last week, the conference of Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, Skolriksdagen, went off with a bang. Minister for Education Lotta Edholm made a meritorious contribution when, as one of the opening speakers, she described the government's policy. It is what it is, but it was still a good presentation.

Then came Estonia's Minister of Education, Kristina Kallas, with a speech permeated by trust in the teachers. In an interview in connection with this, she told DN: "Much is about letting the teachers decide in the classroom."

She also said to the journalist: "I notice from your questions that you are very critical of your school system. Do not forget that you place among the top ten in Europe and have one of the world's best school systems."

Fundamentals of education

Here in the chamber, we are, despite everything and regardless of how the debates wind, in agreement on one thing. We are not even satisfied with the top ten when we see that not everyone receives the education they are entitled to or need. I still think that those words from the Minister of Education in Estonia, the country that tops the PISA measurements, lead to humility and nuance.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 15, which concerns education for sustainable development, and reservation 25, which concerns access to high-quality analog and digital learning materials.

(Applause)

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

Anne-Li Sjölund (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for a good speech!

It is fantastic how helpful all the members here in the chamber are! I received help with how I should handle the motion that was incorrect.

I move for approval of reservation 11.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that I could be of service so that a colleague could have their motions corrected in the chamber.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 14 May.)

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