General school issues and Fundamentals of education

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the committee members who are here today to debate these important issues!

This is my first debate in the Education Committee, at least in the capacity of chairperson. It is very enjoyable to be here and to have this debate with the committee.

Today we will debate overarching school issues and basic education. You who are listening to the debate at home will hear that these are, if not all, in any case large parts of the issues that the Education Committee can debate. One easily slides in and out a bit between different matters.

I have a written speech with me here at the rostrum. As Madam Speaker, who I have sat in committees with before, knows, I usually do not have pre-written speeches, so it is almost shocking. But I actually intended to be true to my tradition and put it aside for a little while. It does not feel as natural to speak from a pre-written speech.

I thought I would venture to say, as this is my first debate as the committee chair, something about why the fundamental school issues are so incredibly important and what the Liberals are trying to do with Swedish schools for that reason.

We liberals are not conservatives and not socialists. We are just liberals. We are not conservatives who believe that education is only about ensuring that people can be available to the labor market. We are not conservatives who fundamentally perhaps are not driven by a desire for people to be able to make class leaps and have control over their own lives regardless of background.

But we are also not, Madam Speaker, socialists who think that we should level the differences between all people and ensure that every second person has it exactly the same, that everyone should have it exactly equally bad. We are not socialists who believe that the best thing for the school is, by all means, if we mold everyone into the same shape, have gray and boring premises and iPads that suck in the young people's brains instead of investing in a knowledge school.

What we are, Madam Speaker, are liberals. The reason we are so passionately enthusiastic about ensuring that the school becomes as good as it can possibly be in Sweden is that we want to give people life chances. We want people, regardless of background, to be able to get a chance to shape their own lives and their own futures as they themselves wish.

We are not socialists. If we were, we could have said: It is quite simple. If everyone is to get the same, we can just put a 100 percent tax on everything and distribute a stipend, and then people can have it exactly the same regardless of who one is and what one achieves.

We do not believe that. We do not want to equalize differences in outcomes; we want to equalize differences in opportunities in life. That is why the school is so central to the liberal project. It is actually only the school that one has as a truly effective tool if one wants to ensure that people, regardless of background, can be given equal conditions to shape their own lives.

That is why, Madam Speaker, it is such a major problem that there are differences in how schools look and how well they function between different municipalities across the country, between different municipal districts, and between different types of areas. It can differ greatly whether one attends a friskola or a non-friskola depending on whether the school chooses to extract a large profit instead of putting the money into quality in the teaching.

That is why it is a major problem for us Liberals that not all schools have had suitable premises and that schools have been able to be built without halls and libraries, perhaps with glass walls instead of proper classrooms.

It is therefore, Madam Speaker, that we are so enthusiastic about creating a rule-based nationalized school that levels the differences across the entire country. It is about leveling class differences regarding people's opportunity to shape their own lives and leveling the differences in what chances one gets as a student depending on where one lives in Sweden. That is the ideological core, and that is why school issues are so important.

Madam Speaker! It is for these reasons that we Liberals in the government are investing heavily in the school system. We are pushing for a national maximum for class sizes. We ensure that the requirements for teacher education are tightened. We ensure that new curricula with a clearer focus on knowledge are developed. It is clear that if there is no focus on knowledge, one will never get any chances for class trips, to shape one's own life.

Madam Speaker! One does not need to have been overly active in the school debate to realize that one problem can be that many who enter the debate mostly rely on their own anecdotes. Everyone in Sweden has gone to school, and that is good. This is due, among other things, to the fact that the Liberals introduced universal schooling for everyone in Sweden at one time – with the help of the Social Democrats. We must thank the Social Democrats for the support.

This brings about the problem that everyone thinks they know which school is best. I believe that the debate on how the school should be designed must be evidence-based. I do not think it is good when there are a lot of municipalities all over the country that run the schools in their own way. It results in different qualities due to different resource allocations, different ideological convictions, and so on. The school must be nationalized and rule-based.

Madam Speaker! Since this is my first debate in the Education Committee in this role, I will venture to share a small anecdote. In the debate, many have spoken about the Liberals' proposal for better school environments and more beautiful schools. There are those who have been upset. Not least, the Center Party seems to think that the most important thing is not that we have a school that signals knowledge and status, but that we should instead spend the money on iPads. My anecdote is about exactly this.

When I went to primary school, I went to an old, fine and beautiful brick building. There were somewhat high steps, and I felt when I entered that many people had walked before me here. In this school, there was an assembly hall, a library, gymnasiums, classrooms, a functioning cafeteria, and corridors where one could sit and study. On the other hand, there were no glass walls so that the focus fell on social interaction; instead, the focus fell on the teacher. In that school, opportunities were created for more people to succeed in life.

I went to a different school during high school. That school building looked like a company, an office landscape. There were glass walls. There was a cubicle room there! It is shocking to say that there was a cubicle room. The furniture was from a well-known large furniture company, and the company used the school as an exhibition space to show how their furniture would work in office environments – not necessarily in school environments.

The result of this was that I could spend a lot of time engaging in the Liberal Youth Association. That was good because it led to me being here today. It was perhaps less good for my school results, and it was not so good for those students who did not have such a positive extracurricular commitment as the Liberal Youth Association. Several here in the chamber think it is questionable, but relatively speaking compared to many other extracurricular interests, it can be good.

This does not work because the focus does not fall on knowledge but on a computer per student, the teacher's self-written course material and looking at what other students are doing on the other side of the glass wall instead of on knowledge and a purposeful school in a beautiful location.

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

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by welcoming Joar Forssell to the Education Committee and his first debate with us in the committee.

There are many questions one can ask the Liberals. It is, after all, your party that holds the position of Minister for Education. I could ask the member how it is going with the complete renovation of the independent school system. I could ask the government what they are doing to address the fact that so many students leave school without passing grades in core subjects. I could ask why schools that teach in English have exemptions from hiring qualified teachers. I could ask why the Liberals have previously voted no to introducing the principle of public access in schools. I could ask why you have voted no to proposals to ban limited companies from running schools, even though you as Liberals also say that you want to do the same.

I could ask how it is that the Liberals still call themselves Sweden's school party, even though all the major changes in Swedish schools over the last decades come from the Liberals. At the same time, most things have been getting worse and worse in Swedish schools.

Madam Speaker! I believe I will abstain, because the Liberals' move to ban ugly schools says enough about what level Sweden's school party, or the Liberals' party, has reached. Instead of caring that the classes are too large or that the municipalities cannot afford enough teachers, they want to ban ugly schools.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! One could ask how the Left Party will manage to address the profits in Swedish schools and ensure that the school is re-regulated together with the Center Party in government. That remains to be seen.

Madam Speaker! Let us move to the question of the beautiful schools. I think the question is important, and I gladly take the debate.

It sounds as if, for the Left Party, there is a contradiction in having beautiful, functional school environments. The proposal we have made concerns two parts. One part is that the schools shall be beautiful and instill respect for education, knowledge, the future, and the institution that the school once was and which the school should once again become. The other part is that the premises shall be functional. There shall be an assembly hall, a dining hall that works, classrooms for the subjects to be taught, libraries, and functioning ventilation for a good working environment.

I think that schools should be beautiful because they represent something. That is in no way in contrast to having teachers with a decent salary and with many colleagues as well as a lot of teacher-led classroom time for the students, while at the same time they have time to manage their planning and administration. Those things are not in opposition to each other. On the contrary, both are important components in a rule-based knowledge school. That is why the issues go hand in hand.

I hope that the Left Party can agree that you do not want ugly schools that signal that school is not important, that signal that school is not something you want to allocate resources to, and that signal that education is not something we prioritize in this country.

Schools should be beautiful and purposeful, and they should be filled with knowledge-seeking students and teachers who have decent conditions so that they can teach and lift Swedish school from the ground up and give more children a future.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! We are happy to settle with you liberals on banning the corporations in the school, if your party remains in the Riksdag after the next election. Then perhaps we can have a majority, but it is uncertain if you will be here in the chamber then. My side of politics will solve this gallantly.

Beauty is subjective. One can have different opinions about what is beautiful or not. I have attempted to make a list of some different things that I consider ugly: making a profit on children's education, putting children in prison, deporting teenagers, making children poor, increasing climate emissions, wearing socks with sandals.

Madam Speaker! I want to ask the member how it would be if the Liberals wanted to ban any of these things instead of banning ugly schools. The Liberals say that they want children to get goosebumps when they enter beautiful schools. I believe they would get more goosebumps if their classmates, who now stand with an expulsion notice in their hands, got to stay in the classroom.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I have tried to get a majority in my party to ban socks in sandals, but I have not succeeded so far. But I am pleased to receive the Left Party's support in that matter.

Actually, I am not so worried that the Center Party will yield to the Left Party. I lie awake at night because I am worried that the Center Party will yield to the Left Party. In that case, I might also have to give the Left Party some credit. It will surely go perfectly for you to cooperate in government, at least from the Left Party's perspective.

Madam Speaker! Let me return to this regarding the physical school. When we talk about what is purposeful, we must see that it is not just about ventilation. It is not just about us having a school cafeteria that works and halls that work as halls should. That is part of it being purposeful. But a purposeful school environment is also a school environment that instills the value of knowledge and education. It is also a purpose that the school environment must be adapted for. We must have a school environment that does that.

It is political decisions and political ideas about efficiency, constructivism and so on that have led to the schools looking the way they do today. In some places, they are barracks. In other places, there are glass walls that cause one not to focus on the teaching but instead focus on the social interaction. In other places, there are other types of environments that do not work.

There are many different types of environments that are beautiful. What the schools we want to see have in common is that they are schools where there are teachers and where there are rules, order and discipline, a focus on knowledge, and environments that signal that school, knowledge, and education are important. That is what this is about, and there is no contradiction between the different values.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I too must begin by welcoming Joar Forssell to the Education Committee.

I intend to partially dwell on what the previous exchange was about. Much of it is about the fact that the Liberals have actually taken important steps towards having a more realistic view of education policy. Many of the problems that Joar Forssell raised both in his speech and in the exchange just now are about the fact that we have obtained a school system that is a market. It is about the fact that we have actors who need to act in a market.

Regardless of whether one is a municipal or regional or a private, for-profit school, far too much of the Swedish school system has for far too long been based on a market logic where the goal is to attract students – to lure in students to receive school funding in order to be able to conduct their operations. Principals have had to act as corporate leaders and cut back on the activities they could cut back on in order to balance their budget.

When the Liberals have now taken important steps to try to regulate the independent school sector and say they want to settle the issue of profit-seeking in independent schools, this is welcome; we in the Social Democrats want exactly this. But then the question is how the Liberals have planned for the upcoming parliamentary term. How have the Liberals planned for that policy to be pushed through with the coalition parties that they have said they want to continue cooperating with? It is a crucial shoe that squeezes. We Social Democrats want to settle the independent school system, but how do the Liberals plan to settle the independent school system during the upcoming parliamentary term?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions! These are very burning and important questions.

I want to start by stating that I believe there is also a bit of a generational difference in these issues. It is not just about ideology, color, and which side of the chamber one sits on – now we do not do that in the Swedish Riksdag, but figuratively speaking.

I believe that I and the member belong to the same youth association generation. We grew up in a Sweden where the free schools were a fact. There are those before us who were grown up in a Sweden where it was too much that the Social Democrats decided how the school should look. Everyone was to be cast in the same mold, and there was no room for the individual and no room for the individual to reach their full potential and build their own life. It was about leveling outcomes more than about giving people the opportunity to seek their own happiness.

It was from this that the independent school system grew out of, and I think that is fundamentally positive. It is good that there are independent schools and a free choice of school. It is not good when profits are taken instead of investing in the teachers and the students and instead of having school libraries, quality in the teaching and so on. That is bad.

If I may be a little anecdotal, I want to say that my daughter attends a free school preschool. It is the same free school preschool that I attended when I was a child. When I attended, it was a preschool that was run as a personnel cooperative. No profit was taken, and the preschool was run that way simply because people thought they could contribute something to the system of free schools. Since then, it has been sold, and now it is owned by a limited company.

I do not see that there is a contradiction between having a free school choice and a free school system while simultaneously not taking out surpluses in order to ensure quality in school. I believe that one can have both: a free school choice with free schools while we ensure that we get rid of the worst surpluses.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that I still, after having listened for just over two minutes, have no idea how the Liberals expect to get their policy through next mandate period, as Joar Forssell avoided it throughout his entire speech. My question will therefore remain: How do the Liberals, who have now acted, who drive a different type of policy than they have done historically and who actually want to get rid of the excesses when it comes to the profit interest, intend to do so? That was how I perceived the member's speech. But the core question itself is how the Liberals have thought that one should manage to carry out that policy with the government base that one is in now and has considered sitting in even next mandate period, if one sits in the Swedish Riksdag. This is actually the fundamental question. The Liberals can go around during the election campaign and in this chamber and say anything they want about wanting to remove this, but one is not anywhere near being able to get that policy through with the parties that one wants to cooperate with.

I and the member are in agreement. We must get rid of the profit hysteria in the Swedish independent school system. Regardless of whether it is a personnel cooperative or a parent cooperative running the preschool or the school, or even a limited company if we manage to limit the profit – history has not shown that it is possible, but perhaps it will become possible in the future – the most important thing is how we run the school and that we ensure that the money we allocate to the school around in our municipalities actually goes to students, teachers, student health, and all other staff at the school.

Madam Speaker! My question remains. How do the Liberals intend to carry out the shift that they say they want to make in their policy?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! We are already in the process of re-regulating Swedish schools. I hope it does not come as a surprise to the member. It concerns a new grading system, the right to learning materials, staffed school libraries, teachers' teaching time, and school environments. It is about one thing after another. The principle of public access for independent schools is something that we have not succeeded in getting through previously.

The Liberals are re-regulating Swedish schools. We want to go even further. When I sat in the municipal council here in the city of Stockholm, where the Riksdag is located, the Social Democrats wanted to move the school down to the district boards. The Liberals want to re-nationalize the school and ensure that the state takes responsibility for the school. It is clear that there is a world of difference between the Liberals' and the Social Democrats' school policy in many important, structural issues. We want a re-regulated knowledge school. The Social Democrats do not.

Madam Speaker! One sits in the collaborations one sits in, and that brings with it challenges. During the previous parliamentary term, the vice-chairman of the committee, Anders Ygeman, who is sitting over there in the chamber, was a minister in the government that we then saw take office through the January agreement. At that time, the Social Democrats, for example, were able to carry out an abolition of the wealth tax. It may not have been the Social Democrats' dream to carry out that reform. I do, however, think it was important to get the work line started and to get more people to exert themselves and work more and so on. But it was not the dream for them, and so it is for the Social Democrats.

I sat in the Committee on Taxation, and for me, the reform was actually a bit of a dream. But that is how cooperation works: you give and you take. I am completely convinced that we in the Liberals, who make the entire school, the reform, the re-regulation, and the knowledge school our most important issue, will get things through.

We have achieved very much during this parliamentary term. We have initiated many processes, and we will achieve very much during the next parliamentary term as well, because the other parties will have to yield, just as the Social Democrats yielded to us during the last parliamentary term.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to welcome Joar Forssell to the Riksdag's most important committee. We have the national responsibility for one of the most important areas in society. We are responsible for something that we sometimes actually forget to talk about, namely one of the world's best schools.

This is often about solving problems, and that means we sometimes risk not always seeing what is good and strong about Swedish school. Joar Forssell has already touched on some things regarding what needs to happen. I think it is interesting to see that green reforms such as the right to high-quality learning materials and that school libraries shall be staffed with school librarians actually become a reality now. Then we need to follow up on this and see if it becomes a reality out in the schools.

I want to raise another topic and ask a question. A few weeks ago, the government's AI strategy with accompanying action plan was released. This is actually quite special: For the first time during this parliamentary term, the school is actually mentioned in the AI strategy. Quite a lot describes what should not happen, but it is also written that certain knowledge is required – i.e., that students need certain knowledge about digitalization and AI.

But there is no funding linked to the action plan. The government has no strategy for how the digitalization or management of AI in the school system shall proceed. Now I am curious about how it will work out in the operations. How will the competence be increased so that Sweden's teachers can benefit from the technological development and so that the students get the knowledge they need to navigate in a rapidly changing society?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! These are very good questions. I truly share the commitment here. We shall manage to both be a knowledge nation when it comes to traditional knowledge and at the same time be able to handle the tools of the future. It is absolutely crucial for the Swedish labor market, competitiveness, and security.

Before I came to the Education Committee, I sat in the Foreign Affairs Committee. I still sit in NATO's parliamentary assembly and a committee called Science and Technology Trends. It is absolutely crucial for Sweden's security that we manage the shift when it comes to how things are used and when it comes to our ability to produce our own systems, our own code, and so on. I want to say, therefore, that I share the commitment.

If one is to be able to handle AI tools in teaching and learning, I believe that one fundamentally needs a solid knowledge base. One must have knowledge of how the world works and subject-matter knowledge. One must be able to use, apply, and have learned about, for example, source criticism. It is important to carry this with you.

We must ensure that all students, when they leave school, have as much real knowledge as they need, so that they can then, with help, guidance and support, learn to use these tools. We cannot escape this. But at the same time, we must not do it too early or in the wrong way.

Sweden has had an almost ideological view that we should use as much IT and screens as possible in school, and it has not worked. Nor will it work in the future. One must start with a solid knowledge base in every individual student.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have some reflections regarding Joar Forssell's answer. This is not about the knowledge of the future or the tools of the future, but it is to a large extent a reality for quite young children and adolescents already now. Therefore, one must have the knowledge now, in order to be able to make the right choices and be able to behave safely in digital environments.

We must have a population that can use these tools. Digital competence is real knowledge that is important. I have at least until now worried that the stance that the Liberals have had risks slowing down Sweden's development when it comes to this.

Let me move on to another topic, which Joar Forssell did not touch upon much in his speech. In the reports we are discussing today, we also have motions regarding student influence. There has been a rather large debate about the existence or non-existence of student influence. The Liberals' party board was very offensive ahead of the party's congress, but as I perceive it, the result was a bit milder than one could have feared.

I would very much like to hear our new committee chair's view on this regarding student influence. Based on knowledge and research, we know that it is important for the students' well-being and for the school's development. It is also something that is highlighted in, for example, OECD's reports: A good relationship between teachers and students, where they listen to each other with respect, is something that is important and good in Swedish schools, and it is important that we safeguard this for the sake of knowledge development.

What does the direction forward look like regarding this? It is important to me that student influence remains and is strengthened.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! There are two parts here.

It is clear that AI and the new digital tools are here and now. But knowledge is the cradle of the entire civilization and the fuel for our entire future. It is clear that these are future issues even if they are also here and now. There is no contradiction here.

In the Swedish school system – and this cannot have escaped the member's notice – there has been an almost ideological idea about purging books, traditional knowledge, and traditional learning. Instead, tablets have been introduced. Furthermore, I heard a small child in my vicinity ask: Why is it called a turtle – a toad is a TV? In some way, it is that school we have created, and it has been ideologically driven. That ideology is what we want to move away from.

We want there to be traditional teaching. We absolutely want there to be a view of knowledge and education that includes that type of tool when one is able to manage them, but this with screens should not be an ideology, instead, the school should be built on books and teaching. It is very important. It is about re-regulating the school, and that is what we will do.

It was not the Environment Party's party leader but another green party leader on the left wing who said that one should be allowed to use as much AI as one wants in school. I hope that the Environment Party does not also stand for this.

When it comes to this matter of student influence, I can state that approximately 93 percent of the members in this chamber have themselves been student council chairpersons, so that includes me and probably also the member in front of me. Of course, there should be some student influence in schools. It is natural that students can organize themselves. But it must be the teacher who decides in the classroom. It must be the teacher who has the authority to decide over the teaching and its content. It cannot be up to the students. I do not think it will turn out well, but rather I believe it is better that the teacher decides in the classroom, quite simply.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I shall be clear regarding these two different reports. I move for approval of reservation 12 in UbU7, and I move for approval of reservations 7 and 14 in UbU8. I hope that it was clear and distinct.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish school is fundamentally strong. Every day, teachers, principals, and other school staff perform a crucial and fantastic job for our country's future. In classrooms all over Sweden, committed adults meet students who work hard, develop, and reach their learning goals.

It is important that we begin the debate there. When we speak about the school's problems, we must be clear about what they do not stem from. They do not stem from a lack of ambition among the teachers. They do not stem from students not wanting to learn. They fundamentally stem from systemic errors.

One of the most serious problems – and one of the most serious systemic failures – is that equality in Swedish schools has deteriorated in recent years. The differences between schools are increasing. Students' socioeconomic background plays an all too large role – a larger role than it should in a country like Sweden.

This is a development that stands in direct opposition to the fundamental idea of the Swedish school. The Swedish school has and shall have a compensatory mission. It shall compensate for differences in children's upbringing conditions, not reinforce them. The development is moving in the wrong direction.

Mr. Speaker! In the reports we are dealing with today, there are questions about governance, resources, and distribution of responsibility. It is precisely there that the core of the system failure lies. Sweden has a system where the state sets goals and where the municipalities bear the primary responsibility. At the same time, there are private actors in a school market that is publicly funded. It is a system that creates conflicting drivers.

Schools should be governed by knowledge, pedagogical drive, and the students' needs. Instead, there are incentives that are about maximizing economic profit.

Mr. Speaker! We must dare to speak plainly about this. There is something that we Social Democrats were forced – by the Liberals, among others – to say nothing about during the previous parliamentary term, namely that the largest school corporations in the country report profits in the billions. Over the last few years, the large corporate schools have reported around 19 billion in profits. These are tax funds intended for education, for support for students, and for strengthening the quality of the school. Instead of going to teachers, to students, to better student health, to more teaching materials, and to staffed school libraries, they go to returns and dividends. That, Mr. Speaker, is a system that is difficult to defend. It should be difficult to defend for all of us in here.

The Education Act is clear. Education shall be based on scientific grounds and proven experience, and every student shall be given support to develop as far as is possible. It is an absolute mandate. It is not a mandate that is limited by profit requirements for school corporations. This does not only affect the independent actors. It affects the entire Swedish school system, because the regulatory framework sets the framework for all principals.

We Social Democrats mean business when we say that we want to tackle this systemic error. Public funds intended for education should also be used for education. Therefore, we present several proposals in these reports, but we will also present more proposals leading up to the election. It is about strengthening oversight in school activities, ensuring transparency, and stopping systems that lead to overcompensation and profit-seeking.

Examples of this are requirements for separate reporting at the school unit level, so that it becomes clear how resources are used at each school unit. It is also about the principle of public access applying fully to all schools, even the independent ones. We propose measures that counteract overcompensation regarding the compensation to independent schools. We want to introduce a flat fee of around 10 percent of the school funding, which better reflects costs and the difference in responsibility between municipal principals and independent actors.

Mr. Speaker! This is truly important to drive during the upcoming mandate period.

It is not about questioning the diversity of providers in itself. It is about ensuring that our taxpayers' money is used for what it is intended for – for more teachers, for better support for the students, and for a stronger and more equitable school. It is ultimately a question of responsibility for the entire Swedish school system – for our children's and students' future which is decided in our classrooms.

But, Mr. Speaker, resource distribution and the free school system are not the only things we need to talk about. We need to talk about the systemic problem that means around 20,000 students every year leave grade 9 without being eligible for a national program in upper secondary school.

It is a failure for an education system that should give every child real chances to succeed, especially when we are aware that a high school education is crucial for a young person's future. It affects the opportunities to establish oneself on the labor market, to support oneself, and to participate fully in society for the rest of one's life.

That is why questions regarding the grading system and similar matters, which are also addressed in these reports, are crucial. We must ensure that the new grading system being developed – a bill will be submitted during the spring – truly addresses the harsh F grade, which ensures that doors are closed rather than opened for children and students in this country.

For us Social Democrats, it is important that a grading system in a school system that is to be compensatory does not permanently lock students into dead ends. The assessment and grading must be clear and legally secure, but one must also be able to support students' knowledge development.

Mr. Speaker! Another important issue in the reports concerns early interventions. We are fully aware that the earlier the interventions are implemented, the greater the effect they have. Therefore, in many of our motions, including the budget motion, there is a decisive emphasis when it comes to preschool and the early ages in primary school – this is to ensure that support is provided as early as possible. With the budget motion we submitted in the autumn, there would be money to, for example, have an additional employed teacher in every grade 1 in our entire country. It can be decisive for children to learn to read, write, and count in time. That is where the foundation is laid.

Mr. Speaker! We must ensure that more teachers want to stay in school. Report after report, we can see teachers testifying to high workload and a pressured work environment. Parents testify that children and young people come home from classrooms that have been rowdy and a school environment that has been far too poor.

With more adults in schools, we can create safer and calmer environments, and we can get more study time in the classrooms. Accordingly, it is reasonable that we review the size of the teaching groups and that we ensure there is special pedagogical competence everywhere. And it is necessary that schools all over the country have a functioning student health service for all students. This is something we must do if we are serious about strengthening the knowledge results.

Mr. Speaker! The students themselves are a crucial part of their schooling. Students are not empty vessels to be filled with knowledge. They are active participants in their entire schooling and in their learning. Therefore, student influence is not decoration in the school's governing documents. It is a democratic right.

A school that speaks of responsibility but does not give students real influence risks fostering students into passivity, not into democratically active and responsible citizens. Experiences from schools across the country are clear. When students experience that they have influence over their schooling, engagement and personal responsibility also increase. Therefore, it is important that, during the implementation of the new curricula and syllabi, one stands guard over students' opportunities for participation.

Let us be clear, so that there are no misunderstandings. This is not in opposition to a strong teacher role, where the teacher is the one who conducts and is responsible for the teaching. It is, in fact, perfectly possible to combine a clear teacher role, where teachers lead the teaching, with a responsible student role, where students are given the opportunity to influence their school environment and their learning. It is not either or.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: The school is not just any market. It is the foundation for our democracy, for the labor market's skill supply, and for social cohesion. We Social Democrats therefore have a clear goal: The Swedish school shall be compensatory. It shall give every child the opportunity to develop as far as is possible. In that regard, three principles are guiding and fundamental.

Firstly, the resources that we intend to allocate to the school must remain in the school.

Secondly, the school system must be based on and promote equality.

Thirdly, the profession, regardless of which, must be given the conditions to succeed better with its mission in Swedish schools.

The Swedish school is strong thanks to the people who work there every day. But the system around it needs to be changed and reformed. We Social Democrats will stand up for a school where every student gets the opportunity to succeed, a school where tax money goes to our students and teachers and not to profit distribution, a school that once again becomes the engine for equality and faith in the future.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! What once built Sweden strong was the equalization of life chances. It is about the fact that it should not matter where you come from or what your parents are named, but what matters is where you are headed. It sounds like worn-out clichés, but in school, it becomes real. This is where it unfolds.

Once upon a time, Sweden was at the top in Europe when it comes to literacy. This has been highlighted as an important explanation for Sweden's exceptional economic development during large parts of the 20th century. We Moderates want that the student who every day sets the clock, gets up, goes to school, exerts themselves and does their best should know that that effort will always pay off.

In some classrooms, that is the situation today. We have classrooms in Sweden where teaching of absolute world-class quality is conducted. But that is not the case everywhere. Instead of being the way out of poverty that the school should be, in some places it instead contributes to reinforcing exclusion. Unclear knowledge requirements sometimes lead to mental ill-health and disruption. Every fifth student in grade five states that there is rarely or never any peace for work during lessons – every fifth student! Then it is not so strange that every fifth ten-year-old cannot read properly – a risk of functional illiteracy, as the researcher Martin Ingvar expresses it.

The biggest dividing line in Swedish school is between those students who speak Swedish at home and those who do not. In terms of knowledge acquisition, the knowledge gap corresponds to several years of learning. So we cannot have that. This gap is significantly larger in Sweden than in very many other countries, and it is a major failure.

The problems of the Swedish school today are to a large extent, but not exclusively, linked to immigration and poor integration. But we have more problems. Nearly 40,000 qualified teachers do not want to work as teachers and have chosen to leave the Swedish school. This corresponds to approximately 15 percent of the entire teaching staff. What a fatal failure is that not?

Sometimes I hear in the debate that we are painting a bleak picture of Swedish schools. It is said that if we only exclude the students who have foreign-born parents, it does not look so dark, or if we look at the average and not at the distribution of students, it does not look so bad. But to turn a blind eye to the problems can never be a solution, can it?

We have a responsibility in this chamber to drill into the problems and deal with them. Sweden's decline, even when it concerns, for example, advanced knowledge in mathematics, is a real problem. The Swedish school, which once contributed to building Sweden strong and internationally competitive, is in great need of change. The Social Democrats let ideological experiments push aside subject knowledge in the Swedish school. Then we got a vague school that we are now settling accounts with. Furthermore, the latest PISA measurement shows that we are the worst in the class in all of Europe when it comes to classroom discipline.

It is completely obvious that a new course in school policy was needed, and this paradigm shift is now being implemented by the government. We are re-establishing the knowledge school with a focus on factual knowledge and basic skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. We are working with a mandatory language preschool for children who do not speak Swedish at home so that they do not fall behind even before school starts. We are creating order and structure in the classrooms but also in the school system itself. We are introducing a new grading system that once and for all puts a stop to the offensive "joy grades" and unserious actors in the independent school system. We are re-establishing the knowledge mission. We are introducing more teaching time and new curricula, and we are strengthening the powers of teachers and principals.

This, my friends, is only the beginning.

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

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Welcome back – it is nice to have you back, Josefin!

Josefin Malmqvist gave an excellent speech, where there were several things that I agree with. But it was one thing in the introduction that I thought was very noteworthy.

Josefin Malmqvist says that it is not about where you come from, but where you are headed. It is about you setting your alarm, heading off to school, that you struggle and that you make an effort. And then we deport you.

That is what we see right now. Jomana, whom we have had the opportunity to meet here in the Riksdag, sets the alarm and goes to work before school. At school, she struggles and does everything she can. Many days she goes to work even after school. Now she is on her way to Egypt because of the government's policy. She was on her way to a training to be able to contribute to Sweden, but now she perhaps won't be for as long, because now she is going out.

This is not typical school policy, but it is a direct effect that the government's policy has on the Swedish school. In Huddinge, twelve students are to be deported. We heard from another municipality that four youths at a school are to be deported.

How does this make Swedish school better?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! As the member is in, this is a school debate and not a migration debate. I am happy to participate in a migration debate together with the Center Party and discuss the issues regarding deportations that have been relevant in the recent past.

The question today concerns overall school policy. It concerns what direction we want to see for the Swedish school moving forward. On that, we have been clear: We are now carrying out a major course change for the Swedish school. We are restoring the knowledge mandate, and we are restoring the focus on safety in the Swedish school so that more students will receive safety and study conditions so that they can concentrate on their lessons. We are introducing a completely new teacher education, because we see that teachers need to be equipped with relevant information and knowledge for what awaits in the Swedish classroom.

In area after area, we are now carrying out a restructuring of the Swedish school system. I am very curious to hear the Center Party's views on this. Will the Center Party stand behind the government's proposal when it reaches this chamber shortly?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It will be wonderful to have a school debate where the members of the Tidö parties do not mention migration issues. I believe it will be the first school debate during our time where migration issues are not mentioned.

We will stand behind several of the government's proposals. There are also a number of proposals that we will not stand behind. There are quite a few proposals, so it will be a mix.

If we are not allowed to talk about how Swedish schools and Swedish classrooms are affected by this and how teachers are affected by the fact that they now have to study guidelines on how they should handle deported students, I would like to talk about another thing, and that is the large gap between the big city and the countryside.

There is a large gap between those who speak Swedish at home and those who do not. But there is also an extremely large gap between the big city and the countryside. The government's policy is as city-oriented as it can possibly be. I do not know if it is because it is the Liberalerna who are leading it or because the rest of the government is not stepping up.

We can take Gällivares and Kirunas schools as examples right now. They are crying out for teachers, and the government's response is to train fewer teachers. The Minister for Education's response is not to answer the questions from them.

What we see right now from Malmö to Malmfälten is that there is a shortage of teachers, and the government wants to train fewer. It wants the teachers who already exist to teach less. How does that add up? How do we get more teachers out to Sweden's schools?

I know that an answer will come stating that a lot of teachers who are not in school right now will be able to return. That can be hoped for. What we know for certain is that decisions are currently being made to train fewer teachers.

How can Gällivares schools and Malmö's schools for the marginalized get more teachers so that they can teach their students so that these can pass school and so that we avoid the figures that I know Malmqvist is also concerned about? That is my question.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Having more skilled teachers in the Swedish school system is absolutely crucial for students to be able to succeed. To meet this, we are now implementing quite large reforms that I wish had been in place for a very long time.

One of the major problems regarding teacher education, which I believe Member Paarup-Petersen refers to, among other things, here, is that we have such large numbers of dropouts.

We have enormous quality problems that cause students to drop out. This applies to both the high-performing students who feel that the education does not meet the standard and the low-performing students who are unable to grasp the content of the education.

That is why we have prepared a preparatory document. We are now in the process of carrying out a reform of the teacher education, which involves fewer places but a higher quality. One of the most alarming problems concerns the low proportion of teacher-led time in the teacher education, which must be increased radically.

We have received proposals from the government which we are now implementing to increase the quality of teacher education in order to get more teachers. Today, teacher education is the education in Sweden that has the highest dropout rate. More than half of those who start drop out.

Then it doesn't matter if we expand with even more places. It will not solve the problem of how many graduating teachers we have in the classrooms. The answer is to raise the quality and have fewer places but with higher quality. That is what we are doing now.

I am very curious to hear what the Center Party's proposal is in this area. We are repeatedly hearing views on areas that touch upon this debate, but one does not answer the questions about how we are to carry out the reform of the Swedish school system.

Here, the Centre Party is speaking about many other things. We can gladly speak about that at the appropriate time. I look forward to a debate on whether the Centre Party stands behind the major reorganization of the Swedish school system that we are now carrying out.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

It is quite common when a Moderate stands and speaks on educational policy that it is about how one must deal with a Social Democratic "flumskola" (vague/soft school).

The problem is that Lpo 94 was decided in February 1994. At that time, Carl Bildt was Prime Minister, and Beatrice Ask was Minister of Education. When the decision was made regarding Lgr 11, which was also a major school reform, it was indeed under a Moderate Prime Minister but a Liberal, or People Party, Education Minister.

The two major school reforms that have occurred during my lifetime have been bourgeois products when it comes to curricula, course plans, and grading systems. Yet, we Social Democrats are most often told that it is we who are behind everything wrong in the Swedish school.

It is still strikingly skillful of the Moderaterna to be able to be in opposition to the school policy that they themselves have been involved in implementing for decades.

My question to Josefin Malmqvist is therefore why the Moderaterna for several decades have pushed for the school system that they now do not want to be associated with at all.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! The simple answer is that it is not true. We are now carrying out a reform of the Swedish school system that is about returning to the basics and to the educational mission.

It is about clarifying that it is the teacher who leads the classroom instruction in accordance with the evidence and the knowledge that exists. It is about clarifying curricula, course plans, and subject plans with a focus on measurable knowledge in the lower grades and age-appropriate progression.

It is about adapting the knowledge requirements according to children's cognitive development. It is a matter of moving away from what we refer to as one of the previous problems, namely that small children are expected to analyze and problematize before they even have factual knowledge to build the analysis on.

In area after area, we see that a reorganization of school policy is now required, and we are now carrying it out. What I find interesting in this became clear in Niklas Sigvardsson's speech. I perceive that Niklas Sigvardsson requested student influence when it comes to the curricula and the subject plans.

Then my question to Niklas Sigvardsson is: Do you think it should be the students who decide the content of what one should learn in school, or should it be teachers and school management who establish the content of the teaching in the Swedish school?

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can ask the member to go back to the minutes and see that I was very clear that we should not have this debate. It is a self-evident matter that it is the teacher who directs the teaching.

Student influence in school is still incredibly important. It has also been researched that it creates better schools overall when we create space for students to have influence over their schooling.

It is crucial that students get to participate and have influence. But it is the teacher who is the one who directs and leads the teaching in the classroom. One only has to go back to the minutes. I believe the question was actually asked to me because they want to avoid answering what my question was actually about.

It is the Moderaterna who have held a position in government during the last two major shifts in Swedish school policy during the 1990s and the 2010s. That is a fact. One only has to go back and look at when the decisions were made and at the decision-making documents.

We are happy to talk about ideological experiments in this case. The biggest ideological experiment we have in Swedish school is the pursuit of profit and the Swedish independent school system. We are unique in the world in allowing the pursuit of profit on public tax funds.

It is money that should go to more teachers, the students, student health, staffed school libraries, teaching materials and everything else that the Moderaterna gladly say they are for during this mandate period. It is the large ideological experiment that has existed in the school in recent years.

Josefin Malmqvist is welcome to continue saying that she does not think it is the Moderaterna who are responsible for the curricula, subject plans, and grading systems of the last decades. That is the fact. We can go back to the minutes and read that it was conservative governments that introduced the most recent curricula during the 1990s and 2010s.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! I look forward to this spring's many debates on this subject in this chamber. I suspect that we will return to these questions in the future. I hope that we can then get some clear answers from the Social Democrats on these issues.

From the government's side, we are now delivering reform after reform to reverse the development in the Swedish school system. It is a serious development that has been ongoing for far too long.

We see that the knowledge gap is increasing between students in cities and in rural areas and between those born abroad and those with domestic backgrounds. In area after area, we see that the gap is increasing. Here, we now want to reverse that development.

I look forward to hearing the Social Democrats' response to this. We are still waiting for a decision. Will the Social Democrats join the government's line on new curricula with a focus on knowledge and that we clear away all the drivel that has been added to the curriculum over the years? Will the Social Democrats stand behind that reform?

Will the Social Democrats stand behind a reform of the completely failed grading system that today contributes to "joy grades"? Will the Social Democrats stand behind the proposal to reform the grading system that we will present in this chamber?

Will the Social Democrats go to the election on abolishing the free school choice and the possibility to choose school yourself?

In area after area, we now have decisive issues that I believe many students and teachers across Sweden will face in the autumn election. This is something I look forward to continuing to debate in this chamber.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Josefin Malmqvist spoke in her speech about how Sweden once had a compensatory school and that the gap today is larger than in many other countries. There we truly agree with each other; this is a major problem.

One can ask what it is that has happened in Swedish school and why it is no longer able to be compensatory. A very large part of Swedish school today is segregated. Well-educated parents make an active choice when they choose which school their children shall attend. Children of other parents, who do not make active choices, end up in an assigned school.

It is quite logical to imagine that the student who has well-educated parents will have better conditions to succeed in school. They may not require as many resources as the student who has parents with only upper secondary or primary school education.

An investigation has been conducted on this. What responsibility does the municipality have in its schools? The independent schools perhaps do not have as burdensome or large a responsibility, and one should perhaps differentiate the school fee between them. It would have been pleasing if one could have done this. But Almega spoke out just a few days after the investigation's proposals were presented and said that this will undermine their operations. And as if by chance, Josefin Malmqvist came the next day and said that the investigation will end up in the wastebasket.

I therefore want to ask the member: How is a compensatory school, where all students are given the prerequisites to achieve their potential, to be achieved with the Moderates' policy?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Member for the question!

It is a rather large question that the member is asking, even though I believe she is primarily referring to the school fees inquiry's proposal.

Let me start with the bigger picture, because the school's compensatory mission is not just about school funding. It is about the governance of the Swedish school as a whole, and there the government's policy is clear: We see that we need to increase the state governance of parts of the Swedish school. It is about new curricula, about a new grading system, and about a new support system, because we see that many of the students who need special support in school do not receive it today.

In area after area, we are now reforming school policy. It will contribute to more students getting better opportunities to succeed in the Swedish school system.

The Chairman Mixter also specifically asked about the school fee investigation that presented its partial report before the summer. It is correct that from the Moderates' side, we do not see the investigation's proposals as appropriate to introduce during this mandate period.

It does not mean – to be clear – that we Moderates do not want to see a differentiation of the school funding. We do want that. We see that it is reasonable. And it is no new opinion from our side, but we see that a differentiation of the school funding between the municipal providers and the independent providers should already have been introduced. It is reasonable to have a school funding that reflects the mandate one has.

We see that the proposals that were submitted quite some time ago to a red-green government, which are already prepared and referred and for which a referral to the Council of Legislation had already been written once in the so-called school funding investigation, would be absolutely excellent to introduce in order to differentiate the school funding. Unfortunately, a red-green government chose to put that investigation in the wastebasket instead of introducing the proposal. We regret that.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is a very interesting announcement that the Moderaterna are making. One is thus prepared to differentiate the school fee for the municipal and the independent schools. I shall truly take that as a word of truth, and I hope that the member is then also prepared to carry this out.

It is quite obvious, at least to me, that the largest part of the Swedish "flumskola" [nonsense school], which the member speaks of, is the market school. That is Sweden's "flumskola" – that we have actors who can make unlimited profit on the education of Swedish schoolchildren. One can move the money to a completely different country. One can open schools in Saudi Arabia for Swedish tax money, one can open preschools in Germany, and one can do whatever one wants. If that is not "flummigt" [nonsense/vague], I wonder what actually is.

It is clear that we must have good order in Swedish schools. But that requires that we have equal conditions and that one has enough students and teachers to be able to do a good job.

I want to return to what Nils raised in his reply, because I also reacted when Josefin Malmqvist in her speech mentioned that those who work hard should be rewarded. Even though Josefin Malmqvist claims that this does not belong in a school debate, it is nevertheless the case that teachers in, for example, Huddinge municipality are now forced to create action plans for how to act when their students are deported. It is written in these documents that there is a risk of severe stress reactions in the student and in classmates and staff.

How can this not be a question that is handled in the Education Committee? I think it belongs in this debate.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Isabell Mixter requests reforms to meet the problems we see in the independent school sector. I can please her by saying that we now have a Moderate-led government that is implementing such reforms.

I am proud that we introduced the friskole system once upon a time. But it is many governments during these 30 years that have to take responsibility for the problems we see. They should have addressed them significantly earlier.

Now we have a Moderate-led government that is doing it. I can reassure Isabell Mixter with that. We will return to this chamber with reforms to ensure that one cannot take out profit from a school by compromising on quality. These are central issues where we now want to see a change, and I wish we had seen some other government tackle this earlier.

My advice to Isabell Mixter is to support a bourgeois government in the election this autumn because it is we who are now presenting proposals to meet just the problems that she points out.

(Applause)

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

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are to deal with the subject of basic education. What could be more appropriate than to talk about safety and the study environment in schools? The Sweden Democrats have long wanted to do something about the insecurity and the poor study environment that exists in many schools and classrooms, which I believe most here are aware of. From having had a good study environment that harmonized with the time when Swedish students performed best in the world, we have today taken a long step back compared to other countries.

It is quite clear that if there is no peace of mind for studying, it will be difficult for students to educate themselves and difficult for teachers to provide a good education. It is beyond all doubt that safety and peace of mind for studying are fundamental to obtaining well-educated students.

Pleasantly enough, Tidögänget has an investigation on the table that we will soon decide on here in the Riksdag. We will strengthen the principal's and the teacher's leadership, and it will be clear that the principal is responsible for the school's study environment and that the teacher leads and decides over the teaching. There will also be reduced documentation requirements in disciplinary cases and common school rules determined by the principal which involve clear consequences in case of violations.

Bullying and harassment will be defined more clearly in the Education Act. Mobile-free schools will be introduced. Expanded possibilities for suspensions, relocations, and emergency schools will be provided with the aim of creating safety and study environments. It will be possible to deny access for particularly dangerous students, i.e., those whom we cannot have in school. Unfortunately, they are there today.

Mr. Speaker! We have had the current grading system for a fairly short time, about 15 years. One should probably not replace systems all too often without having them for a somewhat longer period. However, the problems are so great now that we simply must act. Many here have complained about the current grading system in various ways.

Today, teachers decide entirely over the students' grades, which may seem reasonable. However, it is not entirely easy. Unfortunately, it turns out that grade inflation – that is, the distribution of high grades – is far too large. In some subjects, more than a third of the grades are high grades, and this applies to both municipal schools and independent schools. These are extremely high levels. To remedy this and let teachers escape external influence, the current grading system must be replaced. We in Tidögänget are doing something about the matter. An investigation, which will be decided upon before the summer, is on the table.

The new grading system will have a ten-point scale, be without a sharp passing grade, and involve eligibility requirements corresponding to an average value of 4.0. A cumulative grading principle will apply, meaning no sharp boundaries. National tests will form the basis for part of the grade, while the remaining parts are the teachers' and respective schools' combined grade values.

Furthermore, the grading system requires that today's national tests be conducted digitally, with joint grading and calculation of the grades. The issue of digital national tests was already addressed by the previous government. Skolverket's work with this since then has not had the momentum it should, which we are very critical of. Now, it is required that the work with the digital national tests be intensified so that students can receive more accurate grades.

Mr. Speaker! I have touched upon this before, but unfortunately, it is constantly relevant. It concerns a phenomenon that exists in our schools and sometimes outside of them, namely the honor issue. We received this as a byproduct of the mass immigration. As an example, we can take Malmö, where one in five ninth-graders lives under honor oppression. It involves, among other things, that children of different genders are not allowed to play with each other. Girls are not allowed to wear short sleeves or go barefoot despite the summer heat. Boys say that they want to decide over female staff and that they do not need to listen to them because they are women. Siblings rule and control each other.

Unfortunately, few reports are made regarding honor oppression despite extensive investigations showing enormous problems. They affect, as stated, 20 percent of ninth-graders. Some reasons for this have also been identified. They concern the fact that staff do not dare to report. They are afraid because of the threat from guardians and relatives. Staff are afraid that the children will be harmed if they bring up sensitive matters with the parents. Staff and management experience great difficulties in meetings with parents when there is concern about honor issues. An investigation into countering honor-related violence and oppression is already underway. We look forward to all measures that can alleviate this plight.

We Sweden Democrats also believe that one must go a small step further through a nationwide mapping of honor oppression and the Islamization in the Swedish school system. These problems are so serious and extensive that nothing must be missed. Our goal is that the Swedish school shall once again be free from honor oppression and Islamization.

Mr. Speaker! Today, in addition to the disruptions of order, the low knowledge of the Swedish language is a huge problem. We see that very many students, especially in schools in marginalized areas, have great problems with reading comprehension. It continues to sink, according to the measurements that the large organization Pirls makes.

A third of all students are today entitled to mother tongue instruction. This costs a lot of money, which not many want to talk about. It is about 2.4 billion, if everyone utilizes it. Just over 50 percent do so today. This is what we want to remove, but we also note that unfortunately, so far we are the only party that wants to. Instead, we want to invest these funds in increased instruction in the Swedish language, which many here have talked about and want to do. Now the opportunity and the money exist. Now the signal to all students must be that good knowledge in the Swedish language can give you a good education and then a pleasant job. If you then have time left over, you are very welcome to learn your mother tongue, but on your own initiative.

(Applause)

(cont. § 15)

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