Response to interpellation 2024/25:181 on extended compulsory schooling
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the possibility of extending compulsory schooling to the age of 18 in order to counter crime and increase employment among young people. S believes that society must demand that all young people participate in education or other activities until the age of majority to protect vulnerable youth 1 2 3. S argues that a duty is an important signal that society cares about the future of young people 3. L argues that most choose to move on and that the individual's uniqueness must be respected 4 5 6. L believes that it may be better for some individuals to work for a period instead of being subject to a compulsory education 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! Paula Örn has asked me how I view the possibility of extending compulsory schooling to the age of 18 and whether I intend to take any initiatives based on my view on the issue.
I completely share the interpellator's view on the importance of young people receiving a high school education in order to be able to gain a stable foothold in the labor market and to reduce the risk of ending up in destructive environments such as crime. That more students begin and complete a high school education is therefore a priority issue for the government.
For that reason, the Inquiry on more paths to working life has, among other things, been tasked with submitting proposals for new elective upper secondary vocational educations that can provide students with a faster entry into the labor market and potentially submitting proposals for changes to the introductory programs. The Inquiry has recently submitted its proposals. I will now familiarize myself with the proposals. The proposals are expected to enable more young people to receive an upper secondary education in upper secondary school.
Education in upper secondary school primarily consists of national programs and introductory programs. The national programs consist of twelve vocational programs and six upper secondary programs for higher education. Introductory programs are available for students who are not eligible for national programs and aim for students to become eligible for national programs or for students to be able to enter the labor market. In this context, it is important to emphasize that students who attend introductory programs do so within upper secondary school and should not be considered excluded from upper secondary education.
The vast majority of students who have completed primary school proceed to upper secondary school, even if not all follow a national program.
The Government is also awaiting proposals from other inquiries, including the Inquiry on equivalent grades and merit values, before further measures in this area are considered.
Paula Örn (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Education for the answer, which however was somewhat brief and did not actually address the Minister's view on the question of extended compulsory schooling to any great extent. But there is every opportunity for the Minister to return and develop his thoughts in the upcoming contributions in the debate.
Of course, there are many reasons why secondary education is so incredibly important and why the issue has become increasingly important. The functioning of the labor market is one such reason. Over the last 20 years, those with short education, that is to say without secondary education, have gone from an employment rate of approximately 65 percent to 60 percent. The gap is also increasing between the proportion of employed in the population and among those with short education; it is now a difference of 20 percent. The unemployment for those who do not have a secondary school diploma is four times higher than for those who have a secondary school diploma. There are many figures, but the trend is clear: The labor market does not demand labor that lacks secondary education.
Madam Speaker! My entry today on the important issue of youth employment actually concerns the galloping and dreadful situation with gang crime in Sweden, a situation that has completely spiraled out of control. We see younger and younger children being drawn into the gangs' claws and younger and younger children murdering other people. It is a dreadful development and a gigantic societal problem that needs many interventions. For example, the Social Democrats have raised issues about the targeting of young people, about youth crime boards, and about taking back control over HVB homes. These are good reform proposals, but they lie outside the responsibility of the Education Committee and the Minister for Education.
Something that, however, lies within our common area of responsibility, Madam Speaker, is the question of compulsory school. How does it look today? Well, half of the young people who finish grade 9 in June have not even turned 16. They are 15 years old. Then we tell these children: Now the requirements for you to contribute to your continued learning cease. I do not think it is quite wise that we do that.
I actually believe that the Minister for Education shares my view on setting requirements: It is about caring. We Social Democrats care about this group of young people. It is completely unreasonable that we as a society do not set requirements that all young people who are not of legal age should participate in some activity to educate themselves, complete an internship, or in some way contribute to their own livelihood.
Madam Speaker! The vast majority of young people today are in a national program or an introductory program - absolutely. But the group that the school fails and who do not reach sufficient knowledge is particularly vulnerable. This concerns both the risk of not being able to support oneself and - what is worse - the risk of being drawn into crime. We know that education is one of the most important protective factors against crime. Research shows that young people who are outside of school are overrepresented in crime statistics. If we then do not act to ensure that all young people are within the school's framework, what does that say about our society?
Johan Pehrson! Is it not reasonable that we as a society show that we care? Is it not reasonable that we demand that young people participate in education or other activities until they reach the age of majority?
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! At the core, I really agree with Paula Örn - to set demands is to care, and earlier and clearer measures are made out of love for the children. So it has not always sounded like that here in the chamber, but now it sounds more and more like that. I think it is very good that there is a broad consensus here.
When it comes to the question of whether school attendance should be extended, one must note that in large part 99 percent still choose to proceed.
There has been talk about the importance of education and cultivation and of learning things, stopping looking at the phone, reading books and whatever it is. All of that is central. But it could be that as a young person one would actually fare better if one worked for a while with a very simple job and got distance from school, which perhaps had not been the most positive experience, in order to then return to education.
If one introduces what the Social Democrats are now arguing for, an extension of the school obligation to the age of 18, it means that many will not have time to complete upper secondary school, as most students turn 18 during year 2 or year 3.
Paula Örn (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. But we have slightly different figures. SKR presented during the autumn a review of the municipal activity responsibility, which is in place today and which means that the municipalities shall follow up all young people up to 20 years of age who do not participate in upper secondary education. There, it is pointed out that 12 percent of them under 20 years of age have at some point been subject to municipal activity responsibility. It is not 1 percent of the young people that we are talking about when it comes to this.
Naturally, we are open to discussion. In my previous speech, Madam Speaker, I tried to clarify that it is about some form of duty to be somewhere when one is 15, 16, or 17 years old. In Finland, it is called compulsory education. There are certainly possibilities to agree, through investigations and other means, that this group shall also be able to participate in apprenticeship training or work in some form.
But the point is that we as a society must demand of such young people that they should not loiter on streets and squares in the way that is possible today. When the police encounter 16-year-olds, they should be able to take them into custody, put them in the police car, and drive them to school, the apprenticeship, or the workplace. That is not the case today.
The Minister for Education emphasizes that it concerns a small group of young people, and that is true. The vast majority attend upper secondary school. But we can see that among those attending the introductory programs, more than half do not manage the transition to a national program within five years, and after five years, only 20 percent have an upper secondary school diploma.
It is not only where the problem exists, but the problem persists because the students further ahead in life receive a very weak anchoring on the labor market. Even if they perhaps get that first job, as Johan Pehrson mentions, it might be the only job they get in their lives. They then fall out of the labor market when they do not have a high school education.
There is much that we need to do to strengthen upper secondary education. I also look forward to continuing to analyze the requirements from the inquiry on more paths, which the Minister for Education mentioned in his first speech.
But I still want to bring the debate back to the question of how we can reach these kids with education and interventions. That requires them to be on-site, and in that case, school attendance, compulsory education, or some form of obligation where society says "you must be here" is a prerequisite for reaching this narrow but very vulnerable group of young people. Does the Minister for Education not see that there would be a value in moving forward with imposing requirements on these young people because we actually care about their future?
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! Daytime school closures so that youth can travel to high school is something we want to avoid. It is central that we continue to have such strong drivers that the young people who do not get into high school have access to introductory programs that also count as part of the high school education and can then transition to a more regular program. There we are prepared to do more, and I mentioned the investigation that has now been delivered, to ensure that more can gain access to a vocational education that takes place at a different pace than the vocational programs that exist today.
I have no other answer to give than that we have no proposal that all young people should be covered by an obligation to participate in upper secondary school. But that does not prevent one from being clear that this is the path to empowerment in the future and a job. Otherwise, it is a municipal responsibility to ensure that these young people do not, as Paula Örn says, loiter around in town. I fully share the views that young people should either study or be active and have a meaningful leisure time.
More can be done there. Many municipalities have varying measures. One has very large ambitions and achieves different results in that work. For a young person who quickly notices that it is difficult to get a job, the motivation to educate themselves hopefully increases, but one should not rule out that there are young people who choose another path for a time, perhaps in consultation with their parents.
Not everyone is the same. That is why I am in the Liberals, and it is probably why Paula Örn is in the Social Democrats. We see the individual's uniqueness, and that is why we do not have any proposal of this type today. But we shall, of course, ensure that the young people do not loiter around in town.
Paula Örn (S)
Madam Speaker! Minister for Education! It is clear that we all want to avoid police intervention. No one is suggesting that this should be the primary tool to get young people to attend upper secondary school or to get an education.
But now we are talking about a rather small group of very vulnerable young people. I think it is significantly better that the police pick up a 16-year-old than that the 16-year-old remains standing with drug-selling gang leaders in the square in, for example, Örebro. That is at least my entry point into the issue.
The municipalities lack tools. This is also shown by SKR's very recent review of the municipal responsibility for activities. It is said, for example, that the biggest problem is reaching the youth. In that case, it would be good to have a fundamental duty. We Social Democrats are open to discussing how to formulate the duty - education duty, compulsory schooling, or attendance duty? - but in some way, we need to send signals to our young people.
To have a duty up to the age of 18 is not only an important reform but also just an important signal. It is a signal to children and young people that we will never stop caring about their future. It is a signal to the whole society that education is our strongest and most important tool for building a safe and just Sweden.
I am honestly a bit surprised that the Minister for Education is not more interested in taking this responsibility together for these vulnerable youths.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! I am happy to listen to all arguments. But I still maintain that there are individuals, people, single persons, whom we must respect. If the individual themselves considers it better to work for a period of time instead of being part of the educational obligation that the interpellator argues for, it may be better for that specific individual. I therefore assume that there would in that case be some kind of educational obligation or training obligation with exceptions.
If little Johan himself and his guardian come to the conclusion that it is good for him to work instead, because it has been rowdy for various reasons, we think that is okay. He has the right to work if he wants to and can, and it can be a way for him to get his life in order. In that case, it would be strange if he were required to be covered by a compulsory education.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.