This chapter outlines the review’s purpose, methodological approach, and recent policy developments relevant for the review. The chapter highlights key findings from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2022, including trends in student performance, socio-economic disparities, gaps for immigrant students, and concerns around school climate and digital distractions. These findings frame the report’s analysis and point to the need for targeted strategies to improve equity, engagement, and learning outcomes across Swedish schools.
Education in Sweden
A Diagnostic Review with Analysis of PISA 2022 Results
Abstract
Sweden’s education system has long been celebrated for its innovation and inclusivity, with free education available at all levels, including tertiary education. This commitment to equity and accessibility has fostered broad participation in the educational process, creating a model that is a reference in the global education community. Historically, Swedish students have performed above the OECD average in international assessments such as OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), reflecting the success of this broad-based approach to education (OECD, 2023[1]; OECD, 2023[2]).
However, emerging challenges threaten the system’s continued success and aspirations. Increasing classroom diversity seems to place new demands on schools to ensure equitable education for all students. Despite progress in integrating immigrant students into Swedish schools, socio-economic and cultural factors may continue contributing to disparities in educational outcomes. For example, language barriers further exacerbate these challenges for immigrant students (OECD, 2023[1]). A widening socio-economic achievement gap is another pressing issue. Students from wealthier status consistently outperform their peers from disadvantaged ones, particularly in subjects like mathematics (OECD, 2023[1]). Additionally, school climate has emerged as a critical factor influencing academic outcomes. Discipline issues are a growing concern due to disruptive behaviour and a perceived decline in teacher authority. A positive school climate is essential for student well-being and academic performance and warrants further policy attention (Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[3]).
Based on this context, Swedish authorities commissioned the OECD with a diagnostic report on digital education and school disciplinary climate and safety based on PISA data. The analysis of PISA data can provide valuable insights into the performance of education systems. In this regard, PISA results can serve as a critical resource for informing policy decisions aimed at addressing emerging challenges. However, as valuable as it can be, the use of PISA data to inform policy making also has limitations. For example, given its transversal nature, PISA data can help to establish associations between variables but not causality. To make causal inferences, other methodological approaches are necessary, such as randomised control trials (Golden, 2020[4]).
As commissioned by national authorities in Sweden, this report leverages PISA data to explore two interconnected domains central to the educational priorities for this Nordic country:
Digital technologies and student learning: Examining how digital technologies are associated with engagement and academic performance.
School disciplinary climate and safety: Investigating the relationship between classroom order, school safety, and student performance.
Importantly, this report also includes a concluding chapter that reflects on how resource allocation can support the more effective use of digital technologies and improve disciplinary climate and safety within the current governance context of Sweden’s education system. The chapter puts forward eight policy considerations to inspire future decision-making in these areas.
On these points, PISA data highlight areas where Sweden excels as well as those requiring attention. For example, while Swedish students report relatively high levels of safety during their commute to school, challenges persist within classroom environments, particularly regarding noise and disorder during lessons (OECD, 2023[1]). Similarly, the increasing prevalence of digital distractions underscores the need for policies that balance technology integration with effective classroom management. This review connects such findings with relevant policy considerations to support national education policy discussions. For instance:
Enhancing digital literacy initiatives may mitigate distractions while promoting productive use of technology.
Strengthening teacher training programmes can help address classroom disruptions and improve disciplinary climate and safety.
Involving parents in collaborative initiatives might help to improve school disciplinary climate and safety as well as establish more responsible use of digital technologies for learning.
Grounded in the insights provided by the PISA data while remaining aware of both its strengths and limitations, this review seeks to assist the education community in Sweden to ensure their system remains equitable, adaptable, and future-ready.
Sweden’s education system is characterised by a highly decentralised governance model, with responsibilities distributed among national, municipal, and local actors. The Swedish parliament (Riksdagen) determines the overarching legal framework through the Education Act (Education Act, 2010[5]), while the government sets detailed regulations, curricula, and learning outcomes (Eurydice, 2024[6]). Municipalities, as the main providers of compulsory education, are responsible for organising, funding, and delivering education from preschool to upper secondary level. They are also required to establish local school plans to describe how national goals will be achieved within their jurisdictions (Eurydice, 2024[7]). School principals are central figures in daily management, resource allocation, and ensuring that teaching aligns with both national and municipal objectives.
The Swedish Education Act (2010:800) is the cornerstone of the country’s education policy, embedding principles of equity, inclusion, and accessibility (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2024[8]). These principles are reflected in the national curriculum and guide all educational activities, including those in independent schools. The funding model is voucher-based: resources follow the student, enabling families to choose between municipal and independent schools, both of which are publicly funded and free of charge. According to the OECD Review Team’s interviews with stakeholders, this system supports school choice and competition, but has also raised concerns about equity, segregation, and accountability, particularly as independent schools have grown in number and now account for a significant share of students at both primary and secondary levels.
Recent reforms reflect a continuation of long-standing policy priorities, such as strengthening basic skills, addressing socio-economic disparities, and enhancing professional standards. While earlier governments placed stronger emphasis on educational equity, the current Kristersson government has prioritised restoring order in schools, reinforcing knowledge-oriented instruction, and curbing grade inflation (Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[3]). The Tidö Agreement (Tidöavtalet), which frames the current government’s education policy, has reaffirmed state-led steering as a means to address fragmentation, learning gaps, and accountability issues across the system (Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[3]).
In this regard, several important policy developments have taken place:
Implementation of the Tidö Agreement. This refers to the setting out of the government’s priorities for strengthening discipline, ensuring accurate student assessment, promoting knowledge-based education, and increasing state involvement in oversight and regulation (Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[3]).
Re-professionalisation of the teaching profession. The government introduced Proposition 2022/23:54 to establish a national professional programme for teachers, principals, and preschool educators (Ministry of Education and Research, 2023[9]). This initiative, which was initially planned to take effect on 1 January 2025, was postponed by the Riksdag and instead entered into force on 1 September 2025 (Skolverket, 2024[10]). It seeks to standardise core professional competencies, reduce variability in pedagogical practices, and offer continuous education and career development. It includes a national structure for competence development and a merit-based system, with one merit level requiring a doctoral degree (Ministry of Education and Research, 2023[9]).
Increased attention to school climate and safety. Legislative changes, notably through Proposition 2021/22:160, have clarified and expanded the authority of all school staff to intervene in disruptive situations, including the use of physical intervention if necessary (Rosberg, 2023[11]). These reforms aim to improve safety, create a calm study environment and strengthen targeted training for educators, supported by national guidance (Ministry of Education and Research, 2023[9]).
Curbing grade inflation and enhancing assessment integrity. The government has announced a proposal to reinforce grading standards and ensure greater objectivity in student assessment, particularly in independent schools. These planned measures aim to address concerns over inflated grades and uneven grading practices across the sector (Ministry of Education and Research, 2023[9]).
System-level investigations and forward planning. Throughout 2023, the government initiated several public inquiries into core areas of education policy. These include proposals for a national curriculum review, expanded instructional time, and a national standard for the school voucher system (Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[3]). The inquiries are designed to generate actionable recommendations to address the perceived fragmentation of Sweden’s education governance and to ensure greater system coherence (Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[3]).
Digital policy adjustments have also been introduced. The current government has taken steps to reduce digital screen time in early years education, encourage the use of printed textbooks, and emphasise foundational skills in literacy and numeracy. These changes reflect a broader re-evaluation of digitalisation in curriculum policy and its effectiveness in supporting student learning (Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[3]).
In general, these developments signal a shift in Swedish school governance, away from a strong emphasis on local autonomy and towards a more standards-based, state-led model of quality assurance and professional regulation. This transition is ongoing and may be interpreted as a new phase in Sweden’s educational trajectory, with national policy taking a more active role in ensuring coherence, equity, and professional consistency across a diverse and decentralised system. Some of these aspects will be revisited in a dedicated section in the closing chapter of this review (Chapter 5).
Approach
This diagnostic review relies mainly on quantitative analysis from PISA 2022, which reflects the experiences and learning outcomes of 15-year-old students. These results were complemented with qualitative evidence from online interviews with stakeholders to provide a more comprehensive picture of Sweden’s situation in relation to the topics examined. While PISA captures conditions at a specific stage of schooling, it is important to acknowledge that achievement at age 15, including observed inequities, might be also shaped by policies and practices throughout earlier years of education. By combining statistical analysis with the contextual insights provided by stakeholders, the review aims to offer robust reflections on the challenges and opportunities associated with digital education, school climate and safety, and the effective use of resources to address the issues identified in these areas.
On the quantitative side, the analysis draws heavily on data from the 2022 cycle of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). This includes measures of student performance in mathematics, reading, and science, as well as indicators related to equity, well-being, school climate, digital tool use, and resource availability. Statistical techniques, such as multivariate analysis, are used to explore the relationships between student outcomes and contextual factors (particularly those related to school climate and safety and digital technology integration). The analysis disaggregates results by student characteristics, including gender, socio-economic status, and immigrant background, and incorporates school-level variables where available. When possible, trend analysis is also used to explore changes between 2012 and 2022. In parallel, the review also considered the qualitative evidence gathered through interviews with national and local stakeholders, including policymakers, researchers, and representatives of key organisations. These interviews help to contextualise the quantitative findings by offering grounded insights into the policy environment, implementation challenges, and stakeholder priorities. The mixed-methods approach enables the review to triangulate findings and to produce the policy considerations presented in the concluding chapter. A key feature of this review is its comparative dimension. Sweden’s results in PISA 2022 are systematically compared to those of other OECD countries, particularly the neighbouring Nordic countries, Finland, Denmark and Norway. This benchmarking helps to identify areas where Sweden performs well or lags behind, while also providing a basis for identifying relevant international examples.
Limitations
PISA offers a unique and internationally standardised framework for assessing student learning outcomes and learning conditions. Its primary strength lies in its breadth, covering cognitive skills, student well-being, and school-level practices. The use of both student and school questionnaires allows for analysis of how learning environments and school policies relate to student performance. In particular, PISA 2022 provides timely evidence on key topics relevant to this review: students’ digital competence and access to technology, their experiences of school safety and classroom climate, and how schools manage resources and support instruction. The combination of student and school-reported data allows for a multi-layered analysis that might help to link student perspectives with institutional strategies.
However, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, most PISA indicators are based on self-reported data, especially regarding school climate, student well-being, and digital practices. This introduces possible biases, including cultural variability in how questions are interpreted. For example, PISA 2022 required country-specific adjustments for Sweden, Norway, and New Zealand to ensure the comparability of certain school safety items. Second, as already mentioned, PISA is cross-sectional: it provides a snapshot at a single point in time rather than tracking the same students or schools over time. This limits the ability to assess the long-term impact of reforms or observe how student experiences evolve. Third, while PISA covers many relevant domains, it does not capture all aspects of teaching and learning. It lacks in-depth data on classroom practices, school leadership, teacher collaboration, and the quality of professional learning. It also does not reflect broader contextual factors (such as neighbourhood characteristics, home learning environments, or national curricula) that may shape outcomes. As a result, while PISA provides critical comparative and diagnostic insights, its findings must be interpreted in light of these limitations. To build a more complete understanding of Sweden’s policy context, the review complements PISA results with stakeholder interviews.
Over the last decade, Sweden’s performance in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has revealed both progress and persistent challenges in its education system. This section provides a high-level overview of trends in student performance, equity, and learning conditions based on data from PISA cycles between 2012 and 2022. It highlights key developments that help contextualise the diagnostic themes of this review, namely digital education, school climate and safety, and the effective use of resources. The analysis also draws attention to emerging equity concerns linked to socio-economic status, gender, and immigrant background. While a more detailed examination of these themes is offered in the following chapters, this overview serves to situate Sweden’s policy context in light of international comparisons and long-term performance trends.
Performance trajectories in core domains
Sweden’s results in PISA 2012–2022 reveal a mixed pattern of recovery, stabilisation, and renewed decline across the three core subject areas: mathematics, reading, and science. While Sweden has avoided the steeper downward trends observed in some other OECD countries, its performance in 2022 remains below previous peaks. It should also be noted that Sweden received one of the highest numbers of refugees among comparable OECD countries up until 2015. This demographic development have contributed to changes in student composition that should be taken into account when interpreting long-term trends in performance and equity as reported by investigations of Swedish authorities (Skolverket, 2023[12]; Skolverket, 2023[13]).
Sweden’s mathematics performance has undergone visible shifts over the past two decades (Figure 2.1). Following a significant decline in the early 2000s, Sweden recorded its lowest PISA mathematics score in 2012, at 478 points, well below the OECD average of 491 at the time. A period of recovery followed, with performance improving to 494 in 2015, slightly above the OECD average of 487. Sweden’s performance peaked in 2018 at 502 points, again surpassing the OECD average of 490. However, by 2022, Sweden’s mean score had dropped to 482, although it remained above the OECD average of 475, but representing a statistically significant 21-point decline from the 2018 peak, and a significant 12-point drop compared to 2015.
Note: The OECD average is based on data from 35 member countries.
Source: OECD (2023[14]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
When looking at change in mathematics performance, Sweden’s results show some improvement between 2012 and 2018, followed by a sharp decline between 2018 and 2022, leaving scores in 2022 at nearly the same low level observed in 2012. Although this pattern is somewhat more positive than the average OECD trend during the same period, the recent downturn signals renewed challenges in sustaining earlier gains (Table 2.1). Meanwhile, the OECD average has experienced a steady, statistically significant decline over the past decade.
Note: Statistically significant values are indicated in bold. The OECD average is based on data from 35 member countries. The average decennial trend is the average change, per 10-year period, between the earliest available measurement in PISA and PISA 2022, calculated by a linear regression. The average decennial trend is only computed for countries with comparable data in more than two PISA assessments, over the period considered.
Source: OECD (2023[14]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
Sweden’s reading performance reflects a similar rise and fall (Figure 2.2). After declining to 483 in 2012, below the OECD average of 494, Sweden’s scores rebounded to 500 in 2015, surpassing the OECD average of 490, and rose further to 506 in 2018, again above the OECD average of 488. However, by 2022, reading performance had declined significantly to 487. Although this result remains above the OECD average of 477, it represents a reversal of prior gains. In the Nordic region, Finland recorded the steepest drop (from 524 in 2012 to 490 in 2022), while Denmark and Norway also experienced declines. In this context, Sweden’s modest decrease appears relatively stable by comparison.
Note: The OECD average is based on data from 35 member countries.
Source: OECD (2023[14]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
Changes in Sweden’s reading performance show a mixed pattern over the past four PISA cycles (Table 2.2. ). Between 2012 and 2022, scores increased by 4 points, although this change is not statistically significant. In contrast, there was a decline of 13 points between 2015 and 2022, and another drop between 2018 and 2022, reflecting a statistically significant loss of the progress made in previous cycles. For the OECD average, reading performance declined significantly across all three periods and generally stayed lower than Sweden’s average, with an average decennial decrease of 16 points.
Note: Statistically significant values are indicated in bold. The OECD average is based on data from 35 member countries. The average decennial trend is the average change, per 10-year period, between the earliest available measurement in PISA and PISA 2022, calculated by a linear regression. The average decennial trend is only computed for countries with comparable data in more than two PISA assessments, over the period considered.
Source: OECD (2023[14]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
Science performance in Sweden has been the most stable of the three subjects over the past decade (Figure 2.3. ). In 2012, Sweden’s mean score was 485, below the OECD average of 499. By 2015, the score had risen to 493, closely aligning with the OECD average of 491 for that cycle. Performance increased further to 499 in 2018, exceeding the OECD average of 489. In 2022, Sweden’s score declined slightly to 494, although this still marks a nine-point improvement over 2012 and positions Sweden above the OECD average of 485. Relative to other Nordic countries (such as Finland, where science scores fell from 545 to 511 over the same period) Sweden’s trajectory suggests greater resilience in this domain.
Note: The OECD average is based on data from 35 member countries.
Source: OECD (2023[14]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
While Sweden’s science performance has remained stable over the past decade, with no statistically significant increases or declines, the OECD average has shown statistically significant decreases across the past four PISA cycles (Table 2.3.). The largest gap was recorded between 2012 and 2022, with an average decline of 12 points.
Note: Statistically significant values are indicated in bold. The OECD average is based on data from 35 member countries. The average decennial trend is the average change, per 10-year period, between the earliest available measurement in PISA and PISA 2022, calculated by a linear regression. The average decennial trend is only computed for countries with comparable data in more than two PISA assessments, over the period considered.
Source: OECD (2023[14]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
Trends in equity and inclusion
Beyond mean performance, PISA data reveal widening disparities in educational outcomes between student groups in Sweden. While the country has made progress in maintaining overall performance, growing inequalities related to socio-economic status, gender, and immigrant background raise important concerns for the inclusiveness and fairness of the education system.
Socio-economic disparities have deepened over the past decade (Figure 2.4.). In mathematics, the share of performance variance explained by socio-economic status (as measured by the ESCS index, which is the index of economic, social and cultural status) rose from 11.8% in 2012 to 15.0% in 2022, reaching the OECD average. Similar trends were observed in reading (from 10.6% to 14.1%) and science (from 11.8% to 15.8%), suggesting that status factors are increasingly influencing students’ outcomes across domains. In international comparisons, Sweden shows a more marked increase in socio-economic inequality than most Nordic countries, where the influence of ESCS has remained lower and more stable.
Note: ESCS refers to the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status. The OECD average is comprised of 35 Member countries.
Source: OECD (2023[14]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
In addition, academic resilience, defined as the share of disadvantaged students who perform in the top quartile, remained stable at around 10% in mathematics, on par with the OECD average. While this suggests that some students are able to overcome status disadvantages, the small size of this group underscores the need for more targeted support.
Gender gaps are relatively modest in mathematics. Sweden stands out, with girls and boys achieving nearly identical scores in each cycle (in 2022, girls slightly outperformed boys by 3 score points). This is a reversal of the typical OECD pattern where boys generally hold a modest but persistent advantage (Figure 2.5.). In science, Swedish girls consistently outperform boys by around 5 to 9 points, while the OECD average shows near parity between genders in this domain. Reading by contrast, continues to show the widest gender gap: girls outperform boys by 34 to 51 points, a pattern that is consistent globally. In Sweden, the gap narrows slightly over time but continues to remain larger than the gender gap seen in reading across the OECD. Boys were also more likely to be low performers in reading, with 30% scoring below Level 2 compared to 18% of girls. These results highlight a need to address underachievement among boys in literacy while sustaining gender equity in mathematics and science.
Note: The OECD average is comprised of 35 Member countries.
Source: OECD (2023[14]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
Migration background remains a significant source of inequality. In Sweden, performance gaps across mathematics, science and reading are substantial and statistically significant across the past four PISA cycles (Table 2.4.). In mathematics, the gap has stayed close to 60 points since 2012. In 2022, the gap further widened when students with an immigrant background scored 436 compared to 499 for their non-immigrant peers, a gap of 63 points, which is more than double the OECD average. Similar widening patterns are seen in science and reading performance. The gap between immigrant and non-immigrant students has grown steadily from 72 points in 2012 to 84 points in 2022 in science while gaps in reading also widened from 63 points in 2012 to 81 in 2022. These results highlight that Sweden’s performance gaps remain roughly twice as large as the OECD average, pointing to persistent equity challenges for immigrant students that have yet to be addressed effectively over the past decade.
Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD (2023[14]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
Overall, the average performance of immigrant students in the three domains has slightly improved since 2012, but the performance gap remains large and persistent across the four PISA cycles. Contributing factors include higher levels of socio-economic disadvantage and greater linguistic diversity among immigrant students.
Digital tools and student learning
Sweden is one of the most digitally advanced education systems in the OECD, with widespread access to digital devices and internet connectivity in schools. However, PISA 2022 data suggest that digital technology, while essential, may not always be used in ways that enhance student learning, and in some cases may contribute to classroom disruption.
According to student reports, 37% of Swedish students stated that they became distracted by their own use of digital devices during lessons, compared to the OECD average of 30%. Additionally, 29% reported being distracted by classmates using devices in class (OECD average: 25%). These figures point to a growing concern about how digital tools are integrated into instructional practices and managed in the classroom environment. While moderate use of digital tools can support engagement and personalised learning, excessive or unstructured use is associated with weaker academic outcomes. Sweden’s experience illustrates the importance of ensuring that digital infrastructure is paired with pedagogical strategies that make meaningful use of technology. This includes professional development for teachers, clear usage guidelines, and efforts to align digital practices with curricular goals.
School disciplinary climate and safety
The PISA 2022 results highlight concerns about the quality of school disciplinary climate and safety in Sweden. Compared to other OECD countries, Swedish students report more frequent disruptions during lessons and lower levels of classroom discipline, factors that can significantly hinder learning. In 2022, 30% of Swedish students reported that they were unable to work well in most or all lessons, compared to an OECD average of 23%. More strikingly, 58% of students admitted to not listening to what the teacher says, nearly double the OECD average of 30%. Disruption by peers is also widespread: about a third of students stated that they were distracted by classmates in most or nearly all lessons. This proportion has nearly doubled since 2006, suggesting a possible long-term deterioration in classroom order. However, interpretation of some results should be approached with caution: for example, the phrasing of the question on “not listening to the teacher” differed slightly in the Swedish version of PISA 2022 from earlier and international versions, which may influence comparability as indicated by research undertaken by Swedish authorities (Skolverket, 2024[15]).
Other indicators reinforce this pattern. Sweden ranked among the lowest-performing countries on student punctuality in previous PISA cycles, with more than half of students (56%) reporting they arrived late to school at least once in the fortnight preceding the 2012 assessment. Exposure to bullying also remains a concern, particularly among girls and socio-economically advantaged students.
These behavioural challenges, while not unique to Sweden, have persisted despite rising national awareness and policy interventions. Sweden’s challenges in classroom climate are echoed in the PISA 2022 indexes, which show comparatively low scores for disciplinary climate. PISA results also suggest that improvements in disciplinary climate and safety are positively associated with academic performance, even after accounting for socio-economic status and other student background factors, but these benefits are not equally experienced across student groups. These findings have direct implications for student engagement, well-being, and academic performance, making school climate and safety a central focus of this review.
The trends observed in Sweden’s PISA 2022 results highlight a set of intertwined policy challenges and opportunities. While Sweden’s average student performance remains above the OECD average in many areas, the data signal persistent and, in some cases, widening disparities. In particular, socio-economic inequality, gaps in outcomes for immigrant students, and classroom climate conditions emerge as pressing concerns.
First, the growing influence of socio-economic status on student outcomes across all three domains (mathematics, reading and science) points to the need for renewed equity-focussed interventions. Policies that improve the distribution of resources and support schools with disadvantaged student populations could play a key role in reducing these disparities. Second, despite Sweden’s long-standing commitment to inclusion, the wide performance gap between students with and without an immigrant background calls for more tailored policies. These may include enhanced language support, early assessment of learning needs, and culturally responsive teaching. Third, issues related to classroom climate and digital distractions suggest a need to revisit how learning environments are structured and supported. Measures recently adopted in Sweden, such as stronger school discipline policies and professional development in behaviour management, are efforts in this direction. However, ongoing monitoring and evaluation will be essential to ensure these reforms are effective and equitable. Finally, the extensive use of digital technologies in Swedish schools requires closer alignment between infrastructure, pedagogy, and learning outcomes. Future strategies should emphasise the purposeful integration of digital tools, supported by clear guidance and adequate teacher training. By responding to these findings, policymakers in Sweden can leverage the PISA 2022 results not only to diagnose challenges, but also to guide improvements that ensure all students benefit from high-quality, equitable, and engaging education.
This report is structured into two major analytical chapters (digital technologies and school disciplinary climate and safety), each addressing one of the key areas identified as priorities in Sweden’s education system while the final chapter offers policy considerations to address the issues identified in the two thematic chapters. Together, these chapters provide an integrated diagnostic of system performance, equity, and quality, based primarily on data from PISA 2022, complemented by national evidence, stakeholder perspectives, and comparative insights from other OECD countries in the two main topics of this review. After this introduction (chapter 2), the substantive chapters of the review are:
Chapter 3 on digital education. Using data from PISA 2022, this chapter analyses how digital resources are used in Swedish schools and how they are related to students’ mathematics performance. 12 indices and six individual items are examined in depth, comparing Sweden’s results to those of other OECD and Nordic countries. Associations with mathematics performance are explored using bivariate and multivariate analyses, disaggregated by gender, socio-economic status, migrant background and school location. PISA data show that students in Sweden make extensive use of digital technologies for learning. They express a high level of satisfaction with the availability of digital resources and their teachers’ digital skills. Compared with other OECD countries, the use of digital resources in Sweden is also associated with better student performance, though not in mathematics lessons. The PISA data point to challenges related to a greater prevalence of digital distractions as well as socio-economic inequities in students’ digital literacy and the quality of digital resources. Strategies that could be considered to address these challenges are presented at the end of this chapter and further developed in Chapter 5.
Chapter 4 on school disciplinary climate and safety. Drawing on PISA 2022 data, this chapter analyses how students in Sweden experience classroom order, safety and behavioural engagement. It examines nine indices and two individual items, comparing Sweden with other OECD and Nordic countries. The analysis includes results disaggregated by gender, socio-economic status, migrant background and school location. Findings highlight Sweden’s strengths in student–teacher relationships, teacher support and sense of belonging, alongside persistent challenges related to classroom disruption, bullying and absenteeism. Importantly, positive associations between school climate and learning outcomes are not equally distributed, revealing equity gaps across the system. Policy considerations to address these challenges are presented at the end of the chapter and further developed in Chapter 5.
Chapter 5 on policy considerations. This chapter discusses how Sweden might consider using school resources more effectively to advance equity, quality and innovation. Resources are defined broadly to include human resources and the governance and funding arrangements that shape their use. Guided by four principles (adequacy, equity, efficiency and alignment) the first part of this chapter reviews Sweden’s decentralised governance, financing patterns, staffing and professional learning, and the adequacy of teaching resources, noting strengths alongside persistent local variation and distributional challenges. Based on this background, the second part translates findings from Chapters 3 and 4 into eight policy considerations across two domains: digital education and school disciplinary climate and safety. The chapter concludes that resources are not ends in themselves but enabling conditions; mobilised coherently, they can sustain safe, inclusive and future-ready learning environments.
Together, all the chapters of this diagnostic review aim to provide a coherent and evidence-based assessment of Sweden’s education system in the topics selected. By linking trends in performance and equity with insights into classroom climate, digital learning, and resource use, the report offers a foundation for identifying areas where policy and practice can be further strengthened. The findings are intended to support Sweden’s ongoing efforts to continue providing high-quality, inclusive, and future-ready education for all students.
References
[5] Education Act (2010), Svensk författningssamling 2010:800. Skollag., https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[10] Education, S. (ed.) (2024), Professionsprogrammet träder i kraft den 1 september 2025, https://www.skolverket.se/om-oss/nyheter/nyheter/2024-06-20-professionsprogrammet-trader-i-kraft-den-1-september-2025 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[8] European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2024), Country information for Sweden – Legislation and Policy, https://www.european-agency.org/country-information/sweden/legislation-and-policy (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[7] Eurydice (2024), Administration and Governance at Central and/or Regional Level – Sweden, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/sweden/administration-and-governance-central-andor-regional-level (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[6] Eurydice (2024), Organisation and Governance – Sweden, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/sweden/organisation-and-governance (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[4] Golden, G. (2020), “Education policy evaluation: Surveying the OECD landscape”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 236, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9f127490-en.
[3] Ministry of Education and Research (2024), The political and reformative qualities of the Sweden education system 2018-2024.
[9] Ministry of Education and Research (2023), National Professional Program for Principals, Teachers, and Preschool Teachers, Prop. 2022/23:54., https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/proposition/2023/01/prop.-20222354 (accessed on 2025).
[2] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
[14] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 29 January 2024).
[1] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[11] Rosberg, L. (2023), Problematizing Security in Education: A Poststructural Policy Analysis of Swedish School Security, https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=9124353&fileOId=9124366 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[15] Skolverket (2024), Elevers trygghet och studiero – en fördjupning av resultat i PISA 2022, Skolverket, https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=10392 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[13] Skolverket (2023), Invandringens betydelse för skolresultaten, https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=10052 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[12] Skolverket (ed.) (2023), PISA 2022: Svenska femtonåringars kunskaper i läsförståelse, matematik och naturvetenskap, https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=10095 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
← 1. Chapter 5 of this review offers a more detailed analysis of the governance and structure of the education system in Sweden, but a brief summary is offered in this section as a matter of introduction for the full report.