Response to interpellation 2022/23:403 on private school groups that do not fulfill their educational mandate
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns free school corporations that neglect their educational mandate. L considers it a major problem if school corporations neglect their mandate or use school funds for other activities 1. L proposes a profit distribution ban, stricter ownership reviews, financial guarantees, clawback of school funds in cases of crime, sanction fees, and compulsory administration to clear out unserious actors and protect quality 1 2. L argues that the municipalities' sale of premises falls under municipal self-government 3. L argues that the profit interest can lead to quality problems and that the students' well-being should be the primary interest 4. V believes that the government should act instead of drowning issues in investigations 5. V is very pleased that it will not be favorable for those with an expressed profit interest to conduct school activities.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Daniel Riazat has asked me what measures I and the government intend to take to address school groups that have repeatedly neglected their educational mandate and the problem regarding school groups that use funds intended for schools for other business activities that are completely outside the school's mandate.
I and the government see it as a major problem if school corporations neglect their educational mandate and if they use funds intended for the school for activities that have nothing to do with education.
Therefore, we are now starting a complete renovation of the Swedish free school system that shall clear away unserious and unsuitable actors but at the same time safeguard freedom of choice. As stated in the supplementary directive to the Investigation on profit in schools, the investigator shall, among other things, propose a profit distribution ban if the owner receives state grants aimed at quality-improving measures. A profit distribution ban shall also be proposed if the school is newly started or after a change of ownership. The investigator shall further submit proposals involving the introduction of a profit distribution limitation if Skolinspektionen has ordered the owner to remedy deficiencies. This may also become relevant if the school underperforms with regard to, for example, its student composition.
The investigator shall also propose how municipal grants paid to an individual principal can be reclaimed if a person in the ownership or management circle is convicted of economic or other serious crime, or if the grants are used for activities lacking a connection to school activities, and if the principal conducts activities other than activities regulated by the Education Act.
The Government considers that unserious and unsuitable actors should not be allowed to occur within the school system.
Daniel Riazat (V)
Mr. Speaker! Since I wrote this interpellation, very much has happened regarding school groups that do not behave. One example is precisely the company that I wrote about in my interpellation, Thorengruppen. Much has been written about Thorengruppen recently, not only because their floorball team won the SM-gold, partly with school money taken from the school group, but also because of all the discovered deficiencies in the schools whose school money has gone, among other things, to the floorball team.
On April 4, Dagens Nyheter wrote that Affärsgymnasiet in Växjö risked a fine of 1 million kronor if the serious deficiencies that had emerged were not addressed. On April 6, an article appeared in Dagens Nyheter about Thoren Business School in Solna, which had instructed students on how they should behave during the Skolinspektionen's visit, as an injunction was to be followed up. Just a couple of days ago, the permit to operate this school was revoked.
On April 19, Gefle Dagblad publishes an article about the schools operated by Thorengruppen in Gävle. A student speaking to the newspaper says that it feels as if the school exists primarily to make money. The newspaper also states that it has been in contact with former employees who have also been critical of the school activities.
On April 24, the next article arrived regarding deficiencies in one of the group's schools, this time Thoren Innovation School in Malmö, where major deficiencies have been identified in the electricity and energy program. Hear and be amazed: the School Inspectorate reviewed this, and now they have withdrawn the permit for this school. The School Inspectorate's criticism of the school has concerned that many of the students have not received any workplace-based learning, as well as a number of other points regarding the quality of the education. Even in Norrköping, Umeå, Stockholm, and many other municipalities, there is this type of criticism.
But let me not present this as if it were only about a company. Thorengruppen is just a school group of a number of those who make a living by having too low quality, too low wages and too few qualified employees and by giving grades that the students should not have. This is in no way unique among the school groups. For example, the average wage differs by approximately 3,000 kronor a month between teachers at municipal schools and teachers at the private profit-making schools.
Thorengruppen is also in no way unique when it comes to having its schools closed or, in some cases, shutting them down because they do not believe there is sufficient profitability. This has happened during all the years that this independent school system has existed.
One can listen to the answer from the Minister for Education and hear that an investigation has been commissioned with additional directives and that there will be further actions from the government in the area of independent schools. But if one goes through the directives for the investigations, one sees that the main problem is once again not being solved. Admittedly, perhaps I would have acted in the same way if I myself had gone directly from a school group that is mostly known for crispbread and water, which everyone has heard in this country, to becoming Minister for Education. But now I do not come from that world, rather I come from a party that represents the students' interests before the profit interest.
Therefore, I believe the government is obliged to answer what should be done about the problem instead of drowning these questions in further investigations.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Mr. Speaker! It is exactly as Daniel Riazat says - since the interpellation was written, a lot has happened that is positive. That some of the stricter legislation that has already been introduced is now having an effect in the School Inspectorate's work is positive.
I can neither do nor want to stand and comment on individual schools here in Sweden's Riksdag. However, I intend to tell what the additional directives, which I interpret as Daniel Riazat thinks are good but not sufficient, entail.
They mean, for example, that the investigator should look at stricter ownership review. We have already received one such, but it may need to be tightened further. For example, we could set additional requirements on long-term ownership of independent schools, so that one cannot be very short-sighted.
We must also ensure that there are financial guarantees for independent schools that are started and operated. Today, the School Inspectorate testifies that there are many independent schools that have far too weak finances and that very little is needed for such a school to collapse. This naturally has major consequences, especially for the students who attend there but also for the municipality the students come from.
We propose the reclamation of school fees in cases of criminal activity. That possibility does not exist today, but one might think it is a bit strange that school fees cannot be reclaimed from those who engage in criminal activity.
We also propose a profit distribution ban for a number of years when a friskola is started or if an operation is bought up by a new owner. The purpose of that is to stimulate long-term ownership of the friskolor.
We want a sanction ladder with increased fines but also sanction fees. Today, there is no possibility to collect sanction fees; it is only a question of fines. If one does something wrong, the authority can tell you: Stop doing that wrong thing – otherwise, you will have to pay! That is what fines mean. We propose that one should receive a fine directly, that is, a sanction fee, when one does something wrong. Naturally, both of these systems are needed.
We also propose that the investigator should look at the possibilities for compulsory management of schools that perform very poorly. Today, that possibility exists for municipal schools but not for independent schools. It is reasonable that it should apply equally.
Not least, we propose, in contrast to the original investigation directives, that this shall also apply to the preschool sector. It is a very large sector that a part has bypassed with silence and which I think we have not talked so very much about. It is important that even the independent preschool sector is scrutinized better and that it is subject to the same legislation as other schools.
Daniel Riazat (V)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Education for the clarifications. I also want to be clear and say that there are parts in these directives and supplementary directives that the Left Party stands behind and thinks are good, even though no one at the Government Offices or the Ministry of Education - actually for the first time since I entered the Riksdag - has contacted us in the opposition to initiate a dialogue. But I am still waiting for such contact to be made, so that we can discuss these issues - not only in the chamber of the Riksdag but also as civilized parties outside of this chamber.
I have gone through every proposal in these investigations and read through the supplementary directives. I have been part of the political reference groups that have existed for previous investigations, and I have been involved in discussing these issues for nine years in this chamber. What I see is that certain things are missing.
What happens, for example, with the school premises that are being sold off all over our country? Often it is the case that conservative politicians sell off properties owned by the municipality, that is to say the people - not only to former Social Democratic politicians but now also to private school corporations. Then the municipality is supposed to rent itself into these private school premises, which it once owned itself. Imagine that you own your own house and someone comes and says: I am buying the house from you, and then you have to rent in at a much higher price. That is what is being done right now with the taxpayers' funds. Why is there nothing about that in this investigation?
Or take this with money that is sent via school corporations to foreign countries. What happens to all those billions that end up outside of Sweden? School money, that is to say tax funds that we have all paid in, disappears from the Swedish school system - but not just from the Swedish school system, but from Sweden altogether. Why is there nothing about that question in this investigation?
Why is there nothing in the free school inquiry about the massive corruption prevailing between politicians and free school corporations? We can see that every school corporation in this country today is linked to a politician or a political party. Why is there no one speaking about this issue? What we in Sweden call lobbying or that politicians have been recruited by companies would be called corruption in very many other countries. But here we refine the words in the language, and it simply becomes something else.
Why is there nothing in the free school investigation about politicians like Lotta Edholm who have jumped between municipality, free school corporation, and state? These are politicians who have sold out municipal schools, left for the private school corporations, and then come back to be responsible for all schools. Or take the person who wrote the text for the free school reform in the 90s, who is now one of Sweden's largest free school owners. Why is there nothing in the free school investigation about them? The answer is simple. It is because this government is in the lap of the free school lobbyists and is a representative for the large school corporations and not for the children or the teachers.
When people talk about taking long-term responsibility and having an economy that holds up over time, it is very fine talk; we are also on board with that. But in practice, the Liberals, represented by the government's school minister Lotta Edholm, have voted no to all legislation that has had the purpose of somehow addressing the problems with the market school. And here you stand and talk about having appointed an inquiry. I think it is ridiculous, if I'm being honest.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Mr. Speaker! Daniel Riazat calls for dialogue. I just want to point out that I have been in the Riksdag's Education Committee a number of times and would welcome dialogue on these issues. But it is clear that it can be a bit difficult to have a dialogue when the tone is as heightened as it now seems to be in this matter.
Many of the questions that Daniel Riazat raises will be raised in this investigation. But if the municipalities choose to sell or not sell their premises, for example, it is very difficult for the state to have views on. Many municipalities have sold off their premises to various types of companies in the belief that one earns money by doing this, that it is profitable. Then it has turned out after a number of years that it perhaps was not quite as profitable as one thought. It is municipalities of different political colors that have done this. But it falls within the framework of municipal self-government to do so. It is difficult to believe that the free school investigation specifically could have so many views on this. On the other hand, one can naturally, as a citizen and perhaps in other contexts, have views on how it has sometimes gone. The questions must therefore be treated from where they belong, I think.
I think the supplementary directives are important. They will, if the investigator carries out their assignment properly, lead to a situation where it will no longer be profitable to run free schools with declared profit interests and to do so by having low quality.
It is still this that is the absolute most important - that all students who attend Sweden's schools shall have the right to a school of high quality, where they are assured that they are acquiring the right knowledge which they can then benefit from for the rest of their lives and can move forward either into professions or into higher education. It is this that is the very objective: a school sector that has high quality as its primary goal.
Daniel Riazat (V)
Mr. Speaker! I just want to assure the Minister for Education that one can have a debate in the chamber of the Riksdag - we know that we disagree on these issues, and it is important, I believe, that the Swedish people are informed that there is a party that thinks differently when it comes to the market school experiment. I think it is important that this is clarified in this chamber.
But then one can also have conversations when sitting on the sidelines, which do not have a debate format in this way. The Liberals know this because, for example, they have gone from not wanting anything to do with the Sweden Democrats at all to today having Jimmie Åkesson as one of their closest partners. This, I believe, is something we can manage.
I became, I must say, very happy about what the Minister for Education said at the end, because it was mentioned that it will not be favorable for those who have an expressed profit interest to conduct school activities. It is fantastic, because it means a ban on shareholders-driven schools since it states in the Companies Act that companies are operated for the purpose of providing profit for distribution among the shareholders, unless otherwise stated in the articles of association; the so-called profit motive shall prevail, according to the Companies Act. Therefore, I am very happy that the government in that case has taken a big step, bigger than the Social Democrats took during the eight years they were in power, when it comes to banning companies from running schools. This is exactly what Vänsterpartiet has proposed. Then we also have a common ground for the upcoming talks, which the Minister for Education will contact me and Vänsterpartiet about to move forward, at the Ministry of Education or at Vänsterpartiet's office here in the Riksdag.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Mr. Speaker! What we are seeing now is, naturally, a restructuring of the independent school sector. I have repeatedly in various contexts said that there has been a naivety among bourgeois politicians when it comes to the independent school sector. We have turned a blind eye too much regarding poor quality and have not sufficiently understood that the profit interest can lead to these quality problems. It is also for that reason that this investigation has received these additional directives. The objective is, naturally, to ensure that the profit interest is not the primary reason to start an independent school, but the primary interest should be the students' well-being and to contribute to a good school system in Sweden.
With this said, I believe that this investigation will show the way towards a more well-functioning independent school system in Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.