Viewed from Stockholm, the Swedish government’s own inquiry has delivered a sharp rebuke to a flagship proposal from the Tidö parties. Special investigator Eva Broström dismissed the idea of a mandatory language preschool for children with weak Swedish as legally fraught and potentially discriminatory, warning it would fundamentally alter the voluntary nature of early education. Instead, the inquiry recommends a more targeted approach: enhanced outreach, a right to extended hours in mainstream preschool, and a language assessment at age three that could trigger a right to language support. The intervention reflects a broader Nordic unease with coercive integration measures, even as policymakers grapple with widening gaps in school readiness among immigrant-background children.

In Berlin, a different kind of state withdrawal is being championed. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is campaigning to weaken compulsory schooling by introducing a right to home education, framing it as a defence of parental authority. Analysts in Germany note that the party’s rhetoric masks a deeper project: to instrumentalise real parental anxieties in order to undermine trust in public institutions and recast schools as sites of ideological indoctrination. A recent education report underscores that while parents bear primary responsibility for upbringing, the state is constitutionally obliged to intervene when fundamental skills such as German language proficiency are at risk. The AfD’s push, by contrast, would fracture the very common space where such skills are acquired, deepening social divisions.

From Tehran, the consequences of state absence are already visible on the streets. A leading social work expert has linked the surge in child labour directly to worsening poverty and flawed policies, arguing that without improving household livelihoods, no amount of round-ups will solve the problem. Users reacting to the report echoed this view, pointing to systemic neglect. The Iranian case illustrates a brutal inversion: here, the state’s failure to provide adequate support pushes children out of school entirely, into hidden and often more dangerous forms of work. The debate is not about parental choice versus state mandate, but about a state unable to fulfil its most basic protective role.

Taken together, these three vantage points reveal a shared tension between the rights of families and the responsibilities of public authorities. In Sweden, the state is urged to strengthen support without coercion; in Germany, a political movement seeks to dismantle the state’s educational role in the name of parental freedom; in Iran, the state’s absence leaves children unprotected. The common thread is the risk to the most disadvantaged. Whether through well-intentioned but flawed mandates, ideological attacks on public schooling, or sheer neglect, the result is the same: the children who most need a strong, equitable education system are the ones left behind.

Forward-looking analysis suggests that the Swedish model of reinforced voluntary support, if properly resourced, could offer a middle path—one that respects family autonomy while ensuring no child slips through the cracks. Yet the German and Iranian cases serve as warnings. Without robust public investment and a political consensus that education is a common good, the vacuum is filled either by radical alternatives or by the brutal logic of survival. The challenge for policymakers across all three contexts is to build systems that are both inclusive and effective, recognising that the line between parental responsibility and state obligation must be drawn with the child’s welfare at the centre.