In this survey the author discusses teachers interpretation of documents formulated bythe government. The text in focus is the beginning of the curriculum where the basicvalues for the Swedish school system are to be found. Since there are great difficultiesknowing what the politicians mean, this survey tries to discuss different words likesecularism, confessional, non-confessional, and what they mean. This might seemobvious at first but it is relevant when you discuss religion and it´s roll in liberaldemocracies. This survey also tries to show how different interpretation of the textwould lead to different practice because of the lack of an actual consensus. The idea,that rational collegial reflections on how to implement the values, would lead to acommon and equivalent for all Swedish schools is criticized. Especially when thisgoal, the homogenizing one, can’t be at the expense of pupils autonomy. That is, thatpupils in liberal democracies should as individuals be able to make up their values bythemselves. This is a problem because every interpretation of the values is an actwhere you estimate what you believe as right and true. In multicultural countries asSweden this means that there are all kinds of interpretations. And none of which couldbe called more true or false when it comes to values, since values can’t be measured.The reason for this is, as the survey shows, that not even values that claim to besecular are neutral. The survey shows that it is not possible to be non- confessional asthe curriculum tells teachers to be. Even secularism is a confession beside others.