Education Policy Outlook 2018

Norway

Context

Norway scored higher than the OECD average in science in PISA 2015, with a mean score of 498 points, compared to the OECD average of 493 points. Performance in science remained stable across PISA cycles, with an average score change of 3.1 score points, while performance in reading and mathematics has also stayed the same. Socio-economic status had one of the lowest impacts in the OECD on science performance in PISA 2015, explaining 8.2% of the variance in performance (OECD average: 12.9%). The impact of ESCS on performance in science has not changed since 2006. There was no significant gender difference in science performance in PISA 2015. Immigrant students make up 12% of the student population of 15-year-olds in Norway, close to the OECD average of 12.5%. Performance differences between immigrant and non-immigrant students are slightly higher than the OECD average. Immigrant students scored on average 35 score points lower than native students in science in PISA 2015, compared to the OECD average of 31 points.

Education and care are seen as integrated in the national pedagogical framework in Norway. Enrolment of 3-year-olds in ECEC was among the highest in the OECD in 2015, at 95.5% (OECD average: 77.8%). Kindergarten (Barnehage) covers the age span of 0-5 years, and children typically attend beginning at age 1, when they become entitled to a place. Kindergartens have a formal curriculum framework in place that is delivered by qualified teachers and assistants (Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergarten). Compulsory education in Norway begins at age 6 and ends at age 16, similar to the typical duration across the OECD. Students are first tracked into different educational pathways at age 16, later than the OECD average of age 14. A comprehensive upper secondary system combines academic education and vocational training, offering students three general academic programmes and nine vocational programmes. After two years of vocational studies, or after completing the four-year vocational studies programme, students can enter university if they complete a supplementary year.

The majority of students enter vocational upper secondary education (53% in 2011, compared to the OECD average of 44%), but completion rates are below the OECD average. In the OECD Survey of Adult Skills in 2012 and 2015, adult literacy scores in Norway were higher than the OECD average, at 278 points, compared to the OECD average of 268 points. gap in literacy skills between older adults (age 55-65) and younger adults (age 25-34) was higher than the OECD average. The proportion of the population aged 25-64 with lower secondary education as the highest level of attainment in Norway is higher than the OECD average, with an attainment rate of 17.1% in 2016, compared to the OECD average of 14.3%. NEET rates (the proportion of those aged 18-24 that are neither employed nor in education or training) are lower than the OECD average, at 9.7% compared to the OECD average of 15.3%. The percentage of the population aged 25-34 with a tertiary-level qualification is higher than the OECD average, at 48.6% in 2016, compared to the OECD average of 43.1%. Employment rates for 25-34 year-olds with tertiary education are higher than the OECD average. In 2016, 86.6% were employed, while the OECD average rate was 82.9%.

Figure 7.19. Selected indicators compared with the average: Norway

Note: For each indicator, the absolute performance is standardised (normalised) using a normative score ranging from 0 to 220, where 100 was set at the average, taking into account all OECD countries with available data in each case.

Sources: OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en; OECD (2016), Skills Matter: Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258051-en; OECD (2017), Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en.

Statlink

Evolution of key education policy priorities

Table 7.19. Evolution of key education policy priorities, Norway (2008-17)

Identified by	Equity and quality	Preparing students for the future
Selected OECD country-based work, 2008-171	The OECD identified a need to improve quality at all levels of education and to ensure that the resources invested in student learning can be matched by the expected student outcomes. Also, Norwegian adolescents do not feel sufficiently engaged with learning in schools. Studies have shown that there is a decline in student motivation in lower secondary schools. According to PISA 2009 results, too many students are still entering lower secondary with weak basic skills and decreased motivation for learning. [2010; 2016]	According to OECD evidence, Norway also needs to strengthen the link between skills development and economic growth. Reorganising the higher education system in Norway is also considered a policy priority by the OECD. [2016]
Evolution of responses to EPO Surveys, 2013 and 2016‑17	Norway reported its intention to continue addressing challenges related to promoting social equity and reducing barriers to access to kindergarten. [2013; 2016-17]	Norway reported that challenges remain in guaranteeing that students finish upper secondary education and in promoting equity while stimulating student motivation and excellence. [2013; 2016-17]

1. See Annex A, Table A A.3 for the list of OECD publications consulted for this snapshot.

Selected education policy responses

Norway extended the legal right to a place in ECEC from age 1 in 2009. This implies that a child’s right to a kindergarten place is independent of the parents’ labour-force participation and the child is to be granted access to a place as well as quality education (OECD, 2015b). In addition, a new regulation and a programme of subsidies for parental fees were implemented in 2015 and 2016 to prevent financial burdens for families whose children would otherwise be unable to participate in education at this level (Norway Ministry of Education and Research, 2014). In particular, the government hopes that these measures will help to increase the proportion of minority-language children attending kindergarten, as their participation rate in ECEC lags behind that of students who are native speakers.

• Progress or impact: In 2015, the participation gap in kindergarten remained between minority-language children and children who are native speakers, but the gap had almost disappeared for children by age 5. The impact of the programme for parental fees is being closely monitored. Overall, the real costs paid by parents for kindergarten had been significantly reduced in 2015 compared to a decade ago (OECD, 2015b). The proportion of childcare operating costs paid by parents decreased from 37% in 2002 to 15% in 2012. In addition, municipalities are legally required to offer reduced fees for siblings and to put in place additional subsidies for low-income families. In 2015, Norway implemented national measures to reduce fees. No families are to pay more than 6% of their yearly family income (limited by the nationally set maximum fee). From 2016 all 3-year-olds, 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds in low-income families (as defined in the state budget) have the right to 20 hours per week of free kindergarten.

In Norway, the Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens (2017), a regulation of the Kindergarten Act (2005), replaces the 2006 Framework Plan that prescribed a similar regulatory framework for kindergartens (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017a). The current Framework Plan describes the transition from kindergarten to school and stipulates that kindergarten should accommodate the transition. In collaboration with schools, kindergartens are responsible for facilitating the transition of children from kindergarten to Year 1 of compulsory education and to after-school groups, all in close collaboration with their families. Co-operation between kindergartens and schools is not regulated at the national level. It is managed by local authorities, in this case municipalities, and kindergarten owners (public and private) (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017a; Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017b).

• Progress or impact: National evidence stated that the Framework Plan could be more specific on the content of school preparatory activities, by including social competence and communication, children’s active participation and co-operation to a larger extent. It also identified a need for a good transition and coherence between kindergarten and school. Both assessments led to the revised Framework Plan implemented in 2017. Also, because co-operation between kindergartens and schools is regulated at the local level, it is expected that there will be differences in how this is managed and solved. This may result in unwanted local variations in quality and systems for transitions (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017a).

Norway’s 2008 proposed pilot project on the Certificate of Practice Scheme (Praksisbrev) aims to reduce dropout in upper secondary education. In 2014, the scheme was developed into a permanent arrangement where, by law, the regional authorities (owners of upper secondary schools) are obliged to offer a Certificate of Practice. This certificate is a two-year practical education programme after which students can apply for an ordinary vocational education apprenticeship to obtain a VET certificate.

• Progress or impact: According to a 2008-11 evaluation, 49% of the students enrolled in this programme obtained an apprenticeship after completion, whereas only 29% of students who attended ordinary vocational upper secondary education succeeded in finding an apprenticeship (NIFU, 2011). Success factors of the programme include centring education around practical job experiences instead of school-focused education and providing participants with placements in companies, which increased their chances to move on to an apprenticeship afterwards (CEDEFOP, 2017c). Other important factors were evaluation of applicants to the programme before acceptance, proactive involvement of the schools in the programme, and the possibility of moving on to a trade or journeyman’s certificate after completion of the certificate (CEDEFOP, 2017c).

Additional education policies of potential interest to other countries

• The Homework Assistance programme (2006-08) tried out models and methods of homework assistance in primary and lower secondary school. Following an evaluation of the programme, a regulation to the Education Act was introduced (2010) that includes the obligation for municipalities to offer eight hours per week of homework assistance to students in Grades 1 to 4. In 2014, the regulation was extended to apply to all levels of compulsory school (Grades 1-10). The regulation aims to reduce the impact of parents’ education on student achievement and enable more learning to take place at school. Practical implementation is up to the municipalities as school owners and also applies to private school owners.

• The Working Life Course (Arbeidslivsfaget, 2009) was piloted as a new subject in some lower secondary schools in 2009 and 2010. This practically oriented course aims to help students experience work life by developing products and services. It gives students an opportunity to explore their interest in vocational training and is seen as an alternative way to enhance academic motivation. The 2013 evaluation did not show evidence of increased student motivation, but the course became popular among students and teachers. Based on this and the evaluator’s recommendation, the course was incorporated as a permanent part of the curriculum for lower secondary school (2016), as a subject schools can choose to offer as an alternative to a second foreign language or in-depth studies in mathematics or Norwegian. Since it was introduced, it has become increasingly popular.