Response to interpellation 2025/26:578 on the school market
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L argues that the government is carrying out the largest reform of the school in over 30 years by tightening the conditions for private principals and introducing a time-limited ban on value transfer 1. 2 3 L emphasizes that they want to reduce the scope for actors with quality deficiencies and have introduced the principle of public access for increased transparency 2 3. 4 L believes that they have introduced a new grading system, redesigned course and curricula based on research, improved support with special education teachers, increased safety by giving teachers a clear mandate, regulated teachers' working and teaching time, and introduced a principle of public access 4. 5 S argues that the school's money should be used for the school, the teachers, the teaching, student health, textbooks, and the children who need support the most instead of for dividend payments 5. 6 5 S argues that the proposal is not a profit ban because it does not stop profit withdrawals in other situations 6 5. 7 5 S claims that L previously voted against limitations on profit withdrawals and that the government's measures are only a minor adjustment 7 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.
Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)
Mr. Speaker! Linus Sköld has asked me if I assess that the measures the government is now taking in the area of independent schools will be sufficient and if I can do anything further within the scope of my official duties to resolve the problems.
There are certain individual owners who let the profit interest take precedence over the quality in schools and preschools. Actors whose short-term interest is to maximize profits from the operations as quickly as possible are not suitable as owners. That there are individual owners who let the profit interest take precedence over the quality in the operations risks affecting children and students, who do not receive the education they have a right to. It is, of course, completely unacceptable.
Order needs to be established in the school system, and the government is working to significantly reduce the scope for actors with quality deficiencies. Conducting education within the school system means managing society's trust in that mission. We need to clarify what expectations exist for individual school owners and their operations.
It also needs to be ensured that those who own and operate preschools and schools have a long-term and serious commitment to providing a high-quality education, so that all children and students receive the education they are entitled to. Unserious and unsuitable actors who exploit the Swedish welfare system simply must not be allowed to exist in the school system. All forms of abuse of public funds damage trust in the welfare state and need to be countered.
The government has implemented the largest reform of the school system in over 30 years. This includes, among other things, new syllabi and curricula, a new grading system, improved support in schools, increased safety and study environments, a regulation of teachers' and preschool teachers' teaching assignments, and the introduction of the principle of public access for private school providers.
The Government decided in June 2026 on the bill Tightened conditions for the independent school sector (prop. 2025/26:292), which among other things contains proposals for amendments to the Education Act (2010:800). The proposals mean that the conditions for individual operators of independent schools, preschools, and after-school centers are tightened. The purpose is to improve the school system by promoting the long-term perspective of individual operators as well as keeping out unserious and unsuitable actors with short-term profit interests.
To increase long-term sustainability and ensure that tax funds are used to a greater extent for what they are intended for, a value transfer ban is proposed, among other things. The value transfer ban is proposed to apply in three situations and be time-limited: at new establishment, change of ownership, and supervisory orders. In such situations, all economic resources need to be directed towards the operation and the needs of the children and students.
The prohibition means that tax funds shall remain in the operations, and during that time, it is not permitted to distribute profits or other forms of value transfers. To ensure that the rules are followed, a requirement for separate reporting is introduced. In a separate report, it shall appear which funds belong to each school or preschool unit.
I also want to state that the Inquiry on profit in schools in January 2026 submitted its final report Sharpened conditions for the independent school sector – further proposals (SOU 2025:123) which contains more proposals on sharpened requirements for independent actors.
The investigation proposes, among other things, that independent actors with serious and recurring deficiencies shall not be able to expand their operations by starting new schools or preschools or through the acquisition of existing operations. The investigation also submits proposals that give the supervisory authorities better opportunities to assess, upon application for approval, whether the establishment of a new school or preschool entails significant negative consequences for children and pupils in the municipality. The proposals are now being prepared in the Government Offices.
The government is now carrying out a complete renovation of the free school system – the first major review of the sector since its inception over 30 years ago.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I think it is, however, surprising and confusing, because I have on repeated occasions heard Simona Mohamsson say that she wants to exclude the profit interest from the school. She is going to kick out the limited companies, she has even said.
I therefore think it is somewhat astonishing that the Minister of State says things here that still sound as if she is sticking to this, while the proposal she describes does not at all mean what the Minister for Education has said she wants to do.
The Minister says that the government is now ensuring that tax funds remain in the operation. The government's proposal is not a total ban on profit withdrawals. What Simona Mohamsson has submitted to the Riksdag is a time-limited value transfer ban that shall apply in three specific situations: in new establishments, in changes of ownership, and when a principal has received a supervisory order.
That means that a private school group that is not in any of these three situations can freely continue to distribute profit to its owners. It is therefore not a profit ban. It is not a general stop for profit withdrawals.
When the government's responsible minister says that she will stop the profits in the school, I think that people expect it to be a simple decision that is to come. Tax money intended for the students' education should go to the students' education, not to dividend payments. But as said: That is not what Simona Mohamsson proposes.
It becomes strange when she, in the same post, continues to say that actors whose short-term interest is to maximize profits are not suitable school providers. If she means that seriously, the next question is: Why should they be allowed to extract profit from the school at all? Why should tax money earmarked for children's and students' education be able to go towards returns to owners at all?
The answer is perhaps that Jimmie Åkesson wants it that way. It could also be that the Christian Democrats and Ebba Busch, who according to this morning's press conference are to become the new bourgeois school party, want it that way. But then the responsible minister will damn well have to stick to the policy the government is driving!
At the same time as schools have great needs for resource reinforcements, greedy corporate owners continue to cut out billions of the taxpayers' money. Money that should have gone to children's education ends up in the shareholders' pockets instead. Researchers, professionals, and a large majority of voters agree: It is unjust. It is bad for the school's quality and equality. It is harmful.
Education Minister Mohamsson and her representatives in the position have sat with their hands in their pockets and watched for four years. And now, when 98 percent of the mandate period has passed, she has finally managed to produce a government bill.
The question I asked in the interpellation was: Is it the Minister's assessment that the measures the government is now taking in the area of independent schools will be sufficient? That question still echoes unanswered in here.
Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)
Madam Speaker! It is so exciting – the election campaign is truly underway, and it is also noticeable here in the chamber!
We have made the biggest changes that have been made by the independent school system since it was introduced. As party leader, and not as education minister, I have been clear that much more can be done. If we are now going to stand and throw respective coalition parties at each other, I can mention the Center Party's independent school lobby, which you want to cooperate with. But let us instead focus on what we have now accomplished and which perhaps was unthinkable at the beginning of this mandate period.
It is about a principle of public access that gives teachers, journalists, and parents the same level of insight into independent schools as one has today in municipal schools. It is a change that truly matters so that we can have the same level of insight. What is the money spent on? How is the school activity conducted?
The ban on value transfer – which is now being spoken of as something that is just peanuts – is the biggest change in 30 years when it comes to tackling quality deficiencies. If you deliver quality deficiencies in school, you should not be able to make a profit.
I understand that Member Sköld has much higher expectations of the Liberals in this issue, just as I did when the Social Democrats governed the Ministry of Education for eight years. But we have made changes to the free school system.
Let us now not involve each other's coalition partners in this debate, because then I might as well involve your coalition partners and ask you what it would be like if the Social Democrats were to once again get power over the Ministry of Education.
(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I want to remind you that we do not say "you" or "you" but "the member" or names.)
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! Since Simona Mohamsson began talking about the Social Democrats' eight years in power, I think it could be appropriate to provide a brief historical exposé regarding the issue of regulating the profits of friskolor.
During the 2014–2018 parliamentary term, there were proposals to limit profit extraction on the Riksdag's table. The Liberals or possibly the then Folkpartiet – I am a bit unsure – voted no. During the previous parliamentary term, there were proposals to stop waiting time as a selection basis for oversubscribed popular education programs and to change the school fee so that independent schools would not be paid for tasks they do not perform. The Liberals voted no.
An investigation was appointed to ban profit in schools.
Since this mandate period began. It started with Lotta Edholm as Minister for Education – directly from the board of a private school group. Then, just like now, there was talk of a complete renovation of the private school system. There was also talk of historical investments, which upon closer inspection turned out to be cuts. But that is another part of school policy.
Now the Minister says the same thing, that is to say that the government is carrying out the largest review of the sector in 30 years. But among the first things Lotta Edholm did when she stepped into the role that Simona Mohamsson now has was to forbid the profit ban investigation from investigating exactly a profit ban. Are you following? The first thing the Liberals did when they took over the Ministry of Education was, therefore, to remove the directive to investigate a profit ban.
Since then, the Liberals, probably due to a severe case of opinion panic, have promised that they will abolish profits and prohibit limited companies from running schools. And now Simona Mohamsson returns with a proposal that does not prohibit profits.
It is obvious that Simona Mohamsson and I understand the word complete renovation in different ways. If one says that they are going to renovate the entire house, it is not enough to nail plywood over the smashed windows.
With the government's policy, the problem remains. Limited companies can still run schools, profits can still be taken out, and tax money can still be converted into private profits. The basic logic of the school market, that is, the logic that pays school owners who can best segregate the student population, still remains.
The Minister says that unserious actors should be removed. That would be good, but it is insufficient. For me and for the voters, the problem is that money that society has allocated for children's education can leave the school as profit at all. For Simona Mohamsson, the problem seems to mostly be the opinion polls.
Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Today there are several inherent problems with the free school system. I believe that the member and I agree on this. When it comes to whether we have made the biggest changes in over 30 years, our opinions seem to differ. The Social Democrats, however, have no track record of having achieved any changes to the free school system when they sat in the Ministry of Education. This may be because they are not so good at getting other parties on board or for other reasons.
What we in the government have now succeeded in is making major changes to address the quality deficiencies. We have introduced a principle of public access to increase transparency and a value transfer ban in cases of quality deficiencies so that the school cannot be used to extract money despite not delivering school.
Order needs to be established in the school system, and that requires a significant reduction of the space for those actors who have quality deficiencies. Here, Madam Speaker, I believe the dividing line lies. What I think is bad is when a free school has poor quality – not the free school itself. That is where the difference will be. The Social Democrats are so obsessively focused on removing the free schools and the freedom of choice that they only care about how a school is operated, not whether it is good or bad.
The starting point for me will be and remain that schools that do not meet the standard shall not be able to take out profit. Therefore, we have introduced a value transfer ban and created the same transparency. We shall not remove the freedom of choice for Sweden's parents and students.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! The election campaign is definitely underway, and the practice that Simona Mohamsson engages in, namely misinterpreting the policies of other parties, I thank you for.
Freedom of choice is here to stay. The Social Democrats are not against independent schools, but against profit as a driver for those who run independent schools – nothing else. Simona Mohamsson shall not go unchallenged in spreading an image of something else.
We did not, in fact, get through any changes regarding the profits of the friskolor or the friskole system at all during the last parliamentary term. However, that has nothing to do with us, but rather with the Liberals changing their minds more often than I change my underwear.
With this overall renovation, it seems to be becoming like with the historical investments. The historical investments became cuts, and this overall renovation seems to be becoming a minor adjustment. A time-limited value transfer ban in three situations does not mean any total stop for profit extraction, and to say that one wants to keep unserious actors away is not the same as settling the matter of the profit interest itself.
Calling this a complete renovation does not change the actual effects of the policy. I think the voters deserve better than a minister who says one thing and does another. They deserve a government that is clear about what it is doing. Swedish school deserves a system where the school's money is used for the school, the teachers, the teaching, the student health, the textbooks and the children who need support the most – not for dividend payments.
If the Minister truly means what she says, that actors who put profit interests before the students' education are not suitable to run schools, the next step should be quite simple.
Tax money for schools should go to schools – not to profits.
Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)
Madam Speaker! The government has implemented the largest reforms in 30 years – not because it is great fun to change a lot of things in the school, but because it has been necessary. The school has needed to be changed fundamentally, because we have seen what Swedish classrooms look like.
We have introduced a new grading system so that children are not ruled out because of the F grade. We have revised the courses and curricula so that they do not focus on fluff, but rather that children's learning should actually be based on research on how the brain works. We have ensured to improve the support in school, because we know that children need and deserve early interventions from real special education teachers.
We have increased safety and study by giving teachers a clear mandate to decide in the classrooms. We have ensured to regulate teachers' working and teaching time, because we know that teachers have been on their knees during the last decades, as they have been scheduled to be matrons and clean.
We have introduced a principle of public access, because we believe it is important that there is the same level of transparency in how private and municipal actors use the money.
I do not believe that the member and I will agree on how Swedish school should be governed moving forward, because we fundamentally have completely different starting points when it comes to what is the problem with Swedish school today. The government's changes to the independent school system are important, right, and correct, but it is equally important to do the same in the rest of the school. Merely changing the market school will not save the rest of the school. On that point, my and the member's opinions differ.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.