Response to interpellation 2023/24:533 on ownership of Swedish schools

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! Linus Sköld has asked me how I intend to act so that private economic interests do not determine students' educational opportunities and future. Linus Sköld has also asked me whether I consider it system-threatening that such a large part of the Swedish school system can be sold and given a new direction within a period of only a few months and, if so, how the government intends to act to rectify this.

There are problems with the current rules for independent schools. We must combat unserious and unsuitable actors. It should not be possible to make money by reducing quality, for example by hiring unqualified teachers or by not providing students with the teaching time they are entitled to. Therefore, in June 2023, the government gave additional directives to the Inquiry on Profit in Schools, which is an important piece of a larger reorganization of the independent school policy. The directives mean that the investigator shall propose profit distribution bans or other profit distribution restrictions in schools where there are problems that need to be addressed. Profit distribution bans or profit distribution restrictions can, for example, apply if a school or preschool maintains too low a quality or if it receives state grants intended to address quality deficiencies or otherwise increase the quality in the operations.

It is an answer from politics to all those cases where the actions of unserious and unsuitable actors have compromised the students' right to a good education.

The investigation also has a mandate to investigate stricter requirements for owners and principals of independent schools, preschools, and after-school centers. The investigation shall lead to a broadened and deepened supervision and strengthened possibilities for the National School Inspectorate and the municipalities to intervene. There shall be no room for unserious and unsuitable actors.

The Swedish Schools Inspectorate has found that a relatively large proportion of the individual owners have a sensitive economic situation. The buffer in the form of equity and liquid assets is in many cases very small or non-existent, which, according to the authority, implies a risk of quality problems and closures. The investigator shall therefore propose clearer provisions that an individual owner must have a sufficiently stable economy so that the risk is small of the individual falling into insolvency and perhaps going bankrupt. It should not be enough to have a balanced budget. The regulatory framework should guarantee that the person who starts or acquires an independent preschool, an independent school, or an independent after-school center not only has sufficient financial strength to operate the activity in the long term but also intends to run the activity over a series of years and has the capacity to do so.

Another important piece of the puzzle in the government's reorganization of the independent school policy is the financing system. The school fee is intended to finance the students' education. Today, there are unjustified differences in how many resources different municipalities allocate to schools, and there is a clear need to change the regulations regarding how resources should be allocated. It is not reasonable that individual principals are allocated resources for costs that they do not have. Therefore, the government has recently commissioned an inquiry that shall propose an entirely new system for how resources to independent schools shall be calculated.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Recently, Lotta Edholm has taken to a rather loud tone in the media. She has, for example, said that there are no advantages to publicly traded schools, that the incentives for profit outweigh the incentives for quality, and that the school market can be a reason for what Edholm herself has described as a knowledge collapse. She has confessed, self-reflectively, that the bourgeoisie has had a naive attitude towards independent schools. Still, she can, she says, live with a small profit.

I have submitted this interpellation against the background of the deal that almost took place, when the largest shareholding in Sweden's largest school group was to be sold for billions. After the buyer speculated in the media about changing the pedagogical direction of the operations and declared his view on profit distribution, namely that such should only be done if the students attending the operations pay for it themselves – tax money, according to his view, could therefore not be converted into private profits – the share value plummeted, and the deal was called off.

Beyond the obvious, that Swedish students' education has become something that private interests can make gross profits from, this deal highlights perhaps the heaviest absurdity of the Swedish school system: Private interests, private individuals with deep pockets, can buy themselves control over hundreds of thousands of students' education and change the direction of the operations with a few months' notice. When it means that others can no longer make money on students' education, the deal is blown away.

I imagine that the Minister for Education can empathize with how it felt for the other shareholders. She herself owned shares in a school group quite recently and made money from it when she was appointed minister because the shareholding then increased in value. But if it had been her school group that Akelius wanted to buy into and she had made a similar statement if she had instead lost on the share price movement. It is clear that she would not have wanted it to turn out that way.

Now Edholm is no longer a free school advocate. Now she is the school minister and is responsible for this school system and how it should provide all students with a good education. Therefore, I asked today whether she will act to prevent individual private persons with deep pockets from being able to buy control over students' educational opportunities and future. Does she think it is system-threatening that an individual in one stroke can buy control over hundreds of thousands of children's schooling? If so, what will she do about it?

Lotta Edholm answers that she will combat unserious and unsuitable actors. Does she mean that Akelius' statement that tax money should go to the children's education instead of to profit distribution makes him an unsuitable and unserious actor?

I think that Lotta Edholm needs to answer the questions I have now asked, that is: Does Lotta Edholm think it is reasonable that individuals can buy themselves control over the education of hundreds of thousands of students? Was it that Akelius said that the tax money should go to the children's education instead of to dividends that made him an unsuitable or unserious actor?

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

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! I cannot go into individual cases, which the member is fully aware of. But I can answer the questions that I have received. That is also what I have tried to do.

We must make a number of different changes to the independent school system. A number of different investigations are currently underway. The School Inspectorate has also been given increased opportunities to intervene against schools with quality problems, for example in cases of risk of radicalization, which we have given specific assignments regarding.

There are at least three different investigations ongoing that have bearing on this, including the free school investigation. It concerns largely exactly how profit distributions in various types of problems in the school should be stopped. It can be quality problems, when the ownership structure changes and when a school is started, but also if one receives quality-enhancing state grants.

The major investigation in the area, which concerns financing, is the investigation on a national school funding norm. A large part of it concerns how the independent schools (friskolorna) shall be financed. The proposal is to separate the financing for the municipalities' school systems and the financing for the independent schools so that the independent schools receive payment for the mandate they actually have and nothing more.

I was very happy when I saw the heading of this interpellation. It seemed to be about the ownership of Swedish schools. I thought that Linus Sköld might want to have a discussion about the problems that the ownership of Swedish schools actually presents, for example, how the amount the municipalities invest in their schools differs enormously. There is a difference of approximately 70,000 kronor per pupil per year between the municipality that invests the most and the one that invests the least in the school.

But I was a bit disappointed when I realized that the Social Democrats do not want to have that discussion. That is, of course, because the Social Democrats 30 years ago municipalized the responsibility for Swedish schools. That in itself was a very big mistake. That investigation also addresses a large part of the problems that Linus Sköld raises.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! In the context of this deal and the description provided, I asked the very simple question of whether the Minister considers it to be a threat to the system that such a large part of the Swedish school system can be sold. If she does, I also wondered how she intends to act to rectify that.

The Minister replied that unserious actors shall be combated. It cannot be understood in any other way than that the Minister assesses the actors in this deal as unserious. The question is whether it is those who want to retain the profit in the operation who are the unserious actors or if it is the one who wants to abolish the profit distribution who is the unserious actor.

Where does Lotta Edholm stand on the issue of profit distributions? When listening to her statements in the media recently, it sounds as if she is quite critical of large profits for free school owners. The examples I drew in my previous speech were that there are no advantages to listed schools, that the incentives for profit outweigh the incentives for quality, that the school market can be a reason for what she herself has described as a knowledge collapse, and that the bourgeoisie has had a naive view of free schools.

The billions that disappear in profits into the private pockets of the friskolan owners could have been used, for example, for more learning materials in school, as Lotta Edholm often advocates for. They could also have been used to hire more special education teachers. We are talking about substantial sums of money. They would suffice for much more than what Lotta Edholm manages to secure in any targeted state grants.

We can also talk about the systemic effects that the profit interest has, namely the increasing segregation of the school system. Children of academics and Swedish-born children attend certain schools, while children of parents with a weak educational background and who are foreign-born attend other schools. It is a result of the profit interest. The one who wants to generate a surplus needs, in fact, to segregate out a high-performing student base.

This leads us to the quota system, which Lotta Edholm wants to preserve. It also leads us to the planning issue.

The National Audit Office has stated that this system implies inefficient use of public funds. It does not only leak profits to private owners; with this system, one also has to pay for a place in the school several times. Municipalities are left with costs, and independent schools receive revenue for tasks they do not have. With increased efficiency and a stop to the profit leakage, there would therefore have been much more money in the system. The school needs it now more than ever, with the cost crisis that is ongoing.

I turn directly to Lotta Edholm. Does she think it is reasonable that individuals can buy themselves control over the education of hundreds of thousands of students?

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

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! Again: I cannot comment on individual cases. But the background to the quotes that Linus Sköld read out is that we have problems in the independent school sector. I am the first to admit it. I have also done so in a long series of interviews.

That is why we are now changing the policy in this area, among other things through the investigation on a national school voucher norm. It shall, among other things, ensure that we can guarantee equal conditions in Sweden's municipalities. Regardless of where one lives, one should have an equal school. It shall also provide proposals on how independent schools should be paid for what they do and not for what they do not do.

The large-scale grading investigation has also been commissioned. The idea is that we should have grades that are better linked to, for example, national tests so that we move away from this issue of fraudulent grades. We know that it is a larger problem in independent schools than in municipal schools.

Finally, we have the major friskola investigation, which is to submit proposals on area by area where profit will no longer be able to be taken from the friskolor.

I do all this because I believe there are major problems with the free school system. It is a problem for the entire school system, not just for the individual people who attend the schools that do not meet the quality requirements that can be expected.

But unfortunately, I cannot comment on individual cases.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! My assessment is that it is not a single matter that is affected by the question I have asked. I asked whether Lotta Edholm thinks it is reasonable that individuals can buy control over the education of hundreds of thousands of students, regardless of who does it. Does she think it is reasonable that people with a lot of money can buy control over the education of hundreds of thousands of students? A large proportion of the Swedish school system can disappear in a transaction and receive a completely new direction. Is it reasonable, Lotta Edholm?

If Lotta Edholm were so critical of profits that she really wanted to do something about this, she would not propose to retain the possibility of taking profits out of the school system. Lotta Edholm gave instructions for amendment to the ongoing investigation on the profit ban and said that profits should be allowed. It is profits that Lotta Edholm herself says lead to grade cheating and school segregation. Still, she wants to retain them. How can that be?

Lotta Edholm also wants to fight the unserious actors by forcing a requirement for a buffer among the principals. It will kill off all the small, idea-driven schools from Skolsverige. Those who manage it are the large corporations - those that can be bought for billions. They are the ones who will survive a requirement for a buffer, and that is exactly what Lotta Edholm is after.

Does Lotta Edholm think it is reasonable that individuals can buy control over the education of hundreds of thousands of students?

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

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! The investigation on profit in schools shall also investigate stricter ownership checks at the start, purchase, or takeover of a school.

For me as Minister for Education, it is clear that the most important perspective is the student perspective. For a student attending a school, it is incredibly important that there is economic stability at the foundation. The Swedish Schools Inspectorate has warned that there are schools at risk of being closed on very short notice because the money runs out due to losing a small number of students. For the student attending such a school, it is naturally of no interest whether the school is large or small, because they lose their school place and may end up at a school they perhaps do not want to attend at all. In the worst case, one can also lose time, which is very important when attending school. It is therefore clear that it is important, and I also believe that Linus Sköld himself thinks that a school has economic stability.

People who do not have any economic stability at their core should naturally not be able to start and run schools in any way. I actually believe that Linus Sköld also agrees with that.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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