Time for the teaching assignment

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! How glad I am that we have reached this debate and that we will soon finally get to vote on this. This is the most important teacher reform since the 90s. It is therefore with great pride that we from the Liberals and the government present this to the Riksdag, and it is with great joy that we debate this today.

Since teachers' teaching time was deregulated in the 90s, it has increased by over two weeks per school year. At the same time, the administrative burden has swollen. It speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, that it is completely unsustainable. It has also proven to be unsustainable. Nine out of ten teachers state that they have too many work tasks to be able to focus on teaching, and over half have considered resigning.

This obviously affects both the teaching and the students. It is part of the explanation for why the school is not achieving the results we had hoped for, and it is part of the explanation for why far too many teachers choose to actually resign and not continue in this important profession.

One contract negotiation after another – after deregulation, this was to be resolved through contracts – the teachers have tried to secure better conditions, but the employers' organization SKR has refused to meet them. Social Democrat-led SKR has decided that the teachers' planning time shall be the municipalities' buffer for savings. The quality in the school shall be a buffer for savings for Sweden's municipalities.

That is why we in Liberalerna have pushed for a national regulation to be put in place. This is part of the broad re-regulation of Swedish school. Since this cannot be solved through agreements, it needs to be solved through legislation. Today we are debating this report, and I naturally move for approval of the proposal.

The teaching mandate will once again be protected with a floor for planning and a ceiling for teaching. At the same time, the administrative burden is also being reduced.

This is an important announcement to the country's most important profession, to all parents who have children in school, and to all students studying around the country. Teachers will have time for their planning and time for their teaching. They will want to stay in the profession to a greater extent because they will have a more reasonable workload.

It is pleasing that so many parties are now joining behind this line, even though there are motions and requests that go against our report. I think this should be a fairly low-prestige issue. Everyone claims that they want teachers to have reasonable working conditions. At the same time, there are politicians who think that it should not be regulated and that SKR should have more to do with this, that is to say that those who have failed since the 90s should be allowed to continue to drive the teaching profession into an unsustainable workload.

The Social Democrats, for example, emphasize in their motion that they would rather have a dialogue with the parties. This means, in practice, that they want to retain SKR's ability to say no in the way that SKR does. Regardless of what they say in the media, that is what they have presented in the Riksdag.

So we cannot have that. SKR has not succeeded in creating reasonable working conditions for teachers since the 90s. It has gone the wrong way since the 90s, when you deregulated and gave the power to SKR.

The Liberals have taken a stand for and promoted this, and I am proud that this proposal is now on the Riksdag's table. We cannot let SKR have the responsibility for one of the most important components for quality in Swedish schools because they are not capable of handling it.

This is also a good example, Mr. Speaker, of why the school should be nationalized. It is not just for the teachers but for the teachers, the parents, the students and the future of all of Sweden. Therefore, it is so important that we regulate the teaching mandate and the planning time and ensure that the teachers get reasonable working conditions. Therefore, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

In this speech, Patrick Reslow (SD) as well as Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström and Joanna Lewerentz (both M) agreed.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of reservation 2 and reservation 3.

Today we are debating the report Time for the teaching mission. It is fundamentally about what conditions we provide for all the teachers who every day uphold the Swedish school – in every classroom, in every school and in every part of the country.

Teachers are the most important professional group for creating quality in teaching. It is in the meeting between teacher and student that knowledge grows and where students receive support, are challenged, and are given the opportunity to reach further. Therefore, teachers must also have reasonable conditions to fulfill their mission.

It is against that background that we Social Democrats vote yes to the proposition's proposal to give the government the opportunity to regulate teachers' teaching time as well as time for planning and follow-up – regardless of what the Liberal Joar Forssell just said in his speech. If more students are to leave grade 9 with passing grades, reach the knowledge goals and learn to read, write and calculate properly, teachers must be given the time and conditions to do what is the school's core task: teaching.

But, Mr. Speaker, a yes to the bill is not the same as us meaning that the government is finished with its work. For the reform to have real significance in the classrooms, it is required that it is implemented in a way that works in practice, that it is financed responsibly, and that it can be carried out throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker! That is why we Social Democrats have a number of objections to this report. If the reform is to lead to more time for the teaching mandate and to students meeting more qualified and skilled teachers across our country, the government must ensure the funding.

We must not end up in a situation where a reform intended to strengthen teaching in practice leads to the opposite: that more classrooms are left without qualified teachers and that there are larger teaching groups and perhaps even more cancelled lessons. That is why we need to ensure that a reform which gives teachers better conditions does not simultaneously make it harder for students to meet skilled teachers.

This reform has the potential to become important and impactful, but that requires the government to take responsibility for the implementation. During the mandate period, we have repeatedly heard the government talk about historical investments in schools. But we have been able to observe that instead, there has actually even been less money in the municipalities and in the schools, and that teachers and students may have even faced cuts. This must not be repeated.

If the state decides on a reform that affects teachers' time, schools' organization, and the principals' ability to plan the teaching, the state must also ensure that the resources are sufficient. Otherwise, we risk being left with a reform that looks very good on paper but which does not provide the students with teaching in practice.

For us Social Democrats, the starting point is clear. Students shall meet qualified teachers. Teachers shall have time to plan, teach, and follow up on the teaching. But the government must bear the responsibility that the reform does not lead to gaps in terms of school staffing or to further pressure on already strained schools.

Mr. Speaker! The Government is now presenting several reforms in the school area. A broader and clearer dialogue has been needed on how the reforms should be designed and implemented in practice. It is not just about making decisions in the Chamber. It is also about ensuring that it works in reality.

We mean that the development of these reforms should have occurred in a clearer dialogue both between us political parties and with the labor market parties. It would have been fully reasonable to do in the way that is usually done on the Swedish labor market, by virtue of the Swedish model. It is about employers and employees being given the opportunity to sit down and discuss, identify problems, and contribute to solutions that hold over time. Here, the state would then be involved as an important party.

In this case, Sveriges Lärare, the state, and other principals could have played an important role in ensuring that the reform ensures that students meet skilled and qualified teachers all over our country.

We Social Democrats know that when trade unions and employers take responsibility together, reach agreements and find common solutions, agreements are created that endure over time. This reform would have benefited from that. That is why we believe that such work can still be done in the drafting of the ordinance.

Mr. Speaker! I, along with the bill, am handing over a significant opportunity to the government to regulate the teaching time through regulations. For that very reason, it is reasonable that the Riksdag also sets clear requirements that the reform is carefully analyzed and followed up. We need to have proper data to see how the reform develops and affects different parts of the school system. How are the very smallest municipalities affected? How are the municipalities in rural areas affected? How are heads of schools who already today have major competence supply challenges affected?

The follow-up must also be about the reform's actual effects. Does it lead to a better working environment for teachers? Does it lead to higher quality in teaching? Does it lead to students meeting more qualified teachers? Or does it risk making it even more difficult regarding the supply of competence in many parts of the country?

For us Social Democrats, it is crucial that the reform does not just become an administrative change. It must have a real effect in the classrooms, strengthen the teachers' opportunities to do their work, and contribute to students receiving an education of higher quality. Ultimately, there is nothing more important than that all the children and students who go to school every day meet engaged, educated, and qualified teachers.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to briefly highlight other parts of this bill. Now that we are making changes aimed at reducing administrative and documentation requirements, we must be vigilant that this does not lead to poorer opportunities to detect students' needs for support at an early stage.

It is important to reduce unnecessary administration. Teachers should not spend time documenting things that do not serve a clear function. But for some students, the ongoing contact between school, student, and guardian is absolutely crucial. This can involve students who have a difficult school situation, students who risk falling behind academically, or students who are in need of special support. For these students, the school must also be able to have a close and functioning dialogue with the home in the future. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that development talks generally occur once a year, but that at the same time it is ensured that students and guardians who need continuous information and closer contact also receive it.

Reduced administration must not result in reduced attention regarding the students' needs.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker! Regulating teachers' teaching time as well as time for planning and follow-up can be an important step – and is an important step – to strengthen the state's governance of the school and give teachers better conditions to want to remain in the profession. But if we are truly to address overcrowded classrooms, too many unqualified teachers, and a deteriorated work environment, more than a single reform is required. What is required is a school policy where the state steps forward, takes greater responsibility, and addresses the systemic errors that have weakened the Swedish school over time.

That is why we want to stop the pursuit of profit in schools. Money intended for the students' education, the teachers' working environment, and the school's quality should not disappear into shareholders' pockets.

That is why we want more students to meet more qualified teachers. Especially the very youngest students need a school where there is time for every child, where needs for support can be detected early, and where the foundation for reading, writing, and mathematics can be laid.

And that is why we Social Democrats believe that the reform on regulated teaching time must be implemented in a way that has an effect in the classrooms. It must lead to children and students throughout our country meeting skilled, engaged, and qualified teachers and to a teaching that ensures more students meet the school's goals.

(Applause)

In this speech, Camilla Hansén (MP) agreed.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Niklas Sigvardsson for the speech.

In many and much we agree – if we disregard what was said in the final stretch of Sigvardsson's speech.

However, Sigvardsson misses that we have a powerful government that is presenting a multitude of proposals to reform Swedish school and to create a rule-based school. Yesterday we dealt with new curricula. Last week we dealt with safety and study environment. We have reformed teacher education. We have reduced the administrative burden. Now this comes. And more proposals will come next week. It is about a new grading system. This summer a new regulation for independent schools will come.

It is with this government and the Sweden Democrats as a supporting party that things happen when it comes to reforming the school system.

I will now come to the core. There is, in fact, an interesting point. Even though Niklas Sigvardsson now says that he is positively inclined towards this matter of regulating working hours, the Social Democrats still want to have a dialogue with SKR. What would that serve? SKR has, for several years, not done anything. What would suddenly now make it so that one would reach an agreement on regulated working hours? I find it very difficult to see that one would do that. Then someone else must step in, if one really thinks that this is important.

Then I would like to ask a question to Niklas Sigvardsson regarding cuts. Will Niklas Sigvardsson ensure that his party comrades in the municipalities do not contribute to economic cuts that hinder this reform? It is, after all, usually there that the shoe pinches.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Patrick Reslow, for the questions!

I will start with the latter part. The government chose during this mandate period not to cover the large holes in the municipalities' budgets that arose due to the large inflation crisis that was at the beginning. Then the municipalities went into large deficits. That required large adjustments of the municipalities' budgets to actually make them balance. It is clear that it then becomes a problem to balance the budgets in all of Skolsverige, given that the municipalities are crucial for the financing when it comes to the school.

It also means that we Social Democrats want the state to take greater responsibility regarding these issues through, for example, a sector grant, where we both set requirements from the state level and ensure that a bag of money goes specifically to school purposes.

That is how we want to restructure the funding, and we also want to see a completely new economic principle to inflation-protect the general state grants. Then the municipalities can prioritize what are the municipalities' most important tasks, that is to ensure that children and students receive a good education, that elderly care has high quality, and that our children, young people, and other municipal residents get as good a life as possible.

Then the economic part is very important. We Social Democrats will work to take our responsibility, and it is very clear that during these four years we have prioritized Municipal Sweden – schools, elderly care, and healthcare – instead of tax cuts for the very richest.

To answer another question from Patrick Reslow, we believe that the Swedish model is strongest when employers and employees can jointly agree on and more long-term and sustainably conclude agreements on what reality should look like and on the conditions that should apply. We Social Democrats still see that possibility. During an investigation period, where it has been very clear what the government has ordered regarding teaching time, it is fully understandable that both parties in the labor market are a bit cautious.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that it was difficult for the municipalities to cope with double-digit inflation during the Social Democratic years and that this dug large holes in the municipalities' budgets.

Today the situation looks different. Now we have managed to get started with fighting inflation significantly thanks to efforts from the Sverigedemokraterna and the government. The situation is different.

To say in that situation that the governing parties must ensure they do not cut back is a bit strange, because the municipalities are running such large surpluses. SKR is running a billion-kronor surplus. In the municipality I come from, they ran a surplus of over half a billion this year. The concern for the municipal budget should therefore be significantly smaller this year than it was when the Social Democrats handed over power.

I still find it a bit difficult to understand this. If Sveriges Lärare for very many years has had requests to regulate the teaching time, put it forward and wanted to have it included in the HÖK agreements but not succeeded because SKR has not wanted to meet the requirements that have existed because they have not seen it as a solution, what effect would a dialogue with SKR then generate?

I do not understand the Social Democrats' argument that one is in favor of this and thinks it is good, but still wants to return to the Swedish model – the model that has not ensured that a reform has been achieved in this area. In that case, the state must step in. It is important, and we do this for the sake of the teachers.

Why do Niklas Sigvardsson and the Socialdemokraterna so fervently defend the Swedish model when it actually failed?

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We defend the Swedish model because, in the long term, it has meant that when we together, trade unions and employers, can conclude agreements, the agreements are both long-term sustainable and usually create very good conditions.

Since then, it is very important to point out that we Social Democrats will vote yes to the bill on regulated working hours for teachers. That is what we are standing and discussing here today.

We Social Democrats will vote yes to the bill, and it is an important step for the continued work to ensure that all teachers receive a good and reasonable workload. It is important to remember that. But if the regulation is to become truly important, the state must ensure that it does not cut its appropriation for schools, and we must also not redistribute all too large parts to the school reforms. When we make decisions on these reforms, the appropriations are taken from other school-related decisions, which means that the municipalities do not receive the reinforced funds that they most likely will need to be able to implement the reforms we face.

It is in this way that we actually ensure that all students in this country meet both skilled and qualified teachers, which we want them to do because we know that the teacher is so incredibly important for more students to reach the learning outcomes all around our country.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first express my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Here we have another proposition that aims to create better conditions not only for the teaching profession but for the Swedish knowledge school as a whole. As I said earlier, our reform work has resulted in proposals for increased security and study environment, a new curriculum, new rules for independent schools, a reduced administrative burden and so on – a complete reform package aimed at strengthening the knowledge school and creating better conditions for teachers in the school.

We can observe that the attractiveness of the teaching profession has declined over the years. Even though many apply for teacher training, many drop out. Many also leave the profession. One might work for a few years, discover that the work environment was not so good, and choose to engage in something else instead.

When we invest money in producing teachers who then discover that the profession was not for them, it is a loss for society. We must ensure that those who train to become teachers remain as teachers so that we can benefit from their competence. It is also a matter of us doing everything to ensure that the profession is attractive and good.

We also see that far too many high-performing students opt out of the teaching profession, which is also linked to the working environment; we have discussed this here in the chamber several times. They do not see this as something attractive. Then we must do something about it, and that is exactly why we are submitting reform proposals.

The question of regulated working hours is something that the Sweden Democrats have pushed for for several years. Already during the previous parliamentary term, we submitted proposals in the committee to reintroduce the USK or something similar. However, it was nothing that anyone else joined in on. But over time, it has become apparent that precisely regulated working hours is something important, and we are very pleased that the Tidö parties have been able to reach an agreement. I will also say that we are pleased that the opposition also thinks we should have regulated teaching time and that we are therefore in agreement. It creates a sense of security for the teachers that this is something permanent.

Why do we want to do this? Well, because the teachers' teaching time has increased significantly. We have seen that the work tasks have grown. The knowledge mission, the core mission, has been eroded. Much documentation and administration has been introduced, which of course is not good because it takes time away from what one is actually supposed to do, namely teach. It is also required that one has time for planning and follow-up if one is to be able to do a good job as a teacher.

Even the teachers have demanded a regulation of the teaching time for a long time, but the parties in the labor market have not succeeded in reaching an agreement. Year after year they have tried, but they have chosen to do nothing about it. In that situation, the state must intervene. If we are serious about wanting to strengthen the attractiveness of the teaching profession and ensure that we have the best teachers teaching, we must also act when things are not working. Instead of relying on the Swedish model, we must have legislation that regulates this. This is important for raising the status of teachers.

The proposal means that there will be a regulated teaching time that is not only about the teaching itself but also about the planning and follow-up of the same, that is, it must be clear and distinct that a teaching assignment presupposes that there is time for planning, teaching, and follow-up. It is good.

The proposal also means that we continue to cut down on the administrative burden. We suggest, for example, that information about the student's development should be provided at times decided by the staff. Today, we see, in particular, pressure from parents – which we spoke about as recently as yesterday – who want quite continuous follow-up on how the children are doing. It will not be sustainable, because if the teachers are to engage in this constantly and continuously, it becomes an administrative burden.

We must get this in order, and therefore, from now on, it is not the parents who decide when a discussion about the children's development should take place. Instead, the staff in the preschool or school will decide that.

We have also proposed that the development talks should be reduced to once per school year. All of us who have children and have experienced this know that the first development talk usually provides nothing because it is held so early in the autumn term. It is instead the second development talk that is rewarding for both the student and the parents. We therefore do not see this as a major issue, but rather see it as quite normal and good that the number of talks is limited. It also results in a smaller administrative burden for the teachers.

Since it came up earlier, I should say one more thing about development talks. It is not that this implies a stop to more than one development talk per school year. If one has a student with a great need for support or similar, talks shall take place continuously; it states that in the proposition. It is therefore not that it is strictly once per year that applies, but in cases where there is a need, one should also be able to have talks on several occasions and have a dialogue. I therefore experience that the requirement from the opposition is actually fulfilled in the proposition.

We are also introducing an obligation to actively notice and handle offensive treatment, harassment, and sexual harassment without, for that reason, increasing the documentation requirements regarding this. Instead of a reporting obligation, it now becomes an information obligation. In serious or repeated cases, the principal shall be informed, and otherwise, the teachers shall have an obligation to take care of the matter and try to resolve the situation in the best way at the moment. I believe this will mean greater powers for the teachers, greater opportunities to act when it is needed, and less documentation.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Teachers perform one of Sweden's most important tasks. It is they who make the children in preschool discover that first desire to read, and it is they who make the students in preschool class decode reading. It is they who make the students discover that social studies or mathematics are actually very exciting. And for teachers to be able to be the most skilled of teachers, time is needed to plan the teaching, time for follow-up, and also a ceiling for how much a teacher should teach.

Teachers today have some of the highest sickness absence rates in the labor market – above all preschool teachers and teachers in after-school centers. I have met so many teachers who testify to an unsustainable work environment where more and more work tasks are placed on them without there being reasonable time to perform the tasks. Over half of Sweden's teachers and preschool teachers have an unsustainable workload, and three out of ten are at the breaking point of what they can endure.

That is why the bill to regulate teachers' teaching time and planning time is extremely important, and it is a victory for all of Sweden's teachers that we are to make a decision on this in the Riksdag. The parties have not succeeded in reaching an agreement, and therefore legislation is needed to improve the working environment for Sweden's teachers.

Mr. Speaker! Some are concerned that the regulation currently being implemented may worsen the teacher shortage. I am, however, quite convinced that the only way to tackle the teacher shortage is to make the teaching profession more attractive so that more people seek it out, and for that, the working environment needs to be made more sustainable.

However, we also need to invest resources in schools so that teachers can manage to stay and so that the entire school environment becomes sustainable. Today, we have teachers who can only manage one or two terms after completing their teacher training before they seek other professions – or become signed off on sick leave – because the work environment is too tough. Today, 35,000 people with a teacher qualification work in other fields. A survey conducted by SCB in 2022 shows that the reasons why teachers leave the school are deficiencies in the work environment, stress, workload, and overtime work.

Mr. Speaker! In the investigation, there is a calculation of what this reform will cost Sweden's municipalities. The employer party assesses the cost as higher, and the truth perhaps lies somewhere in between. I see a risk that the government is not providing enough money for the reforms that are now being implemented in the school sector, which concern everything from increased support teaching to more special support for the students. The costs risk being shifted onto the municipalities, and in that case, we will not get an improved working environment for the teachers.

The government must take responsibility here. This regulation of the teachers' teaching and planning time is the teachers' most important issue, and it must be implemented in reality. But it must not occur at the expense of other things in the school; instead, the state must provide real money.

The extensive documentation requirements for teachers shall be reduced, which is important and good. In the bill, it is proposed that information on the child's or student's development shall be provided at times determined by the staff and that development talks shall be held once a year instead of once per term. We fully support that.

A reduction in administration must, however, not lead to a situation where guardians do not receive information about the child's development. The need for support or other important information about the child must reach the guardians so that it does not negatively affect the students' knowledge development. Therefore, it must be ensured that the contact between school and home is sufficient, so that the children's and students' knowledge development and social development will be as good as possible.

We must now ensure that the teachers' working environment in preschool and school truly becomes better. Here, legislation regarding teachers' teaching time, planning time, and follow-up is an incredibly important piece of the puzzle. We must also move forward and legislate on the size of the children's groups in preschool so that the working environment there truly becomes better, and we must ensure that there are enough qualified preschool teachers out in the preschools. We must also ensure that class sizes in school decrease, so that teachers get the opportunity to do a good job.

Even though this bill increases teachers' opportunity to have time for administration and planning, a large part of the burden today is due to the classes being so large. We need to ensure that there are resources in the schools to take care of the students who need support. For the sake of students and teachers, we also need to deal with the market school, which drains the Swedish school of money.

Mr. Speaker! I am glad that we are now taking a step towards making the working environment for teachers better. The legislation that we are now making decisions on shall be followed by a regulation from the government where a ceiling for teaching time and how much planning time the teachers shall have is established. I will follow that very closely. This must turn out well in reality.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 2, which concerns the fact that the reform must be properly financed.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a strong knowledge school that gives students the right conditions to reach the goals of education and promotes all students' development and learning. Therefore, we are now implementing the largest improvements in Swedish schools in 30 years. With today's consideration, we are creating better conditions for teachers and preschool teachers to carry out their teaching mandate. This will increase the attractiveness of the teaching profession.

Naturally, a teacher's teaching assignment also includes planning and follow-up in addition to the teaching itself. This will now be regulated. Development talks shall henceforth take place at least once per school year. There will also be a clarification in the Education Act that all staff have an obligation to notice and counteract violations, harassment, and sexual harassment, as well as to handle these incidents.

I will soon go a bit deeper into the committee report, but first I want to make a small correction. In yesterday's debate, I carelessly blurted out in an exchange of remarks that we have surely had ten reports during the spring that have been part of the reform of Swedish school. I looked to my left, and it looked as if I was very wrong when I blurted out that figure. I therefore checked it and noticed that I was wrong – it was nine. What we are debating today is the tenth.

So that you at home who are following the debate should know what we have done in the Education Committee and in the Chamber during the spring, I intended to spend a few seconds listing these ten reports. The ten reports are Future's Vocational College, The Principle of Public Access with simplified rules for individual small principals in the school system, Identification and eligibility in the ten-year primary school, Handing over tasks between schools for crime prevention purposes, Expanded register checks in the school system, Better conditions for safety and study in school, Better conditions for vocational education, New curricula, Improved support in school and Time for the teaching assignment.

Mr. Speaker! One may have different opinions about the reforms that are now being made, but one can say nothing other than that the pace of reform in the school area is, in any case, quite high. I believe we can all agree on this, regardless of party affiliation.

When one as a politician is involved in introducing legislation, one should always ask why. The answer from us Moderates in just this committee report and this bill is that teachers should be given the right conditions to carry out their mission, that teachers need time to plan, implement and evaluate the teaching, that teachers and preschool teachers deserve a sustainable working situation, that we want to reduce teachers' administrative burden and, finally, that teachers should be allowed to be just teachers.

Mr. Speaker! Since the regulation of teaching time disappeared in 1995, the expectations of how much a teacher should teach have slowly but surely increased. This has occurred without anything else being removed. Today, teaching competes with constantly increasing administration and documentation as well as demands for accessibility for guardians.

Teachers and preschool teachers testify to an everyday life where stress is high and to a feeling of never really having time for what they actually trained for, namely to teach. Skolverket's latest teacher forecast shows that in 2038, approximately 10,600 qualified teachers will be missing. At the same time, reports from Sveriges Lärare show that approximately 35,000 people have undergone a relatively long education to become teachers, worked for a while, and then left the teaching profession.

That is why we do everything that is included in the ten points that I just listed and also regulate the teaching time. We want to provide the right conditions. We want to see a clear floor for planning time and a clear ceiling for teaching time.

Mr. Speaker! In this report, we also propose changes in how information and documentation should be handled. Today's requirement for continuous information to guardians has, in practice, come to mean that teachers are expected to be on constant standby to answer questions and receive comments. They must also document it. It is a flow that never really ends. This is truly not any criticism of all engaged parents – engagement in children's schooling is something wonderful.

The system we are designing must strengthen teaching, not undermine it. Therefore, we propose that it should be the staff at the preschool or school who decide when and how information is given to parents. Development talks shall normally be held once per school year. However, we have confidence in the teachers, so if more development talks are needed, there are good opportunities for this.

Mr. Speaker! We also propose a better regulatory framework for the work against offensive treatment. Let me be very clear: There must be zero tolerance for offensive treatment in schools. School should be a safe place for our children and youth, but today's regulatory framework counteracts that purpose. Researchers have pointed out the rather paradoxical effect that teachers in some cases choose to ignore incidents – not at all because they do not care, but because they know that it requires so incredibly much documentation. When everything is reported, which is the case today, there is a risk that truly serious incidents will not be noticed due to the volume of reports – sometimes regarding trivial matters.

The government wants to shift the focus from reporting and documenting to noticing, countering, and managing. Staff shall be given a strengthened duty to act, but the reporting obligation is limited to situations involving serious or repeated violations. When it concerns matters that can be resolved in the moment, we have great confidence that the teachers can do so, so that it does not need to enter a heavy administrative system.

The Moderates' and my hope is that all the reforms being made now will give hope to a new generation of teachers. I said it yesterday and I am happy to say it again: We see you, we hear you and we want to give you the right conditions. It is encouraging that more than half of the teachers who have left the teaching profession can imagine returning to the profession if they are only given the right conditions.

You who are listening to this speech may be a teacher. You may be one of the tens of thousands of teachers who qualified but felt that they did not have the right conditions. In that case, I hope that you feel that we, through all the reforms that are now being implemented, step by step are again giving you the right conditions for your important work. I hope that you can imagine coming back to the world of school and again practicing the teaching profession, which is one of the most important and meaningful professions that exist.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Patrick Reslow (SD) agreed.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! There is much to say about regulated teaching time for teachers, but I will take that in a little while. Just as school, the Riksdag is ultimately about people.

Ulrika Heindorff participates today in her final education policy debate before she leaves the Riksdag. Since 2009, I have had the pleasure of working with Ulrika – and sometimes against her, it must be said. I want to extend a big thank you to her for the seriousness, kindness, and warmth she has shown. She is an exemplary representative of what we from the political side should always be: serious, good, and pleasant.

Many thanks, Ulrika!

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to extend a big thank you to the Center Party member Niels Paarup-Petersen.

The other day I actually thought about how we have worked together for so long that those who are now graduating from ninth grade were born when we met at work for the first time. That's a long time ago! I don't want to in any way make us appear older than we are, but it is actually true.

Many thanks for the good cooperation!

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Then everyone has heard me say something nice about the Moderaterna here in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker! Today is a good day, because today all parties in the chamber agree to regulate the teaching time for Sweden's teachers, which is very good. It has been said previously that it is not so, but the truth is that we are all in favor of regulating this. But in contrast to some other speakers, I shall not pretend that my party has championed this the longest or has been in favor of this for decades, because we have not. We changed our policy a few years ago and then began to work for this.

I am glad that we have reached this point now, because we know that teachers have some of the highest sickness rates, that they are overworked, that they have too much administration, that parents call them in the evenings, and that they may have children in their classrooms whom we others would find difficult to handle. We also know that it is a job that requires genuine commitment, because otherwise it does not turn out well. But if one does not have space, it is difficult to be as committed as one needs to be. Therefore, I want to thank all of Sweden's teachers out there who do a fantastic job every day.

Mr. Speaker! It is good that we have taken a step forward, but we still do not know where we are headed. We simply do not know what this is going to look like because the government has chosen not to present a clear regulation in this area. A playing field has been created, but no rulebook. How many players are to be on the field? Where are they to score? How much time do they have? How long is a match? Is it 60 minutes or 90 minutes? We have not been told this yet, and then it is difficult to know what we will land on. Are we going to play hockey, football, or handball? We do not know that yet.

When one is to vote for a regulation, it is quite essential to know where one lands. But this still lies with the next government to handle – just like the funding, for this is, as everyone knows, an underfunded reform. The devil is in the details, and the government has pushed the devil into the future in order to more easily reach an agreement. Then one has also not needed to fund it, because one does not really know what one is supposed to fund.

It is important to include this, because it is the explanation for why we believe the parties in the labor market must be involved in designing the details. One can hand over to the government and the authorities to carve out the details, but one can also say that those who are actually affected, namely the teachers and the employers, must be involved in designing the details. This is important for us.

I can certainly understand the dissatisfaction with SKR. But that all the parties in the chamber have been in favor of SKR's response to the government's proposal can be taken into account when hearing criticism of SKR – if we are to have an honest debate.

How are the details to be carved out regarding how much teaching time a teacher should have? When the labor market parties are involved, one can ensure that it becomes a regulation based on actual everyday life. SKR did not take the chance to do this in time, and I can understand that Sveriges Lärares confidence in SKR is quite small.

The government and all other parties have said that this is coming now, and soon a detailed proposal will also arrive. If SKR does not come forward with a better proposal that the teachers can agree to, it is the legislation that applies. But if a better proposal is found where everyone agrees, we will take that instead.

So we did with labor law in the January agreement, because that was the serious way to do it. The Center Party forced the Social Democrats and the union by saying that if they did not reach an agreement, there would be a regulation; then politics would decide.

This is what we wish the government had done here, and that is also what we said in connection with the agreement: Do not just complain about SKR, but tell them that now is the last chance. We are participating and financing, and we are part of the conversation. Otherwise, it won't happen. Now there is a deadline if SKR does not sharpen up. Now they have the chance.

One could also say that the Swedish model with the labor market's parties should no longer apply. But we do not believe that it is the best way, even though there is much dissatisfaction with SKR.

Mr. Speaker! In the current situation, we have a game plan and an underfunded reform. Regardless of which external party one asks – Sveriges Lärare, SKR or others – they say that the reform is underfunded. We do not know in the current situation where it lands; we only know that it is underfunded. We in Centerpartiet and all other opposition parties put much more into the school than the government does. The best way to secure the funding of the reform is, therefore, less Tidö.

In the debate with Sveriges Lärare, all parties were asked how this would be financed. We were then able to answer that we are allocating more money than the government. What did the Sverigedemokraterna answer? Well, that it should be taken from the knowledge grant. I think all teachers should consider whether this will make their work easier and better, or if a move of money from one pot to another just leads to cuts, lower wages, and more sick leaves.

Mr. Speaker! It is absolutely crucial that we get more qualified teachers and that teachers are given a sustainable working situation and reasonable wages. Let me stick my neck out a bit and say that it is not for the teachers' sake but for the students', for they are the main priority. But one does not get a good education for the students if the teachers do not enjoy their work and feel well, and now many teachers do not feel well. It is also 20,000 students every year who do not pass primary school, and we find them particularly in schools that lack qualified teachers.

The government's proposal means that time equivalent to 6,000 full-time teachers will become teaching-free. If there is no plan for this, it could become a huge problem. If it is not ensured that there will be more teachers, the consequence could be that Sweden's teachers get more unqualified colleagues instead of a better working situation. Therefore, we want an answer on how it will be ensured that there will be more teachers. Since the government simultaneously wants to train fewer teachers, I am afraid that this will lead to a worse working situation for Sweden's teachers. But it is very important that it does not become so.

Mr. Speaker! So, a few words on reduced administration. We are in complete agreement that the focus should be shifted from a lot of paperwork to actual action when it comes to bullying, harassment, and other issues. We must, however, ensure that children's rights are not violated, and therefore the Center Party is skeptical that it is only repeated violations that are to be documented. They must also be followed up, because the school is for the children. It is important that no one falls through the cracks. We cannot allow that in the adult world.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 1.

I am very happy that we have taken this step and agreed to regulate teachers' teaching time. But for it to be truly good, we must defend the Swedish, or Nordic, model.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When Niels Paarup-Petersen began talking about the game plan and that strategies were being laid out, that players were missing and that one didn't know who would score goals and the like, I believed for a while that it was the Danish national football team's World Cup strategy that was being described. Then I understood that it was not that.

I just wanted to clarify some things for the member. Niels Paarup-Petersen said that the foundation is now being laid and that the decisive part is postponed until the next government, but that is not the case. It was said from the beginning that we would have legislation in place and that in that legislation we would hand over the details in a decree, in accordance with the residual competence. So that was intended from the very beginning. We will not hand it over to the next government, but the information regarding the exact regulatory framework for this will come in a decree text.

Niels Paarup-Petersen probably does not need to wait much longer before it becomes relevant. It is therefore nothing that the next government will need to take over. Even if it is the same government then with an addition, it is nothing that that government needs to worry about, but it is coming now.

Then it was claimed that the regulation is underfunded, but we have not presented any budget for 2027 and neither for 2028. It is therefore a bit early to say that it would be underfunded. We do have a preparatory document that points in a certain direction, but it is not certain that it is the correct amount. That must be decided in the budget negotiations for 2027 and 2028.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I completely agree that it is not Denmark's football level that should be equated with the Center Party's policy, but it is clearly Brazil's or perhaps rather Argentina's. They are, after all, the best these days.

It would be great if a regulation text arrives before the summer, before we take over in the government. It would be wonderful. We have not clearly heard before that it would be so, so I appreciate that. It was a lovely announcement to receive here.

I think it is interesting. I believe it was the Sverigedemokraterna member who said earlier that if one is serious, the state must intervene. Yes, but if one is serious, one must actually ensure that it is long-term. Is it long-term to put it in a decree when there is one or perhaps two months left until there is a new government, without talking to any other parties and without anchoring it with the labor market parties through negotiations? I do not think it will become long-term.

If it does not become long-term when one makes total and far-reaching changes in an area, it is not serious either. Then it does not become serious. What I am sincerely afraid of is that it will become jerky again, because that is what we have seen from the government.

Not a single proposal, whether it concerns curricula or otherwise, has anyone wanted to discuss broadly in the chamber. They haven't even had parliamentary inquiries, as existed previously for, for example, grades and other matters. Nothing of that sort has existed at all. This is the least anchored reform process ever for Swedish schools. This jerkiness risks repeatedly creating a mess situation for Sweden's teachers. That is what I am sincerely afraid of. I am therefore glad that something is coming.

Finally: There is no budget yet. The government said it was a historically large budget commitment, but that was only because they were counting on 2027 and 2028. I wonder: How is it that the budget included 2027 and 2028 then?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is money for 2026 but not for 2027 and 2028. It would be a strange order if there were money for coming years before the reform is in place.

When it comes to long-term perspective, we have had a very good cooperation with the government. The Centre Party could also have been part of that cooperation if they had wanted to, but instead, they have chosen to end up in the clutches of the left side.

I heard Niels Paarup-Petersen say: "We are taking over in the government." That is how he expressed it. It is therefore the Left Party's tax increases that are to finance the Center Party's reforms and this reform.

I am a bit confused. Is Centerpartiet going to tear up the reform, or why is it being complained about now? Is the intention to tear it up just because there hasn't been any broad parliamentary consensus or discussion about it, or what is Niels Paarup-Petersen trying to say? It is a bit strange.

I want to say one thing. It is correct that the Sweden Democrats have said that it is to be partially financed by the knowledge grant. It is no secret that the Sweden Democrats do not think the knowledge grant has given the effects it should give. It is very high, and it is increasing. We see an opportunity to use it within the framework.

The knowledge contribution shall go towards quality-enhancing initiatives and specifically to strengthening the teaching staff and the attractiveness of the teaching profession. It is also about strengthening the quality in the school, so we see many positive effects from it. It is not certain that the knowledge contribution will finance everything, but we think it would be very reasonable if it financed a part.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I think all of Sweden's teachers should take away two words from this debate: "within the framework".

So, it is to be financed within the framework. It is not new money. That is exactly what the Sweden Democrats said. I think one should take that with them, because if no new money – more money – comes, it will not be good. Again: All opposition parties are allocating more money to the school than the government does. We must ensure that it is financed. I understand that it was not the entire financing but a part of it that was to occur within the framework, but it is difficult to know how large a part and what the different parties think about it.

We cannot say what we think about the regulatory text, because we have not seen it. I must be very clear about that. What we have a problem with regarding the legislation itself is, first and foremost, that it is not clear that one wants to involve the parties in the labor market when writing the regulatory text. One also does not want to give them time to settle on how it should be done so that it becomes as good as possible on the ground. It is a situation where legislation arrives on the spot without there being a common solution. That is one we lack, and I believe we have been quite clear about that.

Then we have the question of who "we" are. For my part, it is the Center Party – that is "we". It is not so difficult. It is the party I am in. It is my "we". The Sweden Democrats are not included in it. That is also a message that I believe we have given very many times, but I can give it again today if it has not been clear: The Sweden Democrats are not included in my "we".

When it comes to the government that takes over after the election, one could also say that there is no "V" in "we", but that sounds strange.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Teachers are absolutely crucial for students to feel well. It is all the very skilled teachers that we have out in the country who build a strong Swedish school. They are teachers with a warm heart and a firm hand who speak about what is right and wrong and how one treats others. They are the ones who create a school for children to long for. They are the ones who lay the foundation for a safer society in the whole country – a safer Sweden.

We can all look back on our school days and think of a teacher who meant extra much for how we enjoyed school and who had a decisive significance for our development as human beings.

Sweden has many fantastically skilled teachers who, thanks to their subject knowledge, inspire students to more knowledge, who lead the class forward and who maintain order in the classroom. These teachers make an enormous contribution to society. They are the ones who see the children, who care about the children and who help the children. They are absolutely crucial for how the children feel and how they will fare later in life.

Teachers do not only build people, they build the whole of Sweden as a country. Sweden's future depends on these teachers staying in the profession and more people wanting to become teachers. The current report represents important steps in that direction.

Mr. Speaker! Studies show that the work environment is a central reason why teachers leave the profession. A lack of time to plan and follow up on teaching has been specifically pointed out as a problem.

With this bill, we therefore propose a clearer national regulation of what the teaching mandate actually shall consist of and how the time shall be used. Fundamentally, it is about restoring the focus on teaching.

The proposed change means that the government will have the opportunity to set frameworks for how much time shall be allocated for planning, implementation, and follow-up of the teaching. It is partly about limiting how much a teacher shall teach at most, and partly about ensuring a minimum level for planning and follow-up. The exact distribution shall not be decided in detail in the law, nor exactly in the ordinance, but shall be adapted locally, which provides flexibility that is still within clear national frameworks.

Another change is that administrative requirements are decreasing. We are freeing up time from standardized routines which can instead be allocated to more meaningful and effective efforts.

The requirements for ongoing information to guardians are replaced by information being provided at times determined by the staff themselves. Development talks shall be held at least once per school year instead of once per term.

This also applies to the work against offensive treatment. The focus is shifted from extensive documentation to active work with preventing and managing situations.

All these changes collectively aim to give teachers more time to prepare lessons and follow up on the students' results. It provides better opportunities to adapt the teaching to the students' needs, which in turn can increase the quality.

For students, this means that the teaching becomes more deliberate. The follow-up makes it possible to detect early on students who risk falling behind, and in that way, support can be provided more quickly.

In a broader perspective, Mr. Speaker, this reform is about the view of the teaching profession. We are signaling that teaching is a qualified profession that requires time and reflection. It contributes to strengthening the status of the profession.

There is also a connection to equality. When the conditions for teachers vary significantly between different schools, the quality of teaching also risks varying. But through national frameworks, the differences can be reduced and all students can receive a more equal education, regardless of where in the country they live.

This reform obviously does not solve all problems, Mr. Speaker. It is not individual legislative proposals that will turn the development for the school and the teachers' working environment. But it cannot be avoided that time is a fundamental resource. Without sufficient time to plan, implement, and follow up on the teaching, other measures become quite a bit less effective.

But I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

In this speech, Patrick Reslow (SD) agreed.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It feels particularly exciting and fun to debate just this matter, because since my first day in the Education Committee, I have said that "skilled teachers who have enough time for their students" is what Swedish schools need. The Green Party therefore clearly stands behind the fact that the working hours of Sweden's teachers need to be regulated.

But, believe it or not, the most important people in the school are not the teachers. It is the students. The most important people in the school are the students. Everything we do revolves around how they should be given the best conditions to develop as human beings and lay the foundation for a life where they have power over their existence and their future.

Therefore, this reform must be implemented so that Sweden's students do not receive a poorer education and so that they do not encounter fewer qualified teachers, have more cancelled lessons, or have to meet more untrained substitutes. It requires a government that puts the money on the table to implement this reform. I hope that we will have such a government after the election.

Swedish schools perform well in many ways. Skolverket describes in its situation report that most students enjoy school. Knowledge levels are at or above the OECD average, and they have increased since the pandemic. Teacher eligibility is increasing, and more teachers state that they enjoy their profession.

At the same time, the differences between high- and low-performing students are increasing, socioeconomic background affects the results, and equality is lacking, with large differences regarding, for example, the proportion of qualified teachers around the country. So we cannot have it that way.

Being a teacher is Sweden's most important job. A decisive prerequisite for both preschool and school to be a place for knowledge, development, and community is the teachers.

We want to strengthen the position of teachers in several different ways, including by improving working conditions as well as providing more time for what is the core of the work: the teaching and the relationship with the children and students. Teachers need to be guaranteed time to plan, carry out, and follow up on their teaching, which we will now decide on.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a teacher shortage, and it is projected to continue for the next ten years. Reforms to improve teachers' working environment are important so that more people will want to become teachers and so that the teaching profession will be attractive and prestigious. Therefore, this decision is important, as it has a clear focus on the fact that high quality in teaching presupposes time for planning and evaluation. But we in Miljöpartiet are nevertheless concerned that the financing and implementation are lacking.

This reform presupposes that the school's funding is strengthened and that specific initiatives are made to increase the proportion of qualified teachers across the entire country. If this reform fails in its implementation, there is a risk that the price for better working conditions will be more cancelled lessons. This is particularly noticeable in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas.

We really want to emphasize that education must be equivalent and of high quality throughout the country. Therefore, we want the state to take greater responsibility so that schools across the country have sufficient resources through a sector grant where the state takes greater responsibility and ensures that there is sufficient funding.

Sveriges Lärares debate was mentioned here. I took up the example from Gällivare municipality, which has also told about this in various media. If this reform is not implemented, their students therefore risk meeting more untrained substitutes and that more lessons are cancelled. In other municipalities that I have visited, they say: "No, it will not make such a big difference for us. We are already within the range that the investigation says."

In a municipality with a teacher shortage, where there is already a low proportion of qualified teachers and already low results, we must be able to make investments so that those students receive an equivalent education. Therefore, it is important that we evaluate this reform package, which we just manage to decide on before the mandate period ends.

Mr. Speaker! Today's debate and next week's decision on the issue is a strong and clear message from all the parties in the Riksdag. Teachers' working hours shall be re-regulated, and it is an important reform for teachers in Sweden. All parties are in complete agreement on this.

Unfortunately, the government's choice of working methods in all these major reforms has resulted in uncertainty regarding the implementation. We in the opposition have in no way been involved in the work of developing these reforms. I would have preferred to see that we had conducted proper parliamentary inquiries so that all parties had been involved in large and far-reaching reforms, which we do want to last for many parliamentary terms. Then, for example, teachers all over Sweden would not need to go on different outings about there being some form of doubt among some of the opposition parties regarding this reform. That is not the case – not in substance. On the other hand, we are concerned that the government is not financing its reforms and that they will therefore not achieve the effect we want to see.

Sweden's teachers and students across the country deserve a government that does not just write reforms. They deserve a government that shows leadership, builds broad agreements and looks ahead, so that together we can set the vision for how Swedish school should be developed towards a future that we know will challenge us in many different ways. I hope that we have such a government after September.

I move for approval of the opposition's joint reservation number 2.

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

Joanna Lewerentz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am not standing here today only as a Member of Parliament. I also stand here as a teacher. It is one of the world's most enjoyable professions. But it is also a profession that often takes a heavy toll on those who practice it and frequently pushes people to the limit of what they can handle. Teachers who want nothing more than to see their students develop all too often experience that time never seems to be enough. I know how it feels when the school day is not governed by the transmission of knowledge but by packed schedules, reporting requirements, and meetings that push aside what is actually our core: the teaching. That is why this committee report is so important.

Mr. Speaker! The report Time for the teaching assignment is fundamentally about restoring something that should be obvious: that teachers should be allowed to be teachers. They should have time to plan their teaching, teach, and follow up on the students' knowledge development. That is not how it looks today. I have that experience myself, and many of my colleagues testify to the same thing. One is expected to document things that no one requests. One sits in meetings that lack a clear connection to teaching. One functions as an administrator, social coordinator, IT support, or caretaker. And let us not forget both teachers' and guardians' nemesis: the learning platforms, where one is to fill in matrices, systems, and follow-ups in tools that are rarely adapted for the purpose of providing information that the guardians rarely find.

Mr. Speaker! There are teachers in Swedish schools today who have schedules where lesson follows lesson, from morning until late afternoon, and where lunch is not a break but something one tries to manage while answering emails or grading tests. There are teachers who do not have time to go to the toilet during the workday. There are teachers who leave school at the end of the day with the feeling that they have not done their job – not because they cannot, but because time is insufficient. This is not worthy of a knowledge nation that is to give all students equally good conditions to take on life, and it is definitely not sustainable.

Mr. Speaker! That is why I and many teachers with me welcome that the Moderate-led government is now clarifying what the teaching assignment is and legislating what all teachers already know: Teaching is not just the time in the classroom, but also the planning and the follow-up. Without that time, the teaching becomes worse.

There are, however, those here in the Riksdag who are concerned. There are those who seem to want to cling to the system we have today, leave everything to local solutions and let the parties in the labor market settle it. But let us be honest: The situation we have today has arisen within that system. If we are serious about strengthening the teaching profession, we must also dare to set boundaries that protect the teachers' time. Otherwise, teaching will continue to be pushed back, bit by bit.

Another important part of the proposal is that we reduce unnecessary administration. Today, there are requirements for continuous information to guardians, extensive documentation, and follow-ups that do not always lead to better teaching. It is not that contact with the homes is unimportant – on the contrary. But it should be meaningful, not mechanical. When we reduce the detailed requirements, we give the profession greater room to decide what is actually needed. That is exactly how trust should function.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say something about the students. Sometimes it is portrayed as if there were a contradiction between what is good for teachers and what is good for students. That is completely wrong. When teachers get time to plan, the lessons become better. When teachers get time to follow up, students who need support are identified in time. When teachers are not exhausted, they see every student. What is good for the teachers is good for the students.

I welcome that we are now taking this step. But we must not stop at the legal text. This must be noticeable in the teachers' everyday lives. Schedules must be changed, and unnecessary tasks must be removed for real.

Mr. Speaker! Being a teacher is one of society's most important and finest missions. But today, it is a mission that all too many leave – not because they have lost the desire to teach, but because they are not allowed to do so to the full. With this report, we take a step towards changing that.

Many of us say that teaching should be at the center, and many of us say that teachers' time is valuable. The Moderates also say: If we are serious about knowledge, we must start by giving teachers the conditions to convey it. I am proud to be part of a governing party that does that and proud to vote yes to one of the individually most important reforms to improve teachers' conditions to be just teachers.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 9 June.)

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