Response to interpellation 2022/23:184 on school information after the 2023 mid-year break
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L argues that the government should increase transparency in independent schools to identify irregularities 1 2 3. L argues that the principle of public access is poorly suited for smaller schools due to a lack of resources 1 2, but that large schools can meet the requirements as they have lawyers 3. L emphasizes the importance of transparency regarding finances, pedagogy, and law 4. S criticizes L for the government not introducing the principle of public access and hiding investigation results 5 6 7. S argues that independent schools should be covered by the principle of public access since they have the same responsibilities as municipal schools 5. S believes that the government prioritizes the interests of school corporations 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! Linus Sköld has asked me how I intend to act to resolve the access to school information when the temporary law expires. Linus Sköld has also asked if I intend to introduce the principle of public access in independent schools and if I intend to clarify the difference between the transparency principle in the Tidö Agreement and the principle of public access.
I want to start by thanking you for bringing forward this important issue. As Linus Sköld points out, the confidentiality-breaking provision in the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act will cease to apply at the half-year mark. However, it is clear that a long-term solution will not be able to be implemented by the summer. The School Information Inquiry must submit its proposals for a long-term solution to ensure access to school information by May 31, 2023, at the latest. After that, the proposals need to be referred and the matter prepared within the Government Offices before the government, after processing by the Council on Legislation, can submit proposals to the Riksdag in a proposition. The government intends to return during the spring regarding how the issue shall be handled before a new long-term regulation is in place.
Just as there is a need for transparency in municipal schools, there is a need for transparency in independent schools. Those who run the schools, namely the individual school owners, have been entrusted with providing education with public funding and must be able to be audited. The Government intends to significantly reduce the scope for actors with quality deficiencies in their operations, where better openness and transparency in independent schools contributes to identifying irregularities. The Government's view, however, is that the principle of public access is poorly suited for smaller independent schools, which often lack the legal and administrative support resources that would be required in such a case. As stated in the Government Bill, the Government considers that a transparency principle should be introduced in independent schools that corresponds to the principle of public access for municipal school owners. As I stated in an interpellation response to Linus Sköld in November 2022, the Government intends to task the School Information Inquiry with clarifying how a transparency principle can be introduced in independent schools and submitting necessary legislative proposals. The inquiry may show how a proposal to introduce a transparency principle relates to the principle of public access when consideration has been given to the conditions of the smaller private school owners.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! The background to the interpellation is that in September 2020, all information regarding independent schools was classified as trade secrets. This concerned all information; everything from the schools' addresses to student numbers and results.
Due to the name of the treatment, Skolverket made the assessment that all information about all school activities should be kept secret. To resolve this, we, the Social Democratic-led government, made a temporary breach of secrecy, and the temporary law expires at the mid-year point in 2023.
Now the question is what is going to happen then. I am genuinely interested in what is going to happen then. Are all pieces of information about schools to be classified again because the information within the company-run schools is still to be considered trade secrets? Or is the government going to resolve this in some way, and if so, how? That was the background to why I asked those questions in the interpellation.
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the answer. I intended to take the liberty of translating the Minister's answer into more concise and easily understandable Swedish.
We begin with me asking: How does the Minister intend to act to resolve access to school information when the temporary law expires? The Minister answered: We intend to return. That means "don't know, we'll see." Then I asked: Does the Minister intend to introduce the principle of public access in independent schools? The Minister answered: No. And finally I asked: Does the Minister intend to clarify the difference between the Tidö Agreement's transparency principle and the principle of public access? The short answer the Minister gives is: No – in any case not now, maybe later, sometime, when the investigation is finished or when it has been referred or when it has been prepared in the Government Offices or when it has been sent to the Council of State for review; don't know, we'll see.
Many of us wonder about this. What did the government base intend when they wrote "transparency principle" in the Tidö Agreement? The only thing we know so far about this transparency principle is that it is not the principle of public access that applies to municipal schools.
Then we come to the inconsistency: Independent schools have the same mission and responsibility regarding the students' learning as municipal schools do. Independent schools exercise authority, that is, have power over students' futures. Independent schools have the same funding, that is, tax money, as municipal schools. Independent schools are also already paid for any additional administration that the principle of public access would entail.
Why, Lotta Edholm, should they not be covered by the principle of public access? Why should it be more difficult to scrutinize independent schools than municipal schools?
Åsa Westlund (S)
Madam Speaker! The principle of public access is something of a golden egg in Swedish democracy. It makes it easier for the media and the public in Sweden to scrutinize how our tax funds are used and what power is being exercised than in many other countries. This is an important principle worth defending, for it has over the years led to many irregularities being able to be exposed and that one has later been able to rectify the problems that have been exposed.
The previous government commissioned an inquiry into introducing the principle of public access also for friskolor (independent schools). The special investigator has stated to Sveriges Radio that she has produced an extensive basis of pros and cons regarding introducing the principle of public access also for friskolor, in the same way as it already applies for municipal schools.
What is happening now is that the government is stopping her from presenting this basis and the proposal where everyone could have seen the pros and cons of introducing the principle of public access for independent schools. What is it actually in this basis that the government wants to hide? Why could the investigation not present the pros and cons of the principle of public access for independent schools?
The only comprehensible explanation I can come up with - it is possible that the Minister has another explanation - is that the government wants to hide the substantive arguments that exist for a principle of public access to also apply to independent schools.
I think it is remarkable that a government that, at every stage, defends the market school does not listen better to Sweden's teachers when they say that there is a widespread culture of silence in Swedish schools. It is the competition for the school funding that makes people afraid to talk about irregularities, because then one risks losing revenue and thereby further complicating the teaching for the school. This is a systemic error that this government defends at every turn. In this situation, when one does not want to change this basic system, one also says no to Sweden's teachers' demands for the principle of public access and thus a strong whistleblower protection, i.e., that the person who tells about irregularities in Swedish schools should be able to feel secure that they will not be subjected to reprisals even if one works at a free school that is financed by the same tax funds as the municipal schools.
Madam Speaker! My questions to the Minister are therefore, firstly: Why does the government want to hide this basis, which the investigation was practically finished with, regarding the pros and cons of the principle of public access in Swedish schools – why does the government want to redact the investigation's results by changing the assignment in the way it is now doing? And secondly: Is the Minister not really concerned about the culture of silence that exists in Swedish schools, or why does the Minister continue to defend the market school and that one should not be allowed to have the principle of public access or freedom of information in the free school?
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! It was quite a shock when SCB decided that this type of school information would suddenly be subject to secrecy. The previous government acted very quickly and forcefully and made temporary changes.
This type of information is important so that parents and students can see what the activities look like and what results they have. It is also important so that one can follow up on the schools' results, and it is also important for research that it is open and so on. This has been an important issue that has been on the government's table. But the investigation does not quite manage to finish in time.
But I can now truly say that the Riksdag will have this on its table, so that one gets yet another temporary solution before the summer. Hopefully, it will be completely resolved when it comes to the School Information Inquiry - it is important to point that out, because we must not have any gaps in this.
We are in complete agreement that we must improve the transparency in the friskolor in Sweden, financially, pedagogically, and not least legally. In that case, it is a matter of us finding a system for this that also works for the very smallest friskolor. Therefore, the Tidöavtalet has called this a transparency principle. But it must be investigated very carefully, for this is difficult material.
The starting point is that we are to significantly improve transparency in the independent schools that exist in Sweden. It is important for the parents, for the students, and for us as taxpayers. It is also important in order to be able to see quality development in our independent schools. I therefore look forward to when we can add the supplementary directives. We will return to a debate eventually when we know what the supplementary directives will look like, but it will happen quite soon, I can promise.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! The third estate, the media sometimes calls it. Their role is to scrutinize those in power, and as I mentioned, free schools are those in power in the students' world. They make decisions that will have far-reaching consequences for individual students' futures.
But it doesn't stop there. Different levels of access and transparency obviously provide different opportunities for the media to scrutinize and discover irregularities in independent and municipal schools. But we also have the perspective that Lotta Edholm herself highlighted in a debate article in Aftonbladet some time ago, that freedom of choice in schools must be protected. I agree, but how on earth can freedom of choice be protected when different pieces of information are public for different schools?
I only hear Lotta Edholm present a single supporting argument for this, and that is that the principle of public access is poorly suited for small schools. It is the only supporting argument that Lotta Edholm has.
One can listen to representatives for the small schools, such as Håkan Wiclander who is chairman of Idéburna Skolors Riksförbund, with predominantly small school units as members. He says that it is a self-evident matter that publicity shall apply because the school is owned by the Swedish people. But representatives for the large corporations, with great capacity, have been very critical. The Minister's only supporting argument, to save small school units from administration, therefore holds no validity at all.
This makes one wonder: What is it that the school corporations want to keep secret? I pose the question to Lotta Edholm, because I believe she might know. After all, it wasn't so long ago that she herself both owned and sat on the board of a school corporation. Perhaps she can help us understand. What is it she wants to help the school corporations keep secret?
Åsa Westlund (S)
Madam Speaker! The argument from the Minister is that a principle of public access even for the friskolor could pose a difficulty for the smaller schools. Why then do we not see the investigation that has looked into that question? In that investigation, perhaps a solution to that problem has been found. Or perhaps it is seen that it is not a problem, just as it is not a problem for all small, state investigations, which also must follow the principle of public access.
Why is the government hiding the work that has been put into investigating how the principle of public access could apply to independent schools? I cannot see any honest answer to that question that does not amount to wanting to keep things in the dark. Why do we not want all the facts on the table? I think the government should rethink and present this investigation so that everyone can see the pros and cons of ensuring that independent schools are covered by the principle of public access.
I also think it is problematic that we have a system that has functioned so well as the principle of public access has done in Swedish public administration when it comes to revealing errors and deficiencies, which suddenly does not apply to large parts of the welfare sector, including the independent schools (friskolorna). This leads to the fact that we do not have the same opportunity to scrutinize where the tax money goes or irregularities that affect students and teachers. The responsibility for this exception from the principle of public access in the welfare sector lies with those who defend the exception. The general principle is, after all, the principle of public access.
Once again - the Minister is welcome to answer my question: Why hide facts in the case by not allowing the investigation to present the proposal that was investigated?
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! The supplementary directives to this investigation are currently being worked out. I hope they will be completed shortly. Then the Social Democrats, as well as everyone else who is interested in these issues, will receive answers to hopefully all questions.
We will now significantly increase transparency in the independent schools in Sweden. I believe that this is important, good, and completely reasonable, for precisely the reasons that, among others, Åsa Westlund highlighted. It is important that we as taxpayers get to know where the tax funds go. It is important that the students and the parents can see what a school is achieving and so on. There are many reasons for this, and I am glad that we will now be able to provide supplementary directives to see how this can be done.
But we must also look at how this will affect the really small schools. I am not in the least concerned that the large ones would not be able to manage this. It is clear that they will do so. They have lawyers employed. But for a school with perhaps 80 students, it can be difficult to follow this exactly. I also note that the ideology-driven independent schools have actually stated in Vi Lärare that they think it is right that one tries to find exceptions for the small independent schools because it can be quite difficult to fulfill every little detail in the principle of public access.
We are now, as said, carrying out the largest deregulation of the independent school sector since the independent schools were introduced in Sweden. I look forward to greater transparency so that we as taxpayers, and politicians for that part, can see how things stand in our independent operations. It is important, not least for the parents.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! I asked what it is the Minister wants to help the school groups to keep secret. I heard no answer to that question. I asked approximately the same question to the Minister in a previous interpellation debate, and she did not answer then either.
But those who follow this issue have surely noted that she gave an answer in Dagens Nyheter last week. The interviewer asks: "Is this not, in fact, a proposal that goes against the large school corporations?" "No," the minister answers, "the large corporations would be able to handle the principle of public access. They have lawyers employed who can determine if a disclosure of documents violates confidentiality. While the small ones would have problems if one introduced a principle of public access." The journalist again: "So why is it the large corporations that are critical?" Then the minister answers: "I believe there may be a feeling, for example when it concerns the economic conditions, that one does not want to disclose information because one does not want the competitors to see it."
The government is therefore once again putting the interests of the school groups before the students' and helping the school groups to keep information about the economic conditions secret - for now, the Minister has told Dagens Nyheter what it is she wants to help them keep secret.
We are talking about tax-funded school activities, and transparency must, of course, be secured regardless of who is the principal. That is what we Social Democrats think, and we have thought so for a long time. Does the Minister, according to my assumption, intend to meet the school corporations with the principle of transparency and let them continue to keep the economic conditions secret?
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! The answer to the last question is no. That is what I have tried to say in this debate: We shall increase transparency, not only when it comes to finances but also when it comes to pedagogy and law. This is the very basic prerequisite for this entire discussion: How shall we increase transparency so that we can take part in precisely what I believe some of the largest corporations are concerned about? It does not concern me, because I believe that it is right and proper to do this.
What concerns me, which the ideological schools have now also confirmed to me, is that the very smallest schools will have difficulty handling this. We will very soon issue supplementary directives that will focus on exactly what Linus Sköld points out, including the economic conditions.
It is important that we increase transparency in the independent schools - financially, pedagogically and legally. Hopefully, all of this will be clarified when the supplementary directives arrive.
Thank you very much for the debate!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.