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.
Education in Sweden
Abstract
The effective use of school resources is central to ensuring that students in Sweden have equitable opportunities to learn and thrive. In the context of this OECD Diagnostic Review, resources are understood broadly to include human resources such as teachers and support staff as well as the governance and funding arrangements that shape their use. While the volume of resources available is important, what matters most is how they are mobilised to create conditions for high-quality teaching and safe, supportive learning environments.
This closing chapter situates the analysis in Sweden’s governance and resourcing context, highlighting that resources are not an end in themselves but an enabling condition for advancing the country’s priorities covered in this report of digital innovation and improved school disciplinary climate. Adequate and equitably distributed resources might reduce disruptions linked to scarcity, expand teachers’ capacity to engage students, and provide the infrastructure for digital learning and inclusive classrooms. In turn, these conditions support stronger engagement and learning outcomes. Governance and accountability mechanisms are equally central, shaping how consistently schools can translate resources into effective practice, particularly in a decentralised education system such as Sweden’s.
The discussion that follows is guided by four principles. First, adequacy recognises that students and teachers require sufficient human, material and digital resources to meet curricular and instructional goals (OECD, 2022[1]). Second, equity underscores that resources should be fairly distributed so that students from disadvantaged socio-economic status, those with an immigrant background, and those in rural areas are not systematically deprived of opportunities to succeed (OECD, 2024[2]). Third, efficiency highlights the need to use resources in ways that maximise learning outcomes and student well-being, recognising that more resources do not automatically lead to improved results (OECD, 2022[1]). Finally, alignment emphasises that resources should be mobilised coherently with teaching practices, digital strategies, and efforts to promote safe and supportive learning environments (Wang and Degol, 2015[3]).
These principles are consistent with the insights of earlier chapters. For digital education (Chapter 3), they highlight that infrastructure and devices are only effective when accompanied by teacher training, equitable access, and clear policies to limit distraction (Bulman and Fairlie, 2016[4]; OECD, 2023[5]). For school disciplinary climate and safety (Chapter 4), they underline that school support and inclusive arrangements are resources in their own right, enabling more orderly classrooms, stronger relationships and safer environments (Thapa et al., 2013[6]; OECD, 2023[5]). The remainder of the chapter first describes Sweden’s governance and resourcing arrangements, then turns to eight policy considerations drawn from the analyses of digital education and school disciplinary climate and safety in Chapters 3 and 4.
The Swedish school education system is organised around the education journey of the child and adolescent. It begins with voluntary (non-compulsory) preschool (förskola) from ages one to five, which is both play-based and educational, as defined in the Curriculum for Preschool (Lpfö 18) (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018[7]). In this framework, education includes teaching that aims to stimulate and challenge children, taking the curriculum goals as a starting point and promoting their development and learning at all times. Preschool teachers are responsible for the pedagogical content and targeted work to support children’s growth (Swedish National Agency for Education, Skolverket, 2018[8]). Preschool in Sweden enjoys widespread participation and is complemented by various other early childhood education and care forms, reflecting a commitment to accessible early learning opportunities for all children. At age six, children are required to complete one mandatory year in preschool class (förskoleklass), an arrangement made compulsory in 2018 (Prop. 2017/18:9). This preschool class aims to provide children with essential foundations for continued schooling and learning, ensuring that every child receives structured support as they transition into the broader education system (Government of Sweden, 2017[9]). This is followed by nine years of compulsory education in unified primary and lower‑secondary schools (grundskola), and finally by optional upper‑secondary education in a unified gymnasium (gymnasieskola). The gymnasium offers 18 national programmes, of which six prepare for tertiary study and 12 are vocationally oriented (Eurydice, 2025[10]).
Overall political responsibility for the education system lies with the Ministry of Education and Research. The Ministry oversees compulsory and upper‑secondary schooling, early childhood education and care, and school‑age childcare provided in leisure‑time centres (fritidshem). However, the operational responsibility for organising and delivering education rests primarily with the municipalities, which act as local education authorities under the Education Act (Government of Sweden, 2025[11]). This arrangement was designed to support smooth transitions between preschool, formal education and after-school care, and to integrate the different strands of provision into a coherent whole. The system includes both municipal schools and independent schools, the latter publicly funded but privately run, as well as schools catering to specific groups such as Sami communities or students with special educational needs (formerly grundsärskola and gymnasiesärskola, renamed in autumn 2023 as anpassad grundskola and anpassad gymnasieskola to reflect an updated national framework for equity and inclusion) (Eurydice, 2025[10]; Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket ), 2023[12]).
Decentralisation reforms of the 1990s
Sweden’s education system underwent a profound transformation in the early 1990s, moving from a highly centralised model to one of the most decentralised in the OECD. This shift took place against the backdrop of a severe economic recession, which drove reforms across the public sector to enhance efficiency and local responsiveness. In education, the 1991 reform abolished state regulation over the appointment of teachers and school heads, alongside many detailed rules governing the allocation of state subsidies. Responsibilities for the operation of public schools were transferred from the state to 290 municipalities (Blanchenay, Burns and Köster, 2014[13]; Lundahl, 2019[14]).
The rationale for this shift was twofold. First, decentralisation was expected to allow schools to adapt more flexibly to local circumstances and to strengthen the involvement of parents and communities in education. Second, it aimed to move the system away from centralised micro-management of inputs toward a goal- and results-oriented framework. From 1994 onwards, new curricula gave schools greater autonomy to determine how national goals should be met and how instruction hours should be allocated across subjects. While these changes were consistent with international trends at the time, their rapid implementation created significant challenges. Local authorities were expected to assume new responsibilities for governance, resource allocation, and quality assurance, but capacity varied widely across municipalities. Smaller municipalities, in particular, struggled to manage their new obligations effectively, raising concerns about uneven implementation of national education priorities (Blanchenay, Burns and Köster, 2014[13])). The decentralisation reforms therefore marked a turning point in Swedish education: they redefined the role of the state from direct management to goal-setting and evaluation, while making municipalities the primary actors in school governance. However, as later evidence showed, this shift was apparently not accompanied by sufficient mechanisms to ensure consistency, equity and quality across the country.
Introduction of school choice and the rise of a publicly-funded private sector
In the early 1990s, Sweden also restructured its school system to expand parental choice and diversify provision. In 1992, reforms changed the requirements for grant-aided independent schools (fristående skolor), making them eligible to receive public funding on the same terms as municipal schools. A voucher system was introduced, whereby resources followed students regardless of whether they enrolled in a municipal or independent school, with the home municipality bearing the cost (Blanchenay, Burns and Köster, 2014[13]; Lundahl, 2019[14]).
The rationale for these reforms was to give families greater freedom to choose schools and to encourage diversity and innovation in provision. Independent schools were allowed to adopt different pedagogical approaches (e.g. Montessori, Waldorf), linguistic or religious orientations, or be established by groups of parents, associations, or private companies. Their activities were regulated under the Education Act, which stipulates that all schools must follow the national curriculum, be open to all pupils, and be based on democratic values (Swedish Parliament, 2010[15]). Since the early 1990s, enrolments in independent schools have grown steadily. By the 2024/25 school year, 17% of compulsory school (grundskola) students attended independent schools, 14 % in grades 1–6 and 21% in grades 7–9, while 32% of upper-secondary‑ (gymnasieskola) students were enrolled in independent institutions (Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket), 2025[16]). Growth has been particularly visible in urban municipalities, where the number of independent providers has expanded (Lundahl, 2019[14]).
Research has drawn attention to possible implications of these developments. Some studies suggest that families with higher educational attainment and income levels have been more likely to choose independent schools, and that this may be related to changes in school composition (Brandén and Bygren, 2018[17]). Other analyses have noted that the introduction of competition created new dynamics in the system, which have been the subject of policy debate in subsequent years (OECD, 2022[18]). Overall, the introduction of school choice marked a major shift in Sweden’s education system. It added a new dimension to decentralisation by increasing the role of parents and independent providers, while also raising questions about governance, equity, and quality assurance that would become more prominent in later reforms.
Challenges faced and the strengthening of central steering of education quality in the 2000s
The fast-paced introduction of decentralisation and school choice reforms in the early 1990s presented a number of challenges for Sweden’s education system. Monitoring by the National Agency for Education (Skolverket) already in 1993 suggested difficulties in municipal governance and uneven implementation across the country. Later analysis by the OECD pointed to a shift of responsibilities that was introduced rapidly and with limited preparation, leaving some municipalities (particularly smaller ones) with insufficient capacity to manage their new obligations effectively (Blanchenay, Burns and Köster, 2014[13]).
International assessments soon reflected these difficulties. As pointed out in Chapter 2 of this review, during the 2000s, Sweden experienced a marked decline in student performance as measure by the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA (but also in both, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, PIRLS, and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, TIMSS), alongside a widening gap between high and low-performing students. Between-school variation also increased, partly due to socio-economic segregation linked to school choice, but also due to differences in local resourcing and quality assurance practices as reported by some authors (Brandén and Bygren, 2018[17]). Evaluations noted that such local variations were unusually large for a system with strong equity objectives (Lundahl, 2019[14]).
At the same time, the tools available to central authorities to monitor and support quality were limited. The Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket), established in 1991, was primarily tasked with follow up‑ and evaluation rather than detailed regulation of school activities. However, municipalities did not always use national evidence for improvement. A review conducted by the OECD underlined four main concerns: uneven use of evaluation data at local level, weak capacity in smaller municipalities, a reliance on teachers to grade national tests locally, and the absence of formal teacher appraisal or professional standards (Nusche et al., 2011[19]). In response, reforms during the 2000s and early 2010s aimed to strengthen central steering of quality. These included greater emphasis on national monitoring and external evaluation, the creation of the Schools Inspectorate (Skolinspektionen) in 2008, and later the introduction of the 2011 Education Act and new curricula. The reforms also placed stronger emphasis on student assessment, grading, and teacher qualifications. These measures signalled an effort to balance local autonomy with a clearer national framework for quality and accountability.
For the purposes of this review, the main relevance of these reforms lies in how they shaped the governance and resourcing framework within which current challenges in digital education and school climate are addressed. While local autonomy remains central, the strengthened role of the state in setting expectations, monitoring outcomes and supporting teacher quality provides a critical backdrop for the policy considerations that follow.
Current governance arrangements
Sweden’s education governance arrangements have been already briefly described in Chapter 2. Rather than repeating that overview, this section highlights those features most relevant to the effective use of school resources in relation to digital education and school climate. In particular, it considers the respective responsibilities of the central government, agencies, municipalities and schools, and how these shape the conditions for mobilising resources in ways that support safe, inclusive and future-ready learning environments.
Sweden’s current education governance reflects the balance between national steering and strong local autonomy that has developed since the 1990s reforms. At the central level, the Education Act (Swedish Parliament, 2010[15]) provides the legal foundation for the system, defining principles of equity, inclusion and accessibility. National curricula, course syllabi and regulations issued by the Ministry of Education and Research specify learning goals and standards for different stages of schooling. Implementation is largely the responsibility of independent agencies operating at arm’s length from the Ministry. The National Agency for Education (Skolverket) oversees school activities from preschool to upper-secondary education, monitoring quality, developing steering documents, and supporting competence development for school staff. The Schools Inspectorate (Skolinspektionen) ensures compliance with legislation and carries out regular inspections. Other specialised agencies provide targeted support, for example the National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools (Specialpedagogiska skolmyndigheten) (Eurydice, 2025[10]).
At the local level, municipalities (kommuner) manage public schools within their constituencies and are responsible for ensuring that students reach national learning goals. They must develop a local school plan (skolplan) outlining how they will fulfil national objectives, including financing, organisation and quality assurance. Within each municipality, elected assemblies and education committees govern resource allocation and strategic direction (Swedish Parliament, 1991[20]). At the school level, principals (rektor) are responsible for translating national and municipal goals into concrete local objectives, often through a local work plan (arbetsplan). These plans are typically prepared in consultation with teachers and other staff, allowing schools to adapt to their contexts while remaining aligned with national standards (Eurydice, 2025[10]).
Quality assurance combines central oversight with local responsibility. Skolverket collects and disseminates data through platforms such as SIRIS (Skolverkets Internetbaserade Resultat- och kvalitetsInformations, System Information System on Results and Quality) and SALSA (Skolverkets Arbetsverktyg för Lokala SambandsAnalyser, Local Relationship Analysis Tool). SIRIS publishes school-level statistics and inspection reports, while SALSA provides adjusted performance indicators accounting for socio-economic status.
In addition, the National Agency for Education coordinates the National Quality System (Systematiskt kvalitetsarbete), which supports municipalities and schools through regular dialogues on national goals and quality indicators. Information on these indicators is made available via the Statistics Database (Statistikdatabasen) to help local school authorities plan and monitor improvement activities (Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket ), 2025[21]; Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket ), 2025[22]).These instruments aim to support municipalities and schools in reflecting on their performance and targeting improvement efforts (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, 2018[23]). Nevertheless, debates continue around issues such as grade reliability, given that teachers mark national tests locally, and concerns over grade inflation, particularly in independent schools. To address these, the government launched an investigation in 2023 into possible reforms to ensure more consistent and legally secure grading, with results expected in 2025 (Eurydice, 2025[24]).
For the purposes of this review, these governance arrangements provide the framework within which resources are mobilised for digital education and school disciplinary climate. Sweden combines strong national steering on principles and goals with wide local discretion in implementation. This creates opportunities for innovation and responsiveness to local needs but also risks unevenness in how resources are used to promote equity, quality and safe learning environments.
Recent and ongoing reforms
Several reforms in recent years illustrate Sweden’s evolving priorities in relation to school disciplinary climate and digital education. As outlined in Chapter 2 of this review and previous sections of this chapter, national policy has combined decentralised governance with a renewed emphasis on central steering to address quality, equity and efficiency. Building on that broader context, the reforms discussed here highlight specific developments most relevant for the themes of this review.
In the area of school disciplinary climate, reforms have aimed to strengthen safety, reduce absenteeism, and address different forms of violence. The School Social Teams Initiative (2023) introduced earmarked state grants that enable school principals to fund staff dedicated to promoting safe school environments and reducing long-term absenteeism. The initiative is jointly overseen by Skolverket and the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen), with an evaluation of its implementation scheduled for completion in October 2025 (Skolverket and Socialstyrelsen, forthcoming[25]).
In 2024, a proposal was introduced for a national ban on mobile phone use during school hours. The related report, submitted in March 2025, proposed a ban covering the entire school day, to be implemented from 2026 (Regeringen , 2025[26]). The rationale is to limit distractions and reduce harassment during lessons and break times. In parallel, the National Agency for Education (Skolverket) was tasked with surveying student absenteeism and developing proposals for a national absence register, which were presented in January 2025 as part of the report Bättre förutsättningar för trygghet och studiero i skolan (Regeringen , 2025[27]). More recently, in 2025, an investigation was launched into honour-related violence and oppression within schools, including preschool and upper-secondary levels. Its findings, expected in 2026, are intended to inform preventive measures and strengthen support for affected students (Eurydice, 2025[24]). In the area of digital education, reforms have sought to balance access to digital resources with attention to quality and age-appropriate use. The Screen-Free Preschool Curriculum Reform (2024) removed requirements for the use of digital tools in preschool, instead prioritising early reading and access to analogue books. At the same time, for compulsory and upper-secondary levels, the National Agency for Education (Skolverket) submitted a proposal for a National Digitalisation Strategy for Schools 2023–2027, aimed at strengthening students’ digital skills, enhancing infrastructure, and providing guidance for the responsible and effective use of digital technologies. However, the government decided not to proceed with the comprehensive implementation of this strategy. Instead, Skolverket was tasked to produce measures for digital competence requirements to be scaled back in preschool, and the policy emphasis shifted towards expanding the use of analogue materials, even as digitalisation and equitable access remain guiding principles for the school system (Government of Sweden, 2024[28]; Swedish National Agency for Education, Skolverket, 2025[29]) Taken together, these reforms highlight the dual focus of this review for Sweden: reinforcing safe and inclusive learning environments while promoting a responsible approach to digital transformation. They also reflect the ongoing role of central government in setting priorities and providing targeted funding or regulatory frameworks within a highly decentralised governance system.
Resourcing schools in Sweden
As outlined in Chapter 2, PISA 2022 evidence confirms three pressing areas of concern in Sweden’s school system as identified by the authorities (Sweden Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[30]): the growing influence of socio-economic status on learning outcomes, widening gaps between immigrant and non-immigrant students, and challenges related to classroom disciplinary climate. Examining how resources are allocated and used can help to understand these broader system outcomes. In this context, the aim of this section is to reflect on whether resources are distributed equitably, used efficiently, and aligned with educational priorities in ways that support equity and learning.
Sweden combines strong levels of public investment in education by international standards with a decentralised funding model in which municipalities play a central role. According to OECD data (OECD, 2024[2]), Sweden is among the top ten OECD countries in terms of education spending as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with investment levels above the OECD average across all stages of education, particularly in early childhood education and care. On a per-student basis, expenditure in compulsory and upper-secondary education is also above the OECD average. Compared to its Nordic neighbours, Sweden spends slightly more than Finland, somewhat less than Denmark, and substantially less than Norway, which is the highest spender in the OECD.
This high level of investment reflects Sweden’s long-standing commitment to education. However, the decentralised funding model means that municipalities are the primary providers of school funding, with resources raised through local taxes and supplemented by state grants. This system allows municipalities flexibility to adapt spending to local priorities and needs but also introduces variation across the country. Evaluations by the OECD (Blanchenay, Burns and Köster, 2014[13]) have noted that differences in municipal capacity can affect how resources are distributed and used. Municipal resources are supplemented by several types of state transfers. These include general grants, which municipalities can allocate at their discretion, and equalisation mechanisms that redistribute funds to reduce differences in municipal tax capacity (Sweden Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[31]). In addition, targeted grants have been introduced to steer the system in specific directions, such as reducing long-term absenteeism or strengthening digitalisation. Their role has increased over time: they represented around 1% of municipal education budgets some 15–20 years ago, compared to 5–7% in the most recent figures published by the OECD (2022[18]).
Despite high levels of overall spending, funding levels vary significantly between municipalities. According to data from the Swedish Ministry of Education and Research (2024[31]), in 2022 per-student funding in primary education ranged from SEK 107 300 in the lowest-spending municipality to SEK 176 200 in the highest. Variation also exists at upper-secondary level. These differences can be partly explained by variation in student needs, local costs (such as rural transport or urban salary levels), and differences in demographic trends. However, according to some of the stakeholders interview for this review by the OECD Review Team, they might also raise questions about how consistently the principle of equal educational opportunities, embedded in the Education Act (Swedish Parliament, 2010[15]) is realised in practice.
At the school level, principals generally receive a lump sum and have wide discretion in how to allocate resources. This autonomy allows schools to tailor spending to their priorities but also makes it difficult to ensure consistency across the system. In this regard, recent research by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR, 2024 ) shows that while many municipalities have adopted needs‑based allocation formulas that account for socio‑economic differences, several still rely primarily on historical spending patterns or student numbers (SALAR , 2024[32]). The key challenge, therefore, is not only how much Sweden spends, but also how effectively resources are used to support equity and learning. International evidence, including OECD reports (OECD, 2022[1]), shows that beyond a certain threshold, additional spending is not consistently associated with higher performance. What matters is targeting resources to where they are most needed, particularly disadvantaged schools and students. In Sweden, according to some stakeholders interviewed, some municipalities, such as Stockholm, already allocate significant additional funding to schools serving disadvantaged communities. Extending such approaches more systematically could help narrow achievement gaps.
Taken together, these findings suggest that while Sweden’s education system benefits from strong overall investment, decentralisation creates variation in how resources are allocated and used. This has important implications for the policy considerations set out in the second half of this chapter. In particular, ensuring that resources reach the students who need them most will be critical both for addressing socio-economic disparities in digital access and literacy (policy considerations 2 and 4) and for supporting schools in disadvantaged communities to foster safe and supportive disciplinary climates (see policy considerations 5 and 7).
Financial resources
Sweden devotes substantial public investment to education. By international standards, spending is high across all levels, especially in early childhood education and care, and remains above the OECD average in primary and secondary education (OECD, 2024[2]). In 2022, annual expenditure per student reached USD 15 037 in primary education (OECD average: USD 11 902) and USD 14 814 in secondary education (OECD average: USD 13 324) (OECD, 2024[33]). These figures place Sweden among the better-resourced education systems.
The governance of school finance reflects Sweden’s decentralised model. Municipalities account for about two-thirds of all education expenditure, with the remainder covered by general and specific state grants (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, 2018[23]; OECD, 2022[18]). Municipalities have considerable discretion in allocating resources, though since 2014 the Education Act requires them to distribute funds according to students’ needs (Sweden Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[31]). As mentioned earlier, capacity varies in practice: larger municipalities employ formula-based approaches that adjust for socio-economic indicators, while smaller municipalities often rely on simpler allocation models. This decentralisation allows adaptation to local needs, but it has also led to significant variation in per-student spending across municipalities. In 2022, the average annual cost for primary education was SEK 125 300 per student, but the range extended from SEK 107 300 to SEK 176 200 (Sweden Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[31]). While some of these differences reflect structural factors such as geography and school size, others are linked to local political priorities. These disparities seem to be at odds with the Education Act principle that education should be of equal quality regardless of where it is provided (Sweden Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[31]).
Again, it is important to note at this point, that international evidence shows that beyond a basic threshold, higher spending is not consistently associated with better student performance. What matters most is how funds are targeted and used (OECD, 2022[1]). In Sweden, the use of specific grants to steer municipal priorities has increased in recent years, signalling a stronger role for central authorities in ensuring consistency and equity across the system. Targeted investments in disadvantaged schools, such as those in Stockholm, also illustrate how municipalities can combine autonomy with mechanisms to compensate for socio-economic gaps. Overall, Sweden’s funding model provides a strong financial base for education, but the extent of local variation raises questions of equity and efficiency. Ensuring that financial resources are consistently mobilised to support digital education, safe classrooms and inclusive learning environments is essential if Sweden is to translate high levels of investment into improved outcomes.
Human resources and teacher professional development
Teachers and school leaders are at the centre of Sweden’s ability to use school resources effectively. As noted in the analytical framework guiding this chapter, adequacy, equity, efficiency and alignment are key principles for resource use (OECD, 2022[1]). Human resources exemplify these principles: their availability, distribution, and professional development determine whether investments in digital tools or reforms in school disciplinary climate can translate into improved learning and equity.
Sweden has built a structured pathway into the teaching profession. The preschool teacher programme (Förskollärarprogrammet), the primary school teacher programme (Grundlärarprogrammet), the secondary school teacher programme (Ämneslärarprogrammet) and the vocational teacher programme (Yrkeslärarprogrammet) provide differentiated training for all levels of the education system (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018[7]; 2022[34]; 2025[35]). Since 2011, teaching has been regulated through a national certification framework (Swedish Parliament, 2011[36]), which requires teachers to hold appropriate qualifications to set grades and obtain permanent contracts. These measures, anchored in the Education Act (Swedish Parliament, 2010[15]), reflect Sweden’s strong legal commitment to professional standards and equity. Recent reforms have reinforced this commitment. From September 2025, a national professional programme for teachers, preschool teachers and principals will be introduced. This programme combines a structured competence development system with a qualification framework, ensuring that professional learning is career-long and aligned with the needs of the school system (Eurydice, 2025[24]). It will offer courses in subject-specific pedagogy, mentoring, conflict management, cognitive science and special education. The aim is to provide not just adequacy in professional development opportunities, but also alignment with system priorities such as digital competence and inclusive teaching practices.
Also, PISA 2022 provides valuable insights into remaining challenges. Swedish principals reported lower-than-average shortages of qualified teaching staff compared to many OECD countries, but around one in five students still attended schools where leaders cited a lack of inadequacy of teaching staff “to some extent” or “a lot” (OECD, 2023[37]). Moreover, disadvantaged schools were more likely to face such shortages, raising concerns about equity in staff distribution. Analyses of change between PISA 2015 and 2022 show no statistically significant improvements, suggesting that this remains a persistent issue. Research has long shown that teacher shortages and uneven distribution can undermine school climate, contribute to absenteeism, and limit the effective use of digital resources (Thapa et al., 2013[6]; Wang and Degol, 2015[3]).
This evidence connects directly to the policy considerations developed in the second part of this chapter. Strengthening professional learning (Policy consideration 5) is necessary to equip teachers with inclusive and preventive classroom management strategies, while building leadership capacity (Policy consideration 6) depends on principals being trained to mentor staff and organise whole-school improvement. Likewise, the ability to integrate digital resources into teaching (Policy Consideration 1) depends on teachers’ confidence and competence in embedding technology into pedagogy. Finally, ensuring equity in staff distribution is essential to prevent socio-economic disparities in learning conditions, as also emphasised in Policy consideration 8 in the second part of this chapter.
Sweden’s new national professional programme represents an opportunity to address these interlinked challenges systematically. By grounding continuous professional learning in national standards while allowing municipalities to adapt provision locally, Sweden can align staff policies with broader goals for digital transformation and improved classroom disciplinary climate. Over time, this may help reduce fragmentation across municipalities and ensure that all students benefit from high-quality teaching and safe, supportive environments.
Teaching resources
Beyond human resources, the adequacy and quality of teaching resources are crucial for the effective functioning of schools. In Sweden, these resources encompass textbooks, learning materials, laboratory equipment, libraries, and increasingly, digital devices and platforms. The Education Act (Swedish Parliament, 2010[15]) establishes that all students are entitled to an equivalent quality of education, and this principle extends to the provision of teaching materials. National curricula, such as the Curriculum for Compulsory School, Preschool Class and Leisure-Time Centre (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2022[38]), stipulate that teaching must be based on a range of suitable materials and methods, thereby framing resources as an enabling condition for learning.
Evidence from PISA 2022 indicates that Sweden performs relatively well in terms of access to educational materials. Few principals reported that instruction was hindered by a lack of textbooks, library resources or laboratory equipment, suggesting that schools are generally well equipped (OECD, 2023[37]). At the same time, Sweden’s highly digitalised education system means that deficiencies in traditional materials may be less frequently reported than in countries where analogue resources remain the main instructional tools. Student perspectives provide a more nuanced view: while most report having access to appropriate learning materials, concerns persist over the quality and effectiveness of digital resources, as highlighted in Chapter 3 of this review. These disparities are often linked to socio-economic status, with disadvantaged students more likely to report limited access to high-quality materials, echoing broader concerns about equity in the Swedish system.
International research underscores that adequate teaching resources support not only student learning but also classroom order and disciplinary climate (Wang and Degol, 2015[3]; Thapa et al., 2013[6]). In Sweden, this connection is particularly relevant. PISA 2022 shows that schools where principals reported a lack of adequate materials also tended to report more frequent classroom disruptions (OECD, 2023[37]). While causality cannot be established, this association suggests that inadequacies in resources may undermine teachers’ ability to maintain orderly classrooms and to engage students effectively. This links directly to the policy considerations on improving school disciplinary climate and safety (see Chapter 4), where classroom management and the reduction of disruptive behaviours are central to creating positive learning environments.
Recent reforms highlight Sweden’s effort to balance digital and analogue resources. The 2024 “Screen-Free Preschool Curriculum Reform” shifted emphasis back to printed materials and reading in preschool. At the same time, instead of implementing a new National Digitalisation Strategy for Schools 2023-2027, the government instructed the National Agency for Education to develop measures to reduce and regulate the use of digital devices in schools and leisure-time centres, while ensuring that digital tools support learning in a targeted and age-appropriate way (Swedish National Agency for Education, Skolverket, 2025[29]). This dual orientation reflects a policy debate about how best to equip students with both foundational literacy skills and advanced digital competences. Overall, Sweden’s relatively strong baseline of provision means that the policy challenge is less about increasing the volume of teaching resources, and more about ensuring that they are equitably distributed and effectively aligned with pedagogical objectives. Monitoring is critical not only to track whether resources are available, but also whether they are mobilised in ways that support learning and student well-being. In this sense, textbooks, devices, and other learning materials should not be seen merely as inputs but as enabling conditions for teaching and equity.
The second part of this chapter builds directly on the previous insight, presenting policy considerations illustrated by international practices that Sweden might want to explore and examine in terms of mobilising both material and digital resources to strengthen teacher capacity, reduce inequities in access, and foster supportive and inclusive classroom disciplinary climates.
This section expands on the eight policy considerations introduced at the end of Chapters 3 and 4 (four in each) to support Sweden’s education community in ensuring the system remains equitable, adaptable and future-ready. It draws on insights from PISA 2022 presented in earlier chapters and situates them within the governance and resource frameworks outlined in the first part of this chapter. The purpose is not only to diagnose challenges but also to provide guidance on how all students can benefit from high-quality, equitable and engaging education. The considerations are organised into two clusters that reflect the review’s priorities for Sweden (Figure 5.1):
Digital education ensuring that investments in technology translate into effective pedagogical practices, equitable access and healthier student engagement.
School disciplinary climate and safety fostering orderly, safe and supportive environments, with stronger leadership, professional learning, and partnerships with families and communities.
Taken together, these considerations highlight how governance arrangements and resource policies can reinforce Sweden’s long-standing goals of equity, quality and innovation. They also show how system-level frameworks, local autonomy and international inspiration can be combined to strengthen everyday teaching and learning conditions in Swedish schools.
Policy considerations for digital education
Policy consideration 1: Strengthening teachers’ capacity to make effective pedagogical use of digital resources and managing digital distractions in the classroom
Sweden has invested heavily in digital resources and has one of the highest reported levels of student device use for learning across OECD countries. PISA 2022 results show that, at moderate levels, digital use is not detrimental to learning outcomes in Sweden. In fact, compared with the OECD average, the time that students spend learning with digital devices is associated with larger gains in mathematics performance, and performance only begins to decline at significantly higher levels of use than in many other systems (OECD, 2023[39]). At the same time, Swedish students are more likely than their OECD peers to report being distracted by digital devices during mathematics lessons, with distraction negatively associated with performance. This suggests that while digital resources can be a powerful learning tool, managing their use effectively in the classroom remains a challenge.
Professional development for teachers is an essential lever in this regard. PISA 2022 school leader reports indicate that in 39% of Swedish schools, mathematics teachers had not received professional development on integrating digital resources into instruction. This is a higher proportion than in neighbouring Nordic countries, where system-wide training has been prioritised. TALIS 2018 further highlights that Swedish teachers report lower-than-average participation in ICT-related (Information and Communication Technologies) professional learning compared with teachers in many other OECD countries (OECD, 2019[40]). Taken together, these findings suggest that while Sweden has achieved broad access to technology, teacher capacity to use digital tools for pedagogy and classroom management has not kept pace.
Evidence from Preparing Teachers for Digital Education (OECD, 2025[41]) shows that effective professional development goes beyond acquiring technical skills. It supports teachers in embedding digital tools into subject-specific pedagogy, selecting appropriate tools for particular tasks, and managing digital distractions. Programmes that are sustained over time, collaborative in nature, and linked to classroom practice have the greatest impact. One-off workshops have limited effect, whereas models based on coaching, peer observation and team teaching help teachers to experiment, reflect and refine their practice.
International experience underscores these insights. In Singapore, digital skills are embedded in the teacher career framework: initial teacher education includes mandatory training in digital pedagogy, and continuing professional development is tied to career advancement. Collaborative approaches such as lesson study are used to integrate digital tools into instructional practice, with strong support from school leadership (OECD, 2023[5]). In Spain, professional development programmes are explicitly linked to curriculum implementation, ensuring that ICT is used to enhance subject-specific learning rather than as a generic add-on. Teachers are encouraged to align digital resources with curricular goals, and collaboration between teachers is a core component (OECD, 2023[5]; Castaño Muñoz, Pokropek and Weikert García, 2022[42]). Portugal’s digital school plan goes a step further by combining large-scale provision of devices with targeted training modules for teachers, supported by local networks and peer mentoring (European Commission, 2022[43]). This demonstrates how scaling digital transformation requires linking infrastructure investment to pedagogical capacity-building. Estonia provides another example of a system that has embedded teacher digital competence in a comprehensive national framework (Box 5.1).
Estonia has taken a system-wide approach to strengthening teachers’ digital competences through a Digital Competence Framework for Teachers, which defines the skills and knowledge required for effective integration of digital tools into teaching. This framework is used to guide both initial teacher education and continuing professional learning.
Key elements include:
Mandatory training in digital pedagogy for teachers and school leaders, linked to curriculum reforms.
Self-assessment tools that allow teachers to evaluate their digital competence and target areas for growth.
Integration of digital competences into teacher appraisal and career progression, ensuring that digital skills are recognised and rewarded.
Collaborative learning formats, including innovation labs and peer observation, where teachers test and refine new practices.
Evaluations suggest that these measures have contributed to high levels of teacher preparedness for digital education and supported Estonia’s reputation as a leader in digital schooling. OECD analysis highlights Estonia’s approach as an example of how a clear national framework, embedded in professional learning structures, can strengthen teacher confidence and capacity to integrate digital tools effectively.
Source: OECD (2023[5]), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.
For Sweden, the implication is that professional learning needs to focus not only on technical skills but also on pedagogical integration and classroom management of digital tools. This could include to ensure or reinforce the following aspects:
Defining a digital competence framework for teachers at the national level, to clarify expectations.
Encouraging peer learning and mentoring models within schools and across municipalities, to address distraction and share practical solutions.
Embedding digital pedagogy in career-long professional development, ensuring teachers can keep pace with technological change.
By shifting the focus from access to effective pedagogical use, Sweden can maximise the benefits of its high levels of digital investment while addressing the challenge of classroom distraction.
Policy consideration 2: Developing strategies to strengthen students’ digital literacy and promoting a healthier engagement with digital devices
PISA 2022 and ICILS 2023 suggest that while Swedish students are frequent users of digital devices, they rate their digital competence below the OECD average and behind peers in Finland and Denmark. This indicates that high levels of exposure do not automatically translate into digital literacy. Moreover, socio-economic gaps are significant: advantaged students report much higher levels of digital confidence than disadvantaged peers, mirroring trends across OECD countries. In Sweden, self-efficacy in digital skills is strongly associated with mathematics performance, particularly for disadvantaged students (OECD, 2023[39]). Closing these gaps is therefore not only a matter of equity but also of improving learning outcomes.
Another concern is the way students engage with digital devices. A considerable share of Swedish students report problematic behaviours, such as keeping notifications on during lessons or at night, and feeling anxious when separated from their devices. These habits are associated with lower mathematics performance and are more common among disadvantaged students. They suggest that Sweden’s digital transformation has brought with it new risks for student well-being and equity.
International evidence points to the importance of embedding digital literacy and digital well-being into both curriculum and school culture. In Finland, digital skills are integrated across subjects as transversal competences, ensuring that students are taught not only how to use technology but also how to use it critically and responsibly. In Estonia, curriculum reforms have included modules on media literacy and coding, helping students to see themselves as active, informed participants in the digital world (Education Estonia, 2024[44]). These approaches highlight that digital literacy is not just about technical skills but also about critical thinking, safety and self-regulation (OECD, 2023[5]).
Korea has implemented a comprehensive approach to supporting students’ digital literacy and well-being. Recognising early the risks of device overuse, the government introduced digital citizenship education as a national priority.
Key features include:
Curriculum integration: digital citizenship is taught from primary school onwards, covering online ethics, cyberbullying prevention, privacy and respectful communication.
Self-regulation programmes: students are supported to develop healthy routines, such as limiting screen time and managing notifications. Schools work closely with families to reinforce these habits at home.
Digital detox initiatives: the Ministry of Education has supported awareness campaigns and voluntary “digital detox camps,” providing students with opportunities to reflect on their technology use and develop alternative social and recreational skills.
Collaboration with health and welfare services: schools work alongside mental health professionals and local authorities to identify and support students at risk of problematic use.
Evaluations of these programmes show reductions in reported digital dependency among adolescents, improved awareness of online risks, and stronger resilience to negative online experiences. OECD analysis highlights Korea’s initiatives as a promising example of how schools can promote not only digital skills but also healthy digital lifestyles that balance learning, well-being and equity.
Source: OECD (2023[5]), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.
Beyond curricula, systems have introduced targeted programmes to address device-related risks. Some countries promote awareness campaigns about healthy digital habits, while others integrate lessons on online well-being and cyberbullying prevention. Evidence suggests that students benefit most from programmes that combine explicit instruction on digital citizenship with opportunities to practise self-regulation in real settings (OECD, 2025[41]). Korea offers a particularly relevant example of how systems can embed digital literacy and healthy device use into curriculum and student support (Box 5.2).
For Sweden, these experiences suggest that strengthening digital literacy must go hand in hand with promoting healthier digital engagement. This could mean to integrate or reinforce the following aspects:
Embedding digital literacy across subjects, ensuring that all students acquire the skills needed to navigate online information critically.
Developing targeted initiatives to support students in managing device use, including awareness campaigns, classroom routines and parental engagement.
Paying particular attention to disadvantaged students, who face both lower digital confidence and greater risks from problematic digital habits.
By investing in both digital competence and digital well-being, Sweden can ensure that students are equipped not only to use technology effectively but also to engage with it in ways that support learning, equity and well-being.
Policy consideration 3: Investing in the digital capacity of school leadership and considering the dissemination of evidence and guidance on the effective use of digital resources
Leadership capacity is a central factor in shaping how digital tools are integrated into teaching and learning. PISA 2022 highlights that despite Sweden’s extensive use of digital devices, relatively few principals reported offering mathematics teachers professional development on integrating digital resources into instruction, and even fewer had a formal policy on digital device use during lessons. Where such policies were in place, they were not consistently associated with improvements in student performance, suggesting a lack of coherent strategies and uneven implementation across schools (OECD, 2023[5]).
In Sweden’s highly decentralised governance model, municipalities and individual schools enjoy wide discretion in setting their own approaches to digital learning. This autonomy can enable innovation, but it also risks fragmentation. Without strong leadership capacity and evidence-based guidance, digital resources may be underused or applied inconsistently, undermining their potential impact on student learning and well-being. As Chapter 3 showed, Sweden already has high levels of digital infrastructure, but the challenge lies in how school leaders support teachers to use these resources effectively.
International evidence underscores the importance of digital leadership at the school level. According to Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency (OECD, 2023[5]), systems that succeed in digital transformation invest in leaders’ capacity to develop shared visions for digital learning, align resources with pedagogical priorities, and create cultures of collaboration. Similarly, Preparing Teachers for Digital Education (OECD, 2025[41]) stresses that school leaders play a pivotal role in connecting teacher professional development with school-wide strategies, ensuring that digital tools serve instructional rather than administrative purposes.
Several countries provide useful examples. In Singapore, school leaders participate in dedicated training programmes that emphasise strategic use of ICT, curriculum integration, and support for teacher professional learning. Leaders are expected to model effective digital practices and to coordinate cross-school peer learning (OECD, 2023[5]). In Estonia, national frameworks equip principals with tools to monitor school-wide digital competence, linking leadership development to the broader digital education strategy (Education Estonia, 2020[45]). These cases demonstrate that leadership is not only about managing infrastructure but also about building a school culture that uses technology to enhance teaching and learning. Ireland’s approach provides a particularly relevant illustration of how national guidance can support school leaders in planning and implementing digital learning strategies while leaving room for local adaptation (Box 5.3).
Ireland has developed Digital Learning Planning Guidelines to help schools structure their approach to integrating ICT into teaching and learning. These guidelines form part of the national Digital Strategy for Schools and are designed to support principals and leadership teams in creating whole-school digital learning plans.
Key features include:
Structured planning templates that guide schools through self-evaluation of digital practices, needs assessment, and the definition of digital learning priorities.
Clear links with school self-evaluation frameworks, ensuring that digital strategies are embedded in wider school improvement processes.
Focus on pedagogy rather than technology, encouraging schools to align digital resources with curricular goals and learning outcomes.
Flexibility for local adaptation, enabling schools to tailor plans to their context, resources, and student needs.
The guidelines are supported by professional development opportunities for principals and leadership teams, including workshops and peer learning networks. Evaluations suggest that the approach has helped schools move from ad hoc use of digital tools to more systematic integration, with stronger alignment between technology use and teaching practices.
Source: OECD (2023[5]), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, , https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.
For Sweden, Ireland’s experience shows that providing structured but flexible planning tools can help school leaders steer digital transformation more effectively. Possible steps could include to reinforce or incorporate the following aspects:
Developing national or municipal guidance documents that offer frameworks and templates for digital learning plans.
Building peer learning platforms for school leaders, allowing principals to share strategies and model policies across municipalities.
Linking digital leadership development with teacher professional learning, so that principals are not only administrators but also pedagogical leaders in technology integration.
By strengthening leadership capacity and disseminating practical guidance, Sweden can help ensure that investments in digital resources translate into meaningful improvements in teaching and learning across its diverse school system.
Policy consideration 4: Monitoring and addressing potential inequities in students’ access to high-quality digital resources in schools
Sweden has invested significantly in digital infrastructure, and both students and principals report high levels of satisfaction with access to devices and connectivity. According to PISA 2022, relatively few principals indicated that instruction was hindered by a lack of digital resources. However, when students’ perspectives are considered, important inequities emerge. Advantaged students in Sweden report substantially better access to high-quality ICT resources than their disadvantaged peers, and this socio-economic gap is larger than in many OECD and Nordic countries. Students with better access also perform significantly higher in mathematics (OECD, 2023[39]).
This evidence suggests that while Sweden’s digital transformation has reached most schools, the quality and effectiveness of digital access vary systematically by socio-economic status. The risk is that digitalisation, rather than closing gaps, could exacerbate inequities in learning opportunities and outcomes. Sweden’s tradition of equity in education therefore calls for careful monitoring of resource distribution, with attention not only to whether devices are available, but also to their quality, usability and integration into teaching.
International experience shows that equity gaps in digital resources are common but can be mitigated through targeted strategies. In Chile, national initiatives have prioritised rural and low-income schools for device provision and connectivity upgrades, recognising that geography and socio-economic disadvantage interact to shape access (Ministerio de Educacion de Chile, 2025[46]). In Canada, several provinces have implemented equity-focussed digital strategies, including subsidised internet access for low-income families and targeted investment in rural broadband, to ensure that students’ opportunities are not determined by location (OECD, 2023[47]). Both examples highlight the value of designing digital strategies that explicitly consider vulnerable groups rather than assuming universal provision will deliver equitable results. Portugal provides one of the clearest examples of a comprehensive national strategy to address digital inequities (Box 5.4).
Launched in 2020, Portugal’s Escola Digital programme aims to ensure equitable access to high-quality digital resources for all students and teachers. The initiative was accelerated in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but has since been consolidated into a longer-term strategy for digital equity.
Key elements include:
Universal device provision: all students from grade 1 to upper secondary receive a personal laptop, prioritised initially for disadvantaged students.
Connectivity support: free or subsidised internet access for low-income families, ensuring that devices can be effectively used both in and out of school.
Digital education resources: centralised provision of digital textbooks and learning platforms, available free of charge to all schools.
Teacher and school leader support: professional development opportunities and technical assistance to ensure that digital tools are integrated effectively.
Evaluations indicate that the programme significantly reduced disparities in access during the pandemic and continues to narrow gaps between socio-economic groups. Surveys show improved access to devices at home for disadvantaged students, and schools report fewer interruptions to learning due to connectivity problems.
Source: OECD (2023[5]), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.
For Sweden, Portugal’s example highlights the importance of systematic monitoring and targeted action. While overall access is strong, ensuring equity requires:
Regular monitoring of student-reported access to digital resources, disaggregated by socio-economic status, gender and migration status.
Clear criteria for what constitute “high-quality” digital resources (devices, connectivity, educational software).
Targeted initiatives to support disadvantaged schools and students, possibly through municipal equalisation mechanisms or earmarked national grants.
Combining device provision with support for teachers and families, so that access translates into meaningful learning opportunities.
By embedding equity at the heart of its digital strategy, Sweden can ensure that digital transformation reinforces, rather than undermines, its long-standing commitment to inclusive and high-quality education.
Policy considerations for school disciplinary climate and safety
Policy consideration 5: Strengthening professional learning for teachers and school leaders considering a focus on behavioural management in high-need contexts
Teachers and school leaders in Sweden would benefit from enhanced support in addressing student disengagement, classroom disorder, and disrespectful behaviour—particularly in schools where these problems are more frequent or have greater academic impact. TALIS 2018 shows that teacher preparedness and access to professional learning are strongly related to school disciplinary climate quality (OECD, 2019[40]). In the Swedish context, this suggests the need for context-sensitive and sustained professional learning opportunities, especially in schools serving a mixed socio-economic and migrant-origin student populations. Special emphasis could be placed on preventive strategies, restorative practices, and whole-school discipline planning, ensuring that staff are equipped to manage behavioural complexity without resorting to exclusionary practices.
International evidence associates effective classroom management with stronger learning conditions. Studies highlight that teachers’ classroom management and cognitive activation are predictors of student achievement (Baumert et al., 2010[48]; Klusmann et al., 2008[49]). Large-scale assessments also show that orderly environments, as reported by teachers, tend to be associated with stronger outcomes (Le Donné, Fraser and Bousquet, 2016[50]). Yet TALIS 2018 data indicate that, on average across the OECD, teachers spend 78% of classroom time on instruction, 13% on maintaining order and 8% on administration, with evidence of decline in instructional time in several countries between 2008 and 2018 (OECD, 2019[40]). Teachers’ self-efficacy in classroom management is also inversely related to time spent on keeping order, reinforcing the case for professional learning in this area.
A range of approaches have been developed internationally to strengthen classroom management capacity. In Finland, national policies emphasise inclusive and restorative practices within a framework of high teacher autonomy. The Finnish National Agency for Education (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2025[51]) describes how teachers are encouraged to use dialogue, differentiation and preventive interventions, prioritising relationship-building over punitive measures. In Estonia, OECD analysis of PISA 2022 highlights the role of professional collaboration and inclusive practices in shaping orderly learning environments, supported by school-level autonomy and accountability mechanisms (OECD, 2023[39]).
Research shows that such practices can reduce disciplinary exclusions, strengthen student–teacher trust, and enhance equity (Gregory et al., 2014[52]; Okonofua, Paunesku and Walton, 2016[53]). Similarly, in Australia, many states have adopted whole-school Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) frameworks. In New South Wales, the What Works Best 2025 – Evidence Guide for Excellent Schools highlights PBS as an evidence-based strategy, emphasising the importance of consistent expectations, proactive reinforcement and strong school leadership to support classroom practice (NSW Department of Education, 2025[54]). In Victoria, the Department of Education and Training provides a comprehensive School-wide Positive Behaviour Support framework (Department of Education and Training Victoria, 2025[55]) alongside detailed guidance on Behaviour Support Plans (Department of Education and Training Victoria, 2025[56]). These system-level policies are complemented by national research showing that PBS and related approaches are associated with reductions in classroom disruption, improvements in student well-being, and more positive school disciplinary climates (Hoare, 2025[57]).
For Sweden, the implication is that professional learning policies should prioritise inclusive, whole-school approaches. Novice teachers, who often work in more challenging schools, may particularly benefit from mentoring and collaborative models, such as lesson study or team teaching, which have been shown to boost classroom management self-efficacy (OECD, 2019[40]). In this regard, both Japan and Singapore illustrate how classroom management can be reinforced through systemic collaboration and professional learning. Japan highlights the benefits of a whole-school ethos of responsibility supported by community involvement, while Singapore demonstrates how structured professional development and mentoring can strengthen teachers’ capacity to maintain order and build strong student relationships (Box 5.5).
Japan: Group responsibility and moral education
Classroom management in Japan is shaped by traditions of moral education and collective responsibility. Students are encouraged to care for their environment and peers through daily routines such as cleaning duties and peer mediation, practices which strengthen accountability and reduce the need for punitive discipline. Teachers are respected professionals expected to foster both academic and social development, with strong collaboration between schools, families and communities.
The Team Gakkō (“school as a team”) initiative promotes shared responsibility among all school staff and stakeholders, reinforcing a collective approach to school disciplinary climate. OECD’s policy review of Japan highlights that this model helps sustain orderly learning environments, though challenges such as teacher workload and student well-being have prompted reforms to modernise the approach. Curriculum updates now emphasise active learning and 21st-century competences, ensuring classroom management evolves alongside pedagogical goals (OECD, 2018[58]).
Singapore: Structured pedagogy and professional development
Singapore’s classroom management relies on structured pedagogy, clear behavioural expectations, and strong teacher authority. TALIS 2018 data show that 98% of teachers report positive relationships with students, a rate well above the OECD average (OECD, 2019[40]). Classroom routines are carefully established, and teachers use observation, feedback and performance data to refine practice.
Professional learning is a central feature of Singapore’s success. Nearly 90% of teachers receive training in pedagogy and classroom practice during initial preparation, and ongoing development is embedded in career pathways. Collaborative learning, team teaching and mentoring are widely practised, supported by a professional culture that values continuous improvement (Ministry of Education Singapore, 2023[59]). This structured and supportive environment enables teachers to manage classrooms effectively while fostering engagement and respect.
Source: OECD (2018[58]), Education Policy in Japan: Building Bridges towards 2030, Reviews of National Policies for Education https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264302402-en; Ministry of Education Singapore (2023[59]), https://www.moe.gov.sg/careers/become-teachers/pri-sec-jc-ci/professional-development/ (accessed on 3 September 2025).
For Sweden, these approaches suggest that embedding classroom management into collaborative professional learning (rather than treating it as an individual skill) may offer a sustainable path to improving school disciplinary climate, particularly in high-need contexts. This could include:
Providing sustained professional learning on preventive, inclusive and restorative classroom management.
Embedding mentoring and peer collaboration (lesson study, team teaching, peer observation) to strengthen novice teachers’ self-efficacy.
Encouraging whole-school discipline planning that prioritises equity and relationship-building rather than exclusionary practices.
Aligning professional development for teachers and leaders with national priorities on classroom order, equity and inclusion.
By strengthening professional learning around inclusive and preventive classroom management, Sweden can ensure that teachers and leaders are better equipped to create orderly, equitable and supportive learning environments across diverse school contexts.
Policy consideration 6: Supporting school leaders to address challenges in school climate and safety in their schools
The school principal plays a pivotal role in shaping and maintaining the school disciplinary climate (OECD, 2019[40]). Swedish school leaders, especially in settings where challenges are more concentrated, would benefit from dedicated training, peer exchange, and strategic guidance to support school-wide behavioural goals. As discussed in Chapter 4 (Box 4.11), the United Kingdom’s Behaviour Hubs Programme illustrates how leaders can be supported to implement consistent conduct policies, build a positive school culture, and respond effectively to verbal abuse, intimidation and disruption. Sweden could consider adapting similar mechanisms, for example by identifying and networking schools with strong disciplinary climate practices and pairing them with schools seeking improvement. Leadership development around data-informed decision-making, staff coordination, and early intervention could further empower Swedish principals to lead disciplinary climate reforms aligned with national values and local needs.
International data reinforce the importance of leadership for safe, inclusive school environments. TALIS 2018 shows that, on average across the OECD, most schools are safe from frequent violent incidents, but intimidation and bullying stand out: principals in 14% of schools report such incidents occurring at least weekly (OECD, 2019[40]). Comparative evidence suggests that progress is possible: between 2013 and 2018, principals in eight education systems such as Alberta (Canada), Chile, Croatia, Estonia and Latvia, reported significant declines in bullying incidents, possibly reflecting system-level strategies to tackle the issue. In Estonia, joint efforts by ministries, academic institutions and non-profit organisations have included school-level awareness campaigns and cyber-safety “web-constables”. Chile has embedded bullying prevention into mandatory school regulations, overseen by the Education Superintendence. Alberta equips teachers with resources to detect and respond to different forms of bullying, with strong parental involvement (OECD, 2019[40]). France’s Phare programme, launched in 2021, provides a nationwide mandatory framework for bullying prevention. It combines student ambassadors, parent engagement, awareness events, and a digital support platform, and has been progressively implemented across all primary, lower- and upper-secondary schools since 2023 (Ministry of National Education and Youth, 2025[60]).
Evidence also points to the potential of structured anti-bullying programmes. A meta-analysis of 14 randomised clinical trials covering more than 30,000 students found that shorter, targeted programmes, particularly those including teacher training, student engagement and parental involvement, were associated with moderate improvements in bullying reduction, victimisation, attitudes, and school disciplinary climate (Jiménez-Barbero et al., 2016[61]). Finally, for Sweden, the U.S. experience illustrates how peer networks can support principals beyond formal training, providing sustained collaboration and access to practical tools (Box 5.6). Establishing such networks across municipalities could help Swedish school leaders share effective approaches to safety, disciplinary climate and well-being, while adapting them to diverse local contexts.
Peer learning networks have emerged in the United States as a promising strategy to build school leaders’ capacity to improve school disciplinary climate. The National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE) has developed a comprehensive framework combining peer collaboration, trauma-informed leadership and the use of disciplinary climate data. Principals and district leaders participate in structured networks that allow them to share practices, reflect on challenges, and co-develop strategies tailored to local contexts.
The School Disciplinary Climate Improvement Resource Package, for example, provides action guides, data tools and online modules to support leaders in fostering safe, inclusive and respectful learning environments. Evaluations suggest that these networks strengthen relational trust, shared leadership and culturally responsive practices.
Source: U.S. Department of Education (2025[62]), School Climate, https://www.ed.gov/teaching-and-administration/safe-learning-environments/school-safety-and-security/school-climate-and-student-discipline/school-climate (accessed on 3 September 2025).
These findings underline that leadership is critical: effective implementation requires principals to mobilise staff, involve families, and sustain programme fidelity over time. Strengthening leadership capacity in Sweden could therefore focus on:
Offering targeted training and guidance for principals on bullying prevention, behavioural management and early intervention.
Developing peer learning networks for school leaders across municipalities to share effective practices.
Providing evidence-informed tools that help leaders use data on disciplinary climate, attendance and safety for decision-making.
Strengthening collaboration with national authorities so that leadership capacity-building is coherent across the system.
By investing in leadership capacity and fostering peer networks, Sweden can help principals lead improvements in safety and disciplinary climate consistently, ensuring that schools in all municipalities are better prepared to prevent disruption and promote student well-being.
Policy consideration 7: Reinforcing partnerships with families and external support services in high-need schools
Improving levels of parental engagement in the school life, particularly when interacting with teachers and other members of the school community, might be an important policy lever to consider. According to PISA 2022, in Sweden, the proportion of parents who engaged proactively with schools declined between 2018 and 2022: principals reported that in 2022, only 20% of students attended schools where at least half of families discussed their child’s progress on their own initiative, compared with 41% in 2018 (OECD, 2023[63]). This point is relevant because schools experiencing high levels of student absenteeism or disrespectful behaviour often operate in socially complex environments where families might play a crucial role to support schools. Stronger and more proactive engagement with families, through clear communication channels, shared behavioural norms, and opportunities for involvement, can help reinforce school expectations at home. This review highlights that inclusive partnerships with external support services (like mental health support), youth workers, and community organisations are important for tackling the underlying causes of behavioural issues, particularly in schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged students. Sweden could benefit from pilot initiatives or guidelines that formalise and strengthen cooperation between schools and these external actors.
PISA 2022 shows that absenteeism and late arrivals in Sweden are more frequent than the OECD average and disproportionately affect disadvantaged students and those with an immigrant background (OECD, 2023[39]). These patterns point to wider social factors beyond the school, including family stress, socio-economic disadvantage and health-related issues. Schools in high-need contexts need frameworks that help them coordinate with parents and external actors to tackle these challenges in a preventive rather than reactive way.
Finland illustrates how family and external partnerships can be institutionalised through multi-professional student welfare services. Under the Student Welfare Act, every pupil has the right to access services designed to promote health, safety, and inclusion.
Key features include:
School welfare teams in each school, bringing together teachers, principals, nurses, psychologists and social workers.
Close engagement with families, who are directly involved in discussions on behaviour, support plans, and student well-being.
Integration with municipal services, ensuring schools can access external expertise and specialist support.
Preventive orientation, with attention to early detection of absenteeism, bullying or emotional distress.
These services are embedded in legislation and resourced by municipalities, ensuring that cooperation with families and external actors is not left to individual initiative. Evaluations suggest the model contributes to high levels of student well-being, trust between parents and schools, and relatively low disruption in classrooms.
Source: Finnish National Agency for Education (2025), Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI), https://www.oph.fi/en (accessed on 5 September 2025).
International experience shows that structured parental involvement and multi-agency cooperation can improve both student outcomes and school disciplinary climate. In Estonia, bullying prevention initiatives include not only school staff and students but also parents and community actors, strengthening sustainability (Education Estonia, 2020[45]). In France, the national Phare programme (mentioned in the previous consideration), mandates parental participation and student councils in anti-bullying strategies, illustrating how families can be mobilised as partners in promoting safe school environments (Ministry of National Education and Youth, 2025[60]). In Canada, “community schools” offer models where educators work alongside social workers, health professionals and youth workers to provide support to students in disadvantaged communities (OECD, 2023[5]).
As also mentioned in the previous consideration, meta-analysis of anti-bullying programmes further shows that interventions are more effective when they combine teacher training, student engagement and parental involvement, particularly when implemented consistently and with a clear structure (Jiménez-Barbero et al., 2016[61]). This evidence reinforces the need to view parents and external actors not as secondary stakeholders, but as essential partners in creating positive school environments.
Finally, the Finnish example suggests the value of formalising school–family–service partnerships through clear frameworks and dedicated resources (Box 5.7). Pilot initiatives could be launched in municipalities with higher levels of disadvantage, where schools are most in need of external support. Over time, such models could help schools respond more effectively to the social and emotional drivers of absenteeism and disorder, reinforcing consistent behavioural expectations both at home and at school.
For Sweden, stronger collaboration with families and external actors could help schools address underlying social challenges. This could mean:
Creating clear frameworks for schools to engage families systematically in behaviour and attendance strategies.
Formalising cooperation with external services (health, social work, youth services) in high-need municipalities.
Launching pilot initiatives in disadvantaged areas to test multi-professional student welfare teams.
Encouraging early, preventive approaches that address social and emotional drivers of absenteeism and disorder.
By formalising partnerships with families and external services, Sweden can reinforce consistent behavioural expectations between home and school and provide timely support for students in high-need contexts, reducing absenteeism and disengagement.
Policy consideration 8: Promoting system-level coherence in behavioural and safety expectations, while respecting local autonomy
Sweden’s decentralised education governance provides schools and municipalities with significant autonomy in defining behavioural standards, safety policies and student support frameworks. This flexibility allows adaptation to local needs but also contributes to variation in implementation. PISA 2022 data show that Swedish students’ experiences of classroom disciplinary climate and safety differ markedly between schools, with disadvantaged schools more likely to report disorder, absenteeism and bullying (OECD, 2023[39]). While many schools operate in orderly and safe environments, others face persistent behavioural challenges, suggesting uneven application of behavioural norms across the system.
International experience shows that guidance frameworks from central authorities can help ensure consistency while leaving room for local adaptation. In Singapore, national frameworks on student conduct and discipline set clear expectations across all schools, while still allowing schools to define their own approaches (OECD, 2019[40]). Similarly, UK’s Behaviour Hubs Programme (see Box 4.11 in Chapter 4) provides structured model policies, peer mentoring and guidance materials for schools, with flexibility to adapt to local context (Department for Education, 2024[64]). These examples show how systems can establish baseline standards while supporting innovation at the school level.
Other systems have developed practical tools to guide school leaders. In the United States, the School Climate Improvement Resource Package provides action guides, data tools and training modules for school leaders, designed to help them diagnose disciplinary climate challenges and implement consistent strategies (U.S. Department of Education, 2025[62]). These resources emphasise relational trust and shared leadership but allow schools to adapt practices to their communities. Such tools illustrate how central guidance can enable coherence without micromanaging practice.
Finally, an Australian example shows how central guidance tools can help establish common behavioural standards while still respecting local autonomy (Box 5.8). A national framework, supported by practical resources, model policies and peer exchange platforms, could reduce disparities in school disciplinary climate across municipalities. By combining coherence with flexibility, Sweden could ensure that all students, regardless of where they attend school, benefit from safe and orderly learning environments.
Australia has embedded system-wide coherence in behaviour management through Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) frameworks implemented in several states and territories. These frameworks provide schools with structured guidance on setting behavioural expectations, reinforcing positive conduct, and addressing challenges in a proactive and consistent way.
Key features include:
Consistent expectations across all schools, communicated clearly to students, staff and families.
Proactive reinforcement systems, where positive behaviour is recognised and rewarded.
School-wide leadership and training, ensuring that teachers and principals apply approaches consistently.
Flexibility for local adaptation, allowing schools to tailor strategies to their student population and community needs.
Source: NSW Department of Education (2025[54]), What Works Best 2025 – Evidence guide for excellent schools, https://education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/education-data-and-research/what-works-best/what-works-best-2025-evidence-guide-for-excellent-schools.
For Sweden, guidance frameworks from central authorities could help ensure consistency while respecting local autonomy. This could mean to reinforce or incorporate the following aspects:
Developing national guidance tools that set baseline behavioural expectations across all schools.
Supporting peer exchange platforms where municipalities and schools can adapt and share approaches.
Ensuring flexibility for local adaptation, while reducing large disparities in behavioural policies between schools.
Embedding coherence mechanisms (model policies, templates, professional resources) within Sweden’s decentralised system.
By combining national guidance with local flexibility, Sweden can promote more consistent behavioural and safety standards while respecting decentralised governance, helping all schools provide safe and orderly learning conditions regardless of their location or student intake.
In conclusion, this chapter has highlighted how governance and resource policies can reinforce Sweden’s priorities for both digital education and school disciplinary climate. The eight policy considerations synthesise insights from PISA 2022 and international experience, pointing to ways and examples on which Sweden can reflect to ensure equitable and effective practices across schools. Strengthening teacher and leadership capacity, engaging families and communities, ensuring coherence in behavioural and safety expectations, and embedding digital resources into pedagogy and student well-being all represent levers to improve learning and equity. Taken together, these considerations emphasise that resources are not ends in themselves but enabling conditions. By mobilising them effectively, Sweden can build on its strong foundations of innovation and equity to continue ensuring that all students learn in safe, supportive and future-ready environments.
References
[48] Baumert, J. et al. (2010), “Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge, Cognitive Activation in the Classroom, and Student Progress”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 47/1, pp. 133-180, https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157.
[13] Blanchenay, P., T. Burns and F. Köster (2014), “Shifting Responsibilities - 20 Years of Education Devolution in Sweden: A Governing Complex Education Systems Case Study”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 104, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jz2jg1rqrd7-en.
[17] Brandén, M. and M. Bygren (2018), School Choice and School Segregation: Lessons from Sweden’s School Voucher System, https://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1218847&dswid=3644 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[4] Bulman, G. and R. Fairlie (2016), “Technology and Education”, in Handbook of the Economics of Education, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-63459-7.00005-1.
[42] Castaño Muñoz, J., A. Pokropek and L. Weikert García (2022), “For to all those who have, will more be given? Evidence from the adoption of the SELFIE tool for the digital capacity of schools in Spain”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 53/6, pp. 1937-1955, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13222.
[64] Department for Education (2024), Guidance: Behaviour Hubs, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/behaviour-hubs (accessed on 19 August 2025).
[56] Department of Education and Training Victoria (2025), Behaviour Support Plans, https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/behaviour-students/guidance/behaviour-support-plans (accessed on 14 October 2025).
[55] Department of Education and Training Victoria (2025), School-wide Positive Behaviour Support framework – Policy and Advisory Library, https://www2.education.vic.gov.au/pal/behaviour-students/guidance/school-wide-positive-behaviour-support-swpbs-framework (accessed on 3 September 2025).
[44] Education Estonia (2024), Enhancing learning through digital integration, https://www.educationestonia.org/digital-learning-study/ (accessed on 10 September 2025).
[45] Education Estonia (2020), How did Estonia become a new role model in digital education?, https://www.educationestonia.org/how-did-estonia-become-a-new-role-model-in-digital-education/ (accessed on 19 August 2025).
[43] European Commission (2022), Portugal – Action Plan for the Digital Transition, https://digital-skills-jobs.europa.eu/en/actions/national-initiatives/national-strategies/portugal-action-plan-digital-transition (accessed on 5 September 2025).
[10] Eurydice (2025), Eurypedia - Organisation and Governance of Education Systems - Sweden, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/sweden/organisation-and-governance (accessed on 19 August 2025).
[24] Eurydice (2025), National reforms in school education - Sweden, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/sweden/national-reforms-school-education (accessed on 29 August 2025).
[51] Finnish National Agency for Education (2025), Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI), https://www.oph.fi/en (accessed on 5 September 2025).
[28] Government of Sweden (2024), Uppdrag till Skolverket om att undersöka användning av digitala enheter i skolan och fritidshemmet [Assignment to the National Agency for Education to examine the use of digital devices in schools and leisure‑time centres], https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.582d622c190768c7a0822/1720018336052/U2024_01728_Anvandning-digitala-enheter-skolan-o-fritidshemmet.pdf (accessed on 14 October 2025).
[9] Government of Sweden (2017), Skolstart vid sex års ålder (Proposition 2017/18:9), https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/proposition/skolstart-vid-sex-ars-alder_h5039/ (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[11] Government of Sweden (ed.) (2025), Ministry of Education and Research – Responsibilities and Organisation, https://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-education-and-research/ (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[52] Gregory, A. et al. (2014), “The Promise of Restorative Practices to Transform Teacher-Student Relationships and Achieve Equity in School Discipline”, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, Vol. 26/4, pp. 325-353, https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929950.
[57] Hoare, E. (2025), Evidence-based practices in school settings for student wellbeing, https://www.edresearch.edu.au/sites/default/files/2025-05/evidence-based-practices-school-settings-student-wellbeing-aa.pdf (accessed on 14 October 2025).
[61] Jiménez-Barbero, J. et al. (2016), “Effectiveness of anti-bullying school programs: A meta-analysis”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 61, pp. 165-175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.12.015.
[49] Klusmann, U. et al. (2008), “Teachers’ occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory patterns.”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 100/3, pp. 702-715, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.702.
[50] Le Donné, N., P. Fraser and G. Bousquet (2016), “Teaching Strategies for Instructional Quality: Insights from the TALIS-PISA Link Data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 148, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jln1hlsr0lr-en.
[14] Lundahl, L. (2019), “Swedish education reform: High ambitions and troubling results”, Revue internationale d’éducation de Sèvres, Vol. HS - 3, https://doi.org/10.4000/ries.7843.
[46] Ministerio de Educacion de Chile (2025), Transformación Digital, https://www.innovacion.mineduc.cl/iniciativas/transformaci%C3%B3n-digital (accessed on 5 September 2025).
[59] Ministry of Education Singapore (2023), , https://www.moe.gov.sg/careers/become-teachers/pri-sec-jc-ci/professional-development/ (accessed on 3 September 2025).
[60] Ministry of National Education and Youth (2025), Phare : un programme de lutte contre le harcèlement à l’école, https://www.education.gouv.fr/non-au-harcelement/phare-un-programme-de-lutte-contre-le-harcelement-l-ecole-323435 (accessed on 3 September 2025).
[54] NSW Department of Education (2025), What Works Best 2025 – Evidence guide for excellent schools, https://education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/education-data-and-research/what-works-best/what-works-best-2025-evidence-guide-for-excellent-schools (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[19] Nusche, D. et al. (2011), OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Sweden 2011, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264116610-en.
[41] OECD (2025), “Preparing teachers for digital education: Continuing professional learning on digital skills and pedagogies”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 122, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/af442d7a-en.
[33] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024 - Country notes: Sweden, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-at-a-glance-2024-country-notes_fab77ef0-en/sweden_e625bad6-en.html (accessed on 20 August 2025).
[2] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
[47] OECD (2023), “Canada”, in Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7176156e-en.
[63] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I and II). Country Notes: Sweden, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/11/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_2fca04b9/sweden_3c417884/de351d24-en.pdf.
[39] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.
[37] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[5] OECD (2023), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.
[18] OECD (2022), “Policy dialogues in focus for Sweden: International insights for school funding reform”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 52, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a8f96831-en.
[1] OECD (2022), Value for Money in School Education: Smart Investments, Quality Outcomes, Equal Opportunities, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f6de8710-en.
[40] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
[58] OECD (2018), Education Policy in Japan: Building Bridges towards 2030, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264302402-en.
[53] Okonofua, J., D. Paunesku and G. Walton (2016), “Brief intervention to encourage empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113/19, pp. 5221-5226, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523698113.
[27] Regeringen (2025), Bättre förutsättningar för trygghet och studiero i skolan (SOU 2025:8) [Better Conditions for Safety and Calm in Schools],, https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2025/01/sou-20258 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[26] Regeringen (2025), Skolministern tog emot förslag om mobilförbud under hela skoldagen [Minister of Education Receives Proposal on a Full‑Day Mobile Phone Ban], https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2025/03/skolministern-tog-emot-forslag-om-mobilforbud-under-hela-skoldagen/ (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[32] SALAR (2024), Socioekonomisk resursfördelning i skolan [Socio‑economic Resource Allocation in Schools], https://extra.skr.se/skr/tjanster/rapporterochskrifter/publikationer/socioekonomiskresursfordelningiskolan.84815.html (accessed on 10 September 2025).
[25] Skolverket and Socialstyrelsen (forthcoming), Utvärdering av Skolans Sociala Team [Evaluation of the School Social Teams Initiative].
[31] Sweden Ministry of Education and Research (2024), Sweden 2024 Background Questionnaire.
[30] Sweden Ministry of Education and Research (2024), The political and reformative qualities of the Sweden education system 2018-2024.
[23] Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (2018), Socioekonomisk resursfördelning iskola och förskola [Socio-economic distribution of resources in school and pre-school], https://skr.se/skr/skolakulturfritid/forskolagrundochgymnasieskolakomvux/vagledningsvarpavanligafragor/socioekonomiskresursfordelning.2632.html (accessed on 14 October 2025).
[38] Swedish National Agency for Education (2022), Curriculum (Lgr22) for compulsory school, the preschool class and the leisure-time centre [Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2022], https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundskolan/laroplan-lgr22-for-grundskolan-samt-for-forskoleklassen-och-fritidshemmet (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[7] Swedish National Agency for Education (2018), Curriculum (Lpfö 18) for preschool [Läroplan för förskolan 2018 (Lpfö18)], https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/forskolan/laroplan-lpfo-18-for-forskolan (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[12] Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket ) (2023), Namnbyte och stärkt utbildning till elever med funktionsnedsättning [Name change and strengthened education for students with disabilities], https://www.skolverket.se/om-skolverket/nyheter-och-pressmeddelanden/nyheter/nyheter/2023-06-07-namnbyte-och-starkt-utbildning-till-elever-med-funktionsnedsattning (accessed on 10 September 2025).
[22] Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket ) (2025), Statistikdatabasen [Statistics Database],, https://statistikdatabasen.skolverket.se/PxWeb/pxweb/sv/ (accessed on 25 September 2025).
[21] Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket ) (2025), Systematiskt kvalitetsarbete [Systematic Quality Improvement], https://www.skolverket.se/styrning-och-ansvar/styrning-och-kvalitetsarbete/systematiskt-kvalitetsarbete (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[35] Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) (2025), Curriculumn for the upper secondary school for pupils with intellectual disabilities [Läroplan för anpassade gymnasieskolan (Lgyan25)], https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/anpassade-gymnasieskolan/laroplan-for-anpassade-gymnasieskolan-lgyan25 (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[16] Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) (2025), Sök statistik om förskola, skola och vuxenutbildning [Search statistics on preschool, school and adult education], https://www.skolverket.se/statistik-och-utvarderingar/statistik-om-forskola-och-skola (accessed on 14 October 2025).
[34] Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) (2022), Curriculum (Lsam22) for the Sami school and for the preschool class and after-school center in certain cases [Läroplan för sameskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2022], https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/sameskolan/laroplan-lsam22-for-sameskolan-samt-for-forskoleklassen-och-fritidshemmet-i-vissa-fall (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[29] Swedish National Agency for Education, Skolverket (2025), Uppdrag att undersöka användningen av digitala enheter i skolan och fritidshemmet – delredovisning [Investigation on the Use of Digital Devices in Schools and Leisure‑Time Centres – Interim Report], https://www.skolverket.se/sok-publikationer/publikationsserier/regeringsuppdrag/2025/uppdrag-att-undersoka-anvandning-av-digitala-enheter-i-skolan-och-fritidshemmet---delredovisning (accessed on 25 November 2025).
[8] Swedish National Agency for Education, Skolverket (2018), Curriculum for the Preschool: Läroplan för förskolan (Lpfö 18), https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=4049 (accessed on 10 September 2025).
[36] Swedish Parliament (2011), Regulation (2011:326) on qualifications and credentials for teachers and preschool teachers [Förordning (2011:326) om behörighet och legitimation för lärare och förskollärare], https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/forordning-2011326-om-behorighet-och_sfs-2011-326/ (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[15] Swedish Parliament (2010), Education Act [Skollag 2010:800], https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800/ (accessed on 25 August 2025).
[20] Swedish Parliament (1991), Local Goverment Act (1991:900) [Kommunallagen (1991:900)], https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/kommunallag-1991900_sfs-1991-900/ (accessed on 28 August 2025).
[6] Thapa, A. et al. (2013), “A Review of School Climate Research”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 83/3, pp. 357-385, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907.
[62] U.S. Department of Education (2025), School Climate, https://www.ed.gov/teaching-and-administration/safe-learning-environments/school-safety-and-security/school-climate-and-student-discipline/school-climate (accessed on 3 September 2025).
[3] Wang, M. and J. Degol (2015), “School Climate: a Review of the Construct, Measurement, and Impact on Student Outcomes”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 28/2, pp. 315-352, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1.