Government grants to Swedish schools abroad – an outdated and inefficient system
(RiR 2026:11)
Summary
The Swedish National Audit Office has examined whether the system of government grants to Swedish schools abroad is effective and finds that the system design is outdated and ineffective. The link between government grants and a clear Swedish public interest is weaker today than when the system was introduced. The regulatory framework allows for extensive scope for interpretation, making efficient and legally secure management difficult. Concurrently, supervision, evaluation and quality assurance by the school authorities do not function in practice. All in all, the Swedish National Audit Office considers that central government responsibility is unclear and unevenly distributed among different groups of pupils living abroad.
Weak link to public interest
When the current system was established, the intention was to facilitate recruitment for employers who needed to have staff stationed abroad, such as embassies, aid organisations and multinational companies. It was considered to be in the interest of Swedish society that these employers could send personnel to work abroad. In the early 1990s, there were more than 30 Swedish schools abroad, in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America. Today, there are 14 schools, of which 2 are in Africa, 7 in Spain and the rest in European capitals.
The Swedish National Audit Office’s audit shows that a majority of the guardians of pupils who entitle the schools to government grants are currently living abroad on their own initiative. Only a small proportion belong to the groups that the system originally focused on. Almost half of these pupils have guardians who are either employed at the school in question or are self-employed. Against this background, the link between government grants and a clear Swedish public interest is weaker today than when the system was established.
Regulations allow a wide scope for interpretation
The Swedish National Audit Office considers that the Ordinance on government grants for the education of Swedish children and young people abroad (1994:519) allows for a wide scope for interpretation, which impedes consistent and legally secure administration. This applies in particular to the provisions on grants for pupils and premise costs for Swedish schools abroad, as well as to other parts of the regulations. The National Agency for Education, which administers and decides on government grants, takes a generous view of which applications for government grants should be approved. As a result, a large proportion of government grants over the past year have not been in line with the original intentions.
As regards the premises cost grant, half of the schools’ premises costs are reimbursed, regardless of the amount. The Swedish National Audit Office considers that this may drive up costs and that any government grants should therefore be consolidated into a single grant per pupil.
Supervision, evaluation and quality assurance are inadequate
The Swedish National Audit Office’s assessment is that the supervision, evaluation and quality assurance of Swedish schools abroad are not functioning at all. Many schools market themselves as being approved by the National Agency for Education and subject to supervision by the Swedish Schools Inspectorate. However, the audit shows that, in practice, none of the school authorities have any in-depth control over or insight into the schools’ activities. Meanwhile, the majority of guardians assume that their children are attending a Swedish school with rights and obligations equivalent to those of schools in Sweden.
According to the Swedish National Audit Office, the provision stating that schools are only required to comply with the Education Act in certain respects and ‘as far as possible’ is unfortunate. It is difficult to pinpoint reasons why Swedish schools abroad should not have the same obligations as schools in Sweden, for example with regard to special educational support. Furthermore, compared with small independent schools in Sweden, most Swedish schools abroad have more financial resources per pupil.
Recommendations
The Swedish National Audit Office’s recommendations to the Government are presented below.
- Clarify what responsibility the central government should take for Swedish students’ education when they live abroad.
- Consider whether the system of Swedish schools abroad is needed.
Depending on what the Riksdag and the Government decide on this matter, the Swedish National Audit Office sees the following options:
One option is to eliminate government grants for regular teaching at Swedish schools abroad. Supplementary Swedish language tuition and distance learning are already available for pupils who wish to maintain their knowledge of the Swedish language and culture or obtain grades that enable them to continue their studies in Sweden. If government grants are eliminated, the Government must decide whether schools should continue to be approved and granted the right to award Swedish grades, albeit without receiving government grants.
Another option is – like with the systems in Norway and Finland − to open up to a broader group of pupils. This would mean that significantly more pupils would entitle schools to government grants, which in turn would require a decision on whether grant levels should be reduced or whether the total budget for Swedish schools abroad should be increased.
A third option is to retain the original intention of Swedish schools abroad and continue to subsidise education abroad for a select group. In that case, the Ordinance on government grants would need to be revised and new preparatory documents drawn up to clarify which groups are intended.
If the Government chooses the second or third option, according to the Swedish National Audit Office, the following proposals should be considered:
- Impose more stringent requirements for schools to comply with the Education Act. Exceptions should only be granted when Swedish regulations conflict with the legislation of the host country, and should then be documented and justified.
- Introduce a time limit on how long a pupil can entitle a school to government grants, possibly with an exception for pupils whose guardians work for a Swedish authority or organisation.
- Eliminate the premises cost grant.
- Clarify and tighten the Swedish Schools Inspectorate’s supervisory responsibilities.
- Clarify the duties and responsibilities of the representative on school boards appointed by the National Agency for Education and impose more stringent requirements for the person appointed.
- Stop applying the ECA index for pupil grants. If an index is to be used going forward, a more appropriate and accurate one should be introduced.