Response to interpellation 2023/24:494 on the review of school compulsory attendance regulations
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a review of provisions regarding breaches of compulsory school attendance following the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism that current legislation is not being correctly applied 1. L argues that it is of the utmost importance that children receive their right to education and that the municipalities fulfill their obligations. L admits that the legislation is not strong enough to protect children from incidents such as those in Ystad and that principals sometimes grant too much leave 2. L believes that the municipalities should be tougher with coercive fines 3. S argues that the government must take the recommendations seriously and demands a clear timetable for when a government inquiry should be appointed 1 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)
Mr. Speaker! Linus Sköld has asked me if I intend to take the initiative to review the provisions regarding compulsory school attendance in the Education Act and, if so, when such an initiative can be expected to be taken.
I would like to emphasize initially that it is of the utmost importance that all children have their right to education fulfilled and that the municipalities fulfill their obligations regarding the monitoring of compulsory school attendance.
In the audit report from the Swedish National Audit Office that Linus Sköld refers to, the overall conclusion was that the provisions in the Education Act (2010:800) regarding leave, fulfillment of compulsory school attendance in other ways, and termination of compulsory school attendance during prolonged stays abroad are not applied in accordance with the legislator's intentions. The Swedish National Audit Office has recommended that the government take the initiative to change the provisions in the Education Act and then consider how long leave decisions a principal should be able to make, whether a possibility for a sanction fee should be introduced in the Education Act, and whether the provision on prolonged stays abroad should only be applicable to children of state employees stationed abroad.
The Riksdag has instructed the Government to follow the recommendation that the Swedish National Audit Office provides to the Government in the audit report. The Riksdag has also instructed the Government to review the possibility of introducing a national absence register.
The question of which measures are needed regarding exemptions from compulsory school attendance is complicated and requires careful analysis. Within the Government Offices, work is currently underway on such an analysis. The Government will return to the issue.
In order for students to be able to benefit from the teaching, they must both be in school and experience safety and a sense of calm in school. As part of the work regarding students' attendance in school, the government has, for example, decided on the committee directive Lasting improved safety and calm in school (dir. 2023:154). The investigation's mandate includes, among other things, to submit proposals for a national absence register that enables systematic follow-ups of students' school absences.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! Attending school is both a duty and a right for all children in Sweden. That everyone attends school is important so that, with the help of school, we can level the differences in life chances that are largely determined by the upbringing environment at home.
The obligation means that all children between 6 and 16 years of age must attend school and participate in the activities and teaching organized there. But there are some situations that constitute exceptions to the obligation to attend school. That is what this review from Riksrevisionen is about.
The background to the review is what was highlighted in the media well over five years ago at this point. It is referred to as the Ystad case. The parents in a family of five children had kept the children away from school for many years by pretending that the family was abroad.
Just as the Minister reported that the Swedish National Audit Office reviewed three provisions that break school attendance, one of which is to reside abroad permanently. But it also concerns leave and fulfilling the school attendance requirement in another way.
The National Audit Office issued rather sharp recommendations, which the Minister dutifully accounted for. In its response, the government at the time left the somewhat vague formulation that it intended to take the issue forward in its continued work. At that point, the Education Committee said in unison and unanimously: That is not sufficient. The government must take the National Audit Office's recommendations seriously.
One of the recommendations is to review how the legislation on the school attendance regulations, which I have just listed, works, to simply review what the legislation should look like so that it works. These rules are applied differently in different places, and it works very poorly. That is the Swedish National Audit Office's summary conclusion.
When Lotta Edholm took office in the autumn of 2022, some time passed, and then I submitted a written question to Lotta Edholm asking if she intended to conduct a review of the regulations regarding the breach of compulsory school attendance. Lotta Edholm stated in her answer that the government intends to return to the issue and is analyzing the recommendations. Anyone who just listened to Lotta Edholm could hear that a year of analysis yields exactly the same answer. Work is ongoing with such an analysis, and the government will return to the issue, Lotta Edholm answered just now. My follow-up question is: When then?
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Mr. Speaker! I actually do not dare to answer that question, because this is incredibly complex. The National Audit Office points out that the legislation that exists today is not being followed in the way that was intended. Then one must consider in what way the legislation should be changed. That work is ongoing.
I really want to say that I take this very seriously. The legislation is not strong enough today when it comes to protecting children from the type of incidents that occurred in Ystad. It is also the case that principals sometimes grant too much leave in relation to what the intentions in the Education Act were. But I do not dare to say today when we can provide directives for a new investigation in this area.
What has however been done is that in the investigation concerning safety and study conditions, there is a mandate to produce a national absence register for Swedish schools. It is of course an important step towards ensuring that we know what the conditions actually are. It was also one of the points that the Swedish National Audit Office had included.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! When I was principal, I worked with the application of this legislation. I have some authentic examples.
A family went on a holiday trip for several months in Thailand. They enrolled their child at an institution called Svenska skolan. Is this to be considered the special reasons required to fulfill the school obligation in another way?
A student teacher wanted to do their VFU at the Swedish school in Gran Canaria. Is this to be considered special reasons for fulfilling the school obligation in another way?
What applies to students who have parents who must be in the United Kingdom every half year for work reasons? Does the school obligation cease because one stays abroad permanently if one does so for half a year and then returns?
The National Audit Office pointed out that the guidance to the principals regarding the application of this legislation is very meager. The investigation that Lotta Edholm spoke about and which she has commissioned regarding safety and study and a national absence register is intended to keep track of what happens when students are in school and have an obligation to be there. But this is about the provisions for when students are not required to be in school. The question therefore remains. Does Lotta Edholm envision a review of the provisions? How long is a short leave of absence that can be granted and delegated? How long is a longer leave of absence that requires special reasons?
This is about the overlap in the regulations, the difficulties with the application, and the lack of supervision of how they are applied. In order for us not to have more Ystad cases, Lotta Edholm would need to take the issue of the obligation-breaking regulations seriously, review how they function and how they should be designed moving forward. If we are standing here again in a year and Lotta Edholm says that the recommendations are being analyzed and that she will get back to the issue, I will be deeply disappointed.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Mr. Speaker! Linus Sköld's statement shows how extremely complicated this is. The issues overlap when it comes to this type of legislation.
If you take your child out of school without the principal having granted leave, there is a possibility of a coercive fine. This has also been tested. I have personally been involved in such cases as a school board member in Stockholm. I believe that the municipalities should sometimes be tougher in that regard and make it clear to parents that one can expect a fine if the school obligation is breached.
Compulsory schooling is not for the parents but for the children and so that they should receive a good education. But it is not uncommon for parents to choose to take their children out of school for a month to travel abroad and then come back and demand that the school implement extra measures because the child has missed instruction. It is, of course, completely unacceptable.
The government is, as said, working on this issue, but it is quite complicated. I want to add that Skolverket has made a clarification on its website regarding what applies in these matters, but I am prepared to look over this further because I believe some form of government inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of all this. It is complex.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! One must assume that when legislation is to be changed, as is intended to be the case in this instance, it is preceded by an investigation. I assume that when Lotta Edholm says that she intends to return, it means that she intends to return with directives for a government investigation. So it is, of course.
Regarding the national absence register and the ongoing investigation on safety and study, would the children in the Ystad case not have appeared in the register because they were not considered to have a school obligation, with reference to the fact that the family resided abroad permanently? What is required to address such cases is a tightening and a clarification of how the provisions regarding breach of school obligation should function and be applied.
The government has now analyzed this and on two occasions with more than a year's interval requested to return to the issue. I expect that Lotta Edholm will return to the issue in the near future and that it will then mean that she appoints an investigation to review the regulations.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Mr. Speaker! It is clear that a national absence register would not have affected Ystadfallet because the children were discharged from school because the parents had said that they were no longer attending Swedish school but were abroad. A national absence register can be useful when students, for example, have been granted leave to travel abroad or whatever it may be. This shows that all of this is very complex.
I think it is important to see the whole picture and take initiative to do something about the problems. The legislation needs to be clarified - it is quite obvious.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.