The National Audit Office's report on education based on scientific principles

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the committee's report.

Of the committee's debates, perhaps this one is not the biggest crowd-puller in a broad audience, but it is a very important debate. We are debating something that is completely decisive for the quality of education and the quality of teaching in our schools here in Sweden. When the government now presents a carpet-bomb of reforms to re-regulate Swedish school and create a knowledge school worthy of the name, it is precisely the scientific rigor in how we conduct school activities and in the school's content that is completely decisive.

The report that forms the basis for the committee report contains criticism both of previous governments' work and of how it functions today. Several other reports, or indications, have been received that the situation is poor regarding the scientific basis in Swedish schools, including from Statskontoret.

To summarize, Madam Speaker, we in the Liberals and the government think this is entirely correct. This criticism is completely reasonable – much clearer coordination is needed, and the work for scientific rigor needs to be concretized much more.

We in the parties that sit in the government are the government that has governed Skolverket and the other authorities most clearly. If one looks back at a fairly large number of governments, I feel confident in saying this. We must, of course, continue on that path.

Madam Speaker! I began by saying that this may not be the most sensational debate, but I believe those who are familiar with this debate will likely take note of what we say in the chamber today. They know that I am telling the truth when I say that we need more governance and that we govern more than has been done previously.

Previously, there has been more trends and more fluff, but now it will be more scientific. One example is the scientific council. One could call it a cleanup mission, where we clean out support material that is not based on scientific grounds. That is an example of this.

There is a joint reservation in the report from the entire opposition. If one reads the reservation, one notices that it is, in a way, quite unspecific. The idea is that we as the Riksdag shall – or can – submit joint reservations and try to get announcements from the Riksdag passed. It is completely reasonable that it is so. The point with these is supposed to be that they are something new, but there is actually nothing new in the joint reservation, but rather it concerns matters that the government is already working on and has worked on throughout the entire mandate period.

One might ask why. It is a bit strange if this is what the opposition wants to carry out, as it would be a departure from what previous left-wing governments with the same constellation – yes, the Center Party is new to the constellation – have pursued. What we are doing now is to organize what has been vague and trends so that this will now rest on a more scientific basis. If the opposition, against all odds, were to win such a vote, it would not matter much because this is already included in the government's policy, so therefore I believe that from the majority's side we are quite calm.

When I look up at the board behind me, I also see that there are those who have excused themselves from the debate, and perhaps it is precisely about the fact that there is not so much drama in this issue.

Madam Speaker! Later in the debate, we will surely hear arguments that the government is not doing enough and that the government is not doing this and that. I just want to say in a preemptive sense that it is windmill argumentation.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that the Social Democrats have studied Schopenhauer's book on eristic more than they have studied this report and what their previous governments have done. They are, therefore, more interested in winning a debate with windmill argumentation than in scientific rigor in schools.

It certainly pleases me that they have such an interest in philosophy that they have studied Schopenhauer – and perhaps a bit of Aristotle and Plato's critique of eristic – but it would have been better if they themselves had been a bit more evidence-based and ensured that the government actually addresses the problems that the report points out and takes this most seriously. Of course, the school must rest on a scientific basis.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by addressing some of the claims in Joar Forssell's speech, for it was some of the most mocking and arrogant I have heard said in this speaker's chair.

The National Audit Office has audited the state's work in supporting schools to work on a scientific basis and proven experience. The Audit Office has concluded that the work is not being conducted effectively. To downplay and brush it away by saying that this report is not a tabloid sensation and that this is unimportant only underscores what I intend to say in my speech.

I intend to take this debate seriously, unlike the committee chairman. I believe, in fact, that it is important that there are good conditions for the school and the teachers' instruction to be based on a scientific foundation and proven experience.

Honestly: What is the alternative? Yes, that this should rest on Joar Forssell's whims and own perceptions. We are grateful for that!

Madam Speaker! Swedish school has a clear mission, and it is enshrined in the Education Act. The teaching shall be based on scientific grounds and proven experience. This is not open to interpretation, and it is not a loose ambition that one can be somewhat involved in, but the best available knowledge shall guide both how the teaching is conducted and what the teaching is about. It is the basis for us to be able to ensure a high quality in the teaching and give all students the best possible conditions to succeed.

The National Audit Office's review shows that the state is failing to live up to its responsibility.

Teaching takes place in the classroom, in the meeting between teacher and student. The purpose of the state's activities must, in this respect, be that it should be easy for teaching staff to base both teaching methods and the content of teaching on the best available knowledge, but that work is fragmented. National structures are lacking for how research and the profession's experiences should be handled and implemented in teaching.

Madam Speaker! In view of this, the government presents processes, fragments, ambitions and considerations for the future. However, there is a lack of concrete measures that would create the coordination that the National Audit Office points out is missing and that teachers would actually need. We Social Democrats believe that it is insufficient.

Our conclusion, Madam Speaker, is that there are three necessary parts in the National Audit Office's recommendations that must be considered in order to truly strengthen the work with a scientific basis and proven experience. Now I will be concrete, Joar Forssell, so that you understand what the reservation is about.

Firstly: An authority shall have the main responsibility for compiling research.

Today we have a patchwork of actors – they are authorities, institutes and universities – all of whom produce and communicate research. The problem is not the commitment, the problem is the lack of coordination, in particular between the state authorities. Teachers should not have to navigate through five, six or seven different channels to find relevant knowledge, instead it must be available via a unified entry point.

There should be a clear responsibility and a uniform structure. Therefore, we want the government to give an authority a clear primary responsibility for the systematic compilation of research, even on behalf of other authorities. It would make life significantly easier for already pressured teachers who are to plan the next lesson, the next work area, or the next term's teaching and content.

Secondly: Skolverket and SPSM shall focus on knowledge support, not on research communication.

Madam Speaker! Skolverket and the National Agency for Special Needs Education have crucial roles in the development of the school system. Their mandate must be crystal clear, and it should be to provide teachers, principals, and school administrators with knowledge support that can be used directly in the classroom. When the agencies engage in broad research communication without a clear connection to practical usability, we lose our direction, and the distance between research and reality increases. A sharper focus on knowledge support would make the research more accessible and more useful for those who need it.

Thirdly: National methods were needed to document, evaluate and compile proven experience.

How experience transitions from being the experience of one or a few teachers to becoming proven experience is an issue that I would like to argue has eluded Skolsverige since the concept was introduced in the Education Act. It is, so to speak, time to settle it now, 15 years later, and the decisive factor is precisely the documentation, compilation, and valuation of professionals' experiences. The systematization of many people's experience is what makes the difference; it is what makes the experience proven.

The National Audit Office notes that there are no national structures for how proven experience should be documented, valued, and compiled. This means in practice that the professional knowledge built in the classrooms every day, in every school, risks staying with the teacher who gained the experience and never becoming proven experience. Consequently, it becomes neither possible nor appropriate to spread it to others, in wider circles. In this way, the quality potential of teaching is not fully utilized.

We want to give an appropriate actor an explicit mandate to develop methods for documenting, evaluating, and compiling proven experience. It is necessary to strengthen the profession's knowledge base and for the school's development to be built on both research and proven experience, not just on the former.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that the work with a scientific basis and proven experience is still a governance issue that the state has not fully taken responsibility for. It is equally clear from the government's response that the government does not really take the National Audit Office's criticism seriously. I also want to assert that Joar Forssell's opening statement underscored that the government side does not take the criticism seriously. To report on previous efforts is not the same as addressing identified deficiencies. To consider returning is not the same as following the National Audit Office's recommendations.

We Social Democrats want the state to take a clearer, more cohesive and more long-term responsibility for the school's knowledge development. It is absolutely crucial to strengthen the quality of teaching, to strengthen the profession's conditions and to create a more equal school.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office's review shows extensive deficiencies and contains proposals on what is needed to rectify these. What is missing is the government's will to actually do something about this.

With that, I move for the reservation to be granted.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Sköld for his speech. I am certainly tempted to call him Member Don Quijote, but perhaps one is not allowed to do that in the Chamber.

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that the Social Democrats are fighting windmills. The alternative is that they are unaware of the government's – or previous Social Democratic governments' – work. I said earlier in the debate that this might not be a headline-grabber for the general public, but those who are interested in this issue are surely watching the debate, Madam Speaker. I also believe that those who are interested in the issue know that we, from our side of politics, have for many years said that the school has been characterized by fluff and trends rather than scientific rigor.

Madam Speaker! I have not diminished the problem of the lack of scientific rigor at all; I am just not particularly shocked by the problems. Why am I not shocked? Is it because I do not think the problems are real or because I do not take them seriously? No, it is because we have known about this. We have nagged about this year after year, and we began addressing it from day one when we entered the Government Offices.

One might think that this is referring to previous measures, and that is indeed what it is. But I am also referring to the fact that the government continues with measures in this area. There is actually nothing in the Social Democrats' and the rest of the left's joint reservation and argumentation, or in what appears in the report, that is new in relation to what the government and the governing parties have known or in relation to the policy we have pursued. We are already doing this.

We are usually criticized by the opposition for governing the Swedish National Agency for Education too much. We want to govern more. We want even more scientific basis, and we want to coordinate more – we want to do all these things. However, it is nothing new that the opposition comes up with, but it is the same old Bommersvik rhetoric.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that Joar Forssell continues with his arrogant attitude here in the chamber.

To say that this is important for those interested is, like, not taking the issue seriously. I would like to assert that it is important for real. I believe that what we do here should have an impact on the everyday life of every teacher and every student in every classroom; that is, like, why I am doing this. It may happen that Joar Forssell is doing this to get to speak with those who are interested and who might agree with him – which is a few percent of the population – but I believe that this is important for real.

The idea that the school should rest on a scientific basis and proven experience is fundamental. What is the alternative to it resting on a scientific basis and proven experience? The alternative could be to build the school on faith and political views, which seems to be the line that Joar Forssell is pursuing.

When it comes to who I am fighting against in this debate, the answer is not windmills. It is not windmills I have as opponents, but as opponents I have a government that believes it knows better than the country's collective body of researchers what should be done in the Swedish school. The government believes it knows better how teachers should conduct teaching than the teachers and principals who are responsible for it. It is that government I am fighting against. It is not windmills, but it is Joar Forssell and his party comrades.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! There is no one listening to this debate who thinks that we do not truly believe that a scientific basis is important. We have nagged about it for decades. The Social Democrats seem to have just woken up and been shocked by the content of the report. I understand that one feels that one needs to take decisive action and brandish a fist, Madam Speaker, but it is not arrogant to calmly and methodically tackle the problems that exist in Swedish schools.

This is naturally important for real; I have never said anything else. Possibly I belittled myself and Member Sköld by saying that it is not so many who are watching this debate. That is probably true, Madam Speaker, but it does not mean that the debate is unimportant. The debate is very important; I have never said anything else. That is why we have fought for these issues for decades.

Linus Sköld spoke about windmills and about how we do not see these problems and do not address them. The Social Democrats and the other left-wing parties seem to have just woken up and understood that there is too much fluff and trends. All parties on that side perhaps have not understood it, by the way, but the Social Democrats seem to have woken up. One does not seem to find any other tools than eristics, Schopenhauer and Bommersvik rhetoric. It is about hitting with the fist and about who can speak with the most diaphragm support and sound the most upset in the rostrum.

It is not arrogant to calmly tackle an important political issue. It is, however, quite arrogant to turn the important issue into something for rhetoric rather than something for politics.

This government addresses the issues through reform after reform and through calm and systematic work. We are reintroducing scientific rigor and clearing out vagueness and trend-sensitivity. I understand that this provokes the Social Democrats.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Joar Forssell has downplayed the importance of this debate since he initiated it, and he continues to do so.

I cannot see it as anything other than contemptuous when he says that the government is doing so much to clean up – he called it a cleanup mission. One might think that it is a rather arrogant way of expressing oneself. One might also think that a carpet bombing is a poor comparison in connection with the reforms that the government is making.

One could have objections to Joar Forssell making himself a reviewer of the opposition's way of formulating its policy. Can we have a debate on the issue at hand? One could think it is shitty of Joar Forssell to disparage and diminish my way of arguing and call it weather-mill rhetoric, Bommersvik rhetoric, "the same old" or fist-shaking rhetoric. I think it is inappropriate.

To address this on the merits, I want to say that those who read the government's response to the National Audit Office's review can see that it does not contain a single forward-looking proposal or a single forward-looking measure. Therefore, I believe that the National Audit Office's criticism is not being taken seriously. The National Audit Office says: What you are doing does not work. The government responds: We are right.

What is the government doing right? The only thing the government is doing is pursuing school policy based on political opinion and political steering. It is an intervention against the principle that teaching should rest on a scientific basis and proven experience.

(Applause)

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! This debate heated up a bit, which was somewhat unexpected.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report on the National Audit Office's report on education on a scientific basis.

Just as Joar Forssell admits, I concede that there are serious problems regarding school research in Sweden. As has been said before, the Swedish National Audit Office's report on education on a scientific basis is important. It points out real problems. These problems have not arisen overnight, and no single government can be blamed for them – especially not the latest one. On the contrary, it is about structures that have been built up over a long period and under different governments.

Educational research in Sweden is primarily conducted by the school authorities, namely Skolverket, Specialpedagogiska skolmyndigheten and – I am thinking of Linus Sköld now – Skolforskningsinstitutet, which has the task of compiling and making all research available. In addition, extensive research is naturally conducted at our educational institutions.

The National Audit Office's conclusion is clear: None of the agencies that have been audited have fully succeeded in their missions. I must admit that this is a serious observation that is also made by the government.

The report shows that the work with school research is fragmented and partly rests on a subjective basis, and that coordination is lacking, which can be said to be the individual responsibility of the School Research Institute. It is also noted that compilations from the School Research Institute in some cases lack relevance for school practice and that the institute should focus on its core mission: to compile research results in a useful way.

Madam Speaker! Perhaps the most remarkable conclusion in the report is on page 7 of the committee report. The National Audit Office finds that no school authority today systematically collects the teachers' professional experiences – what we usually call proven experience – and that none of the authorities have developed processes to do so on their own initiative. This is, in my opinion, one of the biggest problems.

Here the government is in complete agreement with the National Audit Office. There are missing structures to collect and utilize the teachers' collective experience. For that very reason, the government has appointed an inquiry into the matter and announced that it will return. There are also previous inquiries that can be used as a basis, so it does not need to be an extensive inquiry.

Madam Speaker! The Government is working concretely to refine and strengthen the agency structure. Skolverket shall be able to focus more clearly on its core tasks, and the support to the school shall at the same time become more unified. Statskontoret has been tasked to review this entire structure.

Furthermore, the government has noted that the Swedish Schools Inspectorate itself has initiated work to review the scientific basis used in supervision and quality review. This work has also been strengthened through clearer mandates in the government's regulatory letters.

Since 2024, there has been a reporting requirement that has already yielded some results. The Government has also decided to establish a scientific council at Skolverket.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the follow-up motions, it must be said that they largely miss perhaps the biggest and most long-standing problem in school research, namely that we have systematically failed to listen to those who actually work in the classrooms. It is difficult to escape the feeling that there is a bias. Theoretical models and abstract frameworks have been prioritized over the teachers' collective knowledge and experiences.

Every experienced and successful teacher carries knowledge that is invaluable for the school's development, but yet this knowledge has all too often stood outside the systems. It should be said that Linus Sköld actually paused at this point in his speech.

The School Research Institute, which was established in 2015 by a Social Democratic government, received a clear mandate to compile evidence-based research. With significant resources, this should have been possible, and it is incomprehensible that they did not fulfill their mandate. The outcome has, as the National Audit Office also indirectly shows, become far too theoretical and far too detached from the everyday life of the school. The current government has identified this shortcoming and is attempting to rectify it. Cooperation between educational institutions and schools, for example through the ULF activities, is a step in the right direction.

Madam Speaker! In summary: The National Audit Office has clarified important deficiencies. The Government shares the analysis, is already working on measures, and takes the issue most seriously. But

The fundamental problem is that we in Sweden have built a system that listens too little to those who actually know how teaching works in practice. That, Madam Speaker, shall be my closing words.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! It is a self-evident fact that all education in the Swedish school system shall be based on a scientific foundation. That is what the Education Act says, it is what parents expect when they leave their children at the school gate in the morning, and it is what teachers deserve, namely to receive recommendations rooted in what the research says, not in opinions.

Nevertheless, the Swedish National Audit Office notes that the state's work in this area is deficient. The support is fragmented, and the knowledge base risks being based on incomplete or overly subjective compilations of research. It is a serious observation, and it is entirely in line with what the government has already identified and which is the background to the major reform work the government is undertaking in this area.

Let me start with the most important thing: what the government is actually doing and has done. Now, a scientific council is being established at Skolverket. It is a concrete step to ensure that the information that is developed and disseminated to schools is truly based on a scientific foundation. It is precisely the type of structural change that is needed.

The National Audit Office has presented its report, which is the result of a mandate from the government after problems with overlapping in the agency structure on the school side were identified. It is stated here that there are challenges in the distribution of tasks and responsibilities between the school authorities. This report is now being prepared at the Government Offices.

This is not passivity. This is the result of a conscious effort by the government. It is about taking responsibility, conducting the analysis properly, and then making well-founded decisions. The opposition chooses to call it ongoing processes without concrete announcements. I choose to call it responsible decision-making. We do not apologize for not rushing through reforms that are not well-thought-out.

Madam Speaker! It is no secret that criticism has been directed at Skolverket – and not without reason. After over seven years of work and nearly 1 billion kronor, the digital national tests were cancelled during the last year, which was a major failure. This is what the government inherited from the left-wing government that gave Skolverket an unclear mandate from day one.

But we are cleaning up. We have clarified Skolverket's mandate with the curricula. Independent experts from the Curriculum Inquiry have been given an active role in this work, and a special coordinator with expertise in cognitive research has been appointed. The agency has been tasked with ensuring sufficient internal competence in cognitive science. Area by area, we are taking responsibility.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office recommends that support for schools be strengthened and that the knowledge base maintains higher quality. This constitutes an important basis for the government's continued work.

The Swedish National Audit Office's report correctly points out that the distribution of responsibilities between the school authorities needs to become clearer. We share this analysis, because today there are overlaps. I look forward to following the proposals.

The opposition demands in its reservation that a single authority be immediately given the primary responsibility for systematic research compilation, that Skolverket and SPSM shall be redirected towards knowledge support instead of research communication, and that proven experience shall be documented and valued by a designated actor.

The ambition is not wrong. But for us in the Riksdag to point with the whole hand and demand that the government immediately change an agency structure without the necessary investigations being conducted is to take on an opposition role, not to take responsibility.

I also note that it was during the Social Democrats' time in power that the Swedish National Agency for Education swelled and became large and fragmented, and that the fragmentation that the National Audit Office is now criticizing is largely a product of the choices made during the eight years of left-wing rule. That is also why we are now cleaning up.

Madam Speaker! That education in the Swedish school shall rest on a scientific basis is the foundation for everything. If teachers teach with methods that lack scientific anchoring, which unfortunately has happened, not least within reading instruction, we risk the knowledge development of entire generations.

That is why we are now revising the curricula and the teacher training programs' syllabi. That is why we are introducing, among other things, decoding as a scientifically based method for reading learning. Evidence shows that this method works, and therefore we also need to ensure that teaching is conducted according to it. That is why we are also restructuring the curriculum work so that the focus becomes on cognitive science. That is why we are taking the measures required so that the school authorities function in a way that actually supports the school – with knowledge, not with confusion.

We are not finished, but important work in the right direction has begun.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Education shall be based on scientific foundations and proven experience, as stated in the Education Act and the curricula. The National Audit Office's conclusion is simple but serious: the State's work to ensure this is not effective. In practice, this means that teachers, principals, and school providers do not receive the support they need and that students risk not reaching as far as they otherwise could have.

The government is criticized for the work not being effective and for the supports existing in different formats and not reaching the teachers. The government's management does not promote support for those who work in schools. The government is also criticized for having, on occasion, pointed out specific research results in its government mandates that it considers should be taken into account in the implementation.

The report states that Skolverket finds it challenging to work in an objective manner with scientific evidence when the client partly writes that the work should be carried out on a scientific basis, while partly already referring to specific research results in the assignment.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office provides a number of recommendations. Miljöpartiet stands behind these recommendations and the opposition's collective reservation regarding actually implementing the measures that the National Audit Office proposes. The Government responds that they may return to the issue. We respond: We will take the recommendations seriously and ensure that the school is given the opportunity to deliver on the requirement set in the legislation: that the education shall be based on scientific grounds and proven experience.

I want the high-quality educational science research conducted in Sweden, and for that matter also internationally, to be accessible to those who work in schools. They shall receive the support they need to work based on science and proven experience.

One way to improve the scientific basis is to invest in systematic and comprehensive research reviews based on high-quality research that is relevant to Swedish schools. With their help, one can identify which knowledge gaps exist.

I also want practical research to be a natural part of the school day, both to capture research questions and for teachers' experiences to be picked up, tested, and taken into account in the development work.

To summarize, Madam Speaker: The Government may return to this issue. In just over a hundred days, I hope that we will have a new government. What we say in our motion is that we will ensure that teachers' opportunities to work based on science and proven experience are strengthened.

I vote in favor of the reservation.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 3 June.)

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