General school issues

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thirty 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. Two or three years after that, the free school reform came, which opened for the free establishment of private actors. Both non-profit and profit-driven actors and different constellations were given the opportunity to start and run schools with tax funding.

So we got a municipalization and a friskola reform. A consequence of the two reforms was that we also got a new system for distributing resources in Swedish school, what we colloquially call the school voucher system. In addition, the grading system in Swedish school was changed – 1994 if I remember correctly. We moved away from the previous relative grading system, and we got a knowledge-related system.

In the same wave, a large part of the regulation in schools was removed, including the regulation of the teachers' teaching time and the size of the classrooms.

These changes, especially the friskola reform, have over time led to that some things we previously saw as self-evident in Swedish schools are no longer as self-evident – that there are cafeterias, that there are sports halls, that there are school librarians and so on.

Parallel to these changes – the municipalization, the friskola reform, the new grading system, and the school funding system – new pedagogical trends also received stronger support. These were trends that one can generally describe as postmodern or constructivist, if one wants to use another word, and which primarily meant less traditional teaching and less focus on factual knowledge.

Some time later, Mr. Speaker, came the digital transition, which over time has come to permeate the school system increasingly. Not least, it has entailed a 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's 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 a result of broader societal changes, both in Sweden and globally. Taken together, however, they have had a clear consequence: Swedish children and young people learn less in school. It is a consequence of the changes I have just described. The latest PISA results and other international measurements show this in black and white.

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

The major changes just over three decades ago also involved a deregulation and an extensive decentralization of Swedish school. The consequence of this has been a head-on collision with one of the education system's most important pillars, namely equality.

It actually says for itself – it is quite logical, if one thinks about it: If you move the financial main responsibility from the state to almost 300 municipalities, the municipalities will make different prioritizations, make different decisions, and have very different conditions and varying local competence. Some will invest more in the school; some will invest less in the school. Just as in the Riksdag, there are different political majorities in the municipalities, and they can also change.

Mr. Speaker! All these far-reaching reforms from three decades ago have, over time, been criticized increasingly forcefully, not least by us in the Liberals. The criticism has largely concerned precisely falling knowledge results and a lack of equality.

We are now doing everything we can to reverse the negative development in the knowledge results in Swedish schools. Step by step, we are implementing reforms that should have occurred much earlier. They are happening now, thanks to the Liberals and thanks to the Tidö Agreement. It concerns the independent school system, the school funding system, the extremely problematic grade inflation, teacher education, issues of transparency, ownership review, creating order and clarity, improving student health, introducing new curricula, and much more.

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 is important. It must 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 the freedom of choice and the choices students and parents make lead to a good education for all and do not, as today, rather become a lottery for many. We must return to having a world-class school.

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 skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. We need a safe school with clear expectations. It is good for everyone, and it is especially good for those students who need school the most.

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

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! The principle of public access is an important principle for the public and the media to be able to scrutinize how tax funds are used. It also guarantees that employees in operations covered by the freedom of communication that it entails can report on existing irregularities without risk of reprisals.

The principle of public access is important and has served us well. It has led to scandals being exposed and corruption being avoided.

On April 10 last year, the Liberals declared that they had changed their opinion on the question of whether free schools should also be covered by the principle of public access. After previously opposing this, they now stated that they had gathered so much knowledge on the issue that they had changed their opinion.

So there was finally a majority in Sweden's Riksdag that wanted the principle of public access to apply in all the country's schools.

But on 24 April 2024, the Liberals nevertheless voted no to urging the government to introduce the principle of public access even for independent schools. The Liberals were not prepared to stand up for the issue. They said they wanted one thing and then voted for another.

Now we stand here again, a full year later, on April 29, 2025. A bill on the principle of public access still shines with its absence.

Mr. Speaker! I can guess the answer, but I still intend to ask the question: Do the Liberals also today say that they are for the principle of public access, and will they still vote against it?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Åsa Westlund for the question.

It is extremely important that there is transparency and oversight in activities that are financed with tax money. The issue has been investigated in the Skolinformationsutredningen. The investigation's proposals have also been out for consultation. Now the issue lies in the Government Offices. Whether the Liberal Party pressed one button or another a year ago regarding a reservation from the Social Democrats plays no role at all because the investigation is ongoing. Then one would have voted to appoint an investigation that had already been appointed. I find it difficult to see that it would mean any change. We must have a bill in order to be able to vote on something in the Riksdag, and that is what is being worked on in the Government Offices.

The question is being prepared, and we will return when it is ready.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Fredrik Malm for the answer.

No! A year ago, the principle of public access for independent schools had already been investigated. The previous S-led government commissioned an investigation. You did your best to bury it and change direction, but after a lot of public opinion building, we succeeded in getting you to allow the investigation to submit its proposal on the principle of public access. The investigation existed!

A year ago, Fredrik Malm stood in the speaker's chair and said that no announcement from the Riksdag was needed because the government was working on the issue anyway and would submit a proposal to the Swedish Riksdag. Now another year has passed, and there is still no proposal on the government's list of bills.

It might have been good, Fredrik Malm, to clarify that there is a majority in Sweden's Riksdag that wants the change. Instead, the government has seen to it that there are completely different proposals to put forward to Sweden's Riksdag. They have sent out some of their own proposals on a referral process instead.

Does Fredrik Malm think there is a connection between the low opinion figures for the Liberals and the fact that one constantly says one thing and then votes for something completely different?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I do not quite understand the Social Democrats' criticism. The issue has been investigated, the issue has been referred, and now a referral to the Council of Legislation is being prepared in the Government Offices. That is exactly the order we have for enacting laws in Sweden. The Social Democrats may want a parallel order in some way, but that is not something I support. I think we should investigate and refer matters, and then we prepare the work and produce legislative proposals which we then handle in the Education Committee.

So to the matter at hand. The Liberals are for a principle of public access for Swedish schools. That is our party's view. I hope that we will soon have it in place.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! You go to the election and say one thing. Then the election happens, and then you say another thing. That has been the mantra for the Liberals during the recent years. I still want to highlight that regardless of whether the representative is named Johan Pehrson, Lotta Edholm, or Fredrik Malm, it is the same principle that applies. The Liberals say one thing before the election, and then they say another thing after the election.

But there are exceptions. Åsa Westlund from the Socialdemokraterna was involved in one of the more important issues concerning the principle of public access. I remember the debate well. There were post-debates about the issue on social media and other places. Fredrik Malm and the Liberalerna argued that the reason we are not voting for this issue is that a proposal will soon be submitted, and we will therefore get through a principle of public access. We do not, therefore, need to vote for this. It was even to the extent that they managed to convince some school debaters that a decision on the principle of public access will soon be made.

But just as the Social Democrats mentioned earlier, we have not seen any proposal. One could argue that there is a certain practice in Sweden and in the Swedish Riksdag regarding how the process takes place. But why, in the meantime, have other proposals from the government arrived in a number of different areas? They have been investigated and processed in much shorter time, and then they have been submitted as legislative proposals.

It seems that the only matters handled quickly in the chamber, the Riksdag, or the government are proposals for repressive measures or when people in our country are to be made even worse off economically, socially, or in other ways. But to stop the unserious actors with the help of the principle of public access, it goes slowly. How is that, Fredrik Malm?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I will not comment on the Left Party's history or on the fact that people say the party is against racism, and then representatives share antisemitic images on the internet. Let us stay away from that type of mud-slinging, and then we can discuss the issue at hand.

The issue here is that we want a principle of publicity. The investigation has looked at the question of a principle of publicity. They have also looked at a principle of publicity with certain relaxations for small schools. Those parts have been out for consultation, and they are now being prepared in the Government Offices. A bill is now to be submitted to the Riksdag.

We will have to return when there are concrete legislative proposals. At that point, we will process them in the committee, and then we can have a debate.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! At the time when the Left Party members organized demonstrations against apartheid and fascism, the cooperation party ran around to the Liberals and hailed on the squares. I would not enter into that debate if I were Fredrik Malm. At the time when Left Party members gave voice to the resistance against antisemitism, the cooperation party the Sweden Democrats were one of the parties that, literally, founded the organized antisemitism in Sweden.

Let us move on to the school debate. It is strange once again that there is a majority in Sweden's Riksdag to implement a certain proposal, but that it is not being implemented. It is not the first time, but it has happened before. The norm is that when there is a majority for a certain issue, it is implemented. If the Liberals are unsure whether they will get the principle of public access through in a government position, they now have an opportunity, before they leave the Riksdag next year, to ensure they vote for the proposal and get it through. Does Fredrik Malm, during his last year in the Riksdag, want to go down in history as one of the politicians who blocked more openness and a more democratic school system, or does he want to finish with the flag flying high and say that he was among those who introduced the principle of public access? I know which side I would have chosen. On the other hand, I am not in the situation Fredrik Malm is in. I do not need to negotiate with parties that, under no circumstances, seem to want to change the absurd school system that Fredrik Malm himself has raised in the rostrum.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Vänsterpartiet is the last of the eight parties in the chamber to be able to beat their chests about standing up for democracy and human rights in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. It was the only party here in the chamber that defended the Berlin Wall. Do not forget that when you speak about historical issues, Daniel Riazat.

This government blocks nothing. What we do is that we investigate matters. We refer them and process them in the Government Offices, and then the government goes to the Riksdag with legislative proposals.

From our side, we want a principle of public access for all schools in Sweden – municipal and independent schools. The proposal has been investigated and is now being prepared in the Government Offices. We will see exactly what the proposal looks like when it is fully negotiated.

There are some smaller schools, small schools, in Sweden that have harbored fears about smaller parts, actually details, in the investigator's proposal. They would like to see certain adjustments so as not to risk completely collapsing due to, for example, administration. Those questions are also important to include in the preparation, the process, and the discussion. There are many different wills.

But the starting point is that all citizens, such as Daniel Riazat, myself and everyone else here in the chamber, journalists and parents who are going to choose a school for their children, must have access to information and transparent data about the schools. It is very important in order to be able to make well-considered choices.

I look forward to this with confidence. I am quite convinced, Mr. Speaker, that if not in too long a time, we will receive a bill that will bring clear improvements for Swedish schools.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I intend to stick to the subject – it is perhaps time.

It was a very fine speech that Fredrik Malm gave from the rostrum. We also see many debate articles from the government etcetera. But we see at the same time that the government, including the Liberals, says no to our proposal for investments in schools of 5 billion extra in the budget. They say no to rewarding the qualified teachers and those who employ qualified teachers. It still pays to not employ qualified teachers. They say no to the principle of public access, which was brought up here earlier. They say no to removing queues to schools. They say no to ensuring that schools can exist and be good in the whole country. It is, like, the basis for it to be able to become good.

Short and concise – how do we achieve more actual changes and not just debate articles from the Liberals and the government?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! A number of changes have been implemented. If we first look at the fiscal area, with economic resource supplements, resource allocations and so on, we see that Swedish schools have been allocated many billions in the budget bills for 2023, 2024 and this year and in various spring budget amendments. These are very large amounts.

It is also about quantity in the sense of more places within, for example, vocational adult education and universities of applied sciences. It is about qualitative reinforcements of various state grants, including targeted state grants for, for example, teaching materials. It is about legislative changes and regulatory changes for, for example, teaching materials and school libraries.

A number of other questions concern maintaining order in schools. Students who disrupt teaching to such an extent that it does not function and who are in regular classes should be able to go to special teaching groups. We are also investigating other possibilities for children who need more extra support.

At today's meeting of the Education Committee, we were visited by the investigator who has reviewed how we can improve student health and the extra support for those students who truly need it.

In the committee, we are also preparing, as Niels Paarup-Petersen is well aware of, the research and innovation bill that arrived recently – it comes in the middle of every mandate period. In it, there are historical extra additions for higher education, for our universities, for research and cutting-edge research particularly aimed at STEM, natural sciences, and so on. A huge amount is happening.

Now I understand, however, that the Center Party has put on a pair of rather dark sunglasses when it comes to this, and they do not really want to see this. But the fact is that very much is happening.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! What Fredrik Malm says here is nice. But those were not quite the things he spoke about in the rostrum when it comes to fundamentally reforming the school system. It is a lot of things.

It is clear that the government, for all that, has not done nothing over the last three years. There have been many investigations etcetera. A good deal of them, however, are lying around in the Government Offices or wherever they are lying somewhere. They might be in a mailbox, in a trash can, or on a negotiating table. It is a bit difficult to know when it comes to some of them in the current situation. We hope that some of them will be completed, but we do not know. And if we are to be honest, there is not that much time left of this mandate period and this government's time in power.

The government has, of course, sent in money. But according to the Riksdag's investigation service, RUT, it is actually less than the cost increase that inflation has entailed. Teachers' administrative burdens have also been increased more by the government than they have been decreased at the current time.

When it comes to having special teaching groups, it is clear that one is allowed to do so. That is something one has always been allowed to do. There have never been any obstacles to having special teaching groups. What applies is that one can receive a special state grant if one applies for those funds. But that means that the small schools will not do it, because it is so troublesome to apply for them in relation to the few funds one receives.

The chairman spoke about the students who are the most troublesome. Should Sollefteå create an emergency school? They probably will not do that, because they will not have a student base for it. But then they cannot get any help from the government. It is only if one does exactly as Lotta Edholm wants that one can get some type of support. Otherwise, one gets no money.

At the same time, there are fewer resources for the big things. It is still profitable to employ unqualified teachers. It is still a no to removing queues. It is still a no to ensuring that schools can exist and be good throughout the entire country. And it is a no to the principle of public access, so that we can know what is happening there. That is not changed by the things that the government has, after all, done.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! In school policy, there is a clear difference between the Liberals and the Centre Party. It is that we in the Liberals are clear about the analysis we make of the problems in the Swedish school system.

What we see – which I went through in my speech, Mr. Speaker – is the combination of a very powerful decentralization and a very powerful deregulation during the seven, eight, nine, or ten major reforms in the 90s. It has had devastating consequences for the development of knowledge in Swedish schools. It is the combination of municipalization, the free school reform, the school voucher system, the new grading systems, the vague curricula and the reduced regulation, and subsequently the tidal wave of digitalization, screens, and mobile phones that has washed over Swedish schools.

Mr. Speaker! Then Niels Paarup-Petersen and the Centerpartiet say: You are doing nothing about this. But that is exactly what we are doing. We are doing something about all the things that we can do something about.

There is, however, a catch in this context, Mr. Speaker. There is no majority to proceed with the most important question of all, namely to return the ownership of Swedish schools to the state from the municipalities. It is the single most important question to truly, once and for all, get the Swedish school system in order. But there is no majority to do so. It is the Liberalerna, Vänsterpartiet, Sverigedemokraterna and some scattered votes that are in favor of it, but unfortunately not Niels Paarup-Petersen's own party.

When it comes to the friskolor, we have a large investigation, the school fee investigation, which is to submit two reports. The first has arrived, and the second will come later, if I remember correctly. And the curriculum investigation's report has arrived. We are also working very hard for less screen and more binder in school and so on.

It is all these large areas, which I describe, that the government and the Liberals are now taking on to really try to reform and regulate, if necessary.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Many children and young people have a good education. They learn a lot, they have friends, and they enter the working life well-equipped. But far too many have a hard time in school. They do not receive the support they need, either for learning or for well-being.

It should be a priority task for every government to ensure that every one of the students who starts school with butterflies in their stomach and tense anticipation leaves school with a backpack full of knowledge and skills and the same confidence and tense anticipation for the future as when they started. Therefore, I am deeply critical of the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas school policy.

The savings that the government has forced through in schools have led to fewer children receiving the support they need.

The government has let the school take the hit in the cost crisis, not because they had to, but because they thought it was more important to lower taxes, mostly for those who earn the most. This will cost Sweden dearly. A good education, in fact, lays the foundation for being able to support oneself, contribute to society in different ways, and feel well for the rest of one's life. It is also an important protective factor so that one does not end up in substance abuse or crime. Children who do not receive support and stimulation to develop, and who do not get to feel community and self-esteem in school, easily become victims of criminal gangs. In recent years, we have also seen how the gangs have been able to recruit more and more younger schoolchildren into truly serious crime.

Unlike the government, the Social Democrats have, in every budget since the change of power, compensated the school and the rest of the welfare system for the cost increases. Had we been allowed to decide, there would have been more adults – more teachers, more student assistants and more leisure leaders – supporting the students in Swedish schools.

Mr. Speaker! When the government says that the drive for profit is a major problem in Swedish schools and when it admits that independent schools receive payment for things they do not even actually do, it would be reasonable if the government and the Sverigedemokraterna also did something to remove the school corporations' profits and the overcompensation to the school owners. But unfortunately – of the SD government's complete renovation of the school market, there was only a little homestyling. Instead of removing the profit-seeking and securing our children's education, one has chosen to continue enriching the school corporations.

Friskolor that provide primary education receive 2.7 billion kronor of our tax money this year without having to do anything. They are paid 2.7 billion too much. So recklessly this government and the Sverigedemokraterna handle our common tax money. So recklessly they handle our children's future. 2.7 billion corresponds to over 4,000 primary school teachers. Instead of ensuring that the school's money stays in the school, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have deliberately chosen to let the rain of money over the school owners continue for many years to come. It says something about whose interests it is that one represents.

Mr. Speaker! Profit interests should not drive schools. All countries except Sweden have realized this by this point. After profit interests in schools have given Sweden agricultural high schools without animals, vehicle high schools without vehicles, increased grade cheating, increased segregation, and preschools in the school minister's own private school group that provide water and crispbread for snack time to save money, everyone should realize that the profit interest must go. No control in the world will be able to curb these interests.

But the government and the Sweden Democrats stand firm that it should be possible to use school funds for private waffle stalls, beach plots, and hunting lodges. We Social Democrats, however, want to ban profit-taking. We want municipalities to have a veto over the establishment of independent schools.

Mr. Speaker! The united opposition also wants a principle of public access for all schools. We want the same insight into how tax money is used in independent schools as in municipal schools. We want teachers at independent schools to have the same freedom of communication as teachers in municipal schools and thus, without risk of reprisals, be able to report on irregularities. It benefits the whole society – everyone except the profit seekers. Still, there is no bill on the table of the Riksdag regarding a principle of public access even for independent schools.

Mr. Speaker! If all children in Sweden are to have the same chance in life, it should not depend on whether one has the right parents to attend a school or not. That is how it is in Sweden today, but that is not what we want. We Social Democrats want to create order and clarity in the school choice. All students shall choose at the same time in a publicly administered school choice system. This would guarantee that it is the students who choose schools, not schools that choose students. Waiting time as a selection instrument shall be removed, because we know that it is the selection instrument that is most segregating. Instead, proximity and sibling priority shall carry heavy weight.

Mr. Speaker! Far too many of the students who need extra support in school do not receive it. When they do receive support, it is often only in the final school years. We therefore want more of the state's resources for schools to be directed toward the early school years. This year, in our budget, we proposed an extra 3 billion, equivalent to one extra teacher in every class in grade 1. Lack of resources in schools leads to many principals and teachers being faced with completely impossible situations in schools today. They are, according to law, obliged to ensure that every student receives the support they need. At the same time, they do not have the financial resources required for the law to be followed. We Social Democrats therefore want to introduce a lex Edico. Such a principle would give schools the obligation to raise the alarm when there is a shortage, and the head of the school clear responsibility for resolving the shortages.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude with some principled positions.

We Social Democrats do not want schools to be run for religious reasons. If the management's driving force is to influence the students based on religious beliefs, the students risk receiving instruction that does not follow the curriculum. Therefore, we want to ban religious schools in Sweden, even though we want to take special consideration so that the national minorities can maintain and develop their culture.

We Social Democrats consider the Swedish language to be an important glue that holds our society together. Therefore, we want to tighten the requirement that Swedish shall be the main language in school. At least 75 percent of the teaching shall be in Swedish instead of today's 50. The exceptions in the requirements for qualified teachers that, among other things, Engelska Skolan currently enjoys shall naturally be removed.

We Social Democrats want to extend the compulsory school age to 18 years. Society should not leave underage people without sensible occupation. We know that a high school diploma today is closest to a requirement on the labor market. A compulsory high school would, in addition to giving young people an education that enables them to get a firm foothold on the labor market, also give society new opportunities to catch people who risk being drawn into crime.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of reservations 10 and 26.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! When one listens to the Social Democrats in the Riksdag, one can sometimes believe that they have never sat in power. The Social Democrats have sat in opposition for all these years and have no responsibility for anything.

But that is not the case, Mr. Speaker. Åsa Westlund's party ruled Sweden for eight years until the year 2022. During those eight years, the free school corporations in Sweden made very positive year-end accounts. They expanded very powerfully, and very much happened. There came a very strong rhetoric from the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet and some others in the school debate. But really nothing was done.

The Social Democrats wanted to ban the queues. Yes, all parties here in the Riksdag wanted, to varying degrees, to reduce the impact of the queues on the selection for school. We in the Liberals wanted that the expression of interest to start grade 1 in a school could be made at the earliest one year before the start of school. The Centre Party, I believe, had from age three, but only for half of the student places, if I remember correctly. The Christian Democrats, the Moderates, and the Sweden Democrats were clear that it was an unreasonable system that one could register children in a queue for a school almost at birth. The three red-green parties wanted to ban this entirely.

Despite this, the Social Democrats are submitting a bill that fails in the Riksdag. It almost defies my understanding, Mr. Speaker, how one can succeed in the feat of not limiting the queues when all parties in the Riksdag are for limiting them. It is a question of craftsmanship. This government is now doing very much that should have been done much earlier.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question and the opportunity to explain a bit about why the Social Democrats could not get through a policy that dealt with the profit extractions that occur in Swedish schools.

During half the time that Fredrik Malm refers to, namely the Liberals and the Centre Party were also governing the country together with the Social Democrats and the Green Party. The Liberals and the Centre Party said that it was under the condition that we did nothing and that we did not even talk about this problem, otherwise we were threatened with a vote of no confidence.

At that time, it was also important for liberals to stand up against the Sweden Democrats' influence in Swedish politics. It was this that kept us together. But we disagreed completely on this issue. Unfortunately, the Liberals succeeded in preventing us from moving forward more forcefully with regulations of profit-making schools.

Then it is not true that we have done nothing during the past years. During the first parliamentary term that Fredrik Malm refers to, we submitted a bill on clear profit limits. This should have appealed to the parties that are slightly less inclined to completely ban profit withdrawals, but no. A parliamentary majority voted down that proposal.

At the end of the last parliamentary term, the Social Democrats governed themselves and submitted several proposals on this, but none of them were accepted by the Swedish Riksdag. It is not due to a lack of craftsmanship, Fredrik Malm, but it is because it is the number of votes that counts in the chamber. Had the Liberals at that time understood that we should do something about the profit extractions, our bills could have passed. But the Liberals did not, they voted no.

Lack of craftsmanship, however, is when one fails to pass a government bill on the principle of public access despite there being a majority in the chamber. It is a lack of craftsmanship.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is about how many votes there are in the chamber, says Åsa Westlund. Yes, that is how it is.

In the spring of 2022, the January Agreement had fallen and the Social Democrats ruled with the support of a defected Left Party member who had become independent or a wild card in the Riksdag.

But in this chamber, there are 349 people, and everyone wants, to varying degrees, to make it more restrictive regarding queues as a selection for school. Then the Social Democrats could have sought a settlement with them. One could, for example, have picked up the phone and called Niels Paarup-Petersen, me, or someone else and said: Can we reach an agreement here? We would like to ban it completely, but we see that we do not have a majority for that. But perhaps we can meet halfway, a few steps forward?

The Social Democrats did not even have to call the Sweden Democrats if they did not want to. It would have been enough to call a few others here to secure a majority and draft a proposal. But, Mr. Speaker, the Social Democrats did not want this for the reason that they obviously wanted these bills to fail, so that they could use them as a mobilization in the election campaign.

There was very powerful criticism during the debates in the chamber against this procedure, namely that one fires up dozens or perhaps hundreds of civil servants in the Government Offices to produce legislative products that one does not even want to go through. It is this, Mr. Speaker, that we have criticized regarding the craftsmanship. There has not been a sincere and honest will to actually implement the changes.

The Social Democrats had eight years, and nothing was achieved to regulate the independent school system, the school choice, the queues, the school obligation from 18 years, or anything else. It is a huge disappointment, I must say.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe most can judge the credibility of what Fredrik Malm is saying now – that he is sorry that the Social Democrats did not get social democratic school policy through.

I was not the Minister for Education or the Minister for Education at that time, but for the sake of the matter, I must still say that the information I have is that calls were made. It is possible that Fredrik Malm has forgotten those calls. In any case, they would have been made when it was time to vote. But let us not get stuck on that.

We can get stuck on what happened here in the chamber. The overcompensation that we are now seeing – 2.7 billion just this year, Fredrik Malm – is taken from pupils in municipal schools and disappears on its way to free school owners who do not need to do anything. They get these funds completely for free for something they do not do. It is because you voted no to stopping the overcompensation in 2022. It is another 4,000 teachers who could have been out in the municipal schools.

Is this taking responsibility? No, it is shifting the blame to say that it is poor craftsmanship, because it was Fredrik Malm who pressed the button and stopped all such proposals.

Now the ball is in your court. You have been in power for three years. So far, the complete overhaul that you have promised has become a double win for the school corporations. They have received an investigation that does not deliver a profit cap but only some marginal changes. Furthermore, those marginal changes mean that new schools will find it harder to start. What a present! One understands why the share prices of the school corporations are doing so well. They have understood that this government will not deliver anything to stop the real profit-seeking in Swedish schools.

(Applause)

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Åsa Westlund expresses a very great concern for today's students. We do as well from the government's side. Therefore, we currently have twelve inquiries underway. We see that the quality is falling, and unfortunately, we also see that there is a lot of insecurity. The school system is not functioning quite as it should.

We see that there is much we can do. We are currently conducting twelve inquiries to improve the schools. I want to reassure the member by saying that very much is happening now. It is things that previous governments unfortunately have not done, which we must compensate for. Much will happen. Unfortunately, it takes a little time before we can truly get all our inquiries in order. But they will come. It also means that students will be able to feel safer in school.

Åsa Westlund is worried about tax cuts. I just want to say that the tax cuts that the government is now making are for everyone who works. It is often claimed that it is only for the rich, but it is for everyone who works. It is also so that it can function here in society.

Much has been done by this government that the Social Democrats have not done previously. What I want to ask the member is: What is it that the Social Democrats would do better than we do when it comes to, for example, security and study environment? These are some of our major portfolio issues now.

We work with calm and peace in the classrooms. We strengthen the teachers. We review the grading system. We also review the friskolor. I wonder what more the Social Democrats would have done that we do not do, because I think we do an incredible amount.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we would have ensured that there were more adults who saw the children in school and could provide them with the support teaching they need. They could have stopped young people from sliding away by taking them by the collar and doing other things with them, so that they know there is a place for them in our society alongside the gangs. We would have stopped the overcompensation. There was a government bill on this just before the change of government that was voted down here in the Swedish Riksdag. That proposal could have been reused by this government if they had wanted to stop it.

It is 2.7 billion per year that disappears to independent schools for things they should not be paid for. It is nothing that they actually are responsible for. It could have happened now. But instead, you let the overcompensation just continue year after year after year.

Actually, one can summarize everything the member says with that the government is failing today's schoolchildren. Today's schoolchildren would have needed more adults. They would have needed more teachers. They would have needed more leisure educators in school and more special teaching groups. But they do not get that, because this government has prioritized lowering taxes – some for ordinary wage earners but also for those who earn the most. They have received a special tax bonus from this government.

We believe that the money would have been better spent in Swedish schools, both for the students who attend there today and for our common future in Sweden, so that we can have a strong school that ensures all children get what they need to be able to get a job, support themselves, feel well, and contribute to Swedish development ahead. Unfortunately, this government fails that responsibility.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! This morning we had a meeting in the Education Committee. We were just talking about the student health investigation, which I think is extremely good. I believe it is going to be very good. There, we are talking about support coming earlier. We are also, of course, allocating resources so that it can be so. It is about the students receiving support at the level they need. They may need support in different ways. It could be smaller groups or larger groups. We are also talking about screening.

We are doing a lot just to help the students. We probably perceive it in different ways. But I believe that we want to see each student's ability and find out where they are located so that they can receive the best possible support. That is also something we are making a major investment in.

Then I am thinking about this with independent schools. The government says when it comes to independent schools or municipal schools that the important thing is that there is quality in the school. There are many independent schools that have very high quality and many municipal schools that also have it.

Unfortunately, it can fail on both sides. The School Inspectorate has now unfortunately had to take over another school – in Norrland or perhaps in Lappland – that is not functioning. It is incredibly important that that possibility exists if the school does not function, because it is the quality that is what matters.

The free schools are needed, because they have many different resources that are very important. But the money must, of course, go to education. We absolutely consider that a priority. I cannot really see the difference here. The government is investing a lot in the student health investigation, as I mentioned. There will be more support. There will be more staff who can be divided in more ways. But we are also looking at the free school. We want there to be high quality in all of them, and if they do not function, we will, of course, ensure that they do not remain. There shall be high quality, and the profits shall be used in the school.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! No, that is exactly the problem. You are not allocating funds. The Government and the Sweden Democrats are not allocating funds to this. You are renaming certain funds. You are not supporting the municipalities, which in turn are responsible for supporting the schools through this cost crisis.

The result in schools, all around the country, has been that people have had to leave their jobs. Or they have not received new employment because the schools have had to save money during this time.

It is not an investment, it is a cut. That is exactly what has happened. It has worsened because the money we spend on schools goes to the wrong things. It disappears to waffle stands, hunting lodges, and beach plots – private matters that the school owners think are important – instead of going to teaching. You could have partially stopped that from day one. But the government and Sverigedemokraterna have chosen not to do so. I think that is regrettable.

I am thinking of today's students, those who are in school today and who started first grade when the Sweden Democrats and the government began their term of power. They will have finished fourth grade when this government is to hand over to the next. During this time, they have only been met with cuts, and their money for teaching has gone to, as I said, waffle stalls and hunting lodges.

It is to betray today's students. I think this is very regrettable both for their sake and for Sweden's sake.

(Applause)

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Mr. Speaker! For the sake of time, I move for approval only of the Sverigedemokraterna's reservation number 9, but we naturally stand behind all our reservations in this matter.

In today's Swedish school, many students are doing very well. They even match the high results our students had a few decades ago, when we were a top nation in the school world and in many other areas.

What concerns the Sweden Democrats greatly is that there are many students who do not reach the basic educational goals.

Today's school has far too great differences in school results. We share that criticism with the worldwide institutes that conduct the large-scale school surveys – Pisa and Pirls. They are concerned that Sweden is not managing to maintain a more even level and that so many students do not have the basic knowledge.

Many claim that the main reason for this is socioeconomic differences. In that case, people often point to the part of the group that has an immigrant background. Probably this is part of the explanation, but there are also other factors that have influenced this and made it more difficult for those with poorer socioeconomic conditions.

The school has, among other things, been municipalized, and the curricula have abandoned their knowledge focus. Someone said here that it is a somewhat postmodernist orientation – so perhaps one could call it that. Now the focus is more on discussion and analysis.

The students in primary school are actually still children. At those ages – it can also be so in adult life – one must first teach knowledge so that in a later stage one can be able to use them and process them in discussions and analyses. Every researcher in this field says that, and it has not changed in the last thousand years.

The trend of googling facts and then putting them into context is completely reprehensible. Despite this, it is done in our school, as the curricula allow it.

To all this, we must add the free immigration of recent decades, when the governments of that time – that is, those before the current one – did not have an acceptable plan for how to integrate all these immigrants. Some have succeeded, but some have also demonstrably failed.

Mr. Speaker! It is not at all strange that we have great differences in the school.

It is about the municipalization of schools, as I said before. The municipalities invest different amounts in schools, not just in pure money but also in quality.

It is curricula with little focus on factual knowledge, which disadvantages those who have weaker prerequisites. As an example, I can say what a number of parents testify to. I have personally spoken with quite a few parents, including those with an immigrant background. They have told me that they do not know how they can help their children with homework. It would have been much simpler for them to help if they had facts in a book. They want to help, but they find it difficult to do so.

Previous governments have also made it difficult for parents to support their children in their schoolwork. Furthermore, these governments have, as said, further complicated matters by pursuing a policy of free immigration.

I can only state that the Swedish school system has undergone major changes since the 70s, when it was actually the best in the world. Since I am a bit older today, I was myself there during that time as a student. Back then, it didn't matter which school you attended. The education was very similar, and the socioeconomic differences, which also existed then, did not affect the school results. The immigrants who attended our school at that time were fully integrated and had no problems with the Swedish language. They were just like everyone else. It was nothing strange.

Mr. Speaker! The measures that have been used for several decades to achieve a more equal school have demonstrably failed. No one can say otherwise. They have failed, because it has deteriorated so much. Therefore, we must look at new or old-new measures that can work. Everything else is a great waste of time and resources for all parties.

What we know for certain is that it does not raise the school results to the level we wish to achieve in school as it has been done for 20–30 years. Everyone knows this. Therefore, we in the Tidösamarbetet have a number of measures that hopefully will turn Swedish schools upwards again. They certainly do not solve all problems, but I promise that it will at least be in the right direction.

We will focus our efforts on correcting the mistakes that previous governments have made.

We are adjusting the curricula so that there will be much more focus on the learning of facts. We encourage schools to use more textbooks. We ensure that it becomes clearer that it is the teacher who shall decide and direct the lessons. We review the teachers' working situation regarding working hours and administration. We address safety and study environment and introduce, among other things, sharper requirements on rules of order and clarify the school staff's powers. We also review student health and introduce clearer regulations. We make the grading norms more fair. At the same time, it will become much, much harder to give "joy grades," which unfortunately happens today. We review the need for more openness from the independent schools (friskolor) and clearer requirements with a focus on results.

Mr. Speaker! It cannot be ignored that an enormous problem is that in many schools and among many students, there are enormous deficiencies in the Swedish language. That was not the case when the Swedish school was at the top – absolutely not. I know.

The Swedish language is of irreplaceable value for our cohesion. It is therefore important to ensure that the predominant part of the teaching in Swedish schools is conducted in the Swedish language. Today, according to current regulations, primary school shall have at least 50 percent of instruction in Swedish. That is not good enough. I have heard criticism of this from the rostrum here. We safeguard the Swedish language and wish for this percentage to be regulated upwards. We consider that the language of conversation in school shall always be Swedish during lesson time, with the exception of language lessons, schools for national minorities, and international schools that by tradition have permission to teach in another European language.

Speaking Swedish with one's Swedish and foreign comrades in school is likely the most effective way to learn good Swedish. Reinforced Swedish instruction should be given to students with substandard Swedish skills, and the resources should be taken from the current mother tongue instruction.

Mr. Speaker! I shall conclude by once again saying a few words of wisdom addressed to all the students in our school. I have done it before, and I do it again.

Fundamental to completing your education will always be 1, that you as a student are present in school, 2, that you behave well and 3, that you as a student do your best.

For almost all students, this would actually mean that they would manage to meet all basic educational requirements in school.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Running a friskola in Sweden involves practically no economic risk and very easy money. An important reason for this is that all friskolor are paid based on how much the municipal school costs per pupil.

The problem is only that municipal schools have greater responsibilities than independent schools do. Municipal schools must be prepared to accept all students at any time. Independent schools, on the other hand, can constantly adjust so that they only have full classes. Municipal schools have an obligation to have schools even in rural areas. Independent schools can choose to only exist in urban areas. Independent schools can also choose to have secret queues that make it easy to get the most profitable students.

It is therefore completely crazy that independent schools should have the same compensation per pupil as municipal schools. Different responsibilities should mean different compensation. But that is not the case – on the contrary. Every year, 2.7 billion disappears in overcompensation to the independent schools. The Government and SD could have stopped this, but they have chosen not to do so. Instead, this overcompensation continues year after year.

It is difficult to understand why the Sweden Democrats turn a blind eye when 2.7 billion every year disappears in overcompensation to independent schools, an overcompensation that leads to easy profits and that the tax money which should go to the students' education instead becomes waffle huts, beach plots, and hunting lodges.

I naturally want to hear the Sweden Democrats explain why they do not stop this.

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is always interesting to stand in this rostrum when we have had school debates in recent years and listen to the so-called left side. The only thing they talk about wanting to do something about and where they go hard is about the friskolor, roughly as if it is the friskolor that over 30 years have made the Swedish school worse than it was. It is not a catastrophe compared to other countries, even if it is quite far down now. But once it was at the top. And now it is thus the friskolor that are the big, horrible thing.

I believe it is 14 percent of the students who voluntarily, note well, choose to go to the friskolor. I do not know if they do it because they want to or because they do not want to, but they choose voluntarily. According to the left wing, this is therefore the big problem with the Swedish school.

People are talking here about a figure of 2.7 billion. That is a lot of money. I wonder: Is it these 2.7 billion that are destroying the Swedish school, or are there more funds involved? Is it this that is destroying the Swedish school?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! These 2.7 billion, equivalent to 4,000 teachers who could have been in the Swedish school system, is a real waste of taxpayers' money – 2.7 billion goes to people who do nothing to get them. They need no compensation; they are paid too much. But these 2.7 billion mean nothing, the Sverigedemokraterna believe.

I have a question about that and also some other questions: Which other groups in society do the Sweden Democrats think should receive 2.7 billion without doing anything for it? Why is it specifically the independent school owners who are to receive this money? Are there other groups that can also receive money from the state in this easy way?

In his speech, the member referred himself to the segregation in Swedish schools. I believe it is a very large cause of the problems we see. The member also referred to the OECD as a reference point when he several times referred to the Swedish school results.

Even when a bourgeois majority here in the chamber voted through the free school system 30 years ago, the OECD warned that it would lead to exactly that – segregation – the problems that the member referred to from the rostrum.

Since then, the OECD has regularly, year after year, returned to this: that the free school system as it is rigged in Sweden with profit-seeking schools hampers segregation and the great inequality in Swedish school.

Yes, it is a big problem, and the member said it themselves: It is those who are born to non-academic parents who do not fare well in Swedish school. It is those who are affected by the segregation. There are also many other things, but this is a big problem.

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite fascinating that Åsa Westlund blames me and my party for something that the bourgeoisie did. And what I remember was that the Social Democrats were also involved in introducing a one hundred percent compensation to the friskolor. We have not been involved at all in that match – you have been, and other governments have been.

I received no other figure than 2.7 billion, which is a lot of money. But in the total, it is only a small part. It is not even 1 percent of what is used in the entire school. We have long wanted to remove the mother tongue instruction, from which we see no benefit. It is also nothing that harms any students, but it is about 2.2 billion. We will fix that if you just support us. I am convinced that there are funds to redistribute.

We also, of course, do not like to give money for something that is not being done, and I do not believe that anyone here in the chamber is doing that. Therefore, together with the other parties in our Tidögäng, we have commissioned an inquiry on tightening the requirements regarding the friskolor.

The private schools have existed for 25 years. Why have you not done anything? It is completely incomprehensible. You have an ability to shift all your shortcomings onto others.

I can proudly stand here, because this is the first time that our party, via Tidögänget, gets any influence. We have been very clear about what we have in common and have gone out to the entire people with that in this agreement. I think it is fantastically fun that we can do something that makes the Swedish school better. But you are trying to smear things on us that you yourselves have been involved in and have been doing for 25–30 years. I think it is strange.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Many different things were raised in the replies and in the speech by Member Grubb. We can start with some facts regarding that all immigrants in the past would have been super-integrated. There was a time when the Danes were the most criminal in Sweden! I can take that on.

It is not that there was no segregation in the past. It was just that the house prices were different on different sides of the streets. One did not choose which school one attended, because there was no school choice.

In the 70s, warnings came about declining reading comprehension, rowdiness, etcetera – especially among those without a reading habit from home. But one can say that it is still those who do not speak Swedish at home who are the great challenge in Swedish school. It is there that we have low school results in Sweden. Otherwise, there is much that is good in Swedish school.

It is clear that we should focus on the Swedish language. I can borrow a bit from a dish soap advertisement and say: "It is clear that the kid shall speak Swedish." We can certainly increase the proportion of teaching in Swedish from 50 percent. But none of this will happen as long as we do not have good and capable qualified teachers. Should we not ensure that we reward the schools that employ qualified teachers instead of those that employ unqualified teachers?

If we are to ensure that everyone speaks better Swedish – especially those who come from homes where Swedish is not spoken – why is it still the case that, while Sverigedemokraterna now focuses on the Swedish language, they are simultaneously very careful that it must be possible to continue having schools where Swedish is not spoken at all and employ unqualified teachers? That ensures that the students learn substandard Swedish or do not speak Swedish at all in school – and that with teachers who do not have qualifications. How does that help more people to speak better Swedish?

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am a few years older than Niels Paarup-Petersen. I do not think he remembers very much from the early 70s. I went to school then. I started primary school in 1969 in Malmö, at Hagaskolan. I had several immigrants as my closest friends. Their parents spoke rather poor or non-existent Swedish, at least for a good while. But strangely enough, the children spoke fluent Swedish – Malmö dialect, even. There was not a trace of an accent. I don't know, but I remember it was like that. Therefore, I just want to correct the member. But it is desirable that everyone can speak Swedish, because it is obviously about the adults in the working life as well. I understand that.

We have not issued anything regarding that all schools shall be forced to have qualified teachers. I wish that one could do that, but there are not that many qualified teachers. If Niels Paarup-Petersen has a magic formula to produce this – produce it! Of course, we want the school to have qualified teachers. It is no stranger than that.

We do not quite have a socialist view on this. We often look at quality. There are absolutely quality deficiencies in both municipal schools and independent schools. We want to focus on results. It is about results.

There is talk about profits and so on. Yes, there are municipal schools that make profits. We have some really bad municipal schools in Malmö, and they have such an administration that you can't believe it's true. There is money to be saved there; I know that. I believe Niels Paarup-Petersen also knows that, because he knows quite well how it works in Malmö.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have not mentioned the word profit, so I do not know why it suddenly came up.

There are absolutely bad municipal schools in Malmö. I know that. That is why I sit in the Riksdag and have chosen the Education Committee. At Värner Rydénskolan, for example, only one-third of the students received eligibility during a period. When the School Inspectorate was there, they still gave the green light for everything. I am furious about the enormous dropout rate we have in Sweden. But I have not gone to the Swedish school, so I have a very hard time having childhood memories from there.

Regarding that schools shall be forced to have qualified teachers, it states in the Education Act that one shall have qualified teachers. In ordinary cases, law is equal to compulsion. But that is not the case in the school's area. There, it is optional. It is a bit special, one could say.

Yes, the Centre Party has a magic formula. Isn't it fantastic when a magic formula is requested and one actually has it? We have submitted a proposal that is included in our school policy which is being placed on the table of the Riksdag. It is as good as it can be. It gives the Sweden Democrats every opportunity to vote for.

The magic formula is simply that the one who employs a qualified teacher receives better pay than the one who does not. I do not know if it is magic, but it is clear and relatively simple. It means that one gets more money if one employs qualified teachers. It creates a better labor market for qualified teachers and ensures that the incentives in Swedish schools move towards qualification instead of away from it.

The second part of the proposal is a kind of double magic. It is about placing an educational requirement on the employer for those who are not qualified. They are given a mandate to ensure that the unqualified become qualified. We are therefore paying for qualification and for the unqualified to become qualified. I do not think it is super difficult. I do not know why the Center Party are the only ones who have thought of it. But qualified teachers shall receive more money and unqualified shall become qualified. These are our magic formulas to produce more qualified people. I look forward to the Sverigedemokraternas support.

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it was a fantastically magical formula. Joe Labero, houtta dig i väggen!

It is interesting, but I do not think that it will result in more teachers for that. The fact that people are hired because they get more money does not mean that the unqualified become educated. That the schools should take action on this might work in some places, but it is also quite a large challenge for the schools to suddenly manage and pay for all of this. We have plenty of colleges and universities that can educate teachers. So it becomes a bit difficult, if that is what the member means. I don't know. I do not think it would have helped very much.

I have no objection, and I definitely want people to hire teachers. Then I also know that qualified teachers, including in Malmö, have applied for jobs but been told that they were not interesting and were not invited to any interview. There is, of course, much of that.

I think we can agree that we want qualified teachers in schools. We are probably not alone in that, I and member Niels Paarup-Petersen. We'll stay there for now. But together perhaps we can find another formula that I believe in more. I am not convinced that the so-called formula from Niels Paarup-Petersen is the right one, but perhaps there is another. It would have been good for the Swedish school, probably.

There are teachers who are not qualified but who are very skilled. Perhaps they would have received a little extra boost if they had received qualification. It might become even better.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are laying out smokescreens regarding students speaking Swedish and the like. The goal for the Sweden Democrats is something completely different.

If we assume that the Sweden Democrats want this, it will be very strange that they vote against all proposals that research considers to be basic prerequisites for creating better inclusion, reducing segregation, and ensuring that students, for example, speak better Swedish. The research is clear that mother tongue instruction contributes to this. Students who can their mother tongue can also learn the Swedish language better. It is not rocket science. Investigation after investigation also shows how the school market and the market experiment in schools have led to students no longer meeting to such a large extent, which affects the students' language skills.

We also know that the exception that some schools have from the requirement for a teacher's license and to speak Swedish in school leads to the students not having as great an access to the Swedish language. Sweden's second-largest school group has this exception.

I was just waiting to hear Jörgen Grubb bring this up. I thought it sounded a bit too good to be true at first. But once again, Jörgen Grubb proved that the Sverigedemokraterna stand for a school policy that goes completely against what the research says.

How is it that the Sweden Democrats vote no to removing queue as a selection basis? Why do they vote no to a school system beyond the market, where students meet in one and the same school? And why do they vote no to the exceptions for the international schools being removed? At the same time, they want students to learn better Swedish in school. How do these things go together?

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There are clearly divided opinions regarding mother-tongue instruction. In Denmark, one has a different view than what Daniel Riazat's so-called researchers have. We have looked at this in investigations. We see nothing that indicates that it provides any greater gain. On the other hand, it entails a cost that almost reaches what you complain about regarding the independent schools: 2.2 billion for mother tongues and 2.7 billion for the independent schools.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! The independent schools – at least the largest school groups – receive 50 billion and not 2.7 billion. The Sweden Democrats are involved in lowering taxes by over 100 billion kronor annually, most of which goes to high-income earners. This year, an extra tax cut has been announced for, among others, donors to the Moderaternas election campaigns and the like. I wonder what the 2 billion becomes in comparison to this. The government, with the Sweden Democrats at the forefront, spends hundreds of billions to reduce taxes for billionaires and millionaires, but they simultaneously have problems with 2 billion, which is a very small proportion of the school's total budget.

Let us return to the question. I would very much like for Jörgen Grubb to give me the sources and the names of those researchers. I want to know what research studies that the Sverigedemokraterna have conducted themselves have concluded this. Was this done by the same person who prepared the Sverigedemokraterna's white paper, or was it done by someone else?

We have checked the investigations that have been conducted, and they show that students are helped by being able to speak their mother tongue. It is actually not a discussion but more of a statement: students who can speak their mother tongue can also learn Swedish better.

I just want to know the names of the researchers that the Sweden Democrats have hired. Is it members of the Sweden Democrats who have developed this, or do you have any evidence at all that mother tongue instruction would be bad for the students?

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I reflect on the fact that we now have different figures. Now the member from Vänsterpartiet says it is 50 billion that is made in profit and traded for waffle stalls. According to the Socialdemokraterna, it is 2.7 billion, which sounded more credible to my ears. I assert that mother tongue instruction costs 2.2 billion, and it is 55 percent of the students who choose this.

There is no clear connection that it would yield any profit. There is also nothing that says it ends up on the deficit side. There is nothing that says it becomes a minus if students sport more, ride more, play more ice hockey, or anything else that we also could have spent 2.2 billion on.

We base much on a large Danish study, which was conducted almost 20 years ago when the requirement for mother tongue instruction was removed in Denmark.

I have never heard Daniel Riazat mention all his fantastic sources either. We looked at a RUT investigation. There were none there with clear claims. And surely there is no one else who has found them?

(Applause)

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

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

It is the government's and the politicians' task to solve the problems that exist in Swedish schools. The way forward is not about lowering the knowledge requirements. Swedish schools need, instead, to have high expectations of the students. We need teachers who have time for the students and who can create a calm working environment in the lessons and safety in the corridors. Families and parents also need to be involved and take responsibility, and we need to reverse the deeply worrying trend of increased mental ill-health among the young.

There is a great deal of research showing that mental ill-health and school failure are linked. Cause and effect often go both ways. Mental ill-health leads to school failure, and school failure leads to mental ill-health.

In a large survey from last year, 15 percent of Sweden's school students – corresponding to 110,000 children – reported that they were feeling unwell at that time. The students themselves stated that their mental health affected their school results. It is not difficult to understand. Sleep difficulties, anxiety, and high absence obviously have an impact on the grades.

Certain forms of mental illness require professional care and treatment, but much can be alleviated with the right support and understanding. The school has a crucial role in the work of preventing mental illness, but today's school health services are often insufficient. Support measures are implemented too late, and the access to school health services varies greatly between different schools.

The Christian Democrats are pushing forward in the government's work so that state grants shall be directed towards student health. The Christian Democrats' proposal for a student health guarantee is included in the Tidö Agreement. Every student shall have the right to come into contact with student health within a reasonable time. The work to produce a bill is currently underway, and in the same investigation, the responsibility for student health is also being reviewed.

The Christian Democrats believe it would be better to let the regions take collective responsibility for student health, so that the budget for the school counselor does not compete with other school staff and so that no child falls through the cracks in the handover between student health and BUP. Collaboration between different actors is simply a key, and everyone needs to help.

In some cases, the social services should be allowed to place social pedagogues or social workers at the school who, for a period of time, can give full focus to a child who needs extra support. There is a point to it being staff from other professional groups so that this work can avoid being pitted against other school interventions in the school budget.

Mr. Speaker! We must become better at detecting and preventing mental ill-health at an early stage. The Christian Democrats want that routine conversations with a counselor be introduced, just as students today have health checks with the school nurse.

Students need to receive education on how to manage mental ill-health. Kristdemokraterna want this to be written into the curricula. It should be on the schedule with regular lessons in primary school, secondary school, and upper secondary school, so that students can learn to understand and manage worry, stress, and anxiety. They should be taught what affects mental health, including physical activity and screen time.

Many countries have already introduced this. WHO recommends it, and research shows that it works. Children feel better, and mental ill-health decreases. Furthermore, the chances of completing school increase.

An overlapping area for mental health and school results is about the family. In families that function and have time, we are loved unconditionally. There, love is not measured in the number of likes and is not priced based on the brand of the shirt. There, we are loved for who we are, not for what we perform or how we look.

For children suffering from mental ill-health, there is no better place to be than in a secure family. It builds a safety net that is more important than anything else. Secure families build more secure children, and secure children build a more secure society. It will also increase knowledge results.

Students need support from home. The importance of parents and family for students' schooling cannot be overstated. However compensatory the school wants to be, however much we try to set things right, and however 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 school results are incredibly important for the children's schooling.

Parents therefore need to receive support in helping children meet the school's requirements and be more actively involved in their learning. Therefore, the Christian Democrats have for over 20 years pushed for expectation documents in the Swedish school – a kind of contract that is written before the start of the autumn term, for example, where the responsibilities of the parents, the students, and the school are clarified. For my part, it may well include provisions that parents commit to setting boundaries and establishing rules for the child's homework, sleep, leisure time, screen habits, and so on, so that parental responsibility becomes a self-evident part of the school's requirements at home.

Such a document could also help parents set boundaries – for example, to say no when the children want the phone late in the evening if there is a math test the next day. It would simply give struggling parents advice and support in their parenting.

But such a contract would also clarify the student's and the school's responsibilities. The student would commit to following the school rules, to arrive on time, and to show respect for their teachers and their classmates. And the school's responsibility would be clarified when it comes to providing the student with the support that is needed.

This is simply a way to include the whole family and actually even the whole society in the education. That is how we upgrade the view of the school in Sweden, and that is how we turn the knowledge development.

With this, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! As usual, I very much appreciate when Mathias Bengtsson raises the issue of mental ill-health, where I know there is a genuine interest and commitment. It is very much appreciated, because we can state that many children in Swedish schools are feeling really poorly. Well-being in school must improve. Ultimately, children are forced to be in Swedish school, and then we should also be forced to take good care of them, one might think.

When one looks at those who are suffering and how they manage in school, one sees that those who do not manage in school suffer worse. And those who suffer worse also manage worse in school. It is sometimes a bit difficult to know in which order it comes. But we can state that those who manage better in school suffer much better.

In Sweden, we have an enormous dropout rate. Every year, 20,000 students leave school without the qualification to move forward. They are told that they are not good enough, and that is roughly what they are told. That is how it has been for a very long time. With the government's reforms, there will be at least 100,000 more students before we have come anywhere.

When one does not invest the money that is needed and when one continues to accept unqualified teachers, who do provide lower results, we know that this will continue to contribute to increased mental ill-health. That in itself means that we will continue to see this. We will continue to remain in this insane system, where students are being knocked out to a completely unimaginable extent compared to in all other comparable countries – because of the system we have. It is that which creates the ill-health.

We have talked a lot about investigations, and it will surely come up again. But nothing is happening when it comes to what can actually be done right now – things that make a difference in the short term, such as opening up the upper secondary schools etcetera. I would very much like to know how Mathias Bengtsson views the possibilities of doing something in the short term regarding what is the real problem, namely the large drop-out rate.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Niels Paarup-Petersen, for the Member raising this issue, which is incredibly important. At this moment, 110,000 children report that they are feeling unwell. It is naturally difficult for a child who is wondering if they even want to continue living to concentrate on solving equations in math class.

What is the government doing about this? Well, it concerns a number of areas. I touched upon some parts in my speech, and the member touched upon some parts in his question. It is about student health. It is about creating safety and study environments in schools. It is about teachers who can demonstrate leadership.

We need skilled, proficient teachers who can create calm and peace in the lessons. If we are to get more qualified teachers in schools, we need to train more teachers. Then the teacher education needs to be developed and become more attractive. We need to reduce the teachers' administrative burden, I believe, so that more people want to seek the profession. And we need to relieve teachers with other school staff so that the teachers can focus on what they were originally trained for, namely to teach.

When it comes to what the member is referring to, the elimination, we also need to review so that there is a way forward for all students. I believe that, for example, a shorter, simpler vocational school as a high school alternative could be the way forward for those students who have weaker grades.

But when it comes to what the Center Party sometimes seems to be advocating for, letting all students pass the current national program, I am afraid that it would only lead to a later failure – that students who do not have sufficient knowledge to pass the national programs are let in anyway and fail at a later stage. That would be directly counterproductive when it comes to mental health.

I believe more in providing better support in primary school and creating more options in upper secondary school so that everyone can move forward to an option that suits them specifically.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! We do not want all students to be able to move forward. On the other hand, we want certain students to move forward. That is what we always want, not just sometimes.

The government says that with a new grading reform we shall lower the requirements to proceed to the existing upper secondary program; that is the consequence. The students who, according to the government, will be able to proceed after a new grading reform – in five, six, seven, or eight years, when you have gotten the digital tests and your new grading system and everything in order – with the results they have today, perhaps, we say, can proceed already today. It is the same students, the same number. It is just that in the current situation they are not allowed to proceed – completely unnecessarily. You say yourselves that these students should be able to proceed; they would be able to manage it. But because we have introduced a crazy grading system, they shall continue to be knocked out over the next five, six, seven, or eight years, completely unnecessarily.

I think this is terrible for these students, and it is what, more than anything else, causes the mental ill-health to be greater in our school system than in anything else. Strangely enough, it is linked to the fact that we have the highest dropout rate and the worst grading system. Those figures are linked. Therefore, we want to break this up, not in seven or eight years but today. I can absolutely stand for that, every day of the week.

Yes, we are to have a study environment, so let us have good teachers who create a study environment. That is why we want more qualified teachers through our qualification reform. More teachers? Yes! But the government's reforms lead to fewer teachers because it becomes harder to enter teacher training. It will lead to 1,100 fewer teachers graduating every year. It is fine that we are to have better teachers – I agree with that. But that reform gives fewer teachers, not more, especially during the next 20 years.

Then you want reduced administration. Yes, but in the current situation, the government is delivering more administration. Furthermore, teachers are supposed to start going around and searching through the students' bags. That does not help.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Niels Paarup-Petersen is right on several important issues, including that the reforms need to be implemented as quickly as possible. No one would be happier than I if all the government's initiatives could be introduced as quickly as possible. We have a procedure in Sweden where proposals according to the constitution shall be investigated and shall be sent for a referral to the Council on Legislation and so on. It is fundamentally good, but the member is completely right that we need a higher tempo.

The government is on board with higher admission requirements for the teacher training. This is because we see today that too many people enter the teacher training but do not complete it. Too many people, in the absence of other alternatives, choose the teacher training but do not have the knowledge required to pass the training. This only leads to the attractiveness of the training decreasing. It leads to the level of instruction being lowered because one needs to adapt to students who then drop out. And it leads to us wasting resources on teaching people who simply do not become finished teachers.

There is nothing that says that higher admission requirements would lead to fewer people coming out. Naturally, more will come in, but in the long run, this is something that increases the attractiveness so that more teachers come out into the profession.

When it comes to giving teachers authority in the classroom, it is something absolutely necessary in order to be able to strengthen the attractiveness.

Teachers can today, for example, see that a student puts a dangerous or prohibited object in a bag and puts it in the locker, and then the school is not given the opportunity to open that bag. It is completely absurd. If anything, it leads to qualified teachers quitting the profession.

That the Center Party opposes teachers being given more powers is regrettable. But fortunately, it remains in opposition for now.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mathias Bengtsson, for the speech and the exciting exchange of remarks, which raises even more questions.

I will begin with what anyway made me reflect a bit during Mathias Bengtsson's speech. I believe we all share the concern over how Swedish youth are doing and the mental ill-health. It is probably good if we can highlight different ways to do something about it.

Mathias Bengtsson said something that raised questions for me. It was supposed to be a point that everything, student health and school healthcare, should be with the region in order to avoid the budget conflicts that one ends up in in a municipality.

It is not only the municipalities that the government has left in the lurch with inflation and cost increases after the pandemic and the war. It is also the regions with the responsibility for public transport, regional development, and the entire healthcare system.

In what way would school health care be something that would be guaranteed to be prioritized in the regional health and medical care? How could that be the solution?

(Applause)

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! There are simply several different points to having the same principal for school health and school healthcare as for the other parts of the healthcare system, for example, child and adolescent psychiatry.

It is to, for example, gather the competence. Even if one has the office at the school, one is employed by the region and has closer contact with colleagues within the specialized professions. It would also mean that the handover between student health services and BUP becomes smoother.

Today, it is unfortunately the students who have contact with the school health services and speak with the counselor. But then the counselor feels: This is too large a problem for me to handle, I am referring the student to child and adolescent psychiatry. Then the student falls between the cracks and does not receive the help and support they need. It could more easily be avoided if it were the same main employer. I believe there are several points to that.

I also do not believe that all preventive measures to reduce mental ill-health necessarily cost money. It can be about having more order and structure in school, creating safer classroom environments and corridors, giving teachers more authority and letting them take that leadership.

It could, for example, be that the schools should have evidence-based anti-bullying work. It does not need to be more resource-intensive; instead, it could just be changed methods of work and changed rules that can prevent mental ill-health. There are several parts to work on. Letting the region take over the responsibility for student health is one such part.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can see the point of keeping competence together. If one now has one's placement somewhere other than where the other colleagues are, perhaps it is still a rather weak connection.

I do not quite understand how the queues to child and adolescent psychiatry become shorter because one professional group's employment is moved from the municipality to the region.

I still believe it is a matter of the government having to provide funds in the budget for both municipalities and regions. The Member of Parliament is welcome to elaborate on how it would be faster to get access to child and adolescent psychiatry due to changed employment conditions for the counselor or the school psychologist.

I completely agree with the member that it does not have to cost a huge amount of money to do the right things. I truly share the frustration regarding the lack of ability to work evidence-based to prevent bullying. It also concerns the lack of ability for the school system to work with health-promoting interventions on a universal level in schools.

When it comes to this matter of order and tidiness, I would very much like to hear how a written agreement between the school and the parents regarding self-evident matters would change anything.

When the proposal arrived, I had some students from grade 8 visiting here in the Riksdag. I asked them what they thought. It is good to go to the experts. Then they said: It is not that those who are rowdy in the classroom are so because they do not know that you are not allowed to fight.

They did not really believe that an agreement between the principal and the parents would make the difference. What does the member think?

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! What do I think about a responsibility contract between parents, the school, and the student? I have met many students, parents, and school staff who use it in a successful way at several schools.

They say themselves: It is a way to involve the parents in the education and to ensure that the parents talk more with their children about what culture applies at the school, how it goes with homework and with peers. It is a way to get the parents to involve themselves more in the school.

I believe that is what is needed. Parents need to get help in taking their responsibility. The whole society needs to be more involved, and we need to re-evaluate the school as an authority and an important institution.

When it comes to the queues in child and adolescent psychiatry, it is clear that it is a matter of resources. Therefore, the government, with the initiative and leadership of the Christian Democrats, has allocated historical sums to child and adolescent psychiatry. These are larger appropriations directed towards child and adolescent psychiatry than any government has ever allocated, and larger appropriations and initiatives than any government supported by the Green Party has ever come up with.

It is clear that Miljöpartiet, in a shadow budget or opposition budget, can allocate larger sums and throw money at both the one and the other. But the government has a majority. We cooperate and get our proposals through.

No one knows what the Green Party's real alternatives look like when it comes to cooperating with other parties. There is not a word in print on how the Green Party, the Centre Party, and the Left Party are to reach an agreement to produce the initiatives that Camilla Hansén speaks about. It makes it a bit difficult to compare.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of our joint reservation 21, which concerns meat as a basis for selection. I also want to move for the approval of reservation 23. I do not usually move for the approval of two reservations. But since we all stand behind the same reservation, I also want to move for the approval of the Left Party's own reservation. It is reservations 21 and 23. If I have seen incorrectly, please feel free to tell me.

Mr. Speaker! Equal societies fare better than unequal ones. A just and equal access to knowledge and education creates the conditions for building a knowledge nation. By building a knowledge nation, the foundation is laid for a society where we succeed in tackling the present and future challenges.

It applies regardless of whether it is about having enough construction workers who can build housing and railway tracks, regardless of whether it is about training enough teachers and nurses, and regardless of whether it is about teaching children and young people how they should resist undemocratic tendencies in our society and in our world. That was the idea of the Swedish school once upon a time.

In the Riksdag's school debates, we rarely have time to do justice to the school. I still want to try to do this by mentioning some details that we do not usually bring up.

School is the learning of factual knowledge combined with critical thinking and analysis. School is theoretical, practical and aesthetic subjects. School is handicrafts and woodworking. School is sports lessons. School is learning about consent, sex and relationships. School is the fantastic teachers and career counselors, the principals, the school health staff, those who work in the school kitchen, those who clean the premises and the caretakers.

School is the teaching assistants. School is the place where many fall in love for the first time and where many also break up for the first time. School is the wonderful performances during Lucia and Christmas, Nouruz and Eid. School is balls, spring festivals and much more than that. School is the place where our children get to learn that all people are equally worthy. Isn't that fantastic? Yes, I agree.

But let me also tell you about the other side of the school. The school is the welfare activity that has been subjected to and is subjected to a market experiment since 35 years ago. The school is the welfare activity where students with different backgrounds no longer meet to the same extent as before. The school is the welfare activity where anyone can get permission to start just a school.

School is the welfare activity where the voucher system and the school funding system significantly increase segregation and lead to poorer equality. School is the welfare activity where you as a capitalist can receive billions from the public to conduct operations, but where the public has no right whatsoever to demand full transparency.

School is the welfare activity where politicians and school owners easily swap places with one another and sell operations to one another without it being called corruption, which it would have been in most other places in the world.

To take it to its logical conclusion: School is the welfare activity whose governing politicians change their policy to specifically market-based school after dinners with the right's employer organizations such as Almega and Svenskt Näringsliv. School is the welfare activity whose politicians have a majority in the Riksdag to introduce the principle of public access but choose not to do so.

Mr. Speaker! There is no other country in the world where limited companies and venture capital companies can conduct school activities with public funds and take out the enormous profits that they make in our country. Commercialization and market logic are the main reasons why school has become increasingly less equal and equitable.

The profit-making schools have established themselves where they know they have the best market prospects. Public schools are obliged to foot the bill. This happens partly by having to pay to the independent schools for every krona invested in the students in the municipal school. But it also happens by the public schools having to take care of the students that the independent schools have not wanted to accept.

This school system has led to a waste of resources and segregation. It also leads to greater differences between schools and an increased need for control and oversight, which in turn leads to even higher costs for the public, that is, the municipality and the state.

Vänsterpartiet argues that limited companies must be prohibited from conducting school activities. The school is not just any company. The school is not intended to be run as a company. Children and students are not customers. Teachers are not service personnel. School money is not money in a market, or rather: It should not be money in a market.

Think about the fact that we have let it go so far that students are seen as mere customers! I caught myself when I said it. Every time I say it, I flinch even more. Isn't it absurd that the most important activity we have in our society, namely the school, which is intended to provide students with knowledge and education, can have names ending in an AB – as if it were a pizzeria, a clothing store, or an ice cream kiosk?

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, it is not just a school market we are dealing with, but it is an entire market logic and a school system that has paved the way for this. It was not only the free school reform that was introduced in the 90s, but one also ensured the introduction of a number of other reforms to facilitate things for the large actors.

We all know that today's school choice system is neither fair nor free. The queues that the free schools – primarily the profit-driven actors – use today lead to increased segregation. It is not the students who choose their schools; it is the schools that choose their students.

In many cases, we know that it requires many years of waiting time to be admitted to the school. Which students are it then that have the opportunity to apply to those schools? What kind of school system does this create? Well, the research – even the right's own researchers – says very clearly: This creates extreme segregation. This increases the existing residential segregation we have in our society.

Therefore, we believe that the possibility that exists today to use school choice systems for independent schools must be abolished. That was the reservation I moved for approval earlier.

I apologize for exceeding my speaking time, but I still want to raise a very important issue here at the end. It concerns the principle of public access.

Time and again we have presented the proposal that the public must be granted insight into what happens within the independent schools (friskolor), but time and again it has been voted down by the right-wing parties. That independent schools today are not covered by the principle of public access while simultaneously expecting to be funded by the public is unreasonable.

The principle of public access is a central part of Swedish democracy and exists within several parts of it, and that the school is exempted only means that one does not want there to be transparency. I cannot see any other reason why one should not be able to access all statistics regarding students and teachers, for example. That it can be called trade secrets is just as absurd as that students can be called customers and that schools can be called AB.

So the egalitarian Swedish school system was not built once upon a time. Therefore, one must simply introduce the principle of public access for all schools in Sweden. But, Mr. Speaker, if we are to be able to do this, I am convinced that we cannot just sit and wait for the current government to do something. It will happen when we simply change governments and change policy to a red-green one after the next election.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 17 and reservation 21 – for once, that is, two of them.

According to the agenda, we are to debate general school issues today. If we are to build a good school, it must be built on facts. There is a lot about how one should behave in school and so on, so we can perhaps start by taking some responsibility for ourselves here in the chamber. Quite a lot has been said about how different things have been, so I will at least try to provide my facts.

We have had a discussion about whether one was allowed to talk about the problems with independent schools during the January Agreement. Yes, one absolutely was. Please show me the Social Democrat who did not talk about this between 2018 and 2020 – I believe there are few of them. One was allowed to talk about it. On the other hand, it was also the case, which others did not really want to talk about, that we, the Liberals, and other parties on the bourgeois side blocked reforms that actually could have been presented.

Nor there was also not that much conversation from the government's side with the parties that were actually open to changing, for example on the purchasing side. There, there actually had been a window. For much else that the government then wanted to do, there is no window. We others must also be honest about that. We perhaps can build a bit on responsibility and so on, as we wish the students should do.

Madam Speaker! Fredrik Malm of the Liberals previously stated that the Liberals were very clear in their analysis of the problems in Swedish schools. I may have listened a bit selectively, but what I understood were all the things that were raised—things that the Liberals had implemented from the state side—state regulations introduced when the Liberals ruled or were involved in deciding school policy. It is these things that the Liberals now say must be solved by the Liberals getting more power in the state. I may be a bit skeptical of that solution, but we may have different views on that. Let me instead present the Centre Party's analysis, for we also have one, and also how we see that we should move forward.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party wants the school to have fewer dictates from the state. The Government wants the school to have more dictates. They are different analyses.

Centerpartiet wants to remove the queues from the school. The government wants to keep the queues in the school.

Centerpartiet wants a common school choice. The Government wants a split school choice.

The Center Party wants teachers to spend more of their time teaching students. The government wants teachers to spend more of their time inspecting bags.

Centerpartiet wants principals to be pedagogical leaders. The government wants principals to be police officers in disguise.

The Center Party wants small schools in rural areas to thrive. The government wants small schools in rural areas to be demolished. It is a bit different.

Centerpartiet wants schools' finances and decisions to be public. The Government wants schools' finances and decisions to remain hidden.

The Center Party wants the school to be governed by the profession. The government wants the school to be governed by Lotta Edholm's press releases.

Centerpartiet wants schools to receive better pay if they employ qualified teachers. The government wants schools to receive the same amount of pay regardless of whether they employ qualified teachers or not.

The Center Party wants every teacher to have fewer students. The Government wants every teacher to have fewer colleagues. It is also different.

Centerpartiet wants the school to have more money. The government wants the school to have less money.

The Center Party's policy lifts the students. The government's policy knocks them out, as it looks today.

It is this that we must talk about when we talk about overall school issues, Madam Speaker. Regardless of how much one talks about details, it is actually this that it comes down to in the end: that which actually creates the framework for the students, for the teachers, and for the school.

Madam Speaker! As long as some schools have a fast track, as long as school policy is driven by the need for press, as long as there is a lack of money, as long as it pays to employ unqualified teachers, as long as the minister thinks they know more about the school than the profession, and as long as as many as 20,000 students are knocked out every year so that it will be hundreds of thousands before any of the reforms that are underway right now will have any effect – as long as it looks like this, we will not solve the challenges of the Swedish school. Therefore, it is a huge problem that the government stands and waits to actually get things done.

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 thing: A school that provides knowledge is one where skilled teachers have enough time for their students. It is a school with a broad view of knowledge where knowledge is expressed in different ways – facts, understanding, skill, and familiarity – which presuppose 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 nation of knowledge and education.

The government is obviously proud of all the inquiries it has appointed, and now thousands of pages of inquiry are pouring out over us. The government wants to appear decisive. Of course, the proposals can also seem appealing one by one – not all of them, for my part, but perhaps some – even though several of them will not solve the fundamental problem: that skilled teachers do not get enough time for their students.

The proposals lead to fewer qualified teachers, increased costs for student health, and increased costs for teacher supply when legitimate demands for better conditions to do the job require more teachers. And no, more people will not dream of becoming teachers because higher grades in Swedish are required for just the teacher education, i.e., only for just that professional group.

These reforms cost money, and I have not seen that the government is prepared to prioritize investments in the school.

Madam Speaker! 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, there is a development towards larger and larger detailed regulation of the school so that one can monitor different school companies to ensure they do not cut quality too much in order to make as much profit as possible. This affects teachers – all teachers – because it increases the administrative burden and shrinks their professional space to that which is easy to measure and compare.

Our vision, instead, is a trust-based school where trust and respect for the school's professions is a fundamental element. It is teachers, principals, special education teachers, and special pedagogues who are experts in educating students, and that must also be what they devote their time to. That we as national politicians signal that we trust the school's professions is an important part of re-evaluating the teaching profession and other professions in the school.

The task of politics is not to micro-manage and control the teacher in the daily work in the classroom, but to provide the conditions for the school's employees to be able to use their full competence. We are now seeing a shift regarding the status of the teaching profession. It is said that one wants to strengthen the teaching profession, but in the investigations that are issued, for example, clear instructions are given that teachers shall ask questions to their students in order to consolidate and control knowledge. According to the Minister for Education, the teaching staff must have such detailed instructions from the government because there are so many unqualified teachers. It is a staggering choice to micro-manage a highly educated professional group in that way instead of ensuring that skilled and, of course, qualified, educated, and licensed teachers have the right conditions to do their job.

Madam Speaker! The purpose of the school must always be education, never profit. Therefore, profit-seeking limited companies do not belong in the school. The market school has created a logic in the education sector that changes the conditions not only for those schools that are profit-distributing but also for other independent schools and municipal schools. If we want to create a society that holds together, the school must be part of the solution and not, as it is now, something that increases the differences between groups in society. Therefore, it is high time to ban the profit-distributing limited company schools and remove the market logic from the school.

Madam Speaker! Part of the market's logic is trade secrets. It lies somewhat in the nature of the matter; if one has come up with something good, one does not want to share it with others but rather earn money from it oneself.

In competitive situations, it is not strange to keep the recipe for success secret, but in a publicly funded education system, it is not only strange but also harmful and unfair. Therefore, there is no reason not to immediately reintroduce the principle of public access to all schools in Sweden.

In Sweden, we have 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. That independent schools are not covered by the principle of public access is therefore completely unreasonable.

Last year we stood here in the chamber and debated precisely the joint announcement from the opposition that the principle of public access should apply to all schools. It felt obvious, especially since the Liberals had joined that policy – but not the actual political proposal when it was presented in the chamber.

We have not seen anything more regarding the proposal on the principle of public access for all schools. A government can prioritize the issue and produce a proposal for a legislative amendment quickly – if it wants to. We see clearly that this government really wants to implement changes in certain areas – pushing through investigations and bills at a high pace – but not in this issue, for which it is known that there is support.

Madam Speaker! The rapid digital transformation of society is both a challenge and an opportunity. Digitalization in education and research is about everything from when and how much it is appropriate to use digital teaching materials to preparing children, pupils, and students for a working life and social life that will not resemble anything we have previously experienced. It is about using the possibilities of digitalization for the best of societal development. The changes are moving very fast and inevitably affect all sectors of society. At the same time, we are faced with the challenge of acting quickly and thoughtfully.

That the digitalization will inevitably be a part of the world we live in does not mean that other skills become unimportant, as is sometimes made to seem. This applies, for example, to the habit of reading books, writing by hand, and also handicrafts and aesthetic practices. Here it is important to remember who are the experts on children's and young people's learning. It is the preschool teachers and the teachers – those who work in the school.

One of the most important skills in working life is to learn new things throughout one's professional life. Students need, together with their teachers, to fill their toolboxes with various learning strategies based on both analog and digital ways of acquiring, organizing, and deepening knowledge.

There is therefore no contradiction between analog and digital teaching materials. The teacher chooses what fits best based on the purpose of the teaching. Digitalization is also not in opposition to reading books or writing by hand. On the other hand, digital teaching materials can visualize mathematics in ways that a book cannot, and understanding complex digital information is a specific ability that one needs to practice in digital environments. When society changes, the school also needs to change.

Sweden as a country needs a strategy for how we approach digitalization in a responsible way that strengthens everyone in Sweden – those of us who live here and now and those who will come in the future. This government has faltered considerably regarding the need for a digitalization strategy. First it was super important, and then nothing happened. I also do not believe that the government will take the lead when it comes to the digitalization of the school system. The reason for that is that the AI commission was forbidden from submitting proposals regarding schools, and we are now waiting for a national digitalization strategy. In the autumn we were told that the strategy would come now in the spring. April is clearly a spring month, and so is May. June is a summer month. If the strategy has not been presented by June, it is simply delayed.

The next question from my side is whether the proposal will at all contain a strategy for the digitalization of the school. I do not think so. What must happen now is that the school principals must look at other countries where they are leading the way.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 33, which is a joint reservation from the entire opposition regarding the reintroduction of the principle of public access in independent schools.

I also move for approval of reservation 40 that the school's digitalization shall be based on science and proven experience, where the state takes responsibility for strategic decisions and the school principals take responsibility for the professional implementation.

(Applause)

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the proposal in the report.

I also want to make a small correction. I was a bit lacking in my geographical knowledge. The school that Skolinspektionen has taken over is located in Gällivare municipality in Norrbotten county in the region of Lappland. Knowledge is of course important!

The Swedish school stands at a crossroads. For several years now, we have seen how knowledge results have declined in school, but the demands on the labor market are increasing. The path to a successful future goes through a knowledge school that equips children with the tools to succeed. School is the decisive path to enabling social mobility and giving people the freedom to create their own future.

The Moderates' vision for the school is clear, namely a school where knowledge is once again at the center, a school where students are met with high expectations regardless of background, and a school where calm and peace in the classroom is a given. That is not the case today – at least not in all the places we wish.

Madam Speaker! Knowledge results must be raised. The sharpest tool to break social exclusion is knowledge. Despite this, we see that unfortunately, not enough knowledge is conveyed in schools today. Far too many students leave school without sufficient knowledge. This is particularly serious for students with weak socioeconomic conditions. For these children, school can be their only chance to break a social exclusion.

Several reports show that one of the primary reasons for declining knowledge results is the lack of study environment. Many students say that there is no peace or study environment, and it affects their learning, how they feel, and how the teacher can teach. Teachers are forced to take away from study time to get order in the classroom instead of focusing on the teaching. Therefore, we in the Tidö Agreement have included that it is extremely important that there should be order and study environment in school. The principal has both a right and a clear obligation to ensure that there is order in the school. Therefore, one of our highest priorities is that it should be safe with study environment in school.

Madam Speaker! A school's success stands or falls with the teachers. The research is unequivocal. There must be skilled teachers; it is the most important factor for the students' success. Today, there is an acute teacher shortage, and in the next ten years, almost 10,000 teachers will be missing. The development must be reversed. This can happen by strengthening the teacher's role, implementing changes in teacher education, and increasing the requirements for quality. Student teachers receive far too few teaching hours in the education. We will therefore increase the extent of practical training in teacher education. We want to expand the VFU time, that is, the time in the classroom where one learns the craft and receives guidance from experienced colleagues.

Madam Speaker! The possibility of choosing a school is also fundamental to the Moderaternas education policy. There must be freedom of choice. It is most important throughout the entire school system. Both students and parents must be able to choose which school one should attend.

We want a mandatory school choice in all municipalities. Today, it is usually resource-strong families who make active choices, but we want everyone to be able to make an active school choice.

Madam Speaker! The school shall give every student the chance to succeed regardless of background or circumstances. Many students are left without help. It is not only a tragic waste of their potential but it can also become a future social problem. The students are the most important thing we have. Therefore, we want a holiday school and mandatory homework help to be established.

We are now building a school where we say that knowledge shall once again be at the center, safety shall be guaranteed, and teachers are given the conditions to be teachers. Teachers must be given time to be teachers, and they must be given time to see every student. Every student, regardless of background, shall be given the best possible start in life where we invest in knowledge, safety, and competent teachers, so that the students can have a better tomorrow.

I therefore move for the proposal in the report to be approved. I believe that the continued Tidö cooperation will make the school as good as possible.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I intend to ask a question about the Swedish language.

The Swedish language is an important glue that holds our society together. Strengthening the teaching of the Swedish language in school should be obvious for every government that prioritizes integration and increasing people's sense of togetherness in the polarized times we live in.

Still, we have today a school system in Sweden where we let school corporations conduct half of their teaching in English and furthermore have exceptions for the teachers' qualification requirements. They are thus allowed to have more unqualified teachers.

We Social Democrats want all students to have qualified teachers. We also want the language in Swedish schools to be Swedish and that the rules be changed so that at least 75 percent of the teaching shall be conducted in Swedish, not 50 percent as it is today.

The committee members just voted in favor of the proposal in the report where the committee majority rejects our proposal on Swedish as the main language in Swedish schools with the justification that they instead stand behind current law.

My question is quite simply: Why do the member and the Moderaterna think that ten-year-olds, who have quite recently started learning to write and read in Swedish, should attend schools where English is the main language and where unauthorized teachers provide the instruction?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates and the government want a free school choice. If one chooses an international school or a school that has instruction in a specific language, one makes an active choice to be able to receive instruction in both Swedish and, for example, English, if it is an English school that is chosen.

We have made many visits to the English schools and talked about how people think it works both with the students' Swedish and with the students' English. Some schools have actively chosen to have a few more subjects in Swedish, in order to prioritize it. But the school has been able to choose for itself.

We want it to exist. It is an active choice to choose an English-language school. We think that it works well. The important thing is, as said, that one is allowed to choose the school.

It is also important that the school has good quality. We know that many of these schools have high quality in the teaching. They have high grades, and there is usually great safety in the schools.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! High grades are, with today's grade-fiddling, not a proof of good quality.

I would still say that the Swedish language is important. It is important that everyone in Sweden speaks good Swedish. We also know from research that one learns best in one's primary language. The majority of students and young people in Sweden have Swedish as their mother tongue and would therefore learn better if they were taught in Swedish.

Many teachers further up, at the upper secondary school and at the university, also testify that the students who have studied at English-language schools according to the Swedish curriculum are actually not better at English. Even worse is that they do not know the vocabulary in the languages they have studied in, for example English, even though it concerns mathematics, NO or the like. The warning signs should be taken seriously, even if one does not think that Swedish is important as a unifying glue.

Admittedly, freedom of choice in the school system is important, but it should still only be between schools that are good for the student. I hope at least we agree on that.

My question remains nevertheless: Why is it important for the Moderaterna that these schools should be able to teach in a language other than our main language in Sweden, Swedish? Why should not the majority of the teaching take place in that language in all schools in Sweden, in order to in that way ensure better knowledge acquisition among the students?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, Åsa Westlund!

I thought I was clear, but the Social Democrats perhaps do not want freedom of choice as much as the Moderates and the government do.

The more international character with more English is something that one chooses, if one wishes it. It can vary quite a bit between schools depending on whether the majority of the children have Swedish as their mother tongue or if they are children of researchers who come from other countries and need international schools.

Of course, we ensure that there is always high quality at the school one attends. But we still see that there is so much Swedish that one can manage with the language one receives there.

We believe that reading is extremely important and invest a lot in that one must acquire reading skills early in primary school. We want a read-write-count guarantee already when the children are small. If one has difficulties with Swedish, one should be able to receive support in this.

At the same time, we want the freedom to choose English as the main language, or rather to 75 percent, and that it is still ensured to be of high quality.

When it comes to the grades, we now have the grade investigation. One should always feel that it is the correct grade one receives. And as it is now, many students have good results when they graduate from, for example, the international schools. We see that it is a well-functioning system, but for us it is still most important that one has the freedom of choice, that one can choose the school that suits the family.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I actually only pressed the button to request a reply to force Fredrik Malm to stay a bit – no!

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström raises many relevant and important points. That it is important for children to learn to read, write, and count, I believe we all agree on. That we must have high-quality teaching is very good. And we shall ensure that everyone receives the correct grades. These are three of many things that were mentioned and which were reasonable and good.

But all those things and many more presuppose that there are qualified teachers. It is harder to learn to read with a teacher who has not been trained in Swedish at all. It is harder to learn to write if the teacher has not learned how, from a purely pedagogical standpoint, to get small children to take in the writing themselves and the perception of letters. The same applies, of course, to math. It is much harder without qualified teachers.

When it comes to high quality, all surveys show that the teaching becomes better if one has qualified teachers than when one does not. I think it is 10 points better on some scale, but I do not remember it right now. One gets much better results if one has qualified teachers.

In the question regarding correct grades, it is only qualified teachers who can give correct grades. In a very large number of schools, unqualified teachers are involved in giving grades, but it does not become correct.

Still, all the government parties say no to all measures that are intended to lead to more qualified teachers. There are measures that it is hoped might eventually lead to more teachers in 10–15 years, but it is known that there will be fewer teachers in the short term. That just means that we will get more unqualified teachers instead of qualified teachers.

How do the Moderates intend to ensure that we actually get more qualified teachers, so that we can achieve the things that Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström correctly says are important?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Niels Paarup-Petersen, for the questions!

It is positive that the member agrees on what is important in school, and what we also prioritize highly.

Of course, our goal is that we should have qualified teachers. I also mentioned in the speech that we are concerned about a shortage of teachers. Therefore, we are trying to raise the status of teacher education. We also want to improve teacher education and facilitate more in the continuing education. One proposal is, for example, that one should have C in Swedish to enter teacher education and D to enter preschool teacher education. We naturally want a qualified teacher to be able to speak good Swedish.

We are extremely eager to get more teachers. We are also looking at how people with a different background, for example those who have worked as civil engineers, can take a pedagogical supplementary course in order to be able to teach. It is a way to get more teachers.

It is also about getting teachers back. The latest figure I heard was that there are 40,000 who are teachers who do not work as teachers. Of course, we want to get them back to the school.

When people are asked in interviews, it is usually not about the salary, but rather that the work environment is not good. Therefore, we naturally want to improve the work environment so that the teachers want to come back. It is, unfortunately, again about safety for the teachers, but also about having more time to be able to prepare their lessons. We also talk about that, for example, one might have more mentorship when coming as a new teacher, so that one stays. Several things need to be done so that one becomes secure in their role as a teacher. We have many proposals to retain teachers and get teachers back.

But I am also curious about what the member himself has to propose. The member spoke a bit about magic here earlier – the magic formula for getting more teachers. I would therefore like to send the question back to the member Niels Paarup-Petersen.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! It is wonderful to hear the government say twice on the same evening that our policy is magical. I agree, of course. But it is still wonderful. It is not so often we hear it from the government side, and not from so many other parties either, unfortunately.

It is good that the government is concerned about the shortage of teachers that exists. But it is still the case that in the teacher education investigation it is stated that every year there will be 1,100 fewer teachers coming out with the proposals that are there. It is not enough to be concerned if one then reinforces the effect. It is very important to keep that in mind. I still have not really heard anything from the government about what they intend to do. If you turn that tap, there will be fewer, but I have not heard anything about what they really want to do to turn another tap that can not only compensate for that but also ensure that there are even more. It is about a very large number of teachers. I would very much like to hear more about that.

More money, requirements for qualifications etcetera, we have talked about. It is of course good that we talk about the security for the teachers. We are in complete agreement. I believe that on almost all points we are in agreement on what should be implemented.

What we have said is that those who employ qualified teachers should receive better pay, so that it pays to employ qualified teachers and so that they become in demand on the labor market. Now it is the opposite, that it actually pays to employ unqualified teachers. It can be difficult to employ a qualified teacher instead, because then it becomes more expensive. It is not a reasonable arrangement. It is a sick incentive in the school structure. In the law, it actually says that everyone shall be qualified, but that is not really the case.

The second part is that we want the employers to receive an educational requirement for those who are unqualified, so that it is ensured that they become qualified. There is nothing such in the current situation. It is only a matter of continuing to stack these one-year employments on top of each other. That is also not reasonable.

It is the two things that constitute this magic formula, where 1 plus 1 becomes – I don't know – 700 perhaps, just to take a figure. We would very much like to have the support of the Moderaterna and the government to implement it. I truly believe that it is what is required for us to get more qualified teachers.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Niels Paarup-Petersen very much for the answer regarding the magic formula. But I must perhaps disappoint the member a little. It was actually a quotation. The member considered that one had a magic policy. It is not certain that the government agrees with this, but it was probably the member himself who thought so. I thank him, of course, anyway for the answer.

Of course, we want qualified teachers. We absolutely want that. We also want to ensure that those who begin studying to become teachers complete the entire education. We see now that almost half drop out of the education. Perhaps it is the wrong people who enter the teacher education. Perhaps it is not those who want to become teachers who enter the education. We must ensure that one starts their education and then finishes. Otherwise, it is a waste for everyone, especially for those students who start studying and do not finish their education. It is important that we raise the requirements so that we get students who become finished teachers.

Then we also believe it is very important that there are supervisors when one is out on their VFU, their workplace-based training, and that they have time to be supervisors. Perhaps it should also be the case at more schools that one has several students who can support each other. It can of course be tough when one enters the working life and has to get started and learn. The pedagogy must be learned during one's education, and then one must of course also be in the classroom.

We do a lot to retain those who are studying to become teachers. We want to retain our teachers, and we try to recruit teachers who have chosen something else. Then we also want, for example, to get more people with academic education to want to become teachers. We have many proposals to be able to get more teachers.

One can reflect on C's proposal, which I cannot stand behind at this point. But of course, we are always keen on having competent teachers. It is a top priority at all times. Just as we said, the most important tool is to have teachers who are skilled and who want to work as teachers. That is the best way to achieve teaching that works, so that both students and teachers are satisfied.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 7 May.)

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