General school issues

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! 30 years ago, very large changes were implemented in the Swedish school system. The responsibility for the schools was moved from the state to the municipalities. Some years later, the free school reform came, which gave private actors, both non-profit and for-profit, the opportunity to start and run schools with tax funding.

As a result of these two reforms, we received a changed resource distribution system, what we colloquially call school funding. Additionally, the grading system was changed in the same stroke from a relative system to a knowledge-related system. Likewise, the regulation in schools decreased. For example, the regulation of teachers' teaching time was removed.

With the free school system, things that were previously completely self-evident in Swedish schools have also, over time, not become as self-evident, for example that there is a dining hall, a gym, and a school librarian.

Parallel to these major changes, pedagogical trends also received stronger support. We can describe them somewhat generally as postmodern. Primarily, it meant less traditional teaching and less focus on factual knowledge.

Overall school issues

Somewhat later, Mr. Speaker, came the digital transition which over time has increasingly come to permeate the school system. Not least, it has entailed reduced access to physical learning materials for students. In the last ten years, we have seen ever-growing problems with the significantly increased screen time, which has a negative impact on children and adolescents' sleep, concentration, knowledge acquisition, movement, and mental health.

Many of these changes are a consequence of political decisions, but not all. Some are also a result of broader societal changes both in Sweden and globally. But they have collectively had a clear consequence: Swedish children and young people are learning less and less in school. It is the consequence of all the changes that I described. The latest PISA results show this in black and white.

What we are witnessing now is nothing less than a collapse of knowledge. The most important task for the government and the parliamentary majority we have now is to reverse this devastating development and raise the knowledge results in our Swedish school. It is our most important task alongside strengthening Sweden's national security and tackling organized crime.

Mr. Speaker! The major changes three decades ago also involved a deregulation and an extensive decentralization of Swedish school. The consequence of this has become a head-on collision with one of the education system's most important pillars, namely equality. It actually speaks for itself. It is quite logical, if one thinks about it.

If one moves the primary financial responsibility from the state to almost 300 municipalities, the municipalities will also make different prioritizations, make different decisions, and have very different conditions and varying local competence.

Some will invest more in schools and some will invest less in schools. And just as in the Riksdag, there are different political majorities in the municipalities, and they can also change.

Mr. Speaker! All the far-reaching school reforms from three decades ago have over time been criticized more and more forcefully, not least by my own party Liberalerna. The criticism has largely concerned precisely falling knowledge results and a lack of equality.

Many of these changes are now being reviewed, thanks to the new government, thanks to the Tidö Agreement, and thanks to the Liberals. It concerns the free school system, the school funding system, the extremely problematic grade inflation, teacher training, transparency, ownership review, creating study environments, and a good deal of other things.

From the Liberals' side, we are prepared to go very far to change the Swedish school, re-establish the knowledge school, and raise the status of the teaching profession.

At the same time, it is important to establish, Mr. Speaker, that freedom of choice in Swedish schools shall not be abolished. We will not contribute to moving power from parents and students to political bureaucrats. But we will tighten the regulations, so that freedom of choice and the choices that students and parents make shall lead to a good education for all and not, as today, become a lottery for many. We must once again achieve a world-class school.

Mr. Speaker! I have noted during the past week that the opposition has attempted to create a smokescreen regarding the issue of the principle of public access as it applies to independent schools. It has been claimed that the parliamentary majority will vote against introducing a principle of public access. This is not true. There is no such bill to take a position on.

What the Riksdag is voting on this afternoon concerns a notification on the issue. But last week, the School Information Inquiry submitted its report, where this issue is addressed. The inquiry will now go out for consultation. After that, it will come to the Government Offices for preparation in the usual order. It is entirely in accordance with the procedure we have in the Swedish Riksdag that the committee and the majority can then refer to the process that is ongoing. The same thing has happened many times in the Riksdag. For example, the Social Democrats, when they were in government with the Green Party, voted no to both the principle of public access and staffed school libraries, referring to the fact that the issues were being prepared in the Government Offices. So, there is nothing strange about this at all.

Mr. Speaker! The school must return to the basics. We need more order in the classroom and more order in the school system. We need to re-establish a strong knowledge school with a focus on factual knowledge and abilities such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. We need a safe school with clear expectations. It is good for everyone and especially for those children who need the school the most.

With this, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Mr. Speaker! On April 9, that is 15 days ago, the Education Committee reached a decision on the report. The majority decided that the committee should propose that the Riksdag reject all motions to introduce the principle of public access in independent schools. The deciding vote then was Fredrik Malm. The day after, on April 10, the Liberal Party leader went out and said that the Liberals have changed their minds and want the principle of public access to be introduced in the independent schools. The day after that, on April 11, Fredrik Malm, School Minister Edholm, and party leader Pehrson signed a debate article in Expressen, where they confirmed this new position from the Liberals.

Later this afternoon, we will vote on the issue here in the Riksdag. And I assume, Fredrik Malm, that it means that the Liberals will then vote with our joint reservation with the Center Party, the Left Party, and the Green Party that the principle of public access shall apply equally to all schools.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is at this moment almost a Lützow fog over this assembly of misinformation, disinformation, and very strange claims from the Social Democrats' side.

Let me then remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Democrats have sat in government in 83 of the last 100 years. I actually assumed, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Democrats by that time had learned the difference between a motion and a proposition. But that does not seem to be the case.

If we are to introduce a principle of public access in Sweden, we do so through a legislative proposal to do so. There is no legislative proposal on the table. Therefore, we do not have to vote on introducing a principle of public access today. What we have to vote on is a notification, and that is something else.

Now the investigation has arrived, just as Linus Sköld mentioned, and it will be sent out for consultation. After that, it will be processed in the Government Offices, entirely according to the usual process, customary order and practice.

Mr. Speaker! I believe it was in 2017 that Vänsterpartiet submitted a motion in the Riksdag regarding staffed school libraries. That was also the Socialdemokraternas position at that time. The Socialdemokraterna rejected Vänsterpartiets motion by referring to a process ongoing in the Government Offices. The year before, the Socialdemokraterna rejected motions to introduce a principle of public access in Swedish schools, that is, exactly what we are discussing now and with exactly the same arguments as well.

This is nothing strange. What is being attempted from the Social Democrats' side is to mix up the cards in this. But in the substantive issue, it is very much the case that the Liberals' view is that all schools should be treated equally in this part. We believe that a principle of public access should be introduced.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let us clear away the Lützend fog and see what the Liberals' position is in this.

On April 9, Johan Pehrson said in SVT that he hoped to be able to gather a majority in the government base for this. I think we will have the opportunity to ask the government base later during this debate about how they view the position and whether he will succeed with it. But Fredrik Malm and his party comrades in this chamber have the opportunity today to point out to the government base that they certainly do not need to have any majority in the government base, for they have a majority in the chamber, and that is what counts.

Fredrik Malm has the opportunity to vote for the motion that the Riksdag should stand behind what is proposed in the motion that the principle of public access shall also cover independent schools and announce this to the government. Fredrik Malm can therefore today, together with his liberal party colleagues, decide that the Riksdag shall tell the government that it is the Riksdag's intention that the principle of public access shall be introduced.

In the investigation proposal, there are two alternative paths, and Fredrik Malm does not need a majority of the government base with him, but rather he needs a majority of the chamber with him. He can state today to the government that there is a majority for this in the chamber.

Why does Fredrik Malm intend to vote no today?

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! No Lützow mist was dispersed here. It is, moreover, the Social Democrats who, like a large smoke machine, have laid this mist over the Swedish Riksdag. Instead, one entangles oneself even further in strange reasoning.

Mr. Speaker! I think one should have some respect for what is the responsibility of the Riksdag and what is the responsibility of the government. When we hopefully vote through a law to introduce the principle of public access across the board in the Swedish school system, that is when we receive a bill. Such a bill is currently being prepared.

Mr. Speaker! Linus Sköld is ahead of the curve here. The investigation arrived a week ago and is to be sent out for consultation. It will be prepared in the Government Offices, and then the government will return with a legislative proposal - entirely in accordance with the practice and customary procedure that the Riksdag and the Government Offices always work according to.

I do not understand this agitation, which I interpret almost as when an Italian football player dives in the penalty area. One acts agitated and indignant. But we are following exactly the same practice as the Social Democrats follow when they themselves are in a government position.

Now Linus Sköld has no further remarks, but it would be interesting to know why the Social Democrats voted no to, for example, the Left Party's motion on staffed school libraries a number of years ago. That would also be an interesting question to get an answer to.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is very hazy out here, I must say. There have been smoke puffs from the Liberals. It has been going on for a while, a few weeks.

Once again, I want us to discuss the principle of public access. The Liberals are currently undergoing a shift in their school policy. We see it in statements from the party leader. We see it in opinion pieces. The Centre Party made a corresponding maneuver about a year ago. We reassessed our school policy. We concluded that we shall, of course, have equality in Swedish schools, and of course, the transparency in all schools shall be the same. Now, the Liberals also seem to have landed on such a view.

The four opposition parties have submitted slightly different motions but have a common reservation concerning precisely this.

The Liberals declare: Yes, we want a principle of public access in Swedish schools. But what I understand from previous debate is that the Liberals and Fredrik Malm are not prepared to vote for what one says one wants. Is it exactly like in the election campaign – that one says one thing before the election and another thing after the election? One says one thing in a debate article, but one votes in a different way. What is the answer?

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is very true as Anders Ådahl describes it, that we in the Liberals have gradually re-evaluated parts of our school policy. We have done so because we are wise and not always stubborn. We do not hold onto old battle horses if we see that we need to change in the systems.

My speech here concerns the extensive reforms of the Swedish school system that were carried out during the last years of the 1980s and into the 1990s. The state regulation of the Swedish school was abolished. The school was municipalized. We received a free school reform which over time has led to consequences that were not foreseen when that reform was introduced, and so on.

We need a rethink in large parts of Swedish school policy in light of these reforms. They have not turned out well. I believe everyone can see that. You can see it if you make the effort to read the international measurements that are conducted - it concerns reading comprehension, writing comprehension, writing ability, knowledge in mathematics and so on. These are devastating results. This is further exacerbated, not least by the very widespread screen time among children and youth, which impairs their ability to concentrate and so on. It is very much necessary that we deal with this.

Then the principle of public access applies. I noted in my previous exchange of remarks that the Social Democrats are second in line. The fact is that the Center Party is now third in line. The investigation has arrived. It goes in for preparation. It shall be referred. It shall be prepared. There will be a Council on Legislation review. This will come to the Riksdag, and we will take a position on it.

What we are voting on today is not about introducing a principle of public access. It is not a bill that we are voting on. It is about a notification, and that is something completely different.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I still think it is nice that the Liberals have an ambition to be wise, even if one seems to be singing a completely different tune in here.

However it may be, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what prevents the Liberals from voting for the reservation on the announcement. What prevents the Liberals from writing one thing in a debate article, going on TV, going out in the media, and then doing the same thing when it is to be decided sharply? It seems strange to say one thing to the Swedish people in TV and in newspapers and then, when there is a finished proposal for an announcement on the floor of the Riksdag that we are to vote on, not want to follow it. I do not understand the logic.

Is it possible for Member Malm to unravel the logic in that one says one thing and then votes in another way?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I shall clarify the logic, so that even the Centre Party understands it.

We have democracy in Sweden through elections. It creates a parliamentary majority. It subsequently creates a government in Sweden. This government has now received an investigation on its desk. I prioritize, Mr. Speaker, reading that investigation. It is approximately 650 pages long. The Center Party prioritizes reading its own party motion from last autumn.

The investigation is more relevant, because it will lead to us being able to get a legislative proposal, so that we can introduce it as I, the Center Party, and others want to introduce it. This is now entering a stage where we can implement these changes, so that we can significantly increase transparency in the independent schools.

If I had been a member of the Centre Party, I would have welcomed this process. But the Centre Party instead joins in a very strange and banal argument, which I only perceive as a failure to take into account the fundamental difference between a government bill and a motion. One does not even need to read an A-course in political science to learn that. One should actually learn that as early as lower secondary school in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by saying, Fredrik Malm, that I do not believe we need a lecture on the parliament's instruments here. I think this is a power technique and a bit condescending towards the elected representatives here in the chamber.

But I actually think we need to clear up a few things. The Riksdag's mandate is to tell the government what it thinks. We have proposals for announcements. Last year, we had a proposal for an announcement in this report. Seven of the eight parties want the Skolinspektionen to take over the supervision of private preschools. Last week, a proposal for an announcement and legislation came directly from the chamber. This can be done. It is such things that the Riksdag decides on. Everything that follows the rules is permitted.

This is obviously confusing. It is no coincidence that something is decided in a committee one day, something else is said another day, and the following week it goes back to what was thought from the beginning. This is a means of pressure. It is a lack of clarity from the Riksdag. The Liberals can be with us other parties and press on that this is important. It is important for the Swedish people. People do not like that the school market is dealing with trade secrets. We want to know what is happening in our schools. The Liberals feel this way too. Therefore, it becomes difficult to understand.

We know that the government is very good at making quick decisions on legislation and pushing processes at every stage when it is important. What does the plan look like? What does the timeline look like regarding this investigation? That is what we need to know. That is what the Swedish people are interested in. That is what we in the chamber are interested in.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! This is actually starting to become a bit tiresome. We are not voting today on fully introducing the principle of public access in the Swedish school system. We are not voting on that. We may vote on a proposal for a notice, which it could become if there is a majority for the opposition's proposal. At the same time, the matter is being prepared in the Government Offices.

The investigation has been completed. I cannot say much about the timeline, Mr. Speaker. The investigation must first be sent out for consultation. When the consultation period is over, the views shall be collected and reviewed.

Mr. Speaker! This is no stranger than the fact that Camilla Hansen's own party in 2017, when they were in government, voted down proposals here in the Riksdag to, for example, staff school libraries with reference to the fact that a preparation was underway in the Government Offices. It is also no stranger that the Miljöpartiet in 2015, when they also held the school minister post, voted down a number of motions in the Riksdag to introduce the principle of public access for independent schools with reference to precisely the same thing.

It is the government in Sweden that submits legislative proposals to the Riksdag, and then we deliberate on them.

I am determined that we shall be able to present a legislative proposal that is as good and well-balanced as possible, which means that the public, the media, and the authorities get access to the information they need and that all students and parents can make well-balanced choices when they choose a school.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! My question was what the timeline looks like. The Liberals sit in the Ministry of Education and have the most senior minister as well as the school minister post.

If this had concerned the justice area, the referral process would have been finished by next week and a decision would have been made before the summer. The question, therefore, is whether this is something that is important for the Liberals and the government, or if it can be dragged out as long as we need to make decisions on new temporary laws so that the statistics regarding the school will work.

In the investigation's impact analysis, it is stated that the schedule can be maintained if decisions are made by the government and the Riksdag in the spring of 2024. We are already behind. This is important – what does the schedule look like? Will something happen quickly, or is it going to lie over the summer? Then there is the budget process, so maybe it will be something before next summer. In that case, we are kicking the can down the road, and that question is not well served. This needs to go fast.

It is clear that it must be correct. It is clear that it must be good, and it is clear that it must be a bill that we take a position on. But here, the Riksdag is prepared to say: Prioritize this! A majority in the Riksdag says that the government can now hurry up a bit with this legislation. The Liberals choose not to stand behind such an announcement from that majority in the Riksdag that we would become with the Liberals' vote. Instead, one chooses to be unclear – but one does not miss the chance to make media statements about it in the middle of this process. That could have been done in February or June otherwise.

Will this go fast? How eager are you, Fredrik Malm?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I can remind Member Camilla Hansén that the investigation actually arrived a week ago. It is now to be sent out for consultation, and then it will be prepared in the Government Offices. That process can affect several departments. This shall thereafter be examined by the Council on Legislation, and then it becomes a government bill that comes to the Swedish Parliament. It is impossible for me, Mr. Speaker, one week after the investigation has arrived, to give specific dates to Camilla Hansén for every step in such a process. I do not think any government is capable of doing that.

What we must see here, Mr. Speaker, is the necessity of bringing order and clarity to the Swedish school system. It also implies a necessity to achieve increased transparency so that one can obtain all the information needed in the Swedish school system regarding teacher density, grades, and much more - for example, the economic parts concerning school activities, if it involves limited companies. We are firmly determined to work very actively to achieve good legislation in this area.

I note, however, once again, that the investigation is already on the government's desk. The Social Democrats were second on the ball, the Center Party was third on the ball, and the Green Party is then possibly fourth on the ball. But we are now determined to get a bill to the Swedish Parliament.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think the debate is becoming very strange - 30 years after the Liberals, together with other parties on the right wing, began destroying the Swedish school system, the sinner has finally woken up, but despite the sinner having woken up, they do not want to vote for what they claim to have woken up regarding. How do the Liberals reason regarding this?

If the principle of public access had been named Muhammed and was to be deported from Sweden, the laws would have been in place in two seconds, but here it is about defending the interests of certain welfare actors, and then it is suddenly something else that governs.

We all know that the other Tidö parties - at least more than half of them - will not be in favor of the principle of public access, Mr. Speaker. But we also know that it doesn't matter at all. It doesn't matter whether the Sverigedemokraterna, who in absurdum defend the venture capital companies' right to make profits on our children, think the principle of public access is good or not. It doesn't matter at all what the Moderaterna, whose members are among the largest owners of the independent school corporations, think.

Today, Fredrik Malm can vote for a motion regarding the principle of public access to show that there is a majority in Sweden's Riksdag to finally, after 30 years, open the books and say that no public funds shall go to actors without us having insight and being able to see what is happening. Why is Fredrik Malm one day for insight and publicity when the other day he wants to vote against it?

I also just want to urge all Liberals in this chamber who might be watching the debate to think twice. It doesn't take particularly many sensible voices for us to still win the vote.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am listening to Daniel Riazat's reply and note that he forgets what is most important: If we want to introduce the principle of public access for independent schools in Sweden, a legislative proposal is required. We do not introduce the principle of public access by voting on the Left Party's reservation or for an announcement. We do not introduce any principle of public access in that way.

The government submits propositions. One can write many motions in the Riksdag; that is how it is. Some are good, and some are less good. Most are rejected, and some can lead to good things. But the laws we enact in the Riksdag are based on propositions from the government. We must have a bill. The government is now working on that bill, and I am determined to ensure that we work hard so that the bill becomes as good as possible.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet has previously cooperated with Liberalerna to stop arms exports to Turkey. We did this together during the last parliamentary term. Vänsterpartiet has also cooperated with Liberalerna and other parties in the chamber to introduce a gender identity law that is more humane and updated. Vänsterpartiet has cooperated with Liberalerna on a number of different issues.

I also want to point out that Vänsterpartiet cooperated on the principle of public access with the Socialdemokrater when they were in a governing position. When Vänsterpartiet submitted a proposal in the Education Committee three years ago, the then governing parties voted for it despite having a cooperation with Centerpartiet, which at that time did not think it was a good idea.

Fredrik Malm provides technical reasons why one should not vote for this. If it is indeed the case that this is not a bill and will not lead to the principle of public access being introduced, but at best puts pressure on the government – why do the Liberals not want to participate and vote for it? If the ball is still to lie with the government to handle the issue further, this can still be used as an instrument like many other instruments.

Sveriges lärare has today spoken out saying that this must be introduced. Idéburna skolors riksförbund has also spoken out saying that this must be introduced. When various actors are out saying that we must have the principle of public access, why can the Liberals not even vote for a declaration, which Fredrik Malm so nicely points out that this is?

How can one stand and hold a press conference two weeks before a vote on the principle of public access and then, two weeks later, vote against it? I still do not understand, and I think it is a mockery of the people that they do not get to hear exactly why, instead of the excuses that Fredrik Malm comes up with. I want an answer.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite true that the Liberals and the Left Party cooperated to introduce a ban on the export of war materiel to Turkey. Now I do not remember exactly which year it was – whether it was 2017 or 2018 – but it is quite true. It did not happen here, however; if I remember correctly, it went through the EU Committee, which makes the decisions.

We come back once again to the exact same basic question, Mr. Speaker, where the opposition is trying to mix up the cards and spread some kind of fog. They are practically trying to make it as if a motion is a government bill, but they are two different things.

The question has now come to the government's table. It is an investigation of 650 pages, and it is to be sent out for consultation so that many different actors, organizations, authorities, and others can comment. Then this enters a legislative process, and it is entirely in accordance with customary order and practice. It is nothing strange, and it is no more unusual than that Daniel Riazat's own motions regarding staffed school libraries have been rejected in the Riksdag with precisely the same arguments by the Socialdemokraterna.

I note, however, that many of the issues that the opposition is upset about are issues that were not just Daniel Riazat's party's responsibility, but other parties were responsible for during an eight-year period, from 2014 to 2022. But they never reached their goals because they did not bother to manage the political craftsmanship and produce products that the Riksdag could vote for.

It is strange that those who are now in opposition and who were previously in the majority did so little to rectify what is now being argued about. Much of what we will now rectify for the independent schools I would have wished had happened much earlier, but it did not happen because it was not prioritized. They only prioritized arguing in the debate but not putting forward legislative proposals.

Sweden changes with laws through legislation, and that is what we must focus on.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Mr. Speaker! Before I go further into the proposals we are to debate today, I would like to start by continuing the exchange of remarks just now.

We have heard Fredrik Malm repeatedly call others slow to the ball. In that case, it is important to tell the interested public or others listening to the debate that the Social Democrats have championed the issue of the principle of public access in free schools for decades. The investigation that Fredrik Malm proudly declares the minister has received was commissioned by the Social Democratic government. When the school minister adopted the amendment directives for the investigation, it was a fact that the mandate to investigate the principle of public access was about to be scrapped just when the investigation was almost finished.

The reason that there is a bill for the government to move forward with at all is that the Social Democrats and the opposition built a consensus that the principle of public access must be introduced. They put such pressure on Lotta Edholm that she was forced to let the commission keep the assignment. It is in no way Fredrik Malm's merit that the bill exists.

Speaking of being last on the ball; the Liberals changed their minds two weeks ago. The Social Democrats have driven the issue for decades. Just to clear up a few things!

So to my speech. The all-overshadowing goal must be a school that works for all children, a school with the capacity to level differences in children's upbringing conditions. That all children go to school, with a right and duty to participate, regardless of the parents' social status, is perhaps the most leveling factor that exists in our welfare society.

That is why we have submitted a proposal that all possibilities of charging fees from parents, even insignificant ones, should be abolished. There should be no more unequal fruit snacks or packed lunches, no more entrance tickets for museum visits or travel on public transport. All children should have the opportunity to participate on equal terms. Even small fees can play a major role for families with small margins. Is it not time that we also decide that all upper secondary school students shall have the right to a nutritious lunch without a fee?

School should not only be equal for everyone but also meet the needs of the individual student. It should be a meeting place for children from different backgrounds, and it should build a common knowledge base for everyone living in the country - create cohesion, not division.

But if the school is to have the capacity to compensate for differences in upbringing conditions, function as a meeting place for children from different backgrounds and build a common knowledge base – then the system must be redesigned.

As the school choice system is designed, it reinforces segregation. As the school voucher system is designed, the money is not sufficient, and the school's resources are not fairly distributed. As the establishment right for independent schools is designed, no instance can either plan for how the school system in a geographical location should function as a whole. Therefore, we Social Democrats have a long series of system-changing proposals in the motions being debated in the chamber today.

Mr. Speaker! The money that we have jointly allocated for children's and youth's education must go to exactly this. Yes! The independent schools are here to stay. Yes! The freedom of choice is here to stay. But the one who runs a school must do so with the aim of providing good education for the students, not to enrich themselves. Therefore, profit extraction in independent schools must be prohibited.

Municipalities have the responsibility to ensure that all children living in the municipality have a place in a school in reasonable proximity to their home. Independent schools (friskolor) do not have the same responsibility. An independent school can optimize its class sizes, its staffing, its premises, or choose to wind down its operations whenever the owners wish. But one still receives the same compensation for running a school as the municipality has in costs for running its own schools. This means that independent schools are paid for a task in the school system that the municipalities perform. Therefore, the school funding must be differentiated so that municipalities receive compensation for the supply responsibility they have and the independent schools no longer receive payment for a task they do not perform.

The freedom of establishment for independent schools means that no one can create a planned school system in a geographical location. Municipalities that have the responsibility to ensure that all children have a school place in reasonable proximity to their home must have oversight over where the schools are located. Therefore, the municipalities must be able to exercise their veto regarding the establishment and expansion of independent schools.

In this system, each head of school manages its own admissions. A long series of media revelations have shown severe irregularities regarding this. When the County Administrative Board of Education reviews how the independent schools manage their admissions, the conclusion can be summarized as that it is going poorly. It is a task that the independent schools simply do not manage. Furthermore, that arrangement means that students must apply to each school with the respective head of school in order to, so to speak, have a second and third choice if they were not to get into their first choice. It would be better and significantly more legally secure for those who are to choose if the school choice were common, that is, an instance that manages the administration. Therefore, the school choice should be administered by the public sector, either by the state or by the local municipality for each independent school.

When there are more applicants than places at a school, a selection must be made. Most independent schools then let the time of application be what determines which children get a place. The one who stood first in the queue gets in first. It may sound fair, but it has the consequence that children from socioeconomically strong homes have a head start when it comes to getting into popular independent schools. Instead, obviously, everyone who wants to attend a certain school should have equal opportunities to get in. Application time should not be used to make the selection. It leads to the student body being segregated.

Mr. Speaker! When we have plugged the leakage of tax funds and have stopped the segregation and inefficiency in the system, the funding must be strengthened. A more equitable school also means that the state's responsibility for funding must increase. The school's resources shall be distributed compensatorily, but the municipal resource in the school today is not compensatorily distributed. Within municipalities it may be so, but between municipalities it is not.

Municipalities allocate different amounts to children's education, and the pattern seems to be that municipalities with high tax capacity allocate more than municipalities with low tax capacity. This has the consequence that students living in socioeconomically strong municipalities receive a more costly education than students living in socioeconomically weaker municipalities.

Municipalities cannot be responsible for that equalization between one another. That responsibility must be taken by the state. Therefore, the equality grant, the knowledge grant, should be expanded. It is also important that its compensatory element is preserved.

Furthermore, more resources need to be directed towards the early school years, so that interventions can be implemented early both in age and in a problematic development.

At the same time, the knowledge contribution should be expanded so that it also covers upper secondary school, whose resources today essentially completely lack compensatory elements. Furthermore, upper secondary school should also become compulsory. It already is for those who want a direct path into the labor market. It is time that we make it compulsory in the legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker! The all-overshadowing goal must be a school that works for all children, a school with the capacity to level differences in children's upbringing conditions. In order to achieve this, a long series of systemic changes must take place.

Therefore, we Social Democrats stand behind all of our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation number 29 regarding the ban on meat.

(Applause)

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! Just as my colleagues have accounted for, we are debating the Education Committee's report Overall School Issues. In the report, we address 135 motions, and the committee proposes that the Riksdag reject all of them. I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

For the first time in a very long time, Sweden has a government that is working both hard and fast to get the Swedish school in order. We have a solid reform agenda with high ambitions to address both the knowledge level and safety. With school as one of six prioritized areas, the goal is clear. It is time that every student gets a fair chance.

In the schools that the Social Democrats left behind after eight years in government, 15 percent of the ninth graders lacked eligibility for upper secondary school. The differences between the municipalities were large. At over 70 schools, over a third of the ninth graders lacked eligibility for upper secondary school. But at some schools, not even half of the students received sufficient knowledge and instruction to achieve eligibility for upper secondary school, Mr. Speaker. And as if by chance, the majority of these schools are located in municipalities governed by Social Democrats.

It is time to go back to basics with multi-million investments in books and reading, special teachers and special teaching groups, extended study time, clearer knowledge orientation in the policy documents, national tests that become digital and that can be measured and compared over time, permanent investment in advanced classes, after-school programs from lower grade levels and mandatory homework help for students who need it.

When this is combined with a reduced administrative burden for teachers and relief through other staff and with high expectations on teachers, students, parents and not least politicians, we believe that it is possible to create a school that better compensates for and meets every student's needs.

Mr. Speaker! That the school is characterized by safety and a studious atmosphere is a prerequisite for students' learning. Nevertheless, we have seen that safety in Swedish schools has regressed over time. When the Swedish Crime Prevention Council asks the country's students in grade 9 about exposure to crime, almost half of them state that they have at least once been subjected to theft, assault, threats, or sexual crimes during the last twelve months.

From Friends' previous reports, it appears that every fourth child has been subjected to some form of serious violence in school, and nearly 10 percent of them have had to seek medical care for their injuries. At the same time, every fifth report of threats and violence received by the Swedish Work Environment Authority was made by a teacher.

Furthermore, it has recently been discovered that there are employees at our schools who have been convicted of reckless crimes and who re-offend during the period of their employment.

So that is what the Swedish school looks like, and that is how the Social Democrats have left it after eight years in government.

We believe in:

clear tightenings in the Education Act regarding the principal's primary responsibility for establishing safety and study environments

strengthened powers for both teachers and principals to act when the situation requires it

demand to move the perpetrator of violence and the bully instead of the person subjected to violence and bullying

clear rules of order, which are known to both students and parents, and high requirements for parents to teach their children both these rules of order and to respect their teachers and classmates

day schools and particularly skilled teachers who ensure that even the rowdy students receive instruction

a stop to unauthorized access to our school environments and our students

a reporting obligation that guarantees that crimes committed in school are also reported

an expanded and recurring criminal record check to ensure that no principal unconsciously needs to hire a criminal again.

With all this, together with hardworking and skilled teachers, diligent students and engaged parents - and perhaps a little luck, Mr. Speaker, - we believe and maintain that it is fully possible to turn around Swedish school and re-establish high levels of knowledge and a security to boast about.

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

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Mr. Speaker! The introduction of the principle of public access in the 18th century aimed to prevent corruption and ensure citizens' insight into the authorities' actions. One should be able to follow and see that no irregularities existed. The printing press, invented at that time, and thus the media's reach, would eventually lead to insight into and scrutiny of the public's use of tax funds.

Now we have an entire tax-funded sector that neither citizens nor the media have any insight into at all. All information about independent schools is, in fact, trade secrets.

For me, it is a self-evident matter that the principle of public access should also apply to independent schools, in exactly the same way as it applies to municipal schools. The only funding for independent schools is the taxpayers' money, and independent schools exercise authority against individuals when decisions are made on, for example, special support, disciplinary measures, or grading. But the media in general, as has been said, lack insight. Consequently, irregularities cannot be exposed.

Now the Liberals have come with the announcement that they have changed their minds and want the principle of public access to include independent schools. Thus, there is a majority in this chamber that is in favor of that proposal. The Liberal party leader said on SVT on April 9: "I hope to be able to gather a majority in the government support for this."

My question to the member is whether she is ready to follow the Liberals in this shift in position.

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Linus Sköld, for your question and your account of the history of the principle of public access!

The Moderates are very keen that good oversight should also be established in the friskolor. We have said this on repeated occasions, and we maintain that line. We look forward to taking part in the consultation responses that will be submitted during the consultation round that is now ongoing within the framework of the investigation.

The announcement we have to make is that we look forward very much to, together with our coalition partners, implementing measures to ensure that we obtain very good insight into the friskolor.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Mr. Speaker! Fredrik Malm, who is the chairman of the Education Committee and is sitting here in the chamber, and the liberal School Minister, who represents Noria Manouchis' government, signed a debate article in Expressen on April 11. It stated there that they want to be leading in settling the score with the bourgeoisie's free school heritage and that the bourgeoisie for far too long has had a naive view of free schools, which in some cases put the owners' profit interests ahead of the children's right to a good education.

The order we have regarding transparency in independent schools puts the owners' interests ahead of the students'. I now hear Noria Manouchi answer no to my question about whether she is prepared to follow Fredrik Malm and the Minister for Education in the shift in position regarding the principle of public access. That was indeed what she said. She did not say "Yes, we want to introduce the principle of public access," but she said "We want to ensure good transparency."

This means in practice that the Moderates are still saying no to the introduction of the principle of public access, and my question is why. Do the Moderates not share the Liberals' view that the bourgeoisie has had a naive view of the independent school sector? Why does Noria Manouchi not want the principle of public access to apply equally to independent schools and municipal schools? In all other respects, she wants equal conditions to prevail for municipal and independent schools, but not when it comes to transparency. How can that be? Why, Noria Manouchi, do you say no to introducing the principle of public access in independent schools?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Mr. Speaker! I find this a bit interesting. I am making a contribution to the debate on general school issues. Two completely fundamental issues for us to get the Swedish school situation right are that we raise the knowledge levels and that we re-establish a sense of security in Swedish schools.

I note that 15 percent of ninth graders do not get into upper secondary school, and the Social Democrats' priority is to discuss whether we should have a ten- or eight-grade insight into the independent schools.

I note that 50 percent of ninth-graders are subjected to violence or sexual crimes in Swedish schools and that 10 percent of them need to seek medical care for their injuries. And the Social Democrats' priority is to ask questions about a ten- or eight-grade inspection of the independent schools.

This, Mr. Speaker, explains very well why Swedish school finds itself in the situation it is in and why students and teachers have had to be subjected to what they have been subjected to during all these years that the Social Democrats have governed. This explains everything.

I think it is excellent that Member Linus Sköld is very clear towards all these students' parents so that they hear why their children should endure beatings in Swedish school. I think it is excellent that Swedish teachers, who are being spat on and kicked, now understand why the Social Democrats have never prioritized their safety.

For the Social Democrats, it is indeed important to ask the Moderates whether we should have a ten- or eight-point oversight of Swedish independent schools. We must have good oversight of Swedish independent schools, but we must also ensure that every child is safe in Swedish schools.

(Applause)

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I move for time-saving approval only for the Sweden Democrats' reservation number 48; it concerns digitalization.

Once upon a time there was a country in northern Europe that had the best school, perhaps even the world's best school. That country is called Sweden.

Now, more than 30 years later, it is not that way anymore. We are struggling with a declining trend, which becomes clear when we are compared with other countries in the large Pisa and Pirls surveys. In many parts, we are at best mediocre. We also receive a lot of strong criticism for not getting enough knowledge for all the money that Sweden invests in school. One could say in populist terms that we are not really getting bang for the buck.

The Swedish school system is therefore receiving serious criticism for not being sufficiently efficient. We invest a lot of money in the school but do not achieve corresponding results, which means a great waste of our tax money.

These surveys also show a clear picture of a segregated Sweden, with results ranging from very good to very poor.

How could it then go so badly during these three long decades? The reasons are several, as we have heard from the previous speakers. But a great deal of major changes have occurred that have affected the school negatively. A major reorganization of the curricula took place during the late 80s and during the 90s, and at the same time, mass migration accelerated. We had no preparedness whatsoever regarding how these new students, in such large numbers, would fit into the Swedish school. Some managed well, but far too many found it extremely difficult.

In the new curricula, the focus on actual factual knowledge and the knowledge school, where teachers completely directed the education of their students, was also abandoned. Instead, they were now to move more towards coaching the students in the search for their own knowledge.

When this is added to the mass immigration from, in many cases, countries with a truly dysfunctional education system, it is not so strange that it becomes as it is in today's school. We must also remember that when these large changes in the curricula were started, we had a fairly homogeneous group of students. Perhaps it would have worked better if it had remained so – the change might have worked. But as everyone knows, the mass immigration started at the same time, and the combination of these two things became very unfortunate. We all see that today.

We see the result today, with a segregated school system where the differences in results are large between different groups, schools, neighborhoods, and municipalities.

Now the government basis is reviewing both the curricula for the students and the education for our teachers. This is much needed.

Madam Speaker! We Sverigedemokrater also oppose that schoolchildren are used as integration tools - "crash pads," some say. Students are bussed, raffled, or quota-ed into schools so that a so-called mixing of students from different socioeconomic groups shall occur. We advocate instead for targeted measures in schools with a high proportion of immigrants and disciplinary problems, as well as in schools in vulnerable areas.

It should primarily be about discipline, introduced rules and norms based on Swedish tradition and Swedish values, because it was actually this that worked once upon a time, when our school was practically the best in the world. Swedish, which constitutes the first language, shall be spoken in all corridors and classrooms, except during language lessons. Rule-breaking shall have clear consequences, and so on.

As inspiration, one can look at and use the No Excuses educational model from the USA and England, naturally with a Swedish adaptation.

The alternative that is used today – to pump money into the schools, especially in the vulnerable areas – demonstrably does not work. It has been done for over 20 years, and it is a major failure.

Every year, tens of billions of kronor are used in these so-called resource distribution models to funnel money from well-off schools to schools in disadvantaged areas. That is exactly how it is done. In Gothenburg alone, for example, more than 1 billion kronor, which is equal to 1,000 million kronor, are used for these adjustments. It is even a little more.

Here are some of the costs of mass immigration, money that in a better situation could have been used for many other much-needed things in school. Fortunately, the current government base intends to do something about this, and we are now looking at a national school funding norm. My hope is that this investigation will give us good conditions to reduce the waste of tax money as well as provide more equal conditions for our students.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to mention something about the digitalization of schools. The previous so-called digitalization strategy, which the previous government used, essentially consisted of getting as much IT as possible into schools, without further consideration. Each municipality was left to fend for itself in choosing IT platforms without any national coordination. The results of this are clear deficiencies in learning and very high costs.

Despite the fact that there has been constant criticism from knowledgeable researchers at the large universities and also from us as a party, one has continued to move in that direction. Now, a welcome turn is underway, and here we in Sverigedemokrater want to be clear that national guidelines are needed where digital tools are removed from preschool class up to grade 3.

Computer labs and computer carts shall be used instead of personal computers in the so-called middle primary school, i.e., grades 4-6, when this provides added value. Only in grades 7-9, i.e., upper primary school, can personal computers or Chromebooks be used as a complement to the physical textbooks.

There should also be a national network or a platform - you can call it whatever you want - with high security, robust filters and firewalls so that computers become secure tools for work and nothing else. The municipalities should be encouraged to use this national network, which, in addition to providing security and good content, should also lower costs for them.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I think that what Jörgen Grubb has just said is important voter information, namely that resources in schools should not be distributed according to the students' needs. Jörgen Grubb is very upset that this is happening. He is right in that view, but if you ask me, it seems unreasonable to distribute according to any principle other than the students' needs.

Jörgen Grubb is also upset about the inefficiency in the Swedish school system. If one looks at the Riksrevisionen's review of the efficiency of school funding, one can conclude that the design of the school funding may be the greatest inefficiency in the school system.

It is not enough that profit distribution causes tax money to disappear into the pockets of private school owners. The very design of the system also means that every school place must be paid for several times. This means that municipalities must stand with overcapacity and compensate the independent schools to maintain the same overcapacity, which they do not do. This type of inefficiency is something one could do something about, Jörgen Grubb, if one wanted to.

However, the Sweden Democrats do not want that, because the Sweden Democrats stand on the side of the independent school owners. Rather school owners than students - that is clearly heard. The students' needs shall not be met, and resources shall not be distributed according to the students' needs. But the independent school owners' profits shall be protected.

I want to ask the same question to Jörgen Grubb that I asked Noria Manouchi earlier. The Liberals' party leader hopes to create a majority to introduce the principle of public access in independent schools. I then wonder: Are the Sweden Democrats and Jörgen Grubb prepared to follow the Liberals' shift in position on this issue?

(Applause)

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. Regarding the friskolor and transparency, it is very clearly stated in the Tidö Agreement that the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties agree to introduce a transparency principle for independent schools. There is therefore no reason to discuss anything else.

An investigation with proposals on how the principle of transparency can look has recently been presented. I believe three speakers have said it before: The Tidö parties will now begin the work of designing such a principle of transparency.

Regarding the large sums of money in the Swedish school system, I noticed that member Linus Sköld spoke about profits and such for the friskolor. A lot of different figures fluctuate. Sometimes people talk about 2 billion kronor. That is a huge amount of money - 2,000 million kronor. I spoke about a system where we have resource distribution models that distribute more than 20 billion, i.e., ten times that amount. This is not something that Linus Sköld wants to touch upon.

The resource distribution models are not made based on need but based on established factors. If a person comes from a certain country or has a certain gender, one is to receive a certain percentage. Boys, for example, always get more money than girls, and if the family has a poor educational background, one always gets more money, and so on. Whether the physical student has been affected is not checked; instead, these funds are distributed automatically. I want to emphasize the word automatically.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to point out to Jörgen Grubb that the difference between what goes to the profit of private school owners and what is distributed according to resource distribution models is that one type of expenditure is not used for the children's teaching and that the other type of expenditure goes directly to the children's education. That is the big difference. They are not comparable magnitudes.

Money that goes to the profits of free school owners is a waste of tax money. It is money that is not used for teaching, while money that is distributed according to resource allocation principles directly - unequivocally - is used for teaching.

I think that what Jörgen Grubb began by saying is noteworthy, namely that the Tidö Agreement stipulates that a principle of transparency shall be introduced and that there is therefore no reason to discuss anything else. I would like to inform Jörgen Grubb that a parliamentary majority is now in favor of introducing a principle of public access in independent schools. This gives every reason to discuss something else. Otherwise, one does not respect democracy.

If a majority of the members of the Riksdag were to express support for a principle of publicity, then it is a principle of publicity that should be introduced, and then the Tidö Agreement can be thrown in the trash.

(Applause)

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to inform Linus Sköld that a vote will take place this afternoon and that we will see what this vote shows.

Even more important for Member of Parliament Linus Sköld is that a separate debate on this will occur. He will be given all the time in the world to discuss this when a proposition is on the table. The investigation is, as said, complete, and now it will be reviewed with all referral bodies and so on. Then it will come, and you will then have the world's chance, Linus Sköld, to talk about your favorite subject, which you believe will change the entire Swedish school system.

We have seen all the other things that cost many times more than the money you have said the friskolor cost and which you totally neglect. This has been going on for 30 years, and during most of these years you have been in power. But you have not done a thing. You have only let the results go down, and soon we are below the surface. That is what you have let happen. I think it is frightening.

I want to point out one thing: You have a clear grudge against independent schools, and you have the right to have that if you want. You were still involved in introducing them. You were also involved in introducing that they received 100 percent compensation, but it seems you have forgotten that. But you should know that 400,000 students go to independent schools every day of their own free will. It is not a prison they go to, but schools that they themselves have chosen of their own free will.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have a question for Jörgen Grubb regarding the Sweden Democrats' thoughts on a digitalization strategy for Swedish schools. We have heard some detailed proposals regarding how it should look in classrooms at different levels and how computers should be used. But what I am wondering is whether this is part of a larger strategy for the digitalization of Swedish schools or for how the digitalization of Sweden should function.

We previously had a digitalization strategy. It consisted of three parts: digital competence for all, equal access to the use of digital tools, as well as research and follow-up regarding the possibilities of digitalization.

We live in a changing world, and digitalization is one of the major global megatrends that exists. A research day was held in the Riksdag last week which focused on AI and on the fact that it is important to have an understanding of these digital tools and that we find ways to talk about them. One could almost say that it is like learning a new ethical language in order to understand this reality.

I wonder a bit what the Sweden Democrats have for a strategy regarding the digitalization of schools and Sweden in light of this global megatrend.

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is very interesting - I thought we were quite clear. Perhaps we were not.

As it stands today, computers, iPads and Chromebooks have been thrown into schools rather randomly. It has also been written that preschool children should engage in this. This has turned out to be very counterproductive.

What is called pen and paper are the most important tools for knowledge. This, together with textbooks and a good educator, also called a teacher or pedagogue, is fantastic. It is what works best of all. In addition to this, one can have other tools. One can have film and theater. One can also have various IT tools to help and support. But it must not be the base in an education.

That is why we are establishing perhaps too detailed but still quite clear guidelines on how we view it. We have looked at the schools and seen the results. Literacy is falling. A very large number of students have difficulty writing a coherent text. These are quite serious matters.

There is a pedagogy in writing a text. I guess that Member Camilla Hansén knows that when you write something with a pen on a piece of paper, it goes straight up into the head much more than when you sit and tap on some anonymous keys. That is simply how our bodies work. Evolution has not moved so fast that this has changed in 20, 30, or 40 years just because we have received fantastic tools thanks to IT.

I believe I have clearly demonstrated that we are ramping up the usage. Then, naturally, the young people use IT tools in their homes in various ways and with different intensities.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! My question was what the Sweden Democrats have for a view on a national strategy for the digitalization of schools. It did not concern details about which tools should be used at which age, but overarching questions: How should the competence increase among teachers take place? What competence do children and students and young people need when it comes to using IT as a learning tool? What thoughts are there regarding research and follow-up of this?

Right now, we have no national strategy for this. It is empty. SKR expressed that such a strategy was needed when they visited us a few weeks ago. At the Riksdag's research day last week, it became clear that one needs to have a plan for an increase in knowledge throughout society.

That our brain is outdated, we will have to live with for a very long time. Evolution takes much longer than the transformations that are happening now. I am a teacher of Swedish, and I am familiar with this regarding handwriting and learning, at least on a basic level. But what we are facing now is something else. It requires a leadership and a steering and a common way to approach and handle it. Then I wonder: What is the overall strategy for Sweden to be a country at the forefront of the global megatrend that digitalization is?

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Madam Speaker! The overall strategy has not yet been written by us, but it is definitely not written by you, who for eight years did nothing.

Now we want to tackle and implement this strategy. But the basic principles still stem from the school. As I said, there must also be a national network. Today we have municipalities that buy one type and the next municipality buys another type – there are perhaps four, five, six different ones for the 290 municipalities to use. We want a rigor where there is a system. The national tests, which are now to be made digital, will also function better if one has a single system, and not just systems that are said to be able to talk to each other. It is an important matter.

The strategy in broad strokes is that you pull it upwards. There is not a single student who, in almost any age at all, can avoid IT today. Just the phones are computers in themselves. But the school must also focus on getting learning in, and then paper and pen are the most important. It is the school I am primarily thinking of here – that one receives an education. If you receive an education, you can also take care of other tools, but if you don't, it is harder to handle these new tools.

We have not seen the end of this, because more and more sophisticated tools are coming. The member mentioned AI. It is very interesting. I do not think we really know the possibilities of it. God knows if there is anyone who knows, but it will explode in some way—hopefully in a positive development, naturally.

(Applause)

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! School is the most important protective factor against crime, unemployment, and mental ill-health. There is nothing that reduces the risk of exclusion as much as graduating from school with passing grades. It is the best protection that Sweden's youth can receive. But unfortunately, a quarter of all young people do not receive that protection. One in four students finishes year 9 without complete grades, and 16 percent do so without eligibility for upper secondary school. It is simply not good enough.

The way forward so that more people succeed is not about lowering the knowledge requirements. Swedish schools need, instead, to have high expectations of the students and 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. Early knowledge assessments and support measures are also needed so that more children get the opportunity to succeed. It is about support measures in the form of increased teaching time, homework help in school for those children who cannot do their homework at home, as well as holiday school. Not least, it is about special education support and special teaching groups. Families and parents also need to be involved and take responsibility. We also need to reverse the deeply worrying development of the growing mental ill-health among children and young people.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to mental ill-health, the figures are deeply alarming. The proportion of young people who state that they feel down has doubled over the last 20 years. According to the Public Health Agency, 25 percent of girls between 16 and 25 years old suffer from severe problems with anxiety, worry, or distress. Unfortunately, Sweden stands out when compared with our neighboring countries. At Bris, the calls to the support line are increasing and are now up to around 50,000 curative calls per year - twice as many as just ten years ago. It goes without saying that a child who is wondering whether one even wants to continue living finds it difficult to concentrate on the SO lesson.

Many changes are needed to address this. It naturally concerns strengthened student health, strengthened care, and better access to BUP. But it is also about peace of work in the lessons, safety in the corridors, and evidence-based work against bullying. The school is a strategic frontline when it comes to countering the growing mental ill-health, because the earlier we succeed in stopping this, the lower is the risk that the problems take root and follow into adult life.

Madam Speaker! Sweden also needs secure families. In families that function and have time, we are loved unconditionally. There, your value is not measured in the number of likes or priced by the brand on the shirt, but there you are loved for who you are, not for what you perform or for how you look.

For children suffering from mental ill-health, there is no better place to be than in a safe family. It builds a safety net that is more important than anything else. Safe families build safe children, and that builds a safer society.

Students need support from home. The importance of parents and family for students' schooling cannot be overstated. However compensatory we want the school to be, how much we try to set things right, and how much we wish that family background would not play any role in school results, we cannot escape the fact that parents who involve themselves and care about their child's results in school are incredibly important for the children's schooling.

Parents therefore need to receive help and support in being able to help their children meet the school's requirements and more actively involve themselves in the child's learning. This can manifest in different ways. It can involve offering parents concrete tools to support the children. For some parents, it might help to be told in an encouraging way how important it is to read aloud to the children every evening or to be told about the importance of ensuring that the children eat correctly, move around, go to bed on time, and do their homework.

Just telling the children that in school one listens to the teacher and does as the teacher says, or asking the children every day how they have had it at school, matters for what signals one sends about how important school is, which in the long run makes a difference for the school results. School and parents simply need to cooperate and help each other so that our children get as good opportunities as possible to learn as much as possible in school.

Something like an expectations document, I believe, is a good step forward – a kind of responsibility contract between parents, the student, and the school that clarifies the expectations for both the student and the parents, of course when it comes to taking responsibility for studies but also regarding rules of conduct, interaction, and what the parents can do to support their children.

Madam Speaker! Another problem that we have touched upon earlier in the debate regarding the students' ability to acquire knowledge is the screens. Many teachers whom we meet out in the schools believe that this has changed drastically just in the last ten to fifteen years, and it is easy to link the lack of concentration with the entry of screens into our lives.

The screens are a thief of time that has no equivalent in world history. The screens affect mental health and contribute to increased anxiety, worry, stress, and self-harming behavior, as well as to poorer school results. To constantly be connected, to constantly have one's value measured in likes, and to constantly be afraid of having missed something is a lifestyle that wears on the brain. It also pulls children away from other important activities such as movement, sleep, exercise, family, friends, reading, and outdoor play. Here, parents need to receive support, recommendations, and advice on how to manage the screens at home.

Students also find it increasingly difficult to do their homework at home. Only one in five does their homework without digital distraction, and it is clear that it becomes difficult to concentrate on homework when one has all the world's entertainment within arm's reach. In the classrooms, the spinning TikTok-brain that is constantly seeking new quick kicks makes the children choose to opt out of reading longer texts. They prioritize away more difficult tasks.

When screens have this effect on children, it is easy to conclude that the school should not be involved in or contributing to it. It has been a mistake to force screens into the classrooms and schools. The digitalization hysteria that has occurred, where everything digital, regardless of content, has been considered good in the name of modernity, must be stopped.

That is what it shall be. The school will become a counterweight to the screens' dopamine-seeking second-game with our children's brains. There will be fewer screens and more physical learning materials, fewer distractions and more mobile phone bans, fewer quick kicks and more boring drudgery.

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

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

I must begin by saying that one is truly moved by the Christian Democrats' view on family and security. That this, according to the Christian Democrats, does not apply to all families but only to certain ones, we can debate on another day.

When it comes to schools, the Christian Democrats have been asked about the principle of public access a few times. Among other things, in September 2020, Dagens Arena asked what the Christian Democrats thought about the principle of public access. The answer then was that the Christian Democrats thought that information about schools, regardless of whether they are municipal or independent, should also be public since they are publicly funded.

The Christian Democrats received a question from the newspaper Skolvärlden during the same month regarding what they thought about the principle of public access – yes or no, very simple. The Christian Democrats answered yes.

Now we stand here, and it may be good for those listening to know that we are going to vote on the principle of public access today. For those who wonder, the principle of public access is about us not just handing over billions and billions to different types of free school corporations without knowing what happens with the money or knowing whether the school's owner is a criminal.

If I have understood the whole thing correctly, the Christian Democrats will vote no to the principle of public access today. I wonder why. Does it not go against what the Christian Democrats think and have answered?

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I shall disregard Daniel Riazat's inaccuracies regarding both the independent school sector and the Christian Democrats as a party and instead answer the question regarding the principle of public access.

The principle of public access aims to provide insight into the operations of schools and, in fact, all public activities. The Christian Democrats want that it should be possible to compare and audit both independent schools and municipal schools. We want that there should be insight into their operations and that it should be possible to audit student data, accounting documents, personnel records, and operational documents. As Daniel Riazat has pointed out, we have long advocated that it should be possible to compare municipal schools and independent schools.

This is what we stand for, and therefore the law needs to be changed. The government is working to introduce a new law, and I will vote for it when the government places this bill before the Riksdag.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Then I must ask another question to Mathias Bengtsson. I am getting a bit confused; it seemed a message came here that a proposal will be submitted to introduce the principle of public access. Mathias Bengtsson is very welcome to answer that, because the member just said that he will vote for the proposal when it is tabled in the Riksdag.

It is very pleasing. Then we can all agree that we shall introduce the principle of public access. I also congratulate the Christian Democrats and the Liberals for having gotten the other parties in the Tidö Agreement to agree to this.

I just wonder: If one says that one is for something, can one then also vote for it when it appears here in the Riksdag? In two hours, we are going to vote on the principle of public access here in the chamber. Can the Christian Democrats then vote for that which Mathias Bengtsson has just said here that one is for, namely a motion to introduce the principle of public access?

If it is the case that you are going to present this, it could be good to be able to show a parliamentary majority that is in favor of it. Ultimately, power in Sweden actually stems from the Riksdag, and therefore I think it can be good to point out which parties mean what they say. Otherwise, it becomes a bit like what a member from Centerpartiet mentioned earlier: One says one thing before the election. Then the election comes, and after the election, one says another thing.

You can perhaps leave that to the Liberals. Can you in the Christian Democrats not stick to and stand up for what you have said?

We must have a principle of public access. Free school actors shall not be able to hide what the money is used for. They shall not be able to hide any information about schools that we all finance with our tax money. Can you, please, promise to do that?

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I would like to remind the members that, according to Swedish parliamentary custom, the speaker formally addresses the Speaker directly and the members indirectly, which means that members should begin their speech by saying "Mr. Speaker" or "Madam Speaker". Just "Speaker" is also acceptable.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite know what kind of image the opposition is trying to create post after post. Daniel Riazat is simply wrong – it is not a bill that the Riksdag is to vote on today, but it is an announcement. Such proposals appear on the Riksdag's table every now and then, and the government usually does not vote for them.

I do not know if I need to enlighten Daniel Riazat about the democratic order we have in Sweden. I do not even know if one can provide such an enlightenment without being accused of using power tactics.

We simply have an order where the voters elect a Riksdag, which elects a Prime Minister, who appoints a government. Then, government negotiations are needed where the parties negotiate with each other. The government places proposals on the table of the Riksdag, which the Riksdag votes on.

Now there is, as Daniel Riazat knows very well, an investigation concerning transparency in independent schools. It will be sent out for a referral process and handled as is customary, completely according to all the rules. Then a proposal from the government will land on the Riksdag's table. I will vote for that proposal, because I want transparency in independent schools. I want it to be possible to compare independent schools and municipal schools.

In one matter we agree - one should have insight and be able to compare independent schools and municipal schools.

The opposition is attempting a theatrical performance, or charade, that we will vote on a bill this afternoon. It is simply not correct.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I would like to make a reflection on the Christian Democrats', and obviously also the Liberals', view on the power relations between the Riksdag and the government.

During the previous parliamentary term, it was a minority government that governed the realm. The Christian Democrats were part of the opposition but usually gathered a majority to direct various types of motions to the government. The Education Committee actually directed several of them. Was it then the case that the Christian Democrats thought this was completely irrelevant and that the government could simply ignore the positions for which there was a majority in the Riksdag?

The reasoning that Fredrik Malm and Mathias Bengtsson have presented today regarding motions versus propositions means that they believe the government can disregard the will of the parliamentary majority. That is not how our democracy works. If the Riksdag issues a declaration that the principle of public access shall be introduced, it binds the government to the fact that this is the parliamentary majority's view. It is therefore by no means an insignificant vote we are to have this afternoon. On the contrary, it is completely decisive.

Here, Mathias Bengtsson has the opportunity to take a stand. However, I imagine that what is actually being worked on here is that Mathias Bengtsson does not want to introduce the principle of public access in independent schools. Just like the rest of the right-wing majority, he stands on the side of the independent school owners - not on the students' side.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I think Member Linus Sköld is a bit too conspiratorial. He reads in some kind of hidden motive when I am trying to explain my position on the issue as openly and transparently as possible.

I also mean that Linus Sköld builds up a false opposition between the students and the independent school owners. That opposition does not exist. The independent school owners who run very successful independent schools of very high quality are good for the students. It is something that benefits the students.

(Applause)

I move on to the question of announcements. I am not against announcements as a principle; they are reasonable to use when they are useful. But in this case, we have a parliamentary majority that is for the investigation that was placed on the government's table a week ago to be treated like all investigations are treated before they become legislative proposals, so that we can let the experts speak, so that we can have the referral process, and so that the government can submit a legislative proposal to the Riksdag. In the end, it is a legislative proposal that actually makes a difference for the students.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! The investigation we are talking about outlines two alternative paths. Either an insight clause—what the Tidö Agreement refers to as an insight principle—shall be introduced, or the principle of public access shall be introduced in independent schools. The difference between these two is that the principle of public access means that all documents within the operation are, as a rule, public, while the insight principle says that only certain documents are public and that one can refuse to release documents of a certain character.

A ground for refusal that the principle of transparency will cover is the business and operating conditions of the principal. What information is it that Mathias Bengtsson wants to keep secret when he wants a principle of transparency instead of a principle of public access? Yes, it is the information that the principal handles regarding business and operating conditions, i.e., how the taxpayers' money is used. It is this information that Mathias Bengtsson does not want to become public.

It is to stand on the side of capital. It is not to stand for an order where the activities of the friskolor can be scrutinized, where the public has insight, where the media can scrutinize, and where the students can receive comparable information about public and independent operations.

In the issue at hand, it is about whether information regarding independent schools should be regarded as trade secrets or be public for everyone. This is the political choice here. Even though Mathias Bengtsson, as Daniel Riazat pointed out earlier, has expressed that he and his party think the information should be public, he has aligned himself with the leadership. The Sweden Democrats are sitting here and looking satisfied. They are nodding and are happy that the Christian Democrats are conforming to what they think. That is what is happening here.

There will be no principle of public access; that is what Mathias Bengtsson is saying now. Thanks for the clarity!

(Applause)

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Once again, Member Linus Sköld finds a standpoint that I apparently hold. When I try to explain and reason that I believe the investigation should proceed, go through the referral process, and undergo the process that investigations usually have before a legislative proposal is submitted, Linus Sköld interprets it as that I have taken a stand on exactly what legislation I think we should have and exactly how every paragraph in that legislation should look. I have not.

I want transparency in the independent schools. I want it to be possible to compare independent schools and municipal schools. I want it to be possible to see student data, student information, accounting documents, personal records, and operational documents. I want it to be possible to compare independent schools and municipal schools.

But I also want the process to be as the process always is: A public inquiry is conducted, which the government handles and sends out for consultation, and when the bill reaches the Riksdag, we debate it.

To draw such far-reaching conclusions about which product will be placed on the Riksdag's table and what the Kristdemokraterna would advocate for just because I want a proper investigation is both incorrect and dishonest.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Bengtsson for an important speech on many psychological and social aspects of Swedish schools. Many students are suffering, and it is difficult to be young in today's Sweden. I appreciate that the Member presents this picture. The Member raises the issue of screening, but in the Center Party, we probably see more that the grading system can lead to mental ill-health. Young people who do not have it easy in school are knocked out when they receive a failing grade and are thus branded by society as failures.

Madam Speaker! This debate has come to be about quite a lot of transparency and publicity in Swedish schools and equal or different rules for different school principals. After having listened to previous speakers in the debate, I feel a need for a clarification from the Christian Democrats. If I have understood the matter correctly, there are two positions within the Tidö family. One position is that there should be a not particularly far-reaching transparency principle that creates different rules for municipal actors and free school actors. The other position, the Liberals', is that there should be a publicity principle that creates equal conditions and equal transparency for municipal actors and free school actors.

Of these two extremes in transparency, where do the Christian Democrats stand?

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will come to the answer to the question, but since Anders Ådahl begins by reasoning about the grades, I must comment on that.

It is correct that worry about the grade F can lead to pressure, stress, and increased mental health issues, and there may be grounds to consider whether one can clarify which criteria apply for the grade F in order to reduce this stress and pressure. At the same time, there are advantages to having a minimum threshold for what is required to pass. There are also advantages to the grades A, B, C, D, and E. These grades can also create pressure and stress, but we have them because the positive effects outweigh the negative ones. If the Center Party wants to remove the grade F, one might wonder which other requirements they want to remove. Do they want to remove all grades? Do they want to remove tests, assignments, and everything else that also creates pressure and stress? I believe we better meet the growing mental ill-health with other measures than by lowering the requirements for the students.

When it comes to the principle of public access, my starting point is that one should be able to compare independent schools and municipal schools and that the conditions should be as similar as possible. If a full-scale principle of public access were to create unreasonable administration or open up for fraudsters to request confidential documents in the middle of the summer holidays, which makes it difficult for a small independent school, there need to be exceptions.

That is why I do not want to put my foot down here and now before all referral bodies have spoken. But my starting point is that it should be as similar as possible for independent and municipal schools.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I was about to feel mental stress and pressure that there was a deviation from the topic underway, but it sorted itself out towards the end of the speech.

When I listen to the members from Tidögänget, it becomes clear that they land quite differently on what type of insight they want. Now, the Kristdemokraterna are explaining quite clearly and distinctly that they want an extensive principle of public access. It reminds quite a bit of the Liberalernas move but is at the same time quite far from what the Sverigedemokraterna said.

In Sweden, we have a god-forsaken democracy where we seek majorities in the Riksdag. It happened just recently that there were different views on the gender identity law where the Moderaterna and Liberalerna held the same position as the opposition, which made it possible to gather a majority in the Riksdag. Now we have the same situation regarding the principle of public access. Two parties, Liberalerna and Kristdemokraterna, join the opposition's view that the principle of public access should apply equally to all schools in Sweden, regardless of whether they are municipal publicly funded schools or independent publicly funded schools.

How will you handle this within the government support, Member Bengtsson? Will you submit a proposition or go separate ways in the process?

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not share the member's thoughts that the government base would be split. When I speak with my colleagues within the Tidö parties, I experience that there is a great consensus that legislation is needed to gain insight into independent schools so that they can be compared with municipal schools.

It is quite unreasonable that before the referral process is even finished and the government negotiations completed, I should be able to account for how this legislation will look in detail when it is laid before the Riksdag. I can only account for the intention, and based on the investigation, we shall have an insight that provides the opportunity to compare independent schools and municipal schools.

I am not sure that there are such large differences between Centerpartiet and the government base as Anders Ådahl is trying to make, but it will well show itself when we have the final debate after the bill has been tabled in the Riksdag.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Colleagues and listeners! I usually always write quite long speeches. But when I then go up to the rostrum, I also speak based on what has been said during the debate, because I think it is reasonable for me to update my rhetoric if I hear that someone has changed their mind on an issue.

Today I will focus on an issue where parties have changed their minds, and it concerns the principle of public access. Earlier today we could read in the newspaper Vi lärare that Sweden's teachers demand that the principle of public access be introduced for independent schools, and yesterday Skolinspektionen wrote that the permit is being revoked for an owner of a high school. How these things are connected, you wonder. Yes, it is very simple. If we had already had the principle of public access, the owner of this high school would not have been able to act in such a way that students repeatedly missed taking their exams because the school does not follow the Education Act. If it had been possible for us as legislators and for the authorities to access all information about schools that the public is involved in financing, then 14 students just this year at this high school in Täby would not have been denied taking their exams because the school has not given them sufficient teaching time and has not allowed them to study modern languages.

This is one of the reasons why we should have the principle of public access, but there are many others.

Another reason concerns the links between school corporations and greedy school owners and politics. It is about being able to see how contacts occur between the representatives of the school corporations and the owners of the school corporations. It is about being able to see if laws are changed, or rather not changed, because pressure is being exerted on politicians. It is about a journalist being able to see how many qualified teachers there are at a school. It is about parents being able to see this when they are going to choose a school for their children. Then they shall be able to know which school it is they are choosing.

The principle of public access can ultimately be summarized as having a democratic school system. Previously, the arguments against the principle of public access were that smaller independent schools would be disadvantaged by it. As you have heard today, this argumentation is now gone. On the one hand, the national associations of the smaller schools themselves have said that the principle of public access should be introduced, and on the other hand, the bourgeoisie has realized that this is no longer an argument they can use. The people know the truth: the principle of public access also benefits the smaller independent schools, contrary to what has been said from this rostrum for many years.

A party that for 30 years has been involved in destroying the Swedish school system through new public management, greedy profit interests, and laws to ensure that a few venture capital companies are favored has now changed its mind on this issue and on a number of other issues. I think that is positive, and yes, I am talking about Liberalerna. But it is not what one says that counts in the end, but what one does. At four o'clock today, we vote on the principle of public access, and then Liberalerna can choose to do as they always do in issues concerning law and order, migration and other things and simply vote for the principle of public access - just as easily as they vote for the proposals they have put forward regarding stricter migration laws and a tougher justice policy.

In the end, this issue, as I said, is about democracy. The current school funding system is also a problem. The funding system we have with school money, where each student is worth a certain amount, must be abolished to increase equality in schools. The model has been shown to create incentives for larger classes so that school corporations can make money.

The costs of conducting teaching are essentially the same whether one has 25 or 30 students, but the difference in funding between 25 and 30 students can today be approximately 500,000 kronor. This means that schools that have fewer students in the classroom and which can ensure that teachers actually manage to complete the teaching of the children are disadvantaged by today's school funding system, while school corporations that systematically increase the number of students in the school to make money from it are advantaged by the system.

Therefore, we believe it would be better to move to a changed school financing system with a national responsibility. One can, for example, also check if it is possible to have fixed compensation per school or class with a certain possibility of introducing socio-economic supplements. This is something that has previously been proposed by the teachers' union.

The conditions are not the same for municipal and profit-driven schools right now. Previously, there was a compulsory school attendance deduction, which meant that the municipalities could make a deduction from the school funding before it was sent further to the independent schools. You might wonder why it was done that way. It is because a municipality has a much greater responsibility than a private company that has chosen to start a school. A municipality has a total responsibility for all children in the municipality and for their education. The private actors do not, and therefore there was previously a compulsory school attendance deduction.

Today this does not exist, and the Left Party simply means that it should be introduced again. We see clearly and distinctly that the profits and profit margins in these school corporations are very large. This money could be invested in children and students instead of going to venture capital companies in countries outside of Europe.

Listeners! Democratically made decisions and needs assessments should be the basis for the establishment of new schools so that tax money is not wasted on the over-establishment that we see today. Tax money should only be able to be used for the activities they are intended for. In order that there should be no incentives to conduct activities in any other way and with goals other than all students' right to knowledge, the legislation must be changed, the pursuit of profit and the extraction of profit must be prohibited, limited companies must be removed from the Swedish school system once and for all, and the principle of public access must be introduced for the entire Swedish school system.

Some argue here today that we can wait further with a democratic school system. But for every year we wait, we see thousands of students fail in the Swedish school system, not because they are failures, but because we have a failed school system. It is a school system that benefits the students who come from strong homes, which benefits the companies that want to make money from the students, and which disadvantages all other students, who actually are a majority. It is the students who cannot get help with their homework at home in the same way as the students who have parents with an academic background.

Therefore, the market incentives must be removed. The cuts in the Swedish school must be stopped. We must not engage in these pseudo-debates where the blue-brown Tidö parties try to pit students against each other, for example, based on which mother tongue they have. It is also about the right to interpretation within different parts of the welfare system etcetera. Let us not go for this! These are just discussions to take focus away from what it is really about, namely that these parties represent the market and not the students or the schools.

From the Left Party's side, we are glad that we can do this together in a united opposition. Even if we do not agree on everything, we are at least in agreement that we want to see a democratic school system which means that when we send 50 billion, which is what it is about, to the independent schools, we should also be able to receive emails, contacts, and the like for all these 50 billion. Everything shall be public. That is what it is about for our part.

I move for approval of reservation 43, which concerns the principle of public access and which Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet support.

(Applause)

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I would like to remind the members again of the etiquette in the chamber. According to Swedish parliamentary custom, we address the speech to the Speaker and indirectly to the members. All contributions should therefore begin with "Mr. Speaker", "Madam Speaker" or just "Speaker". I hope that this can be respected in the future, as is done by other members.

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

Mona Smedman (C)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party wants to see a society where responsibility is rewarded and where power should be as close to the individual as possible - a society where every human being is given the opportunity to create their own life journey. That life journey begins in preschool and school.

A few years ago, I was at a conference in Värmland organized by Nya perspektiv. What is that? Well, it is a collaboration forum between the county's 16 municipalities and Region Värmland that primarily works with four areas: childhood, youth, adulthood, and old age. The collaboration is on its 19th seminar, and it has led to an increased understanding and a reduced gray area between the municipalities and the region. If you do not have its equivalent in your counties, I can warmly recommend that you ensure it happens.

It was not my intention to stand here and advertise the fine cooperation back home in Värmland, even though I do so with pleasure. The reason I bring this up is that at one of the annual conferences, a researcher, Bo Vinnerljung, participated and spoke about the importance of successful schooling.

Do you know what the single most important factor is for children to grow up and become decent individuals? Member Bengtsson touched on this earlier. Yes, it is about them passing school with passing grades. In the research that was presented, there were children from different backgrounds. There were children who lived in socioeconomically disadvantaged homes, children who lived with parents with substance abuse problems, children who lived in middle-class homes, children who grew up in families with a mother tongue other than Swedish, and children with single parents—simply children with different circumstances, Madam Speaker. The common factor was that expectations were placed on the students and that they then, as I said just now, passed school with passing grades.

How can the school and society then be there to support the students? Today, the differences between students, classes, and municipalities are all too great. Just over one in four students do not achieve the knowledge goals in one or more subjects and thus lack complete grades in primary school. Both high-performing and low-performing students - and everyone in between - deserve to be met by adults who challenge them to reach their full potential, to become their best self.

Then we come to this with an equitable school. Such a school gives all children and students better conditions to succeed and is thus an incredibly strong protective factor against exclusion and crime. We need to ensure that young people are not lured into criminality, and a successful schooling is part of that success recipe. Just talking tougher and putting children in prison is like jumping over a barbed-wire fence in shorts: You get wounds that must be bandaged. Instead, you can simply remove the barbed wire and thus have wound-free legs.

Madam Speaker! A prerequisite for an equal school is that all students are given sufficient time for learning. Sweden has the fewest number of school days in the Nordic countries and the longest summer break, approximately three weeks longer than, for example, Denmark. Studies show that the long summer break causes students to lose knowledge, particularly in reading skills. It affects those students who struggle to reach the learning goals and especially students with insufficient language skills.

It is time to review the school year with regard to the students' opportunity to reach the learning goals. The long summer holidays are based more on tradition than on research on students' learning. In order to give all students better opportunities to acquire knowledge and skills and thus develop maximally, a long-term effort should be initiated to change the school year in primary and secondary school. Naturally, this should happen in stages in consideration of the teacher shortage.

I wonder if my nearly 15-year-old son will now talk to me when I get home.

Despite the fact that the economic conditions and the shortage of qualified staff today limit the possibilities for smaller class sizes, we need to be able to look forward. The more students there are in the classroom, the more difficult it becomes to create a safe environment for the students where everyone's needs are met. Reducing class sizes would likely strengthen the conditions for safety and study in the school. We therefore want to task Skolverket with conducting a mapping of class sizes in primary school that can serve as a basis for how principals organize their school units based on what is appropriate for different grade levels.

School is a society-sustaining activity. It is therefore no more than reasonable that there is an openness in the activities at preschools and schools so that students, parents, educators and the general public are given insight into the activities.

At a school election, it is extra important that the information available about principals and schools can be trusted. Today, Skolinspektionen has no possibility to reprimand schools that spread incorrect information about their operations, for example, in order to attract students. Therefore, Madam Speaker, the starting point must be that preschools and schools, regardless of the principal, shall be subject to the principle of public access. It is about safeguarding democracy's basic principle of openness. Everyone should be given the opportunity to embark on a life journey and achieve their life dreams.

I move for approval of reservation 3 under point 1.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing a number of school issues at an overarching level. It is a broad consideration, but I will focus on a few selected areas: the market school, the principle of public access, and digitalization.

But to start with the most important and lay the foundation: A school that provides knowledge is a school where skilled teachers have enough time for their students. It is a school with a broad view of knowledge where knowledge is expressed in several different ways - as facts, understanding, skill, and familiarity. These parts presuppose one another and interact with one another. It is a school where the students' right to education is in focus.

A country where many dream of becoming teachers will be a strong nation of knowledge and education.

The purpose of the school should always be education, never profit. Therefore, profit-oriented limited companies do not belong in the school. The market school has created a new logic surrounding the education sector that changes the conditions not only for the profit-distributing schools but also for all other independent and municipal schools. If we want to create a society that holds together, the school must be part of that solution and not something that increases the differences between groups in society.

The market school has made the working situation difficult for principals and teachers because it has turned students into revenue and parents into customers. Furthermore, we have a development towards larger and larger detailed regulations of the school so that certain school companies cannot cut down on quality to make larger profits. This affects the teachers because it increases their administrative burden and shrinks their professional space to that which is easy to measure and easy to compare.

Miljöpartiet has always welcomed independent schools run without profit motive based on alternative pedagogy or as small local schools in the countryside and in the archipelago.

The expectation for all education is that it is conducted on a scientific basis and based on the proven experience of qualified teachers who have sufficient time for their students. This applies in the same way to all schools. However, there is a big difference between running a school with the student's best interests in focus and running it for the purpose of distributing profit. Sweden has hundreds of idea-driven schools that have completely different conditions for their operations than the profit-distributing independent school corporations do. There is a difference between running a school for the students' sake and doing it for the shareholders' sake.

Today, Idéburna Skolors Riksförbund and Räddningsmissionen present a number of proposals on how the ideological education sector can be strengthened. I believe that there will be interesting conversations about this moving forward.

We are rightly proud of the welfare in our country. The general welfare is the strongest redistributive force we have. It makes Sweden fair and unique in a way, but we also see that the gaps are increasing.

The market experiments in schools have gone too far. The Swedish market school is unique in the world by allowing unlimited profits on our common funds. The drive to make money has been placed at the center instead of what welfare is for. The market school leads to the resources for the school not being used effectively. The possibility of making a profit in the school creates incentives for unserious actors to seek out the school system. Tax money is used for expansion and acquisitions and distributed to shareholders of venture capital companies instead of being used for more school books and more employed teachers.

Schools should focus on the children's learning, not on profit-seeking. We want to stop the profits in schools, and we actually have a majority of the Swedish people with us on that. We want to continue to have free schools and the possibility of a school choice, but a fair one. In Swedish schools, the focus should lie on knowledge and education. Therefore, it is high time to ban the profit-distributing limited companies and remove the market logic from the school. That is why we propose that profit withdrawals from the school should be prohibited.

Part of the market's logic is trade secrets. In competitive situations, it is not remarkable that one wants to keep recipes for success secret, but in a publicly funded education system, it is not only remarkable but harmful and unfair.

There is no reason not to immediately reintroduce the principle of public access to all schools in Sweden. Sweden has a long tradition of openness and transparency regarding the exercise of public authority. Schools engage in the exercise of public authority and manage large amounts of tax money, and it is completely unacceptable that independent schools are not covered by the principle of public access.

Today, there is an opportunity for the Riksdag to issue a clear announcement to the government that this is a task that is prioritized and needs to be expedited.

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

Madam Speaker! Our contemporary era is characterized by a number of so-called global megatrends that affect how our system for education and research needs to be organized to strengthen our society. Among these global megatrends, climate change, globalization, digitalization, and the incredibly rapid technological development that we are in the midst of are often mentioned.

It is of the utmost importance that digitalization is based on research and proven experience and that decisions regarding pedagogical work are made in classrooms and at preschools by preschool teachers and teachers - competent educators who work with children and students in everyday life.

Digitalization is laying a completely new grid over society and education. We must not lose the foundation of pedagogical activity and the knowledge that exists regarding children's development and learning while we simultaneously tackle the future's knowledge development with the conditions that prevail now.

Sweden as a country needs a strategy for how we approach the digitalization of the school system in a responsible way, a strategy that strengthens Sweden now and for those who live here in the future. It is now that we provide ourselves with those tools.

Now we stand without a plan for how Swedish education should handle the global megatrend that digitalization represents. We need a national strategy for the school's digitalization.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of joint reservation 38 from the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, which concerns the prohibition of profit-taking in Swedish schools.

(Applause)

Overall school issues

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Mona Smedman gave the main speech for the Center Party.

Overall school issues

I want to state here that if we are to be able to maintain the power of diversity and the freedom of choice in Swedish school, the independent school sector must be governed better.

There, the Liberals agree with us. Unserious actors have no place in Swedish schools. We stand for the principle of public access to apply to all schools with equal rules of the game for all school providers.

With the Liberals' announcement, there is now a majority in the Riksdag. My appeal to you Liberals is that you must stand by your words. Vote for an equal school! Vote for the principle of public access! Support reservation 43!

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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