Hansjörg Blöchliger
Natia Mosiashvili
OECD Economic Surveys: Norway 2026
Abstract
Education quality in Norway, as reflected in PISA scores, has declined sharply and now hovers around or below the OECD average, despite substantial education spending. Heterogeneity in schools and classrooms has risen, partly due to difficulties in absorbing a growing share of students with immigrant background. Although Norway’s compulsory education system is universal and comprehensive, it struggles to meet the needs of both high- and low-performing students. To better align resources with student needs, the strict maximum class-size rule should be relaxed or replaced with targeted support. Also, strengthening skills development requires a greater role for standardised tests, improved teacher appraisal and a streamlined curriculum. The impact of recent mobile phone restrictions should be monitored, while ensuring digital technology continues to benefit learning. Early childhood education and care (ECEC) enjoys high participation and generous funding; however, quality could be raised through a more ambitious and better structured curriculum. Welfare benefits discouraging families from sending their children to ECEC should be removed.
Norway’s PISA scores have declined sharply over the past two waves and now stand close to or below the OECD average (Figure 2.1). The share of underperforming students has also risen across all three subject areas. The Covid-19 pandemic played a comparatively small role in this deterioration. While adults in Norway are amongst the most skilled in the OECD - according to the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) (OECD, 2024) - the decline of foundational skills can translate into substantial problems. Recent OECD research suggests that an 8-point drop in a country’s average PISA score is associated with a 1% reduction in aggregate productivity over time (Andrews, Egert and de la Maisonneuve, 2024). This arises as gaps in basic skills are difficult to close, slowing the accumulation of adult competencies. Accordingly, Norway’s more than 25-point decline in average PISA scores between 2006 and 2022 could translate into a productivity loss exceeding 3%. At the same time, disparities between high- and low-performing students are widening, particularly in reading and science, undermining the principle of equal opportunity. National standardised tests reveal similar trends, with declining student motivation a possible key driver of weaker performance (Directorate of Education, 2024).
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 database.
Policy has started to respond to the decline in education performance. The 2020 reform of primary and lower secondary education (“Kunnskapsløftet 2020” or LK20) sought to modernise and raise standards by reinforcing core skills such as literacy, numeracy and digital competence, while shifting the emphasis further from knowledge acquisition to skills acquisition (Government of Norway, 2015). Subsequent reform in 2023 further aligned subject curricula with overarching educational principles, making learning more practical and exploratory (Government of Norway, 2023). Schools and municipalities gained more autonomy over classroom organisation and teaching methods, although autonomy remains clearly below the OECD average. In upper secondary education, reforms starting in 2024 aim to facilitate the transition to post-compulsory education, expand career guidance and strengthen measures to improve attendance and classroom discipline. Nevertheless, further reforms to compulsory education will be essential to sustain and enhance Norway’s skills base and ensure that high levels of education spending translate into better outcomes.
Norway’s compulsory education system is universal and comprehensive, guaranteeing equal access for all students regardless of abilities. Grade retention is rare and socio-economic background has a smaller impact on student performance than in all OECD countries except Iceland (OECD, 2023). Performance differences between schools are among the lowest in the OECD, suggesting limited impact from geographic factors such as rural isolation or urban distress. However, within-school variation in PISA scores is the highest in the OECD after Korea, pointing to significant and rising heterogeneity within schools (Figure 2.2). The share of students with limited Norwegian language proficiency, academic weaknesses or behavioural challenges has grown markedly in recent years. Despite this increasing heterogeneity, the system remains strongly oriented toward the “average” student. More targeted support for both low- and high-performing students is therefore a key policy priority to enable all students to reach their potential (Rege, 2025).
Variation in mathematics performance between and within schools, 2022
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 database.
Girls in Norway almost consistently outperform boys, with gender gaps exceeding the OECD average (Figure 2.3). The gap in reading remains large and is widening in science, while in mathematics Norwegian girls outperform boys, contrary to the OECD pattern. Although girls are more enthusiastic readers than boys in nearly all OECD countries, the reading gender gap in Norway is particularly large. Boys at the age of 15 are less likely than girls to expect to obtain good qualifications from upper secondary education, unlike all other Nordic countries where expectations are more equally distributed. Persistent differences in PISA scores between boys and girls on average suggest that adapting teaching methods to distinct ways of learning could help narrow gender gaps in skills development (Borgonovi, Ferrara and Maghnouj, 2018). Greater flexibility in school entry age, taking account of children’s different pace of development, could also be considered.
Note: Score point differences between girls and boys, a positive sign indicates better performance by girls, while a negative sign indicates better performance by boys.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 database.
Immigration increasingly shapes Norway’s education system, with different groups of immigrants having varying needs. In 2021, around 34% of children under 15 had at least one foreign-born parent, up from 18% two decades earlier. Free labour mobility within the European Economic Space, and more recently the arrival of refugees from Ukraine, accounts for a bit more than half of immigration. Over one-third of teachers work in schools where more than 10% of students speak a first language other than Norwegian and Sami, which is above the OECD average of 25% (OECD, 2025). Immigrant students score about 20 points below their native peers on average, although this gap has narrowed over time and is now around the OECD average and below the other Nordic countries (Figure 2.4). While immigrant students per se underperform relative to natives, the share of immigrant students in a school or classroom does not affect native students’ PISA scores (see below). Rising skills among immigrant children and their successful integration reflect strong and targeted policies in early childhood and primary education, including dedicated language training, extended compulsory schooling and delayed tracking (OECD, 2022).
Score-point difference in reading performance associated with immigrant background, 2022
Note: Score-point difference after accounting for students' socio-economic status and language spoken at home. Immigrant background refers to first- or second-generation immigrants.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 database.
While language training is generally well-designed and targeted at the varying needs of immigrants, further improvements are possible. Newly arrived children whose first language is not Norwegian are either placed directly in mainstream classes with additional Norwegian language instruction and, where necessary, mother-tongue support, or they are enrolled in dedicated introductory classes (OECD, 2022). The training ends once students reach a “sufficient” level of Norwegian proficiency to follow the standard curriculum. However, progress is not systematically assessed as there are no standardised tests to monitor language acquisition and data on immigrant students’ outcomes remain scarce. The Directorate of Education has developed a tool for schools to map Norwegian language skills, but its use is voluntary. Regular assessment through standardised tests, combined with targeted follow-up programmes based on results, would strengthen effectiveness. Austria’s experience with progress testing in language programmes offers useful inspiration (Box 2.1).
In Austria, the share of students whose first language is not German has remained around 25% across all school levels over the past decade. To support students in acquiring German language skills, Austria introduced German support classes and courses in the 2018/19 school year. Placement into these programmes is determined using MIKA-D (Measurement Instrument for Competence Analysis – German), a nationwide standardised test administered during school enrolment. The assessment identifies whether a student should attend a German support course—designed for those with some proficiency—or a more intensive support class for students with very limited language skills. Students in these programmes receive “extraordinary” status. At the end of each semester, teachers reassess progress using MIKA-D and adjust placements accordingly. Students remain in language support until they successfully pass the MIKA-D test. If they do not pass after two years, they are integrated into regular classes without further language support.
Source: (Woltran, Hassani and Schwab, 2025)( (OECD, 2025)
Norway performs relatively poorly when comparing education spending with outcomes (Figure 2.5). The country spends around 150% of the OECD average per student yet achieves only average education quality. Denmark, Finland and Sweden, for example, achieve substantially better PISA results on average while spending less. Regional policy objectives contribute to Norway’s high costs: many schools are small and remote, driving up per-student costs. The number of schools has fallen by only 5% over the past decade, and municipalities have few incentives to create larger schools, either alone or through inter-municipal cooperation (OECD, 2024) Municipalities even have incentives to maintain small schools as some grants are disbursed on a per-school basis. Apart from being less expensive, larger schools could offer broader curricula, more specialised courses and greater interaction among students and teachers, fostering knowledge spillovers, as observed in Lithuania (Shewbridge et al., 2016). A cross-sectional analysis for Norway suggests that larger schools have a slightly positive role for educational performance (Box 2.2). Norway should explore strategies to reorganise the school network, including defining services across school sites, promoting cooperation among schools and municipalities and consolidating provision, particularly at the secondary level.
PISA scores and spending per pupil in secondary education, 2022
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 database; OECD, Education at a Glance - Expenditure on educational institutions per full-time equivalent student.
The combination of many small schools and a binding teacher-pupil ratio – or class size - introduced in 2018/19 is a major driver of education spending, with little measurable impact on quality (OECD, 2024). The rule sets a maximum of 15 students per teacher in grades 1–4 and 20 in grades 5–10 (although it allows for some flexibility at the school level), resulting in the smallest classes in the OECD (Figure 2.6). Smaller classes are often justified on the grounds that they improve learning outcomes and allow teachers to better address individual student needs. However, evidence on the effectiveness of smaller classes is mixed, with instructional practices generally seen as more influential (Zhang, 2025) (Campbell Collaboration, 2018). In a cross-sectional analysis using Norwegian 2022 PISA data, class size has no influence on student performance (Box 2.2). More effective approaches include small-group teaching and “two-teacher classes,” which under certain conditions improve outcomes (Gunnes et al., 2025) (Solheim et al., 2025). Teaching in multi-level classes, sometimes necessary in small schools, also appears to boost performance (Leuven and Rønning, 2016). Against this backdrop, the teacher–pupil ratio should be relaxed or abolished, as recommended in the previous OECD Economic Survey, with freed resources redirected to measures that enhance teaching quality, particularly for disadvantaged students (OECD, 2024).
Average number of students to full-time classroom teachers in lower secondary education, 2023 or latest
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance.
An empirical analysis using Norwegian microdata from the 2022 PISA wave examines two hypotheses: (1) that students in larger schools perform better, and (2) that a higher share of immigrant students reduces the performance of native students, for example through shifts in teacher attention. PISA outcomes in reading, mathematics and science for native students were regressed on a range of student‑ and school‑level variables. As expected, the composite socio‑economic status indicator (ESCS) shows the strongest association with performance. Female students generally outperform males in all subjects except mathematics. Students attending schools in urban areas perform worse on average (Figure 2.7).
School size has a positive and statistically significant effect on student performance across all disciplines. This suggests that larger schools may benefit from broader course offerings, more specialised teaching staff and richer extracurricular opportunities, which together contribute to a more stimulating learning environment. An alternative specification tests the student–teacher ratio (class size), which is low in Norway and highly correlated with school size (Figure 2.6). The results indicate that larger classes have no negative effect and, in some cases, even a positive association with learning outcomes (not reported).
The share of immigrants in a school does not adversely affect the performance of native students. The hypothesis that teacher attention or other resources is shift away from native students is therefore not supported. Given the uneven distribution of immigrant students across schools or areas, additional robustness checks were carried out and confirm these findings. Also, being an immigrant student per se is associated with lower scores, particularly in reading and science. In this context, fostering strong outcomes for all students should remain a central objective in compulsory education.
Relationship between PISA scores of native students and various explanatory variables
Note: *, **, and *** denotes significance at the 90%, 95% and 99% levels, respectively. OLS regression results are based on normalized variables of PISA scores and reflect the increase/decrease in score points if the independent variable increases/decreases by one standard deviation. Estimations are run with weighted replicate samples and plausible values, accounting for the complex PISA survey design Avvisati and Keslair, 2014[9]). A longer horizontal bar means a stronger impact. Female and urban are dummy variables.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 micro data files and own calculations.
Teachers’ wages in Norway provide limited incentives for excellence or career progression, reflecting the country’s centralised wage-setting model (see macroeconomic chapter). Salary progression is modest: the top salary for lower-secondary teachers is only about 12% higher than the starting salary, compared with 25% on average across OECD countries. Furthermore, there are no allowances for performance or challenging teaching conditions (Figure 2.8). Head teachers earn around 35% more than normal teachers, akin to the OECD average. Pay levels are almost identical for primary and lower-secondary teachers despite increasing complexity when children get older. Moreover, teacher salaries are significantly below those of other professions requiring similar qualifications and, unlike in most OECD countries, they do not catch up over time. Slow wage progression and persistent gaps relative to comparable professions discourage long-term careers in teaching, particularly in urban areas with high living costs. As a result, attrition is rising: many teachers leave the profession after a few years. Worryingly the share of those under 30 intending to leave the profession has tripled, from 9% in 2018 to 27% in 2024 (OECD, 2025).
Average, minimum and top salaries along teachers’ careers, 2024
Note: Annual salaries of full-time teachers in public institutions, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private consumption.
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance.
Teaching quality is consistently identified as one of the most important drivers of student performance (OECD, 2005). OECD cross-country analysis suggests that teacher quality outweighs almost any other policy lever in improving PISA outcomes (Andrews, Egert and de la Maisonneuve, 2024). High-quality teaching enhances long-term learning by motivating students, fostering study habits and building essential skills. While difficult to measure, teaching quality often stems from a combination of solid subject knowledge, effective teaching methods and positive classroom management.
In Norway, several factors may constrain teaching quality and students’ ability to acquire foundational skills (OECD, 2025):
Purpose and instructional practices are relatively weak (Figure 2.9). Norwegian teachers set less clear expectations than the OECD average.
Managing diversity is challenging. Fewer teachers feel able to adapt teaching to heterogeneous classrooms or support students’ social and emotional development.
Teacher appraisal is limited. While autonomy in the classroom is high, regular appraisal rates are among the lowest in the OECD, reducing accountability. Follow-up is weak: few teachers receive development plans after appraisal and there is no link between teacher and student assessments.
Teacher education is partly misaligned with practical needs. Initial training offers limited classroom experience, and continuous professional development has little impact on teaching practices, despite high mentoring participation. Yet the relatively high share of teachers with non-teaching backgrounds suggests openness to external innovation.
These shortcomings are associated with above-average teacher stress (an indicator used in the OECD analysis to reflect teacher quality (Andrews, Egert and de la Maisonneuve, 2024), low job satisfaction and a modest social status for the profession. PISA findings corroborate that teaching quality in mathematics is strongly associated with scores (OECD, 2023). Against this backdrop, Norway should develop a comprehensive strategy to strengthen teaching quality, notably by improving instruction methods and strengthening teacher appraisal systems. To increase teaching quality, Norway started developing a strategy to attract and retain qualified teachers (Ministry of Education, 2025).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "frequently" or "always" use clear instruction practices
Note: Estimates for Norway should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, Results from Talis 2024.
Standardised student testing plays a limited role in Norway and has weakened further over the past decade. Student knowledge and skills are primarily assessed by teachers. Low-stakes national tests are done at grades 5, 8 and 9, while a national exit exam at the end of grade 10, prior to transition to upper secondary, serves mainly a formative, non-selective purpose. Current plans to abolish national tests altogether raise concerns about quality, fairness and equal opportunity. Evidence shows that tests can encourage students to exert greater effort, particularly when they carry consequences (Duflo, Dupas and Kremer, 2011). Broader use of standardised testing is associated with better performance and equity, and test-related anxiety is not correlated with the extent of testing (OECD, 2016). Against this backdrop, the role of standardised tests should be strengthened to monitor student progress and identify practices that are influencing performance. Transition to upper secondary education should be based at least partly on standardised assessments. Several OECD countries use such testing to enhance accountability (Box 2.3).
Iceland
Iceland has one of the most decentralised school systems of the OECD, with teachers, schools and municipalities enjoying large autonomy to shape classroom practices. However, with nationwide student and school data lacking and standardised testing largely abolished, the accountability of schools and their ability to adjust to student needs and contextual factors became increasingly compromised. Against this background, the Directorate of Education in 2024 implemented Matsferill, a new framework of student assessment. Matsferill includes diagnostic and standardised progress assessments, screening tests and other tools designed to hold schools accountable and support teaching and learning. Initially focusing on language development, literacy and mathematics, it plans to extend to areas like foreign languages and natural sciences. Matsferill shares a strong instructional focus, with results intended to inform work in the classroom. National tests will be compulsory for the 4th, 6th, and 9th grades. The results will be used to identify schools that need additional support but will not be made publicly available.
Netherlands
The Netherlands’ school system is highly decentralised, with most decisions being made at the school level, with school boards playing a key role in implementing the curriculum. To balance high school autonomy, the government put robust accountability systems in place. This included relying on standardised national student exams, although these tests are not used to track students. The Netherlands Inspectorate of Education monitors and assesses quality and compliance against national standards. The Inspectorate also provides targeted guidance and support to weak schools. Additionally, there is substantial support from school organizations and other stakeholders, including "flying brigades" that assist schools identified as weak. Fewer students than in almost any European country leave school with low literacy and numeracy skills and a student’s socio-economic background has less impact on performance compared to the OECD average. Similar to Norway, a strong vocational and educational upper-secondary levels complements compulsory education, with only few young people being out of employment, education or training.
Source: (OECD, 2016)( (OECD, 2025)
The curriculum remains broad and, at times, vague, making implementation challenging for schools and teachers. The LK20 reform (see above) shifted the focus from knowledge acquisition to skills and competencies, while promoting interdisciplinarity, i.e. teaching topics across multiple subject areas. It also granted schools and municipalities greater autonomy to adapt the curriculum to local needs. While teachers are generally positive about the curriculum (Directorate of Education, 2023), the reform has been criticised for being both complex and insufficiently precise, placing a heavy burden on schools and teachers (Dahl and Irgens, 2023). Tensions appear to have grown between strengthening core skills such as literacy and numeracy and advancing a broader competency-based framework (Karseth and Hotvedt Sundby, 2022). Natural sciences account for 10% or less of compulsory instruction time, below most OECD countries. Experts also note that the curriculum for developing social and emotional skills lacks clear objectives, leaving many students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, struggling (Ministry of Education, 2024). Against this backdrop, further reform towards a more focused curriculum is needed to ensure students acquire the necessary skills to succeed.
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) delivers substantial long-term benefits for skills development and well-being, particularly among disadvantaged children (Heckman, Pinto and Savelyev, 2013). Investment in ECEC is highly effective because of the critical brain development during this period. Quality depends on a well-structured curriculum and high-quality pedagogy (OECD, 2021). In Norway, ECEC is almost universal, though not compulsory, with over 95% of children aged 3–5 attending preschool. The country spends close to 1% of GDP on ECEC, among the highest shares in the OECD (OECD, 2025). However, quality remains a concern (Størksen et al., 2024). The current curriculum is widely regarded as vague, unstructured and lacking ambition, with few concrete objectives and limited quality control. Opportunities for guided play, intentional interaction and exploration to foster curiosity among children are underdeveloped. In response, a ministerial expert group has proposed measures to improve ECEC quality. The proposed measures include a more ambitious curriculum with playful learning, systematic efforts to strengthen social and emotional skills and enhanced professional development for teachers (Ministry of Education, 2024).
ECEC participation among disadvantaged children, particularly those from immigrant backgrounds, remains below potential, despite a long-term increase (OECD, 2022). Low participation limits opportunities for children’s early learning and integration into Norwegian society and it undermines policy objectives to reduce inequalities in knowledge and skills. One contributing factor is that municipalities, which manage ECEC, charge attendance fees, even though these are capped and relatively modest. In addition, cash-for-care benefits that reward home schooling (and which are withdrawn if a child attends ECEC) could discourage families, especially immigrants, from enrolling their children in preschool (Ministry of Education, 2024). Finally, the universal child benefit is not conditional on children attending ECEC, thereby providing no incentives for families to participate. Against this backdrop, the government should eliminate any financial support that deters families from sending their children to ECEC.
The school environment in Norway is generally considered conducive to learning, but it has deteriorated and now ranks around the OECD average. Surveys conducted alongside the 2022 PISA wave, as well as regular national student surveys, indicate that students still enjoy school, feel a sense of belonging and hold positive views of their teachers (Directorate of Education, 2024). Absenteeism and bullying are pertinent but below the OECD average. However, violence in primary schools has become a concern. While many measures can be implemented at the school level without legislative change, the government amended the Education Act in 2025 to strengthen disciplinary mechanisms, including allowing teachers to intervene physically in cases of major disruption when other measures fail. The Directorate for Education is also preparing a national register of absences at the individual student level.
Excessive use of digital devices, particularly mobile phones, is among the most significant factors affecting school climate, education quality and student performance across OECD countries (Andrews, Egert and de la Maisonneuve, 2024). Robust evidence from randomised controlled trials in the Nordic countries confirms the benefits of restricting smartphones in classrooms (ForumNordic, 2024). Finland’s experience with a complete smartphone ban at school seems very positive (Finnish News, 2026). In Norway, teachers’ strong belief that digital devices disrupt learning corroborate these findings (OECD, 2025). Today, nearly all primary schools and, to a lesser extent, secondary schools have banned mobile phones and smartwatches during lessons, following a 2024 government recommendation. While this stricter policy has not been formally evaluated yet, schools report improvements in the learning climate. On the other hand, a broader digital strategy, including tablets and laptops, is necessary for such bans to be fully effective (Kessel, Hardardottir and Tyrefors, 2020). Going forward, the government should continue to strengthen disciplinary measures and maintain restrictions on non-educational digital device use, while monitoring impacts and ensuring that the benefits of digital technology for learning are preserved.
References
Andrews, D., B. Egert and C. de la Maisonneuve (2024), “From Decline to Revival: Policies to Unlock Human Capital and Productivity”, OECD Economics Department Working Paper 1827, https://doi.org/10.1787/8d0d232c-en.
Borgonovi, F., A. Ferrara and S. Maghnouj (2018), “The Gender Gap in Educational Outcomes in Norway”, OECD Education Working Papers No. 183, https://doi.org/10.1787/f8ef1489-en.
Campbell Collaboration (2018), Small class sizes for improving student achievement in primary and secondary education: a systematic review, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED592857.pdf.
Dahl, T. and E. Irgens (2023), Nytt kunnskapsløft – gammel ledelsestenkning (new education law - old management thinking)?, https://utdanningsforskning.no/artikler/2023/nytt-kunnskapsloft--gammel-ledelsestenkning/.
Directorate of Education (2024), Findings from the Student Survey (Funn fra Elevundersøkelsen, in Norwegian), https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/forskning-og-annet-kunnskapsgrunnlag/funn-fra-elevundersokelsen/.
Directorate of Education (2023), Evaluering av fagfornyelsen – yrkesfag (Evaluation of subject renewal – vocational subjects), https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/lareplanverket/fagfornyelsen/evaluering-av-fagfornyelsen/evaluering-av-fagfornyelsen-yrkesfag/.
Duflo, E., P. Dupas and M. Kremer (2011), “Peer Effects, Teacher Incentives, and the Impact of Tracking: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Kenya”, American Economic Review, Vol. 101, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.5.1739.
Finnish News (2026), Finland’s smartphone ban gave middle-schoolers a new way of life, principals say, https://yle.fi/a/74-20212749.
ForumNordic (2024), Smart Phone Policy Innovations in Nordic Schools – Limits on Use Needed Now!, https://forumnordic.com/editorial/smart-phone-policy-innovations-in-nordic-schools-limits-on-use-needed-now/.
Government of Norway (2023), En mer praktisk skole (A more practical school), https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-34-20232024/id3052898/.
Government of Norway (2015), En fornyelse av Kunnskapsløftet (A renewal of the knowledge law), https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-28-20152016/id2483955/.
Gunnes, T. et al. (2025), “Small- and large-group instruction and a didactic method in mathematics for low-performing adolescents: results from a randomized field experiment”, Journal of Economics, Vol. 127, https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12581.
Gunnes, T. et al. (n.d.), “Small- and large-group instruction and a didactic method in mathematics for low-performing adolescents: results from a randomized field experiment”, The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 127, https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.12581.
Heckman, J., R. Pinto and P. Savelyev (2013), “Understanding the Mechanisms, through which an Influential Early Childhood Program Boosted Adult Outcomes”, American Economic Review, Vol. 103.
Jelstad, J. (2023), En ekstra lærer i klassen gjorde at guttene leste bedre (An extra teacher in the class made the boys read better), https://www.utdanningsnytt.no/barneskole-forskning-forsteklassing/en-ekstra-laerer-i-klassen-gjorde-at-guttene-leste-bedre/363851.
Karseth, B. and A. Hotvedt Sundby (2022), Knowledge about what? The “knowledge question” in the Norwegian curriculum, https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/knowledge-about-what-the-knowledge-question-in-the-norwegian-curriculum.
Kessel, D., H. Hardardottir and B. Tyrefors (2020), “The impact of banning mobile phones in Swedish secondary schools”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.102009.
Leuven, E. and M. Rønning (2016), “Classroom Grade Composition and Pupil Achievement”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 126, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12177.
Ministry of Education (2025), Principles and obligations for professional guidance for newly qualified teachers in pre-schools and schools (Prinsipper og forpliktelser for profesjonsfaglig veiledning for nyutdannede lærere i barnehage og skole, in Norwegian), https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/prinsipper-og-forpliktelser-for-profesjonsfaglig-veiledning-for-nyutdannede-larere-i-barnehage-og-skole/id3098951/.
Ministry of Education (2024), A Childhood for Life (En barndom for livet, in Norwegian), https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/df568c8ea68f48d6b03f2cca6149cf77/no/pdfs/barn-i-fattige-familier.pdf.
Ministry of Education (2024), A smoother education path (Et jevnere utdanningsløp, in Norwegian), https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/52d541c8fff94f3b84740a0e260c4597/no/pdfs/et-jevnere-utdanningslop.pdf.
OECD (2025), Education at a Glance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
OECD (2025), OECD Economic Surveys: Iceland, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/890dbe05-en.
OECD (2025), Results from TALIS 2024: the state of teaching, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en.
OECD (2024), Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b263dc5d-en.
OECD (2024), OECD Economic Survey: Norway, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cb13475f-en.
OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA,, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results: The State of Leanring and Education, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.
OECD (2022), Skills and Labour Market Integration of Immigrants and their Children, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6109d927-en.
OECD (2021), Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en.
OECD (2016), Netherlands: Foundations for the Future, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264257658-en.
OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
OECD (2005), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, Education and Training Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Rege, M. (2025), Sensitive periods in children’s development – the key to future productivity, Samfunnsøkonomisk Analyse.
Shewbridge, C. et al. (2016), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Lithuania 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252547-en.
Solheim, O. et al. (2025), “Realizing the Opportunities for Co-Teaching Through Teacher Professional Development: Evidence From a Randomized Controlled Trial”, Knowledge Centre for Education and Business School, University of Stavanger.
Størksen, I. et al. (2024), “Quality in Norwegian Early Childhood Education and Care: Progress, Persistent Challenges, and Recommendations for the Future”, Early Childhood Education, Vol. 59, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01770-1.
Woltran, F., S. Hassani and S. Schwab (2025), “German language support in Austria: feasibility, effectiveness and legitimacy from the perspective of public administration”, Language and Education, Vol. 39, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2024.2371403.
Zhang, L. (2025), “Estimating school and teacher effects on students’ academic performance using multilevel models with three or more levels:a literature review”, Discover Education, Vol. 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00392-4.