This chapter focuses on the transmission of skills from immigrants to their children in Norway. It first provides an overview of the integration outcomes of children of immigrants and presents challenges that remain to ensure a lasting integration of this group. It provides a short presentation of the overall system of family support and follows the life‑path of children of immigrants, from pre‑school over primary and secondary education to the labour market transition.
Skills and Labour Market Integration of Immigrants and their Children in Norway
Working Together for Integration
5. Transmitting skills to children of immigrants in Norway
Abstract
This report was largely completed before the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Norway swiftly adapted its integration framework to accommodate for the specific challenges arising from the inflow of refugees from Ukraine. These measures are discussed in a separate chapter (Chapter 6).
Descendants of immigrants – a benchmark for integration policy
How well the children of immigrant parents are integrated in the education system and labour market is generally considered one of the best measures of the long-term success or failure of integration policy. As children of immigrants, both those who are native‑born and those who arrived at a young age, have been raised and educated in the country, they should not, in theory, encounter the same difficulties as migrant adults who have obtained their skills in an often very different context. Ultimately, the expectation is that their outcomes be similar to those of native‑born to native‑born parents. Ensuring that youth with migrant parents can reach their full potential in the education system and the labour market will be important going forward, especially given their rapidly rising share among the youth population.
Children of immigrants – an increasing share of the young population in Norway
A large and increasing share of young people in Norway are immigrants or have parents born abroad. In 2021, over one in three children in Norway (34%) under the age of 15 had at least one foreign-born parent. Overall, in this age group, more than one in five children (21%) was either an immigrant (7%) or born in Norway to two immigrant parents (14%). A further 13% were of mixed origin, with one native‑born and one foreign-born parent. Also, in the OECD area the increase in Norway was strong, as depicted with the latest comparable data from 2018, below (Figure 5.1) (OECD, 2021[1]).
Figure 5.1. The share of children born to immigrant parents has increased strongly
Source: Secretariat estimates from EU SILC (2006 & 2018), 2020.
The largest group of native‑born to migrant parents have parents born in Pakistan, accounting for 9% of the total. This is not surprising, as Pakistanis are one of the most longstanding immigrant groups in Norway, with the majority arriving in 1970s. After Pakistan, the second largest group are native‑born to parents from Somalia and Poland (8% respectively), followed by Iraq and Viet Nam.
Education and labour market outcomes
Children of immigrants perform at OECD-average levels in school
The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests reading skills among children at age 15. Just like in most OECD countries, the educational outcomes of foreign-born students lag behind those of native‑born students in Norway. This is no surprise given their adjustment to a new language and school system. However, also the native‑born to immigrant parents tend to perform less well in school than their peers with native‑born parentage (Figure 5.2).
The performance gap between native‑born students with native‑born parents and those with immigrant parents amounts to 46 points, close to one year and well above the OECD average performance gap at 29 points.
Figure 5.2. Native‑born and foreign-born students with foreign-born parents have a similar literacy competence
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on OECD (2018[2]), PISA 2018 Database, www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/.
Norway’s performance in PISA has stagnated over time with similar performance gaps between students of immigrant- and native‑born parentage in 2018 and 2009. By contrast, in Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands the performance gap widened substantially, while it decreased in the United States, Belgium and France.
On the other hand, results from PISA 2015 show that Norway has been particularly successful in reducing the share of students who lack basic reading skills at age 15. OECD wide the share of native‑born children of foreign-born parents who perform poorly at school has dropped by 6 percentage points between 2006 and 2015. In Norway, the share fell most drastically by 21 percentage points (OECD/European Union, 2018[3]).
The language spoken at home is related to students´ reading proficiency. Across the OECD, students of immigrant parents speaking the language of instruction at home score on average 36 points higher than those who speak another language. In 2018, 8 out of 10 immigrant students and 40% of the natives born to immigrant parents spoke another language at home. Interestingly, speaking Norwegian at home leads to only slight reading score improvements in Norway (5 points) compared to around 50 points in other countries such as Sweden, Switzerland and Austria (OECD, 2018[2]).
Educational outcomes depict large gender differences
Differences in educational attainment at larger ages are less pronounced in Norway. In 2019, about half of the native‑born to immigrants aged 25 to 34 who were not in education, had completed tertiary education (ISCED 5‑8), about the same as for their peers with native‑born parents. The high share of highly educated native‑born to immigrant parents sets Norway apart from most other European OECD countries where native‑born immigrant offspring are less likely to be highly educated than their peers of native‑born parentage (OECD/European Union, 2018[3]). In contrast, a larger share of the native‑born to immigrant parents aged 25 to 34 years are low educated compared to their peers with native‑born parents (27% vs. 20%). These differences are slightly above latest available average among European OECD countries (OECD/European Union, 2018[3]).
What is more, over the last decade, the gap between educational outcomes of native‑born youth with parents born abroad and their peers with native‑born parents has narrowed. For instance, between 2010 and 2019, the share of the highly educated increased by 13 percentage points among children of immigrants and by 6 percentage points among children of natives. At the same time, the share of the low-educated declined by 4 percentage points among offspring of immigrants, while it has remained about the same among offspring of natives.
The overall rather favourable picture is somewhat nuanced when disaggregating by gender. In Norway, gender gaps in educational outcomes are larger than across the OECD and those in comparable countries. OECD-wide, men are overrepresented among the low-educated; this is also true in Norway. However, among the low-educated, the gender gap is more than twice as large among the native‑born with immigrant parents as among their peers with native parentage (Figure 5.3). For the foreign-born who arrived as children (not shown in the graph) the gender gap is particularly large (22 percentage points), compared to an average of 5 percentage points across the OECD. There are also large gender gaps among the highly educated, but this concerns in particular the native‑born with native‑born parents. Just like in the rest of the OECD, women are overrepresented among the highly educated.
Figure 5.3. Native‑born young men with migrant parents are often low-educated
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations adapted from data in (OECD/European Union, 2018[3]), Settling In 2018: Indicators of Immigrant Integration, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307216-en.
Labour market outcomes of children of immigrants improved
The employment rate of native‑born children with immigrant parents aged 15 to 34 and not in education reached 67% in 2017 (the latest year for which international comparable data are available), significantly lower than the OECD average (73%). In particular, the gap between natives born to immigrant parents and their peers with native‑born parents was 14 percentage points in Norway, similar to those in Austria, Germany and France (OECD/European Union, 2018[3]).
Looking at national data over time, the employment rate among the native‑born to foreign-born parents aged 15 to 34 has tended to increase, while it has remained relatively stable for those born to native‑born parents (Table 5.1). In 2019, 73% of the young native‑born with immigrant parents’ not in education were employed, compared to 83% among their peers with native‑born parents.
A rather unique feature in Norway is the fact that for those born in Norway to immigrant parents, the employment rate is slightly higher among women than men. In 2019, 74% of the 15‑ to 34‑year‑old women born in Norway to immigrant parents not in education were employed, compared to 72% among their male peers. By contrast, among those with native‑born parents, men had a slightly higher employment rate (84% vs 82%). Among 15‑ to 34‑year‑olds, immigrant men were also more likely to be employed (70%) than women (58%). The difference among this latter group is largely driven by the gender gap in employment rates among migrants from a non-European country.
Table 5.1. Gaps in labour market outcomes remained over the past decade
Shares in employment and registered unemployed 15‑ to 34‑year‑olds not in education, 2010, 2015, 2019, 2020*
Note: Those in employment might include individuals working part-time. *Shares for 2020 are preliminary.
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on data from SSB, 2021.
While employment rate increases with educational attainment, across all levels of education, rates remain lower among natives with immigrant parents than among their peers with native‑born parents. Indeed, gaps are larger at the high end of the qualification spectrum. Among those aged 25‑to 34 with a tertiary education, excluding those in education, 93% of the native‑born to native‑born parents were employed in 2019, compared to 84% of those with parents born in an EU country and 85% of those with parents born outside the EU. Among the low educated, only 59% of native‑born children of immigrants were employed, compared to 62% of their peers with native‑born parents.
Looking at those not in employment, education or training (NEET) one observes a relatively favourable picture among native‑born, but only prior to the pandemic. In 2019, 13% of native‑born 15‑34 year‑olds with parents born abroad were NEET, against 10% of their peers with native‑born parents. Compared to 2010, this share has remained unchanged among offspring of native‑born, and decreased by 1 percentage point among offspring of immigrants, slightly narrowing the gap. Among foreign-born youth the results differ strongly by age of arrival. About 15% of youth who arrive before the age of 12 were NEET in 2019, a share only 2 percentage points higher than those native‑born to immigrant parents, and notably 3 percentage points lower than in 2010. However, like in other OECD countries, in parallel with the age of arrival the NEET rate increases, and among those who arrived between 12‑15 years of age 20% were not in employment, education or training in 2019.
The pandemic impacted the labour market situation of vulnerable youth, and increased NEET rates of each group in Norway though strongest among offspring of immigrants. In 2020, 18% of native‑born 15‑34 year‑olds with parents born abroad were NEET, at similar levels to what is observed across the EU. Foreign-born who arrived before the age of 15 had similar NEET rates (17%) and were thus faring better in Norway than their peers across the EU (20%). Native‑born to native‑born parents in Norway had the lowest NEET rate at 13%, also outperforming their peers across the EU 16% (OECD/European Union, forthcoming[4]).
Looking at another particularity of Norway, that is the high share of youth receiving incapacity benefits, also shows that immigrant offspring have similar outcomes compared to native‑born to native‑born. In 2016, 6% of all young people aged 15 to 29 received incapacity benefits in Norway. This is three times higher than the OECD average and more than in any other OECD country (OECD, 2018[5]). National figures from 2019 show that native‑born to native‑born parents aged 15 to 34 not in education are more than twice as likely to be recipients of incapacity benefits compared to immigrants in the same age cohort (8% compared to 3%). Mental health has become a primary cause of benefit dependency among young people, but there are also indications that the benefit has served as a source of income support for difficult-to‑employ jobseekers in times of labour market slack. High recipient rates of incapacity benefits are not a new phenomenon, and Norway has undertaken significant efforts in recent years to tackle the issue. While the access to incapacity benefits have been tightened, the figures suggest that further efforts are needed (OECD, 2018[5]).
Finally, formal over-qualification affects young natives similarly, irrespective of their parents’ country of birth. In 2019, 21% of native‑born women to immigrant parents aged 25 to 34 and 24% of native‑born men to immigrant parents worked in jobs for which they were formally overqualified, compared to 17% and 21% of their peers with native‑born parents respectively.
Public sector integration works well
One of the drivers of the outcomes of youth with migrant parents is the public sector, which accounts for a relatively high share of youth employment in international comparison. Norway stands out as one of the few OECD countries where the share of natives with foreign-born parents working in public sector jobs is equal to that of their peers with native‑born parents (Figure 5.4). This is at least in part a result of longstanding policy efforts. Already since 2002, employers in the public sector, including state‑owned companies, must invite at least one applicant with a minority background for an interview. Since 2012, public sector employers need to hire the candidate with parents born in a non-western country, in case of equal qualification.
Figure 5.4. Youth with migrant parents are well integrated into the public sector
Source: OECD/European Union (2018[3]), Settling In 2018: Indicators of Immigrant Integration, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307216-en.
Public sector employment of youth with migrant parents generates several benefits. First, the presence of civil servants with migrant parents enhances diversity within public institutions, making them more representative of the communities they serve. Second, how the wider public perceives immigrants and their children depends in part on their ‘visibility’ in public life and the contexts in which they become ‘visible’. Teachers, police officers, or public administrators with migrant parents, can also act as role models (OECD, 2021[6]).
Integration as a whole‑of-family issue
The Norwegian system for family support
Across the OECD, in spite of progress across generations, integration challenges of migrant parents, both in terms of educational attainment and the labour market, are frequently transmitted to their native‑born children (OECD, 2017[7]). Against this backdrop, a growing number of countries have adopted programmes that involve both migrant parents and their native‑born children in the integration process (OECD, 2021[6]).
Norway has particularly favourable conditions to adopt a whole‑of-family approach to integration. It ranks among the OECD countries with the highest social transfers to families relative to GDP, most of these being provided as services (Figure 5.5). Moreover, the public income spend on early childhood education is substantial. In 2016, expenditure for early childhood education and care (ECEC) per child was almost twice as high as the OECD average (OECD, 2020[8]).
Figure 5.5. Norway has a high rate of social expenditure on services to families
Source: OECD Social Expenditure Database (2021[9]), www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm.
OECD-wide, Norway also ranks as one of the most family-friendly countries, due to its long duration of paid parental leave for both fathers and mothers, high rates of childcare enrolment, and high quality as well as availability of preschool education (Chzhen, Gromada and Rees, 2019[10]). The Norwegian benefit system for new parents offers long and generous coverage. All parents that have received a pensionable income for at last six of the last 10 months, earning a minimum of 53 200 NOK (social benefits included) and are members of the national insurance scheme, are entitled to 49 weeks of parental leave. Each parent is granted 15 weeks while the rest can be freely divided between the partners. The father´s access to leave is however conditioned upon the mother’s economic activity before and after childbirth (see Chapter 4). Mothers who do not fulfil the employment and earning requirements receive a lump sum. While most mothers fulfil the economic criteria, immigrant mothers are much less likely to do so. In 2014, 45% of the mothers from Asia and 64% of the mothers born in Africa received a lump sum, compared to 10% among the native‑born (Line Schou, 2019[11]). There is no more recent data available but anecdotal evidence suggests that this situation has remained unchanged. Norway has also a cash-for-care system, which will be discussed further below.
Norway offers parental guidance courses, mandatory for some migrant groups
Norway recently enhanced information of migrant parents about bringing up children in the Norwegian society. Individuals participating in the Norwegian Introduction Programme (NIP) since the new Integration Act of 2021 are required to attend a course on parenting and how to raise a child in Norway if they have minor children (see Chapter 3). It is possible for the municipality, in consultation with participants in the programme, to provide courses in parental guidance even if participants have children who are older than 18 years. This is unique in the OECD context, as other countries do not have similar mandatory programmes or courses.
The new offers are, in part, a response to previous research on migrant parents’ and their children’s perspectives and concerns. In a 2019 report, foreign-born parents reported that they lacked networks and support when raising their children and often felt insecure and alone in their parental responsibility (Horgen, Og and Bjørnset, 2019[12]). Course material has also been developed for the NIP on forced marriage, female genital mutilation, honour violence and negative social control.
Information on bringing up children in Norway can also prevent that gender roles and norms in families work as a barrier to girls in their educational and employment ambitions. Traditional gender norms are often found to continue across generations (Dale, Lindley and Dex, 2006[13]) (see Chapter 4 for an in-depth discussion on mothers’ employment). While differences exist across different foreign-born populations, the opinion of immigrants in Norway on gender equality in job access are progressive (Box 5.1).
Some OECD countries offer parents and children programmes in tandem. Programmes of this type exist in several countries, including in Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia and Sweden. Vienna, for example, runs a learning support programme for immigrant mothers, who can learn German in parallel with their children at their ECEC centre or school. Other projects involve immigrant parents in further learning activities. New Zealand, for example, provides refugee families and secondary school-aged children with computer literacy training, a computer and a one‑year internet connection through the “Computer in Homes” programme.
In some cases, children’s schools or kindergartens offer additional support to migrant parents. France has a large‑scale national initiative to “open the school for parents for the success of the children” which provides language training in schools for parents to help them better understand the education system. In the German city of Hanover, elementary schools organise biweekly meeting groups (‘backpack parent groups`) for immigrant parents. During these sessions at their children’s school, parents learn about the topics taught in their child’s class. The groups also teach them host-country language skills and encourage them to participate in school activities (OECD, 2021[6]).
Box 5.1. Opinions on job access in Norway are progressive
In a 2009 survey in Norway, 72% of migrants from Pakistan answered that it is the man’s main responsibility to support the family, compared to 16% among the native‑born. 60% of the respondents from Pakistan further answered that the mother should be at home taking care of the kids, compared to 11% among the native‑born households. The report further shows that while the immigrants interviewed in the report are less supportive of mothers working, their descendants, similar to the native‑born population are more approving (Kavli and Nadim, 2009[14]). The results indicate a significant degree of acculturation from one generation to the next.
This is similar to OECD findings, showing that values present in the host-society shape attitudes towards gender equality. Norway is one of the forerunners when it comes to positive attitudes towards gender equality. Figure 5.6 shows that in countries where the approval rates on gender equality are high, they are also high among immigrants. In fact, immigrants in Norway hold more gender-equal views than the majority of natives in other countries.
Figure 5.6. Immigrants have progressive attitudes on gender equality in job access in Norway
Source: OECD/EU (2018[3]), Settling In 2018: Indicators of Immigrant Integration, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307216-en.
Early childhood
For children born in Norway to migrant parents, and for those who arrive at a young age, learning Norwegian is often a first challenge. Norway does not have any data on foreign-born children or native‑born children to immigrant parents in kindergarten, but instead gathers data on the share of children who speak another language than Norwegian, Sami, Swedish, Danish or English at home. The share of children from these so-called “language minorities” has tripled in recent years (from 6.2% in 2006 to 19% in 2020) (SSB, 2021[15]). Given the increasing share of immigrants in Norway, this share is expected to grow further. This will put further emphasis on the importance of pre‑school education in stimulating language development among children living in households speaking another language at home than Norwegian, as well as ensuring that these children have access to Norwegian training as early as possible.
Checks for early language development exist but are not focused on Norwegian
In Norway, health clinics perform routine assessments of children’s language abilities at age two and four. Assessments includes checking for delayed language development due to health reasons – for example stuttering. While the health check-up is mandatory, there are different practices with regard to how children with an additional or different mother tongue are assessed. In the case of children with a different mother tongue from Norwegian, at the two‑year consultation, it is the parents’ assessment of the child’s language abilities which is the basis for the assessment. At the four‑year consultation, the clinics can observe whether the children speak Norwegian or not, but the focus is on a suspicion of delay in overall language acquisition, not focused on Norwegian language skills for children with foreign-born parents (Norwegian Directorate of Health, 2021[16]). Herein, a lack of Norwegian might not be detected. Likewise, many pre‑school institutions assess language proficiency, in 2019, around 80% of the institutions performed such checks (Fagerholt et al., 2020[17]), but again this is not mandatory nor standardised.
Under the current framework, it is not until primary education that educational institutions are systematically performing language proficiency assessments of students who have a mother tongue other than Norwegian or Sami on their Norwegian language skills. The assessments are conducted by first grade teachers and based on their own professional consideration. Since August 2016, the kindergartens and elementary schools have a joint responsibility to ensure children’s safe and good transition from kindergarten to primary school. However, this obligation has not resulted in a systematic language screening prior to children’s entry into elementary school.
Ensuring that all children have sufficient proficiency in the national language before starting primary school is key for ensuring that they have equal opportunities in the education system. In contrast to Norway, other OECD countries therefore have a systematic assessment of language proficiency in pre‑school institutions. For example, in Denmark, every minority language speaking child is assessed both in kindergarten 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’, which is usually the academic year in which children turn five. Hesse, in Germany, performs routine German language screenings in all ECEC 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[6]).
For institutions who need it, Norway offers extra support. In 2015, the majority (76%) of kindergartens reported that they had specific support and language stimulation in place for all children in need of this, including children with special needs and children with another mother tongue (Haugset, Dyblie and Haugum, 2015[18]). An earmarked grant is given to strengthen the development in the Norwegian language for minority language children in kindergarten. The grant is given to municipalities which meet the following two criteria: That at least 10 percent of the children in kindergartens in the municipality have another mother tongue than Norwegian, Sami, Swedish, Danish, or English, and that this group of children consists of at least 50 children. In 2020 the grant included 123 municipalities and 85 percent of all minority language children in kindergartens (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2021[19]).
ECEC enrolment of immigrants’ children has long-term educational benefits
In recent years, improving kindergarten attendance of children with immigrant parents has been a policy priority. The measures implemented have been successful, but kindergarten enrolment has still increased stronger among children of native‑born parents than among children with immigrant parents. Between 2006 and 2016 the kindergarten enrolment rate of children aged 2 to 5 years increased from 75% to 81% for those with foreign-born parents and 70% to 90% for those with native‑born parents. Overall, the kindergarten enrolment rate of children aged 2 to 5 years in Norway is higher than the OECD average (70%), it is similar to that in France (81%) or Austria (80%) but lower than enrolment in Finland (87%), Belgium (95%) and Spain (88%) (OECD/European Union, 2018[3]).
In 2020, 85% of the children speaking another language than Norwegian, Sami, Swedish, Danish, or English (hereinafter referred to as minority language children) aged 1 to 5 were enrolled in kindergarten. For other children the enrolment rate was 95%. Importantly, the remaining gap is driven by very young children although the enrolment rate for this group has increased substantially since 2007, as depicted in Figure 5.7.
Attending Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) benefits disadvantaged children, especially those with migrant parents. Impact analysis on children’s’ later performance in school suggests that 3 to 4 years of ECEC attendance results in the largest gains (Balladares and Kankaraš, 2020[20]). In Norway this implies that children at the age of 3, at the latest, should attend ECEC. As depicted in Figure 5.7, this was the case for 93% of minority language children in 2020, up from 72% in 2007.
Figure 5.7. Increase in ECEC enrolment has been strong for minority language children
Source: Statistics Norway and Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion (2022[21]), Migration and Integration 2020‑21, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/migration-and-integration-20202021/id2898583/.
This data suggests that recent policy efforts in Norway including an introduction of a maximum fee for parents, 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 have been successful at increasing ECEC attendance, while keeping it voluntary. At the same time this information also needs to reach immigrant families (see below).
Accessible and comprehensive early childhood education and care (ECEC) has particularly positive effects on immigrant children’s future educational performance (OECD, 2021[6]). Children of immigrants in Norway who have attended ECEC score higher in the PISA reading assessment, on average, than immigrant students who did not attend kindergarten. The age at which children first attend ECEC also matters. Children born in Norway to immigrant parents who had joined kindergarten at age 4 had significantly lower reading scores at age 15 compared to both migrant children and native‑born children of native‑born parents, and their peers who joined earlier. Overall, earlier enrolment is correlated with better PISA reading scores outcomes for all children (Figure 5.8). Given the time‑lags involved, the improvement (including in relative terms) in ECEC attendance as shown in the previous pages, can be expected to bear strong benefits for the educational outcomes in the coming years.
Figure 5.8. Joining ECEC has a strong impact on literacy for children of immigrants in Norway
Note: Lines show results in PISA by age of starting ECEC with a 95% confidence interval.
Source: OECD (2018[2]), PISA 2018 Database, www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/.
To boost early enrolment of minority language children, Norway has made several efforts. The Directorate for Education and Training’s website provides information in over 20 languages (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2019[22]). In addition, some municipalities have developed specific outreach programmes targeting immigrant families. By spring 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. One of these schemes is a national subsidy for low-income families introduced in 2015, which ensure that the family doesn’t pay more than 6% of their income for a full-time place in kindergarten, limited upwards by the general maximum parental fee limit. 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.
In Oslo, an earlier scheme offering subsidies for free kindergarten hours in five districts with high immigrant concentration were found to increase the enrolment of native‑born children with immigrant parents (especially girls) by 11.5 percentage points. The intervention halved the attendance gap between children with immigrant parents and native‑born parents (Drange and Telle, 2015[23]). A national scheme offering subsidies for 20 free kindergarten hours per week for all children from low-income families were therefore introduced in 2015 for 4‑ and 5‑year‑olds. The scheme was extended to include 3‑year‑olds in 2016, and 2‑year‑olds in 2019. The improvements in the uptake of early childhood education can be expected to result in better educational outcomes in the years to come.
Indeed, longitudinal studies in Norway have revealed positive effects of free childcare on participation and subsequent educational performance in fifth grade (Drange and Telle, 2015[23]; Bråten et al., 2014[24]; Drange, 2018[25]).
During the COVID‑19 pandemic, when kindergartens and schools were officially closed during spring 2020, they remained open for vulnerable children, among which many children of immigrants. Indeed, the contact with the Norwegian society and language is particularly important for children of immigrants, especially those who have low-educated parents with little Norwegian knowledge.
Cash-for-care benefits disincentives ECEC attendance
Parents may receive a cash-for-care benefit for children aged 13 to 23 months who do not attend kindergarten. For children who do not go to kindergarten, NOK 7 500 is paid per month. The payment is phased out according to the number of hours spent in kindergarten. Historically, immigrants have disproportionally obtained cash-for-care benefits in Norway. Between 2011 and 2015, cash-for-care benefits were paid for about 51% of children with native‑born parents aged between 1 and 2,compared to 68% of children with foreign-born parents (Lima, Arntsen and Rudlende, 2020[26]). In the past, the subsidy accounted for a substantial part of the aggregate income of immigrant women from countries such as Somalia, Iraq, Morocco, and Pakistan but had a negligible importance on the income of native‑born (Liebig, 2009[27]).
To encourage recently arrived immigrants to send their children to kindergarten and promote the labour market integration of immigrant mothers, Norway restricted access to cash-for-care benefits in 2017. Eligibility was now tied to the membership in Norway´s National Insurance Scheme for a minimum of five years, subsequently excluding recent immigrants and newcomers. The change has led to some decline in cash-for-care beneficiaries among immigrants – while in 2016, 43% of all beneficiaries had been immigrants, that numbers went down to a little over a third in 2020.
Early research suggested that the introduction of the cash-for-care subsidy in 1998 may have decreased the labour supply of immigrant women from non-OECD countries by up to 12%, compared to 4% among native‑born. The difference between the two groups was partly driven by the already lower employment and activity rates and consequently lower incomes among the immigrant recipients. The reduction in labour supply due to incentives by the allowance was strongest among the already unemployed and inactive mothers, whereas the subsidy had largely no effect on the labour market supply of women who were already active before the reform (Hardoy and Schøne, 2010[28]).
It appears that the benefit is still predominantly used by low-income households and the unemployed. As figures from 2018 show, 68% of the immigrant mothers were out of work when receiving the benefit, compared to 54% among the native‑born. Since kindergarten attendance results in a loss of the cash-for-care subsidy, children in recipient families have a lower kindergarten attendance rate (Sandvik and Gram, 2019[29]).
While the new residence restriction led to some decline in immigrant beneficiaries, there is no evidence that it has achieved its objective of increasing labour market participation (Lima, Arntsen and Rudlende, 2020[26]). The reason may just be that among those rendered ineligible by the reform, many already struggled to enter the labour market and were either unemployed or/and participated in labour market support measures.
The incentives for families to send young children to kindergarten are reduced by the expenses associated with attendance. In 2021, the maximum fee for full-time kindergarten attendance was NOK 3 230 (EUR 330) per month. Kindergartens may charge families for additional expenses on top of the maximum monthly fee. This concerns mainly extra charges for food expenses, which may vary significantly. The cash-for-care benefit is therefore almost twice as large as the monthly costs associated with kindergarten. Although there are various fee reductions for low-income families, as described above, the cash-for-care benefit nonetheless disincentives the kindergarten attendance of young children. In the past, up to 4 in 10 immigrant families who were entitled to the support actually took it up (Moafi, 2017[30]). To reduce this number, Norway recently enhanced information and outreach efforts to inform immigrant families about fee‑reduction measures.
Integration into the primary and secondary education system
Children of immigrants face particular challenges when integrating into the school system. These often include speaking another language than Norwegian at home as well as fewer parental guidance and support to navigate through the system. Norway supports children of immigrants in integrating and succeeding in the educational system via targeted measures.
The education system focusses on “adapted education”, in which ordinary classroom education should adjust to the needs of individual student. The education system also strives to achieve universal equity which can be particularly helpful for immigrant students. Measures include a longer period of compulsory education, delayed tracking, and school choice. Compulsory education begins at age 6 and ends at age 16. Students are first tracked into different educational pathways based on interest and partly on performance at the age of 16.
Norway offers specific support for newly arrived students
All children, including asylum seekers, who will remain in Norway for more than three months have the right to primary, lower secondary and upper secondary education. Newly arrived immigrant children are either placed directly in an ordinary class corresponding to their age and receive extra hours in Norwegian language training and if necessary, they are also entitled to mother tongue instruction, bilingual subject teaching, or both or in some cases start in a specific introductory class, the so-called introduction offer. The placement depends on the resources of the municipality and the county. The introductory class is a special language programme divided into separate groups, classes or schools and may last for up to two years. A decision may only be made for one year at a time. The goal is to prepare new students as quickly as possible to follow ordinary classes (NOKUT, 2021[31]).
Postponing teaching of the curriculum until students master the language of instruction is however controversial and an assessment of the scheme in Norway found that schools as well as parents and their children value a quick transition to mainstream classes (Rambøll, 2016[32]). While students are allowed to stay in the special classes for up to two years, schools have often limited the offer to one year. Specific introductory classes are mainly used by upper secondary schools, while primary schools provide additional language training in combination with the ordinary curriculum. National data on the outcomes of those enrolled in special language training are missing. A 2016 survey indicates however that one year is enough for most students but not always sufficient for students with little previous schooling (Rambøll, 2016[32]).
Since 2016, counties and municipalities may offer more education on primary school level to students who lack the prerequisite skills to complete upper secondary education. There is no data on how many immigrants are offered this opportunity nor if the efforts have been successful in terms of the students’ later performance in upper secondary school. The offer is not mandatory, so students may decline it and still be eligible to enter upper secondary education.
In other countries, later school leaving is used to mitigate the negative effects of late arrival. In New Zealand, late arrivals can remain in secondary education beyond the age of 19. The German state of Bavaria raised the compulsory age for vocational schools from 18 to 21, and in individual cases up to 25 (OECD, 2021[6]). Between 2017 and 2019, Norwegian schools could receive grants from the Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi) for providing primary schooling to immigrant youth aged 16 to 24 years with short period of residence in Norway. From 2020, the responsibility for allocating and financing the scheme has been transferred to the counties (Høgestøl and Skutlaberg, 2019[33]).
In addition to offering targeted support in regular education institutions, some countries have developed specific “catch-up programmes” for recently arrived migrant students as an alternative to mainstream education. For example, the “Newcomer Schools Program” in the United States targets recent adolescent migrants with low levels of literacy, previous schooling, or English proficiency. Based on repeated English language assessments, the programme provides one to three years of first language development and second language instruction, lessons in core academic subjects, leisure time activities, and skills development for self-directed study, career counselling, and an “email buddies” scheme linking newcomers with students from local mainstream schools.
Language support is widespread but quality unclear
All primary and upper secondary students from language minorities have the right to special language training. This means that the student either follows the regular school curriculum but with slight adjustments in terms of the language level of instruction or follow a specific curriculum for students with basic Norwegian. Students may also be offered special mother tongue or bilingual instruction in addition to regular school hours.
An evaluation of the language support however indicates that mother tongue and bilingual instruction is offered to a lesser extent and mainly depends on the resources of school. An evaluation also showed that in 2016, 7% of all students in primary education received special language training (Rambøll, 2016[32]). Students with a right to special language training also have a right to spend two additional years in upper secondary school. The training ends when the student has reached a “sufficient” level of proficiency in Norwegian, allowing him or her to follow the normal instruction of the school. However, no national formal language level defines what constitutes ‘sufficient proficiency’ and it is up to the school and individual teachers to decide. The language level at which students lose their right to special training may therefore vary, and subsequently their ability to follow ordinary training. Earlier evidence of challenges in mapping the language proficiency of students have also been reported. In a 2016 evaluation of the services provided under special language training, schools reported difficulties in assessing what level of Norwegian constitutes ‘sufficient proficiency’ to follow regular training (Rambøll, 2016[32]). The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training has therefore developed a new, digital tool for mapping Norwegian skills, available to municipalities and teacher from January 2021. The results of the new digital tools remain to be seen. Regular follow-ups on the educational performance could complement the digital tool followed by further educational support to students who have completed special language training.
To better meet the needs of children with another mother tongue than Norwegian, public policy has in recent years focused on improving the competences of teachers in second language training and multicultural pedagogy as well as developing tools to help schools and kindergartens map the language proficiency of immigrant children (Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security, 2015[34]). There are however, no official competence requirements for teachers in special language training. In a survey covering 1 500 schools, only one in four (24%) teachers who taught students in special language training had an education in Norwegian as a second language (Rambøll, 2016[32]) Training in multicultural pedagogy and cultural diversity is, however, a mandatory component of the teacher programme.
As stated, the scope and content of the additional language support should be adapted to individual needs. Still, the design and delivery of support is up to the resources of municipalities and school. Assessments show that the scope, quality, and type of language support therefore varies (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2010[35]; Rambøll, 2016[32]; Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2014[36]). Schools have reported difficulty in finding competent teachers such as bilingual teachers. This is particularly the case in smaller municipalities which must often rely on officials who carry out a wide variety of duties, rarely with specific competence in special language training (Rambøll, 2016[32]).Guaranteeing the teaching competence among teachers for minority language students is key, given the increasing number of youths with migrant parents. Imposing specific formal teaching requirements is one solution, another is supporting schools and municipalities with resources to hire teacher with the right qualifications. One recent initiative that can help to address the lack of bilingual teachers is the project Flexible education. The project provides online bilingual teaching in mathematics and sciences in Arabic, Somali and Tigrinya for newly arrived students who have difficulties in following ordinary teaching due to lack of Norwegian skills. While physically-present bilingual teachers are preferred, an evaluation has found that systematic use of online training has been successful in improving students’ learning outcomes. The project has therefore been made permanent and discussion are ongoing on expanding to more subjects (Nilssen Haave, Liland Hartveit and Randen, 2019[37]).
Lack of skills is identified too late
All students who have completed primary school have a legal right to pursue three years of upper-secondary education, regardless of their grades in primary school. Still, the grades in primary school are closely correlated with students’ probability of successfully completing upper secondary school.
Looking at the average primary school outcomes, both immigrants and native‑born students to immigrant parents achieve slightly lower grades than the overall average (39 and 42 points versus the average of 43 points in 2021). The risk of dropping out of upper secondary school is highest among those with grades below 30 points. Among those with grades below 30 points, 24% had foreign-born parents.
The share of early school leavers in Norway is relatively high among immigrants who arrived in Norway before the age of 15 (14%), but low for those born in Norway to native‑born (8%), and to immigrant parents (7%) (Figure 5.9). The share is lowest among Norwegian-born youth with two EU-born parents at 4%. In 2018, the drop-out rates of children born outside EU were almost three times as high as for those EU-born children (15% versus 5%) (OECD/European Union, 2018[3]).
Figure 5.9. Early school leaving is mainly a concern among young immigrants
Source OECD/European Union (forthcoming[4]), Settling In 2023: Indicators of Immigrant Integration.
Students who are missing lower secondary school points due to absence or poor performance can still enter upper secondary education based on an individual assessment, but the share who attends upper secondary education is low and among them only a few complete. Among those that started upper secondary education in 2014 with no primary grades only 23% graduated within the standard time and 28% dropped out (SSB, 2021[38]).
The share of students with missing lower secondary school points has increased from around 3% in 2007 to 6% in 2020 (SSB, 2021[39]). The rise is partly driven by the increase of new arrivals in Norway. In 2020, respectively 16% and 13% of all 16‑year‑old immigrant boys and girls were without primary school credits. Among the native‑born boys to immigrant parents the share was 8%; slightly higher than for boys born to native‑born parents and native‑born girls with immigrant parents (5%). COVID‑19 restrictions risk exacerbating the existing gap between children of immigrant parents and their peers born to natives (Box 5.2).
Box 5.2. COVID‑19 restriction risk widening the educational performance gap between children in immigrant and native‑born families further
School closings, the shift to online classes and other limitations in the school system due to the COVID‑19 pandemic are expected to have especially harmful effects on immigrant youths and children. In Norway, schools and kindergartens were closed nine weeks in the beginning of the pandemic. For Norwegian students in primary school, each week of school closing meant a loss of 23 hours of face‑to-face compulsory instruction time.
Recent findings from the Netherlands show that the shift to distance learning led to an overall learning loss, with more severe consequences for children in disadvantaged homes. Children with immigrant parents are not only overrepresented among poorer households but are also more often living in smaller homes making it more difficult to study at home. Weaker access to educational support from parents due to poorer language skills is another factor exacerbating the groups’ disadvantage.
To which degree the pandemic has impacted on educational performance of children of immigrants in Norway is not clear. However, the share of youths not in employment, education or training increased by an average of 1 percentage point in European countries. In Norway it increased by 0.5 points, however the NEET rates among foreign-born youths increased from 11 to 13%.
Succeeding in upper secondary education
As elsewhere, the completion of upper secondary school is key in succeeding on the Norwegian labour market. While upper secondary education is required to enter higher education, its completion also has higher labour market returns (Dagsvik, Hageland and Raknerus, 2011[43]). Several recent educational initiatives aimed to increase the completion of upper secondary school to 90% in 2030 and create an education system that better prepares students for the labour market and higher education (Box 5.3). Among the proposed changes students will more time to complete upper secondary education as well as a right to an apprenticeship – both likely to benefit children with immigrant parents, who often struggle to complete their education in standard time and to find an apprenticeship placement, as discussed in the following.
Box 5.3. The reform of Upper Secondary Education
In March 2021, the Norwegian Government proposed a reform of upper secondary education – Fullføringsreformen – med åpne dører til verden og fremtiden (The completion reform – with open doors to the world and the future). If implemented, the reform will be the biggest change to upper secondary education since 1994. The reform includes a set of measures to ensure that all students are entitled to education, until they have passed a vocational certificate or qualification for higher studies.
Proposed measures
All students in upper secondary education shall have the right to complete their education irrespective of age and how long it takes. Today students are entitled to three years of full-time upper secondary education. The current right applies until students turn 24 years old. The government proposed that these restrictions are removed.
The right to completion will create an obligation on schools and the municipalities to systematically work to help students who are at the risk of failing a subject.
The compulsory core subjects in upper secondary education should be reduced to Norwegian, English, Mathematics and a new subject aimed at “preparing students for the future”. The exact content of the new subject is yet to be decided. Reducing the number of core courses will, according to the government, allow students to spend more time on subjects that are more suitable for their future goals.
The reform plans to introduce a right to an apprenticeship or an equivalent offer. In cases where a student does not receive an apprenticeship, they should be enrolled in further education for two years.
All that are enrolled or have completed their upper secondary education, regardless of the study track, should have the possibility to start a vocational education. This responds to the rigid structure of today, where students have no right to obtain more than one vocational certificate. Hence, students enrolled in the general study track currently do not have the possibility to change the path and obtain vocational education.
Upper secondary completion rates continue to be low for some groups
In 2019, 17% of young people aged between 25 and 34 had not completed upper-secondary education, which puts Norway above the OECD average of 15. While upper-secondary non-completion is on the decline across the OECD, Norway is the only country with comparable data for 2009 and 2019 where the share of young adults without upper secondary education has increased (OECD, 2020[45]).
In the cohort of 2014‑20, less than one in two foreign-born students successfully completed upper secondary education in the standard time (45%). When including those who were able to finish upper secondary in more than the standard time, the share increases to 62%. For the native‑born to immigrant parents, the corresponding shares were 65% in standard time and 78% with extended time, while among students born to native parents they were 69% and 82% respectively. The drop-out rates are highest among the foreign-born (20%), and about the same for the native‑born to immigrant parents as for their peers to native‑born parents at 8.5%. The difference between the native‑born groups widens however when looking at pupils who have completed upper secondary education but failed the final examination. Across all education programmes, native‑borns to immigrant parents are twice as likely to have failed the final examination compared with their peers born to native‑born parents (8% versus 4%) (SSB, 2021[46]).
Immigrant boys in vocational education programmes have especially high drop-out rates
Irrespective of educational track and parents’ country of birth, boys are at a higher risk of dropping out of upper secondary education. One in four immigrant men drop out of upper secondary education, while one in ten children with immigrant or native parentage does not complete upper secondary education. The drop-out rates among immigrant girls are more than twice compared to their native‑born peers: 16% for foreign-born, 5% for offspring of immigrants and 7% for native‑born to native‑born parents (SSB, 2021[46]).
Drop-out rates are higher for students in vocational education programs than in the general study programmes. While rates are higher for boys than for girls regardless of parentage, it is interesting to note that the differences are much more pronounced among boys with immigrant parentage (Figure 5.10).
Figure 5.10. Four out of ten immigrant men in vocational track drop out or fail the final exam
Note: FB =foreign-born; NB = native‑born.
Source: OECD Secretariat based on data from SSB (2021[46]), 12969: Gjennomføring i videregående opplæring, etter fullføringsgrad, todelt utdanningsprogram, kjønn og innvandringskategori 2006‑12 – 2014‑20. Statistikkbanken, https://www.ssb.no/statbank/table/12969/.
There are several complex reason for why a person decides to drop-out of school. For immigrant youth, age at immigration is important. The drop-out rates are highest for the youth with short residence in Norway. Among migrant men with 3‑5 years of residence in Norway, the drop-out rate from vocational education in the 2014‑20 cohort was 39%, compared with 25% for those with more than 10 years of residence (SSB, 2021[47]).
As mentioned, the threshold to enter upper secondary education is low. All students who completed primary education irrespective of grades, have a statutory right to upper secondary education. Still, past academic performance is the strongest predictor for students´ upper secondary education. Overall, more students with lower performance in primary education enter vocational programmes.
The current vocational educational model consists of two years in school followed by a two‑year apprenticeship. One important reason why students choose the vocational track is a preference for a more applied approach.
Student who are not admitted to their preferred study programme and/or are dissatisfied with their programme are also more likely to drop out. Overall, students with immigrant parents report higher degrees of discontent with their educational programme choice and more difficulties in choosing a programme (Frøyland and Gjerustad, 2012[48]). Supporting students with immigrant parents to make informed educational choices could be particularly effective in preventing them from dropping out.
While all students have access to early career guidance and counselling services in Norway, there are no specific initiatives that target students with migrant parents like in Denmark or Austria. Since 2003, Denmark has been running the “We Need All Youngsters” campaign to support 13‑20 year‑old youths with migrant parents to complete their education. The campaign is centred on enhancing professional, social and personal skills through homework assistance, role models, internships, and fairs informing about available VET opportunities. The Austrian programme ‘Integration Ambassadors` encourages successful young migrants to become ambassadors of integration and visiting schools and associations to motivate other youths with migrant parents to see higher education as an opportunity (OECD, 2021[6]).
Youth with migrant parents face difficulties in securing an apprenticeship placement
Despite increases in apprenticeship offers over recent years, 24% of those who applied for an apprenticeship in 2020 were not accepted (Norwegian Directorate of Education, 2021[49]). Immigrants and, in particular, native‑born men with immigrant parents face great difficulties in securing an apprenticeship. Less than three in five young men with migrant parents were able to find an apprenticeship in 2017/2018. Somewhat surprisingly, shares are even lower among native‑born men with migrant parents than among their foreign-born peers (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2. Men with migrant parents struggle to get an apprenticeship contract
Percent of applicants who received an apprenticeship contract, by own and parental country of birth and gender, 2017 and 2018 average
Source: Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2019[50]), What impact does immigrant background have on the chances of getting an apprenticeship?, https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/statistikk/statistikk-fag-og-yrkesopplaring/analyser/hvilken-betydning-har-innvandrerbakgrunn-for-sjansene-for-a-fa-lareplass/.
The fact that youth with migrant parents struggle more to secure an apprenticeship is concerning, as getting a placement gives a big boost to the further education and employment prospects. Among immigrants 80% of those that secured an apprenticeship were in employment nine years after completion of upper secondary school, compared to 70% for those that did not get an apprenticeship. The corresponding share was 81% and 73% for the native‑born with immigrant parents and 87% and 77% for those with native‑born parents (Bratholmen and Ekren, 2020[51]).
Recent research has shown that employers screen potential apprentices according to grades and absenteeism in school. Students who get an apprenticeship have on average 4 percentage points less absence and 8 more grade points than students who did not get an apprenticeship (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2018[52]). Even when controlling for differences in grades and absence, areas in which immigrant students frequently lag behind their peers, boys with migrant parents still face greater challenges in finding an apprenticeship. A recent study suggested that boys born in Norway to immigrant parents have, on average, a 12‑percentage point lower probability of getting a contract compared to other native‑born boys after controlling for grades, absenteeism and parental education (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2019[53]). The gap remains due to a lack of networks and support during the application process, or discriminatory hiring practices (see Chapter 4). Indeed, research from Norway has shown that identical job applications with a Pakistani instead of Norwegian sounding name were 25% less likely to receive an invitation to a job interview (Birkelund et al., 2014[54]) Attention on what employers can do to address discrimination has recently been an issue of discussion.
The government provides subsidies to apprenticeship suppliers. The subsidies are in general not differentiated, but companies can receive extra grants for apprentices with special training needs e.g. due to short residence periods and weak Norwegian skills. However, it seems rarely used in this context. In 2017, only 2% of the companies that received this grant did so for hiring an apprentice with a short period of residence in Norway. A better targeting and potential extension of the subsidy scheme could be considered in this context.
Mentorship programmes can support immigrant youth in finding an apprenticeship
Research from Norway indicate that students who find apprenticeships often benefit from their father´s networks and labour market contacts (Lødding, 2009[55]). A survey by the Norwegian Employment Services further showed that four out of ten companies did not publicly announce vacancies in 2017, but instead relied on their network and other informal recruitment channels (NAV, 2017[56]). This puts students with immigrant parents at disadvantage as they often have less access to networks and resources than their peers with native‑born parents (OECD, 2021[6]). Mentorship programmes could support students with immigrant parents to leverage their own networks to overcome resource and information asymmetries. An earlier contact with employers through an earlier start of apprenticeship training could also help students get valuable contacts and expand their network.
In Norway, the scale and scope of mentorship- and other networking programmes has expanded in recent years, but still remains limited, especially for youths with only upper secondary education. Youth over 22 years of age may apply for a mentor through the Norwegian Employment Service. The offer is thus not specifically tailored to immigrants and is only offered to those already taking part in active labour markets measures such as work-training, education or wage subsidies and are in need for extra support to carry out those measures. Data from NAV shows that in 2020, 350 individuals got a mentor through this scheme. Parents place of birth is not identifiable in this data, but age and own place of birth. Half of the group that received a mentor via NAV programmes in 2020 were foreign-born but only 40% are under the age of 30. What is more, among young people under the age of 30 who received a mentor, 90% were born in Norway. Hence, among the 350 individuals in total, only 5% were young foreign-born. Compared to 2016‑18 this share decreased from 8%. Overall, this scheme is more used by older immigrants for reasons that are not clear. Mentorship is a relatively low-cost and effective intervention to reach immigrant youth. The successful community-based mentorship programmes could be further expanded (Box 5.4).
Box 5.4. Fostering relationships of trust and positive development between offspring of migrant parents and university students
“Nightingale” is a community-based mentorship programme for young immigrants and the native‑born with immigrant parents. The programme provides the offspring of migrant parents in primary school with a mentor enrolled at university. In weekly meetings during the school year, mentors work towards improving the child’s proficiency in Norwegian, increase their school motivation and self-esteem, with the long-term objective of motivating the child to pursue higher education. The scheme was first implemented in Sweden in 1997 and came to Norway in 2008. An evaluation of the first five years, with around 900 participants, found that the programme was successful in compensating for gaps in learning environments at home. Four out of ten children improved their language skills, and more than half improved their social skills. One reason for the success is that the mentorship programme is a part of the university’s student ordinary degree. To extend the reach of the programme, integrating it into more university’s degrees would be of help.
Source: Jessen, Gundersen and Hynek (2018[57]), Evaluering av Nattergalen-en oppfølgingsstudie, www.hioa.no/nova.
References
[20] 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.
[54] Birkelund, G. et al. (2014), “Diskriminering i arbeidslivet - Resultater fra randomiserte felteksperiment i Oslo, Stavanger, Bergen og Trondheim”, Sosiologisk tidsskrift, Vol. 22, pp. 352-382.
[24] Bråten, B. et al. (2014), Free core time in kindergartens., Fafo , Oslo.
[51] Bratholmen, N. and R. Ekren (2020), “Hvordan går det med elever som ikke får laereplass? Gjennomføring i videregående opplaering og tilknytning til arbeidsmarkedet”, Vol. 34.
[10] Chzhen, Y., A. Gromada and G. Rees (2019), “Are the world’s richest countries family friendly? Policy in the OECD and EU”, http://www.unicef-irc.org (accessed on 27 September 2021).
[43] Dagsvik, J., T. Hageland and A. Raknerus (2011), “Estimating the return to schooling: a likelihood appraoch based on normal mixtures”, Journal of Econmetrics, Vol. 26/4, pp. 613-640.
[13] Dale, A., J. Lindley and S. Dex (2006), “A Life-Course Perspective on Ethnic Differences in Women’s Economic Activity in Britain”, European Sociological Review, Vol. 22/3, pp. 323-337, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3806525.
[25] Drange, N. (2018), “Gratis kjernetid i barnehage i Oslo. Rapport 2: Oppfølging av barna på femte trinn”.
[23] Drange, N. and K. Telle (2015), “Promoting integration of immigrants: Effects of free child care on child enrollment and parental employment”, Labour Economics, Vol. 34, pp. 26-38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.03.006.
[40] Engzell, P., A. Frey and M. Verhagen (2021), “Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 118/17, p. e2022376118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022376118.
[42] Eurostat (2021), Young people neither in employment nor in education and training by sex, age, country of birth (NEET rates), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/EDAT_LFSE_37__custom_1648834/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 25 November 2021).
[17] Fagerholt, R. et al. (2020), “Spørsmål til Barnehage-Norge 2019 - Analyse og resultater fra Utdanningsdirektoratets spørreundersøkelse til barnehagesektoren”, Utdanningsdirektorate.
[48] Frøyland and Gjerustad (2012), Vennskap, utdanning og framtidsplaner - Forskjeller og likheter blant ungdom med og uten innvandrerbakgrunn i Oslo, NOVA Rapport 5/12, https://www.bufdir.no/bibliotek/Dokumentside/?docId=BUF00001647 (accessed on 20 December 2021).
[28] 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://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:labeco:v:17:y:2010:i:6:p:963-974.
[18] Haugset, A., R. Dyblie and N. Haugum (2015), Spørsmål til Barnehage-Norge 2015, http://www.tfou.no (accessed on 12 October 2021).
[33] Høgestøl, L. and S. Skutlaberg (2019), “Individrapportering 2019 - Jobbsjansen A og B, Område 1”, Vol. 12.
[12] Horgen, J., F. Og and M. Bjørnset (2019), “Migrasjon, foreldreskap og sosial kontroll”.
[57] Jessen, J., T. Gundersen and K. Hynek (2018), “Evaluering av Nattergalen-en oppfølgingsstudie”, http://www.hioa.no/nova (accessed on 25 November 2021).
[14] Kavli, H. and M. Nadim (2009), Familiepraksis og likestilling i innvandrede familier., Fafo, Oslo.
[44] Kunnskapsdepartementet (2021), Fullføringsreformen – med åpne dører til verden og fremtiden (Meld. St. 21 (2020–2021))..
[19] Kunnskapsdepartementet (2021), Prop. 1 S (2021–2022), Proposisjon til Stortinget (forslag til stortingsvedtak), https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/prop.-1-s-20212022/id2874984/ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
[35] Kunnskapsdepartementet (2010), “NOU 2010: 7 Mangfold og mestring — Flerspråklige barn, unge og voksne i opplæringssystemet.”.
[27] Liebig, T. (2009), “Jobs for Immigrants: Labour Market Integration in Norway”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 94, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/221336486778.
[26] Lima, I., L. Arntsen and L. Rudlende (2020), “Har innføringen av botidskrav for kontantstøtte medført økt sysselsetting? - nav.no”, Arbeid og velfer, Vol. 1, https://www.nav.no/no/nav-og-samfunn/kunnskap/analyser-fra-nav/arbeid-og-velferd/arbeid-og-velferd/arbeid-og-velferd-nr.1-2020/har-innforingen-av-botidskrav-for-kontantstotte-medfort-okt-sysselsetting (accessed on 27 September 2021).
[11] Line Schou (2019), “Fornuft og følelser – En studie av mors og fars uttak av foreldrepenger”, NAV, Vol. 2.
[55] Lødding, B. (2009), “Sluttere, slitere og sertifiserte : bortvalg, gjennomføring og kompetanseoppnåelse blant minoritetsspråklige ungdommer i videregående opplæring”, NIFU STEP (Institute), https://www.nifu.no/publications/970278/ (accessed on 20 December 2021).
[21] Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion (2022), Migration and Integration 2020–2021. Report for Norway to the OECD, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/migration-and-integration-20202021/id2898583/ (accessed on 25 February 2022).
[30] Moafi, H. (2017), Barnetilsynsundersøkelsen 2016. En kartlegging av barnehager og andre tilsynsordninger for barn i Norge, Statistisk sentralbyrå, Oslo.
[56] NAV (2017), Bedriftsundersøkelsen, https://www.nav.no/no/nav-og-samfunn/kunnskap/analyser-fra-nav/arbeid-og-velferd/arbeid-og-velferd/bedriftsundersokelsen (accessed on 4 November 2021).
[37] Nilssen Haave, M., K. Liland Hartveit and G. Randen (2019), Evaluering av piloten Fleksibel opplæring, https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/finn-forskning/rapporter/evaluering-av-piloten-fleksibel-opplaring/ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
[31] NOKUT (2021), General information about education in Norway, https://www.nokut.no/en/norwegian-education/general-information-about-education-in-norway/ (accessed on 14 October 2021).
[22] Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2019), Barnehagen er en god start på utdanningsløpet for alle barn, https://barnehagereportasjer.no/leder/ (accessed on 4 October 2021).
[50] Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2019), What impact does immigrant background have on the chances of getting an apprenticeship?, https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/statistikk/statistikk-fag-og-yrkesopplaring/analyser/hvilken-betydning-har-innvandrerbakgrunn-for-sjansene-for-a-fa-lareplass/ (accessed on 26 October 2021).
[49] Norwegian Directorate of Education (2021), 8 out of 10 applicants received an apprenticeship, https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/finn-forskning/tema/yrkesfag/andel-sokere-som-har-fatt-larekontrakt-2020/ (accessed on 26 October 2021).
[16] Norwegian Directorate of Health (2021), National professional guideline for examination of sight, hearing and language in children., http://www.helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/helsestasjons-og-skolehelsetjenesten/helsestasjon-05-ar/horsel-syn-og-sprak#sprak (accessed on 24 February 2022).
[34] Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security (2015), “From reception centre to the labour market - an effective integration policy”, Meld. St. 30 (2015–2016) Report to the Storting, http://www.government.no (accessed on 15 October 2021).
[1] OECD (2021), International Migration Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/29f23e9d-en.
[9] OECD (2021), Social Expenditure Database (SOCX), http://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm.
[6] OECD (2021), Young People with Migrant Parents, Making Integration Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6e773bfe-en.
[45] OECD (2020), Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en.
[8] OECD (2020), “Education Policy Outlook in Norway”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 20, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8a042924-en.
[41] OECD (2020), School Education During Covid-19: Were teachers and student ready? Norway, https://www.oecd.org/education/Norway-coronavirus-education-country-note.pdf (accessed on 14 October 2021).
[5] OECD (2018), Investing in Youth: Norway, Investing in Youth, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264283671-en.
[2] OECD (2018), PISA 2018 Database, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/ (accessed on 8 February 2022).
[7] OECD (2017), Catching Up? Intergenerational Mobility and Children of Immigrants, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264288041-en.
[3] OECD/European Union (2018), Settling In 2018: Indicators of Immigrant Integration, OECD Publishing, Paris/European Union, Brussels, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307216-en.
[4] OECD/European Union (forthcoming), Settling In 2023: Indicators of Immigrant Integration.
[32] Rambøll (2016), EVALUERING AV SAERSKILT SPRÅKOPPLAERING OG INNFØRINGSTILBUD, http://www.ramboll.no (accessed on 18 October 2021).
[29] Sandvik, L. and K. Gram (2019), Laveste andel mottakere på 20 år, SSB - Kontantstøtte blant innvandrere, https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/laveste-andel-mottakere-pa-20-ar (accessed on 27 September 2021).
[39] SSB (2021), 11690: Elever, etter innvandringskategori, grunnskolepoeng, statistikkvariabel, år og kjønn. Statistikkbanken, https://www.ssb.no/statbank/table/11690/tableViewLayout1/ (accessed on 13 October 2021).
[15] SSB (2021), 12272: Minority language children in kindergartens 1-5 years, by region, statistical variable and year. StatBank, SSB, https://www.ssb.no/statbank/table/12272/tableViewLayout1/ (accessed on 12 October 2021).
[38] SSB (2021), 12966: Completion in upper secondary education, by degree of completion, two-part education programme, primary and lower secondary points, statistical variable and interval (year). StatBank, https://www.ssb.no/statbank/table/12966/tableViewLayout1/ (accessed on 13 October 2021).
[47] SSB (2021), 12968: Completion rates of pupils in upper secondary education for immigrants, by degree of completion, education programme, sex and years of residence in Norway 2006-2012 - 2014-2020. Statbank Norway, https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/12968/ (accessed on 25 October 2021).
[46] SSB (2021), 12969: Gjennomføring i videregående opplæring, etter fullføringsgrad, todelt utdanningsprogram, kjønn og innvandringskategori 2006-2012 - 2014-2020. Statistikkbanken, https://www.ssb.no/statbank/table/12969/ (accessed on 25 October 2021).
[52] The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2018), Del 2 Hvilke faktorer påvirker om ungdommer får læreplass?, https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/finn-forskning/tema/utdanningsspeilet/laereplass/ (accessed on 3 November 2021).
[53] Utdanningsdirektoratet (2019), Hvilken betydning har innvandrerbakgrunn for sjansene for å få læreplass?, https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/statistikk/statistikk-fag-og-yrkesopplaring/analyser/hvilken-betydning-har-innvandrerbakgrunn-for-sjansene-for-a-fa-lareplass/ (accessed on 20 December 2021).
[36] Utdanningsdirektoratet (2014), “Et trygt og likeverdig tilbud av høy kvalitet. Fylkesmennenes tilsyn med opplærings- og barnehageområdet i 2014.”.