today, Saturday, thousands of teachers around the country to join in the Lärarmarschen. They are protesting against cuts in the school. There is a deep dissatisfaction within the teaching profession, since many people feel that the politicians have betrayed their promises to invest in schools and teachers. It is found in a review of all local municipalities budget The Balance carried out. They found that the school’s resources are declining in 9 of 10 municipalities. Behind the voters ‘ back has politicians and municipal officials to tricks that outwardly gives the impression of resources is increasing – or at least not decrease.

An example of this is that many municipalities give the schools a financial compensation that is less than the rising costs. It allows the politicians can claim that they do not save into the school, even if it in practice is the result of the schools must fund everything from annual salary increases to the increased purchase prices of materials with the same budget as the previous year. Another trick is to impose requirements on so-called ”rationalization”, which in fact is nothing more than a euphemism for savings and often leads to teachers to do more with less resources at their disposal.

This is provided you do not change the way of working, raising taxes or increasing local government grants to the municipalities. This economic storm clouds to avoid the politicians to touch in order to not scare away the voters. The problems will not go away, however just because they are ignored. It is not, and will likely not be popular support for the tax increases that will be required if the school should continue to be pursued in its current form with its current mission.

Behind the voters ‘ back has politicians and municipal officials to tricks that outwardly gives the impression of resources is increasing – or at least not decrease.

politicians do not take the issue of school funding and mission seriously becomes clear when one takes into account the educational proposals put forward in the debate. Several of them might, paradoxically, make the situation worse. Take for example, the right-wing proposal to increase the time spent on training. Already with the current amount of teaching, it fails to recruit enough teachers. On the left, tend the politicians that seek to even more social problems to be resolved by the school. Recently, for example, the Feminist initiative in Stockholm, and proposed a ”sexlyft” for the school, then they are unhappy with the way the school works with issues such as consent, and lgbtq. Important questions, but given that teachers already do not have time to go through all that the curriculum requires – what should then be prioritized away?

There is no denying that the school has problems. Results are low and too many pupils do not exhibit a sufficient level of key basic skills as reading, writing and arithmetic. Ordningsproblemen is marked, more and more students feel that it is messy and close to four out of ten girls say that they feel unsafe in school. Add to that that Sweden right now is in what likely is the most serious teacher shortage. Up to 2031 statistics SWEDEN has calculated that it will be missing about 80,000 competent teachers.

They’re stuck in a rut and need to realize that what is needed now are concrete proposals that directly reduces the school’s mission. In order to create improved conditions for the teaching profession and the school to succeed with the school’s knowledge at the same time as lärarbristen resolved, I suggest the following:

1 Reduce the number of subjects in the primary school. In elementary school to view the students 16 subjects, then excluding the language selection and the ”student’s choice”. It is not sustainable, seen to lärarbristen and costs. Crafts, on the student’s choice, music, and home – and consumer must be abolished completely. Religion and geography can be included in the social studies. Chemistry and biology can be merged together to become a subject in its own, naturlära. In the same way, physics and technology merged together. The goal should be to reduce the number of topics to a maximum of ten. In some cases it will require increased instructional time in the subjects that will be more extensive, but the total number of hours must be in contrast to reduce.

2 review of the curriculum, introductory chapter. the Curriculum of the first two chapters, dealing with, for example, the school’s core values and overall goal, is too broad. There is wording stating that the school should promote from the students ‘ ”respect for our common environment” to learn ”digital literacy”. It also states that all teaching should embrace a historical, environmental, international and ethical perspective. The amount of mission that are imposed on the school in the curriculum of initial parts is so extensive that it is impossible to succeed. At the same time, evaluated schools and are inspected by the schools Inspectorate, based on how well they follow the wordings of the curriculum.

3 Revise the remaining substances, the core content. For each school subject there is a defined central content. It is the subject content that students must meet in teaching. In the day testify, many teachers that there is ”stoffträngsel”, and especially in the civics topics. It is not surprising, as the scope of the core content in many subjects is extremely comprehensive at the same time as training time is limited. Instead of adding to the time spent on training, as has been suggested before, reducing the core content to a realistic scope.

the Combination of reducing the number of substances, take away the absurd requirements of the curriculum, introductory chapter, and revise the remaining substances, the core content will make the expectations of what the school system shall be capable of become practically possible to achieve. The abolition of certain substances frees up resources that can be used to give priority to the teachers ‘ working environment is improved, for example by reducing the time spent on training for them.

, which several leading skolnationer have shown is a recipe for success for increased learning outcomes, as.

It is naive to believe that the changes I propose will be easy for politicians to push through. The resistance will be hard, not least from the two major lärarfacken. One should not blame them for it, then their main task is to protect their own members interests – not to create a better school in general. At the same time is the situation of the school, so acute that this battle must be taken, not least if you are serious about Sweden in the future to compete in a global knowledge-intensive market.

Implemented the reforms I propose it is quite possible that the school manage to equip all pupils with the necessary skills to cope in the future. This at the same time as the ability to recruit the educated and ambitious teachers required for all students to have access to high-quality teaching to be realized.

Now the ball is in your politicians. Do you dare?