Skills and Labour Market Integration of Immigrants and their Children in Iceland

Report

Working Together for Integration

4 September 2024

5. Transmitting skills to children of immigrants in Iceland

Abstract

This chapter highlights the situation of children and youth with migrant parents in Iceland. It begins with a section on their participation in early childhood education and care. This is followed by a discussion of the performance of youth with migrant parents in the compulsory education system. The final section focuses on the post-primary educational and career trajectories of youth with migrant parents.

Children and youth with migrant parents in Iceland

Given the recent nature of immigration to Iceland, the population share of children with migrant parents is still low in international comparison. In 2023, 71% of 0‑15 year‑olds in Iceland had no foreign background, while 8% were native‑born with two foreign-born parents and a further 6% foreign-born with two foreign-born parents. A further 15% were of mixed parentage. Twenty years prior, the share of children with no foreign background amounted to 88%, with the two other aforementioned groups constituting merely 1% of the youth population each. This reflects a rapidly changing composition of children in the country.

How children with migrant parents perform in school compared with their peers can be a predictor of the extent to which immigrants have integrated into the host society. Previous OECD work has shown that native‑born children of immigrants remain at a disadvantage compared with their peers when it comes to educational outcomes and attainment, and later in life, labour market outcomes (OECD, 2017[1]). Regarding educational outcomes, results from the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) indicate that children with migrant parents in Iceland are no exception (Figure 5.1).1 While differences between the native‑ and foreign-born are not as large as elsewhere, the low outcomes of native‑born children with foreign-born parents – both in absolute terms and regarding gaps with their peers with native‑born parents (the gap is 52 points, equivalent to almost two years of schooling) – are concerning. They are also puzzling, as compositional effects do not seem to play a large role in the case of Iceland. Native‑born children with foreign-born parents can be expected to have adjusted to the host society to a greater extent than foreign-born children, who grow up in different environments. Accordingly, one can expect their outcomes to improve compared with foreign-born children. The fact that this is not the case in Iceland merits special attention.

Figure 5.1. Children in Iceland have relatively low reading proficiency

Mean PISA reading score by immigration status, 2022

The effects of having migrant parents on education outcomes permeate through the pre‑primary, primary and secondary levels of education. Identifying the obstacles to equity in all levels of obligatory schooling is a key factor in facilitating the smooth integration of migrants into the host society (OECD, 2019[2]).

Pre‑primary education

Boosting the early enrolment of children with migrant parents in pre‑primary education should be a policy priority

Early enrolment into pre‑primary education can have a positive impact on children’s academic development in primary education and ensure more equal opportunities for children irrespective of their background.2 PISA 2022 data on reading performance show that children enrolled in pre‑primary education before the age of four outscore those who did not by 26 points among the native‑born, and 12 points among the foreign-born.

Furthermore, early enrolment can ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds start on a more equal footing alongside their peers. While the gap in the average reading score between native‑ and foreign-born children across the OECD totalled 43 points in favour of the native‑born, the gap was significantly lower considering only early enrolees into pre‑primary education, at 22 points on average. Iceland is the country where the difference is the smallest, at four points, suggesting that early enrolment into pre‑primary education gives children with migrant parents a more equitable entry into schooling (Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.2. Pre‑primary education in Iceland has an equalising effect on later school performance

Difference in mean PISA reading score between native‑born and immigrant pupils who entered pre‑primary education before age 4, by immigration status

Indeed, there is a wide range of research demonstrating that pre‑primary attendance has an impact on school readiness and cognitive development, notably among disadvantaged children (Balladares and Kankaraš, 2020[3]; Lee et al., 2018[4]).

Overall attendance rates of children in pre‑primary education are high in Iceland, with more than 96% of children above the age of two enrolled in pre‑primary education across the country – whereas the OECD average remains at just above 70% (OECD, 2023[5]). However, enrolment rates are considerably lower among children with migrant parents than they are among those with native‑born parents. While attendance among native‑born households in Iceland is among the highest in the OECD, the number is just below the average for foreign-born households, resulting in the second largest gap in pre‑primary attendance between native‑ and foreign-born households among OECD countries for which data is available (Figure 5.3).

Figure 5.3. Attendance in early childhood education is high, but less so for children of immigrants

2‑5 year‑olds, 2020 or latest year available

From age two and onward, nearly all native‑born children with parents from Iceland attend pre‑primary education. The same is not the case for children with migrant parents, most notably the foreign-born, whose kindergarten attendance does not reach the levels of their native‑born peers (Table 5.1). The discrepancies after the age of three are worrisome, since early participation in the residence country’s educational institutions has proven important in raising subsequent educational attainment levels of the children of immigrants. A study in France showed that the age of three presents a cut-off point after which kindergarten attendance starts having a favourable impact on school success of the children of immigrants. The effect is stronger than on comparable natives for whom little or no effect is observed (Caillé, 2001[7]).

Age	Children with no immigrant parentage	Foreign-born children of immigrants	Native‑born children of immigrants
1	64%	40%	38%
2	98%	76%	84%
3	98%	74%	87%
4	99%	84%	90%
5	99%	83%	92%

Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on Statistics Iceland data.

Given the effect of pre‑primary attendance on children’s development and school readiness, it is concerning that pre‑primary attendance among children with migrant parents has decreased in recent years. In the five‑year period 2017‑22, the enrolment of foreign-born children from ages two to five in Icelandic preschools dropped from 86% in 2017 to 79% in 2022. For native‑born children of immigrants, the share also dropped, from 91% in 2017 to 88% in 2022. In contrast, enrolment among children with no immigrant background stood at 98% during the same period.

Children between the ages of one and two in Iceland exhibit relatively high pre‑primary enrolment rates, ranking fourth among OECD countries. Most municipalities have emphasised making places available for parents at the conclusion of the one‑year statutory parental leave. However, pre‑primary enrolment rates before the age of two vary greatly depending on the region, ranging from 82% in East Iceland to 19% in the Suðurnes region – which is the also the region with the highest share of foreign-born inhabitants. Demand for placement has been growing in recent years, faster in some regions than others, while simultaneously the supply of skilled kindergarten teachers is decreasing (see Figure 2.12). To counter the resulting increase in placement waiting times, some municipalities have responded by increasing their school fees or begun offering cash-for-care benefits – both of which have deleterious effects on immigrant families and may explain the decreasing pre‑primary attendance of children with migrant parents.

A part of the solution to the waiting list bottleneck may lie in giving children a legal entitlement – although not an obligation – to attend preschool from their first birthday. Iceland remains the only Nordic country that does not provide its children with a legal right to a place in publicly subsidised early childhood education and care. For example, Denmark’s municipalities are obliged to offer all children older than 26 weeks a place in the public pre‑primary education system, whereas in Sweden 15 hours of care are provided at a minimum to all children older than one year. While such a right can help ensure increased take‑up of childcare services regardless of background or circumstances, it must be accompanied by appropriate childcare infrastructure – notably the supply of skilled teachers and school infrastructure. It is also most likely to be effective where other policies targeted towards families with young children, such as cash-for-care benefits, do not provide strong financial incentives for parents to care for their children at home (OECD, 2016[8]).

Cash-for-care benefits should be abolished and preschool fee increases limited to encourage enrolment

In 2022, 17 out of the 20 largest municipalities in the country had increased their preschool fees compared with the year before. The ten municipalities whose preschool fees increased the most include five municipalities with a significant immigrant population (above 20%) – including Reykjavík and Reykjanesbær (Icelandic Confederation of Labour, 2022[9]). Experiences from OECD countries show that measures to limit such fee increases can have a favourable impact on preschool enrolment among immigrant children. In Norway, for example, it is ensured that a family does not pay more than 6% of their income for a full-time place in preschool, limited upwards by the general maximum parental fee limit (Box 5.1).

Box 5.1. Norway’s commitment to improve the preschool enrolment of children of immigrants

Due to a concerted policy effort, Norway has seen great improvement in preschool enrolment, including that of immigrant children. One of the actions taken is a national subsidy for low-income families introduced in 2015, which ensures that the family does not pay more than 6% of their income for a full-time place in kindergarten, limited upwards by the general maximum parental fee limit. Other policies include a legal entitlement for all children to a place in a kindergarten, discounts for siblings, and free core hours for children aged 2‑5 from families with the lowest incomes.

Some actions to increase enrolment have been specifically targeted towards immigrant children, especially pertaining to awareness-raising and outreach. The Directorate for Education and Training’s website provides information in over 20 languages. In addition, some municipalities have developed specific outreach programmes targeting immigrant families. By Q2 2020 all municipalities were given access to fiscal statistics regarding household income, thus making it easier to grant low-income families the national schemes for lower parental fees in kindergartens. An earmarked grant was introduced in 2018 and is given to municipalities with 80 or more minority language children not attending kindergarten. The aim of the grant is to enhance the municipalities’ work regarding information about and recruitment to kindergartens.

Put together, these actions have led to a marked reduction in the enrolment gap between majority and minority language children, while simultaneously increasing attendance for both groups (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.4. Increase in ECEC enrolment has been strong for minority language children in Norway

Enrolment in early childhood education and care by age and language spoken at home, 2007 and 2020

Due to high demand for preschool placement and a shortage of kindergarten staff, many municipalities have begun introducing cash-for-care benefits for parents. These municipalities include three of the five most populous municipalities: Kópavogur, Hafnarfjörður, and Akureyri. The effect of cash-for-care benefits on maternal employment and children’s development is well documented. Experiences from countries including Norway and Sweden, where cash-for-care was abolished by law in 2016, indicate that the policy has negatively affected mothers’ labour market participation (Giuliani and Duvander, 2016[11]). The effects are stronger for immigrant mothers. As immigrant mothers are likely to have lower wages compared to native‑born mothers, they are giving up less income when reducing their working hours or giving up work completely to care for their children. They are also overrepresented among those who do not participate in the labour market (see Chapter 4). Thus, immigrant mothers should be more responsive to the economic incentive provided by cash-for-care benefits to leave or continue their abstention from the labour market. Survey data show that immigrant parents were three times more likely than the native‑born to not have been able to pay preschool fees in the year preceding the survey (9% compared to 3% of native‑born parents), suggesting that cash-for-care benefits may present an appealing incentive to care for their children themselves (Varða, 2024[12]). This has indeed been the case in Norway, to name an example, particularly among non-western immigrant mothers, who are overrepresented among beneficiaries of the subsidy (Hardoy and Schøne, 2010[13]).

Furthermore, the adoption of cash-for-care benefits by several municipalities in recent years does not bode well for the cognitive development of children with migrant parents. Evidence of the effect of Germany’s national home care subsidy, adopted in 2013, on skill development shows that children who did not speak German at home did not benefit at all from the subsidy, despite having the highest support needs (Collischon, Kuehnle and Oberfichtner, 2022[14]). A primary reason might be reduced exposure to the local language.

Given the effect of cash-for-care benefits on this observed increase in early life inequalities and the labour market participation of women, there seems to be a strong case for abolishing such schemes. The amount saved through the abolition of the subsidy should be used to create more places in formal institutions where there are still shortages (OECD, 2012[15]).

More emphasis should be placed on language development in preschool

Attending pre‑primary education is especially beneficial for the integration of children with migrant parents due to their exposure to the host country language. The years prior to compulsory schooling – beginning at age six in Iceland – are formative years and children with migrant parents have a lot to gain from being exposed to the language, both in terms of school readiness and future labour market prospects. Pre‑primary education is the only opportunity for many children of immigrants to learn the language in their early years, as most immigrants speak their origin country’s language at home. Evidence from several OECD countries suggests that early exposure to the host country’s education system helps mitigating the effect of parents’ lack of host country language proficiency (OECD, 2017[16]). The preschool is thus a unique linguistic environment for children with migrant parents in which they can learn the host-country language, improving their integration prospects. Weekly hours in Icelandic preschools are high compared with comparable institutions in other OECD countries (Figure 5.5), which in theory implies a more favourable context to become proficient in the host-country language.

Figure 5.5. Children in Iceland spend much of their time in preschools

Average usual weekly hours for children using early childhood education and care services, 0‑2 year‑olds, 2020 or latest available

However, as further expounded upon below in the section on compulsory education, children with migrant parents fare considerably worse in reading performance than their peers. This applies not only to newly arrived foreign-born children with immigrant parents, but also native‑born children born to immigrant parents. Integration support for these children, with a focus on language, must be seen as a long-term investment which can have high returns for themselves, their own children, and society as a whole further down the line (OECD, 2018[18]).

To ensure all children have equal opportunities in the education system, efforts must be made to improve, and notably assess, the Icelandic language proficiency of children with migrant parents before they begin primary education. A 10‑year longitudinal study on the impact of preschool language assessments in Iceland found a strong correlation between language assessments at five years of age and academic achievement throughout the ten years of compulsory education (Einarsdóttir, Björnsdóttir and Símonardóttir, 2016[19]). Currently, however, language proficiency is not assessed systematically in Icelandic preschools.

Experiences from other OECD countries can guide policy on how to intervene with screening at an early stage in cases where language development is lacklustre. In Denmark, children who speak a minority language are assessed both in pre‑primary and thereafter upon admission to primary school. Children in the United Kingdom undergo a routine English language assessment at age two to three. A follow-up assessment is performed at the end of the “Early Years Foundation Stage”, the academic year in which children turn five. The state of Hesse in Germany performs routine German language screenings in all early childhood education and care institutions at the age of four. Where language difficulties are detected, children are referred to a follow-up screening at the public health department to consult with a paediatrician. Children with language difficulties receive one year of special support prior to entry into primary school in the form of a “preparation course” (Vorlaufkurs) (OECD, 2021[20]; OECD, 2022[10]).

In the context of the increasingly less skilled kindergarten teacher profession, emphasising teacher training is particularly important. Iceland has made strides in improving the multicultural teaching on offer for university students studying to become kindergarten teachers, with courses such as the “Inclusive preschool” course on offer at the University of Iceland (University of Iceland, 2023[21]). However, there is scope to improve in-service training for preschool staff. Sweden is an example of an OECD country which invested in literacy training for its preschool teachers, with significant results (Box 5.2).

Box 5.2. Sweden’s investment in literacy training for preschool teachers

In 2015, the Boost for Reading (Läslyftet) programme was launched to provide teachers in Sweden with an in-service training programme in literacy. The programme was later made available to preschool teachers as part of a broader effort to strengthen the educational mission of preschools and to promote the teaching of Swedish at an early age for children whose mother tongue is not Swedish. More than a quarter of all schools in the country participated.

The programme emphasises working consciously with reading aloud and discussing the readings with the children. It also integrates language development work with mathematics, natural science, and technology. Play, aesthetic forms of expression and the children’s interest are given great importance. Läslyftet takes place in groups of 5‑9 people and is based on collegial learning with the support of web-based material from an online learning portal. Each module takes 15 hours to complete. There is a requirement that the leader of the group must be a licensed preschool teacher.

An external evaluation conducted by the Center for Evaluation Research at Umeå University over three years from 2016‑19 found that a majority of preschool teachers had assessed the programme as very good or fairly good. Läslyftet had been perceived to strengthen teaching in terms of work with texts, reading comprehension and understanding of words and concepts. Supervisors, participants in preschool and lower grades of compulsory school and teachers of Swedish and Swedish as a second language experienced the greatest effects of Läslyftet.

Source: Skolverket (2023[22]), Läslyftet i förskolan, www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/kurser-och-utbildningar/laslyftet-i-forskolan.

Primary and lower secondary education

Recent years have seen a steady increase in the share of students with immigrant parentage in primary education (Figure 5.6). In 2006, students with two foreign-born parents accounted for less than 3% of total students in primary education in Iceland. By 2021, the share had increased to over 10% of all students. In addition, children born to one foreign-born parent, both in Iceland and abroad, accounted for another 12% of students. While not strictly considered to have immigrant parentage, the number of single‑parent households in the country make it likely that some of those children are growing up in a comparable situation to that of children with immigrant parentage (Statistics Iceland, 2022[23]; Statistics Iceland, 2022[24]).3 All in all, in 2022 14% of all schoolchildren had a language other than Icelandic as their mother tongue.

Figure 5.6. Students with migrant parents account for a rising share of students in primary education

Share of students in primary and lower secondary education by background, 2006‑21

Descendants of immigrants struggle in school, but so do the native‑born

The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests reading, mathematics and science skills among children at age 15. In terms of reading performance, the educational outcomes of foreign-born students lag those of native‑born students in Iceland, just like in most OECD countries. This is no surprise given their adjustment to a new language and school system.

The performance of students in Iceland has been falling in consecutive iterations of the exam, like in most countries, although Iceland’s performance is falling at a faster rate. However, the decline results from PISA show no relationship between the share of students with migrant parents in a country and the overall performance of students in that country (Schleicher, 2023[26]). Iceland is not an exception. Comparing native‑born students with native‑born parents and those with migrant parents, the decline in reading performance between 2018 and 2022 was greater for the former group (‑7.2%) compared with foreign-born students (‑6.6%) and native‑born students with immigrant parents (‑1.9%). In mathematics, native‑born students with native‑born parents exhibited a lower decline (‑7.7%) than the foreign-born (‑9%), but higher than native‑born with immigrant parents (‑4.9%). It is thus impossible to attribute the decline in PISA performance wholly to the increase in the student population with migrant parents.

In 2022, native‑born children to native‑born parents scored an average literacy score of 444 points, compared to 410 among the foreign-born. This gap of 34 points is smaller than the OECD average of 43 points. This may however be explained by the generally low scores of both the native‑ and the foreign-born in Iceland, resulting in a lower gap. Female students exhibit better reading scores than male students for the native‑ and foreign-born alike, in line with OECD trends.

Outcomes for native‑born students with foreign-born parents are comparatively poor. In 2022, Iceland-born students with immigrant parents scored an average of 392 points in reading performance, trailed only by Mexico among OECD countries and far below the OECD average of 460 points. Male students in particular exhibited an OECD-low score of 376 points.

More than half of students with migrant parents in Iceland can be considered low performers, meaning they struggle to do tasks such as interpreting simple texts (Figure 5.7). Unlike in all OECD countries, except Mexico and Lithuania, the performance of native‑born students with immigrant parents in Iceland is not higher than that of foreign-born students. This is worrisome as the benefits of integration are often observed in the outcomes of children with immigrant parents born in the host-country, when compared with their foreign-born peers.

Figure 5.7. More than half of children with migrant parents in Iceland classify as low performers

Percentage of students scoring below proficiency Level 2 (of 6) in reading in PISA, by background

As children with migrant parents are overrepresented among socio‑economically disadvantaged students, controlling for factors such as mother’s education may reveal a more accurate picture of the impact of their immigration history on their educational success. Indeed, controlling for mother’s education, the outcomes of native‑born children with immigrant parents in the PISA reading assessment improve by six points, whereas scores remain unchanged for native‑born children with native‑born parents and foreign-born children.

A potential contributing factor towards the difference in scores of native‑born children with immigrant parents compared to their foreign-born peers is the labour market exit of migrant women upon childbearing. Migrant mothers with low educational attainment are particularly likely to exit the labour market upon having children, often due to low quality jobs on precarious contracts (OECD, 2023[27]). While the majority of children born to immigrant parents enter pre‑primary education, they do so at a smaller rate than native‑born children born to native‑born parents. As noted in the section above, the enrolment of children into pre‑primary education before the age of four is positively associated with success in school.

Due to these inequalities, which are likely to persist across generations in the absence of commensurate policy, the integration of immigrants should be seen as a long-term investment. This particularly applies to low-educated women. Evidence suggests that better integration of family migrants – most of whom are women and children – will have strong bearings on the educational outcomes of their children, particularly when parents are low educated and lack basic skills (Pesola and Sarvimäki, 2022[28]). Given the high number of recent arrivals in the country – with 61% of all migrants having arrived in the past five years – the number of family migrants is likely to increase in the coming years, as many will be joined by their families.

Box 5.3. Childcare arrangements to support migrant mothers in OECD countries

Migrants arriving through reunification account for over a quarter of permanent type migration to Iceland, the majority of which are women. Women arriving through family reunification tend to exhibit elevated fertility levels immediately after arrival in the host country, which may hamper their ability to participate in integration measures or in finding employment – which in turn can affect the integration prospects of their children.

Many OECD countries have taken action to remove obstacles to childcare arrangements for migrant mothers. In some cases, central governments provide financial support to pre‑primary education services to promote the inclusion of children with a minority background or prioritise investment in remote or disadvantaged areas, such as in Australia or Belgium. Many countries have also reformed their early childhood education and care systems to make it more affordable for disadvantaged children at younger ages through means-tested financial subsidies, vouchers or free access for certain age cohorts. Furthermore, countries have increasingly provided childcare arrangements as part of language programmes. For instance, in Australia, 12% of the participants of the English integration programme reported using the childcare arrangements provided as part of the programme; nine in ten said these arrangements enabled their participation. In Norway, a new regulation stipulates that the duration of the right to free language training and social studies is extended for those on parental leave, in an effort to minimise a disproportionate impact placed on migrant mothers.

Source: OECD (2023[27]), International Migration Outlook 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/b0f40584-en.

Foreign-born migrant children face specific challenges, as they will have already spent some time getting accustomed to their origin country’s culture, language and traditions, having to adapt to a new context in the host country. The level of difficulty in doing so largely depends on the age at arrival. Children arriving before the age of 6 score a significantly higher score on the PISA reading exam than their peers arriving between ages 6 and 11 (OECD averages of 464 and 435 points), and those arriving after age 11 also see declining scores in comparison with their peers (OECD average of 404 points). In Iceland however, the scores are far below the OECD averages and the gap between early arrivers and those arriving between ages 6 and 11 is the second largest in the OECD, behind the Netherlands (Figure 5.8).4 This raises questions about the reception and integration of newly arrived immigrant children into the education system. For instance, a learning ability assessment intended for newly arrived students was introduced in Icelandic schools in 2016, although it is currently not mandatory across the country (see below).

Figure 5.8. Immigrant children who arrive late in Iceland struggle adapting in school

Mean PISA reading score by age at arrival, 2022

PISA 2022 saw a great decline in mathematics performance compared to previous iterations of the exam. For students with migrant parents in Iceland, the decline relative to 2018 levels was twice as large compared to the OECD average. However – in contrast with reading performance scores – students with migrant parents in Iceland exhibited mathematics scores relatively close to the OECD average (a difference of four points) when compared with the same group in other countries, while the native‑born students to native‑born parents in Iceland performed worse relative to their own group (a difference of 13 points to the average). Taking socio‑economic status and language spoken at home into account, foreign-born students in Iceland exhibit scores above the OECD average and equal to that of native‑born students to native‑born parents in Iceland (OECD, 2023[29]). The relatively strong performance of immigrants in mathematics versus their poor performance in reading suggests that language remains the primary barrier for students with migrant parents in Iceland.

While Iceland is generally considered an egalitarian society, with its high levels of economic and gender equality, one’s socio‑economic status can nonetheless play a role in determining school performance, notably for children with migrant parents. A native‑born student to native‑born parents in the highest socio‑economic quartile in Iceland can be on average expected to score 76 points higher on the PISA reading exam than a student in the lowest quartile, comfortably below the OECD average of 90 points (Figure 5.9). For foreign-born students however, the same comparison yields a difference of 116 points, far above the OECD average of 98 points. This suggests that factors such as parents’ income are a stronger predictor of educational performance for foreign-born children in comparison to the native‑born.

Figure 5.9. Socio‑economic status holds more weight for outcomes of students with migrant parents

Mean PISA reading scores by national quartile of socio‑economic status, 2022

Revisions made to the national curriculum in 2021 aim to facilitate inclusion

Several policies have been enacted in recent years to facilitate the inclusion of children with migrant parents in Icelandic schools. In 2021, the national curriculum guide for compulsory schools was revised, inter alia to include two important improvements to inclusive education in compulsory schools: Specific sub-chapters on Icelandic as a second language on the one hand, and on the reception of students with a diverse multilingual and multicultural background on the other. The former consists of a general description of Icelandic as a second language teaching and its learning criteria. It is expected that students in this group should follow its curriculum for two to four years, after which they will follow the national curriculum guidelines for Icelandic (Directorate of Education and Ministry of Education and Children, 2021[30]). An important supplementary addition to the guidelines is the reference timetable (viðmiðunarstundaskrá) for Icelandic as a second language, which lists the recommended hours per week for students according to their age and proficiency level.

The second improvement in the revised curriculum guidelines regards the reception of newly arrived immigrant children, notably the addition of a learning ability assessment. Until 2016, the competence of newly arrived immigrant students had rarely been assessed in schools and a clear procedure had been lacking. As the arrival of immigrant students increased, several municipalities that saw the need for an assessment procedure came together, starting a project to develop assessment tools. They looked to Sweden’s National Agency for Education and began translating and adapting their assessment procedure, which became compulsory for all Swedish schools in 2016, to local Icelandic circumstances. The procedure and its instructions are now available in 40 languages on the Directorate of Education’s website and many more municipalities have used it since. However, although encouraged in the national curriculum guide, the assessment procedure is not mandatory (Directorate of Education and Ministry of Education and Children, 2021[31]). The exact number of municipalities that have implemented the assessment procedure for their schools is uncertain, highlighting the decentralised nature of the Icelandic school system.

Immigrant children need more opportunities to speak and learn Icelandic through increased emphasis on Icelandic learning in schools and targeted support

The most important factor when it comes to the performance of students with migrant parents in schools is Icelandic language instruction. Children in Iceland grow up in a distinct and complex linguistic context. Those whose mother tongue is Icelandic can be accurately described as bilingual, as they are exposed to incidental English from internet and media sources from an early age and many develop basic conversational English skills before the start of formal English instruction at age nine. Accordingly, those whose mother tongue is neither Icelandic nor English could be described as growing up in a trilingual context. This has implications for children’s language development, as the rate of development has been found to act as a function of a child’s relative amount of exposure to a language (Hoff et al., 2011[32]). Research has indicated that around 40‑60% of preschool children’s waking hours’ exposure to speakers of a language is required to reach a monolingual range, giving enough time to learn up to two languages at a very high level (Thordardottir, 2011[33]). A 2021 study of schoolchildren in grades 8‑10 found that while the English vocabulary of students whose mother tongue is not Icelandic was comparable to their peers, their Icelandic vocabulary was significantly less developed (Thordardottir, 2021[34]). Those gaps are larger and more persistent than in other countries (Thordardottir and Juliusdottir, 2013[35]).

The lack of exposure to the Icelandic language can be explained by many factors, most notably the increased use of English in every-day interactions outside of the classroom. After school activities such as sports and music courses sometimes take place in English, and a large proportion of everyday interactions are now entirely performed in English as many workers in service occupations do not speak the language (Thordardottir, 2022[36]). As a result, for many children with migrant parents, school lecture time is the sole period of the day during which Icelandic is spoken. However, school days in Iceland are relatively short when compared with other countries. Teaching hours in primary school in Iceland count 603 per year, compared to an average of 885 in the OECD and 711 in other Nordic countries (OECD, 2023[37]). Moreover, the share of primary school instruction time devoted to what can be called Icelandic language courses – first language reading, writing and literature subjects – is lagged only by Portugal among OECD countries (Figure 5.10). A draft proposal from 2020 sought to increase the time share of Icelandic language courses in line with the OECD average, but was not adopted following public consultations with stakeholders (Samráðsgátt, 2020[38]).

Figure 5.10. Little instruction time is devoted to reading, writing and literature in Iceland

Share of instruction time in first language reading, writing and literature subjects in primary education, 2021

According to the Act on Compulsory Education, No. 91/2008, pupils whose native language is not Icelandic are entitled to training in Icelandic as a second language with the objective of becoming actively bilingual participants in Icelandic society. This training ranges from two to four years before pupils transition to mainstream Icelandic courses. Schools may validate the native language skills of children with migrant parents as part of their compulsory schooling, replacing the compulsory study of another foreign language (Althing, 2023[40]).

The support required by children with a mother tongue other than Icelandic may vary greatly. Assessing their proficiency is key to determine the needs of each child. It is evident that systematic assessment is lacking for students with Icelandic as a second language (Directorate of Education, 2018[41]). Making the assessment procedure in the updated national curriculum from 2021 for newly arrived students with a mother tongue other than Icelandic, mandatory would be a welcome step in this regard. Given the dire language outcomes of native‑born children to immigrant parents in Iceland, it is imperative that systematic assessment is further extended to this group as well and support organised in accordance with assessments.

The funding of language support in primary schools needs reform

There is scope to improve the efficiency and accountability of the funding mechanism according to which language support for children with migrant parents is operated. Such training is funded by the Local Governments’ Equalisation Fund, whose role is to balance the uneven expenditure and revenue levels of municipalities. Smaller municipalities rely to a large extent on the Equalisation Fund to meet their expenses (Ministry of Infrastructure, 2023[42]). However, the Fund’s allocation rules cannot be described as transparent and accountability mechanisms are lacking (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2017[43]; Ministry of Education, 2014[44]). Primary and lower secondary schools apply for language support funding for a self-determined number of their students, placing them in three groups – immigrant children, native‑born children that have lived abroad for an extended period, and native‑born children with migrant parents. Municipalities are not required to test the Icelandic proficiency of the students for whom they apply, nor prove that the funding is in fact used for its intended purpose (Directorate of Education, 2018[41]). Such an approach is not conducive to provide an adequate return on investment, i.e. in terms of children’s integration outcomes.

The City of Reykjavík is the only municipality exempt from receiving Equalisation Fund allocations for Icelandic as a second language, although a draft proposal seeks to change this rule.5 Around 44% of schoolchildren with migrant parents in Iceland reside in the City of Reykjavík (Statistics Iceland, 2023[45]). Despite the uneven privileges between municipalities, the City of Reykjavík has fulfilled its obligation to provide language instruction for those in need, albeit with less expenditure per student than the rest of the country. In 2018, per student expenditure on Icelandic as a second language, excluding Reykjavík, was ISK 110 000 compared to ISK 90 000 in Reykjavík. Allocation rules for schools differed however between Reykjavík and the rest of the country. The City of Reykjavík uses an innovative test to determine whether children with a foreign mother tongue and Icelandic students who have resided for more than five years in a foreign country have a sufficient level of Icelandic to follow the primary school curriculum (Thordardottir, 2021[34]), while schools outside of Reykjavík leave it at the discretion of teachers to assign students into such classes. Students are split into four groups based on the results, with the two worst performing groups assigned to Icelandic as a second language courses. Importantly, funding is dependent on the outcome of the test, with a larger share allocated towards students with the highest need for support (Internal Audit and Advisory Service of the City of Reykjavík, 2019[46]).

As the example above shows, language support offerings in Icelandic schools may vary substantially across its 64 municipalities. This can lead to inequalities, as some municipalities may be more equipped in terms of experience and resources to assist children requiring support. In such decentralised systems, co‑ordination across levels of government can be crucial. One way is through incentives to reach integration goals. For example, in Switzerland, where the cantons are responsible for integration policy, the federal government created a fund that can only be accessed if stakeholders sign onto an integration plan, recognising the fiscal pressure placed on localities but reinforcing the importance of the national vision for integration.

Furthermore, it can be beneficial for governments to encourage information sharing across municipalities, to facilitate the highlighting and mainstreaming of effective local practices. For instance, Norway has developed an online resource with information and tools designed for employees in the municipalities, counties, employment offices and other partners that are responsible for planning and implementing introductory programmes for newly arrived migrants. The tool includes both obligatory and non-obligatory measures, with descriptions of related legislation, other online resources and courses, good practice examples and standardised reporting and information schemes (OECD, 2023[47]).

Assessment and monitoring of students with migrant parents must be improved

Given the rising share of immigrant students in primary education and the potential effect of their background on educational attainment, identifying the obstacles facing them should be a policy priority. Yet this remains challenging as data and tools for comparison on school performance in Iceland are lacklustre. Indicators based on background or origin are absent in school evaluations. School autonomy is high, and exam results are not systematically reported to the Directorate of Education. Standardised national tests, a particular point of contention, have not been conducted since 2021 and will be abolished by end of year 2024. These are regrettable developments that could lead to an inequitable distribution of educational outcomes, not least for children with migrant parents.

School evaluations, internal and external alike, play a large part in quality assurance in compulsory education in Iceland. Internal evaluations take the form of surveys with subjective questions for students, school staff, and parents. Questions include frequency of bullying, to name an example. Comparing bullying between groups is a noteworthy endeavour as bullying may have a strong impact on relations between immigrant and non-immigrant groups later in life (OECD, 2019[48]). However, due to strict data protection laws and concerns for anonymity given small sample sizes, only the most basic background variables, gender identity and age, are collected in internal and external evaluations. The absence of an origin background variable makes it difficult to assess and compare outcomes of students with migrant parents and those with a native background. Yet, as the survey is available in several languages, there is scope to use language of choice as a proxy for background, particularly for surveys that parents have completed as they are more likely to use their origin language. Importantly, lifelong learning is highlighted well in the surveys posed to school staff, including questions about multicultural and multilingual teaching, an increasingly important factor for school evaluations going forward given the rising share of students with migrant parents (OECD, 2010[49]).

A recent improvement in the collection of data on children with migrant parents in Iceland is the latest national youth survey, a series of surveys conducted throughout 2021‑26. Some of the survey questions resemble school-based external evaluations, but importantly, they include questions on students’ background (University of Iceland, 2023[50]). However, these results tell little about integration outcomes. In addition to not being longitudinal, there is no distinction made between foreign-born children of immigrants and native‑born children of immigrants. This distinction is key in understanding whether integration policies are contributing to an intergenerational convergence of outcomes, which is a primary objective of integration policy.

Monitoring of academic performance is ensured by standardised examination at the national level and at the international level by PISA, both administered by the Directorate of Education. From 2025 and onward, standardised tests are foreseen to be replaced by Matsferill, a collection of assessment tools to support formative assessment in schools. The tools shall examine skills, abilities and competence of individual students based on the learning criteria of the Icelandic national curriculum guide for compulsory schools. Schools will be given autonomy to use the tools and conduct tests at their own discretion, decide which students to examine, when they will be conducted, and how often. All schools should assess their pupils’ proficiency in maths and Icelandic or Icelandic as a second language, although whether such assessments will be standardised or comparable across schools is unclear. Assessment results and comparative data will no longer be made publicly available (Government of Iceland, 2023[51]). Matsferill is based on recommendations from a report of a working group established by the Minister of Education and Culture in 2018. In its argumentation against using standardised tests the report cited general dissatisfaction among stakeholders about the publishing of comparisons between schools and municipalities and the ability of standardised tests in their present form to assess student outcomes, the issue of standardised testing contributing to student anxiety, and the use of test results in admissions to upper secondary schools (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2020[52]).

However, these arguments fall short when considering that standardised exams have been associated with stronger educational performance and a more equitable distribution of educational outcomes. In addition, no correlation between test anxiety levels and the frequency of standardised tests has been observed in OECD countries (Schleicher, 2023[53]; Mostafa, 2017[54]). Granting greater autonomy to schools has been associated with increased student performance in science, but only if schools are held accountable. Important in this regard is having administrative authorities, such as the Directorate of Education, track achievement data over time and/or post such information publicly. Performance levels are even stronger in countries where more students are assessed with mandatory standardised tests (OECD, 2016[55]). A study of 30 OECD countries found that making the results of standardised tests available to the public was associated with a decreased risk of low reading performance, particularly among students with migrant parents (Teltemann and Schunck, 2020[56]).

Monitoring the academic performance of children with migrant parents in Iceland is challenging due to a lack of data, not least because of how past standardised tests have been set up. The Directorate of Education, responsible for discerning the results of the now abolished standardised tests, does not have information on the background of students taking the tests, making comparisons between children with migrant parents and their peers difficult. Furthermore, each school has the authority to decide whether students with migrant parents should be exempt from participation in standardised tests. Numbers from past tests indeed reveal a higher number of exemption requests for students with migrant parents (Directorate of Education, 2018[41]).

Data collection on school performance results is conducted differently in neighbouring countries Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Results are recorded in school registers, allowing for analyses of education outcomes by parents’ background. Denmark has deployed an online‑based adaptive test programme maintained by the Danish Ministry of Education, ensuring systematic data collection comparable across years (TrygFonden’s Centre for Child Research, 2021[57]). In Norway and Sweden tests are teacher assessed, retaining teacher autonomy at the cost of comparability (Beuchert and Nandrup, 2017[58]). Denmark does not publicly publish school results other than national averages, having elected to exempt school testing data from the right to public information (Hatch, 2013[59]). Data is nonetheless collected and analysed by the Ministry of Education.

As of 2023, PISA remains the only tool to measure and compare the school performance of children with migrant parents in Iceland. Relying exclusively on PISA results in analysing school outcomes of children with migrant parents has its limitations. The most consequential is the sample size of eligible schoolchildren. Drawing inferences about a sub-group of an already small country-level sample of individuals is risky, particularly when exclusions due to language proficiency are considered.6 PISA also only covers the final year of lower secondary education (15 years of age) and is conducted just once every three years. In the absence of complementary standardised tests and tools it is thus difficult to estimate the progression of students with migrant parents throughout their schooling, which can serve as a key indicator of integration into the host society.

The decentralised nature of the education system may be inconducive to integration

While some level of decentralisation is necessary for the provision of integration services, investment in multi-level co‑ordination is needed to ensure effective service delivery (OECD, 2022[60]). Iceland’s primary and lower secondary education system is highly decentralised. OECD data indicate that more than 90% of lower secondary education policy decisions are taken at the municipality and school levels in Iceland, ranking third among OECD countries (Figure 5.11).

Figure 5.11. Lower secondary education is highly decentralised

Percentage of decisions taken at the municipality and school levels of government in public lower secondary education, 2017

The heterogeneity that results from such decentralisation is well evidenced by the education policies set by the municipalities, collaterally affecting integration policy. A focus area of the Ministry of Education and Children’s Education 2030 policy is “a diverse educational community”. However, whether education policies include provisions on students with migrant parents differs greatly across municipalities, perhaps a natural outcome when up to 64 different educational policies are set across the country (Gunnþórsdóttir et al., 2020[62]).

Sweden is an example of a country whose PISA performance rebounded after it incorporated effective policies aimed at increasing the reading performance of its students. Between 2009 and 2018, mean PISA reading scores for Swedish-born children with immigrant parents improved by 17 points – among the biggest improvements among OECD countries (OECD/European Commission, 2023[6]). On the one hand, Sweden has placed an emphasis on effective central oversight over a decentralised education system. The national curriculum clearly sets out learning criteria for individual subjects but also highlights the desired organisation of schoolwork. Teachers are required to know the curriculum and are provided with the financial and professional support to carry out its provisions. National standardised tests are also administered at the central level, providing a crucial role in assessing the progress of students. Importantly, the results from standardised tests can be disaggregated by background. Oversight and evaluation are ensured by the Swedish National Agency for Education (OECD, 2017[63]).

Lifelong learning merits more attention, to allow teachers to adapt their methods towards a more diverse classroom

Since 2019, Iceland has placed emphasis on improving the attraction of the teaching profession, with impressive results. Driven by the creation of new grants and internship opportunities, three times as many people graduated as teachers in 2022 compared with 2019 levels (Ministry of Higher Education and Ministry of Education and Children, 2023[64]). While the increasing supply of teachers is certainly a positive development that can be expected to yield long-term returns, there is a need to better prepare teachers to teach in diverse classrooms, both in initial teacher education and lifelong learning. Data from internal evaluations of schools in Iceland show that 77% of primary and lower secondary level teachers in 2023 report a need for professional development in a multicultural setting (Skólapúlsinn, 2023[65]). Of all surveyed teachers, 27% reported a high level of need for such training, up from 19% in 2018 and well above the OECD average of 15% in 2018 (Figure 5.12) (OECD, 2019[66]).

Figure 5.12. Demand for professional development in a multicultural setting has risen exponentially

Percentage of teachers reporting a high level of need for professional development in teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting, 2018

Facing a comparable situation of a sharp increase in the number of migrant children in schools in 2017, the Ministry of Education in Austria implemented so-called Mobile Intercultural Teams that offer support to schools with a high proportion of immigrant students. These teams work with teachers, principals and administrators at these schools, offering advice based on teachers’ experiences in working with immigrant students, workshops on classroom climate, and more. The teams include educational psychologists who interact with teachers, principals, students and their parents, serving as a bridge between these stakeholders so that schools and teachers can best support students in their daily classroom instruction (OECD, 2019[66]). The City of Reykjavík operates a similar programme, “Bridge builders”, albeit on a smaller scale (see Box 5.4).

Box 5.4. Bridge builders: A bridge between immigrant families and educators

The Bridge builders’ project aims at building a bridge between multilingual children and their parents on the one hand, and the staff of the City of Reykjavík’s Department of School and Recreation on the other.

Bridge builders are counsellors offering a wide range of services for the City’s employees, students and parents about bi- and multilingualism in kindergartens, primary and lower secondary schools and leisure activities. In addition to the official website, Bridge builders operate five Facebook groups for parents from different lingual backgrounds: Arabian and Kurdish, Filipino, Polish, English, and Ukrainian.

Bridge builders also provide immigrant parents with information about the Icelandic school system from preschool to upper secondary school, bilingualism and multilingualism, the duties and responsibilities of school parents, and more. A special educational toolbox is available on the Bridge Builders website in Icelandic, English and Polish, intended for parents to support their children’s Icelandic language learning and homework. The toolbox includes links to useful websites with practice exercises in several subjects, online dictionaries, and media such as news websites in multiple languages and Icelandic apps. Individual counselling sessions for parents are offered on Fridays.

Source: Miðja máls og læsis (2023[67]), Brúarsmiðir – tvítyngisráðgjafar, https://mml.reykjavik.is/bruarsmidi/#av-tab-section-1-2-link.

Refugee children are a particular group with complex needs, requiring support from not only educators but more actors involved in the integration process. Several OECD countries have responded to increased inflows of refugee children with targeted support. In response to inflows of refugee children from Ukraine, Luxembourg established a single point of contact within the Ministry of Education’s Department for the Education of Foreign Children. The department meets with children and their families to suggest possible schooling options, with the parents making the final decision. Most students arriving from Ukraine attend English-speaking reception classes in six international public schools. Students then transition to a mainstream class at the same school, adding either German or French as an additional language. In Sweden, a dedicated webpage sets out the procedures for integrating newly arrived students from all countries. Municipalities oversee school placement, while schools are responsible for carrying out an assessment of new arrivals’ previous schooling, as well as their literacy and numeracy skills, within two months of registration, using materials provided by the National Agency for Education. School principals accordingly decide which grade level the student should be placed in and develop an appropriate education plan. As in Luxembourg, some newly arrived students are initially taught in separate introductory classes but must transition to mainstream classes as soon as they develop language proficiency, and at least within two years (OECD, 2022[68]).

Upper secondary education

The conclusion of lower secondary education marks the end of compulsory education in Iceland. Students choose between a three‑year general academic education course, leading to a matriculation examination, or a vocational course varying in length, although three‑year courses are most prevalent (Ministry of Education and Children, 2023[69]).

Language proficiency may determine progression in upper secondary education

Key in assessing the outcomes of students with migrant parents in upper secondary education is the degree to which students drop out or leave early. The overall early leaving rate in Iceland, defined as the share of persons aged 18‑24 who completed at most lower secondary education and are not in education or training, was the highest in Europe in 2022 at 16%, compared with an average of 9% (Eurostat, 2023[70]). As students with migrant parents are more likely to drop out of education, the share is likely to be even higher for students with migrant parents in Iceland.

However, estimating the early leaving rate of immigrant students in Iceland is difficult as no distinction made in national statistics between students with migrant parents residing permanently in the country and international (exchange) students. This can lead to an overestimation of the early leaving rate of students with migrant parents, although the overestimation has decreased over time due to the increase in foreign-born permanent students. Using administrative data, Stefánsson and Eyjólfsson (2022[71]) attempt to evade this issue by looking at students who were already registered in the school register prior to entering upper secondary education. Applying a broader definition of early school leaving, defined as those who dropped out or took a break from studying at least once from age 17‑22, they find that foreign-born students with migrant parents exhibit a slightly higher dropout rate (39% compared to 34%). Their grades however were much lower, both in Icelandic and mathematics.

Statistics Iceland publishes dropout rate numbers for cohorts four and six years after enrolment. By deducting the total number of exchange students, as reported by AFS Intercultural Programs Iceland, from the total of registrations in a given year, it is possible to better estimate the dropout rates of immigrant students in the country. Figure 5.13 shows dropout rates of the 2015 cohort in upper secondary education. The high dropout rates of students with migrant parents are primarily driven by students arriving in their mid- to late childhood. Foreign-born children who arrive before the age of seven exhibit much lower dropout rates – comparable to that of native‑born students with Icelandic parents – although these results must be interpreted with caution as the sample size is much smaller. Nonetheless, the 2012 cohort showed a nearly identical pattern. Native‑born students with migrant parents exhibit higher dropout rates than their peers with native‑born parents, but those who either drop out or stay longer than four years also tend to graduate at a higher rate than their peers (as indicated by the difference in dropout rates between four‑ and six‑years post-enrolment).

Figure 5.13. Dropout rates depend to a large extent on age of arrival

Dropout rates of the 2015 cohort in upper secondary education, four‑years post-enrolment, by place of birth

Breakdown by education track also highlights differences in outcomes. While native‑born students with native‑born parents are proportionally more likely to drop out of vocational tracks than academic tracks (35% and 18%), the reverse is true for foreign-born students who arrive late (46% and 62%).

The most likely reason for the observed discrepancies between the native‑ and foreign-born is their language proficiency, although the performance gap varies significantly depending on place of birth. For students from Poland and Asian countries, their performance in tenth grade is highly explanatory for their dropout rates in upper secondary education (Stefánsson and Eyjólfsson, 2022[71]). This suggests that to reduce dropout rates, improving the educational outcomes of these groups is important. Given the importance of language on long-term academic achievement, the effective screening of language outcomes, as early as possible and through all levels of compulsory schooling, is needed to be able to better meet the needs of students with migrant parents. In its Education 2030 policy, the Icelandic Government plans to develop standardised tests to monitor students’ progress in Icelandic and other foreign languages (Ministry of Education and Children, 2021[72]). This is a welcome initiative that can be accompanied by more informal tools for teachers to assess language development. In Denmark, for instance, in addition to a mandatory screening test of proficiency in the Danish language for entrants into primary education, the Ministry of Education has developed a tool for teachers to assess the linguistic development of bilingual children (OECD, 2021[20]).

Youth with migrant parents are slightly more likely than their peers to neither be in education nor employment

Youth with migrant parents may face challenges in transitioning from school to work that native‑born children to native‑born parents do not. There are several potential reasons for this, including lack of social networks, limited knowledge of the labour market, and discrimination. This places youth with migrant parents at a higher risk of falling into the so-called NEET group, defined as those who are not in employment, formal education nor training. NEET rates in Iceland are relatively similar to OECD averages, although they are higher than in other Nordic countries, except Finland (Figure 5.14).

Figure 5.14. Differences in NEET rates are not large between children of immigrant parents and those of native‑born parents

NEET rates, 15‑24 year‑olds, 2022 or latest year available

The gap in observed NEET rates between native‑born youth with foreign-born parents and their peers with native‑born parents are concerning. Rates of the former group are slightly lower than for foreign-born youth who arrived as children. This raises concerns that native‑born children to foreign-born parents are not seeing the fruits of integration. Identifying the reasons why native‑born youth with foreign-born parents do not participate to the same extent in education and/or employment is key to improve integration outcomes in Iceland. In order to achieve this objective, it is important to make sure that disaggregation by place of birth of parents is available in relevant datasets and accordingly analyse the educational outcomes of this group throughout their schooling.

Iceland has made efforts to strengthen VET training in recent years…

Students with migrant parents are overrepresented among students in vocational education and training (VET) (Statistics Iceland, 2017[74]). The share of students pursuing VET tracks in Iceland is among the lowest in the OECD, and students in VET are more likely to drop out early or take breaks from their studies. Higher dropout rates are linked to socio‑economic instability, weaker academic proficiency, difficulty in securing training placements during VET and inadequate connections between school and the workplace. Strengthening existing VET offers can reduce dropout rates and improve the educational offer for immigrant students, as VET can act as a fundamental component to their integration (Jeon, 2019[75]).

Several important developments have taken place in recent years which have strengthened VET training in Iceland, notably pertaining to work-based learning and educational mobility. An example of one such initiative is the establishment of the Icelandic Student Centre (Nemastofa), created in 2022 by the tripartite organisations, providing companies and institutions with increased incentives to take on apprentices. Prospective apprentices can locate openings in an information portal on a dedicated website (Nemastofa, 2024[76]). As of 2023, the website is only available in Icelandic. Making it available in English or other relevant languages would be beneficial to young migrants that have recently arrived in the country, including refugees, as they are less likely to have proficiency in Icelandic. It is particularly important as many migrants might hold incomplete or inaccurate information about the host country’s education system. This can affect the native‑migrant gap in the progression into and through upper secondary education, as has been found to be the case in Switzerland (Wolter and Zumbuehl, 2017[77]).

Iceland has also taken measures to facilitate access of VET students to universities and has created specific tertiary vocational branches, further improving the educational mobility of those who wish to continue studying after completing a vocational diploma.

…although more can be done to accommodate disadvantaged students

Certain groups such as refugees, asylum seekers and older individuals are placed at a disadvantage when it comes to access to formal vocational education, as priority access is given to newly graduated students from lower secondary education in Iceland (Eiríksdóttir and Sigurðsson, 2023[78]). Although the share of vocational students in upper secondary education remains among the lowest in the OECD (OECD, 2023[79]), there is high demand for entry into vocational education programmes. Over 700 individuals were denied entry into vocational programmes in 2022, despite a government push to increase the supply of housing in the long-term (Federation of Icelandic Industries, 2022[80]). In 2011, a total of 3 783 vocational education places were available in Iceland, compared to a total of 2 555 in 2021.

The choice of tracks in upper secondary education does not vary much between males and females with migrant parents. However, female students with migrant parents are highly overrepresented among all female students seeking vocational education, constituting 33% of female entrants in 2017 while accounting for merely 11% of total female students. Males with migrant parents are also overrepresented among VET students, constituting 16% of the male total – although still far below the share for females. Women with migrant parents thus play an important role in alleviating the gender imbalance in general and vocational programmes in Iceland, currently the largest among OECD countries (OECD, 2022[81]).

Gender differences also exist in field-of-study choices. Women are overrepresented in certain sectors such as health, welfare and education, whereas they are underrepresented in information and communication technologies (ICT), engineering, manufacturing and construction. These differences can shape the opportunities men and women have. Apprenticeships are most common in male‑dominated sectors across the OECD (Borgonovi, Quintini and Vandeweyer, 2023[82]), including in Iceland. In 2021, the government’s Icelandic Apprenticeship Fund, which allocates funding to institutions and companies to fund apprenticeships, allocated 23% of total funding to female‑dominated sectors, such as paramedics, social and healthcare assistants, kindergarten assistants, and hairdressers (Rannís, 2022[83]).7 This raises questions about quality work-based learning opportunities for women with migrant parents, whose labour market participation is already relatively low (see Chapter 4). For refugee women in particular, evidence from Norway and Germany show that upper secondary education is associated with a larger increase in employment probabilities for refugee women compared with refugee men (Liebig and Tronstad, 2018[84]). Apprenticeships can play a key role in providing a link between education and the labour market for this group.

Given the impact of VET on employment outcomes, a further strengthening of VET could be considered. Across a wide range of OECD countries, both native‑ and foreign-born graduates from upper secondary VET have better labour market outcomes compared to those from academic upper secondary tracks or people without upper secondary qualifications, at least in the short term (Jeon, 2019[75]). However, young migrants and refugees are often unfamiliar with or have a poor opinion of VET, based on experiences in their home country (OECD, 2022[85]). To address the challenge, the proactive provision of personalised career guidance and mentoring services can be improved, which are partly facilitated through the co‑ordinated reception of refugees and the Directorate of Labour. Guidance counselling is also provided by the Education and Training Service Centre, where participation among immigrants has improved and is now mostly in line with the foreign-born share of the working population (Fræðslumiðstöð atvinnulífsins, 2023[86]). Mentoring is an underdeveloped measure that can provide additional support to disadvantaged students, including tutoring, social and emotional support, and educational and vocational orientation. Mentors can be teachers, school personnel, social advisors, or even peer mentors who can act as role models in their respective profession. The success of mentoring rests on several factors, namely mentors’ training, the extent of schools’ co‑operation, and the engagement of parents and children (OECD, 2018[61]).

Humanitarian migrants are a group who may benefit particularly from investments in VET. Assessing their demographic and skills profiles prior to engaging them with VET is important, which requires improving the data infrastructure around humanitarian migrants in Iceland. While up-to-date data on the demographic profile of beneficiaries of international protection in Iceland are not available, data on applicants may give an idea of their profile. As of October 2023, three‑quarters of all applicants since 2019 had come from Ukraine and Venezuela. Just over half of them were women, most were working age and one‑in-five were under the age of 18 (Government of Iceland, 2023[87]). Investing in VET for these groups may see high returns, as occupations typically entered through VET are in high demand. For Venezuelans, who exhibit exceptionally high participation rates, opening doors to further education can reduce the native‑migrant educational gap and lead to enhanced career prospects. While some Ukrainians may want to stay in Iceland, others will have acquired skills in Iceland which may help in the reconstruction in Ukraine (OECD, 2022[85]). Investing in VET should thus be seen as a dual intent investment with high expected returns.

Humanitarian migrants often have difficulties accessing VET programmes due to eligibility requirements. As a result, many may seek VET or other work through non-formal and informal pathways, which can contribute to labour market overqualification and inequalities. To address this challenge, several countries have adopted pre‑apprenticeship programmes to target groups that do not fulfil the requirements necessary to enter formal VET. Finland offers a pre‑vocational programme for immigrants (ammatilliseen peruskoulutukseen valmentava koulutus) that lasts 6 to 12 months. Migrants are provided with information and guidance on different occupations and vocational studies, and when migrants later apply for an upper-secondary vocational programme through a joint application system, they can receive extra points for having completed the preparatory training. In some countries, pre‑apprenticeships are targeted towards sectors facing skills shortages. In the United States, pre‑apprenticeships have focused on manufacturing and health, with 20% of refugees working in the manufacturing sector and 14% in healthcare in 2015. Switzerland and Canada both launched similar programmes in 2018, with the latter choosing to target those that are disadvantaged in the trades, such as women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, and people with disabilities as well as newcomers (Jeon, 2019[75]).

References

[40] Althing (2023), Act on Compulsory Education, No. 91/2008, https://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/2008091.html (accessed on 14 August 2023).

[3] Balladares, J. and M. Kankaraš (2020), “Attendance in early childhood education and care programmes and academic proficiencies at age 15”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 214, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f16c7ae5-en.

[58] Beuchert, L. and A. Nandrup (2017), “The Danish National Tests at a Glance”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2996431.

[82] Borgonovi, F., G. Quintini and M. Vandeweyer (2023), “Gender gaps in Vocational Education and Training (VET) and adult learning”, in Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding us Back?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6164c33b-en.

[7] Caillé, J. (2001), “Scolarisation à 2 ans et réussite de la carrière scolaire au début de l’école élémentaire”.

[14] Collischon, M., D. Kuehnle and M. Oberfichtner (2022), “Who benefits from cash-for-care? The effects of a home care subsidy on maternal employment, childcare choices, and children’s development”, Journal of Human Resources, https://doi.org/10.3368/JHR.0720-11051R1.

[41] Directorate of Education (2018), Staða grunnskólanemenda með íslensku sem annað tungumál, https://mms.is/sites/mms.is/files/isat-nemendur-greining_feb_2018_-_15.02.2018.pdf (accessed on 11 August 2023).

[30] Directorate of Education and Ministry of Education and Children (2021), National curriculum guidelines for compulsory schools: Chapter 19, https://adalnamskra.is/adalnamskra-grunnskola/kafli-19 (accessed on 30 August 2023).

[31] Directorate of Education and Ministry of Education and Children (2021), National curriculum guidelines for compulsory schools: Chapter 7, https://adalnamskra.is/adalnamskra-grunnskola/kafli-7 (accessed on 30 August 2023).

[19] Einarsdóttir, J., A. Björnsdóttir and I. Símonardóttir (2016), “The Predictive Value of Preschool Language Assessments on Academic Achievement: A 10-Year Longitudinal Study of Icelandic Children”, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Vol. 25/1, pp. 67-79, https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_ajslp-14-0184.

[78] Eiríksdóttir, E. and S. Sigurðsson (2023), “Starfsnám eða bóknám: Aðsókn nemenda og þróun framhaldsskólastigsins”, Skólaþræðir, https://skolathraedir.is/2023/07/03/starfsnam-eda-boknam/ (accessed on 29 August 2023).

[43] European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2017), Education for All in Iceland: External Audit of the Icelandic System for Inclusive Education, https://www.stjornarradid.is/media/menntamalaraduneyti-media/media/frettatengt2016/Final-report_External-Audit-of-the-Icelandic-System-for-Inclusive-Education.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2023).

[70] Eurostat (2023), Early leavers from education and training, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Early_leavers_from_education_and_training (accessed on 3 October 2023).

[80] Federation of Icelandic Industries (2022), 700 vísað frá iðnnámi þegar vantar iðnmenntað starfsfólk, https://www.si.is/frettasafn/700-visad-fra-idnnami-thegar-vantar-idnmenntad-starfsfolk (accessed on 20 July 2023).

[86] Fræðslumiðstöð atvinnulífsins (2023), Tölfræði úr starfinu, https://frae.is/fraedslusjodur/tolfraedi-ur-starfinu/ (accessed on 26 July 2023).

[11] Giuliani, G. and A. Duvander (2016), “Cash‐for‐care policy in Sweden: An appraisal of its consequences on female employment”, International Journal of Social Welfare, Vol. 26/1, pp. 49-62, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12229.

[87] Government of Iceland (2023), Information on matters of protection, https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/utlendingar/upplysingavefur-verndarmala#afgreidsla (accessed on 15 April 2023).

[51] Government of Iceland (2023), Matsferill – stefna um nýtt námsmat grunnskóla til umsagnar í Samráðsgátt, https://www.stjornarradid.is/efst-a-baugi/frettir/stok-frett/2023/03/13/Matsferill-stefna-um-nytt-namsmat-grunnskola-til-umsagnar-i-Samradsgatt/ (accessed on 10 August 2023).

[62] Gunnþórsdóttir, H. et al. (2020), “Viðbrögð sveitarfélaga á Íslandi við vaxandi fjölda nemenda af erlendum uppruna”, in Meckl, M. and H. Gunnþórsdóttir (eds.), Samfélag fjölbreytileikans.

[73] Gylfadóttir, A. (2021), NEET-hópurinn: Staða og bakgrunnur ungmenna af erlendum uppruna utan vinnumarkaðar og skóla, Varða,, https://www.rannvinn.is/_files/ugd/61b738_2707f7b72f794d19a7e60045fe3bc18a.pdf.

[13] Hardoy, I. and P. Schøne (2010), “Incentives to work? The impact of a ‘Cash-for-Care’ benefit for immigrant and native mothers labour market participation”, Labour Economics, Vol. 17/6, pp. 963-974, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2010.02.008.

[59] Hatch, T. (2013), “Beneath the surface of accountability: Answerability, responsibility and capacity-building in recent education reforms in Norway”, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 14/2, pp. 113-138, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-012-9206-1.

[32] Hoff, E. et al. (2011), “Dual language exposure and early bilingual development”, Journal of Child Language, Vol. 39/1, pp. 1-27, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000910000759.

[9] Icelandic Confederation of Labour (2022), Leikskólagjöld, https://www.asi.is/leikskolagjold/ (accessed on 4 October 2023).

[46] Internal Audit and Advisory Service of the City of Reykjavík (2019), Grunnskólar Reykjavíkur: Úthlutun fjárhagsramma og rekstur, https://reykjavik.is/sites/default/files/skjol_borgarstjornarfundur/4_167_1.1_grunnskolar_reykjavikur_uthlutun_fjarhagsramma_og_rekstur.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2023).

[75] Jeon, S. (2019), Unlocking the Potential of Migrants: Cross-country Analysis, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/045be9b0-en.

[4] Lee, R. et al. (2018), “Preschool attendance and school readiness for children of immigrant mothers in the United States”, Journal of Early Childhood Research, Vol. 16/2, pp. 190-209, https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718x18761218.

[84] Liebig, T. and K. Tronstad (2018), “Triple Disadvantage?: A first overview of the integration of refugee women”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 216, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3f3a9612-en.

[67] Miðja máls og læsis (2023), Brúarsmiðir - tvítyngisráðgjafar, https://mml.reykjavik.is/bruarsmidi/#av-tab-section-1-2-link.

[69] Ministry of Education and Children (2023), Education, https://www.government.is/topics/education/#:~:text=Upper%20secondary%20education%20is%20not,leading%20to%20a%20matriculation%20examination. (accessed on 28 September 2023).

[72] Ministry of Education and Children (2021), Menntastefna 2030: Fyrsta aðgerðaáætlun 2021-2024, https://www.stjornarradid.is/library/01--Frettatengt---myndir-og-skrar/MRN/Menntastefna_2030_fyrsta%20adgerdar%c3%a1%c3%a6tlun.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2023).

[52] Ministry of Education and Culture (2020), Framtíðarstefna um samræmt námsmat, https://www.stjornarradid.is/library/01--Frettatengt---myndir-og-skrar/MRN/191015_framt%c3%ad%c3%b0arstefna%20um%20samr%c3%a6mt%20n%c3%a1msmat_lokagerd.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2023).

[44] Ministry of Education, S. (2014), Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools, https://www.stjornarradid.is/media/menntamalaraduneyti-media/media/ritogskyrslur/count_backgr_rep_iceland_2015_fin.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2023).

[64] Ministry of Higher Education, S. and Ministry of Education and Children (2023), Fjölgum kennurum: aðgerðir í menntamálum, https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/menntamal/adgerdir-i-menntamalum/fjolgum-kennurum-adgerdir-i-menntamalum/ (accessed on 29 August 2023).

[42] Ministry of Infrastructure (2023), White Paper on Local Government Matters, https://samradsgatt.island.is/oll-mal/$Cases/Details/?id=3444 (accessed on 28 August 2023).

[54] Mostafa, T. (2017), “Is too much testing bad for student performance and well-being?”, PISA in Focus, No. 79, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2109a667-en.

[76] Nemastofa (2024), Nemastofa atvinnulífsins, https://nemastofa.is/ (accessed on 11 April 2024).

[5] OECD (2023), Enrolment rate in early childhood education (indicator), https://doi.org/10.1787/ce02d0f9-en (accessed on 19 September 2023).

[27] OECD (2023), International Migration Outlook 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b0f40584-en.

[47] OECD (2023), Introduction Measures for Newly-Arrived Migrants, Making Integration Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5aeddbfe-en.

[79] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Iceland 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b3880f1a-en.

[17] OECD (2023), OECD family database indicator PF3.2: Enrolment in childcare and pre-school, https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF3_2_Enrolment_childcare_preschool.pdf.

[29] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.

[37] OECD (2023), Teaching hours (indicator), https://doi.org/10.1787/af23ce9b-en (accessed on 22 August 2023).

[60] OECD (2022), “Allocation of competences in policy sectors key to migrant integration: In a sample of ten OECD countries”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 25, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dc4a71c5-en.

[81] OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en.

[68] OECD (2022), Education Policy Outlook 2022: Transforming Pathways for Lifelong Learners, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c77c7a97-en.

[85] OECD (2022), “How vocational education and training (VET) systems can support Ukraine: Lessons from past crises”, OECD Policy Responses on the Impacts of the War in Ukraine, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e8e86ce2-en.

[10] OECD (2022), Skills and Labour Market Integration of Immigrants and their Children in Norway, Working Together for Integration, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6109d927-en.

[39] OECD (2021), Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en.

[20] OECD (2021), Young People with Migrant Parents, Making Integration Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e773bfe-en.

[2] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.

[48] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en.

[66] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.

[61] OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.

[18] OECD (2018), Skills on the Move: Migrants in the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307353-en.

[1] OECD (2017), Catching Up? Intergenerational Mobility and Children of Immigrants, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264288041-en.

[63] OECD (2017), Education Policy Outlook: Sweden, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-policy-outlook/442599-Education-Policy-Outlook-Country-Profile-Sweden.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2023).

[16] OECD (2017), Making Integration Work: Family Migrants, Making Integration Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279520-en.

[55] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.

[8] OECD (2016), Who uses childcare? Background brief on inequalities in the use of formal early childhood education and care (ECEC) among very young children, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/Who_uses_childcare-Backgrounder_inequalities_formal_ECEC.pdf.

[15] OECD (2012), Jobs for Immigrants (Vol. 3): Labour Market Integration in Austria, Norway and Switzerland, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264167537-en.

[49] OECD (2010), Educating Teachers for Diversity: Meeting the Challenge, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264079731-en.

[6] OECD/European Commission (2023), Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2023: Settling In, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d5020a6-en.

[28] Pesola, H. and M. Sarvimäki (2022), “Intergenerational Spillovers of Integration Policies: Evidence from Finland’s Integration Plans”, IZA, https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/15310/intergenerational-spillovers-of-integration-policies-evidence-from-finlands-integration-plans (accessed on 13 February 2024).

[83] Rannís (2022), Ársskýrsla VNS 2021, https://www.rannis.is/sjodir/menntun/vinnustadanamssjodur/arsskyrslur/ (accessed on 13 October 2023).

[38] Samráðsgátt (2020), Viðmiðunarstundaskrá grunnskóla - tillaga að breytingu.

[53] Schleicher, A. (2023), “Are standardised tests increasing student anxiety?”, https://oecdedutoday.com/by-andreas-schleicheroecd-directorate-of-education-and-skills/ (accessed on 10 August 2023).

[26] Schleicher, A. (2023), PISA 2022: Insights and Interpretations, https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2023-12/OECD_PISA%202022%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2024).

[65] Skólapúlsinn (2023), Teaching in a multicultural setting.

[22] Skolverket (2023), Läslyftet i förskolan, https://www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/kurser-och-utbildningar/laslyftet-i-forskolan.

[45] Statistics Iceland (2023), Innflytjendur eftir kyni og sveitarfélagi 1. janúar 1996-2022, https://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/pxweb/is/Ibuar/Ibuar__mannfjoldi__3_bakgrunnur__Uppruni/MAN43005.px (accessed on 17 August 2023).

[23] Statistics Iceland (2022), Census 2021 - Inhabitants’ background, https://statice.is/publications/news-archive/census/census-2021-inhabitants-background/ (accessed on 31 March 2023).

[25] Statistics Iceland (2022), Grunnskólanemendum með erlendan bakgrunn fjölgar, https://hagstofa.is/utgafur/frettasafn/menntun/nemendur-i-grunnskolum-haustid-2021/.

[24] Statistics Iceland (2022), Households in Iceland were 130,849 in the 2021 census, https://www.statice.is/publications/news-archive/census/households-income-and-vehicle-ownership/ (accessed on 10 August 2023).

[74] Statistics Iceland (2017), SKO03109: New entrants at the upper secondary level by sex, age, type of study, origin and mode of teaching 1997-2017, https://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__3_framhaldsskolastig__0_fsNemendur/SKO03109.px (accessed on 12 October 2023).

[71] Stefánsson, K. and H. Eyjólfsson (2022), Félagsleg og efnahagsleg staða og brotthvarf úr íslenskum framhaldsskólum, https://www.stjornarradid.is/library/02-Rit--skyrslur-og-skrar/Sk%C3%BDsla%20-%20brotthvarf%20%C3%BAr%20framhaldssk%C3%B3lum%2024.01.2022.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2023).

[56] Teltemann, J. and R. Schunck (2020), “Standardized Testing, Use of Assessment Data, and Low Reading Performance of Immigrant and Non-immigrant Students in OECD Countries”, Frontiers in Sociology, Vol. 5, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2020.544628.

[36] Thordardottir, E. (2022), “Áhrif ensku á málkunnáttu unglinga sem hafa lært íslensku sem fyrsta eða annað mál”, Milli mála, Vol. 14/1, pp. 89-111.

[34] Thordardottir, E. (2021), “Adolescent language outcomes in a complex trilingual context: When typical does not mean unproblematic”, Journal of Communication Disorders, Vol. 89, p. 106060, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2020.106060.

[33] Thordardottir, E. (2011), “The relationship between bilingual exposure and vocabulary development”, International Journal of Bilingualism, Vol. 15/4, pp. 426-445, https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403202.

[35] Thordardottir, E. and A. Juliusdottir (2013), “Icelandic as a second language: a longitudinal study of language knowledge and processing by school-age children”, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol. 16/4, pp. 411-435, https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.693062.

[57] TrygFonden’s Centre for Child Research (2021), Danish National Tests, https://childresearch.au.dk/en/signature-project-read/struktur-og-rammer/danish-national-tests (accessed on 11 August 2023).

[50] University of Iceland (2023), Íslenska æskulýðsrannsóknin, https://menntavisindastofnun.hi.is/is/rannsoknir/islenska-aeskulydsrannsoknin (accessed on 13 September 2023).

[21] University of Iceland (2023), LSS606G Inclusive preschool, https://ugla.hi.is/kennsluskra/index.php?tab=nam&chapter=namskeid&id=50004620240&kennsluar=2023 (accessed on 4 October 2023).

[12] Varða (2024), Workers in Iceland 2024 survey.

[77] Wolter, S. and M. Zumbuehl (2017), “The Native-Migrant Gap in the Progression into and Through Upper-Secondary Education”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3092561.

Notes

← 1. The sample size of immigrant children in Iceland is small and results should be taken with caution. While ideally only native‑born children of immigrants would be included in the analysis, sample size restrictions make this impossible. Despite small sample sizes, PISA is the only data source providing an overall picture of the performance of children in schools in Iceland.

← 2. Throughout this chapter, “pre‑primary” is used to refer to early childhood education and care in general.

← 3. In the 2021 census, the localities with the highest number of immigrant households in the country were all among those with the highest rates of single‑parent (SP) households. These localities (or minor statistical output areas as referred to in the census) are: Reykjanesbaer: Njardvikur, Asbru and Hafnir – 3001 (48% immigrant, 36% SP families); Reykjanesbær: Njarðvíkur, Ásbrú og Hafnir – 3002 (54% immigrant, 33% SP families); Reykjavik: Upper and lower Breidholt – 0801 (36% immigrant, 30% SP families); Reykjavik: Upper and lower Breidholt – 0803 (48% immigrant, 30% SP families). Immigrants accounted for 17.7% of the population and SP families for 11% of families in the 2021 census.

← 4. Data on late arrivals (ages 11 and above) did not meet the minimum observation threshold for Iceland.

← 5. In 2023, the Ministry of Infrastructure published a draft legislative proposal to remove the exemption.

← 6. The OECD allows countries and economies to exclude up to a total of 5% of the student population. Exclusions are allowed for a variety of reasons, such as disability and language proficiency. Iceland‘s exclusion rate was 6%, exceeding the OECD standard by 1%. Most of those exclusions were made on the basis of limited assessment-language proficiency. These students mostly have an immigrant background.

← 7. Calculations are based on the proportion of male and female students in each profession.

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & Events

News & Events

Featured Events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment