The school considers the indictment, not just the verdict: the suspicion register became an employment condition on July 15

Since July 15, 2026, anyone employed in preschool, school, or adult education (komvux) must present an extract from both the criminal records register and the suspicion register. The extract must be no older than six months. The employer may note that it has been shown but may not copy it. The review separates charges, verdicts, and employment decisions.

Summary: On July 15, 2026, SFS 2026:760 came into effect. Anyone offered employment within the school system, now also including adult education (komvux), or in educational activities according to Chapter 25 of the Education Act, must present an extract from both the criminal records and the suspicion register. The extract must be no older than six months. Those who do not present it cannot be employed. The same requirement applies to assignments, temporary positions via another employer, school-based teacher training, and work placements. The Police specify what the suspicion part contains: suspicions that have led to charges for the offenses covered by the extract, not every report. The employer may only note that the extract has been shown. No copy, no other documentation. The law does not prohibit the employment of someone who has a record entry. It prohibits the employment of someone who does not show the document. The assessment of the content lies with the principal or the main authority, without the need to disclose that assessment.

What this review does not claim. A charge is not a conviction. The extract is not an employment ban for a certain type of crime; the Education Act requires the extract to be shown, and the employer determines suitability. The police state that the suspicion part concerns suspicions that have led to charges, not every preliminary investigation that has been closed. The six-month rule applies to how old the document can be and how soon the same employer can receive the person again without a new extract. It does not give the employer the right to demand a new extract from someone already employed, just because time has passed. The control during ownership and management assessment, where the Swedish Schools Inspectorate and the municipality can check the suspicion register, is a different decision than the extract the applicant orders themselves.

What changed on July 15

Before the change, those who were to be employed in preschool and school showed an extract from the criminal records. It could be a year old. Komvux was excluded. The Swedish National Agency for Education describes the new order: extracts from both registers, no older than six months, and the scope includes preschool, preschool class, leisure centers, primary school and adapted primary school, special school, Sami school, upper secondary school and adapted upper secondary school, komvux, pedagogical care, open preschool, open leisure activities, and care when the preschool is closed.

Chapter 2, Section 31 of the Education Act is the prohibition against employing, engaging, or accepting someone who has not shown the extract. Section 33 is the exception: within six months with the same employer, no new extract is required. The police changed the name of the form to register extract for work within the school system precisely because komvux was included. The government has also, by regulation, expanded which crimes are visible. This is a different level than the law. The law determines that the extract must be presented. The regulation determines how broad it is.

Charges without conviction, shown to the employer

The suspicion register is the police's register of persons who are suspected. The school's extract is a selection. The police state that it includes suspicions that have led to charges for the same crimes that the extract otherwise includes. A closed case without charges should not be there. A charge that has not been decided, or that has been dismissed if the information has not yet been purged, can be. Those applying for jobs as teachers, substitutes, cleaners via contractors, teacher students on school-based training, or interns from the Employment Service place that document on the table with the employer.

According to the police, the employer may only make a note that the extract has been shown. No other documentation may be made. It is both a privacy protection and a control problem. No copy remains to be requested, corrected, or compared with the next decision. The suitability assessment takes place in the room and leaves no trace other than that the document was shown. Those denied the job after showing a charge find it difficult to see how the entry was used.

The proposition 2025/26:174 justified the expansion with protection against violence, abuse, and inappropriate influence. The same proposition presents the government's assessment that the Swedish Schools Inspectorate and municipalities should be able to check the suspicion register during ownership and management assessment. This is a control of those who want to run a school, not of those applying for a position. The two should not be described as the same extract.

Three thresholds: conviction, charge, employment

Keep three thresholds separate.

The criminal records. Convictions and penalties. It was shown already before July 15. A conviction is a resolved issue of guilt, with the expungement rules the register has.
The suspicion register in the school's extract. Suspicions that have led to charges, for the crimes the form covers. Not every report. Not a conviction. The person may be innocent, awaiting trial, or already acquitted if the expungement is delayed.
The employment decision. The Education Act stops those who do not show the extract. It does not say that a certain entry means denied employment. That assessment is made by the main authority, and it must not be documented beyond the note that the extract was shown. Six months is the age of the document and the barrier for a new extract with the same employer, not a new annual check of those already employed.

Neuman Juridik has the guide on how to request the extract and what the school may do with it. This text concerns what changed when an ongoing issue of guilt became something a principal should see.

What the reader should do with this

Order the extract yourself from the Police. The employer at the school cannot obtain it for you. See Neuman Juridik's guide for the procedure.
Check if the line is a judgment or a charge. Only the latter is new for the school on July 15.
If a line is incorrect: correct it with the Police before showing the document. The employer does not keep a copy you can dispute later.
If you are already employed, the school cannot require a new extract under Chapter 2, Section 33 just because six months have passed. The rule applies to those offered employment, assignments, or acceptance, and the exception applies to renewals within six months with the same employer.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the school see that I am suspected even if I am not convicted?
Yeah, if the suspicion has led to charges for an offense covered by the extract. A report that has not resulted in charges should not be included, according to the Police's description of the form.

Does it apply to adult education and adult students?
It applies to those who are employed, engaged, or accepted to work or do an internship in adult education, not the students themselves. Vocational training within adult education that includes a workplace component is covered for the student who will be at that location.

Can the principal copy the extract?
No. The Police state that the employer may only note that the extract has been shown. No other documentation may be made.

Do I have to show a new extract every term?
Not if you are already employed. The extract must be no more than six months old when shown for employment or acceptance. Within six months with the same employer, no new extract is needed.