Upper secondary school

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! We shall now debate the Swedish upper secondary school.

We all know that there are major problems with upper secondary school, just as there are with other parts of the school. Today, one in four upper secondary students does not master basic reading or mathematics. At the same time, university teachers are sounding the alarm that new students have difficulty absorbing the course literature.

We therefore have a problem in Sweden where students cannot read, write, and calculate properly. It runs through the entire school system. We obviously have an ambition that Sweden should be an innovative knowledge nation. We are to be a country where people can make a class journey through school, a country where we today find future solutions to tomorrow's problems. In order to be able to do that, it is required that the upper secondary school performs its mission in a satisfactory way and more.

Mr. Speaker! The problems in Swedish schools have deep roots. The reforms during the 1990s broke apart a relatively well-functioning system. The Social Democrats' municipalization fragmented the school, eroded the status of the teaching profession, and led to the municipalities beginning to save on education. Instead of having clear national goals, vague goals were introduced, and the school was deregulated.

Then came the friskola reform. Free establishment and school choice were intended to create competition and diversity. I like competition and diversity, but because the school was already decentralized, the friskolor emerged without sufficient state regulations. The view on knowledge also changed. Facts and clear requirements gave way to a postmodern view of learning. The teacher's role, where the teacher explains and instructs, was weakened.

Today we see the result: a school where students receive too little structure, too low expectations, and too few tools to succeed, a school where we do not create the Nobel Prize winners of the future and where we do not give students, regardless of background, an opportunity for social mobility. It is a school that does not meet the expectations that we have the right to have for Swedish schools.

Mr. Speaker! The challenges are many. Digitalization has also fundamentally changed the classrooms. But screens cannot replace a skilled teacher. Sweden has also received many students with mother tongues other than Swedish, which also has been a challenge that the school has not been able to handle. All this combined has led to the fact that Swedish school is not good enough.

The government is moving forward with so many enormous reforms in the school area because every fourth student cannot read and count properly, because the number of weak students is increasing and the number of strong students is decreasing, because the use of threats and violence against teachers has doubled over a ten-year period, because bullying in Swedish schools is more prevalent than in comparable countries, because every second teacher has considered leaving the profession due to stress, and because students report being more distracted by screens than students in comparable countries.

This, Mr. Speaker, I believe we recognize. All of us who have a young person in our vicinity and all of us who ourselves at some point have gotten stuck scrolling on the phone can understand that screens do not work particularly well if one is to listen to a teacher and take in new knowledge. We understand that. It is not nuclear physics that one needs to have attended a Nobel Prize winner's school to absorb. Screens do not belong in school!

Mr. Speaker! There is a difference of over 70,000 kronor per pupil per year between the municipality that invests the most and the one that invests the least. The differences across the country are enormous. Municipalization has broken the school system across the entire country, but above all, it has hit hard against those pupils who attend municipalities where not enough is spent on the school. The independent schools have fewer qualified teachers and larger classes. Pupils from independent schools perform worse than those from municipal schools in higher education.

There is, therefore, much that can be said about Swedish school, and that is why we, from both the government's and the Liberals' side, are moving forward with so many reforms. It concerns maximums for class sizes, support classes, and the nationalization of the ownership of the school. We want to phase out the profit interest from the Swedish school so that the money goes to the students. We want to remove the exceptions from the qualification requirement and have a protected professional title. We also want to ensure that schools that have systematically hired unqualified teachers are punished.

We need to go back to a rule-based school, a state-run school, a knowledge school that just creates opportunities for class journeys and social mobility. Students who need extra support should be able to get it, and students who perform a little better should be able to become the Nobel Prize winners of the future.

Mr. Speaker! That is why we regulate the right to learning materials and ensure that there are staffed school libraries throughout the country. We are introducing a new grading system. We regulate teachers' teaching assignments. We are introducing stricter requirements for the independent school sector, and we want to introduce a profit ban. We ensure that the principle of public access also shall apply to independent schools. We have appointed inquiries to regulate the size of children's groups and the staffing density, and we have also proposed that we want to regulate class sizes.

Mr. Speaker! We have noted that the government plans to ban foreign ownership in Swedish schools, something that we think is incredibly important. I want to emphasize once again that the school should be more equitable across the entire country. It should not be about where one comes from, but about where one is headed. It may sound like a cliché, but the whole reason, Mr. Speaker, that we have a publicly funded school in this country is that people, regardless of background, should be able to reach their dreams' goals.

That is why we have a publicly funded school in this country. One should be able to come from nothing and become anything. One should be able to come from any background, go through the Swedish school system, be challenged in the ways that are required, and have the requirements set that are needed so that one can come out on the other side and reach their full potential and the goals of their dreams.

That is why we need to strengthen Swedish school, and that is why the government needs to be allowed to continue reforming even the Swedish upper secondary school.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of the reservations.

(Applause)

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

Robert Olesen (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 1 in this report, which concerns the upper secondary school.

Upper secondary school is not just any market. It is not for venture capital and short-term business models or for creating new profit margins in large school corporations. Upper secondary school is a society-sustaining institution that is supposed to give young people knowledge, faith in the future, and a secure path into adulthood. It shall contribute to the supply of skills in the entire country, and it shall manage our common tax funds with the greatest responsibility.

That is precisely why it is so serious when politics fails to steer the school according to the needs of society.

Today we see clearly that the matching between the educational needs of upper secondary schools and the skill requirements of the labor market is not functioning well enough. We know that employers within industry, healthcare, technology, and other important sectors demand trained labor. We know at the same time that the system does not always direct resources to where the needs are greatest. And we know that the government, despite the problems being well known, chooses to primarily say "wait".

In the report, the majority in the committee refers to already introduced rules and to an ongoing investigation that is to be reported first in December 2027. Thus, our demands for increased state control of the upper secondary school's dimensioning, which we are debating here, are being rejected.

Mr. Speaker! This is not enough, and it is also not responsible – for the truth is that many of the problems in upper secondary school are not just about a lack of follow-up. They are also about a larger systemic failure. When market logic is allowed to govern the school, market failures arise. What is profitable for a school group is not always what is best for the student, the labor market, or society. It is a fundamental problem.

In a normal market, one might accept that companies establish themselves where the profit is greatest, but the school is not a normal market. If educations are started, expanded, or marketed because they are cheap to run or provide a good return rather than to fill society's competence needs, we get a distortion. We risk getting an over-establishment in some places, under-supply in others, and an educational offering that is planned to a too small extent based on Sweden's long-term needs. It is a market failure.

The Social Democrats want to see stronger state governance. The work to improve the matching between upper secondary education and the labor market must continue. We believe that clearer frameworks are needed for both public and independent providers so that the educational supply better corresponds to the labor market's needs. If the state does not govern, it will be the market that does. But the market has shown that it cannot fulfill this task.

Mr. Speaker! This is also a question of respect for the taxpayers. Every tax krona that goes to the school should go towards the students' education, more teachers, better support, student health, order and discipline, and a school that holds Sweden together. Tax money should not disappear as profits to large school corporations while municipalities are forced to bear the long-term responsibility for the entire education system.

Mr. Speaker! When school corporations can make profits by choosing easy establishments, cheap setups, or programs that cost less to run, while the municipalities must take responsibility for the whole, the system becomes skewed. Then the responsibility is socialized while the profits are privatized. It is not efficient. It is not fair. It is not a wise way to use tax money.

It is fundamentally a waste of our common resources when the system allows money that should go to education to instead become dividends, expansion, or corporate profits. At the same time, employers are left without the right competence. Students risk poorer guidance, and municipalities find it difficult to plan long-term. It is bad politics and bad management.

Mr. Speaker! For us Social Democrats, it is obvious that schools should be governed by societal interests and not by market interests. We do not want a system where the direction of upper secondary education is shaped by which programs are profitable to run for large actors.

We want a system where the educational supply is planned based on what Sweden needs. More nursing assistants are needed, more industrial skills, more technicians, more vocationally trained individuals, and more young people who get a stable path into adulthood. It is about reclaiming democratic control in the school. It is also about equality, because in a market-driven system, it is often the student who has the strongest support from home who most easily finds their way. But the school should not reinforce differences; the school should level them. Therefore, a stronger public responsibility, clearer planning, and a policy that puts social utility before market shares are needed.

Mr. Speaker! Another major issue in the report concerns work life knowledge. We Social Democrats believe that Swedish upper secondary school students need to gain a better understanding of their rights and obligations in work life as well as knowledge of the work environment legislation. Therefore, we believe that work life knowledge should be integrated into all upper secondary school programs. We also emphasize that it is particularly important that the vocational programs contain industry-specific work life knowledge with a focus on the work environment.

Work life knowledge is always important, but especially in a time when work life is changing rapidly and young people often encounter a labor market characterized by insecure conditions, temporary employment, and sometimes a lack of knowledge about rights. Understanding the work environment, safety, ergonomics, labor law, and responsibility at the workplace is not something extra. It is basic knowledge. It is knowledge that protects young people from getting hurt. It is knowledge that strengthens them in their encounter with employers and which contributes to a more serious work life.

There is a clear difference between a social democratic perspective and a market liberal perspective. We believe that school should not just deliver individuals to a market. School should equip citizens to stand strong in working life and in society. Young people should not be left alone to orient themselves in a sometimes harsh working life without knowledge of their rights. They should take the tools with them already in school.

Mr. Speaker! What unites our reservations in this report is a simple but important principle: Schools shall be governed for the benefit of society, not for the benefit of the market. Therefore, we want stronger state governance of the sizing. Therefore, we want to counter the logic of the market school hindering the supply of skills. Therefore, we criticize that profits are taken out of a system that is financed with tax funds. Therefore, we say no to waste of resources that should go to teaching. And therefore, we want to give all upper secondary school students better work life knowledge and a safer start in adult life.

The government's line is to wait, investigate, and hope that the market, together with existing rules, will solve the problems. Our line is different. We want to steer, take responsibility, use tax money wisely, and put students' futures before the school corporations' profits. We want to build a upper secondary school that strengthens both the individual and Sweden. With this, Mr. Speaker, I move again for approval of the Socialdemokraternas reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Robert Olesen raised several points that I can, in principle, agree with. It is important that there is consistency between the labor the labor market wants and what we train students for. It is very important.

I interpret Robert Olesen's speech as him being concerned that there is a discrepancy between the labor market's needs and the education that students choose. How do the Social Democrats want to steer so that students choose the right education, if one wants to steer this? Is it important to steer it?

I hear Robert Olesen saying that it is important to have increased state control. We are positive about increased state control of the regulatory frameworks. But if this is important, why did it not become heavier in the dimensioning bill that the Social Democrats submitted in 2022? Why was it not clear that there should be a very clear state control of the dimensioning? Why did one choose to primarily place that responsibility on the municipalities? In that context, the question also arises as to how the Social Democrats view the municipalization of the school, which they themselves implemented in 1989. Finally, I also want to ask why the Social Democrats let the free schools stand outside the dimensioning process.

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

Robert Olesen (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Reslow!

When it comes to state governance, it is clear that greater influence is needed, also from the parties in the labor market, when it concerns the needs of the business sector. We see today that the basis one produces to dimension the upper secondary school is not sufficient. It is one of the parts in our reservation. We need to ensure that we get greater influence and that it is dimensioned based on actual need.

I think it is good that the report states that the friskolor should also be fully included in this. They are included to some extent because newly started programs were included in the previous dimensioning, but it has not worked fully.

Talk was had about the municipalities' influence, but the regions' influence over the dimensioning is also very important. We can do significantly more by taking greater account of the local and regional business community and the needs that exist there.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Robert Olesen for the answer.

When it comes to the issue itself regarding the need, that is to say removing the discrepancy between society's need for labor and education, there is no difference between our parties. It is important that we educate for the labor market's needs and that we fill the gaps that exist.

But the question is: Doesn't it require more measures than just saying that a little more steering is needed? Must we not also ensure that there are no alternatives so that we steer students toward certain choices? We know, for example, that more students need to enter the vocational programs. How are we going to achieve this?

We can talk about the need as much as we want, but as long as there are alternatives to choose other than vocational programs, we will see that fewer students choose vocational programs even though this is a much faster path into the working life. What do the Social Democrats think about that?

Let me return to my question. Robert Olesen says that it is good that it now states in the report that the friskolor shall be fully included in the dimensioning process. But why did the Socialdemokratern not say that it should be so from the beginning? It was still the Socialdemokratern who launched the dimensioning of the gymnasieskolan. However, they did not want to include the friskolor on equal terms.

We reserved ourselves and said that the friskolor should be included in the process on equal terms from the very beginning. But among the Social Democrats, there was no hearing for that line. It was not done that way. What was it that made the Social Democrats not want to include the friskolorna in the dimensioning process from the start when the proposition 2022 was submitted? And why has one changed its mind now?

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

Robert Olesen (S)

Mr. Speaker! It feels very good that we are in agreement to ensure that the dimensioning has an influence over everyone, regardless of the principal, so that even the friskolorna are included in this. You now have the chance, Patrick Reslow, to agree to it. That is exactly what we have included in our proposal; we want to include even this in the dimensioning.

We do not want to do as you do, namely to appoint an inquiry that will push this into the future. In that case, it will result in more high school students not choosing correctly for another couple of years.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! I also reacted to Robert Olesen's contribution regarding the dimensioning in upper secondary school. It is incredibly pleasing that we at least seem to agree that we need to achieve an education that is adapted to the needs of the labor market. We want to educate young people for the occupational categories that the labor market needs. It is in demand in industries and in the business sector, and it needs to be put in place.

I did, however, become a bit thoughtful. It was indeed Robert Olesen's own Social Democratic government that submitted a proposition here in the chamber exactly four years ago, in the spring of 2022. In that, one explicitly chose to exclude the friskolor from the dimensioning. One chose that almost one-third of all upper secondary school students should not be included in the dimensioning.

My question to Robert Olesen is quite simply: Why did the Social Democratic government choose to exclude the friskolor from the dimensioning reform?

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

Robert Olesen (S)

Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned earlier, that was not what was done; instead, it was decided that new programs started by independent schools should be included in the dimensioning assignment. It would obviously have been good if one could have gone all the way already then. Now, however, we have the chance to do so through this committee report, but you choose not to do so.

You choose instead to present a new investigation so that it will take a couple more years. It is a pity, because one then misses a couple of cohorts of upper secondary school students who could have been dimensioned into the vocational programs that the business sector needs people from.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! This discussion may appear a bit strange to the audience. It is not as Robert Olesen says, that is to say that we could change the mistake that the Social Democrats made in 2022 through a decision today. Today, a motion report is being discussed, which simply consists of proposals.

All decisions in Sweden need to be prepared, and therefore we now have a task to clean up, area by area within school policy, after the Social Democratic government. Even here, we have identified deficiencies in the previous S-led government's reforms.

In this case, we have now had to appoint a new investigation that reviews several of the deficiencies regarding the design of upper secondary school, including the dimensioning which we already, in 2022, had a number of concerns about. They have unfortunately proven to be inadequate in hindsight. But now we are rectifying it. Now we include all schools on equal terms in the dimensioning so that it can also become effective.

I am pleased if the Social Democrats have now changed their minds and can join the government's line to include all schools on equal terms in the dimensioning of upper secondary education going forward.

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

Robert Olesen (S)

Mr. Speaker! Just as I said earlier, we want to include all schools in the dimensioning. We see that there is a greater need and that the parties in the labor market must be involved in determining which programs are needed for the business sector. We strengthen the entire dimensioning process and make it even more steering, even at the regional level. Through that, we get a different basis that ensures more people are educated in the professions we need in Sweden.

It is very positive that we can move forward with it. I would have liked to see that we could have made this happen already now. But it is certainly something we have to come back to after the election. We must make sure to put these proposals in the water then.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasant that we get to discuss some school issues as well today, when thoughts have revolved around tonight's important football match since this morning.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report. What we are discussing today concerns the upper secondary school, and it includes motions from the general motion period in the report.

When we have talked about upper secondary school in previous debates, I have said that upper secondary school has two important tasks.

Part of it is about taking care of the students who leave primary school and have a certain level of prior knowledge with them from there. This level of knowledge is perhaps not always the one that the upper secondary school expects the students to have. A great responsibility rests on the upper secondary school to not lower the bar, but to keep the bar high and maintain continued high expectations but also high demands on the students.

Part of the mission is to prepare the students for what comes next, that is, for continued studies or for working life. One must ensure that the prior knowledge one has before that journey is sufficiently sharp so that one can manage university studies or be successful in working life.

Sometimes the debate on upper secondary school issues tends to focus mostly on those students who do not reach eligibility for upper secondary school. I think that is unfortunate. Instead, the focus should be on how we strengthen the quality, how we get more edge in the upper secondary education, and how we should act to capture students who are far ahead in their knowledge development. The very best students must become more numerous, but it is rarely that the debate aims at just this group.

We are proud that, together with the other Tidö parties, we have made the specialized education permanent, and we would like to see more such initiatives. But beyond that, it is also important that we raise the bar generally when it comes to the objectives for the upper secondary school's programs.

Both upper secondary school and vocational preparatory programs must maintain high quality. We see obvious risks in it being far too easy to expand a program based on the principle that students' first choices should be accommodated as much as possible. Competition for places in upper secondary school stimulates learning and knowledge development. But we also need more students who study vocational programs instead of theoretical ones.

We mean that the dimensioning that the Riksdag decided on in 2022 must entail more places in the vocational programs, at the expense of the upper secondary school-preparatory programs. Society must steer the distribution of places to a greater extent in order to meet the needs of the labor market.

We are, as is well known, advocates for state ownership. We would prefer to see the state take full responsibility for the dimensioning. We were also skeptical of the dimensioning reform because we saw that there would be problems with daring to make such decisions within the framework of municipal ownership – to shift the demand from upper secondary preparatory programs to vocational programs. Each municipality monitors its own interests without thinking about the bigger picture, and the student's first choice is placed at the center.

We were also very negative about the independent schools not being included from the beginning and not being included on equal terms. This was a mistake; it was glossed over in the dimensioning reform. A dimensioning that does not include the friskolor risks overturning the entire purpose of the dimensioning.

We have stood behind an investigation that is to be conducted in 2027, and then we heard that there was complaining about it. But it has actually been four years since this reform was pushed through. From the beginning, there was no interest from the opposition to include the friskolor. But it is as said, always the case that the Sverigedemokraterna have to clean up, together with the other Tidö parties.

The Tidö parties are firmly determined that the vocational programs must also be strengthened. In order to increase the quality and achieve a clearer connection to the labor market, we have, together with the other Tidö parties, proposed that a vocational test should be introduced, instead of the current high school project, in all vocational programs in upper secondary school.

We also want the vocational programs to be designed in close cooperation with the industries. We want to see shorter vocational educations for those who today do not achieve eligibility for the upper secondary school's national programs. The Sweden Democrats primarily want to see two-year educations that are not preparatory for higher education and that are not theorized. The Sweden Democrats are also positive towards more apprenticeship educations, preferably following the Danish or German model.

Since last autumn, the old grades in upper secondary school have been replaced with subject grades. But upper secondary school is still not entirely subject-based. Instead, the courses have been replaced by different levels. For example, mathematics 1 and 2 are given as one level, while mathematics 3 and 4 are given as another level. The grade given at the final level also becomes the final grade.

Even though this system created some improvement in what I usually call a "snuttified" system, it is not completely optimal. When Gy25 was discussed and adopted, we stated that we wanted to see a completely subject-designed upper secondary school with subject grades, with the old line-based upper secondary school as a model. Studying a subject over a longer period creates more continuity and better knowledge deepening and knowledge progression.

Another problem is that the course offerings, even in the subject structure we now see in Gy25, have grown and do not always lie clearly in line with the program's purpose. It is nature with a focus on society and society with a focus on law or behavior etcetera. We see problems with this in the form of tactical choices, lack of prior knowledge, and difficulties for students to make well-founded choices. It also becomes unclear for educational institutions and employers which knowledge a student actually possesses after the upper secondary education.

We are therefore pleased that a high school inquiry has now been appointed which will review the entire range and structure of the high school. The purpose is to achieve more uniformity across the entire country and provide students with in-depth knowledge that clearly leads to higher education, other studies, or work. The decision-making process between the Riksdag, the government, and Skolverket shall also be reviewed.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a very great need to educate more people within the STEM field – science, technology, and mathematics. For our part, we do not only want to see clear initiatives in the STEM field but also that as much of the higher education as possible is concentrated at the larger universities because this guarantees high quality and research-oriented teaching.

For this to become a reality, corresponding priorities must also apply to upper secondary school. More students must choose the natural science or the technical program. Mathematics teaching must be strengthened throughout the entire educational chain and teachers must be developed in their competence within the area. It will therefore be two steps: more students into the vocational programs and more students into science and technology.

In a few years, the new grading system with the scale 1–10 will hopefully be introduced, where the grades in grade 9 and during the final year of upper secondary school constitute credits that shall form the basis for the selection to the next educational level. Even though we see advantages with a grading system where a certain relative assessment is reintroduced, we believe there is a risk that the prior knowledge in the upper secondary programs will become poorer. Namely, no requirements are any longer placed on a certain level of knowledge in each core subject. We would therefore preferably have wanted to see that such requirements were introduced. We have encountered these fears also when we have met teachers out in the schools. For our part, it is important that one measures the prior knowledge that the higher education institutions expect the new students to have, or that one sets the requirements that the business sector has for employability. Equally important is that the requirements set by the upper secondary school apply fully to those students who leave grade 9.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: When Sweden's schools, including upper secondary school, need a strong state school authority that can work for an equal education in an objective and clear manner, it is worrying that Skolverket neither manages to deliver a functioning system for digital exams, despite years of preparations and hundreds of millions in tax money, nor succeeds in complying with the directives that apply to new curricula. It is now high time for a restart.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, we want to abolish Skolverket and replace it with a more streamlined and efficient agency, free from activism and politicization, that understands that the agency operates within a political decision-making process. We believe that in the long run, this would benefit the Swedish school system in general and knowledge development in particular.

(Applause)

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

Robert Olesen (S)

Mr. Speaker! Patrick Reslow mentioned that the Sweden Democrats would like to shorten the upper secondary education so that it becomes two years. I find it a bit interesting how one reasons around this, when both Svenskt Näringsliv and LO say that they do not want the educations to be shortened but rather that they should be seen as three-year programs, as that is how the need looks in the business sector. It is therefore a small question to Patrick Reslow: How does one actually reason there, when the labor market parties feel that the wish in the business sector is not that the educations should be shortened but rather that the three-year programs should be maintained?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the member misunderstood what I said in my speech. We are, in fact, talking about introducing shorter two-year upper secondary education for those students who do not have eligibility for upper secondary school today, that is to say, the 17 percent of students who do not become eligible. We can expect that a good number of them will, despite everything, get into the upper secondary school's national programs. But several of them do not, and then we need to have something else.

These students are not capable of a theorized vocational education, such as the one we have today. But we cannot have them running in circles within the framework of the municipal follow-up responsibility, we need something else. By that, we mean that two-year vocational educations without theoretical elements would be the way forward. Discussions are being held with Svenskt Näringsliv regarding this. We have been very clear that we cannot talk about three-year educations when it comes to this group of students.

When it comes to the three-year vocational programs themselves, we have been clearly skeptical, not to say negative, towards the theorizing that has taken place. On the other hand, we have not said that one should automatically disqualify those who attend vocational programs from being able to apply to higher education. What we are talking about is that we want a two-plus-one system – one studies for two years first, and then there is the possibility to add a third year with theoretical knowledge in order to become eligible.

But the discussion we are having here – I believe that is what Robert Olesen means – is about the students who do not get into national programs. There, we want to see two-year vocational programs.

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

Robert Olesen (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe, Patrick Reslow, that I understand you quite well. You have a proposal where you actually want to make the three-year programs into two-year programs. That rhymes rather poorly with the principle of dimensioning, if it is based on the needs of the business sector and the labor market that one should dimension the upper secondary education, and they say that this is not a need. How can one land on the conclusion that one should reduce the parts that the business sector actually feels it has a need for, namely Swedish, English, and mathematics? That would, in any case, according to the proposals we have heard earlier, be the result of this with the two-year programs.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that those who know the Sweden Democrats' education policy best are the Sweden Democrats. We are not proposing that the three-year upper secondary school programs be changed to two-year programs; we have not said that.

When the three-year vocational programs were introduced, we said that there would be an opportunity to drop out after two years and that there would then be an additional year – precisely because there are also many who are tired of school studying in these vocational programs and who perhaps are not in need of too much theory.

We have been critical of the fact that too much theorizing has been done, but that is not what the discussion is about. When we talk about two-year upper secondary education, it is for that group of students who are not eligible for national programs and who today are being drawn into various types of introductory programs. They might not even be attending there but instead disappear into the municipal follow-up responsibility.

For them, there must be something else. They do not have the capacity to accommodate the regular vocational programs because these have been theorized. Then we must have some other form of education for these students. Then we say that short vocational programs, over two years, would be appropriate so that they can make themselves employable and get a job. Priority number one for us Sverigedemokrater is that one has an education system that actually leads to people getting jobs and not to them idling around in a municipal follow-up responsibility or on benefits or whatever it is for something.

One must work and do right by others. Then we must also meet the needs that exist.

Svenskt Näringsliv may have views on how long such a training should be. But it is not about students who have the ability to accommodate theoretical teaching in upper secondary school. It is about a group of students who would otherwise disappear into nothingness and who have no possibility of making themselves employable. This is what we in Sverigedemokraterna protect.

(Applause)

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party thinks it is self-evident that all students, both at the primary school level and in upper secondary school, should have the opportunity to develop and use their imagination and creativity as well as their ability to communicate by participating in aesthetic activities.

Knowledge is required to participate in and interpret the cultural offerings. Aesthetics, creativity, and the ability to express oneself artistically are furthermore an asset in many professions. In the recent years' discussion regarding worsened school results, voices have been raised that students need more time for theoretical studies and that there is therefore less room for the practical-aesthetic subjects. This, however, rhymes poorly with the research where one has looked more closely at how music, dance, and other creative expressions increase children's learning ability even in other subjects.

We in Vänsterpartiet believe that the aesthetic subjects need to be both re-evaluated and given increased space in school. Therefore, we want the number of hours in aesthetic subjects to increase and for the subjects to be included at all levels in primary and secondary school.

For this to be possible, it is obviously necessary to have educators with the right education and the right conditions to do their job. We believe that the poor working situation prevailing at many schools deters people from seeking employment in the profession, and the proportion of unqualified teachers is large.

We want to see an initiative where the practical-aesthetic subjects in primary school are elevated. We believe that the government, together with responsible authorities and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, SKR, needs to take the issue seriously. Even older youth need to develop their creativity and receive more tools to express themselves. We believe that the sharp reduction in the proportion of students who study an aesthetic subject in upper secondary school is deeply unfortunate. Therefore, we think, in short, that aesthetic subjects should be reintroduced as compulsory in all upper secondary programs. Therefore, I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation 5.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! This spring, almost 125,000 students graduated from primary school in Sweden. They graduated with goals and dreams of a bright future. But almost 20,000 of these lacked eligibility for upper secondary school – this despite the fact that we know that the single greatest reason for a young person becoming a criminal is that they lack upper secondary school eligibility.

We know that individuals without a complete upper secondary education run a much greater risk of ending up furthest away from the labor market – outside of work and studies – in the future. That we do what we can so that these individuals are given the opportunity to participate in education and work so that they can contribute to our society is therefore absolutely crucial.

Mr. Speaker! We need to create more paths into the labor market but also in the education system for these people. We need to create opportunities for more to contribute significantly faster than today. That is why we from the Moderaternas side are pushing for a two-year vocational school in Sweden. It is intended as a new third track in upper secondary school. It is a two-year education for those who have lower theoretical prior knowledge, and it does not provide eligibility for higher education after graduation. It is intended for the group that wants to work and contribute and who quickly need to get the opportunity to enter the labor market.

We propose that this education be designed in the way that Svenskt Näringsliv proposes, namely with five broad industry exits where paths into the labor market are created early for those people who know that they might be skilled with their hands and who want to contribute to the labor market. We believe this is incredibly important for meeting this group moving forward.

Several evaluations, for example an evaluation from Skolverket which is now a few years old, show that the introductory programs have major problems. The idea is that the introductory programs should contribute to providing eligibility for upper secondary school, but in practice, that is not how it works. Very few of these students obtain eligibility for upper secondary school, and even fewer subsequently complete an upper secondary education. Therefore, we need to think anew. We believe that a new vocational school would contribute to lowering the thresholds significantly where it is truly needed.

Mr. Speaker! We are now implementing a series of reforms. Unfortunately, I will not be able to list all the reforms that the government is currently implementing, as it is a long and extensive list. But I would like to mention some that are relevant specifically in this discussion.

The first one is about us finally settling the unfair grading system we have in Sweden. This spring, we will here in the chamber get to vote on a completely new grading system. I truly hope that we can get a broad consensus on settling the injustice that has prevailed for nearly 30 years. We will then, according to the proposal, introduce a new grading scale: 1–10.

We are introducing national final exams, so that grades are not only set by the individual teacher but are also anchored outside the teacher's classroom. We do this to increase the possibility of comparability between classrooms, between schools, and between different parts of the country – to regain a fair grading system so that it can also be used as a selection for higher education.

In this there also lies a changed eligibility level. We are changing which eligibility, which prior knowledge, is required for different types of upper secondary school programs. We believe this is an important reform to get in place. We believe it would have needed to be in place earlier, but we are implementing it now.

I look forward to and truly hope that we can achieve a broad consensus on resolving the problems we see regarding, among other things, the grading system in upper secondary school.

Another example of a reform that is now being implemented concerns vocational tests. My colleague previously mentioned what we are now implementing, namely that we are replacing the high school project with a vocational test for those students who study in vocational programs. This has been requested, and we know that many want to see this put in place. Now it is proposed to enter into force, and we will have the opportunity to vote on it in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by mentioning a few additional reforms that we from the Moderates believe would need to be implemented to lift upper secondary school ahead of the coming parliamentary period. This concerns, for example, the importance of entrepreneurship in school. We want entrepreneurship to not only be offered in some but in all programs in upper secondary school. We know that Ung Företagsamhet has fantastically good results. For students who have participated in, for example, Ung Företagsamhet, this leads to higher wages in the future, greater opportunities, and a greater element of entrepreneurship. We believe that all students should be given the opportunity to this.

From the Moderates' side, we also want to reintroduce the timetable for upper secondary school. It was unfortunate that it was abolished in the 90s, and it has led to reduced transparency and impaired control. This contributes to increased inequality and difficulty for students to be able to judge what quality an education actually delivers, that is, what teaching time the students receive. Therefore, we want to reintroduce a timetable for upper secondary school, which shall be nationally binding.

These are some of the proposals that we want to get in place during the upcoming mandate period.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating upper secondary school. Right now, many ninth graders in Sweden are walking around with a single big question in their heads, namely the choice of upper secondary school. It is a time filled with both expectations and pressure. Parents, teachers, relatives and friends – everyone wonders what one will choose. Add to that the uncertain economic situation and the changes we see in the labor market, and it is not strange that this choice is perceived as more important than ever.

For many young people, the choice of upper secondary school is the first step toward adulthood and working life. With that in mind, it is quite worrying that almost 20,000 students every year leave primary school without eligibility for upper secondary school. This means that many of them are left without a clear path forward, because without an upper secondary school qualification, it becomes difficult to get a job and even more difficult to build their future.

We must therefore create a school that gives all students a chance to succeed. It is naturally about peace and quiet during lessons, safety in the corridors, more knowledge focus in the curriculum, and ensuring that teachers have the conditions to perform their jobs in a good way.

In addition to efforts in primary school, we also need to ensure that those who do not manage to get into a high school program are given a way forward and an education that enables them to enter the labor market. There is, in fact, a strange imbalance here. At the same time as thousands of students leave primary school without high school eligibility, employers are crying out for vocationally trained staff.

In healthcare, industry, and the construction and transport sectors, positions remain vacant. Companies are forced to turn down assignments, and operations are being reduced due to a lack of competence and difficulties in recruiting. At the same time, there are many available who can train themselves if we only put in the right efforts. This is a systemic error that we need to correct.

More students need to receive the knowledge from primary school that is required to pass the national upper secondary programs. We also need more paths into working life. We must ensure that those who do not achieve eligibility still get an opportunity for education and jobs. Therefore, the Christian Democrats would like a new and simpler track to be introduced at the upper secondary level, with a focus on precisely vocational preparation and practical skills. It should be a program that is adapted for those students who today end up outside the national upper secondary programs.

The focus would be to give students a clear path straight into working life through many practical elements, internships and apprenticeship variants, as well as close cooperation with industries and companies. It would be a place where one can simply learn the job, at the job.

For those who are eligible for upper secondary school, the national vocational programs offer a fantastic opportunity. Vocational programs provide both good chances for jobs and a stable income, as well as self-confidence and a sense of pride in being able to perform a profession, being educated, and having a professional title.

Unfortunately, there are still far too many young people who, despite the skills shortage that exists in many industries, do not choose vocational training. Therefore, more needs to be done to increase the attractiveness and adapt the training to the needs of the labor market so that more choose the practical vocational training.

Here, the study and career counselors play a real key role. It is clear that it is good for young people to be able to follow their dreams and that the study and career counselors can give them tips regarding their dream jobs, but the guidance must also be realistic and clear regarding which educations actually lead to jobs. The basic task of the study and career counselors should not necessarily be to help the students toward their dream education, but primarily toward an education that provides jobs and can secure the students' future.

Mr. Speaker! There are some different parts here. We must, of course, continue to ensure that the educations offered are steered more by the demand on the labor market rather than by what happens to be popular at the moment.

I also believe that we need to strengthen internships and study visits so that more young people get an accurate picture of different professions. Many may have a misconception about what it is like to work in, for example, the industry or in craft professions. Here, the industries themselves have an important and great responsibility to showcase themselves and attract the future workforce. We also need to ensure that the upper secondary education programs that are to provide training for these professions are adapted so that they become more attractive for students to choose.

I believe that there also needs to continue to be an opportunity, for example, to opt out of higher education eligibility for those who want to focus entirely on vocational skills – but on the other hand, also an opportunity to opt in for higher education eligibility for those who want it. We need a flexibility so that people will want to attend the courses.

Regardless of which education one chooses, high expectations should be the norm in the Swedish school. I believe that it is good both for the students and for society as a whole. No young person should be left without a future, and no one should be left without opportunities, when we know that there are jobs to go to. By strengthening vocational education, improving the matching between school and the labor market, and creating new paths into working life, more young people can get the chance to succeed.

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

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 1 April.)

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