General school issues

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! We now have various different school issues to debate that are within our remit in the Education Committee. Let me focus on some of these. We begin with that which concerns an equal and equitable school. This is among the absolute most important things for the Swedish school. It is about all students getting the same opportunities to learn and receiving support based on their circumstances, and it has to do with all students having a right to knowledge. This presupposes that there are high expectations, that there are qualified and skilled teachers, and that there is peace and quiet in classrooms and corridors. It is about teacher-led instruction with textbooks. For all of this, a strong leadership of high quality is required in the Swedish school.

But equality should not be confused with equal resources. Some students need more support and greater challenges than others. The school has always been, and will always be, compensatory in order to guarantee equal conditions and opportunities. It is also important that we in the school debate do not see the question of equality as something in itself. Rather, we must define and focus on how we achieve equality. Equality is therefore both a goal and a means, but it is through having a knowledge focus that we can reach the goal.

Just over 30 years ago, the Social Democrats pushed through a municipalization of the Swedish school system. The consequence of this has been worsened knowledge results, that the status of the teaching profession has been weakened, and that many municipalities do not manage their responsibility for the school. The Social Democratic municipalization has become a death blow to equality in the Swedish school. And it will take a long time to reverse the development for the Swedish school, but it is a necessary task. Step by step, the state must increase its responsibility for the school, in order to pave the way for a future state ownership. It is impossible to fulfill the school's mission for equality without increased state governance.

Overall school issues

It is logical that it is so because the municipalization meant that decisions and powers were decentralized and distributed among hundreds of different principals and administrations. Decentralization, it should be added, can often be good even in publicly funded activities, but in an activity as important as the school, both for the individual student and for Sweden as a nation, the priorities or economic problems of individual municipalities cannot have a negative impact in the way it does today. We are not talking about snow removal – even though that too can lead to upset feelings. The municipalization has hit hard those municipalities that have the greatest challenges in the school, and today we see large differences in school funding between municipalities and also regarding assessments of, for example, additional amounts for extra support.

The government is now taking major steps to increase equity in Swedish schools with the Tidö Agreement and several investigations we have initiated, not least by introducing a school funding norm regarding major investments in order and discipline in the classrooms, investments in more special education teachers, and much more.

Madam Speaker! Another area addressed in the report is the independent schools. Even the friskola reform has, just like the municipalization, existed for over 30 years. The friskolor are important in the Swedish school system. They guarantee that there is a freedom of choice, which is necessary and good for promoting active choices and for students to find a school where they thrive. The freedom of choice is for the students and the students' needs, in the same way as the freedom of choice within, for example, elderly care exists for the elderly.

From the Liberals' side, Madam Speaker, we are clear that we stand behind the right to choose school. We safeguard the independent schools, in the same way that we safeguard, for example, folk high schools, private vocational training, and other types of education that are not run by the public sector. We simply want a system that works with different alternatives with the students in focus.

But we also see several problems with the free school system that actually must be addressed. This government will therefore carry out the largest deregulation of the free school reform since it was introduced in 1992. It concerns changes aimed at raising quality, guaranteeing long-term owners, strengthening inspections, tackling grade inflation, and a good deal of other things.

I would really wish that this had been done earlier, but unfortunately, very little has happened in the last eight years. What has been implemented has been implemented late. One example is the tightened ownership and management review. The bourgeois government appointed an inquiry into this in 2012. It was completed a few years later. After that, the Social Democrats did nothing for several years because they instead prioritized the so-called Reepalu inquiry, which they did not even have support for in the Riksdag. The tightened ownership and management review was not introduced until 2019; seven years after the inquiry had begun.

When it comes to other parts of the independent school system, for example regulating queues to schools or the distribution of resources, the Social Democrats failed to do anything at all over eight years. The fact is that Stefan Löfven's and Magdalena Andersson's governments never attempted to gain support in the Riksdag for these changes. The reason is that they want to use the independent school issue as a whipping boy in election campaigns instead of actually reforming the system. For the Socialdemokraterna, it has been more important to fight with words and rhetoric in the debate than to actually rectify deficiencies in the independent school system. But this has now been seen through by the voters.

Year after year, people sort papers and push things around at the Ministry of Education. It is no coincidence that the last eight years have been the best years for the free school corporations. Our government will now implement necessary and important reforms in the free school area, such as those that should have been made much earlier. We do this because we see the need for changes, not least because it has been 30 years since the free school reform was introduced, and in such a long time, much can happen. We will implement these reforms so that freedom of choice functions better, so that it leads to higher quality and knowledge results, and so that it will become more difficult for unserious and short-sighted owners and companies to run free schools.

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

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! It is amusing when other parties devote such great attention to one's own party and place it at the center of Swedish political debate, just as Fredrik Malm does with the Social Democrats.

Unfortunately, it was the case that we had to rely on support from the Liberals when we governed in recent years. We all know what that led to, namely that we were not allowed to continue and regulate independent schools. Therefore, it becomes a bit absurd when Fredrik Malm takes it up in the rostrum in this way.

But my question is about something completely different, namely about what Fredrik Malm began with: the equality in Swedish schools.

There is still a history where the Liberals and the Social Democrats have stood up for equality in Swedish schools and for all children in Sweden to get the same chance in life. That is what I have appreciated the Liberals for. Once upon a time, I even wondered if I should choose the Liberals as my party because of this interest in all children having the same chance.

That is why I want to seriously ask Fredrik Malm and the Liberals how it is that the Liberals and Fredrik Malm defend the selection basis for school that leads to the greatest problems with equality and to the greatest inequality. Why is it so important to defend school time as a selection instrument? Why is it so important that children of privileged parents should be able to go before children of non-privileged parents?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! We have a system today where the school placement system is largely unregulated. This means that for some schools that are very popular, parents can place children in the queue as early as at birth, or already in February or March of the year after the child is born.

It is clear that it has an exclusionary effect. It means that a family moving to a new municipality when the children are three or four years old might not have a chance to get the children into certain schools. And people who come to Sweden and feel that the municipal school in the disadvantaged area where they have ended up and live in fourth hand is not so good and instead want to be able to place the children in another school, they are also excluded from this.

On the other hand, there is an interest in parents and students being able to make active choices. In that case, it may be that one is considering a school; one looks around and sees what different schools there are and wants to be able to express interest in a school. We should not disdain that either. In that case, it is reasonable that we reach a balance, and a reasonable balance is to make the rules for the queue formation quite significantly more restrictive. A few years or perhaps one year before the start of school, one can begin to queue.

It is just that, Madam Speaker, there is a majority for this in the Riksdag. The Social Democrats only had to pick up the telephone and call the Center Party and the Liberals or the Moderates. They did not have to call the Sweden Democrats if they did not want to. They could have called other parties and put together a majority for this. But the Social Democrats chose not to do that. Instead, a proposal was submitted which means that one should completely abolish all queues and forbid them, and that proposal fell in the Riksdag. Therefore, we have a completely unregulated system today. It is your fault, Åsa Westlund.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Fredrik Malm continues to speak about the Socialdemokraterna, but I actually asked why it is so important for Fredrik Malm and the Liberalerna to defend that privileged parents' children should come before non-privileged parents' children.

Fredrik Malm said in his response to me that this is a reasonable balance. A reasonable balance between what? Should all children have the same chance, or should it be that children of privileged parents get to go first in line to state-funded schools, municipally funded schools?

My question remains. Why is it so important for Fredrik Malm to stand up for the principle that children of privileged parents should have a chance to go before children of non-privileged parents?

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! There is a concern with Åsa Westlund's reasoning, and that is that it is not true. I was very clear that the system of being able to queue for a school should be made significantly more restrictive.

Now, the situation is that this question was raised in the Riksdag almost exactly one year ago. At that time, the conditions in this chamber were such, Madam Speaker, that three parties - Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet - said that no one should have the right to lodge an interest claim to a school; it should be removed. It was only that there was no majority for this.

Then there were five parties in this chamber that, to varying degrees, wanted to tighten the system. The Center Party, if I remember correctly, had a model that I think is quite reasonable: that one could enroll approximately half of the places in a queue and place children in the queue from the age of three. My party has a view that I also think is reasonable and can be investigated. It is more restrictive than the Center Party's and means that one could place children in the queue one year before school starts. The Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, and the Christian Democrats had all, in different statements, signaled that they wanted to make this system more restrictive.

So, Madam Speaker, there are eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag that want to tighten this system - and the Social Democrats are failing to reach a compromise. This led to the Social Democrats submitting the only proposal that lacks a majority in the Riksdag, and it fell. That means we are now left with a completely unregulated system, which is exactly what Åsa Westlund wants to get rid of.

It almost defies my understanding how a Social Democratic government can have 349 members who want to go in the same direction and fail to get this through in the chamber. Åsa Westlund is welcome to answer how one has ended up there.

(Applause)

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: That answer may wait, for this was a closing remark.)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I can begin by agreeing with Member Fredrik Malm's criticism of the Social Democratic government, which before the election actually had the opportunity to make changes but chose not to because it was a good election issue to have - just as the Liberals, the Moderates and several others let themselves be prevented from reaching an agreement on energy issues to have a pleasant election issue. One can say that you succeeded better in winning the election on those issues.

I hope that we can have a serious discussion and take some responsibility for the long-term development in Swedish schools. I want to start by saying that we also have a shared responsibility for the fact that not many reforms have been made. That was the thing with S at the end, absolutely, but during the JA period before, it was not the case that either Centerpartiet, Liberalerna, or other conservative or semi-conservative parties were very positive towards change. We must also take that on ourselves. We have stopped the reforms that have been proposed. But there was a window, and the Social Democrats chose not to see it. It is very unfortunate.

Now you say that you are going to do a school reform, the biggest reform, and that is great. But we don't know what it is. We have commissioned investigations, says Fredrik Malm. No, you haven't. You have said that in the future you will commission an investigation that will take all the things that are huge problems and come up with a school reform. But you have been at it for half a year, and there isn't even an investigation directive for the investigation that is already underway, appointed by the Social Democrats and that government. You should just add a supplementary directive, but not even that have you managed to do in half a year. It is not impressive if you want a reform that actually makes a difference in this area.

What will the Liberals do with gender? What will you do with the funding? What will you do with the supervision etcetera? How are we going to achieve an electoral system that actually works?

It is not the case that the three parties in the government and the support party are in agreement on these issues at the current time. We still do not know what you want. You talk about wanting to make major reforms, but what do you actually want to do?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! We have hardly moved from that large field in Sälen on the way to Mora during this parliamentary term. We haven't even reached Mångsbodarna during this parliamentary term.

It takes a little time sometimes in politics when one is to process investigation directives and such things. All parties and everyone who has sat in government know that it is so.

I am not particularly concerned about that, I want to say, Madam Speaker. I think the most important thing is that we get robust, long-term sustainable and good legislation. If this means that it will need to be investigated a bit longer, that there will be some additional directives, that it needs to be processed a few more rounds in the Government Offices or that we need a few more preparation occasions in the Education Committee in the Riksdag, it does not concern me particularly much. It is much better that we do a proper job to achieve good and functioning legislation than that we rush this through.

Fundamentally, this is about several different parts, Madam Speaker. It is not necessarily a huge investigation that is being spoken of, or a huge bill or report, but it is different parts.

It is about, for example, partly the issue of the national school fee norm, where questions about supplementary amounts and other things are also included, partly the issue of ownership review when it concerns independent schools, and partly the issue of preventing grade inflation. When it comes to selection, it is about being able to achieve a common, mandatory school choice. In the Tidö Agreement, it is also clear that the waiting time shall be made more restrictive, for example.

This will therefore come in continuously during the parliamentary term.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I interpret this as that I do not need to be worried, but I probably am still.

It was very funny that Fredrik Malm said that you haven't even reached Mångsbodarna, haven't even left the starting line in Sälen. That is perhaps a bit of the problem, because before the election it sounded a bit like you were standing right before the finish line in Mora. It sounded like "we are in agreement; we have common T-shirts on, and it is possibly we who are running around with Viking helmets and appear on TV and answer funny questions."

But that is not the case. You haven't even waxed the skis! That is the problem. Then it goes very slowly. And that is a problem, because this is urgent.

We are currently seeing across all of Sweden how schools are being closed - in Norrköping, in Linköping, in small municipalities, everywhere - because this government chooses not to support the school particularly much. They do not take into account the development in the Swedish economy that is actually taking place. They speak of taking responsibility for education, but in all state areas they are cutting back; they are cutting back on YH etcetera. So that the state should be a guarantor for money is truly not true.

The challenge is that while one stands here and talks about going to do something, one has, as it were, after half a year not even come up with investigation directives. And we still do not know what the government actually thinks about school fees, about ownership review, about supervision or about queues. What will this land in?

This will once again be an issue that lies right before the election, with the incredibly stupid political discussion we get then, instead of us sitting down and agreeing on school fees etcetera. School fees is a question of money, so we could do that very quickly here and now. So when does the government invite to talks?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the last point. I envision that it would be very good if we could agree on a state, national school funding norm in the committee. It would be, I think, very good if even the Center Party, which has signaled a reorganization of its school policy, approached those positions.

Generally, it is very good for the development of Swedish schools if there are broader agreements and broad compromises. It guarantees that things hold over time. Otherwise, it has been the case in Sweden that one side implements something with a slim majority, and the other side is very angry. Then an election occurs, and the other side wins but does not change that much. And so it remains. But it is better if one agrees on the direction.

I would like to say, Madam Speaker, however, that the issue of school funding is also not entirely simple. Formally speaking, there is actually no legal obligation for a municipality to allocate resources in just that way, but it has become so. We have 290 municipalities in Sweden, and there are, from what I have been able to read, approximately 250 different models for calculating the school funding. It is clear that it is also not entirely simple to bring some order to such a system, which is so messy and tangled and where one calculates things and prices things in different ways.

Now I am actually answering all of Niels Paarup-Petersen's questions, Madam Speaker - note that!

When it comes to the financing of the school, I actually believe that those who look a bit more closely see that this can be the budget where the money has the largest relative share ever of the state budget. It is probably one of the by far largest investments in the school ever, as a share of the gross national product. So yes, this government is investing in the school.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! It went very quickly for this government to initiate the austerity policy during this mandate period. Billions are missing today in the Swedish school system because the government does not want to spend any money on the Swedish school.

It went incredibly fast to both express opinions and provide various directives regarding racist laws. It concerns both reporting and various racist and hostile legislations.

It was very quick to go out and defend the market's right to conduct school activities at the expense of children, teachers, and other school staff.

But, as we heard earlier, after six months we have still not heard a word from the Swedish government, with the Liberals at the forefront when it comes to school issues, regarding specifically the market school and its various components. We are talking about the queue system, the principle of public access, and school funding, and so far there are no announcements.

I wonder: In what way do Fredrik Malm and the Liberals mean that equality is created in the Swedish school system through segregating school choice? In what way is equality created through a school voucher system that directs the money in the wrong direction? In what way is the Swedish school and equality benefited by a system where the market gets to decide over the Swedish school? And why do Fredrik Malm and the Liberals defend this day in and day out in the Swedish Riksdag?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I note that Daniel Riazat in this debate is still in a May Day position, so to speak. But if one listens to my speech and looks, for example, at what we have written in the Tidö Agreement and how I and other representatives for the Liberals and also other parties argue, one realizes that this is not correct.

Daniel Riazat speaks about that we want to safeguard a segregating school choice - that is not what we want at all. The Liberals' position is that one should shorten the queues to one year before school starts. It is a very restrictive system, even compared to other countries.

Daniel Riazat speaks about us making cuts to the school – no, we are not doing that. What makes practically all activities in Sweden today very tough is the inflation, which is a consequence of Vladimir Putin's genocide campaign against the Ukrainian nation, state, culture, identity, economy and infrastructure as well as the Ukrainian population. It is this that has created very tough situations in all activities.

What every responsible government has to manage in this is the balance between combating inflation and simultaneously providing relief for households. I note that all parties in this chamber manage this quite decently except for two, namely Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, who want to fuel public spending to an extraordinary extent, which would drive up inflation, erode purchasing power even further, and make it even harder for schools, preschools, elderly care homes, and so on.

I find it very difficult to see that 9,000, or if it was first 5,000 and then 7,000 - I have even lost count, because there are so many - places for regional vocational adult education is a cut. Thousands of places for regional vocational adult education is surely not a cut? I find it difficult to see it that way, at least.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! As far as I know, it is not Vladimir Putin who is the school minister in Sweden, but it is actually Tellusgruppen - sorry, I mean Lotta Edholm. Therefore, it is precisely to the Liberals and the government that questions should be posed when it comes to Swedish school policy. It is not the murderer Vladimir Putin who is to present proposals on school systems in Sweden, but it is the Liberals. It is the Liberals who must show the Swedish population if one has lied outright when speaking about tightening the legislation regarding the market school.

Here stands Fredrik Malm. I do not believe that anyone in this chamber - not even the Sweden Democrats who sit and nod at Fredrik Malm after every speech - will even remember what Fredrik Malm has answered in the exchange of remarks today. It is only empty words that have come out of Fredrik Malm's mouth. That is how it has been from the Liberals for six months now.

First, a minister was appointed, and no one knows what connections she still has to the Swedish market school. Then, one suddenly goes out and says that one wants to limit the market school, but no proposals are put forward. Today, one stands in the speaker's chair and talks about May 1st, the Social Democrats and the left. Everything is everyone's fault, except for the Liberals'.

But that is not quite how it works. The teachers, the schoolchildren, and the parents in this country are not stupid; they understand that the Liberals have a different interest. One puts the market interest before the student interest. That will also show, as it has for the Liberals today.

The Liberals are now struggling just below the threshold to enter the Riksdag at the next election. This is partly due to the great betrayal of enormous cuts and the defense of the market school. For this, Fredrik Malm and the other Liberals are responsible.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! It is a bit difficult to follow Daniel Riazat's reasoning. On one hand, he talks about all the terrible things that will happen with the Liberals' school policy. On the other hand, he appears very concerned that we have not been able to pass all of this in the Riksdag. There is something here that doesn't quite add up.

The truth is that if you want to know what the government is going to do in the school area, you just have to Google the Tidö Agreement and read it. It states very concretely in the Tidö Agreement what we have agreed upon in the three government parties and with the Sverigedemokraterna. It states clearly about a common school choice and that it shall become significantly more restrictive when it comes to putting children in queues, in contrast to what Daniel Riazat says from the rostrum here. It states clearly that a national school voucher norm shall be introduced, so that those municipalities that set a very low school voucher will need to invest more in their school.

It is also clear regarding special education teachers, teaching time, and that we will revise the curricula. Furthermore – which I believe Daniel Riazat is even more enthusiastic about than I am – regulations of the independent school sector will be implemented. It will, however, not be as Daniel Riazat wants it to be fully, Madam Speaker.

Daniel Riazat's goal is to break the back of the private alternatives. It has actually been his party's motto ever since the party was formed in 1917. It began with that the entire economy should be nationalized. Now one is slightly more modest, but one still wants that students and parents should not have the opportunity to choose independent schools. That is the goal for the Left Party's school policy. I do not have that goal.

But it cannot be High Chaparral and the Wild West in the independent school sector. Clear regulations are therefore needed. We will return to the Riksdag with that.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have a reflection. How happy the teachers and students in Sweden's schools must be that the school budget's share of GDP is now the largest, relatively speaking! Yet, there are still more students in each class, and the dismissal of teacher colleagues who cannot remain is being planned.

School equality is about having skilled teachers who have time for the students. It is about having people on site who meet the students. Just as Fredrik Malm says, equality is both a goal and a means. In order to be able to focus on knowledge, skilled teachers with time for the students are needed.

I am also not thinking so much about whether it was the Social Democrats' municipalization or the free school reform 30 years ago that opened up for profit to be able to become a driving force instead of, precisely, the knowledge, which we think is so important.

When it comes to equality, I still return to the fact that it is about money. It feels good, because Miljöpartiet is the party that spends the most money on education. With our budget, the share of GDP would therefore have become even larger.

I have a question that relates to this with snow removal. When it snows, one clears the snow regardless of how much money is left in the treasury. When children need support, they should receive it.

We trust the municipalities and the regions. We have an imported economic problem that is not the fault of the municipalities and the regions. Therefore, we ensure that they receive the financial support they need. But I wonder why the government does not want to share that burden with municipalities and regions.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Camilla Hansén says that she does not care whether it is the Social Democrats' or the Liberals' fault that there are profit incentives in schools. It was, in fact, to a large extent the Green Party's fault that the school voucher was equated to municipal and independent schools at the same time as the municipal school has a partially different and broader responsibility than an independent school has. One has the responsibility for compulsory education.

One can go back to the 1990s, when the friskola reform was introduced. There was an enormous pressure in Skolsverige to achieve a change. It was considered that the public school was rigid. Teachers and principals wanted greater influence over their working situation. Parents were disappointed with the school where their children attended and saw no alternatives.

There were alternative pedagogies - for example Waldorf, Montessori and others - and there were a number of schools that had some kind of state sanction to be independent schools, but they were very few. And then there were some private schools that were very expensive to attend.

Then the system was opened up and there was a large expansion of independent schools. At that time, the reform was young and new. Many flowers were blooming, and many took initiative and started life's work that they perhaps still run today. But today we have a different situation. Now the reform has existed for 30 years, and we see a completely different market structure regarding the independent school sector than what existed in 1995, 1996, or 1997. We will need to carry out reforms moving forward.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! What a cliffhanger! One wants to know which reforms Fredrik Malm was going to describe.

A difference between Fredrik Malm and me as members of Parliament is that Fredrik Malm has been a member for four terms while I myself have not even been a member for four years. That means I do not remember how it happened when the school fee was raised to equal. Were the Liberals, then, for it to be a difference? It becomes a history lesson that Fredrik Malm can give me. Or were the Liberals for it to be the same school fee? But that can be a very short answer, because it is a yes or no question.

What I wondered was why the government does not want to share the economic burden that inflation, caused by war and the pandemic, has created for municipalities and regions. They requested 20 billion for this year. Miljöpartiet is the only party that was willing to spend this sum - on teachers in classrooms or nursing assistants in healthcare and nursing homes. But what we hear is that our large investments would instead drive up inflation, so that it would become even worse for the regions.

I want to know why the government does not want to share the financial responsibility with the municipalities for that which is not caused by the municipalities. I believe, however, that this would be important for the schools' equality.

I also wonder about something when it comes to the profit withdrawal. We know that 70 percent of parents with children in school do not want that profit should be able to be taken out from tax money. This is high among voters regarding all parties. I wonder what it is that makes the Liberals not clearly say: No, but we will address this regarding profit distribution. We see that the opinion is very clear in the Swedish population.

There are two questions that I hope to receive answers to, Madam Speaker.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I will start with the last one; it is the easiest to remember. I am forgetting the second one, but I will remember it in a little while.

When it comes to the issue of profit, we liberals have been very clear that we want to limit the profit extraction, especially during the first years, in order to deal with any short-term owners in the independent school sector. The question that Camilla Hansén will have to ask herself, Madam Speaker, is how it is that her party sat in government during the majority of the last two parliamentary terms and did nothing about this. We will now implement these changes, which should have been made much earlier.

Madam Speaker! It would be a bit misleading to say: The Government does not want to share the burden. Every government, in all years, shares the burden with the municipalities through various types of state grants. And the municipalities share the burden with each other through a municipal tax equalization system. But it is no coincidence that those who are now going to protest in Stockholm because 260 million kronor are missing from the school budget in the left-led Stockholm city will protest outside the City Hall in Stockholm. It is completely right that they do so, because it is the City Hall that is responsible for the school in Stockholm. It is, in fact, municipalized.

The targeted state grants to the school constitute approximately 8 percent of what is invested in the school in Sweden, Madam Speaker. If one adds the state grants in general, it will well reach approximately 20. It is therefore still the case that almost 80 percent of all financing of the school occurs in the municipalities.

The municipalities also have reserves. The City of Stockholm has its own assets of 60 billion. Sometimes municipalities might not really want to use reserve funds because they are worried that it could drive up interest rates and other things, or because they want to receive compensation from the state side. This responsibility is therefore shared. We really must step up from the side of the Riksdag and the government in these difficult times, but the municipalities must also take their responsibility in this.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! That schooling is good is crucial for the individual but also for our society. Many students still receive a good schooling in Sweden, but in this speech I intend to focus on the problems. Our collective school system must maintain the highest quality, and that is not the case today.

We would need to improve Swedish schools and ensure that they have the resources and competence to make every child succeed. But in the near future, schools all over the country will instead be hit by large cuts because the Sverigedemokraterna and the government are letting the children pay for the cost crisis. They think it is more important to lower taxes for those who earn the most than to avoid savings on the school.

We Social Democrats have shown that it is possible to make other priorities. With the proposals that we have placed on the Riksdag's table, Sweden's municipalities and regions would have received the resources that SKR (Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner) stated were needed to avoid cuts in school, healthcare, and elderly care - without driving up inflation - because we simply prioritize children's schooling and Sweden's future over tax cuts for those who earn the most.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, the pursuit of profit has completely ruined Swedish schools. School funds should go to the school. Tax money should be used with great respect for the taxpayers who have worked to earn them. Unfortunately, that is not the case at all today.

Today, money that could have been used for more teacher-led instruction is instead used to pay for empty seats, marketing of independent schools, and the expansion of school groups. This is made possible by the school funding overcompensating independent schools for costs and responsibilities that only municipalities have. In this way, taxpayers are forced to pay school owners for something that they do not even deliver.

The school's resources are becoming waffle huts, archipelago plots and excess profits. This must come to an end.

Madam Speaker! In order to make money, the friskolor also sort out the most profitable students. As a bonus, society gets segregation and exclusion. One way to attract more students is to engage in grade cheating. High grades become a lure for students and parents who want to get a ticket of entry to sought-after educations. This means that students who receive honest grades from serious teachers and schools are competed out and lose their place to less meritorious students. Sweden has become a country where cheating pays off, a country where the government sticks to a school system that ensures privileges are inherited. It is completely unacceptable. The school should increase equality, not contribute to increased gaps and injustices.

Madam Speaker! Swedish schools are no longer governed by what is best for the students, but by the school owners' pursuit of profit. And the government and the Sweden Democrats intend to ensure that it remains so. Already the day after the election, the share price of the school group Academedia surged on the stock exchange. And when the Tidö Agreement was presented, the group launched its new dividend policy. 30 percent of the profit made on school and education shall be distributed to the owners. The Minister for Education was recruited directly from a school group. These companies know that the Sweden Democrats and the government will always defend their opportunities for profit extraction. That is the way it is.

It doesn't matter how they mismanage themselves and how absurd the system becomes. It is always teachers and students who have to adapt so that the system with profit-seeking in schools can be preserved.

Everything must ultimately be regulated and controlled to prevent the pursuit of profit from leading to poorer quality in teaching.

We are approaching a point where the policy to address the problems driven by the market school must regulate more and more things that should be self-evident in Swedish schools. It is a point where the teacher is no longer a teacher but a person who ticks off checklists in various documents so that the Skolinspektionen can be able to check the documents. It is a point where the policy, instead of standing up for teachers' competence, occupies itself with running after and plugging all the deficiencies that arise when the pursuit of profit continues.

Unfortunately, it takes time to close the shortcuts that the owners of the friskolor use to make money. And unfortunately, the school owners are constantly discovering new ways to cut back on quality in order to turn a profit.

Furthermore, it is not obvious that the deficiencies or problems will even come to the public's or politics' knowledge. Teachers testify to a widespread culture of silence in the country's schools, and Sveriges lärare points out precisely the market school as the cause. Additionally, there is the extra little problem that the independent schools (friskolor) are not covered by the principle of public access. This makes it more difficult for the media to scrutinize the independent schools. And it means that employees are not covered by the same protection against disclosure as public employees have, despite the fact that they are funded by the public in the same way, are regulated by public rules, and furthermore engage in the exercise of authority.

But, as I said, no problems can make the government or the Sweden Democrats question whether it really is good to have profit-driven actors in the school.

We received a new example last week when the Total Defence Research Institute stated that the market school system makes Sweden more vulnerable to security policy threats from foreign powers. Not even that made the government or the Sverigedemokraterna even consider abolishing the market school. Instead, they are going to rush out with new detailed regulations to preserve the possibility for the friends in the school corporations to make money at the expense of students, teachers, and taxpayers.

Madam Speaker! This report addresses many of the problems that exist with the market school. The pursuit of profit is a completely fundamental problem in Swedish school, but there are, of course, more problems in Swedish school.

Equality must increase. That is why we Social Democrats began the expansion of the equality grant. The government and the Sweden Democrats are now stopping the expansion of it. We believe that, on the contrary, it needs to continue to be expanded in order to eventually also include upper secondary school.

Gymnasieskolan needs to become compulsory up to the age of 18. Unfortunately, that is what is required today to secure a position on today's labor market. It does not mean that all students should follow the same program, but all students need to follow some national program.

Boys' school results are generally lower than girls'. Increased knowledge is needed on why it looks that way and in what ways boys' results can be raised. The principle of public access must cover all school activities, and the state's responsibility for the quality of teaching across the entire country must be strengthened.

A common, publicly administered school choice is needed where both municipal and independent schools are included and where schools are not allowed to have their own queues. In such a school choice, the parents' wishes should of course be guiding, but the right to attend a school near home and sibling priority must be secured.

Religious free schools must be banned. It is important to prevent indoctrination and because of the links that Säpo has shown have existed between school activities and the violent Islamist environment, but it is also important for social cohesion. At the same time, we are aware that we must also take into account the national minorities' right to continue to live and protect their culture.

Madam Speaker! I shall conclude by saying that we Social Democrats, of course, stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservations 26 and 31.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! There was no end to all the horrors that were rambled out in the first half of Åsa Westlund's speech. Children's money goes to archipelago plots, it is profit-seeking, the system is absurd, it is lower quality, it is grade cheating, there is a culture of silence in Swedish schools, there is a lack of whistleblower protection, the schools are exposed to attacks from foreign powers, and so on. In the next paragraph, it is said that this government has done nothing.

It is said that we have done nothing about it, but then whose responsibility is it that it looks like this? This government has been in power for half a year, Madam Speaker. Åsa Westlund's party sat in the government before that for eight years straight! Everything that Åsa Westlund enumerates is the consequence of the Social Democrats' school policy over the last eight years. It is unreasonable to blame the parties that have sat in opposition and spent the last eight years, of which my party spent six and a half, writing reservations! It is not their responsibility that it looks like this.

The Social Democrats have ruled. You have had the entire Ministry of Education, and you have been able to seek majorities in the chamber. It has even been simplified by the fact that you have face ID. You just have to hold up the phone and it opens. Then you just have to call the Center Party, the Liberals, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats or, God forbid, the Sweden Democrats if you are forced to do so.

Someone calls and says: Now we have some concerns here. We are exposed to foreign powers, the children's money is going to archipelago plots, it is profit-seeking, the system is absurd, it is lower quality, it is grade fraud, there is a culture of silence and there is a lack of whistleblower protection. Can we do anything about this?

But the Social Democrats have not done it, Madam Speaker. You have sat and twiddled your thumbs for eight years so that the new government with the Liberals, the Moderates and the Christian Democrats together with the Sweden Democrats will be able to fix everything.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Fredrik Malm has, therefore, sat in this chamber for four parliamentary terms. Fredrik Malm has sat here and voted no to Social Democratic proposals to ban profit in, among other things, schools. He has sat with the party that the Social Democrats had a cooperation with and prohibited the Social Democrats from doing anything about these problems in schools.

Now he thinks it is the Social Democrats' problem that his party has had its policies passed here in the chamber. I'm sorry, but that is completely dishonest, Fredrik Malm! Or as Fredrik Malm said when he stood here: It is completely wrong!

I received no response to my reply to Fredrik Malm's speech earlier, so I will take the opportunity again. Once upon a time, the Liberals stood firm on the principle that all children in Sweden should have the same chance. Today, the Liberals staunchly defend the principle that privileged parents should be able to put their children ahead in the queue. You want to protect waiting time as a selection instrument – the instrument that results in we have a segregated school and that ensures not all children get the same chance in Sweden.

Why, Fredrik Malm, do you defend this right for the most privileged in society? Why do you not stand up for children's equal chances in life?

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Åsa Westlund says that the Liberals forbade the Social Democrats from doing anything about the problems. I must say that is a Social Democrat with very low self-confidence. We have never had any capacity whatsoever to forbid the Social Democrats from anything.

We have, however, negotiated with the Social Democrats on two budgets. We did that, and it was not about forbidding the Social Democrats from doing anything about these problems. The only thing we forbade then was actually mobile phones in the classrooms during lessons, that is to say, teachers and principals were given the right to forbid mobile phones in the classrooms during lessons. It is a ban that I fundamentally think is quite good.

Back to the core issue, Madam Speaker: To describe the Swedish school system in the way the Social Democrats do, while one has oneself been responsible for exactly this for eight consecutive years, is still a bit bold. It is somewhat like if a person spends eight years building a shelf and then puts it on the wall. Then the next person comes and places a flower pot there and says: Look how nice this has turned out!

This is an inverted version of this. You blame the one who places the flower pot there because you haven't made the shelf, so to speak.

There is something that is not right here, Madam Speaker. One cannot govern Sweden for eight years and then shift the blame for all the problems that exist.

When it comes to the queues, I explained this in the exchange of remarks with Åsa Westlund, but I can repeat it: 349 members in the chamber wanted to make the system more restrictive regarding the queue to school. Still, the Social Democrats failed to assemble a majority. It somewhat defies my understanding how one fails to assemble a majority when one has all the members on one's side from the beginning.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that Fredrik Malm and the Liberals have now had four opportunities to answer the question of why the Liberals defend a system that allows waiting times to be used as a selection instrument, something that filters out students to privileged parents and gives them a greater chance than other children. Why do the Liberals defend a system that does not give all children the same chance?

The Liberals and Fredrik Malm have had four opportunities. I have received no answer to the question. Instead, I have received long tracts about what the Social Democrats have done wrong. It would be fitting if Fredrik Malm admitted that he himself voted no to the proposals that the Social Democrats put forward regarding profit bans, something that would have changed all of this in the area of market schools. It was Fredrik Malm who defeated that proposal, not the Social Democrats. It would be fitting with a little responsibility even for a small party with government power.

Then I just want to note the absence of the big question in today's debate, namely the Liberals' biggest election promise. By the end of this mandate period, the school was to be nationalized. We don't hear much about that now. We can note that the Christian Democrats got a nationalization of healthcare through in the Tidö Agreement. The Liberals did not get as far.

I pose the rhetorical question: Was it the case that the negotiations followed the now famous Johan Pehrson doctrine, that is, one says one thing before the election, then the election happens, and then one does something else?

(Applause)

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! We have to debate the report Overall school issues. Just as the title indicates, the report concerns a number of different issues linked to Swedish schools. I would like to focus on what is actually the foundation of everything in a report like this, namely knowledge, and more specifically on how Swedish school results can be improved.

The Moderates cannot accept – and the government will not accept – that 18,000 students graduate from ninth grade without being eligible for upper secondary school. In primary and secondary school, we are to lay the foundation so that every child can achieve their full potential. We shall give every child the prerequisites to choose their own path in life and in working life. Then 15 percent of the students cannot be given such deficient education that they do not become eligible. When the 15-year-olds stand with their final grades in hand, they should be able to imagine the possibilities – not a life of difficulties.

In order for us to be able to ensure that all children receive the education that they not only deserve but also have a right to by law, several reforms need to be implemented in Swedish schools.

Madam Speaker! It starts already in preschool. I often speak quite a bit about preschool, which is because it is so incredibly important. Nearly 20,000 children between the ages of three and five do not attend Swedish preschool today. Some of them are in pedagogical care, but they are not particularly many.

At the same time, research shows that a high-quality preschool activity can level out differences in children's prerequisites and furthermore improve children's prerequisites to complete further education. The children who come from the toughest conditions are thus the children who need preschool the most and who at the same time are furthest away from it. With the new mandate that the municipalities have received to reserve places for newly arrived children and to conduct targeted information campaigns, we hope that more children who need it will be able to attend preschool.

In preschool, there must also be a greater focus on Swedish. All educators must be able to speak Swedish. All children shall also learn Swedish, partly through special language preschools but primarily through regular activities. This must permeate the entire Swedish preschool system.

Primary school teachers shall be covered by a career step reform. The hope is that this shall lead to increased attractiveness.

Swedish preschools shall also be covered by a common inspection system. This system shall be held by Skolinspektionen. A fair and equal system must cover both municipal and independent operations.

Madam Speaker! A new order needs to be established in Swedish primary school that guarantees support from the first moment instead of in the last. When we in the committee visited Helsinki during the previous parliamentary term, we were told how they worked with special education teachers at a very early age and how they acted immediately after a student had been absent or missed instruction. If a student had fallen behind, the principal decided on immediate interventions to ensure that the student would catch up immediately.

We need to have a more flexible system both regarding the principal's possibilities to design special teaching groups and regarding decisions on extended study time. If a student needs homework help, holiday school, or extra teaching of another kind, this should not only be possible but mandatory. With a greater focus on knowledge, we shall have more hours for mathematics and Swedish. All children shall be taught to read, write, and count.

If teachers are to manage this new order, however, relief is needed in the form of mentors, special education teachers, reinforced student health services, security personnel, digitized tests, and external marking. So, a relief could be achieved. With a focus on knowledge between teachers and students, with legislation that ensures early support, and with solid quality control, we will likely be able to address the lack of knowledge and the lack of focus on knowledge that exists in Swedish schools today.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! The Education Act states that all children and students shall be given the guidance and stimulation they need in their learning and personal development so that, based on their own circumstances, they can develop as far as possible according to the goals of the education. This is the school's task. It is also the task of the school principals, but nevertheless, they are extracting profit from Swedish schools. Money that could have gone to an extra special teaching group, so that a few more could reach the knowledge requirements for passing grades and be able to develop a bit more, goes to waffle stands, hunting lodges, and stock speculation.

My question to Noria Manouchi and the Moderaterna is, of course: How have these principals lived up to the requirements of the Education Act that all students should be given the conditions to reach as far as possible? Was there really not a single student in these schools who could have developed a bit more if the money had gone to an extra special education teacher instead of to profit?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! Every debate one has with the Social Democrats about profits in the welfare sector, and specifically about the school, starts almost in a slightly absurd way. The Social Democrats have sat in government and governed Swedish schools for the last eight years but have still not done anything about the system that they hate so deeply. How is that actually the case?

They are asking questions to us, who are newly elected, who have a newly won government position, who promise - and who have run for election on - to implement changes and who have produced an agreement to implement changes. They attack us, but what have they themselves done?

In eight years, nothing has been done. In eight years, the Social Democrats have, according to their own rhetoric, betrayed every youth who has passed through the Swedish school system. In eight years, the Social Democrats have refused to reach an agreement in this chamber to implement their own proposals. In eight years, the Social Democrats have enabled profit extraction. The Social Democrats have guaranteed profit extraction. The Social Democrats have, while standing out on streets and squares and promising a slaughter of free schools, in this chamber and in a government position, ensured that the profits have been able to be taken out.

When the voters ask themselves who it actually is that has betrayed them, the answer is the Social Democrats. When the voters, after the four years that this mandate period constitutes, ask themselves who it was that reformed and renovated the Swedish independent school system, the answer will be the Moderates, the government, and the Tidö base.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe it may be difficult for the public to understand that one can hold government power without having support in the Swedish Riksdag, but that is actually how it has been for a large part of the time that the Social Democrats have held a part of the government power.

The Social Democrats have submitted proposals. Noria Manouchi's party has rejected them in this chamber, and that is something one is responsible for. We would not have had to have the school we have today, with profit extraction for waffle stands and hunting lodges, if Noria Manouchi's party had voted yes to the proposals submitted by the Social Democrats. But Noria Manouchi's party chose to vote no, and thus one actually bears responsibility for that students, year after year, do not receive the support and the help they need in Swedish schools.

The money that should have gone to special educators has instead been taken out for waffle huts, hunting lodges, and stock speculation. It is actually the Moderates' responsibility, because the Moderates rejected the proposal that would have put a stop to this. It has cost thousands of students lost years in school, and they cannot take that time back.

All the more important to do things here and now. There are investigated proposals. If Noria Manouchi wants to do something, ensure that the government presents these proposals now instead of appointing an investigation that leads to another four years of profit extraction from Swedish school instead of students getting the help they need.

I ask Noria Manouchi and the Moderates again: How have the principals who extract profits lived up to the requirements of the Education Act that every student should receive the support they need to be able to develop as much as possible?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! When we Moderates are in opposition, we are responsible, and when we sit in government, we are responsible. We are used to hearing it from the Social Democrats, especially in Malmö. There, the Social Democrats have ruled in 94 out of 100 years, but every time we stand up in the rostrum against them, we hear the same thing: It is the Moderates' fault. Despite 94 years of rule in Malmö and 8 years in government, it is always the Moderates' fault. Why should the Social Democrats ever be given the voters' trust to govern the country? You cannot take responsibility for anything. It is always someone else's fault.

Madam Speaker! Economic guarantees, clawback of school fees in case of crime, prevented profit distribution to new independent schools, increased transparency, a sanction ladder when independent schools do not comply, and stricter owner and management reviews are some of the proposals that the government, together with the Tidö coalition, have agreed upon. This is what we shall do during the mandate period. There is an agreement to read.

Unfortunately, we must appoint an inquiry. One of the worst things in Swedish politics is when an inquiry is placed on an inquiry. But because Åsa Westlund's government carried out such a terribly substandard inquiry that it was impossible to produce legislation based on it, we must appoint an inquiry to get to the bottom of these types of issues.

You didn't manage it during your eight years. We will do it in four.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Manouchi for reminding the Liberals that it is their municipal council that governs in Malmö and, together with the Social Democrats, cuts 200 million kronor in the school system.

It was excellent that the member raised the need for Swedish in preschool and school. It is very important to focus on that. How do the Moderaterna view this in pedagogical care? It often disappears in the debate. How do you imagine being able to guarantee that the children who grow up in Sweden have Swedish as the primary and fundamental language in the daily activities within pedagogical care, preschool, and school? Can I get the Moderaterna's promise that the status of the Swedish language shall be strengthened in preschool and school?

I have had the pleasure of debating with the member for many years, even in Malmö, and now it sounds a bit like everything to everyone. The school is supposed to do a lot, and there are a lot of promises. At the same time, no money is provided. It becomes like a mixture of Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna, and it is rarely there that I perceive Noria Manouchi stands.

If we are to achieve a change now, can we not get the chamber to unite around the necessary school reforms? The Member of Parliament was clear that it was bad that S did not deliver faster, and now the Moderates have the opportunity to ensure that the government delivers faster. We are ready to meet after this debate and get started. Are the Moderates also?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! I can promise Member Paarup-Petersen one hundred percent that I will do everything I can to strengthen the position of the Swedish language in preschool and primary school. It is absolutely crucial. This applies in particular in Malmö, which we both represent, where the need for children to learn Swedish is enormous.

I want to see, among other things, a language school for children with special needs of support to learn Swedish. Today, we see that children start first grade and are already lagging behind. This must no longer be allowed to happen.

Pedagogical activities and preschool activities need to become more equal, and therefore the requirements for pedagogical activities need to be raised. Even here, the position of the Swedish language must be strengthened, and for that, we need to start with the employees. A competence boost regarding the Swedish language needs to be put in place.

We must ensure that both through political signals and legislation, we strengthen the position of the Swedish language in the curriculum. Here we are in complete agreement.

The member seems concerned that the government will take as long as the previous government, which in that case would mean that nothing ever gets done. I can, however, guarantee the member that it will not be so. We have a mandate period on us, and it has just begun. But I can guarantee the member delivery before the next election.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! It is correct that I am concerned, because I want to get things done. That is how it is. We may have slightly different perceptions of time, because I mean that if one has been active for half a year, one hasn't just started. One can take the first hundred days to get started, form one's departments and so on - but not half a year. It is about major reforms, but you haven't even appointed inquiries. That is where we are now.

I do not demand that the finished answers be on the Riksdag's table tomorrow. But I expected that the questions regarding what should be investigated had been reasonably clear after half a year – not least considering that the Moderaterna, Liberalerna, Kristdemokraterna, and Sverigedemokraterna had posters all over our common city stating that they were in agreement, had a handle on the situation, and would get the ball rolling as soon as they came in.

But nothing is finished, and nothing is happening in the issues that are decisive for Swedish schools, such as money, school choice, etc.

It is clear that the municipalities have difficulty finding money. The state decides, and with today's system, the municipalities cannot participate in influencing what the school system should look like. This costs money, and then the state says it is bad that the municipalities do not have a grip on the money. This is the Moderaterna involved and supporting without wanting to do anything about this now.

Everything is pushed into the future. At some point, a free school inquiry might come. Maybe it will be finished just before the election, and then we will once again be left with a discussion about what we should do. Then it becomes an election issue again, and the member knows that election times are very bad times to create long-term reforms.

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! Discussing how important it is that things go quickly is quite uninteresting. The important thing is that things are done correctly. One cannot act as before and hurry and sloppily produce various investigations that leave substandard bases that it is not possible to work further with and enact laws on.

I am not interested in making the previous government's mistakes. We want to do things properly. This type of reforms should last over time. They should endure for generations. We should not, during the next or the one after that mandate period, again have to tear up and redo. Our reforms shall last over time, they shall be solid and above all they shall work.

I understand that the member is in a hurry but still want to encourage patience, because it is better for things to be done well than for them to be done quickly. I believe we are actually in complete agreement on that. It is in the member's nature to want to hunt the government, but I can guarantee that things will be done during this parliamentary term, and I look forward very much to telling the member about the successes.

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Madam Speaker! For the sake of time, I move for approval only of the Sverigedemokraternas reservation number 5, but we naturally stand behind all our motions throughout the entire debate.

In this report on general school matters, there are a number of motions to be dealt with, but first I want to speak about what it is like as a student to attend Swedish school. One naturally goes to school to receive an education, learn new things and prepare for a later working life. It is therefore not about drifting around. It is also not about any form of daycare or about always having fun - though sometimes.

The focus should be on learning useful things in a good community with other classmates and capable teachers. This creates a pleasant school where one also gets the opportunity to have fun. However, today's school is in some respects characterized by an attempt to equate all students—as if they were the same, which is an impossibility because we are all unique individuals. Different students will always learn different amounts, and therefore there should be a curriculum that makes it possible for everyone to learn basic knowledge while simultaneously providing the opportunity to maximize every student's endeavor to learn new knowledge.

Here the previous government has failed - just as with so much else - and students are already at an early age having problems keeping up with the schoolwork. The school must at an early stage be clear towards students and their parents regarding the students' performance. Early support measures are important to avoid early dropouts. It is not to be kind when one lets a student continue to the next grade even though the student has large knowledge gaps.

It is also important to emphasize the importance of lessons. They often involve repetition, which different students need in different amounts. Also, level grouping, where students are given the opportunity to maximize their potential and be in a group at approximately the same level, is important.

It is not that the teachers in any way put the knowledge into their students, but it is actually the students – with the help of teachers, mentors or parents – who teach in their own knowledge themselves. Today, sometimes unreasonable demands are placed on teachers to pass students even though they lack sufficient knowledge, which ultimately affects the individual student when it becomes difficult or even impossible to pass the next stage.

In a first stage of improvement, study areas in the classrooms, support for homework help, level grouping in certain basic school subjects, expanded opportunity to repeat a grade, and the right to choose a school as well as opt out of a school are needed. Fundamental for a student to complete their education is, and always will be, that the student is present in school, behaves well, and does their best. For almost all students, this would mean that they at least manage all basic educational requirements in primary school. Possibly 95 percent would thus become eligible for upper secondary school.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats believe that Sweden must return to state ownership of the school. It is crystal clear that the country's 290 municipalities prioritize differently, which results in us having an unequal school in Sweden. It is about sometimes exaggerated requirements for documentation beyond central regulations, and it is primarily about a differentiated school funding where students are given different amounts of school funding - not because of documented needs, which is reasonable, but because the governing politicians have different preconceived expectations regarding the student base.

In the referral, there are motions from the Social Democrats that the state should increase the differences by distributing so-called equity grants in both primary school and upper secondary school, which further exacerbates the inequality of these low expectations. We understand that some schools and students need some reinforcement, but this must not drain the well-functioning schools to the high degree it does today. The school funding is now being investigated by the government, and I look forward to a more just school funding, where differences depend on documented needs and not on low expectations.

Madam Speaker! A number of confessional schools are operated in our country – they are sometimes called religious free schools – and in many of them, very good school instruction takes place. I think we have mostly heard about the problems. The confessional elements occur before or after regular instruction and are voluntary to participate in. Those are the main premises. However, some schools have mismanaged themselves in recent years, and therefore it is important that Skolinspektionen ensures that the decision-makers can follow up on the school development and are thorough in their inspections.

We Sweden Democrats do not want to go as far as the Social Democrats and ban all confessional independent schools, but we are content with saying no to Muslim independent schools as that is where we have seen the greatest problems.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to mention something about the digitalization of schools. The digitalization of the Swedish school system has occurred quite rapidly compared to in other countries, which can be both good and bad. We must be careful that it is not overused, which we see when reading and writing difficulties increase in school. It is also about ensuring that it is used optimally.

A national plan is needed for how IT in schools should be utilized. Common systems are needed for all schools so that the municipalities do not invent individual solutions themselves. The digital learning materials used must also be quality-assured. Digitalization is not solely beneficial, as some claim, but must be used with care and not at too early an age. Digitalization can be very good if it is done in a refined and restrictive manner.

I also want to assert that it is more or less a myth that students receive their basic knowledge of IT through school. Students usually acquire that knowledge in their spare time through their use of various IT tools such as phones and computers for gaming.

(Applause)

In this speech, Robert Stenkvist (SD) concurred.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I intended to ask Member Grubb about something that has not been raised as much in the debate today, namely letting students repeat a grade and requiring leveling. Today, it is up to the schools, the principals, and the teachers with the competence they possess to decide whether a student should repeat a grade and whether one wants to work with different levels. I heard Member Grubb and the Sverigedemokraterna propose that it should happen in a different way. It is instead the Sverigedemokraterna who shall decide how the teaching shall be conducted. It shall be leveled. Students shall be allowed to repeat grades.

Before proposing such things that are to be followed by over 1 million students and all employees in Swedish schools, I think one must have prepared properly when one is to take on the responsibility and that one must have some form of scientific support for the proposal that one puts forward, which in turn goes against the teachers and those who are qualified deciding for themselves how they organize the teaching. Before one comes with such proposals, one should have a solid scientific basis to stand on.

Madam Speaker! That is why I ask Member Grubb and the Sweden Democrats: What is it that makes the Sweden Democrats know better than Sweden's teachers how the teaching should be conducted? And what scientific support do the Member and the Sweden Democrats have for this?

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Madam Speaker! That one, for example, repeats a grade is not strange at all. That is something one is allowed to do today. This possibility exists. That is something one has been able to do for many years in the Swedish school system.

Perhaps, contrary to what the member claims, we want it to be the teachers and the principals who shall decide when there is a need. Today, parents' consent is also required. But we believe it is the teachers who should determine if this need exists.

It feels like we are in complete agreement here – that it is the educators who should determine when the need exists. It is good that we have exactly the same line here.

When it comes to level groupings, we like the style that has been successful for many years in the Swedish school system. There are certainly many here in the chamber who recognize this. There was something called special mathematics and general mathematics and special English and general English in grades 7, 8, and 9. The students could freely choose which level they wanted, and they could switch between levels at the next term. It was a very good system for having a group that was at approximately the same level. And the students felt that they fit in and learned exactly what they needed. On the general courses, one learned the basic parts. If one wanted to go a bit further, one chose the special course. And to get into certain upper secondary lines, special eligibility was required in order to have the possibility to progress further – for example, special mathematics on natural science and technical lines.

It was a very good system and well-tested. It is surely many researchers who have seen the advantages in this, plus all the people, millions of people, who have gone through this in school. It is, therefore, a good system, and we want to have this system back. It is nothing strange. We want this system even in Swedish.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I am quite sure that I read in the Sweden Democrats' motion that it would be required to have passing grades to be allowed to move up a grade, otherwise one would have to repeat it. It is possible that I have misunderstood something or that the Sweden Democrats have expressed themselves somewhat unclearly. But it was, in any case, what I read in the member's reservation.

It is already the case today that educators have a certain influence over this, and I think they should have this opportunity. It should not be politicians in the Swedish Riksdag who decide how over 1 million students shall have their education managed. It should be a profession that takes responsibility for it. Therefore, I think it should remain as it is today, i.e., that it is the profession that should be decisive and not the Sweden Democrats' or Member of Parliament Grubb's own perceptions.

I noticed that the member said that the Sweden Democrats like this style. That was the justification for why their solution for level grouping works best, that they like this style. Therefore, over 1 million students shall be level-grouped based on what knowledge and skills they have - that is what it says in the reservation - not based on what interest they have in learning more or less mathematics. They shall be level-grouped. It is very possible that it is a good method. I think it is up to teachers and principals to judge how they best conduct the teaching.

My question is why MP Grubb and the Sverigedemokraterna think they are better suited for this, why they have chosen exactly level grouping, and what research support the Sverigedemokraterna have that it would make the knowledge acquisition of Swedish students better.

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is fascinating. I am standing here and saying exactly this. What is the mistake? What is it that the member does not understand in this context? I am saying exactly what applies when it comes to the fact that one can repeat a grade. We agree that it is the educators who should do this. Then the member says that I am answering something else. This is recorded. I find it fascinating. I have said that we think it is the educators and the principals who should decide this. We do not think it is the parents who should decide whether their student should repeat a grade or move on to the next grade. It is actually the educators who work with this who should decide. That is how we want it. Then the member stands here and says that it is the Sweden Democrats who should decide this. Who has said that? It is written nowhere. We have never mentioned it, and we will not say that it is the Sweden Democrats who want to decide which student should move on to the next grade or not. That will never happen. I can actually promise that, even if I cannot promise everything in the future.

When it comes to the other, it is a well-tested system that has existed for many years in the Swedish school, and actually at the time when the Swedish school was known to function really well – when we were at the top. It worked really well. Today we have a school that does not function quite as well. Therefore, we can take back certain things that were good in the school that worked well. And this is a good way to get an equal group, and the students get to choose themselves. I think it is fantastic that the students themselves get to choose if they want to take a general or special course, and they can switch next semester if it does not feel quite right. It is a completely fantastic and wonderful choice that one has in the Swedish school to reach one's maximum potential, which we all talk about here. I think this is a fantastic system, and not just me but also the Sverigedemokraterna. Above all, many of those who have gone through school with this system think it is very good. And a number of teachers who remember this time, whom I have spoken with, also think so.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask a few questions to the member from Sverigedemokraterna regarding the confessional schools. We both see that there are some challenges with how it works today. We see time and again that there are problems around the country. They separate boys and girls, they forbid relationships, they put God above science etcetera in these schools, even though they actually do not have permission to do so.

This can be seen in both Christian and Muslim independent schools. Therefore, it is a bit special to only focus on one of these two types of schools. But a bigger issue for me is why the Sweden Democrats want to ignore the most absolutely fundamental Swedish value, namely that the country is governed by law. Our constitution is the foundation of our society. The foundation is the most fundamental Swedish value, and it is very clear. One may not enact laws that only apply to one. That was also why the proposal that the Liberals got into the January Agreement about stopping the establishment of new independent schools could not be approved because of what it would mean. It was some religions that would be allowed to have independent schools and others that would not be allowed to have them. It was very clear. It is clarified.

Then I wonder how it is that the Sweden Democrats, with this proposal, completely want to disregard the constitution even though they know, at least if they have read up on it, that what they are proposing is unconstitutional because they then go against the most Swedish thing we have at all, namely that we are all equal before the law, that there is freedom of religion, and that it is the constitution that governs this country.

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Madam Speaker! In this matter, we say that there have been greater problems in the Muslim free schools than in the Christian free schools. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we do everything in our power to counteract the ongoing Islamization taking place in Sweden, even in the free schools, and this regardless of whether it is driven by forces within the country's borders or if it is Islamist states in the Muslim world that are doing it. Therefore, we must do something with immediate effect and introduce a stop to the new establishment of Muslim free schools in Sweden, as well as work to ensure that Muslim free schools that already exist are closed as soon as possible and thereby introduce a ban on all forms of Muslim free schools in Sweden. Only then can we ensure that these students are given a reasonable opportunity to be integrated as part of Swedish society.

It does not mean that we intend to break any laws. We must investigate this. If it were to be the case that it conflicts with a constitutional law – which we have not investigated, and the member probably hasn't either – then one has to take the long time it takes to change that part of a constitutional law. It takes two parliamentary terms and is very difficult and complicated. But I do not know if that is the case. It could also be that there are other and simpler things that can be done to get this decision through.

What we are saying is that this is important. I do not intend to tear apart our proposal. I can promise the members that.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! If one wants to do something about a problem, it is generally good to do it in a way that is possible. That is what I want to give as a general tip. The proposal that the Sverigedemokraterna put forward is not possible to implement. This has been investigated. It is naturally not I who has investigated it. In connection with the January agreement being presented, it was investigated whether it was possible with a ban on the new establishment of Muslim independent schools - and religious independent schools in general. It was not, because it would differentiate between different types of religions.

Then the answer from the Sweden Democrats is that it is more important to be able to say "Muslim" than to do anything about the problems that exist in some schools in Sweden. That is what one can think if one is a populist, but not if one actually wants to do things. This has been investigated. The Member of Parliament claims that he wants to change the parts of the constitution that constitute obstacles. The obstacle is freedom of religion.

I think this is remarkable. We are standing here in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag in a school debate. Then the Sweden Democrats say that in order to succeed, they want to tear up freedom of religion in the constitution during the next two parliamentary terms instead of presenting proposals on how one can review rules etcetera. The Sweden Democrats say: We want to tear up freedom of religion in the constitution. It is so much more important to say "Muslim" than to say that there are problems in both Muslim and Christian free schools and that we therefore must do something about the confessional schools.

It is so much more important to just say "Muslim" that the Sweden Democrats are ready to tear up religious freedom. It is absurd. How have we come this far? How can one take so lightly the most fundamental Swedish value: that we are governed by law and that the constitution creates the basis for all people's equal rights in this society? I do not understand how one can take that question so lightly just to be able to say cool things in the rostrum.

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for his so-called cool things that he says in the speaker's chair. Or was it perhaps I who said cool things? I don't really know what it referred to; it just flowed out here in the room.

I believe the member said five or six times that we would change freedom of religion. No, we have not said that at all. We have said that we want a stop to the Muslim friskolor and that we shall investigate how it works. Then the member can stand there and claim that he is omniscient, knows everything and knows exactly how it works. Yes, the member is very welcome to think so and have that impression. But we want to investigate this in calm and peace.

I apologize if it will take one, two, three, or four years to investigate this and fix it with clear papers. But things take time when one wants to do clear things in the right way. We do not want to do this in any other way than the right way. But we want to get it through. We want it to be good and safe in the Swedish schools. No Islamization shall occur in Swedish schools. We do not want that. I am sorry, but I get the impression that the members do not care one bit about these students. But we do.

That one makes some distinction between Christian free schools and Muslim free schools, where Islamization occurs in some cases, is not so strange. Sweden has actually been a Christian country for 1,000 years. Most of our morality, ethics, and culture stem from this. It would be very strange if we were to say a flat no to that which has built Sweden over the last 1,000 years. That is what I think.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The school's overall goal is to convey knowledge. The goal is that students, whether they are children, youth or adults, shall receive knowledge in order to be able to get jobs and become self-sufficient.

But knowledge also has another very important function that we must never compromise on, namely education. Knowledge contributes to the development of the soul. One grows as a person and gains a stronger sense for the context in which one finds oneself and for what has shaped this context and oneself. Belonging to this are also the value base, our history and our culture.

School is the absolute strongest protective factor against crime, unemployment, mental ill-health, and long-term sick leave. There is nothing else that reduces the risk of that type of exclusion as much as graduating from school with passing grades. But unfortunately, a quarter of young people today do not receive that protection. Far too many children are let down by the Swedish school today. One in four students finishes grade 9 without complete grades, and 15 percent do so without eligibility for upper secondary school. It is not good enough.

The way forward for us to succeed in reversing the development is not about lowering the knowledge requirements. On the contrary, we need to instead have high expectations of the students. We need to have teachers who have more time for the students and who can create a calm working environment in the lessons and safety in the corridors.

Madam Speaker! Early knowledge checks and support measures are also needed so that more children can have the opportunity to succeed. This can involve support measures in the form of extended teaching time, homework help in school for those children who cannot do their homework at home, holiday school, and not least special education teacher support and special teaching groups.

Every student who attends school in this country needs to be given the opportunity to attend a school where they are given a chance to succeed, where no one is held back, where no one is left behind, where there is order and where students are met with respect, so that knowledge can be the focus. Teachers, on their part, need better conditions to be able to convey the knowledge required so that more children become eligible and so that more children get the opportunity to realize their dreams. More children simply need to be given the chance to learn more. More children need to receive the protection that passing grades entail further in life.

Madam Speaker! The student also needs support from home. The importance of parents and family for the student's schooling cannot be overemphasized in this context. However compensatory we want the school to be, however much we try to set things right, and however much we would wish that family background played no role, the family will always be important. The importance of the family therefore needs to be recognized by the school, and parental responsibility needs to be re-established.

Parents who involve themselves, care about their child's results in school, support, follow up and cooperate with the school for the student's best are incredibly important for the children's schooling, Madam Speaker. If parents can receive support in their task of being parents, it can prevent both mental ill-health and social problems. It could therefore be helpful for parents to gain knowledge about the child's natural developmental phases at different ages in life. The Christian Democrats also believe that parents should receive support in helping their children meet the school's requirements and be more actively involved in the child's learning.

It can be about offering parents concrete tools in different ways to support the children. For some parents, it can be helpful to hear in an encouraging way that one of the most important things they can do to create good conditions for their children in school is, for example, to read aloud to the children every evening, and that they as parents have a decisive importance in ensuring that the children eat correctly, move around, go to bed on time, and get their homework done.

Just talking with the children about how to listen to the teacher in school and do as the teacher says, and asking the children every day how it has been in school during the day, matters for how the students view school. In the long run, it also matters for the school results. School and parents simply need to cooperate and help each other so that our children get the opportunity to learn as much as possible in school.

Only something like an expectations document can contribute, a kind of responsibility contract between school, student and parents that clarifies the expectations of the student regarding the school's rules of conduct, behavior, and naturally also the studies themselves, but which also clarifies what the parents can concretely do to support their children and raise the knowledge results.

Madam Speaker! If students are to feel comfortable and well in school, it is also fundamental that they are allowed to choose which school they want to attend. The Christian Democrats stand up for students' and parents' right to choose a school, regardless of whether they choose an independent, municipal, or for that matter, a Christian independent school.

One must have the right to opt out of a school with lacking quality, where the student might be bullied or does not receive the safety and study environment that one has the right to expect. One must have the right to choose a school where the student receives good teaching and where the student can develop according to their potential.

The student who lives in a disadvantaged area with a school where many students do not pass must be able to choose a school where they have a greater chance of succeeding. But that presupposes that parents and students receive information about the right to choose a school and about which schools they can choose between. For the freedom of choice to function as well as possible, there needs to be an active and mandatory school choice, and furthermore, the information about the school choice needs to increase.

Of course, the School Inspectorate must also have the muscles to be able to shut down bad schools. But those free schools that follow the Education Act and the curriculum, conduct teaching in accordance with the school's values and furthermore achieve good knowledge results, represent a gain for Sweden. Thanks to them, more children are given the opportunity to attend a school where they are no longer held back or left behind.

Madam Speaker! I also want to conclude by mentioning student health, which is another important function for us to be able to help students manage their studies. The Christian Democrats have long pushed for a student health guarantee where students are given access to student health every day.

It also happens today that students fall between the cracks, for example between student health services and child and adolescent psychiatry. This hardly contributes to any further security for the students.

The Christian Democrats have long pointed out that it is unfortunate that we today have two different primary authorities, that is to say, a student health service organized by the municipalities while health and medical care otherwise is organized by the regions.

We want instead to centralize the responsibility under a single head, so that the regions receive a unified responsibility for medical and psychosocial health. For that reason, it would not mean moving the important roles that school nurses, school doctors, counselors, and psychologists have. They would still remain in the school activities.

Until then, in any case, the minimum that can be requested is that all school principals have a functioning cooperation agreement with the regions to ensure that no students fall through the cracks.

Madam Speaker! Strengthening student health is simply crucial if we are to succeed in creating a school where no one is held back and no one is left behind. With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker, members and observers! I want to begin by moving for the approval of the Left Party's reservation number 27.

Today, the Education Committee convenes to debate school issues under the main heading General School Issues. In this regard, I would like to welcome the members and the audience here in the gallery, or customers as you are called in the world of the citizens, to the school market.

In order for you to understand what I mean, I need to draw a parallel. When you think of the market school, you can think of a lottery system or a casino. Just as with all casinos, it is always the system that wins the most, and a large majority lose.

Does it not sound promising? Let us run Swedish school like a casino. Or yes, that is exactly how it is run today and how it has been run ever since the 90s. Some argue that it did not turn out as intended. No, perhaps not for everyone. But for those who represented the business sector and the right during the 90s, it became exactly as they had intended.

It may not have turned out as intended for those who went along with the business sector's emphasis on cooperative and non-profit school actors. But it turned out exactly as the school market was intended to be designed as we see as the result today.

There are, in fact, 50 billion reasons why I, the Left Party, and a large majority of Sweden's population are right on this issue. It is the 50 billion kronor that are handed out annually from the municipalities to the private school operators.

There is also another reason that I thought I need to explain to you today, and which will take some time. The think tank Balans has written about it. The newspaper Skolvärlden wrote about it at the end of last year, and the unions have warned about this issue. I will start by explaining.

Academedia had a turnover of 13.3 billion kronor during 2021. That is your and my tax money. The chairman is the former CEO of SKR, or SKL as it was called before, as well as a former county governor. He has also been a state investigator of the state sector grant to schools.

The head of their Public Affairs has previously been the chief secretary for the Moderaternas ideology program. One of their board members is a former director-general of the Skolinspektionen, the authority responsible for auditing exactly these types of schools.

Aprendere Skolor turned over 197 million kronor. That is your and my tax money. The chairman is the former chairman of the municipal executive board in Lidingö and a county councilor for the Moderaterna here in Stockholm.

One of the board members and former CEO is a municipal politician for Liberalerna in Täby, deputy in the high school and business committee, and a member of the municipal council.

Almwik Holding AB, that is to say Raoul Wallenbergskolorna, turned over 378 million kronor during 2021. The chairman and owner is a former party secretary and state secretary for Krisdemokraterna.

Internationella Engelska Skolan had a turnover of 3.2 billion kronor in 2021. The chairman is the former CEO of Svenskt Näringsliv. Board member is the former minister for the Moderaterna.

The Head of Public Affairs is a former PA consultant and press chief for Moderaterna and chairman of the education committee in Nacka for the same party. The press chief is a former editorial chief for the neoliberal think tank Timbro.

Watma Group AB, which owns among others Fria Läroverken i Sverige AB and Nordic International School AB, turned over 482 million kronor during 2021. The CEO is a former political expert at the Ministry of Education for the Moderaterna and wrote the bill that came to be called the friskola reform during Carl Bildt's government. He co-founded Friskolornas riksförbund and is a former CEO of Kunskapsskolan and the bankrupt school group JB-Education.

One of the board members is a former political expert at the Government Offices, a senior advisor at Nordic Public Affairs AB, where a former State Secretary for the Liberals is CEO.

Lärande i Sverige AB turned over 732 million kronor. Here we find a board member who has been a political official for Folkpartiet, now Liberalerna. He is also a board member in, among others, Norrköpings Tidningars Media AB and a consultant for the Moderate communications agency Kreab.

Kunskapsskolan turned over 1.5 billion kronor. The chairman and founder is a former Moderate politician. He and his family own, among other things, Kunskapsskolan, Kreab, and the opinion institute Demoskop. He is friends with both Ulf Kristersson and Carl Bildt.

One of the board members is a former minister and Member of Parliament for Liberalerna. He is or has been head of education and research at Svenskt Näringsliv as well as a consultant at the PA agency Diplomat Communications. The communications chief is a former information secretary for Miljöpartiet who has also worked as social policy chief at Lärarförbundet and been a consultant at the PR agency Westander. The head of external relations is a former Member of Parliament for Miljöpartiet.

Tellusgruppen, or the Ministry of Education as they are called nowadays, had a turnover of 262 million kronor. The chairman is a former press secretary for the Moderaterna at the Government Offices. The CEO and main owner is a former Folkpartiet, or liberal, politician who has sat both on the party board for Folkpartiet and in the Riksdag as a substitute. The person has also previously been chairman of Almega Tjänsteföretagen and a member of the board of Svenskt Näringsliv.

To conclude this now: As we all know, a former board member of this company is also our current school minister for the right-wing nationalist government. She has also been a school board member in Stockholm, a member of the Riksdag, and a consultant at the agency Tenelius Holm. She was previously married to a former party leader for Liberalerna, who has also been education minister as well as chairman of the Friskolornas riksförbund.

Dear listeners! If you want me to continue, there are an additional three pages with names of politicians who are now siphoning off our tax money by owning or being involved in running companies in the corrupt market system that exists in the Swedish school system. I do not intend to continue reading out all these names, but everyone who should know knows today what kind of system we are talking about.

It is about a system that gives students worse access to school libraries. It is about a system that gives students worse access to study and career counselors. It is about a system that gives students worse access to qualified teachers and fewer teachers. It is a system that saves money so that the names I just rattled off can make many billions in profit.

It is not what Swedish school policy should be about. Today, this system is not merely a corporate system, but it has reached all the way into the Ministry of Education, where the head of the ministry is highly involved.

From the Left Party's side, we have always said that we are against the market school model. What does this mean? Does it mean that we want to get rid of all independent schools, as the bourgeoisie claims? No, what we want is for there to be a school system based on equal conditions for all children across the entire country. We want a system where the school interest and the student interest are prioritized over the market interest.

Sweden is today the world's only country that operates schools with market logic. Not even in the stronghold of capitalism, the USA, is it possible today to make a large profit on tax money by opening school activities. But in Sweden, it is possible. Not even in the dictatorship of Chile did they choose to keep this system. When democratic forces came to power after Pinochet's dictatorship, they removed the market system in schools. But in the Swedish school system and in the Swedish Riksdag, it was chosen to subject the children and the school to the worst market experiment we have seen in modern history.

This does not only have an impact on the children and the school today; this is something that will have an impact on our society and on democracy for a long time to come. For what happens in a society when students are separated from one another from an early age? What happens when different social classes no longer meet in the classroom? What happens to schools when it is systematized to have unqualified teachers in order to make money or to rent space in shop premises in Gamla stan rather than to build real school premises? What happens to students who from an early age are taught to only meet youths who are like themselves - to meet homogeneous groups? It is this we see in Swedish school today, and it will have catastrophic consequences ahead.

Vänsterpartiet demands answers from the government and from all parties in the right-wing nationalist bloc. We want to know: Have these parties received money from market actors to keep this system in place? Can we trust that the members who today sit in the Education Committee represent the best interests of the school, and not the best interests of the market so that they could have received money from the actors? We do not know.

However, we know that during the election campaign, a number of reports emerged that a number of parties tried to bypass the rules to receive money from private actors. All these parties are sitting in front of me right now. So, it must not be allowed.

We need to abolish the market school, and we need to establish a policy for an equal school. We cannot do that with a right-wing nationalist government, which every time the question comes up, comes with racist proposals to divert focus from the fact that they are making cuts and subjecting our school to this type of market experimentation.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to my colleagues for that we can have a good debate about the school's future! It is pleasant to see listeners of various ages who are here and listening, and we know that there are also people sitting at home and listening.

It may be worth reminding that the purpose of the school is, and must be, the students. Sometimes it is as if we are discussing very much else here. It is a bit sad, because the focus quite often falls on the wrong things. I will get into some of these, Madam Speaker, but I will start by moving for approval of reservation 6, so that I do not forget it.

If we now have the focus on the students – what is it then that we need to think about? We need to ensure that we get a grading system that actually works. We need to get a resource distribution into Swedish schools that is reasonable. We need to have freedom of choice, but we also need to have reasonableness. We do not have that today. We need to review the rules for confessional schools, we need to review who can be a headmaster and the rules for that and very much more. But everything must always be with the students in focus.

Madam Speaker! Based on this, I would like to take up some of the matters that my dear colleagues have raised today.

The first is state ownership - the Liberals' eternal refuge in school debates. There is nothing else. Not much is done in the government, but one can always say that it should be different instead of focusing on the reality we have.

Why are the municipalities having such a hard time right now? They are having a very difficult time financially, and they cannot afford it. We see that schools are being closed across the country, also where the Liberals are involved in governing. In Norrköping, for example, a lot of schools are to be closed in June. In Malmö, where the Liberals govern, 200 million kronor are being saved in the budget. It is also the case in rural municipalities, because it is impossible for municipalities to make their finances balance right now. And what does the government choose to do then? It chooses to flee its responsibility.

But why is it difficult for the municipalities? It is partly because of the migration. A huge number of people arrived, and they have entered the Swedish school system. They are there now, and it is a huge amount of work to ensure that so many young people get access to the Swedish language, that they learn math, etcetera. They come from countries where they often have not had any schooling previously. It is not the municipalities that have decided how large the migration should be.

Inflation makes it very difficult; it undermines the municipal economy. Who is it that has decided it? Is it the municipalities that are responsible for the monetary policy and the economy in Sweden? No, it is not. It is the state's responsibility.

When new independent schools are established, which have the right of free establishment, the municipal economy is affected. Can the municipalities influence this? No, they cannot at all. Who decides on this? The state does.

What does the state say then, when this totally makes it difficult for the municipalities to make the finances work? Then the state says – at least under this government – that the municipalities must handle this themselves. The state says: Yes, we have absolutely caused this, but it is not our problem. Now the municipalities have to handle this!

It is unserious. It is to flee from one's responsibility to stand here and say that it would have been so much better if the state had had responsibility for the school. It is not a serious answer to the challenge we face here and now, where municipalities are bleeding money, teachers are being laid off, school principals are leaving their jobs, etcetera. It is not to have Sweden's students' best interests in mind. It is to put talking points before the students' best interests, and it is very unfortunate.

We know that it was the municipalities that, during the large migration wave, stepped in and saved the situation so that it actually worked despite everything. The state entered without providing any prerequisites or helping with the planning. Now the municipalities are left with all the costs, and the state, with the Liberals at the helm, says: We do not want to help. It is not reasonable.

But let us then talk about financing. What could have been done? According to the Liberals, the problem is the individual municipalities' priorities. I would say it is also the individual government's priorities. One chooses to prioritize zero kronor straight out to Swedish school.

In the Centerpartiet budget, we have included a qualification billion where money will go to all schools that have taken responsibility by employing qualified teachers. We have invested 300 million on the small schools, because it is those that are being closed right now. When the government, with the Sverigedemokraternas good memory, sees to it that a lot of small schools all over Sweden must be closed because the municipalities cannot afford to keep them, we at Centerpartiet, who have always protected the countryside, see to it that money is invested where it is needed and thus take responsibility so that there are schools in all of Sweden. We also allocate 5 million kronor to the municipalities because they currently do not have money.

This is how one must cooperate and take responsibility for Swedish schools if one wants to ensure that the students' best interests are in focus.

But let us go back and see what the government is actually delivering. The only thing we know at the current stage is that they might deliver an investigation. Then we know that they want to introduce reporting laws. In a situation where Sweden's schools are having a very hard time, where teachers must be laid off and where the attractiveness of being a teacher might not be the best, one wants to make it even harder to be a teacher and stand up for one's students. That is not putting the students' best interests first.

Madam Speaker! I also want to talk a little about digitalization, which has been raised in several posts and which is an issue that affects students very much. In the current situation, Swedish schools have rules that say that in primary school, middle school, and upper secondary school, students must learn to read and write on a computer. It says digital learning tools, but in reality, it means computer in general.

What is the government doing then? Well, they write angry op-eds. The government is responsible for what Swedish law looks like and has every opportunity to make regulatory changes, but they have not done anything. They write angry op-eds. Angry op-eds do not change anything in Swedish schools. They might change the Liberals' self-image, which perhaps can be nice, but they make no actual difference.

The Center Party has proposed that it should be voluntary to use digital tools in the lower grades. It is the Center Party's policy. We also believe that a teaching materials committee should be appointed to review which teaching materials are good so that especially the unqualified teachers, of whom there are many in Swedish schools, receive support in the choice of teaching materials.

We have also said that students should have a statutory right to actually have learning materials. We may think that there have sometimes been too many digital learning materials, even if they are sometimes perfect and wonderful, but very many do not have any learning materials at all. We have also submitted proposals to legislate that right. The government has not submitted proposals for anything at all. On the other hand, they have submitted debate article after debate article.

The only thing we know that anyone in the government has done when it comes to digitalization is that Lotta Edholm, who is now the Minister for Education, in 2012 invested in that all children in Stockholm should receive iPads in school. We also know that she has invested in the school platform, which is the largest, most expensive, and most failed digitalization project in Swedish schools. Those are the two footprints that have been made by Lotta Edholm when it comes to digitalization of the school and actual changes. Everything else is just debate articles and words.

It is time for the government to realize that they must take responsibility and gather us other parties and say: What can we actually do on this point? Can we quickly see to it that we get through in the Riksdag that one should not have to write and read on computers in primary school, for example? I am quite sure that we can get that through. These are real changes. I hope that we soon begin to see a government that takes responsibility and makes actual changes. Generally, it is time for us here in the chamber to rise up a bit and start taking responsibility.

There is another area where this needs to be done. Regardless of school and school type, we must ensure that all children's right to schooling is fulfilled. For me, it makes no difference which school one has chosen. Some in here only want to focus on the independent schools. Some in here only want to focus on Muslim independent schools. For me, it is absolutely crucial to say: Regardless of which school you attend, it must be good.

It is also crucial to say: It cannot be that some schools get exemptions just because they belong to a certain religion, that we are to refrain from looking at schools that are municipal etcetera - absolutely not! I have seen how bad it can be at municipal schools in Malmö, for example. I know colleagues in the chamber who have also done so.

Regardless of the school, it also cannot be okay that we have schools that divide students by gender and have gender-segregated teaching. We have schools in Sweden that do that – completely unacceptable! We also have schools where they deny science, Madam Speaker. It is unacceptable. We have schools where they forbid relationships between students. It is unacceptable.

This happens in Christian schools, and it happens in Muslim schools. For me, it is completely irrelevant. This type of religious brainwashing is not okay, regardless of whether it happens in a Christian or Muslim confessional school or whether it happens in a municipal or independent school. It cannot be acceptable. It must be the student's right that is decisive. Therefore, we must create regulations that work and that make a difference in reality, so that we do not continue to see a lot of parties here in the chamber that put talking points before students.

I hope that we here in the chamber can soon get more parties that are involved and take responsibility and make actual changes so that Sweden's students get a better schooling. I also hope that we can get some sharper debates here in the chamber.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Member Niels Paarup-Petersen for raising some important questions, even though there are many points of divergence in school policy between the Center Party and the Left Party. Unlike how it usually is with the right-wing nationalist bloc, Niels Paarup-Petersen and I have had many very good debates and discussions regarding Swedish education policy, and I am in many respects in agreement with Niels Paarup-Petersen regarding the points raised from the rostrum.

What is irritating, however, is that the Center Party has simultaneously voted no to virtually all proposals that would in some way have changed this market school system. I want to bring up an example today, because we are going to vote on it, and it concerns the principle of public access, that is to say that the population – journalists, researchers, everyone – should be able to have the right to access information, all information, about school units all around the country.

So that has been the case for municipal schools. There, all citizens in the country have had the right to all information. One has been able to request information that is public. That cannot be done with the independent schools today, and therefore Vänsterpartiet proposed about two years ago that we should introduce the principle of public access within all school forms and school units. But Centerpartiet said no.

I wonder why the Centre Party still says no to introducing a principle of openness regarding the schools. It is about our democratic right to know where our money goes, which school the children attend, and what the staff's conditions are – that is to say, that which should be public in Sweden and which has been a fundamental pillar in Swedish democracy.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I also believe that we are in agreement on many of the issues that are important. I am also completely convinced that we will continue to have many points of divergence between the liberal view and the socialist view on both schooling and much else in life. That also pleases me, for otherwise I would become worried for myself.

I absolutely understand Daniel Riazat's question. We have, in fact, voted no here in the chamber to many proposals that could have made a difference. If some of us said to the previous government: If you, for example, make changes that mean small schools get the conditions to survive, we can vote for a changed resource distribution. The previous government still chose not to present a proposal that took the small schools into account. It was a pity. We perhaps could have taken some steps.

We have voted no to many of the proposals. Now that we are beginning to change our view on quite a lot and are in the process of developing a new school policy, we see that we need to review some of the things that we have said no to. I will be honest about that. I can also say that we, contrary to what other parties try to make it sound like, have prevented proposals from being submitted. It was part of the January agreement.

I have no objection to taking responsibility for the fact that we have done it. I think one should take responsibility for what one does if one wants to be in this chamber. We have done things that I do not think were right. But we have done it, and I stand by it. But I think we should do things differently moving forward. That is the reality.

I hope that more parties start saying: "We are ready to take responsibility for what we have done. We are ready to take responsibility for Swedish school." One must stop the evasion of responsibility we see time and again, both regarding what has been done and what needs to be done in the future.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks for the answer, Niels Paarup-Petersen! I appreciate what I perceive to be an honest answer.

The audience and everyone listening to the debate should nevertheless keep in mind that the Center Party, possibly together with the Sweden Democrats, are the two parties that have defended the market's right to clear-cut the Swedish school during all these years. The Center Party is even today the party that perhaps most defends the market's interests within the school. But I am glad that Niels Paarup-Petersen suggests that something is about to change. That makes me very happy, not for my sake but for the sake of the children and the staff.

My question remains, however. Niels Paarup-Petersen chose not to answer it. It concerns the principle of public access. Why should a billionaire be able to hide their interests in Swedish schools by us not being allowed to request what is happening in those schools? Every year, 50 billion kronor are paid out to these private school capitalists. Why should it be okay that we pay billions but that we do not have the right to request documents in accordance with what I would like to call the principle of public access? It is because a majority in the Riksdag thinks that what happens in these schools should not be public.

I simply wonder if we can expect the Center Party to change its position on the issue, so that we can begin working towards a shift. Can we prepare ourselves for the fact that eventually, once we have defeated the right-wing nationalist majority, we can introduce a principle of public access so that we know what these 50 billion, which hopefully will not be 50 billion in the future, are going towards? All citizens in the country, the schoolchildren, and the staff deserve to know.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Riazat, for a difficult but also engaging question!

The Chairman is right that the Centre Party has defended freedom of choice in Swedish schools. We will, of course, continue to do so. My view is not that we have defended the right to dismantle the schools, or whatever it was you said. On the other hand, we perhaps have not done enough to stop the aberrations that exist. We probably have not done that. We are currently reviewing how we can do it better in the future.

Proper transparency in Swedish schools and how we can ensure that information about what is happening, how money moves, etcetera must become much more public than it is today. I can promise that we will be for that.

The government has now, as one of the few things they have done, in one of its proposals first removed the principle of public access from the investigation and introduced the principle of transparency. But many then said that one must be allowed to know what the principle of public access means in practice in this system. Then they put it back in the investigation. That was good. We have thus been involved in forcing the principle of public access back into the investigation that is now ongoing.

I hope for understanding that I want to see what the investigation that is currently underway and which was commissioned by the previous government concludes. It looks at the principle of transparency and the principle of public access. I think it is quite reasonable that we wait for what it says before I give the member an answer to a very relevant question about how we achieve adequate transparency in schools in Sweden.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are debating General School Issues. One might think it could be almost anything. It is actually a broad consideration with many different proposals from the parties. I will focus on some of them.

The most fundamental thing for a school that provides students with knowledge is skilled teachers who have time for their students. It is a school where students' right to education is in focus, a school where children and students can acquire and develop knowledge and values, a school where students have the right to develop into who they are and into who they want to be in the future.

Education shall promote all children's and students' development and learning and a lifelong desire to learn. Thankfully, I do not believe that this chamber's debates about whether it should be fun or boring in school affect everyday school life particularly much. Most teachers and students are well aware that one learns better if one also has fun.

The school must also convey and anchor respect for human rights and for fundamental democratic values. For that, skilled teachers who have time for their students are required.

Do you know what? Skilled teachers cost money. It is an investment in the future. Time also costs money. That is why Miljöpartiet is the party that spends the most money on education, because it costs. You cannot streamline a teaching hour to any extent.

Madam Speaker! I would like to specifically mention equality. It is important to take into account the different circumstances and opportunities of girls and boys and women and men when it comes to education. School is an important arena for countering traditional gender patterns and laying the foundation for an equal society. All children should be given the chance to develop their full potential, regardless of gender or gender identity. We must ensure that no children are restricted in their choices.

Education shall promote girls' and boys' development and learning with a focus on what each individual needs in school, based on who they are. We unfortunately see that boys' educational results are worse than girls'. It is important that this is taken seriously, just like other irrational gender differences in society.

It means that one tackles inequality with the tools that are the basis for education: science and proven experience. All children and students have a right to education, and it is the school's task to ensure that they receive it. When more boys than girls leave school without sufficient knowledge, the education does not promote both girls' and boys' right to development and learning. It requires, again, skilled teachers who have time for their students.

Madam Speaker! The market school, where profit is the driving force and the compensations are unfair, leads to problems for Sweden as a knowledge nation. We know that unfair purchasing systems segregate the school. This spring we have also seen various examples of municipalities speaking about how more independent schools risk leading to municipal schools needing to be closed or teachers having to be laid off, with larger classes as a result. But new independent schools are still granted permits.

We have read about examples of schools that evade scrutiny or are caught not providing students with the education they are entitled to. One cannot have agricultural education without having animals or science education without having laboratories.

That one of the cheating companies distributes several hundred million in profits to the owners is nothing other than a mockery of us who pay tax. Profit distribution is something that most Swedes do not want, across party lines and regardless of whether it is parents with children in independent schools or in publicly funded schools. It is not thought that the tax money should leak out into profits.

Madam Speaker! For many of us, it is a matter of course that the principle of public access should apply to all schools, but it is not a matter of course for the government. For the small, idea-driven schools, the principle of public access is self-evident, but the large school corporations want to preserve their trade secrets. In our municipal schools, it is everyone's right to request the information we want regarding what the money is spent on - all of us here in this room can do that. When our systems look the way they do, transparency becomes extremely important, and therefore a principle of public access is needed on exactly the same terms for independent schools as for public schools.

I know that an argument has been put forward that some independent schools are so small that they cannot handle this. I want to remind that we have small municipalities and small agencies in different municipalities all over the country. We expect them to handle the principle of public access. Small schools will also be able to do so in exactly the same way.

What then does the market school do to our education system? When profit distribution becomes the purpose, public statistics are called trade secrets, and school fees and school choice tear Sweden apart as a knowledge nation.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by speaking about the fact that more people need to dream of becoming teachers. We need this to build Sweden into a strong knowledge nation. Now, the figures for the applications to the autumn admissions to the teacher training programs have arrived. There is no other profession that more people dream of having than the teaching profession. Over 15,000 have applied to various teacher training programs as their first choice. A few thousand more have applied to various supplementary training programs. This can be compared to the fact that approximately 12,000 want to become nurses, 8,000 social workers, and 7,000 doctors. It is first-choice applicants we are talking about.

Do not fall for the myth that no one wants to become a teacher. We know that more people need to dream of becoming teachers, to be that skilled teacher who has time for their students, but there are many who want this job, and we need to ensure that they are given the conditions for it.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 3, which concerns all children's and students' opportunities to develop into who they are, regardless of gender.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

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