In 2025–26, many Swedish teachers feel they are teaching inside a “double system”. That feeling is real, but it does not mean you must run two curricula at once. LGR22 governs compulsory school (grundskolan), including Years 7–9, and it remains your day-to-day anchor for content, progression and grading. Gy25 sits in upper secondary (gymnasiet), and its grading reforms will shape what your pupils meet next.
The bridge work, then, is less about rewriting what you teach and more about adjusting how pupils learn to improve over time. If you can make revision and resubmission normal in Year 7, you are quietly preparing pupils for a system where later performance can carry more weight. If you want a practical way to introduce new routines without overwhelming staff, it can help to borrow the “small, safe micro-routines” approach often used in AI roll-outs, where one habit is embedded for 30 days before anything else changes. See how that looks in practice in Inset day AI workshop: three micro-routines.
Gy25’s headline change is the shift to ämnesbetyg (subject grades) rather than kursbetyg (course grades). In kursbetyg, a pupil’s grade is tied to each completed course, and that grade is “locked in” when the course ends. In ämnesbetyg, the grade is awarded at subject level, drawing on a broader body of evidence across time. The philosophy signal is clear: development matters, and later achievement can be decisive.
For teacher practice, this typically nudges three things. First, feedback becomes more explicitly forward-facing: “what to do next” matters as much as “what you did”. Second, evidence collection needs to show a journey, not just a snapshot. Third, pupils need routines that make improvement visible: revising, reattempting, and reflecting on what changed.
For pupils, the emotional shift is important. Kursbetyg can feel like a series of one-way doors. Ämnesbetyg can feel more forgiving, but only if pupils understand that “late improvement counts” is not the same as “I can leave everything until the end”. Your job in Years 7–9 is to build habits where improvement is expected, timed, and evidenced.
For Years 7–9 under LGR22, the safest message for departments is: keep teaching stable. Your content choices, text selections, sequencing, and lesson structures do not need a Gy25 rewrite. Planning continuity matters because pupils still need strong foundations in reading, writing, speaking and listening, and because staff capacity is finite.
In practice, “stability” means you keep your existing units if they are working, and you avoid relabelling everything with new terminology. It also means you resist the temptation to build new assessment grids for every task. Instead, you keep LGR22-aligned success criteria, but you teach pupils to use those criteria as a tool for improvement rather than as a one-off judgement.
If your school is also updating digital routines and staff guidance this year, it is worth aligning any change with a clear policy refresh so teachers are not guessing what is acceptable. The same principle applies to assessment evidence: clarity reduces workload. A useful reference point is an annual AI acceptable use policy refresh checklist, not because Gy25 is “about AI”, but because policy-driven clarity is what keeps classroom practice calm.
Even before Gy25 reaches your classroom, you can shift three things without touching your curriculum maps.
First, feedback: move from “this is what you got” to “this is what you do next, and when you will show it”. A single actionable target per lesson often beats three vague ones. In an argumentative paragraph, that might be: “Strengthen your counterargument by naming a credible opposing view, then rebut it with evidence.”
Second, evidence: begin collecting “before and after” evidence in small, manageable ways. A photo of a first draft and a final draft, a short reflection, and one teacher note can be enough. You are building the habit of showing improvement, not creating a portfolio museum.
Third, the value of late improvement: explicitly reward it. Under LGR22 you still grade according to the curriculum requirements, but you can design tasks so that the best work is produced later, after feedback cycles. Pupils learn that effort is not just time spent; it is improvement made.
If you are already streamlining reporting, consider how your comment bank or reporting pipeline can reflect “next steps” and “evidence of progress” consistently. There are practical ideas in Report writing 2025: AI assistants compared, especially around keeping an audit trail of what feedback was given and what changed.
To make “late improvement counts” real, pupils need a learning loop that is routine, not exceptional. The simplest loop is: draft, receive feedback, revise, resubmit, reflect. The key is that each stage is timed and visible.
In a Year 8 classroom, for example, you might start every writing lesson with a three-minute “fix-it” retrieval: pupils open last lesson’s feedback, choose one target, and edit one paragraph. Then you teach the new content. At the end, pupils write a short “change log” sentence: “I improved my argument by …” This is not extra work; it is the work. Over six weeks, pupils stop seeing feedback as criticism and start seeing it as a tool.
To keep workload under control, agree department-wide routines for what feedback looks like. One class might use coded margin notes; another might use whole-class feedback plus individual targets. Both can work, as long as pupils always know what to do next and when they will be asked to show it.
This 8-lesson unit is designed for Years 7–9 and aligns to LGR22 while deliberately rewarding improvement over time. The topic can be local and relevant anywhere: “Should schools limit smartphone use during the school day?” The content stays familiar; the design choice is the improvement loop.
Lesson 1 establishes the question and builds shared knowledge through a short, balanced text set. Pupils write an initial “cold” paragraph answering the question. You do not grade it; you keep it as baseline evidence.
Lesson 2 teaches claim–evidence–reasoning, using a model paragraph and a short exercise where pupils match claims to evidence. Pupils revise only one sentence in their cold paragraph, so they feel improvement is manageable.
Lesson 3 focuses on counterargument and rebuttal. Pupils add a counterargument sentence to their paragraph, then swap work and highlight where the rebuttal is convincing.
Lesson 4 teaches cohesion and academic tone. Pupils improve transitions and precision, using a small bank of connectives and subject vocabulary displayed on the board.
Lesson 5 is a first full draft of a short argumentative text (for example, 250–400 words, adjusted by year group). You provide rapid feedback, ideally within the lesson or by the next lesson, focused on one or two high-leverage targets.
Lesson 6 is revision day. Pupils resubmit a revised draft and attach a short change log: what they changed, why, and where the feedback is now met.
Lesson 7 adds a “late improvement challenge”: pupils choose one advanced feature (more nuanced evidence, stronger rebuttal, or a more balanced conclusion) and deliberately upgrade their work. This is where you make it explicit that later improvement is valued.
Lesson 8 is the final submission plus a short reflection conference or written reflection: what improved from the cold paragraph to the final draft, and what target they will carry into the next unit.
If you want to generate a clean lesson sequence, resources, and differentiated prompts quickly, the Unit Planner can help you scaffold the whole arc in minutes.
To keep this LGR22-aligned, build tiered model responses that show what “developing”, “secure”, and “advanced” look like in one paragraph and in one short essay. The point is not to reduce writing to a checklist; it is to make quality visible.
A developing model might state a clear opinion with one reason but use general evidence and simple connectives. A secure model would integrate a specific example, explain why it supports the claim, and use a counterargument. An advanced model would weigh competing values, use more precise language, and show control of structure and tone.
Alongside the LGR22-style models, you can annotate “future Gy25-style signals” in the margin. These are not new grades; they are cues pupils learn to recognise: sustained improvement across drafts, independence in applying feedback, and increasingly sophisticated choices over time. When pupils see these signals early, ämnesbetyg becomes less mysterious.
To generate tiered model answers and an annotation version for pupils, try the Answer Key tool.
Ready to Revolutionise Your Teaching Experience?
Discover the power of Automated Education by joining out community of educators who are reclaiming their time whilst enriching their classrooms. With our intuitive platform, you can automate administrative tasks, personalise student learning, and engage with your class like never before.
Don’t let administrative tasks overshadow your passion for teaching. Sign up today and transform your educational environment with Automated Education.
Pupils often hear “new grading system” and translate it as “new ways to fail”. A short, calm explainer reduces anxiety and improves goal-setting.
In tutor time or the first lesson of the unit, you might say: “In compulsory school, we use LGR22 and your grade reflects what you can do now. In upper secondary, Gy25 means the subject grade can reflect your development over a longer time. That’s why we practise improving work after feedback. It’s not about doing everything twice; it’s about getting better at the important bits.”
Then make it concrete. Show a pupil a cold paragraph and a final paragraph (anonymised), and ask: “What changed?” Pupils quickly see that improvement is not magic; it is a set of moves.
To produce a pupil-facing one-page explainer with simple examples and a short FAQ, use the Concept Explainer.
For Years 7–9, the practical implication is not “start grading like Gy25”. It is “record progress in a way that makes improvement visible”. Keep a light record of baseline, feedback given, and final performance. If you use a digital platform, consider attaching one short teacher note to each major revision cycle: target set, evidence of meeting it, next target.
When phrasing feedback, aim for language that travels well into Gy25: “You are not yet consistent with …” and “Next, improve by …”, followed by a specific action. When talking to families, emphasise that resubmission is not a loophole; it is a learning expectation. You can reassure them that grades remain LGR22-based, while explaining that the school is building habits that support future success.
If you are also supporting Year 7 transition routines, consider weaving the revision loop into induction so it becomes “how we do learning here” from the start. There are adaptable ideas in Year 7 induction: first fortnight routines.
A minimum viable department shift can fit into one meeting if you keep it tight. Agree one shared revision routine, one shared evidence expectation, and one shared way to talk about improvement.
You might leave the meeting with: a common “draft–feedback–revise–resubmit” timetable for extended writing, a simple rule that pupils attach a two-sentence change log to resubmissions, and a shared set of feedback stems that focus on next steps. Then, commit to reviewing impact after one unit, not after one lesson.
If your school is building staff confidence with new tools alongside these routines, it helps to set expectations for safe, consistent practice. A useful companion read is ECT/NQT first term AI operating manual, because the same “small routines, clear boundaries” approach reduces workload and uncertainty.
May your feedback feel lighter, and your pupils’ improvement more visible. The Automated Education Team
Black Friday can feel like a rare chance to “save” on AI subscriptions, but …
Three years after ChatGPT’s release, schools have enough experience to …
December in schools brings a familiar spike: cover changes, heightened …
Microsoft Ignite can feel like a firehose of AI updates, but schools need a …
Report writing in 2025 is less about “which chatbot is best” and more about …
Three years into LGR22, many schools report real gains in clarity and …
Anti-Bullying Week works best when it moves beyond awareness and into …
Remembrance teaching asks for careful language, accurate sources, and …
Mock season often fails for predictable reasons: revision plans are …
Rootsi 7.–9. klassi õpetajatelt oodatakse, et nad hoiaksid korraga kahte tõde: jätkaksid LGR22 järgi …
Sveriges lärare i årskurs 7–9 förväntas hålla två sanningar i huvudet samtidigt: hålla …
Ruotsin vuosiluokkien 7–9 opettajia pyydetään pitämään mielessä kaksi totuutta yhtä aikaa: pitää …