Response to interpellation 2024/25:475 on gender pedagogy in schools
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L believes that the school should return to the basics with a focus on reading, writing, and arithmetic 1. L believes that the school should convey values such as equality, but that the teaching must rest on a scientific basis and proven experience 1 2 3. L wants to reduce parents' influence over the teaching in order to strengthen teachers' responsibility and create order and clarity 1 4. 5 SD believes that gender pedagogy lacks scientific evidence for improved learning outcomes and that the school should not be a place for pedagogical experiments 5 6. 7 SD wants transparency and that parents should have insight into what the children are learning 7 6. 3 L believes that something must be done about what has been discussed and that the government works on this daily 3.
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)
Madam Speaker! Sara Gille has asked me what scientific evidence there is that gender pedagogy in schools contributes to improved learning outcomes and how I and the government ensure that teaching in Swedish schools is free from ideological influence and instead focuses on knowledge transmission and proven methods. Sara Gille has also asked what measures I and the government intend to take to strengthen parents' influence over whether their children should participate in gender pedagogical elements in school.
Let me begin by stating that my and the government's view is that the school should return to the basics. There should be a strong focus on basic knowledge and skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic, especially in the early grades. In this regard, I agree with Sara Gille that the school's focus should be on improved learning outcomes.
At the same time, the school shall convey both knowledge and values. According to the Education Act, the education shall, among other things, convey and anchor respect for human rights and the fundamental democratic values on which Swedish society rests. Here, equality between women and men constitutes a part. It is therefore part of the school's mission to promote equality.
On 26 February 2025, the Curriculum Inquiry submitted its report Knowledge for All – new curricula with a focus on teaching and learning (SOU 2025:19). The inquiry submits proposals for a new introductory part in the curriculum for primary school, which contains overarching parts about the school's values, mission, goals and guidelines. The inquiry notes that in today's curriculum there are many writings about equality, gender identity and gender patterns, which is a result of several additions that have been made over the years. To avoid repetitions and create a better balance between different areas, new, more concentrated writings are proposed.
There is no contradiction between the school's mission in this part and that the education shall be based on a scientific foundation and proven experience, which is also a priority for me and the government. In this context, I would like to take the opportunity to mention that the Curriculum Investigation proposes several reinforcements within the area. It is proposed, among other things, that the syllabi for each subject shall contain teaching strategies. The strategies shall provide guidance on how the teacher, based on a scientific foundation and proven experience, shall proceed in the planning and implementation of the teaching.
Regarding the question of increasing parents' influence in school, it is my and the government's view that their influence should decrease when it comes to the teaching. Today's regulations can be perceived as the teacher's responsibility for the teaching being limited by both the students' and the guardians' right to influence. This is not acceptable. It should be clear in the school regulations that it is the teacher who plans and decides on the teaching.
Therefore, both the Curriculum Inquiry and the Inquiry on Strengthened Safety and Study Environment in School (SOU 2025:8), which submitted its report on 29 January 2025, have proposed that it should be clarified in the Education Act that it is the teacher who decides on and leads the teaching. The Inquiry on Strengthened Safety and Study Environment in School also proposes that it should be clarified that it is to a limited extent that guardians shall be given the opportunity for influence.
I look forward to the continued preparation of the proposals from, among others, these investigations. They constitute important foundations in the work of re-establishing a strong knowledge school that rests to an even greater extent on a scientific basis and proven experience.
Sara Gille (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer to my interpellation!
It is positive that the government says it wants to strengthen the school and improve the students' knowledge results. But I am wondering a bit whether the government's ambitions with gender pedagogy still have a place in education, despite that its effects on knowledge development are highly unclear.
Gender pedagogy has become a concept that many highlight as a method for creating equality and breaking traditional gender roles. But the central point is not what the pedagogy says it wants to achieve, but what the result actually becomes.
According to the Swedish Gender Equality Authority's own research overview from 2023, there is no clear evidence that gender pedagogy contributes to improved academic performance. At the same time, the Education Act is clear that teaching shall be based on a scientific foundation and proven experience. So how can it be reasonable to continue using a method that lacks just this?
Madam Speaker! Swedish schools are in a crisis. Knowledge results are falling, students' reading skills are deteriorating, and the studies are lacking. In such a situation, we should have all our focus on improving teaching, ensuring that every student receives the knowledge they need, and strengthening the teachers' conditions to provide high-quality instruction. Instead, the resources are being used for pedagogical experiments that have not been shown to lead to better school results.
The Minister emphasizes that the school shall convey both knowledge and values. Equality is a given, but it does not mean that the teaching should be characterized by a certain ideological orientation. Justice, equal opportunities, and respect for one another are fundamental values, but they do not need to be packaged in a pedagogy that lacks scientific grounding.
The government says it wants to clean up and simplify the curriculum, but at the same time, unscientific methods continue to be given space. Changing documents is easy, but it does not solve the problems if the school in practice continues to be characterized by ideology instead of knowledge.
The important thing is that the teaching in practice is free from ideological influence and that the school's resources are used to strengthen the students' actual knowledge. We need a school that is built on facts and not on theories that lack support in research.
Madam Speaker! My question to the Minister is therefore: What measures does the government intend to take to ensure that teaching in Swedish schools focuses on knowledge transmission and is not used as a tool for ideological influence?
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! This is a very important issue. I belong to those who believe that Swedish school, over the years, has been characterized by far too many pedagogical experiments without scientific grounding.
There are many different explanations for this, but one is that postmodernism and constructivism gained a very large foothold in Swedish schools and Swedish pedagogical research in a way that is not quite comparable to the conditions in other countries. It was a direction that meant that students should seek their own knowledge, that teachers should not be teachers but some kind of coaches, that there was something wrong with grades and tests, and so on.
All this has led to the fact that the school does not always quite build on a scientific basis and proven experience. There is much in today's curriculum and in today's syllabi that shows this. The Government is now working on all of this and is already trying, where possible, to write in that the teaching shall rest on a scientific basis and proven experience.
This is incredibly important, and I would say that the entire policy is now focusing precisely on this. It concerns both curricula, grading systems, and the proposal for new teacher training. There is also a strong focus on the students who need extra support and help in school, for even this has sometimes rested on a non-scientific basis.
Sara Gille (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer!
I would like to raise a part of the Minister's response to the interpellation which causes great concern, namely the government's position on parental influence.
The Minister says that the government's ambition is to reduce the guardians' opportunity to influence the teaching. It is a remarkable position. Parents are those who know their children best, and they should have special insight into and the opportunity to influence what their children learn in school.
The school's mission is to educate, but that does not mean it should be allowed to implement pedagogical methods without transparency and without parents being informed about what their children are exposed to. It is not about parents deciding on every single lesson; that is not what this is about. It is about the right to receive information about and insight into the teaching. Today we see examples of gender-pedagogical elements being introduced without the home being informed. It creates concern and reduces trust in the school.
The development is not unique to Sweden. In the United Kingdom, The Times has reported on parents reacting to schools introducing gender-pedagogical elements without informing the homes, which has led to demands for greater transparency.
When schools introduce pedagogical methods without dialogue with parents, it risks creating conflicts between home and school instead of cooperation.
Madam Speaker! A well-functioning school is built on cooperation between teachers, students, and parents. Parents are not a distraction in the school; they are an asset. They should not replace the teachers, but they should also not be excluded from issues concerning their children's education.
That the government wants to limit parents' influence risks worsening students' schooling and creating a deeper divide between school and home. Teachers shall have the mandate to teach, but it must not become an excuse to keep parents out of important decisions.
Respect for teachers is crucial, but equally important is the respect for the fact that parents are a natural part of children's education. If we continue to exclude guardians from the school, what happens then to the trust in the school system? If parents experience that their opinions are ignored, trust in the school decreases, and cooperation is weakened.
Students succeed best when the school's work is supported by the home. Parents and teachers are not adversaries. They are both crucial for the children's schooling. A school that limits parents' insight undermines the trust needed to create a safe and knowledge-focused school environment.
Madam Speaker! I would like to ask the Minister: Why does the government consider that this specific issue should be exempted from the influence that parents have a right to?
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! Swedish children have an absolute right to education. We received our first real folk school charter in 1842. It was very important, and it happened many times against the parents' will. The parents wanted to keep the children in agriculture, for example. But the politicians of that time said that school was so important for the children's development and for Swedish society that they were prepared to go against the parents' will.
For me, it is about the child's right to a good education. Today, we have a major problem with parents interfering in the teaching in a way that makes many teachers consider leaving the profession.
I am a bit surprised by Sara Gille. Just a moment ago, we had another interpellation debate, which was about children fasting in school during Ramadan. I do not believe that parents should be able to force their children to do that, and I do not think that parents should have an influence on the school and force the school to forbid the children from eating.
It is important that the school has its integrity, and it is important that the activities that exist rest on a scientific basis and proven experience. It has not always been so, and it is not always so. But I do not believe, like Sara Gille, that increased parental influence over the teaching in Swedish schools would lead to a better school.
Parents already have a right to influence today. Students also have a right to a real influence over the teaching, as expressed in the curriculum. It is a major problem in Swedish schools that parents take rights to interfere in the teachers' work in a way that makes us have a major problem with order and discipline in Swedish schools. We have a major problem with insecurity, and many teachers feel threatened by parents who have opinions about their own children's teaching.
The Government considers that we must limit both students' and parents' right to interfere in the teaching in Swedish schools.
Sara Gille (SD)
Madam Speaker! I believe the Minister is interpreting me slightly incorrectly here. I do not mean that parents should take away rights. What I am talking about is transparency. I completely agree with the Minister.
Swedish schools face great challenges. Students' knowledge is declining, safety in the classrooms is deficient, discipline has deteriorated, and respect for teachers has been eroded. Far too many students leave school without being sufficiently prepared for the future.
At the same time, we see that gender pedagogy is still being used, despite the lack of clear scientific evidence that it leads to better school results.
School simply should not be a place for experiments. It should be a place where students receive the right tools to succeed in life, regardless of background and gender. This means that school must reward knowledge, encourage hard work, and give every student an honest chance to develop based on their abilities.
The Minister has, in his response, referred to the Curriculum Inquiry and the need to simplify the curriculum. That is a very good start, but it does not solve the problem of the ideological framing of the school. As long as gender pedagogy and similar methods are permitted in teaching, they take resources and focus away from the school's real mission: to convey knowledge.
The Sweden Democrats want a school where the teaching is based on proven methods and where the teachers have the mandate to maintain order and discipline.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! It is incredibly important that we get a school that rests on a scientific basis and proven experience. Ensuring this, I would say, is the absolute most important role of school policy.
We are now working very hard to achieve, for example, new curricula within primary school and a new grading system, as well as ensuring that we get safety and study environments in our schools. All of this is incredibly important so that students actually get to take away the knowledge they are entitled to. It is unacceptable that 20–25 percent of students cannot read properly, in many cases precisely because they have been exposed to unscientific experiments or methods that are not scientifically substantiated, for example, regarding how to teach small children to read.
We must do something about all of this, and the government is now working on this daily.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.