Response to interpellation 2022/23:356 on objective and neutral education in Sweden's schools
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned objectivity and neutrality in schools. L argues that existing laws and curricula require objectivity and impartiality, and that the government does not need to take new measures as the regulatory framework is sufficient 1 2. L expresses great confidence in the teachers' professional practice 2 and emphasizes that it is the head's responsibility to manage the culture of silence. SD argues that teachers systematically lack objectivity and act as political activists, which leads to the indoctrination of students 3. SD believes that students do not dare to report deficiencies due to fear of lowered grades 4. SD demands answers on how the problem should be detected 4 5.
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! Tobias Andersson has asked me what measures I and the government intend to take to ensure objective and neutral teaching in Sweden's schools.
Let me begin by stating that my and the government's self-evident view is that all teaching shall be conducted in accordance with the requirement of objectivity and comprehensiveness.
It appears from the Instrument of Government that those who perform public administration tasks in their activities shall observe objectivity and impartiality. The requirements for objectivity and impartiality can be summarized under the common concept of the principle of objectivity. This principle shall be observed by all schools that conduct education according to the Education Act.
Even in the curricula, the importance of objective and versatile teaching is emphasized. All parents should be able to send their children to school with the same confidence, assured that the children will not be unilaterally influenced in favor of one view or the other.
The school also has a democratic mission. The Education Act is clear that education in the school system shall be designed in accordance with fundamental democratic values and human rights such as the inviolability of human life, the individual's freedom and privacy, the equal value of all people, equality, and solidarity between people.
As a Minister, I cannot have opinions on how teachers, principals, or other officials apply the legislation in individual cases. However, I can state that the provisions regarding objectivity and impartiality are clear, and I therefore see no need to take any measures.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.
I have been involved at the youth organization level for over ten years and, through that, have witnessed a frighteningly large number of examples of how teachers have lacked independence and objectivity. Young people have told how teachers have regularly and systematically acted as political activists in their teaching. Instead of educating and informing about, for example, the political parties in Sweden, some teachers have abused their position by clearly biasing the teaching in favor of their own political convictions. In all the examples I have received over the years, it has been the Sverigedemokraterna that have been attacked, but sometimes even conservative parties have been affected. One case has been more serious than the other.
What will be the result when the teaching fails in that way? Well, the result is that young people grow up with a distorted image of the Swedish political landscape in general and the Sverigedemokraterna in particular. In the long run, general knowledge is eroded, and contempt for politicians increases when students are educated to distrust and hate one or more political parties. Even the trust in the knowledge the school conveys risks being eroded if students and parents perceive that the school fails in its objectivity.
Madam Speaker! Students expect, perhaps to an excessive extent, that they will be able to trust their teachers, which is why they risk believing what the teacher says even when this person speaks more like a Social Democratic campaign worker than as an objective social studies teacher.
I myself have encountered many young people over the years who have expressed pure madness in the belief that they were being truthful. When I have confronted the claims and they have realized what is correct, they have often blamed that they expressed something that their teachers had claimed. It has been an indoctrination of inaccuracies.
Recently, an extremely serious example of this was uncovered where a teacher in Malmö repeatedly compared Jimmie Åkesson to Adolf Hitler and Ulf Kristersson to Franz von Papen. As if that were not enough, the teacher insinuated that the formation of the government after the autumn election could result in the same atrocities and genocide that the Nazis were guilty of.
Images used in the teaching to illustrate this leaked to the respected news site Riks, which has reported on the case.
I note that the Minister emphasizes the importance of objectivity, and I also understand that the Minister cannot communicate regarding individual cases. After this observation, the Minister stated in his response: "However, I can state that the provisions regarding objectivity and impartiality are clear, and I therefore see no need to take any measures."
Madam Speaker! I am perhaps not as optimistic. It seems that in some cases, an almost systematic influence work is taking place, completely without consequences. It is not strange that the consequences are absent when the students do not dare to act because of their grades. Even if the Minister does not consider that more tools are needed, I want to know to what extent the Minister admits that this problem is found in Swedish schools today.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! I trust the teachers, and I have great confidence that they perform their duties in a factual and correct manner regardless of which party they actually vote for or sympathize with. There are requirements for versatility and objectivity, and the School Inspectorate can conduct supervision - and does conduct supervision. The Teachers' Responsibility Board can warn teachers or even revoke their credentials if they consider that the teacher's actions contravene the legislation.
My and the government's view is that the regulatory framework is sufficient. There is a clear connection between all provisions regarding the requirement for precisely objectivity in the constitution, the Education Act, and the curricula. And I have great confidence that those who work within the school system perform their work duties in accordance with current regulations. I do not intend to submit any legislative proposals to change this.
But if a teacher in their teaching does not follow the school's steering documents and the legislation I have referred to, that should also have consequences. It is the employer's responsibility to ensure that this is done within the framework of labor law.
It is the Swedish Schools Inspectorate that has oversight of the school system. This responsibility also includes ensuring that the education follows the provisions in the Education Act and other regulations that govern the operations. Otherwise, I naturally cannot comment on individual cases here in the chamber. We will not, from the government's side, change the current legislation, which is to be complied with.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I believe that if Lotta Edholm had met as many young people as I have when I have campaigned at schools over the last ten years, who have expressed how their teachers have lacked objectivity and impartiality, Lotta Edholm's confidence in the teachers, to the extent that she trusts them, might have decreased somewhat.
I myself have had teachers in upper secondary school who have stood at the front and turned their backs on me when I have given speeches in the square. I have had teachers who have complained that they had to give me good grades because they think I have appalling values. I myself have had teachers who repeatedly failed in their teaching in this way. But above all, I have met incredibly many young people who have also experienced that this was the case but who have not dared to act – who have not dared to report the teacher to the employer, to the principal, because they were worried about how it could potentially affect their grades. I have also encountered many young people who say that they have criticized their teachers, who have dared to point out when they fail in their objectivity and dared to point out inaccuracies in the teaching, and who, as a consequence of this, have received lower grades.
It is clear that it will be difficult to obtain any kind of statistics on how widespread the problem actually is, given that the dark figure is large and the incentives for the individual student are to remain silent, accept, and get through their schooling despite these inaccuracies and these deficiencies.
There are a few cases that have leaked anonymously, because it is very rare that any student dares to come forward and communicate about this. I mentioned the case in Malmö in my previous post.
There is also a case from the pandemic, when Samnytt reported on teaching where images had leaked from the same. In that case, the teacher actually received a written warning for error or negligence in the work, which is regulated in the collective agreement. It did not lead to much more than the written warning; there were no actual consequences that affected the employment or anything else. The teacher likely continues, perhaps somewhat more cautiously. But it became at least a written warning.
This was then taken by the union to the Labour Court, which just ruled that the warning was correct because the teacher had not met the requirement of objectivity. It is good when it can be processed in this way, but it is far too rare.
My first question in this motion is therefore how we shall enable students to dare to raise the alarm about these deficiencies in the teaching given the incentive structure that is in place, which rather causes students to remain silent in these cases.
Madam Speaker! I would also like to touch upon another part.
Lotta Edholm touched upon in her first answer the reasonableness of the school having a democracy mandate. What I am afraid of is that some teachers misunderstand what it concerns. I believe that is done as a consequence of us having an opposition that argues that this government constitutes a threat to democracy.
It is clear that if one, as a teacher, is to live up to the democratic mandate and educate based on democratic perspectives and democratic content and so on, but at the same time buys the Social Democratic propaganda that this government has taken power and that a regime rules our country, then one can as a teacher believe that following the democratic mandate is to criticize the government which some believe threatens our democracy. And it is clear that if one is a teacher in a Social Democratically governed municipality where the chairman of the committee responsible for school matters is a Social Democrat, then perhaps one absolutely does not dare to act against teachers who fail in this. Then perhaps one falls into the Social Democratic propaganda and considers this to be correct.
My final question is to what extent the Minister believes this affects the teachers and the principals.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! As I said initially, I have great confidence in and great respect for the fact that teachers actually follow the legislation and the regulatory frameworks that exist. Tobias Andersson also points out that it can actually have consequences if teachers do not do this, and that is naturally important.
When it comes to the culture of silence, it exists in many sectors of society. It is extremely serious if people, whether they are youths or adults, do not dare to report what they are subjected to or what they see. It is also the responsibility of the contracting authority to ensure that there are opportunities to, even anonymously, report what is happening in different operations.
The school has an important democratic mission, but sometimes it is difficult for teachers to teach from that perspective within different subject areas. It is a task that has become increasingly difficult over the years. Many teachers testify that it can be difficult to conduct a discussion on, for example, LGBTQI issues, honor culture, the Holocaust, and so on. One must also have respect for the fact that these issues are not always completely easy for teachers to handle. But that being said, it is the case that we have a regulatory framework and that we have laws in this country, and they must actually be followed.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank again for the answer from Lotta Edholm.
I would still like to distinguish this from when it is difficult for teachers to live up to the democratic mandate as a consequence of students having poor values in the issues that were mentioned. It is clearly a problem, and there it is important that we from the political side emphasize that teachers must be able to teach even on themes such as the Holocaust to those who are critical and dare to speak about honor culture in front of those who perhaps themselves are part of it. It is very important that politics stands up for the teachers so that they can teach about these subjects regardless of what students think, feel, say, and do.
It is a completely different matter when the teachers themselves contribute to acting deficiently in these cases. It is thus not cases where the teacher has a hard time doing what is right, but cases where the teacher chooses to do what is wrong by failing in objectivity and impartiality, for example by portraying the Sverigedemokraterna as something that the Sverigedemokraterna are not.
I think it is important that we emphasize that this problem exists. I have not yet received any answer from Lotta Edholm regarding to what extent she believes this problem occurs or how we should ensure that the dark figures and the culture of silence prevailing on the subject can be uncovered. It is clear that the tools are there, but they do not serve much use if students do not dare to speak out about the deficient teaching they receive. They may come to me or to party colleagues of mine, but they do not dare to go all the way and report this to the school's governing body because they are worried that they will be negatively affected during the grading.
Madam Speaker! Therefore, I would like to ask Lotta Edholm, as my final question, to what extent these types of discussions and problem areas are highlighted when Lotta Edholm is out meeting principals, school staff, and municipal politicians working in the education field with several others.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! I would say that what I believe in these matters is actually not so interesting. The important thing is how it actually stands. I want to point out again that there is legislation and regulatory frameworks and that it is enormously important that they are followed. If they are not followed, there are means to be taken, just as Tobias Andersson himself points out. But what I believe about this is actually not so interesting.
On the other hand, it is naturally interesting to receive different testimonies when it comes to the democratic mandate, and that is what I, as Minister for Education, receive when I am out. It concerns all the different issues that have been raised in this debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.