Response to interpellation 2023/24:270 on the government's school policy and the grading system

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! Niels Paarup-Petersen has asked me if I will work to change the grading system so that the dropout rate decreases and if I will work to ensure that all students are assessed according to the same principles.

I agree that we have great challenges in Swedish schools today. It is a very large problem that as many as 15 percent of the students who complete primary school do not reach eligibility for a national program in upper secondary school. The school system needs to function better than it does today so that all students get the best conditions to pass school and take with them the knowledge they need to be able to support themselves.

The problem is not that there is a grade for non-passing knowledge results in the grading system, but that the children who need more support to reach the knowledge goals are not identified early enough. The government is therefore investing in more special education teachers, in special teaching groups, and in creating better conditions for earlier interventions.

It is also necessary that we review today's curricula and grading criteria. Since there is a large variation regarding cognitive prerequisites within the target group of each school form, the knowledge requirements that are set, especially for grade E, must be reasonable in relation to the entire target group of the school form.

We need to have a clearer knowledge orientation in the curricula and syllabi with a stronger focus on facts and subject knowledge and better adaptation to children's cognitive development and different circumstances. Through such changes, more students can obtain passing grades from primary school.

It is also important that all students receive grades that reflect their level of knowledge, and for that reason, the government has appointed an inquiry to investigate how grades and merit values can become more comparable and more accurately reflect the students' subject knowledge. The inquiry shall submit its proposals by February 21, 2025, at the latest.

New paths are also needed in upper secondary school. Today's national program is not accessible or adapted for all students. The investigation on more paths to working life (U 2022:03) has a broad and important mandate here to propose measures to solve the problems with the large dropout rate of students and give more students a secondary education that leads to a job. According to the directives, the investigator shall, among other things, submit proposals for changes so that students who have had difficulty reaching the goals in primary school shall be given better opportunities to prepare for working life. In July this year, the investigator received an additional directive to, among other things, submit proposals for new elective upper secondary vocational educations - vocational school - which can give students a faster establishment on the labor market.

The government is working intensively to improve the school and the school system. The investigations I have mentioned are important in this context, but initiatives are also being made, among other things, to improve access to new teaching materials, increase access to special education teachers, strengthen language, reading, and writing development, as well as implementing initiatives for holiday school also in lower grades.

We also want to improve the situation for teachers. An investigation has been commissioned to conduct a broad review of how the administrative burden on preschool teachers and teachers can be reduced so that more time can be spent on teaching, and an initiative is proposed for a better working environment and working conditions for teachers in schools with great challenges.

We need a safe and good school with a focus on knowledge and clear expectations. It is good for everyone and especially for those children and young people who need school the most.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister!

As the Minister correctly summarizes, I would like to know how the Minister views, and if she will work for, partly changing the current order where students are assessed based on different principles depending on how good they are in school, and partly making efforts to reduce the dropout rate. In the latter part, I have received an answer, even if I may not be fully satisfied with them. But in the first part, I have actually not even received an answer.

According to the principles that currently apply for students in Swedish school, you are judged as a whole human being if you manage well in school. Your good sides and the things you are a bit worse at are weighed together, and so you can overall receive perhaps a C or a D in grade. But if you have it difficult in school and are at an E, it is your absolute worst performance that determines that you do not get above E.

It is not reasonable that students in the same class are assessed based on completely different principles depending on how skilled they are. Of course they should receive different grades; that is not strange. But that it is different principles is actually not reasonable. I would very much like to have an answer from the Minister on how she views this and how she intends to act.

The second part concerned the dropouts. We have a major problem with very many students in Swedish school not managing school as it looks today - that is shown by PISA, it is shown by Pirls, and it is shown by much else. We have the same group, time and again, whom we have difficulty lifting in Swedish school. In some surveys, it is those who do not speak Swedish at home, in others it is those with at least one foreign-born parent. But fundamentally, it is the same group.

We know this. We see it time and again. Still, it continues to be so.

From the Minister's response, I can state that it is being considered to lower the requirements to receive an E. That could be a way to handle it. The Minister also says that it is not in itself a problem that there is a grade for non-passed learning outcomes. We are in complete agreement on that. The problem is the consequences of it, for these are today such that you have no future.

We have set a goal that, when it was introduced, was intended to cover perhaps 3-5 percent of the population. In reality, it now covers 14-15 percent of the population. The level of difficulty has also been increased by us changing from very concrete requirements on it must receive an E to very diffuse requirements. One should, for example, be able to report complicated causal relationships just to get an E.

The big problem is that when you don't get an E but perhaps an F in Swedish, mathematics, English or other subjects, you are not allowed to continue your studies. Your path forward is closed. You can possibly take the individual program, but there we know that only 20-30 percent manage to succeed.

This is an elimination that the government deliberately accepts by not wanting to change the consequences of not reaching the eligibility limit as it looks today. It is a problem.

Centerpartiet has noted, in a mini-report that we are releasing today, that it is only in our vulnerable areas that over a thousand students every year graduate without qualifications - a thousand students for whom the best alternative to an income is to join a criminal gang because the state, society, and the school system say: You shall not continue your studies, because you are not allowed to. It is an absurd social model and grading model that we have.

The government's policy creates the best recruitment base for the gangs, as it stands right now. So we cannot have that. It is time to review the system and to open up the vocational programs even for persons who do not have eligibility for upper secondary school.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Niels Paarup-Petersen, who raises a very important discussion!

The question is also extra relevant in times like these. Right now, tens of thousands of teachers are struggling with the grading in primary school ahead of the term grades, which are to be set and distributed to the students in just a few days. It is a time when we can see in black and white that the equivalence is not as good as it needs to be in a country like Sweden. Report after report continues to highlight that equality and equivalence in school is not good enough. The grading system is part of what cements this inequality, and the constructed cut-off point between E and F is one of the reasons.

There is, in fact, every reason to believe that the construction of the grading system has an effect on the well-being of children and young people. It is an aspect that was not raised particularly much in the debate earlier, but the mental ill-health among children and young people in our country is significantly higher than in comparable countries in the Nordic region, the rest of Europe, and the world.

There are reasons to believe that it is more exam-heavy grading that leads to this. It increases the stress and pressure on Swedish students. It stands in complete contradiction to the reforms that we are fairly in agreement on in this chamber. It concerns subject grades and being able to combine grades for just A to D, but it does not apply to the grade E.

Just as has been said earlier, 15 percent of our children in primary school are dropped out every year in the transition between primary school and upper secondary school. I agree with Member Paarup-Petersen that precisely that group is a gold mine for the criminal gangs when they are looking for the next recruitment.

Unfortunately, it is only a constructed elimination of students. It has been created through the introduction of a grade level for failing. It was introduced with the goal-related grading system. But that was not the intention of the system from the beginning, when we introduced it once upon a time. It was, in fact, only a small proportion that were not supposed to pass the passing grade.

This will result in continued large-scale dropouts. But there are actually solutions. Several investigations have looked into it, but unfortunately, the government has closed the door on them. The investigation on more paths to working life, which the minister previously spoke about, actually had the opportunity to investigate this until this spring when the school minister and the government brutally closed the door. One is not allowed to investigate whether it would be possible to change the grading system and the construction of the F grade.

Nor even when the government's own grading investigation to address the issue of equivalence was commissioned, was there anything about investigating the boundary between F and E. We will therefore, year after year, proceed with a constructed elimination system without trying to solve the problem.

I therefore continue, like Niels Paarup-Petersen, to ask: How does the government intend to solve this issue?

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

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! There are different ways to look at the question. The most important thing the government is doing now is that we will shortly appoint an inquiry regarding precisely curricula, course plans and the content therein in connection with what is called grading criteria. Today we have curricula whose requirements it is largely difficult for some students to achieve. They are simply at too high a level in relation to how children's brains develop.

There is a need, among other things, for a greater focus on skills learning, that is, reading, writing, and arithmetic. If 25 percent of our 15-year-olds cannot read properly, they have probably had problems in school, and they will have problems in school. We must do something about this. A greater focus on skills learning is therefore very important. But it is also important with a greater focus on facts, knowledge learning, and so on. Then we will solve some of the problems.

I, however, belong to those who do not believe it is a good idea to let students into a national program if they completely lack the possibility of passing it. The reason they have F in different subjects is actually that they have not managed to reach the levels required to get a passing grade, an E. Should they then sit in the same classroom as students who bring a lot of knowledge with them? Should they sit there without the right to the support that one actually has in the introductory programs, where the idea is that one should complete high school in four years, not three years? The introductory programs themselves are a major support program.

I am extremely eager that we should not create a upper secondary school where we pretend that students have knowledge with them that they actually do not have. There is a risk with that as well. Therefore, I believe there is an overriding risk in removing the limit when it comes to the knowledge. It is actually intended for students who are on the border of receiving an F to receive support.

Then both Niels, Niklas, and I know that such support is implemented far too late in Swedish schools. Much support is provided in grade 9. Actually, it should have been provided much earlier. I think both the Pirls and PISA evaluations show this to a large extent. We must establish a system where support is provided significantly earlier. Above all, it should be provided for what is usually called skills training, that is, reading, writing, and arithmetic.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Minister!

We agree on much of what the Minister of State has now raised. It is good that curricula should be investigated and reviewed. But that does not help now. It is very good that when the investigation is finished at some point, there should be a focus on skills etcetera. But that does not help now. That is the problem.

Of course, we should not let people into national programs for whom they do not have the skills to handle. One can partially solve this through admission based on merit points etcetera, as is done in many other countries.

When the Minister himself went to school, there was no hard passing grade. The investigator in the Grading Investigation, for example, had some ones. He would probably have been excluded from attending today's upper secondary school, but he has become knowledgeable enough to investigate the grading system itself. Perhaps it is not a completely secure system we have at the present time when it comes to excluding who is suitable or not. Maturity etcetera can also have an influence.

What we specifically want to see now is that one must be able to enter a vocational program without choosing higher education eligibility and even without passing the hard limit for a pass. It must be possible to do this in the short term, immediately. It must be possible to do something about the problems that exist out there right now.

Over 1,000 young people, just in our vulnerable areas, go out every year practically without any future opportunities. It is they who are recruited into the gangs. If one wants to take gang crime seriously and do something about that recruitment, one must also provide alternatives. In the current situation, we do not do that. There is virtually no alternative at all for those young people. It is perhaps the stupidest thing we do as a society.

A lot is being done right now. The government is presenting many proposals, such as tougher measures etcetera. The Center Party is on board with most of it. But we must also stop the next generation. It is not enough to lock some up. We must also stop new ones from coming in. As it is now, we have a model that deliberately excludes young people from a legal opportunity for the future. It is incredibly poorly thought out.

We can also talk about many other parts when it comes to what we need to invest in in schools. In the current situation, the government is worsening the working conditions for teachers with various strange inputs regarding reporting laws and much more. They are undermining the finances for the schools as well. And at the same time, they want to make it harder to get into teacher training. This likely does not create more teachers or better conditions in the long run for more of the youth in schools where it is extra difficult to recruit teachers.

It must be said that I am not the slightest bit in doubt regarding Lotta Edholm's intentions to create a good school. But if we want to do something in the short term, something that actually works and something that makes a difference, we cannot continue to wait. We must do something now.

Therefore, I want to ask the Minister again: Would it not be possible to open up our vocational training as early as next year, so that those who do not choose higher education eligibility can enter based on credits instead of having to meet the strict passing requirement? It is very simple. It has been investigated before, and it has been that way before. It provided opportunities forward.

We know that those who do not manage in school and who are not given any alternative today become gang criminals in a higher proportion. When Brå interviewed gang criminals who had entered it as young people, over half had had problems completing primary school. It is them we are talking about. It is over 1,000 people who go straight into the arms of the gangs, because they are the only ones who receive them with open arms. Society pushes them away. It is stupid.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I must continue on the track that Member Paarup-Petersen followed up on. In his answer regarding the grades, the Minister returned to the point that we need to take a huge number of different measures – which is true – to strengthen the Swedish school and focus on ensuring that students receive the help they need in a timely manner. On that, we agree. Students must receive help quickly – and many also receive incredibly fast help in the Swedish school today – but we must do it even better in the future.

The Minister continued to list initiatives that the government is expected or claimed to be undertaking, but one must still discuss the fact that there will actually be less money for the municipalities to carry out what the Minister says. The government does not want to talk about grades or do anything about that matter, but a lot of other things. Then the municipalities must be given the opportunity to finance it, but the government does not increase the state grants to municipalities and regions even close to as much as is needed.

If we Social Democrats had done what we did already last year and this year, there would have been more money for the municipalities and regions and directly to the schools already last year and also this year. Then, one could have implemented knowledge-enhancing measures. But if the government does neither one nor the other and does not look at strengthening the funding as much as is needed or changing the grading system, but instead lets the weeding out of students continue, then they are actually not doing enough to solve the problems in Swedish schools.

What we all want is for our Swedish children and students to receive the best possible knowledge and be able to go to upper secondary school and further into adult life, get work and grow as human beings. Therefore, I continue to ask what the Minister for Education intends to do to reduce the dropout rate between primary school and upper secondary school.

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

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! As I have described before, I believe that the most important initiative we can make is to change the content of curricula and course plans so that they become more adapted to how small children's brains develop. Then more will have the opportunity to achieve the goals, for example, to learn to read and write early.

I believe that the primary school's most important task is to teach young children to read. There is no task that is more important. When approximately 25 percent of 14-15-year-olds cannot read at a level where they understand the meaning of what they read, they obviously have a very difficult time succeeding in other subjects.

Niels wondered if we cannot simply let in students without passing grades - or enough passing grades, when you need passing grades in seven subjects to get in - to national vocational programs. I mean that it would not help these students. One should not believe that it makes them suddenly acquire all these skills. The problem is that they haven't had them previously. They do not have the basic knowledge with them. Sitting in the same classroom as students who actually have it, I do not think helps them. I believe that the dropout rate from upper secondary school will then likely increase rather than decrease.

We have now given the investigation additional directives to review the possibilities for a more pronounced vocational school in Sweden, where students who do not have sufficient grades could gain admission and where there is significantly greater flexibility than in the system we have today. It is actually a bit strange that we think all vocational programs should be three years long, regardless of what kind of vocational program it is. We should have greater flexibility, and I believe we can achieve that with vocational school. Then the discussion will also not be as thorny as it is right now.

One must not delude oneself into thinking that these students will disappear just because one removes the grade F. I unfortunately do not believe that it will solve the problems in any miraculous way if they can get into upper secondary programs for which they lack the knowledge to attend. We need to make much more far-reaching reforms and, above all, provide support much earlier than we do in the Swedish primary school today.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe in miracles either, but I nevertheless thought that I would get answers to both of my questions. We can hope that an answer will come in the final round on the principle question regarding levels and different ways of assessing students.

The answer we have received from the Minister now makes it clear that they want to lower the requirements to even receive a grade of E. They want to stick to a vague grading system and refuse to create a serious funding system, including sector grants that secure the funding of the school. In that case, one can talk about other things they want to do, but if they do not want to address those three things, it becomes strange nonetheless.

When it comes to primary school, I completely agree with the Minister that it is incredibly important that children learn the most basic skills at an early age. That is also why we in our school program have invested in language focus, increased reading, etcetera. The Minister says that it does not help if you let students in if they do not have the right knowledge. I can agree with that. But many of the skills they do have – it is just that they might not have all the skills.

It has never been like this in Sweden before. When the Minister himself went to school, it was possible to get in despite ones and twos. There was no hard limit. In Norway, it does not exist. It therefore does not have to be that way. It is clear that you have help in getting a future opportunity! In the current situation, you are told that if you have an F in Swedish, you can ignore the rest, because you won't move forward. It is clear that you have help in getting to know that there is an opportunity for you ahead regardless of what you have succeeded with so far – just keep doing your best. That must be what we believe in moving forward.

If we are to wait four more years, it is 4,000 more young people who will leave school in vulnerable areas without a chance for the future. This cannot be the answer from society, the Riksdag, and the government.

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

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! Niels is now saying that the students who attend the high school's introductory program have no future opportunities. I would say that is quite harsh criticism against all the people who work in our school system to give those students future opportunities. The very idea of the introductory program is that one is to acquire the knowledge needed to transition to a national program.

I do not believe that the solution to the problem in Swedish schools is to tell all students that it doesn't matter at all what knowledge one has from primary school when entering upper secondary school. One does not need to exert oneself or do one's homework, because one will get into a national program in any case. It is clear that those students will also be knocked out of upper secondary school, because the truth is that the knowledge requirements are quite high. We are going to change the knowledge requirements. We are not going to lower them but change them, but they will still be high.

The difference compared to when I went to school about a thousand years ago and had the 1-5 grading system was that many students never went to upper secondary school. They went directly into industry and got jobs there. Those jobs do not exist to the same extent today as they did at that time, so one should not make the illusion that just because we remove the F grade, no students will be dropped out.

The system we have is fundamentally very generous, I would say, as we give students four years to succeed in upper secondary school instead of three. But the fundamental problem is that we have not implemented measures early enough for these students, for example, to learn to read properly.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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