New curricula - for a strong knowledge school

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

Today we shall debate one of the most important changes for a strengthened knowledge school in Sweden, namely the new curricula.

We in our government, with the Liberals at the forefront of education policy, have a vision of a knowledge school.

What we mean by that is a school that prioritizes subject knowledge and basic skills and which ensures that students in the lower grades take with them what they need to manage what they need to manage in the higher grades.

What we mean by that is that the school shall be re-established as an institution that people have respect for and that the teacher shall be an authority both in society and, above all, in the school and the classroom.

What we mean by that is that the school should be a temple for knowledge and education.

Madam Speaker! That is not the case today – unfortunately. I wish it were so. Far too many students do not have respect for their teacher. One in four 15-year-olds cannot read and write properly. The school does not have the status it once had. Knowledge is not allowed to take the place it once took.

That is why we are now implementing these changes, which mean that basic skills – reading, writing, and arithmetic – are given a greater role, and that subject knowledge is given a larger place. It may sound like self-evident truths, but the teacher shall not merely be a coach to the students and let them learn by themselves, on their own and in their own ways. The teacher shall actually lead and decide in the classroom and be allowed to decide what is best for the students and how the teaching shall proceed.

Madam Speaker! Practical matters become more practical. It may also sound like a self-evident truth. If I am to purchase a service from someone who works with something practical, I am quite uninterested in whether that person can theorize and reflect on their subject. I am, however, quite interested in that the person should be able to do the practical very well, for that is something I myself am quite poor at.

Students who study practical subjects often want to study just practical subjects. That is often what works best. That the practical becomes more practical, so to speak, is therefore good for everyone, both for those who study and for those who will subsequently receive the knowledge in other ways.

Madam Speaker! There will also be a clearer progression, which is anchored in the students' cognitive development. One must first learn the basics in order to then be able to reason, reflect, and create new knowledge when standing on a firm foundation of good subject knowledge and good skills in just the basics: reading, writing, and arithmetic.

That is why these curricula, in fact this entire work, have been developed together with teachers, principals, and cognitive researchers: What we are presenting shall focus on knowledge, on the teacher being the one to decide, and on building a knowledge school and re-establishing the school as an institution that signals respect and education in the whole of society, but it shall also rest on knowledge about the students' cognitive development.

Madam Speaker! With that, I would like to again move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Joar Forssell for the speech.

I intend to bring up a part that Joar Forssell from Liberalerna did not mention here. He mentioned the construction of the knowledge school and that whole part, but in the proposal for the new curriculum, there are also a lot of parts that disappear from the plan. We are to have a focus on the knowledge mission, but we must also have a large and clear focus on basic values.

An area where it is tragic that the Liberals have backed down during this four-year period, where we previously could rely on the fact that Liberals and Social Democrats could join forces, are issues of sexuality, consent and relationships and also issues of honor-related violence and oppression. The Liberals have throughout history tried to act in a positive way when it comes to raising these issues in the public debate and also to ensure that our students take away good knowledge through life. We have also been able to implement joint reforms.

When we are now going to adopt a new curriculum, it is therefore unfortunate that parts about honor-related violence and oppression, sexuality, consent, and relationships are being diminished and removed. If we are truly to be able to eliminate the problems with honor contexts and similar issues in society, it is important that we educate our children and young people, that they are strengthened in their knowledge, and that they are given tools to be able to distance themselves from contexts where they might not be allowed to express their own will but are forced into norms and values that they do not themselves possess. In that regard, the school is a very important part in being able to create a free space and a sanctuary for these children and young people.

That is why the question arises as to why the Liberals have shifted and are now toning down this work in schools and do not want our children and young people to be given tools to be able to stage a parental rebellion over their sexuality or simply flee from honor oppression and violence.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by saying that I am glad that there are parts of the report that the opposition also supports.

Then it is a bit strange with the groping for conflict lines that Member Sigvardsson engages in. It is not the case that we are removing sex education at all. It is nonsense, Madam Speaker. It is a lie. Possibly it is a windmill that the Social Democrats are once again engaging in painting up.

What we are doing is moving this from the general to relevant subjects. We do not think that sex education is needed in mathematics or handicrafts, but there may be other subjects where it is needed. I think that is quite obvious. I believe that many who look at this understand that it is quite obvious.

I believe that many also understand that no one on our side thinks this is unimportant. This government has taken action against sex-related crimes, for example. We have enshrined the right to abortion in the constitution. Now we are ensuring that education is strengthened by placing it in the relevant subjects.

It becomes a bit strange, Madam Speaker, to come with criticism that everyone outside this chamber understands is just made up, is just castles in the air, is just a windmill. This is true, but in relevant subjects and not on the overall level. One does not have to learn sex education in mathematics. But there must be sex education in Swedish schools, and that is what there will be moving forward if we get to decide.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It becomes apparent that the Liberals are trying to escape from the fundamental values this is about.

According to the Liberals and the government, it is about moving the sex education to relevant subjects. Previously, the minister spoke of six, seven, or eight subjects, but now it is down to perhaps three. But when it moves to being about specific subjects and a certain number of lessons during an entire primary school period, it can be quite simple for parents to try to get the children not to go to school on those days when there is sex education within these specific subjects.

For us, it is not about that sex education is not good. It should, of course, be included in the curricula. But it is also about the basic values in the curriculum. We want to give all teachers, regardless of subject area, the opportunity to have tough conversations with the students. All teachers meet students who bring their everyday lives and experiences into school, and then it is important that all teachers, and also all other school staff, are trained to work with the basic values in our society.

Therefore, it is important that this also is included in the introductory parts of the curriculum, which are general for all teachers. I am not saying that sex education should be included in the curriculum for handicrafts, but we Social Democrats think it is reasonable to give teachers tools so that they can meet the students and have tough conversations about their everyday lives and lives, even in these issues. We want all teachers to be comfortable having these conversations.

Therefore, it is disappointing to hear the Liberals take a step backward, as they have historically been able to join forces with us Social Democrats and stand up for this.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! It becomes a bit strange to hear the Social Democrats talk about fundamental democratic values given the opposition they find themselves in and the majority they have against them. Our majority has moved the positions against antisemitism and strengthened the protection of Jews in Sweden. Our majority has presented proposals for a freer judiciary and freer universities, which the Social Democrats have opposed year after year. Our majority writes the right to abortion into the constitution. Our majority takes action against sexual violence and honor oppression. Our majority ensures that what are fundamental democratic and Swedish values apply in our entire society. The Social Democrats have many times counteracted the development in these issues.

Madam Speaker! If one reads the report and listens to the debate, one understands that sex education will remain in Swedish schools, in relevant subjects. Unfortunately, Member Sigvardsson has no further reply, but perhaps we can hear in the member's statement if there are any subjects where the Social Democrats think sex education is not relevant. Or do the Social Democrats think sex education should be included in all subjects? Must it be included in mathematics and in handicrafts?

I do not think so, and I believe that most who are listening to the debate do not think so. But I believe that most who are listening to the debate realize that we are defending Swedish democratic values.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals and the government seem keen on students cleaning up after their own mess. The government has now concluded that even they must clean up after their own mess. The curricula we have today were introduced during the Alliance government's time, specifically in 2011, and the government has realized that it did not turn out so well. In Forssell's statement, however, I heard no accountability, but only something vague about the school in general having been a bit too vague and fluffy. But it was your previous government, the Alliance government, that introduced these curricula, and I want the audience to be aware of that.

So, to the question the previous speaker raised with Forssell: that the government is significantly weakening sex education through the proposal that is now on the table. In principle, all major referral bodies are against that which concerns sexuality, consent, and relationships being removed from the initial parts.

I do not understand why it is so difficult for the government to back down from this. It is about moving away from the responsibility that was recently placed on the principals and which has yielded good results. Recently, a learning objective for all teachers regarding sexuality, consent, and relationships was also introduced. Now this will disappear, which risks fragmenting the teaching again and making it more unequal. Why does the government want to do this?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not share the view that this implies a weakening of sex education. I think it is a false description of what we are doing. I mean that when one does not spread it out over all subjects but concentrates it where it is most relevant, it rather implies a strengthening of sex education. It becomes a strengthening, because where it is addressed, it is addressed in a way that is more relevant for both students and teachers. I therefore do not share the member's view at all.

We absolutely have a responsibility for the curricula we are now changing. One must remember that the change has taken time. When the current curricula were presented, they were better than those that were before, and the new ones will be even better. I am open to the fact that we will need to make more changes to the curricula, because for a very long time the school has been characterized by the fact that students are basically supposed to find their own knowledge and that teachers are not supposed to be teachers. We mean that teachers should be teachers and decide in the classroom and that there are basic subject skills and competencies that students must receive. This change we are making now.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party wants to be in government, and I assume that MP Mixter is to be the Minister for Education. Will the Left Party comply with the reservations that exist in the own government basis regarding preserving the "flumskola" and opposing the changes we are making to strengthen basic subject knowledge and skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic?

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It is not about perceptions, as Forssell is suggesting, but it is about reality. Measurements and statistics show that sex education has improved as a result of the changes that have been made by placing the responsibility on the principals and by giving all teachers in the teacher training this degree objective. It has led to a more equal and better education for the students. But this is what the government now wants to tear down.

What is also being deleted, which the previous speaker touched upon, are the passages about the school working against honor violence. I cannot understand why the government wants to remove it. That the school shall work actively against discrimination and that the school shall be non-confessional also disappears. It is very strange that the government thinks it is reasonable to delete this from the introductory parts of the curricula. I cannot interpret it in any other way than that the government wants to weaken sex education, wants schools to be allowed to engage in confessional activities, and thinks that discrimination may occur, because this is not so important.

The referral bodies say that it will be more difficult for Skolverket and Skolinspektionen to see if schools are working against discrimination when the government strengthens this in the initial parts, and that makes me very worried.

Of course, the school shall work with knowledge. It shall not be a "fluffy" school, but one should learn relevant parts. But to have safety and study, something we often debate, must also be allowed to be incredibly important. The students must take away that one has a right to one's own body and that one should not have to be subjected to violence. This must also be counted as incredibly important knowledge.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Let me repeat what has been said earlier in the debate. This government has strengthened the work against sexual violence more than any other government. This government has enshrined the right to abortion in the constitution. This government strengthens the work against honor oppression and honor-related violence. It cannot come as a surprise to either those watching the debate or to Member Mixter.

We have, however, still not received any answer from the left side. We have, above all, not heard from the perhaps aspiring Minister for Education Mixter about whether she, through her government base, intends to stand for the flippant politics that primarily the Center Party and the Green Party stand for. They oppose large parts of what we are doing now with Swedish school when we re-establish the knowledge school. It will be interesting to hear that. We may get that later in the debate.

It will also be interesting to hear, Madam Speaker, how Member Mixter thinks one should integrate sex education into, for example, mathematics. I did not get an answer to that from the Socialdemokraterna, and I have so far not heard any good examples of that from Vänsterpartiet. There is supposedly someone else who is going to reply to me. I suspect it is Miljöpartiet. Perhaps I will get an answer from the Miljöpartiet member.

I would like to hear a good, concrete and creative example of how we should integrate sex education into mathematics. That is what this is about. We are not removing anything, but we are moving things around.

If you have two baskets with five apples in one basket and no apple in the other basket and move one apple to the other basket, you still have five apples, but you have moved one apple. It is a bit like that in this discussion as well. We have sex education in school tomorrow. We change the position of the sex education in how we regulate it. The sex education remains. We still have five apples – the sex education remains.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joar Forssell, for the speech and the answers in the exchanges of remarks!

Now the Liberals have sat in the Ministry of Education for one parliamentary term, and the Liberals do what the Liberals do in the Ministry of Education. They present new curricula that are to replace the old ones which are not so good anymore, which the Liberals have done before when they replaced those that existed before and which were not so good anymore, which the Liberals had also developed.

As a matter of coincidence, this debate coincides with the Liberals having presented their policy for the next mandate period. A number of examples appear both in the report and in their presentation that raise questions about what will happen if the Liberals, against all odds, remain in the Riksdag and in the Ministry of Education.

They want to throw student influence under the bus. It is enough to decide on some fun things during the break. It is completely astounding that the Liberals stand firmly by a digitalization and AI policy for schools, something that has caused the political scientific conversation to completely collapse during this mandate period.

They also want teachers to be given more powers, which we recognize from the debate on discipline. Apparently, they need even greater powers in the next mandate period, but only in vulnerable areas.

Some things we agree on, and there is scientific support for them. This applies, for example, to the importance of study environments and qualified teachers. That is included here. But what raises questions for me is the wavering attitude towards a scientific basis for one's political proposals.

Let me round this off with a very concrete question. How is it that the Liberals in the curricula choose to point out a scientific discipline as a basis instead of a broad educational science discipline?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I believe that most who are watching this debate understand that politics is a craft that takes time. One makes changes over time, and then one makes more changes.

I want to remember that Miljöpartiet would save the school in 100 days. After those 100 days were over, Miljöpartiet wanted to continue deciding over the school for another 100 days and then for another 100 days, because they wanted to continue making changes. When Alliansen took office, the Socialdemokraterna had ruled Sweden in 80 out of 100 years. They still wanted to get to decide and continue changing society.

The Liberals have improved the curricula, and we want to continue improving the curricula. The Liberals have given greater powers to teachers, and we will want to continue giving greater powers to teachers. I think it is reasonable, especially in vulnerable areas. It is not that strange. If the problems are greater, the measures need to follow suit. I will not get a Nobel Prize for that observation. This is quite obvious.

Madam Speaker! When I entered the Riksdag, I sat on the Committee on Taxation. Then I wanted to lower taxes. We succeeded in getting the Social Democrats to remove the defense tax. I still want to lower taxes and still believe that it is good for growth. When I sat on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I wanted more democracy and more trade in the world. I still want more democracy and trade in the world. It is not strange that one wants to continue with what is one's own policy.

My and the Liberals' policy – more subject knowledge, more basic skills and a focus on a knowledge school – I will continue to drive. I do not believe that we will ever reach the finish line and be completely finished. We need to continue to adjust the school. My policy is that teachers shall have the authority to decide in the classroom. We will continue to need to adjust that, not because I think we are doing a bad job, but because there are major problems to address.

This is going to take time. We have done a lot before, we are doing a great deal this mandate period, and we will want to do even more next mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It has happened a few times here in the chamber that Joar Forssell has given me lessons on how the processes in the chamber work. I return the favor by reminding that this is an exchange of remarks. I ask a question, and then it is intended that the member should answer that question. But thank you for the historical description!

What I want to know about the matter we are debating today is: If you are a party that thinks knowledge is important, why do you choose to single out a scientific discipline when the school and the education system are based on multidisciplinary knowledge, knowledge that comes from many different disciplines?

To me, it sounds like you are saying that you want to have scientific support, but that it won't be as important anymore when you yourself act with your political decisions. I therefore want to know how it is that you point out specifically cognitive science as the most important scientific basis for these curricula.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! One can go back and look at the exchange of remarks in retrospect. I answered several things that the member claimed. If one claims something in an exchange of remarks, one must receive an answer to it. It belongs to the procedures.

Regarding the specific question, which came very late in the first speech and which I will now try to answer, is not entirely true. When we have developed these curricula, teachers, principals and cognitive researchers have worked together.

At the same time, we are of the opinion that it does not work with fluff. It does not work to have a focus on anything other than subject knowledge and reading, writing, and arithmetic. There needs to be a progression in school where one learns the basics first. When we have tested doing roughly what Miljöpartiet wants, it has resulted in a quarter not being able to read or write when they are 15 years old.

It is completely absurd figures, Madam Speaker. I do not understand why there are not demonstrations outside the Riksdag building every day with parents who are desperate when they hear these figures and wonder what will happen to their children. They should demand a reinstated knowledge school. It is completely obvious that we cannot have it this way.

We want the practical subjects to become more practical. We want clearer progression and think that one should learn the basics before learning the more advanced – learn to read, write, and count and have basic subject knowledge before one starts reflecting, creating new knowledge oneself, and so on. We think that the teacher should lead and not just coach the students and that the teacher should decide in the classroom. If one thinks that this is bad policy, one has to stand by that. I believe that many think it is quite good policy, and that is why we implement it.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 2 and reservation 8 in the committee report.

This debate is about the school's perhaps most important steering documents – the documents that every day guide teachers, principals, and students all over the country. Therefore, changes in the curricula must be characterized by long-term perspective, reflection, and broad anchoring.

Swedish schools need steering documents that are comprehensible, coherent, and useful in the classroom. Teachers should be able to devote their time to teaching and the students' knowledge development, not to interpreting unclear formulations or navigating between contradictory writings. It is therefore reasonable to review the structure and content of the curricula.

But just because the curricula are so fundamental to the school's operations, this work should have been carried out in broad parliamentary consensus. The school's direction cannot be changed after every change of government. We need stable rules of the game that provide teachers, students, and principals with security over time. Therefore, broad parliamentary committees and proper dialogue between the government and the opposition would have been the natural way to carry out this type of change.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats welcome the ambition to strengthen the knowledge mission. Sweden needs a strong knowledge school. But it is also worth reminding that the work to clarify the steering documents did not begin with this government. Under the Social Democrat-led government, an extensive work was initiated to reduce ambiguities, clarify the mission, and create better conditions for teachers to focus on the core mission, namely teaching.

The problem, therefore, is not that the government wants to clarify the curricula. The problem is that one chooses to simultaneously remove or weaken parts that are crucial for the school's democratic mission and for the students' right to knowledge about their own contemporary society.

Madam Speaker! This takes our reservations into account. We safeguard the students' influence in school and oppose a development where the state to an ever greater extent directs teaching methods and ways of working in detail. The teachers shall, based on their profession and their knowledge of the students' needs, be those who decide how the teaching is best conducted.

We also want to ensure that non-confessional education will continue to be clearly expressed in the curricula. The school shall be a common and unifying force that rests on the foundation of democracy and science.

Furthermore, we mean that areas such as sexuality, consent and relationships, as well as honor-related violence and oppression, must have a clear and obvious place in the school's governing documents even in the future. These are not side issues. It is about the students' right to knowledge, and it is about equality, freedom, and every child's right to grow up without oppression and restrictions.

Madam Speaker! One of the most worrying parts of the bill and the committee report is that the government chooses to weaken the wording regarding sexuality, consent, and relationships in the goals and basic missions of the curricula. For many children and young people, school is the only place where they encounter knowledge about equality, bodily integrity, relationships, and their rights. This applies in particular to children and young people who grow up in honor contexts or in environments where girls' and boys' freedom is restricted, where sexuality is taboo, or where the rights of hbtqi persons are denied.

That the Tidöregeringen proposes that sexuality, consent and relationships, including writings on honor-related violence and oppression, should be removed from the goals and basic missions of the curricula, i.e., from the school's overall value base, and instead be limited to individual syllabi is a serious mistake. Therefore, it is not sufficient for government representatives to say that the issues will still be taken up in certain subjects. If we think these issues are truly important, it is important that they become a clear part of the school's common mission. Otherwise, the work risks being fragmented and becoming dependent on individual teachers' engagement.

Children who do not receive democratic and equal values at home must be able to encounter them in school. This requires active work from the entire school – not that the responsibility be narrowed down so that this is made a matter for a few lessons in a few subjects. We cannot combat honor oppression while simultaneously erasing the school's responsibility to prevent it.

Madam Speaker! Another part where the government chooses to weaken the curricula concerns the students' influence. Let me be clear: It is the teacher who leads the teaching. It is the teacher who plans, implements, and evaluates the work in the classroom. A strong teacher role and clear leadership are fundamental for a functioning school.

But from there, it is a long way to devaluing the students' opportunity to influence their education. The Government itself notes in the bill that the provisions on student influence remain in the Education Act. We believe that the curricula should also provide support for that mandate and the wording in the legislation.

Madam Speaker! Student influence is not about students deciding what should be taught or how grades should be set. It is about giving students the opportunity to take responsibility, make their voices heard, and be involved in issues concerning their schooling. This is an important part of the school's democratic mission.

A school that speaks of responsibility but does not give students the opportunity to practice responsibility risks fostering passivity rather than fostering active citizens. The experiences from many schools are also clear: When students experience that participation increases, the engagement, well-being, and sense of responsibility are also perceived to increase.

Therefore, it is important that the regulations now being developed are designed with respect for the intentions of the Education Act. Strong student influence at an overarching level is not in contradiction to teacher-led instruction; on the contrary. A clear teacher role and meaningful student participation can and should go hand in hand. It is not a matter of a choice between one or the other; a good school needs both.

Madam Speaker! Ultimately, this debate is about what kind of school we want to build for the future. We Social Democrats want to see a strong knowledge school with high ambitions for every student – a school with clear curricula, order and discipline, study in the classroom and high expectations for both students and adults, where more students achieve passing results than the current government manages and where every child gets the opportunity to develop as far as possible based on their own circumstances.

But the knowledge school must never be reduced to only subject knowledge and test results. The school also has a democratic mission. Therefore, we want to see a school that stands up for equality, the equal value of people, and every person's freedom to shape their own life – a school that clearly takes a stand against honor-related violence and oppression and that gives children and young people knowledge about relationships, consent, and their rights, where students are given the opportunity to be involved and take responsibility in a democratic community.

We also want to see a school where the teachers' professionalism is respected, where the state sets the direction but does not micro-manage the teaching methods. It is the teachers, not the politicians, who best determine how the teaching should be conducted in the classroom.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: A strong knowledge school is not built solely through new writings in curricula and steering documents. It is built with skilled teachers and sufficient resources, and by ensuring that money intended to be used for our children's and students' education also goes there and does not end up in shareholders' pockets. Only then can the ambitions in this chamber become a reality in every classroom.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I cannot quite make Niklas Sigvardsson's reasoning add up. He speaks about the importance of having a knowledge school and that one should convey knowledge and education and the like, and it is clear that we agree on that. But at the same time, we have seen that the teacher's role has been weakened very much, especially in relation to parents and students, who have gained a very large influence over the teaching.

Who is it, according to Niklas Sigvardsson, who should decide in the classroom? Is it the students, the parents, or the teacher? That is my first question.

My second question concerns this matter of sex, consent, relationships, and honor-related violence. In what way does Niklas Sigvardsson mean that the teaching in these subjects is worsened or weakened simply because one moves this from the introductory parts of a governing document to more subject-specific parts in the curricula? There, these subjects are highlighted in a completely different way than today. What is it that says this would mean that one removes the relevance of these subjects in the education? Nothing! I wonder where Niklas Sigvardsson has gotten this from.

And if we really mean that we are to have a knowledge-focused school where knowledge shall be fully relevant moving forward, should the knowledge mandate not weigh more heavily than all other objectives in a curriculum?

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to answer the questions that have been asked.

It is quite clear for those who have listened to my speech that the answer to the first question – who it is that decides in the classroom – is that it is the teacher. I think it was very clear. If one interprets the speech in any other way, I am actually very surprised. I think it was very clear.

It is the teacher who decides in the classroom when it comes to how the teaching is to be conducted, which subject areas are taken up when, and how these are to be assessed. It is quite clear, and that question is not particularly difficult.

Regarding matters concerning sexuality and life skills, it is important to be able to include both in curricula with subject content, where this is addressed based on the goals and content determined in each individual curriculum, and as a more principled issue concerning the approach we adults have in the school. In the school's values, certain given tasks stand, which we see as important that all adults in the school can and also stand up for and defend. It is about making it possible for students to have confidential conversations with those who are in the school. It is not so strange.

It is reasonable that some teachers will more practically have teaching in these subject areas while other teachers will be able to work more actively when situations arise at the school. They shall also be able to meet students who come with these problems, whether it is a matter of a student confiding something to their teacher in a break environment or similar. The principled part is that all adults in the school shall have a responsibility to work with these issues.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Niklas Sigvardsson for the answers.

The teacher decides in the classroom, says the member. That is good. The problem is only that if we also have a strong student influence over the teaching, then the teacher does not decide fully, but then it is someone else who is also involved in deciding. That undermines the teacher's role. Then it is no longer the teacher who decides in the classroom, but then the teacher decides based on certain other premises that must be taken into account.

What I hear from Niklas Sigurdsson is that he accepts this. He accepts that the teacher shall decide in the classroom, but in some cases, student influence can then push aside the teacher's role. One cannot interpret it in any other way.

In the concept of "democratic values," at least for us in the Tidösamarbetet, there is nothing about honor culture. I do not know if it is different in the Social Democratic Party: Are honor culture and democratic values seen as two separate things? But for us, honor culture is not compatible with democratic values.

If we say that the school shall stand for democratic values, it also means that we distance ourselves from honor culture. Then we do not need any double-writing about this in the introductory chapters. In that case, it is very good that we strengthen the responsibility and establish that this shall be addressed in the individual courses, so that it is not forgotten. But it is, therefore, already covered by the concept of "democratic values" in the introductory parts.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with student influence. It is perfectly possible to have a strong teacher role where the teacher is the one who decides in the classroom and at the same time let students have influence.

I do not usually like to speak from the rostrum about how I worked as a teacher before I ended up in the Riksdag. But during all those years I worked as a teacher, Patrick Reslow would have been very welcome to visit my classrooms. There, it was clear that it was I who decided the subject content and how we worked with assessments, but at the same time, we could have a conversation about how we create the best possible classroom climate. If we disagreed, there was no ambiguity about the fact that it was I who decided in the classroom.

But it is quite clear that one can combine this with inviting people to have influence and having conversations about rules of procedure and the like. That can be combined with a strong teacher role.

This is what we Social Democrats believe we should have in every classroom in this country. We should have a strong teacher role combined with student influence, where students have the opportunity, in dialogue with their teachers, to work on creating a school that is as good as possible. Both teachers and students want a school that is as good and safe as possible, where we learn as much as possible. There is no distinction in that part.

Let me come to this with democratic values. It is well-pleasing if it is now clear that honor-related violence and oppression is not compatible with democratic values according to the Tidöregering's way of seeing it. Then we could also have written it clearly in the opening parts of the curriculum, among the basic values, so that it cannot be interpreted in any other way.

If one votes for the reservation that we Social Democrats and several others stand behind, this becomes clear. Then we can ensure that we also become as clear as I perceive that Patrick Reslow also wants us to be. We shall be clear about which democratic values we work towards.

We still have the chance to add that we in this chamber stand up for that violence and oppression related to honor are in conflict with the fundamental democratic values.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I hope for an answer to my question regarding whether there is any creative proposal from the member when it comes to how one should work with sex education in mathematics. Mathematics is one of the school's subjects, and if this with sex education is to be overarching, it must indeed be present everywhere. We want to move it to relevant subjects. I mention this only as an example. It would be interesting to hear how the Social Democrats think the sex education should manifest in mathematics instruction.

I reacted a bit when Member Sigvardsson said that sex education is truly important and therefore must be included among the overarching [objectives]. I completely agree. Sex education is truly important. But there are many things that are truly important. If the principle is that everything that is truly important should be included among the overarching [objectives] in the school's curricula, I wonder if the Social Democrats have missed some things that are truly important.

One can look at the reservations. There is a reservation from Centerpartiet regarding entrepreneurship. We can have a long debate about entrepreneurship in school. And entrepreneurship is indeed important in society. It may not be relevant in all subjects, but it is truly important.

Miljöpartiet has a reservation where climate, sustainable development and AI are mentioned. I think those are things that are truly important. But it does not mean that it should be overarching and a part of all subjects in school.

The Social Democrats do not seem to think so either, as in the committee they have stood behind other reservations together with these parties, but they do not stand behind just these reservations.

My second question is therefore whether the Social Democrats also, just like myself, the Green Party and the Centre Party, think that the climate, AI or sustainable development is truly important.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Things can be truly important and yet not be included in the curriculum. In that regard, I can share Joar Forssell's view. Thus, we have completed the discussion on what we mean by truly important.

I could actually repeat part of the exchange with Patrick Reslow, where I explained why we believe it is fundamentally important that the adults present in the school environment are safe and have the knowledge needed to talk about these tough issues. Many of the questions are very sensitive, as they touch on issues of life, sexuality, relationships, consent, and honor-related violence and oppression. These are issues that, in a different way than AI or sustainable development, are close to the individual and are very sensitive.

That is why all the conversations that a young person dares to have with an adult in school regarding these areas become very sensitive. It is very clear that the adults who move in this environment need to be equipped with the knowledge required to be able to have those types of discussions or to be able to be listening in the way that the situation requires. That is why we Social Democrats think it is important – it is a principled and fundamental assessment – that these parts are included in the overarching parts.

We fully agree that in some curricula this should be highlighted and clarified to be part of the subject teaching. We have not listed mathematics and the like. We want to see what the government produces now. The government and ministers have, at various times, spoken about different subjects where this is needed and about how many different subjects where it is needed. We are still waiting for answers from the government on that. What do the drafts for the curricula look like?

But we Social Democrats believe that this should be at an overarching level. Adults in the school with different subject backgrounds should be able to have these tough and really difficult conversations.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I actually think I am starting to get answers to my question, but I do not know if those watching this debate will become any wiser.

It is clear that we think there should be empathetic and knowledgeable adults in the school that one can turn to also, so to speak, outside the classroom. We think that student health should be strengthened. We think, for example, that those in student health should be present at the school and actually talk to students and not just create strategy documents and have workshops with teachers and management. They should, therefore, also be with the students. We naturally think that it is important that there are other empathetic and well-equipped adults who can talk about difficult subjects that are close to the students.

Madam Speaker! It now appears from the answer that even the Social Democrats think that, for example, sex education, just like many other important things, does not have an obvious part in the teaching in every subject. So I interpret the Social Democrats, and then we are in agreement on that.

I think it will be very difficult for those watching this debate to understand what the practical difference is between the Social Democrats' proposal and the majority's proposal. We mean that sex education is an important part of the school and that it should be a large part of the school in relevant subjects. We also mean that student health should be strengthened – there should be access to counselors and other student health services – and that there should be responsible and empathetic adults.

At the same time, there are things that are truly important that are not included in the overall [framework]. There are things today that I think are truly important and that I think should be included in the overall [framework], for example reading. It has not been included previously. I can think of that as a piece of knowledge that one needs in all subjects. It is not something one only needs to know in Swedish. One also needs to know it in mathematics.

I thank you for the answer and would like to have it confirmed that the Social Democrats do not think that this should be part of the teaching in all subjects.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is a self-evident matter that all teachers in their school environment stand up for and can speak about all the things that are in the values foundation, which we work with and which is an overarching responsibility. It does not have to mean that in every individual curriculum it must state that one shall teach about sex education. We completely share that view. It is possible to have overarching parts about democratic values, about that we shall stand up for equality and the like. But we can also have such things that are included in the overarching parts which are not included in the teaching in every individual subject. There we are in complete agreement.

But this entire debate boils down to what we Social Democrats consider important. The government has chosen to change the graduation goals in the teacher education, for example. They have removed this area from it. They remove it in the overarching parts of the curriculum. This means that this actually risks disappearing completely from teacher education across the country, and then the possibility of having these tough conversations is weakened. They are making this consequential change. It is not included in the overarching parts of the curriculum, and it is not included as a direct graduation goal in the teacher education. There is therefore no obligation in any teacher education in our country to talk about these issues.

It therefore has a problematic effect when this part disappears from the curriculum as a result of the changes that have been made in teacher education. This is at the ordinance level. It is therefore the government that has decided on it – it has not gone through this chamber.

We Social Democrats believe that it is a fundamentally important issue that adults in school should be able to take responsibility and that all adults who encounter children and students every day should be able to have these tough conversations.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! Since the 90s, we have seen that there has been a fairly large shift in these issues in Sweden. We have seen that the view on student influence has changed. The importance of student influence in school has increased at the expense of the teachers' role in the classroom. This has led to an obligation to adapt the teaching to individual students' needs, and it has also strengthened the guardians' right to influence over the teaching.

The consequence of this will be completely impossible expectations on the teachers. This calculation does not add up, and it is no longer clear that it is the teachers who lead and decide over the teaching in the school. Furthermore, in recent decades we have seen a trend from teacher-led and lecture-led teaching to more individual and independent work among the students.

It is a comprehensive and large investigation – almost a thousand pages – that forms the basis for the bill that we are to decide on today. It is a massive and extensive work. It is explicitly stated that this development has led to poorer knowledge development and increased differences between student groups. The change that we are now making regarding student influence is therefore linked to the fact that we are to meet the problems we have seen with increased differences between student groups and a poorer knowledge development.

There is a very clear conflict of objectives here. Therefore, I have a question for Member Sigvardsson. In your speech, you say that you want to both have the cake and eat it. All thousand flowers shall bloom at the same time. We shall both have a strong teacher role and maintain an unchanged student influence. According to me and the investigation, it is completely impossible. It is a conflict of objectives that does not add up. Therefore, my question to the Member is: Which of these two is most important – the teachers' or the students' influence?

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! A large part of Member Malmqvist's speech confirms the picture we Social Democrats – and everyone – have: that inequality in school has increased. As I interpret it, what Malmqvist is talking about is that one can see differences regarding which students have taken advantage of influence and which students have not. If one comes from socioeconomically strong areas, one has a greater chance and opportunity to know what rights one has. There, the school needs to be the counter-factor that actually ensures that it becomes equal. It is about creating opportunities for everyone, regardless of background. It is about them getting opportunities later in life and that they can take their influence seriously and make their voices heard in social life.

It is an incredibly important point that Josefin Malmqvist is touching upon in her speech. Inequality in schools has increased in recent decades; we have to say that. Questions regarding influence also reflect exactly that.

We Social Democrats know that – regardless of what Josefin Malmqvist said in her speech – it is possible to combine a very strong and clear teacher role with the fact that students actually have a right to influence.

It is very clear. We can read the Education Act. We can read about other proposals that we actually decide on here. We Social Democrats have voted to, for example, tone down the wording regarding the influence of guardians. It is about the debates that we have precisely when it concerns the reports that we are talking about.

So, there is no dividing line here that Josefin Malmqvist wants to paint.

What Josefin Malmqvist paints instead is this picture: When inequality in school is great, we need to ensure that the school focuses on leveling it, so that all students – regardless of how many books are on the bookshelf at home and regardless of what educational background and what economic background the parents have – have the opportunity for good teaching. They should also be able to learn to use their voice and their ability to be able to have influence in school.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! Niklas Sigvardsson seems to have misunderstood the report. It is not differences in student influence that the investigation points to, but rather that student influence causes differences in knowledge development.

Those who are hit hardest by a lacking and weakened teacher role – by the teacher not having a clear mandate to lead their classroom – are namely the students who have it toughest. The students with the weakest prerequisites at home are those who are hit hardest by these vague writings regarding requirements for students' influence over the teaching. That is why we are now changing this.

Niklas Sigvardsson says that it is I, as a Member of Parliament, who asserts this. No, I am therefore quoting our investigation of almost a thousand pages. A long row of experts have participated in it and jointly reached the conclusion that it is a problem today that the students' – and the guardians' – influence has become too strong. That is what we are now addressing. Now we clarify that it is the teachers who lead the teaching.

It is true that we thereby weaken the requirement for student influence that has applied until now and that we loosen the wording regarding the guardian's influence over the teaching. It is, after all, the teachers who are to lead the teaching. They shall plan the content of the teaching and lead the teaching in the classroom.

There is a clear conflict of objectives here, and therefore I repeat the question that Niklas Sigvardsson does not answer. There is a conflict of objectives here: We cannot both eat the cake and keep it, and we cannot both claim that it is important that it is the teacher who leads the teaching and simultaneously turn a blind eye to the fact that this means we must weaken the students' influence. We cannot have both of these things at the same time.

This was the finding of the investigation, and it is the background to the changes we are now implementing. Therefore, I stand behind the proposal in the report – because I believe in a strong teacher role in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats also think that a strong teacher role is important. We think it is important that it is the teacher who directs the teaching, plans the teaching, and carries out the assessments that are needed. There is no dividing line there.

However, there is a dividing line regarding the fact that it is written that the school shall contribute to students becoming active citizens. That is, we stand for it because it actually should. That is what the school shall achieve: students shall receive subject knowledge and skills so that they can become adults and take their place in social life – and influence is included there as an important part. Influence does not mean deciding, but influence means that one can have a dialogue and discussion with the teacher in a classroom. When disagreements arise, it is however the teacher who decides; that is very clear.

There is also a broad research base for the fact that – in connection with, for example, the discussion we had last week – it often happens that school rules, that is, what was previously called order rules or similar, are followed much better when students are involved and take responsibility for them. If everyone who works in the school gets to feel that they have an opportunity to be involved and influence the documents that one works according to, it also becomes much easier to work according to them – to actually stick to the agreements that have been made.

Therefore, the conflict of objectives that Josefin Malmqvist paints up does not exist. It is actually possible to combine a stronger teacher role with student influence in school.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sometimes debates take turns, and I can once again state that I may have to deviate slightly from the script I had prepared.

School shall be characterized by knowledge and education. But it shall not only be characterized by knowledge and education, it shall be characterized by very high knowledge and high education. For us Sverigedemokrater, it is important to increase the proportion of high-performing students and ensure that Sweden is competitive within STEM. It is important to ensure that there is capacity to contribute to economic growth even in the future. But we also want to strengthen the entire base, that is, to significantly raise the lowest level of knowledge. This places increased demands on the school.

It is also about the school preparing not only for further studies, as it often concerns in various debates, but also for practical occupations. We need skilled people, after all. It is therefore a multifaceted task that the school has, and if it is to succeed in the task, very strong and clear curricula are required.

I can agree with the opposition that there have been deficiencies in previous curricula. I noted that it was said that it is bourgeois governments that have developed the latest curricula, and that may be true. We have no responsibility for that because we were not in the Riksdag then. But what is being overlooked is that at least the first curricula for primary school, Lgr 62 and Lgr 69, which in some way eroded the view of knowledge in schools, were not introduced by bourgeois but by Social Democratic governments. When it comes to Lgr 69, the Social Democrats even had their own majority in the chamber. The responsibility, therefore, does not rest solely on bourgeois parties.

When it comes to Lgr 80, we can note that two years later a general election was held which the Social Democrats won. After that, they had nine years to rectify the mistakes that are now said to have existed in Lgr 80, but they did not do so. When Lpo 94 came, there was an election that same year, and then the Social Democrats had twelve years to rectify the mistakes that are now said to have existed in Lpo 94. They did not do so. When it comes to Lgr 11, there was a Social Democratic victory in the 2014 election, and after that, they had eight years to change things – but they did not do so. Do we see a pattern?

This does not mean that we are satisfied with these curricula. When we look at Lgr 11, we can observe that there were good intentions, but the problem was that one let Skolverket manage the full implementation of that curriculum. It was a huge mistake. When we now began the discussions about new curricula, we had some requirements from the Sverigedemokraterna side.

The first thing was that there should be a complete focus on knowledge, especially in the initial parts.

The second requirement was that the teacher should decide in the classroom and that this should also be made visible in the curricula.

The third requirement was that we under no circumstances should hand over the full implementation to Skolverket. They should instead be kept in check – on a leash – so that we do not make the same mistakes that were made in 2011. Skolverket simply lacks the ability to follow political directives.

Why do we need new curricula? Yes, we do have problems. We have large cohorts of students who have problems reading, writing, and calculating. When they finally learn, it happens quite late in their schooling, which lingers and spreads to other subjects.

Therefore, we must have a curriculum for primary school that focuses on the mission that students shall learn to read, write, and count. The proposal that is now on the table is about that very ability to read, write, and count having a special status in the early years of primary school. It shall be highlighted specifically and be what one focuses on most, so that efforts are made early and correctly. There shall be no doubt about this in the central steering documents.

The second reason is that we have had an individually adapted school, which has meant chaos in the classrooms. It has meant that we have not been able to have coherent educations, which has created problems. We must get this in order.

The third reason is that students and parents have had an all too great influence over the teaching situation. We must also move away from that, and in the proposal that is now on the table, we ensure that we settle the issue of student influence. We say that it is the teacher who fully decides in the classroom. The teacher shall not discuss with the students what the arrangement for the teaching looks like, which books are to be read, how much homework is to be given, or what is to be done for the next day, but it is entirely the teacher's responsibility to decide this. And it is precisely the teacher's responsibility – responsibility and duty – to do so.

Then we should not have any strange formulations in the curriculum about student influence, because it can be applied completely incorrectly and lead to completely unreasonable consequences. Suddenly, one also has parents on site who try to direct and dictate.

What also characterizes the curriculum being presented as a proposal is a strong focus on knowledge. Knowledge stands at the center above all else. All other objectives are actually blurred away, apart from the democratic values which are important to keep. A central steering document that is clear and which contains clear goals and has a clear content also becomes easier to follow, not just for students but above all for principals and teachers.

We have also erased all the grading criteria that characterize today's curriculum, where the goal has been that the teaching should be based on giving a certain grade according to a checklist that one ticks off to see how far student X has progressed. Now we are introducing weighted assessments. The grading criteria will become much more simplified. The teaching shall be based on the syllabi, not on having to give a certain grade.

If this curriculum is passed and becomes a reality, I believe that, in its entirety, we have created the conditions for a strong knowledge school moving forward. We also create what Sverigedemokrater has as a goal for Swedish school, namely that it should be a world-class school – the world's best school!

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! I must thank Member Reslow for the history lesson. Regarding history, I also want to add that Reslow is a former Moderate and is therefore obviously responsible for the current curriculum introduced by the Alliance government.

I agree with Reslow that students should learn to read, write, and count in school. These are extremely fundamental skills that all students need to take with them. Sweden's school should be the very best possible. What we see after four years with this government, however, is a development that goes in the other direction. The proportion of students who receive an F in one or more subjects has increased during this parliamentary term from 24 to 28 percent.

Forssell stood here earlier in the speaker's chair and said that guardians should be upset about this and demonstrate outside the Riksdag. I agree with that, but it is the current government that has refrained from investing in the school. Instead, they have lowered the tax for the very richest. I think it would be appropriate if one took responsibility for that.

I also want to thank Reslow for being very honest in his speech and saying that all values in the school, except for the knowledge mission, shall be erased. Other government representatives have tried to say that it is only cosmetic changes when one removes the other values in the introductory parts of the curriculum and that they will remain anyway.

Therefore, I want to ask Reslow: Is it the case that the government and the Sweden Democrats consider that all other values, except for knowledge and democracy, should be erased from the school's mission?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Isabell Mixter, for the questions!

No – it is from the initial parts that it should be blurred out. Why do we want that? Yes, because we consider that the more objectives we have in the initial parts, the greater the conflict of objectives becomes. It should be about knowledge and nothing else. Then I also said, moreover, that democratic values are also included there.

It is correct as my colleagues have said: It should be removed from the introductory parts and included in the curricula. I apologize if I expressed myself unclearly, but I thought it appeared from the context that I was talking about the introductory parts.

The proportion of students with the grade F is increasing, it is said. Yes, that is the case, and a major reason for that is, among other things, the mass immigration we have had, which is not something I have seen the Left Party act to prevent. The Left Party bears a very large responsibility for that development.

Now, we are also able to create an entirely new grading system, something that the previous majority failed to achieve. They only wanted to trim a little at the edges and abolish the grade F, but then the problems would have remained. Abolishing a grade level does not mean that you get better knowledge. The knowledge would have been just as poor anyway. You would have moved on to the next step in the educational chain with the grade E and thus not passed the studies.

The requirements must be higher than that, and that is what we on our side are fighting for. We are not going to lower the requirements. Now we are going to overhaul the grading system, and then this will of course change. Vänsterpartiet, together with its coalition partners, could also have submitted proposals on this during the last parliamentary term, but there was no will for it.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It took exactly one minute before Member Reslow began speaking about how it is immigration's fault instead of taking responsibility for his own failure with Sweden's school system.

The result after four years with this government and the Sweden Democrats is that the results in school are falling. It is your responsibility that it looks that way. Sweden's teachers testify to the worst cuts in 30 years. You have lowered the tax for Ulf Kristersson and yourselves instead of investing the money in school. Take responsibility!

I actually do not understand how it can be a conflict of objectives to say, for example, that the school shall be non-confessional, that is to say that we shall not have a religious school. You want to delete it from the introductory parts. Do the Sweden Democrats think it is okay to have some Muslim teaching? I also do not understand how it can be a conflict of objectives that one shall work with equality and against discrimination. It should be obvious to do so.

On the contrary, we should strengthen these values. It must also be the principal's responsibility to ensure that they are fulfilled. If one moves it down to different subjects and curricula, it is no longer the principal's responsibility, which also becomes the problem now when one moves the sex education over to different subjects. If the mentor usually teaches chemistry, it is perhaps not the mentor's responsibility to talk to the students about how they should behave towards others, that they have a right to their own body, that honor issues are wrong, and so on.

This must be the entire school's responsibility.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I know that Isabell Mixter, just like me, wants a state headship for the school. But that is not the case, rather it is the municipalities that have the responsibility. Then the main financing responsibility also lies with the municipalities.

We know that there are municipalities that are making multi-million profits. SKR is making enormous profits. In my own hometown Malmö, it was over half a billion in profit. Were those funds put into the school? No! Why don't they do that? Why didn't Isabell Mixter ensure that, for example, Malmö stad put more money into the school if it was needed? She could have contacted her party colleagues in Malmö and fixed it.

(ISABELL MIXTER (V): We do not govern in Malmö!)

I believe it is I who is speaking – thank you.

The results are falling, it is said. In international measurements, the results are not falling, but they are falling for the group that does not have Swedish as a mother tongue. Is this a consequence of immigration? Yes, it clearly is. But Vänsterpartiet constantly denies it.

When it comes to values, it is completely clear that the Sweden Democrats do not defend a Muslim value base. In Sweden, we have a Christian value base, and there are schools and not least preschools that are run, for example, by the Church of Sweden. Are they to be shut down in the Left Party's Sweden?

We do not think that. There are no problems with them. There are many Christian schools that adhere to the mission and that behave themselves. But we know that there are problems with Muslim schools and that in some cases, the School Inspectorate has acted very forcefully.

Now there are not so many Muslim independent schools left, but we know that there is confessional teaching even in schools that are not confessional. It is not good, but the Sweden Democrats are not prepared to break the Christian foundation that has nevertheless created our society.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's students shall be given the very best opportunities to learn as much as possible. Today we are debating a proposal for a new curriculum. I think it is positive to change the emphasis in the curriculum so that it places less weight on the ability to reason and more on knowledge, especially for the younger ages. The ability to reason and to develop one's reasoning comes only after one has acquired a certain knowledge within an area, and the proposal for the change of the curriculum is therefore in large parts positive.

I think, however, that the government is going much too far in narrowing the focus to knowledge. The school also has other important values. Students should become secure individuals who carry with them other important skills than pure subject knowledge. Such skills are important both in school and later in life. That responsibility should rest on the school as a whole and not be placed on individual subjects.

The government wants to remove important parts from the initial sections of the curriculum. The government parties are trying to downplay the significance of the change. They have said that this is being done for cosmetic reasons and that there is no point in being dramatic.

Madam Speaker! I will not be dramatic, but I want to be very clear that it is very unfortunate to strike important parts from the introductory sections of the curriculum and put them into individual subjects or strike them out completely.

Thus, the Swedish National Agency for Education writes in its referral response: "The investigation's proposals involve a number of changes in the first chapter of the Education Act, which contains fundamental provisions for the entire school system. The provisions in the first chapter therefore have a strongly governing role and an important signaling value. This position is not evident from the investigation's justification for the proposals, but they are instead presented as edits and changes of a plain language character."

Skolverket continues: ”The provisions that are proposed to be changed contain fundamental rights for children and students and are an important part of Sweden's interpretation and application of both the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as the constitution and other international conventions. The weight of the provisions is not reflected in the justification for the proposals or in the impact assessment. Skolverket considers that legislative changes of this nature should be investigated with precision and with a special focus on these rights, instead of taking the character of consequential changes to simplify the design of underlying regulations.”

I can only agree.

In the government's proposal, the wording regarding the right to safety and protection against offensive treatment is weakened. I mean that this should be included in the first chapter. The wording on discrimination should not be toned down. There are indeed provisions about it in the Education Act, but it does not cover all types of discrimination but only refers to the grounds for discrimination. Therefore, the wording on countering all types of offensive treatment needs to remain in the introductory parts of the curriculum.

We know that offensive treatment occurs in schools every day, and this must be countered with all possible force. Not least, we see a worrying trend with more and more children and young people feeling worse and that the vulnerability in school has increased.

Last week we discussed safety and study. At the same time, one wants to weaken the school's work in countering offensive treatment and discrimination here.

What is stated in the opening parts of the curriculum regarding that it is the responsibility of the entire school and the principal stands there for a reason. The wording that the school shall be non-confessional is deleted from the opening parts. Both Skolverket and Skolinspektionen write that it should remain.

It will also be very strange to delete that part when it comes immediately after a sentence about values being embodied and conveyed in accordance with Christian tradition and Western humanism. Deleting the sentence about the school being non-confessional opens up for strange interpretations.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to go further and ban all religious independent schools. To remove the wording that the school shall be non-confessional is a step in another direction.

Madam Speaker! Many have spoken about sexuality, consent, and relationships. This is proposed to be removed from the introductory parts. According to the bill, it shall instead be included in five curricula. Removing these descriptions from the introductory parts risks significantly weakening the sex education and the school's overall responsibility for it.

Sex education is truly not only a question of biology but also a question of consent, relationships, men's violence against women, honor-based violence, and so on. In these areas, Sweden has been a pioneer, for example when the consent law was introduced. We must continue to take responsibility for talking about this and reasoning with our young people about the importance of consent and that one has the right to decide over one's own body.

Madam Speaker! Sex education is an area that needs to be strengthened, not weakened. As recently as 2022, the area became a graduation goal in teacher education, which has led to increased quality in the students' education. That it is now being weakened leads to it being removed as a graduation goal for teachers.

The wording in the curriculum regarding the principal's responsibility was also strengthened in 2021. Removing these provisions from the introductory parts shifts the responsibility from the principal down to individual teachers. It will have consequences for the education. It will become more unequal between different schools and teachers.

I 40 remissvar riktas kritik mot den förändring som regeringen nu gör. Regeringens förslag riskerar att kraftigt försvaga sexualundervisningen.

Once again, the Tidö government wants to weaken student influence. It is a strange path to take. There is plenty of research that shows the positive effects of student influence. Of course, it should not go too far, and influence is not to be equated with the students deciding. Of course, it is the teacher and not the students who should be the obvious leader in the classroom.

In the proposal for the curriculum that we are discussing here today, the government argues that it can be removed, as there are already provisions regarding this in the Education Act. Now, provisions regarding student influence are being removed in many different areas; soon they will only remain in the Education Act. This signifies a clear weakening of students' right to influence.

What if we placed the responsibility for Sweden's school failure on the system instead of trying to place it on the individual students? What is it that has happened in Swedish schools? We have gone from being world-leading and having an equal, compensatory school with very good results to having a school that is unequal and segregated and has weak results. At the same time, the private companies are extracting billion-dollar profits.

What is wrong in Swedish school is not student influence. It is about a systemic error, about constant cuts and about profits that leak out to shareholders. It is this that has broken Swedish school.

If we reduce or remove student influence in Swedish schools, we risk losing something that has been an important success factor for Swedish schools, namely that we nurture democratic young people. This has strong support in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Madam Speaker! It is important that we as politicians have confidence in those who are professionals in teaching. It is the teachers and the school leaders – not us sitting in the chamber of the Riksdag. One or another might happen to have a teacher's education here as well, but it is not politicians who best decide on the school's teaching methods. I therefore view with some concern that the government writes that curricula shall contain teaching strategies, even though it also states that teachers decide which specific methods shall be used and that it must be clear in practice that it is they who are the professionals and who decide.

I finally want to emphasize the concern that exists in Skolsverige right now, among the school leaders and those who are to implement the government's proposals in reality, that all of this is to be implemented in 2028. Financial resources must be allocated so that the principals can get all of this in place.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 8.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Mixter for the speech! There is quite a lot that we agree on, and I am very pleased about that.

I would like to clarify a bit regarding the government basis that Member Mixter wants to represent. We heard last week that the Center Party released some of its "pet projects." They no longer want to push them in negotiations with the other left-wing parties, namely Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Socialdemokraterna.

A bone of contention that I have at least perceived Centerpartiet has had for a very long time concerns entrepreneurship. There is a reservation from Centerpartiet in this report that they want more entrepreneurship in school. It is, in fact, being removed from the overall curriculum.

Madam Speaker! I did not hear Member Mixter mention anything about entrepreneurship, but one could say that precisely that is a bit of a pet issue for Vänsterpartiet – a kind of negative pet issue – that they are not the biggest proponents of entrepreneurship. I am pleased that Vänsterpartiet, in that case, wants to purify the curricula and ensure that things end up where they belong.

Madam Speaker! I wonder why the Left Party is not standing behind any reservation in this matter. One had every opportunity to do so. One has stood behind other joint reservations but has not motioned for this, as far as I have seen. Therefore, I wonder why the Left Party agrees with the government that entrepreneurship should not be a part of the overall curriculum.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joar Forssell, for the question!

If I am not mistaken, it was in 2011 that it was introduced into the curriculum that the school should work with entrepreneurship. So it does not have a particularly long history. It has not in any way been negative, I think, that the school has worked with this, but there are also many other important things that the school needs to work with.

What the government now wants to remove from the initial parts of the curricula is something that has a much longer history and which is fundamental, I think, for all children to have a safe school environment and a safe life later. It is such skills that one should not have to be without. For a young boy, for example, to learn about consent is essential in order to be able to move forward in life.

That 27 percent of all young girls have been subjected to sexual crimes is a frightening figure. The Gender Equality Authority writes in its strategy, among other things, that one must work with values among young people to reverse that trend. I therefore find it very difficult to see why the government wants to tone down the writings regarding the entire school's responsibility to work with sex education, against discrimination, and for the school to be non-confessional.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I feel that the member is avoiding the question itself. We have had a debate earlier today on, among other things, sex education. One can look back at that debate and find exchanges where we go through it quite thoroughly. I noted that it was the Liberals who pushed through the consent legislation. I also noted that it is the Liberals who have pushed through that the right to abortion be written into the constitution. The government has taken action against sexual violence. We agree on those parts, as well as on the seriousness of them.

My question concerns entrepreneurship. There is also other things that should be included, for example reading. It is important and could be part of the overall. But the subject entrepreneurship we will therefore remove, as it is expressed now, and one can say that we do it together with Vänsterpartiet because Vänsterpartiet will also vote for this. They have not stood behind the reservation and therefore stand behind the government in that matter.

My question remains. I would like to hear a justification from Member Mixter as to why one stands behind removing entrepreneurship from the overarching parts of the curricula. It would be very interesting. Why does Vänsterpartiet, together with the government, want to remove just entrepreneurship from the overarching? I believe the Member has understood my question now and will be able to give an answer.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! I understand that what Joar Forssell wants me to say now is that I hate entrepreneurship. But I really do not. I think it is great with those who run companies. They make Sweden's economy better. I want to be clear about that.

What we are talking about today is what should be included in the school's curriculum, and here the government has presented a proposal that entrepreneurship should originate from the initial parts of the curriculum.

The normal procedure when looking at a government bill is to consider which parts one can accept and which ones one considers to be bad. We have concluded that the most serious thing in this bill is that the government wants to remove student influence and the value of equality and of working against discrimination and offensive treatment and weaken the sex education. That is what is serious in the bill, and that is what we are against.

Why the topic of entrepreneurship is disappearing, Joar Forssell himself must answer. It is his government that has submitted the proposition.

I do not feel that entrepreneurship is particularly important. There are other parties that think it is important that it remains, but for me it is not as important as the democratic values, that all students should become secure citizens who know how to exercise influence and who know the right to their own body. I think it is important that the school is involved and contributes to that.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! For a teacher who is going to teach about, for example, an atom, it facilitates things to be able to say that an atom has a nucleus and electrons that orbit the nucleus in the same way as the planets revolve around the sun in a solar system. We often use knowledge to learn new knowledge.

I think one of the best ways to describe how we learn is to liken it to a Velcro. You know – Velcro has small hooks that make other things stick. That is how knowledge works. The more we know, the more we can learn, because we tie and relate knowledge to things we already know.

The analogy about the atoms and the electrons comes from a professor named ED Hirsch who wrote a book that has become groundbreaking in the field. It was published in 1996, two years after the Swedish curriculum in 1994. The book is called in English The schools we need and why we don't have them, that is, the schools we need and why we don't have them.

After that, we have received a broad research development and research base in the area. He describes why we need curricula that focus on knowledge rather than abilities in small children. One needs, therefore, to first learn facts and knowledge in order to then be able to learn more throughout the entire school period and use it to develop one's abilities.

He describes well in his book that this particularly applies to students who come from less affluent homes, who have tougher home conditions and who do not have parents who read books to them every evening or take them out and show them the world. They need a school that fills in with all the knowledge that is needed.

This, my friends, is the school's true compensatory mission. It is about ensuring that all students receive the foundation they need. If one has not learned about the planets and the solar system, it becomes harder to learn about other things later in their schooling. Those students who do not receive knowledge from home risk falling behind, and the gap grows year after year. It becomes a snowball effect. This is a matter of justice and of the school providing all students the same opportunities to succeed. This is the single most important thing in the new curricula.

Madam Speaker! Today, one in six students leaves primary school without eligibility for upper secondary school. It is not a statistical footnote but a broken promise that we as a society have given to hundreds of thousands of young people. Sweden has for a long time moved in the wrong direction. The PISA results of 2022 showed that every fourth 15-year-old – one in four – cannot read properly. They do not master basic reading comprehension. At the same time, the differences between our students are increasing. In a country like Sweden, which once proudly called itself a knowledge nation, this is completely unacceptable and the background to the bill that we are debating here today.

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with perhaps the most fundamental thing here, namely the ability to read. It seems simple, but behind the figures for lack of reading comprehension lies a pedagogical misguidance that has been allowed to continue for far too long. For decades, Sweden has applied methods for reading and writing instruction that lack sufficient scientific support. Now, that stops.

Now we state and establish in the new curricula that reading and writing learning has a special status during primary school because it is absolutely crucial for future schooling. Teachers shall receive support in conducting teaching that rests on a scientific basis. It is about systematic and explicit teaching with the help of phonics, or the structured decoding method, as it has been translated into Swedish. It shall be the basis, for there is a very broad scientific basis.

In the debate, it sometimes sounds like it is one of several methods that one can choose and switch between as one wishes, but that is not what the research support shows. It is crystal clear and obvious which method best teaches children to read, and it is then our responsibility to ensure that they do so.

This may sound technical, but in practice it is about every teacher in grade 1 having a clear, evidence-based tool in hand to teach every child to decode a text. It is not a detail but completely crucial for our Swedish school development and all learning moving forward.

Madam Speaker! A school that does not give children the opportunity to read, write, and count fails the children not only in the classroom but actually for life. Sveriges Lärare recently showed that students who leave primary school without a final grade have 20 times higher odds of being convicted of violent crimes compared to students who have complete grades – 20 times higher! That is what is at stake when we talk about knowledge results here today.

It is about life chances. It is about freedom and the opportunity to shape one's own life. The Moderates argue that a successful schooling is the most important protective factor against future exclusion. Therefore, this is not only an educational policy issue but one of the most important equality policy issues that we can address.

What are the new curricula about, then, and what do they contain? As we have heard here in the debate today, it is about knowledge, knowledge, and knowledge. I intended to make three points.

The first thing concerns knowledge orientation with clear progression – a major deficiency in the current curriculum that we are now addressing. The new curricula shall have a clear structure: purpose, contribution to the school's goals, content, teaching strategies, and grading criteria.

Basic knowledge and skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic are emphasized, especially in the early years. More cognitively advanced elements such as analysis and reflection are introduced later and gradually, as the children achieve a cognitive development that enables them to manage it and as they gradually acquire the knowledge base – the material – that they need to be able to analyze and problematize. It is not about lowering our ambitions, but about having an understanding of how children's brains function.

The second point is about us strengthening the teacher's role. It must appear from the Education Act that it is the teacher who conveys and anchors knowledge in the students. It is the teacher who decides on the teaching. It is a professional responsibility that cannot be delegated to students or parents. This means that we are now limiting the possibility for guardians to exert an extensive influence that can affect teachers' working conditions and the quality of teaching, which the investigation also states.

There is a clear conflict here with the opposition, who collectively oppose the reduced student influence. As we have heard here in previous exchanges, since the 90s we have seen a trend in Sweden towards a strengthened student influence, at the expense of the teachers. At the same time, the teacher's role has been toned down.

The obligation to adapt the teaching to each individual student is extensive today, just as is the guardians' right to influence. This has led to expectations that cannot be met and an ambiguity regarding the teachers' responsibility for the teaching.

We mean that it is the teachers who lead, plan and carry out the teaching. Therefore, we are now finally removing or toning down the wording that has existed until now regarding the students' influence. There is a fundamental difference at the core between the government and the opposition in the view on teaching.

The third thing I want to highlight is a reform that risks falling a bit into the shadows here in the debate, namely the new curriculum in basic Swedish. Today, the curriculum in Swedish as a second language is not adapted for students who are beginners in the language. The level is set for students who have some prior knowledge, which means that newly arrived students encounter goals that are practically unattainable during the first years.

Now we are introducing a new curriculum in basic Swedish, with realistic and adapted goals that give students a real and reasonable chance to succeed in their language learning and that give teachers relevant tools. It is a reform made out of respect for the teachers' situation, and we clarify that the goal is for the students to then transition into regular Swedish instruction.

Madam Speaker! The new curricula will come into force in the autumn term of 2028, at the same time as the ten-year primary school. It is wise. A coordinated introduction gives schools, teachers, and school principals enough time to prepare.

But let us not pretend that we have time to rest. The work that must now be done to produce the new curricula for all subjects in the compulsory school form is great. It requires that Skolverket works efficiently, that referral bodies are involved, and that the implementation takes into account teachers' everyday lives and research on how children learn best. This work is ongoing right now, and we are following it very closely.

Just as my colleagues noted earlier in the debate, it is one of the reasons for the previous failure with the implementation of the curriculum from 2011.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, school is society's most important investment. It gives us opportunities to level life chances and give every child a good start in life. What should matter is not where one comes from, but where one is headed.

It requires that we mean what we say: that we put knowledge at the center, that we trust the teachers, and that we give the students what they actually need to succeed, namely a school that focuses on knowledge. This is what these curricula aim for. With that, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Josefin Malmqvist for the speech and a thorough review of the government's policy regarding the curricula.

Josefin Malmqvist raised Skolverket's work with the curricula and referred to previous entries in the debate. Malmqvist also did this in last week's debate when we discussed scientific basis. She then exemplified this by stating that Skolverket has been tasked to ensure internal competence within cognitive science, and it was precisely cognitive science that the member took up during the speech.

I wonder: If one now thinks that it is very important with a scientific basis and proven experience, how is it that it is so important for this government to point out exact methodological choices and which scientific basis should apply to an independent expert agency such as Skolverket?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Hansén for the question.

We are now settling the problems that have existed in the Swedish school for far too many years. Sometimes it sounds in the debate as if one can choose freely, and that there are masses of different methods that one could make use of. Unfortunately, we still see that at the teacher training programs at many higher education institutions in Sweden, many different methods are taught so that teachers can choose which ones they want to use when they later are to teach.

It sounds nice and beautiful – I am for diversity and freedom, believe me. The problem is, which Member Hansén is very well aware of, that not all research is true just because it is called research. Not all research carries the same weight. Our task, and the task of the expert agencies at a later stage, becomes to evaluate the research. For example, what research support exists for a certain theory? What support exists for a certain method, for example, structured decoding as we are talking about here today? With which method do children learn to read best? Then there is a difference between a small observational study and large data-driven studies of how children learn best.

According to the Education Act, teaching shall be based on evidence and proven experience. We are now reinforcing this with the new formulations in the curriculum. We note that it has been a deficiency that far too many teachers have neither learned these methods during their teacher training nor have been equipped to teach our children with these methods.

The answer to Hansén's question is clear: We choose the methods that we find have the strongest research support. Then I hope that the writings, in the work that Skolverket is now undertaking, will open up for continued research development moving forward. But this is the basis for the reforms that we are now implementing.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I mean that it is the research community and the researchers who should handle the different assessments and conflicts and perform the weighing of knowledge. I heard that the Moderaterna are now advocating that, from a political standpoint at the government level, authorities should be steered towards certain methods and scientific disciplines.

The member also raised the government's clarified mandate regarding the curricula, which was also mentioned last week. The member then said that independent experts from the Curriculum Inquiry have been given an active role in this work. A special coordinator within cognitive research has been appointed. It becomes very clear that pressure is really being put on a certain discipline.

When it comes to this issue of experts from a public investigation being handpicked for an expert authority, for me, it is about different types of recruitments. A government naturally has the power to handpick the persons they want to sit in an investigation, but if it concerns a state employment for a state assignment, the position shall be appointed based on merit and skill, that is, on a merit-based basis.

I am a bit surprised that there seems to be a direct line between being one of the government's politically appointed experts to work at an independent expert agency and writing these curricula. I wonder therefore: How has the selection of experts who are to work at Skolverket been made? Does this mean that the experts from the Curriculum Inquiry have the subject-didactic competence required to write the course plans?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! We are now carrying out the largest reform of Swedish school in 30 years. It implies a shift in the view of knowledge in the Swedish school. Now we are re-evaluating the focus on knowledge based on how children learn best, including within the field of cognitive science.

A shift is now occurring in many parts of the world, because it has been seen that the experiment that has been conducted until now, and which was considered modern in the 90s, is not working. It meant that children themselves would find their own truth, that children themselves would research and find the answers, and that we would tone down the focus on form and content. The pendulum is now swinging back.

It may not be so trendy, but we know that what works best is a focus on knowledge with clear, explicit instruction from a teacher who leads the instruction in the classroom. This is what we are doing now, and it permeates all the reforms that we are now implementing. This is a mosaic of reforms – they are connected even if we debate them on different days.

Member of Parliament Hansén requested that the research community should be allowed to judge which research should be subject to [the regulation]. I mean that there are also conflicts of interest here. Different research areas have different views on these issues, and I do not believe that letting the struggle be waged internally within each respective educational institution is a viable way forward.

We have an overall responsibility for education in Sweden. We must ensure that it is based on evidence, and therefore we have a responsibility to state that it needs to be based on the best results we can find. That is the background for why the experts who have been appointed to the Curriculum Inquiry now, through Skolverket, are also involved in the implementation and development of courses and curricula. It is to ensure that this implementation proceeds in the best possible way.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker and all of you! Sometimes there is a communication breakdown. About 50 minutes ago, I was informed that I was listed to speak in this debate. I regret the mistake, because I believe that this could be one of the absolutely most important decisions we will make. It is actually about our new curriculum.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to be at Täbyanstalten and, together with five local politicians, speak with about forty prisoners. We could all conclude that one of the most important opportunities for getting out of there is to have an education to stand on. That is exactly what this is about.

Every year, 20,000 leave school without complete grades. They run a much greater risk of falling into exclusion and, in the worst cases, being recruited into criminal gangs and eventually ending up in prison. We simply must get this right.

In school, one of the most important things is that there are trained educators. That being said, I want to make a few points regarding the new proposal for the curriculum. We in Centerpartiet would have liked that a better job had been done.

I will begin with what I consider to be absolutely most serious, and that is how the sex education is being slaughtered.

Today we can see that, for example, young LGBTQI people feel increasingly threatened. One is worried and insecure. One hides their identity. We can see an increased hostility in society and not least increased hate and threats. Young LGBTQI people are the group that is often highlighted as the most vulnerable, but hate and threats do not only affect them. It affects young people overall, not least young girls and not least on social media.

What does sex education have to do with this? Well, sex education is not just about sex and intercourse but also about consent, relationships, and values. Therefore, it is crucial that this is integrated throughout the entire school and not limited to just a few hours per year. This is something we have been incredibly good at in Sweden, and we should protect it instead of dismantling it.

Regrettably, the proposal is that this should also be removed from the teacher education, which would mean that the knowledge of teachers would decrease.

We have also received many warnings from RFSL, which are often out at schools to teach about sexual relations. They receive fewer and fewer inquiries today. That is not because the schools are doing a better job, but on the contrary, it is going backwards. That is also the case in this proposal.

The second amendment I would like to make concerns student influence. The proposal unfortunately means that student influence is reduced. This is, of course, also completely wrong – we should instead safeguard student influence. This is also something that is highlighted in several places, not least by the UN.

I would also like to point out that it is the profession that knows best. One proposal is that we should look at specific methods and that it should be written in that one must use a specific method to learn to read and write. We are talking about phonics. Naturally, this is a proven method, but are we going to tell our educators what to do and say that it is exactly this method that must always be used? No, let the profession, which knows best, decide which methods should be used!

Earlier in the debate, it was also mentioned that entrepreneurship is to be removed as a subject. We also find that to be very regrettable.

These are the points that I intend to make. Otherwise, I naturally think it is excellent that we are reviewing the curriculum, but these are a number of major problems that we oppose. Therefore, I want to move for approval of our reservation concerning the sex education. It is number 9.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Welcome to this debate, Anna Lasses, even if it was on short notice!

Madam Speaker! I had an exchange of remarks here earlier with the Left Party. I believe that the Left Party misunderstood me and thought that I wanted the Left Party to say that they are against entrepreneurship. That was not at all the purpose of that exchange of remarks. The purpose was to show that there are differences of opinion within the opposition.

Right now, the opposition parties are trying to show the voters that they are more united than they actually are. An expression of that was that the Center Party announced the other day that they will leave all their pet issues on the shelf or in the umbrella stand outside the negotiation room when they go in to negotiate for government power with, for example, the Left Party.

A bone of contention that the Centerpartiet has always had, Madam Speaker, is that of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is now to be removed from the overarching parts of the curricula.

One thing that has not been present in the overall [framework] previously is reading, just to take an example. There are many things that are important that have not been present in the overall [framework] in the curriculum, but reading is an example.

I have two questions for Member Lasses, Madam Speaker.

One question is: Will Centerpartiet leave the issue of entrepreneurship in the umbrella position when they enter to negotiate for government power with Vänsterpartiet if they win the election?

The second question is: Does the Centre Party, which has not submitted a motion to include reading but has submitted a motion to include entrepreneurship, consider entrepreneurship to be more important than reading in the overall curriculum?

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks to Member Forssell for those questions and also for the philosophical reflections! Whether or not we should negotiate with Vänsterpartiet may perhaps not really have anything to do with the discussion, but we can look at the two questions. I will start from the back with reading.

Reading is naturally crucial, and it is very good that this is included in the overall. We absolutely have nothing against that. And no, we do not think entrepreneurship is more important.

On the other hand, entrepreneurship is immensely essential. It is one of the EU's eight basic competencies. Somewhere we must also see that entrepreneurship is a prerequisite for our society to function and develop, so it is clear that it is an immensely important subject to safeguard.

Then I do not want to speculate on any future negotiations and exactly what will be included there or with whom.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I have some follow-up questions.

I do not think it is so much a philosophical question. If the left side – where the Centerpartiet is included together with Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Socialdemokraterna – were to get a majority, negotiations will be required. Often, negotiations are required if one is to put together a cooperation even if one has a majority. If those negotiations have, the Centerpartiet has not philosophically but very practically said that one should leave the hobbyhorses on the shelf or in the umbrella stand outside. One such hobbyhorse is entrepreneurship. My question is still: Will the Centerpartiet put its hobbyhorse, entrepreneurship as an overarching theme in the curricula, on the shelf if they are forced to negotiate with Vänsterpartiet?

My second question concerns the justification for keeping this and for having motioned for this but not for reading, for example, which is that it is one of the eight basic competencies. Another of these basic competencies is, in fact, reading. My question then is: If the Centerpartiet were to have the position of Minister for Education and decide on Swedish education policy, would they then push through that the eight basic EU competencies should be part of the overall curriculum in Sweden? Does it only concern entrepreneurship, or is it that the Centerpartiet wants to include all the eight basic EU competencies in the overall curriculum?

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! That was definitely an incredibly smart question regarding this matter of the eight competencies.

To speak plainly, entrepreneurship is something that is very close to us in the Center Party, so it is clear that it is important for us. When it comes to whether it should be included in the umbrella agreement or not, I do not dare to precede our negotiations. I will defer that until this autumn, exactly what will be prioritized and what will not.

I want to return to this regarding the reading and that we have not tabled a motion on it. As mentioned, it is already in the basic proposal, and it is absolutely nothing that we oppose.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the school and the curricula.

School bears one of society's heaviest tasks. School does not only shape the future workforce but also the citizens who shall understand the world, take responsibility, and live together in a democratic society.

When the school functions well, opportunities are created that extend far beyond the walls of the classroom. But when the school fails, it has consequences for both the individual and society as a whole. Therefore, the curricula and what is stated in the governing documents that regulate the school are always a fundamentally important issue. Ultimately, it is about what we as a society consider children should learn, how it should happen, and what responsibility we place on different actors. In these curricula, it is important that the Christian value base that society is built on continues to be emphasized.

The changes we are making now represent a clear change of course. It is about putting knowledge back at the center, strengthening the teacher's role, and making the school more equitable. An important part of today's bill is a clearer focus on knowledge.

Madam Speaker! For a long time, the school's governing documents have been characterized by a broad, vague, and sometimes directly fuzzy view of knowledge. Much focus has been placed on the ability to analyze and reason, but without there being a clear factual basis. In practice, this has meant that students are expected to discuss and reason about things that they do not yet quite know. But if one does not know enough, the analysis becomes rather empty, superficial, and uncertain. This is noticeable in Sweden's classrooms all over the country, where students sit with demanding tasks but lack the basic building blocks to be able to carry them out. Now we are settling the matter of this view of knowledge. The focus shall now be on basic factual knowledge and on the ability to read, write, and calculate.

Another part of today's proposal that we are debating concerns the view on individualization and adaptation. For a long time, the school has been characterized by a striving for inclusion. It has been considered mean and directly undemocratic to single out certain students with special needs and give them special instruction outside the classroom. Instead, teachers have been forced to adapt to each student's individual needs and create several parallel lessons in the same classroom. The result has been fragmented teaching and that the teacher's time is insufficient.

Now we are breaking with the exaggerated inclusion concept in Swedish schools. The new guidelines instead emphasize that teaching is fundamentally a collective activity. Students learn together with the teacher as the leader. This does not mean that support and adaptations disappear. On the contrary, it remains central that students who need extra support receive it. But the changes we are making imply a clearer understanding that the core of teaching is collective and that excessive individualization diminishes the quality for everyone. In classrooms where teachers today are forced to handle large groups with very varied needs, this clearer collective structure will instead create peace of work, clarity, and better learning.

Madam Speaker! We also give the teacher responsibility for the teaching again. For several years, we have seen how the responsibility in the classroom has become blurred. The emphasis on student influence and on the role of guardians has sometimes been interpreted as that the arrangement of the teaching should be negotiated; instead of leading the teaching, the teacher is expected to balance various unreasonable demands from students and from parents. But the school cannot function that way. Now we clarify that it is the teacher who decides and who leads the teaching.

A teacher is educated to teach. It is a professional assignment that requires knowledge, experience, and responsibility. Student influence shall take place within the frameworks that the teachers set. I believe that this is particularly important for newly graduated teachers. Entering the profession with clear powers makes it easier to build respect and create structure in the classroom. For the students, it means clearer teaching where frameworks and expectations are clear and distinct.

The new formulations in the curriculum also entail changes in the area of digital tools. In recent years, digitalization in schools has rushed forward. Computers and tablets have been thrown into the classroom, often already at the youngest ages. It has happened quickly, and it has happened more out of a desire to be modern than out of what works best for the students' learning.

But the school should not fall for technology trends; instead, the school must above all be an institution of knowledge. Now there will be new guidelines that emphasize a slightly more restrained view, especially in primary school. Analog methods should be the starting point, and digital tools should be used a bit more cautiously. Research and experience indicate, in fact, that basic reading and writing learning is benefited by paper and pen.

In a school where the content is unclear and the responsibility is diffuse, students' results risk becoming dependent on which resources they bring with them from home. But in a school where knowledge is at the center and the teaching is clearly led, the chance increases that all students get a real opportunity to succeed. It is such a school we want in Sweden. Therefore, today's changes are very good. I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It has happened that Mathias Bengtsson and I have been pitched against each other regarding precisely digitalization when we met in election debates. I want to ask a question that I asked the Minister for Civil Affairs last week. It concerns digital competence and AI competence.

In grade 4 in a vulnerable area, questions have been asked of the students about AI. Approximately 90 percent of the students use AI. Two-thirds of the class say that they see their AI as a friend, one-third as a close friend. Some of the students say that the first thing they do in the morning is to ask their AI: How are you?

During this parliamentary term, the government has laid a wet blanket over everything related to digital competence in schools and explicitly excluded the school system from the work on the AI strategy. Finally, some writings about schools emerged, which concern that students of junior high and high school age should gain knowledge on how AI affects the individual and society, and that teachers need competence to be able to see risks and opportunities with AI.

In the action plan that is to make this a reality, there is nothing about the school. Then I wonder who it is that is to take responsibility for ensuring that these small children get the knowledge they need to manage life as it looks here and now.

Erik Slottner could not really answer the question, but I hope that Mathias Bengtsson can do so. How do the Kristdemokraterna intend to take a strategic responsibility for the school system's work with digital competence and AI?

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Camilla Hansén for the question. The short answer is that it needs to be done in a controlled, deliberate, and scientific way. We must put an end to the trend we have had over the last 10–15 years. One has first decided which tools should be used and thrown iPads and computers into the school. One has embraced all that is digital and all learning materials that provide quick kicks and contain a screen. It has been a hysteria – all that is digital has been considered good. We must settle this. We must move away from that. We must look at what works, what is necessary to know, and what is the scientific way to learn.

To take a slightly larger perspective: We see that screens have brought about a number of negative consequences in the lives of children and young people, such as reduced concentration, reduced movement, increased mental ill-health, and reduced social contacts. It is not possible to turn a blind eye to the fact that screens have also led to a negative development. Children's screen time in their free time and at home has escalated in recent years. What I mean is that the school must be a counterforce. We must return to paper and pen in primary and lower secondary school. We should not have screens that have negative effects on children's well-being and movement in school; instead, the school needs to be analog above all else. At older ages, one absolutely needs to learn about, for example, AI and programming. But it must happen in a well-thought-out manner.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I really heard no answer from Mathias Bengtsson to my question. I wondered: How does a future government intend to take strategic responsibility so that these ten-year-olds get the knowledge they need? They need to learn that it is not a good thing to have their AI as their best friend.

Mathias Bengtsson just said that one ignores the fact that 90 percent of ten-year-olds in a class use AI, but when they get to upper secondary school they are to learn some theory on how AI works. It is truly to leave the children in the lurch as the world looks today.

Now, everything will be built on children growing up in families where there is knowledge of what AI is, where one spends time with their children, where one engages in all those things that I know the Kristdemokraterna emphasize, namely active leisure and reading – which are absolutely good things. Those children will learn how to handle the digital world as it looks today. Children who do not live under such circumstances will not learn this because the Kristdemokraterna believe that in school one should learn about the world outside when attending upper primary school or upper secondary school. Then it can be a bit about programming.

I am deeply concerned by the lack of interest in ensuring that children can be strengthened and protected by knowledge. It is, after all, a fundamental matter when one talks about education.

I ask again: How does a future government, if KD is allowed to decide on the area, intend to ensure that the teachers of the ten-year-olds in grade 4 have the knowledge they need to ensure that the children can live a safe life in the digital world?

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Camilla Hansén for the follow-up question.

Camilla Hansén has misunderstood me. It is obvious that teachers and adults in schools should talk to children about AI, source criticism, how to behave on the internet, and teach a general set of values. But it is completely misguided if one thinks that digital competence regarding AI or digital environments will come by throwing screens into the classrooms, or if one thinks that competence will come by sitting with mobile phones in the corridors during breaks.

The Green Party's policy has been a digitalization hysteria where screens and devices are to be brought into schools, and they have been a brake against all the steps backward that the government has taken where we have introduced a ban on mobile phones and strived for physical books instead of digital learning materials. That policy does not lead to children gaining more digital competence.

I mean that if one has first learned the basics, learned facts, learned to read, learned how to understand the world, then one will also more easily take in the digital environments and the possibilities of technology. I mean that it is the government's return to reading, writing, and arithmetic with analog tools that also opens the possibility to handle, for example, AI in a responsible way.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! School is a place to give all children equal opportunities for education, creativity, and cultural experiences. School shall give every child the opportunity to be themselves and grow into who they want to be. Through school, children and young people shall receive the desire and the tools to learn and develop throughout life. The Education Act and the curricula lay the foundation for what Swedish school shall be.

Our contemporary era is characterized by a number of major global megatrends that affect how our system for education needs to be organized to strengthen our society and all individuals. Among what is called global megatrends, climate change, globalization, digitalization, and technological development, and so on, are usually mentioned. Today's students are global citizens and power holders who have the ability to be part of the sustainable society-building in light of the global megatrends that will affect them throughout their entire lives. The knowledge they are to take with them into life, we lay the foundation for in school.

Initially, Madam Speaker, the Green Party agrees that an organized structure for the governance of the school system is needed, and there is an absolute need to renew the initial parts of the curriculum. We believe that there should be a simple and clear structure that is easy to oversee and understand. On the other hand, we believe that the government goes too far with the principle of simplification, and it causes the text to lose important content. This can, for example, be mentioning the grounds for discrimination and the national minorities. It also stands in contrast to the investigation's proposal to, in other parts, give extremely detailed instructions to teachers on how they should conduct the teaching.

Miljöpartiet makes some mistakes regarding sex education, student influence, sustainable development, responsible digitalization, and AI. Here we believe that the government needs to strengthen those parts in the upcoming regulatory work.

First, I want to say something about the purpose of education. The government is therefore changing the previous legal text stating that the purpose of education is "that students shall acquire and develop knowledge and values" to "to convey and anchor knowledge and values in children and students".

This may seem like words that do not make much of a difference, but they signal a view of knowledge where students move from being an active part of the learning to being passive recipients of knowledge that someone else anchors in them. It is a simplified view of knowledge, and we want to see a broader view of knowledge in the documents.

It is also important that students learn different strategies for acquiring new knowledge; one needs to lay the foundation for lifelong learning. Miljöpartiet therefore wants to see a broader purpose with the starting point for the writings in the curricula.

We have already talked a lot about sexuality, consent and relationships, and much has already been said about the government's deprioritization of sex education. Miljöpartiet believes that writings on sexuality, consent and relationships should be in the introductory parts of the curriculum, that they should remain under the heading "Principal's responsibility" and that they shall also in the future appear in a wide range of syllabi with clear progression.

Sex education shall be curriculum-based, cross-curricular and recurring in accordance with recommendations from international bodies such as Unesco and WHO.

We really are not alone here, and we want the government to lay the foundation for a sex education in the regulatory work that follows the recommendations. Sweden is not a country that should back down on that subject area.

Madam Speaker! Student influence has also been discussed. I will content myself with underlining that the entire opposition stands united in that we shall safeguard student influence. I truly want to express my concern regarding the government's way of describing and valuing students' influence. We can see the choices the government parties make when they communicate about the students and their influence. Already, the description risks reducing students' influence and making the students feel that their opinions no longer have as high a value. I also hear how members in the debate describe student influence as a problem, when we know that it is important for, for example, a good school culture, study environment, and a good school with good relations between teachers and students.

It is the students who have the best knowledge of what their everyday lives look like. It is important that their statutory influence in education is implemented, for example, that the school supports students' organizing and works in a structured manner with student safety representatives and safety rounds.

Students have a statutory right to influence their education, and this needs to be clearly stated in the Education Act and curricula.

I also want to highlight some areas that are not highlighted in particularly many other contexts. This includes, among other things, learning for sustainable development. These curricula exist in a context that affects the content. We are in the middle of a climate and nature crisis that has an enormous impact on society's development and which future generations will need to manage, due to our generations' failure to reduce emissions.

Miljöpartiet wants the importance of learning for sustainable development to be more clearly evident in the school system's mission. This can be shown in the initial parts, under the heading The school provides social connection and under The school's goals. It needs to be supplemented so that it is clear that every student needs a readiness to act in a way that strengthens sustainable development from ecological, economic and social aspects, both for themselves and together with others.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to say something about responsible digitalization and AI within the education system. Like several referral bodies, we in Miljöpartiet are critical of the government's lack of work regarding strengthening Swedish students' digital competence. The government has no actual strategy for how digitalization and AI should be handled in the school system. This causes Sweden to fall behind other countries.

Social changes are moving very fast and inevitably affect all sectors of society. We need to have the ability to act both quickly and thoughtfully. It is of the utmost importance that digitalization is based on research and proven experience. Decisions regarding pedagogical work shall be made by the teachers, who are closest to the students. Therefore, investments in teachers' competence development were needed.

At the same time as digitalization and AI lay a new grid over society and education, we must not lose the foundation of pedagogical activity. That is the core of the school. In the multidisciplinary knowledge that already exists regarding children's development and learning, we also take on the future's knowledge development based on the changes that are now occurring.

Many referral bodies have criticized how the Curriculum Investigation handles digital competence. What Miljöpartiet and some of them want to see is that this area is elevated, for example in the section on the school's role in social connection, with concrete wording regarding the knowledge students need to have to manage the digital world we live in now and how they gain knowledge for further studies and working life. For that governance to be complete, the government needs to decide on a strategy for the school system's digitalization and AI use in school.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1, regarding knowledge perspective, and reservation 11, regarding both raising digital competence and learning for sustainable development in future curricula.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 19.)

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