The Norwegian Education Crisis: Unified vs Quality
This is an outline summary with personal perspective of the report The Norwegian Unified School – a paradise lost? by Anne Welle-Strand and Arild Tjeldvoll for the Journal Education Policy 2002.
Norway prides itself on being a leader of equal opportunity and this value has been the central element of the Norwegian Education System. Universal schooling for children was introduced in Norway 250 years ago. From 1889, seven years of compulsory education was provided, in 1969 this was increased to nine years and in 1997 to 10 years. For over 80 years Norway has employed the ‘Unified School’ model for its compulsory education system (today grades one to 10). This has meant that compulsory school, high school and tertiary education is free of charge not only for residents of Norway but for anyone with the opportunity to study in Norway. This schooling model became stable from the socialist ideals that sprang out of post war Europe. It was designed to ‘equal’ peoples education no matter their situation in life.

Above: Public school in Aksershus before 1922
However, in the last quarter of the 20th century reports from the model started to indicate serious problems. Continuous research showed that the model did not progress with the competitive culture that globalization was introducing. It indicated that the Unified School System, in fact, was creating unequal opportunities and learning conditions. The Norwegian education system, governments and public opinion have battled it out since the 70s whether to stick with an education that is based on the ideals of Norwegian culture and society, ‘the quality of equality’, or to adopt a new system, Quality School, that would enable the people to have a competitive future in the globalized world, ‘the quality of competence’. The Unified School model won out up until the Age of Technology.
The Unified School system proclaims that a person is entitled to a teaching adapted particularly to him or her, also called ‘student adapted teaching’. This meant that all levels of education had a fixed syllabus of knowledge – a learning that was directed by the teacher. This type of learning was well suited in the 50s and 60s where most education could only be obtained in school. The Unified School, gave people access to further their education who would not have had the opportunity based on class. School offered the next generation better opportunities in life.
As the length of compulsory schooling increased to include lower high school, and with the implementation of two major reforms in the 1990s, student motivation began to decrease. This meant that only the motivated students continued to upper High School level. However, because more students had the opportunity of a senior education, upper High School education now needed to be curved to the Unified School model as well to accommodate ‘equality’.
Critism has always followed the Unified School model but by 2000, it was stated that the Unified School was turning into a ‘depository school’ where social and academic quality was declining. It also caused an increase in problems such as violence and bullying amongst school students. Research continually showed decreasing achievements in Maths and Science.
The Unified School directed teachers to spend more attention on the academically weaker students. This ironically showed that a model designed for equality encouraged unequal attention towards different abled students. It was found that ‘adapted teaching’ was not possible for a class of 30 students. A class that size can only learn according to the academically weaker students. This is where justice and equality collided in the Unified School model. Offering ‘equal’ education for all no matter the socioeconomic differences provided just a minimal education for all.
In 2001 the OECD program, PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), conducted a study where 15 year-old Norwegian students were tested on their knowledge of Maths and Science, ability to read, and classroom behaviour. Norway’s reading score was average, however, the large span of reading competences was odd considering Norway used the Unified School model for learning.
When it came to classroom behaviour PISA measured that Norwegians were the worst at classroom behaviour than the other Scandinavian countries, and surprisingly was at the bottom of the international scale in classroom behaviour, only second to Greece. PISA summed up their study stating that Norway was not up to standard in the ‘international picture of academic achievements’. Few countries spend more on education per pupil in school than Norway and considering Norway’s financial resource (oil in the north) OECD researchers declared that Norway’s education is ‘unsatisfactory’.
One of the reasons the Unified School model was popular amongst the Left Parties, since the war, was that it was meant to ‘achieve equality by socialising student groups to the values of an equal society’. Now, in hindsight, it is evident that it is difficult to achieve both quality and equality education simultaneously. Introducing a Quality School model no doubt would increase the quality of education, appreciate individualism and nurture competition – everything that Unified School model is not designed achieve.
To try and solve the problems of the Unified school, in the early 1990s the government started to introduce student-learning. Instead of the teacher providing all the information to curriculum, students were now to develop their knowledge through project work. The custom of marking students work was devalued and even abandoned by schools. This first meant that a teacher didn’t need to require as much knowledge in their subject resulting in lower qualified training teachers. There was no proper monitoring of student progression and learning and there was no countable level of achievement obtained by students. This suited Norway’s educational ‘popularism’ ideals which has a reputation for anti-intellectualism. Now ‘local’ knowledge was more important than general knowledge. By 1992 learning for ‘real work’ was prioritised and academic achievement for higher education took a back seat. Schools did not want to appear ‘too academic’ and did not encourage individual academic achievements. Some schools even stopped sports days because it was believed they were too competitive. Just so any ‘looser’ didn’t feel bad, winning was not celebrated. In 1999 an OECD study found that Norwegian education was a ‘generation behind’.
By 1993 a new idea was developing in Norway about ‘service’ and ‘customer’. The movement is referred to as the New Public Management (NPM). The idea of ‘choosing according to preference’ enabled individualism and choice, however, the Labour Party joined with the Socialists, Christians and Farmers to disregard this new way of thinking in schools. This coalition instead introduced a new Unified School policy to combat the mediocre education of Norwegians. Now students no longer needed to qualify academically for high school – the policy gave the right for everyone, even the uneducated, to enter upper high school.
However, it was only after 2001, when neo-liberal ideas on NPM were gaining popularity among the public, that the Conservative government announced new ‘competitive’ education policies. The three pivotal changes were in making school principals ‘managers’ of their school and therefore decentralising education even further, private schools were to receive financial support from the government (though schools for profit are still not allowed) to make schools more competitive and students’ school marks at the end of compulsory schooling would be published. These three changes were designed to start the process of shifting Norwegian education from the Unified School model to the Quality School. In 2002, the Minister of Education made a memorable ‘farewell to the Unified School’ speech. She stated that ‘quality, flexibility and freedom of choice’ were necessary to modernize Norwegian education. And so thus started Norway’s first step into Quality Reform.
In the new Quality School, knowledge and competence needed to be a priority in order to make the nation competitive. The previous PISA observations and comments were still plaguing the minds of policy-makers. So the new system placed higher importance on the academic subjects – Maths, Science, Technology and Economy. Modern languages, especially English, became more important also. The Arts suffered greatly and were even defunct in some schools. Because of this new Quality School model, ‘students, parents and teachers that are neither born, nor culturally socialized, to be ‘competitive’ are to face a tougher environment’ than they would have in the Unified School model. As such, schools are hypersensitive to the ‘losers’ of the Quality School. Even today a great amount of management and resources is invested to retain the old Unified School ‘equality’ ideals. This has fed the societal understanding that Norwegian school does not encourage students to excel above average. As yet, the Norwegian education system has not found a way to balance its new competitiveness with the Norwegian cultural value, equality.
Norway is one of the last Western countries to modernise its school system for globalization and the Age of Technology. This has meant that policy makers have tried to fast track Norway’s progress to catch up on the ‘one generation behind’. In doing so many mistakes have been made over the past 20 years in creating the new Quality School. Because of the fast implementation of policies without appropriate prior ‘testing’, only hindsight has been able to trace the faults in the developing system. Norwegian compulsory edcuation is steam-training into the ravine of incompetence and the only way out is to cut its loses, start at the base and walk up.
There are many overlapping studies, policies and reforms in the Norwegian education system. Unified School verses the Quality School is just one element. Over the next few months I will present various ideas and studies on Norwegian education.
To read the original report please visit: http://www.bi.no/upload/Info-avdeling/_nedlastingsfiler/AF%20Filer/The%20Norwegian%20Unified%20School.pdf
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments


Subscribe
RSS
It’s no doubt that competition fosters innovation. When I first stepped into the Norwegian education system three years ago, it just blowed me away by the fact that how it seriously lacked competition in schools. Students just don’t care how their peers are doing academically and they pay little attention to how they are doing themselves. The reason may be the one you stated above – “even uneducated have equal rights to enter upper high school”. So why bother?
Therefore Norway’s lack of competition in schools is strongly linked to the lack of innovation* in the country. If compares to its neighboring countries such as Sweden, Finland and Denmark, it’s simply out-competed in international market, especially in tech sector. But in oil sector, they are doing a pretty good job. But again, since oil sector is not sustainable in the long future, innovation in other sectors have to be fostered before they run out of oil.
* http://goo.gl/8kVxY
____________________
from L-Jay:
I’ve actually done an experiment with my dance students – they have to do a dance ‘exam’. They know it has nothing to do with going up a level or grading, but I’ve just called it an ‘exam’ so they treat the exercise seriously. But OMG – everyone is freaking out! Some kids are taking it with grace but others are so full of fear that some have asked their parents to tell me they don’t want to do it and others have decided to drop out. I’ve had to put up a notice on the news page to all parents that it is just an exercise for the kids to make a choreography on their own and affects them in no way with grading or progression. Still parents are jumping me when they see me, telling me how freaked out their children are. Today even, one mother cornered me when I was on my way to a meeting saying that her daughter has pains in her stomach she is so scared.
I’ve tried to tell my parents that the ‘exam’ is an opportunity to be brave. It is ok to be scared and even good – it is only when we are scared but continue to move forward that can we be truly brave. I also say that it is an exercise for my students to be open with me. If they are scared they need to tell me. It doesn’t really matter if they pull out of the ‘exam’ as long as they do it in the right way such as talking to me about it so I have help resolve their concerns. I also tell parents that we need ‘exams’ so we can be up to the standard of the rest of the world. The parents don’t care about the important lessons of what their child could learn from this experience – they only think of taking away the thing that is making their child feel scared. This basically means taking away everything that is a challenge – taking away what makes a child learn and taking away that which enables them to manage a successful life in the globalized world. But next year I know I’m going to have to write something in the newsletter about ‘understanding and acceptance of exams’ in order to develop in dance.
There are three countries that I think Norway should consider modeling their future after. The first is Switzerland. Switzerland knew from the start they had nothing to offer – no natural resources to barter with. So they concentrated on business/banking and technology/fine mechanics. Second is South Africa. Nobody wanted to have anything to do with South Africa because of the apartheid. So they developed the one thing that could make them contenders in a world market – South Africans are hardcore businessmen! The third country is Germany. Since the war no one really wanted to have anything to do with Germany. They have been quietly developing business/banking, biotechnology and design technology. These three countries have developed without relying on natural resources. People are always wondering why Norway doesn’t spend its oil money on education, transport, infrastructure, etc. The government says it is because they need to save up for the future for when the oil runs out. However, me, as well as a lot of other people, think it is better for Norway to invest its oil money in the country now so it can develop itself and be a world leader in an important technology so it wont have to care when the oil runs out. (I’m sure there are some other countries out there that could teach Norway a thing or two.)
I’m curious, is “home-schooling” an option that anyone in Norway pursues? I thought maybe the Lestadianere or Smiths Venner might be into that. What about the international schools in Stavanger and Oslo, are they a prohibitively expensive option?
____________________
From Moose:
Home schooling is an option, there are about 400 pupils in Norway taking this option (against only 1-200 in Sweden). Usually it’s the “conservative Christian middle class” who do home schooling, but you don’t need any political or religious reasons. The parents need to notify their municipality that they are home schooling their child, and the municipality will follow up the parents.
As far as private schools go, most of them get government support so fees are reasonable. However, in 2005 the Socialist party was able to pass a new law that only allowed private schools that offered a “clear and recognised religious or educational alternative” to the public school. This, in essence, meant that private schools would have to conform to public school standards if they wanted government support. After all, we can’t have a school system that creates differences…
Dear L-Jay, I have been following and enjoying your blog for some time now. It has been mostly comforting about all my questions and doubts in preparing for a new life in Norway, actually not far away from you, in Hammerfest. What I read about the education system is worrying me a lot. We moved here with two 12-year old boys from a school system where everything was about competition and lots of theory. Chlidren at their age in Hungary are continuosly under pressure, have hardly any time to play in the afternoons after school and must spend much of their weekends also for home work . If they want to enter an “elite” secondary school they have to sit for a rather difficult exam in maths and literature at the age of 12. This is of course possible only if parents can afford to pay private teachers to prepare them (even if they are good at school most of them are not able to pass these exams). So I was really glad to be able to give them back a little “childhood” here in Norway and they are having a good time so far. They started school here last August and are still struggling with the language. It is difficult for me to believe that Norwegian university degrees are not competitive on an international level and that it is difficult for Norwegians to keep up with university requirements after having finished a Norwegian high school. Is this really so bad? Looking forward to your next posts.
_____________________
from L-Jay:
One of the problems with university is that now høgskolen or college, which has always been considered a lesser education to uni, is now offering degrees without high academic requirements. This means that they are pulling down the Norwegian university stats to undesirable levels. For example, next year Finnnmark høgskolen will be offering a Bachelor in Rock’n'Roll – not specifically for musicians! And what kind of prerequisites are required – completion of High School and interest. Now will a degree in Rock’n'Roll demand the same standard of achievement for a degree in biomedical science? Academics in degrees are going out the window in Norway.
I think Norway is a good place to raise children but if you want them to have good education then parents must be pro-active in teaching their children to learn how to learn so they don’t have to rely on Norway’s meager education. Norwegians don’t actively educate their own children – that means the children who do have parents who invest in their future will have the advantage. (And this has been what Norway has tried to prevent.)
I travel to Hammerfest a couple of times a year for my dance work. I’m actually planning a tour for the Dansefestivalen next November. Dance is pretty big there.
Very interesting post, thanks for taking your time writing this summary!
I have to totally agree with you,L-Jay!Moreover,have to admit that I’m scared about future education of my eventual kids.And all these,not just on subjective base,but from the perspective of being present in norwegian schooling system for a while.Starting with the educational process,results and ending with the behaviour of students-all this is at a very low level.(‘low’ is a mild adjective,since I was totally shocked,actually)
I also can’t understand this way of ‘saving’ for future generations.Yes,it’s great to think of them,but not by neglecting the today’s generations who constitutes og works actually for that future.
I came recently through 2 things that might be interesting to find out.
I read in a local newspaper that the fylkesradmann of one region refuses for introducing IB(International Baccalaureat) education in vidaregande school just because it can cost too much and he doesn’t see the point in it! This way, the possibility to have education in foreign languages like English, French or Spanish and take a bachelor that can be recognized internationally, is rejected because of money! Here in Norway, the richest country of Europe!!!!!!!
In the same newspaper, there is a survey where people can vote online on different matters and then the results are published. To the question ‘Is teaching of mathematics too poor in Norway?’ out of 1569 voters, 81.6% voted YES and only 18,4% voted No.(source:Firda)
Anything more needed to prove how miserable the school education in Norway is?
P.S There is not so much to comment on, just the rhetorical question of myself (and many others, I guess): Why even if people are conscious of and admit that things are miserable, they still don’t do anything to improve them??????
____________________
from L-Jay:
That is the problem of living in a socialist country – everyone believes that it is the States responsibility to educate their children. (Where I come from parents want the responsibility.)