NOU 2016: 14

More to gain — Better learning for students with higher learning potential

To table of content

6 Special measures and options

Figure 6.1 

Figure 6.1

In this chapter we will look more closely into special measures within and outside the regular instruction. We present the options that are available within the rules in force, and on-going measures for raising competence relating to the rules and regulations. The chapter describes the Committee's assessment of various ways of moving ahead: skipping years, or accelerating the instruction, separate schools for students with higher learning potential and extracurricular programmes.

6.1 Options for taking action within the rules in force

Organisational choices and the rules and regulations determine the framework for how schools may implement measures for students with higher learning potential.1 Table 6.1 shows the schemes and possibilities available in Norway within the current rules relating to: early school start and progressing at a quicker pace by skipping years, taking subjects on higher levels and redistributing up to 25 per cent of teaching hours in a subject.2

Table 6.1 The rules in force in Norway

Rules and circulars



Section 2-1 third paragraph of the Education Act

Starting school one year early

The student must be five years old before 1 April. An expert assessment constitutes the basis for such a decision.

Section 2-1 fourth paragraph of the Education Act

Moving one or more classes ahead

The student may be exempted from the obligation to attend classes. An expert assessment constitutes the basis for such a decision.

Section 1-15 of the Regulations relating to the Education Act

Moving ahead in a subject

Students in lower secondary school may take subjects in upper secondary school.

Circular Udir-1-2016

Distribution of subjects and tuition periods, and the structure of the Knowledge Promotion curriculum

Re-distributing up to 25 per cent

For individual students, the school owner may redistribute up to 25 per cent of the tuition periods stipulated for each subject.

Source Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2016c

6.1.1 Starting school early and skipping years

Statistics are not available on the national level to show us how many students have started school a year early or who have skipped a year. The possibility of starting school early and skipping a year may challenge the structure and organisation of the educational pathway. The research summary indicates that the school leaders are divided in their view of starting school early or moving ahead a year and whether this may have negative consequences for the children's social development. This is consistent with input the Committee has received from school owners, school leaders and teachers. Students who have skipped a year have been successful in their schoolwork and are satisfied with their choice.3 There are many concerns about negative consequences of such measures, for example that it may lead to gaps in knowledge, and that it will not benefit social development, but so far there is no research supporting such concerns.4 For the individual student who needs to start school early or move ahead a year it is important that this opportunity exists their learning potential can be developed and exploited. Input to the Committee from the PPS indicates that there is a wish to be able to follow up these students in cooperation with the schools. The PPS wants to compile facts relating to the number of students this involves on an annual basis, and how these students do. The service also wants access to research that can inform them whether the students are satisfied with the choice and whether they are able to develop their learning potential.

6.1.2 Moving ahead in individual subjects

This is a form of accelerated schooling, and means that students follow the curriculum for a subject from one or more years above the year they are attending.5 An example is when students follow the teaching in a subject in upper secondary school while still in lower secondary school. Section 1-15 of the Regulations relating to the Education Act applies to students who have satisfied the competence objective in the subjects in lower secondary school, and who have sufficient competence in the subject to be able to follow the teaching on the upper secondary school level. In the 2015–16 school year, 1600 students in lower secondary school took subjects in upper secondary education, 600 more than in 2011–12. Of these students, 86 per cent were attending the tenth (last) year in lower secondary school. More than 100 municipalities had students in lower secondary school who took subjects in upper secondary education. Among the largest municipalities, Drammen and Oslo had the highest participation in percentage. Here, respectively 10 and 5 per cent of students in year 10 took subjects in upper secondary education.6

Textbox 6.1 Section 1–15 first paragraph of the Regulations relating to the Education Act

The possibility of taking subjects in upper secondary education for students in lower secondary school

The students in primary and secondary education and training must follow the education in all subjects as stipulated in the curriculum, cf. section 1-1. However, this does not apply in full to students in lower secondary school who have sufficient competence in that level of school subjects to follow the education in one or more subjects in upper secondary education in accordance with the curriculum. In upper secondary education, students from lower secondary school may take general studies subjects and programme subjects which build on the subjects in lower secondary school. The local authority makes an individual decision that the student in lower secondary school may take one or more subjects in upper secondary education. Before the local authority makes the individual decision, consent must be obtained from the student or the student's parents.

The provision for moving ahead does not include students in the primary school years, but such students may be exempted from the obligation to take instruction in a subject7 which enables them to sit for the final examinations in lower secondary school. Moving ahead is not regulated in the Regulations for students in upper secondary education and training, but the circular Udir-4-2013 refers to a letter from the Ministry of Education and Research8 stating that upper secondary schools and institutions for higher education may cooperate on making it possible for students in upper secondary school to follow teaching and sit for examinations in selected subjects in higher education. This means that students may acquire subjects that may at a later stage be incorporated in a degree in higher education. The Committee is now aware that upper secondary schools in Bergen, Oslo and Trondheim have entered into this type of agreement and are cooperating with universities and university colleges.

As moving ahead basically has not been regulated in upper secondary education, this means, for example, that pursuant to the current rules in force it is not possible to be a student both in mathematics 1T (mathematics theory) and mathematics R1 (mathematics for natural science) simultaneously in the first year of upper secondary school (Vg1). If students wish to take both these subjects in Vg1, they must take R1 as an external candidate as both subjects have centrally given examinations. If these examinations are set on the same day, 1T has precedence, as this is the examination on the lowest level. The students must then take the R1 examination as an external candidate at a later point in time. The input to the Committee from students, teachers and school leaders shows that this restriction impedes the opportunities students have, and this also has financial consequences for the students with the need to move ahead in subjects.

School leaders and teachers are aware to different degrees of the opportunities for moving ahead in subjects, and input to the Committee shows that schools would like to raise their competence relating to the practice of the rules. How school owners and schools deal with the rules and use the options available to them has consequences for the follow-up and differentiation for the students who move ahead.

The provision allowing students to move ahead in subjects is an offer schools may choose to give, and this means that nobody has the right to take subjects from upper secondary education while they are students in primary and secondary education and training. This makes it too random when it comes to who is given a chance to move ahead in a subject, and this could lead to geographical discrimination of students in cases where the distance is long between the lower secondary school and an upper secondary school. Budget concerns, geography and organisation of teaching schedules appear to be common grounds for not offering students this opportunity.

Input from students shows that the programmes for moving ahead are not well planned and several find that this process becomes more of a self-study pathway than a planned function in school. The Committee finds that it must be assessed on an on-going basis whether moving ahead is the correct choice for the individual student, and in cases where the teaching is educationally and organisationally planned, the person who is responsible for this at the school must ensure that the students do not risk the disadvantage of ending up with a knowledge gap between the different school levels. Moving ahead and ensuring good quality requires regular follow-up by the teachers, and planned and systematic cooperation between the schools. It demands a holistic view of the students' educational pathway, where planned and targeted schemes help to determine when the student should start moving ahead and which students should move ahead. It is important that funding and geography do not put a stop to moving ahead for students who live in more remote areas. The stakeholders on several levels have strong wishes that virtual schools are developed to offer in-depth studies in more subjects than just mathematics.9 Virtual schools may help reduce the geographical discrimination of students.

Figure 6.2 

Figure 6.2

Input to the Committee shows that opinions are divided on the concept of moving ahead in Norway. On the one hand, it is recommended as a completely necessary and good measure for students with higher learning potential, but it is only suitable for a limited number of students (estimated at one to two per cent of the student population). If they are allowed to move ahead, the students are motivated by the opportunity and inspired by the greater challenges in the subject. Students the Committee has been in contact with have stated that moving ahead by taking university studies, for example, has positively impacted their work in school. The research summary refers to studies where students state that they are positive to moving ahead and that they experienced mastering at the university. Several students stated that the opportunity to move ahead was what motivated and helped them through school, and what also stopped them from dropping out of school.10

Some school leaders offering input to the Committee believe that moving ahead means that students will hurry through a subject to achieve quick progression without quite understanding that progression could rather mean in-depth studies in a subject. The students might have unexpected problems in higher education because they are not accustomed to exploring and the trial and error method. There is also the risk of treating the subjects as one-dimensional units without any relevance to other subjects where progression is prioritised over enrichment and interdisciplinary understanding. The Committee is of the opinion that students should not hurry through things, but rather learn to explore and dig in-depth. This cannot be dons as self-study, but must be supervised through guidance and support from teachers.

The Committee supports the use of the moving ahead measure to satisfy the needs of students who have good learning outcome from doing this. But is it worrisome if schools and teachers use this measure as a “quick fix”, pushing the students forward on the education pathway without offering them differentiated instruction where they are. Educational and organisational considerations must be made to enable a proper approach to moving ahead in a learning environment with a culture for differentiated instruction, and the Committee believes this may be relevant for one to two per cent of the student population. Moving ahead must not become a quick-fix solution in cases where the school does not find other alternatives for the student.

6.1.3 Re-distribution of up to 25 per cent of the tuition periods in subjects

All the subjects in the main curriculum have a binding distribution of the tuition periods laid down in the national legislation, more precisely in section 1-1 (primary and lower secondary school) and section 1-3 (upper secondary education) of the regulations relating to the Education Act. School owners may re-distribute up to 25 per cent of the tuition periods that have been set in each subject for individual students in the entire primary and secondary education period. If tuition periods are re-distributed for a student using the 25 per cent rule, the requirement relating to the set number tuition periods in the subject or subjects in question lapses. This scheme may be used by students with low or high school performance. This re-distribution is not laid down in the Act or regulations, but information on this is given in the annual circular from the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training.

Textbox 6.2 Circular Udir-1 – 2016

Distribution of subjects and tuition periods and structure of programmes for the Knowledge Promotion curriculum

School owners may re-distribute up to 25 per cent of the tuition periods stipulated for each subject for individual students. The re-distribution should lead to better goal satisfaction in the subjects in total for the student.

The re-distribution is not a right, but requires an administrative decision, and the school owner enters into a written agreement about re-distribution with the student or parents.

Source Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2016c

School leaders the Committee has been in contact with state that they are uncertain about the application of this rule, and that there is doubt about what it implies and how it should be used. They also state that the 25 per cent rule is not used much, and that examples should be provided to model good practices of this provision.

The Committee supports the idea that schools should have the option to act in the student's best interests, but the understanding of legal status, knowledge about the circular and how to practice the 25 per cent rule should be critically reviewed. On a general basis, the Committee finds that the school's options should be expressed through comprehensible legal rules.

Figure 6.3 Example from Rogaland. On its website, Rogaland county authority shows how the schools may use the option to redistribute tuition periods for students with higher learning potential (Here the term “gifted students” is used, in Norwegian).

Figure 6.3 Example from Rogaland. On its website, Rogaland county authority shows how the schools may use the option to redistribute tuition periods for students with higher learning potential (Here the term “gifted students” is used, in Norwegian).


6.2 On-going measures to clarify the options available

A common feature in most of the input to the Committee, and from the school visits and meetings the Committee has had with relevant expert environments, is the hope that the report will contribute to

  • initiating processes that can clarify the rules

  • assisting in creating a common and consistent approach

  • raising the competence teachers have with respect to students with higher learning potential

On the national level the Committee is aware of three current measures launched precisely to help school to comply with the rules and stimulate a more coordinated and consistent application of the rules by the county governors.

  • Felles nasjonalt tilsyn [Joint national review] for the years 2014–2017.11 This examines the school's work with students' learning outcome and administrative competence.

  • RefLex.12 Web-based tools aimed at assisting public schools and school owners in assessing whether their practices are in accordance with the Education Act and relevant regulations.

  • The project Regelverk i praksis [Rules and regulations in practice] 2014–2016.13 This project aims to increase compliance with the rules in the best interests of Norwegian schools. It must be easier to comply with and understand the rules and regulations and make discretionary decisions in the everyday affairs of school. The point of departure for the project is that there is poor correspondence between what is the desired learning quality and the practice in Norwegian schools. The main challenge is that parts of the sector do not understand, or to varying extents do not feel obliged to comply with the rules they are supposed to administer, so the rules are not implemented in accordance with the intentions and objectives behind them.

According to the report Tilsyn med veiledning skaper endring14 [Supervision with guidance creates change], the guidance activities connected to the joint national review have especially changed attitudes relating to supervision in general, rectified deviations quicker and changed practice. But there are many schools that do not have an established procedure for assessing whether the students have satisfactory learning outcomes from the instruction.

When it comes to Regelverk i praksis [Rules in practice], sub-project 2 examines roles and responsibilities.15 The Committee believes this project and its recommendations should be continued, as it deals with differentiated instruction, early intervention and grouping of students. The following is highlighted in the sub-project:

  • There is a strong political focus on differentiated instruction and early intervention, and differentiated instruction is a key political measure and a pervasive theme in the rules and regulations. This area impacts student learning outcomes, and may lead to enhanced skills and a reduction in non-completion rates.

  • The amendment to section 5-4 (2014) of the Education Act contributes to forcing schools to work more with differentiated instruction and early intervention. The amendment also has consequences for the PPS, which must work in a more systematic way.

  • The process of discretionary assessment in connection with section 8-2 in the Education Act, relating to the organisation of students into groups, requires fundamental understanding and experience with discretionary and justifiable assessment in cases involving exemptions from the main rule. This is important for inclusion, integration and equal treatment of students.

  • The understanding of the concepts varies, and schools are uncertain as to what is adequate when it comes to satisfying the requirements in the rules and regulations. The main stakeholders in this regulatory area are teachers, school leaders and school owners. Furthermore, special-needs teachers and PPS staff are also important stakeholders, particularly in relation to competence and organisation development, cf. section 5-6.

  • The teacher with specific responsibility for the practical, administrative and social- educational tasks relating to the student, including contact with the home (the contact teacher) is particularly important for differentiated instruction and early intervention, pursuant to section 1-3 of the Education Act.16

6.3 Assessment of special extracurricular measures

When assessing special measures for students with higher learning potential the Committee has considered special schools and extracurricular programmes. Today Norway has no separate schools especially focused on students with higher learning potential, but the Act relating to Private Schools opens for establishing profile schools. These are schools that want to have a particular focus on one subject or course, schools that want to build on another educational philosophy than public schools or schools approved on other legal grounds in the Act. When it comes to extracurricular programmes, they may be quite necessary and decisive measures to prevent non-completion.17

6.3.1 Separate schools for students with higher learning potential

What we need is not special schools, but to get special people into school who can motivate the children. Children need teachers who have visions, and who treat them with respect.

May-Britt Moser18

In Norway and other European countries noticeable attention was not given to students with higher learning potential until the end of the 1990s. A consistent belief has been that measures should be implemented within the framework of the regular school. Special schools for students with higher learning potential could undermine the idea of the Norwegian comprehensive school, where the fundamental value is that the students learn to socialise with and accept all children – this principle includes the understanding that students have different learning abilities. Some countries have special schools for students with higher learning potential, for example Denmark, Austria and the USA. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland there are different types of special schools and classes which may have more compressed subject curricula with quicker progression or in-depth studies in subjects.19

Results from research on separate schools or classes in Europe and the USA show that students who learn more rapidly have a positive attitude to school, and describe schools as stimulating both socially and academically. But these measures may also have a negative effect on academic self-perception and have an impact on motivation.20

There are a number of examples of media reports in recent years that make a point of the fact that some students in Norway with higher learning potential have moved to Denmark to attend schools for this student group. One example is a mother who is quoted by Aftenposten [a major Norwegian daily] as saying that her daughter aged nine was not given the same challenges in Norwegian primary and secondary school that she could get in Denmark in a private school.21 Some of the common features of the families that have chosen to move is that they experience that the school did not listen to them. They find that the school, the PPS and the BUP (psychiatric service for children and young people) lack the competence to understand the student's situation and to differentiate for the student's learning needs. Parents have told the Committee that it is a taboo topic to raise the idea or even mention that a child can learn more quickly than other children, and some have been accused of believing that their child is more valuable than the other children. They despair, saying “It's not about value or being elitist, it's simply about how all children should experience well-being and thrive.”22 The parents point out that it is not about highlighting one group as more important than any others, but that all groups should experience well-being and the opportunity to develop in school, including students with higher learning potential.

The Committee's meeting with parents, students and schools shows that the social aspect of learning, and whether the students are given differentiated instruction, plays a large role in deciding whether they develop and are capable of exploiting their potential, or whether they stagnate, stop working at school, become ill or drop out. This applies to all students. According to the research summary, research findings on special schools for students with higher learning potential do not provide any clear proof that special schools are the best solution for the students. While some studies have shown social benefits from specialised schools, others conclude that students who attend schools adapted to their level in subjects may feel socially stigmatised due to the absence of social support systems. The problem of students with higher learning potential dropping out of school may be linked to the lack of deep relationships. Particularly important are the students' relationships to teachers, which greatly impact work in school subjects and social development. The negative aspects mentioned often relate precisely to social circumstances, and these are particularly connected to problems that arise when the social surroundings are changed when switching schools. However, it is difficult to ascertain whether the social drawbacks derive from the transition to specialised schools, or whether they can be related to switching schools in a more general perspective. The studies of selected schools referred to by the research summary appear to focus much more on student well-being and less on their actual performance. These studies therefore do not provide sufficient grounds for concluding for or against the use of selected schools. A good social environment appears to be very important – regardless the type of school.23 We do not have research that clearly shows that separate schools are the best solution for the students, but it is still important to look to at what other countries with special schools for students with higher learning potential have found. This applies to teaching strategies, learning methods and flexible solutions which may improve the public school in its work with differentiated instruction. The experiences, plans and educational approaches of these schools may provide useful inspiration and knowledge to the Norwegian school.

The Committee does not recommend separate classes or schools for students with higher learning potential. The requirements for good education for students with higher learning potential refer to acknowledging their abilities, maintaining their interest in school subjects and exploiting their large potential for learning. It appears that what is important is both to maintain interest in the subjects and create a good social environment for a group of students who feel marginalised.24

6.3.2 Extra-curricular programmes

Norway has less experience with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential compared to other countries in Europe. When it comes to extracurricular measures, a pilot project has been launched in Norway with talent centres in natural science subjects to give high achieving students better instruction.25 The aim is to give the students the opportunity to study in-depth and give them more demanding challenges in the subjects in question. Other extracurricular programmes include the Abel Competition, UngeAbel [Young Abel], Kengurukonkurransen [the kangaroo competition] and vocational competitions,26 which can serve as arenas where students with higher learning potential can meet like-minded peers and work on different challenges.

Input the Committee has received shows that several students have had genuine benefits from extracurricular programmes. Students who have taken part in Forskerfabrikken [the Researcher Factory], Nordic talent competition and Energy Camp, state that many times this was their salvation, something that kept them going and gave inspiration to work in the regular school situation the rest of the year. The students experienced something that was quite different, but they also wanted to go further, and when they came home they would ask themselves: “OK then, and what now? A whole year until the next time?“27 In addition to talent centres and competitions, summer school, afternoon school, job/study placement and various mentor schemes may be implemented to satisfy the needs of the students.

In some countries, extracurricular programmes are found to be an important measure for students with higher learning potential because it is felt that school alone cannot produce an optimal environment or academic stimulation for these students. Museums, libraries, laboratories and other institutions are involved in educating the students. Mentor programmes that bring students with higher learning potential and specialists together to expand resources for the students may also be included in the extracurricular programmes.28

Extracurricular courses and summer school for students with higher learning potential are not widely used in Norway compared to other countries in Europe.29 International experience of offering students courses in their spare time, and school during holidays indicates that the students gain positive long-term effects, boosting self-confidence, and improving personal development, independence and social competence.30 They have the opportunity to study in-depth, learn something new and spend time with others with higher learning potential. Summer schools have a positive effect on students who underachieve31 and may influence the general and emotional self-perception of students positively.32

The Committee has received input from two cities in Denmark, Gentofte and Odense, which have several programmes for students with higher learning potential. The example from Odense is described in Box 6.3.

Textbox 6.3 Odense, Denmark

The local authority has established special teaching for students from year 2 to year 6 two hours a week after school hours at the local school. Starting in year 7, the students are offered special teaching in a lower secondary school. The aim of the teaching is primarily to bring the children together with like-minded peers to increase their well-being. The reason is that many of these children feel socially isolated on an everyday basis, thus having lower self-efficacy. What is special about the teaching is that the children determine the content, it is project-oriented and based on the children's interests. Moreover, the school has helped the parents form networks to exchange experiences of being parents of a child with higher learning potential.

This activity had to be dropped after the implementation of the Public School Act because the students ended their school day too late in the afternoon. The local authority is now considering other initiatives, including a summer camp, where the young people will work with a specific product, and where different workshop activities will be arranged for them. The local authority believes that there is a need for a special programme for these children who often have some social challenges in relation to other students, are often interested in other things than their peers, and easily land in conflicts with them.

During the last two school years (2014/15 and 2015/16) four entrepreneurship schools have arranged camps for students with higher learning potential. These camps aim to give the children good experiences, where working together, collaborative work and success are primary goals. These children and their everyday challenges shall also be put in focus.

Odense local authority finds that there is approximately one student in each class who may be characterised as highly gifted. To assesses a child's gifts, the local authority does not use an intelligence test, rather the approach that is applied involves observation and dialogues with the child and parents.

In cooperation with “ScienceTalenter” at the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Videncenter [Knowledge Centre] in Sorø, the local authority is involved with the project “ScienceTalent Genius”, which will run for three years starting in August 2014. The goal of the project is to academically and socially challenge selected highly gifted children in years 6 and 7. The children will participate in three camps annually for three years, where they will spend time with other children from Odense and Vejle at the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Videncenter in Sorø. Currently 25 students from various public schools in Odense are participating.

The project is evaluated as a research project.

Input from Odense local authority, Denmark

In England and Wales good results have been attained by arranging clubs in schools which focus on the students' interests (for example chess) in addition to clubs that give the opportunity to study topic areas or study subjects in-depth. Examples of such club activities are building bridges, learning about astronomy or joining a writing workshop. Some schools also have connections with experts in such areas as history or geology. Examples like this are also found in Norway where schools and after-school programmes offer courses and activities based on the interests of students.

The Committee finds that extracurricular measures may be necessary for students with higher learning potential. It is not within the mandate of the Committee to propose concrete measures outside the school system, but the Committee points out that such programmes may be very important for students' motivation, learning and well-being – thus also directly impacting the school situation for the students.

6.4 Summary and assessment

We do not have sufficient research to draw clear conclusions about the consequences of skipping a year and moving one year ahead, but we find nothing to indicate that this has negative social or emotional consequences.33 Norwegian school leaders and teachers are concerned that the students will have gaps in their knowledge or less interest in school, but we cannot find that this is supported by research.34 The PPS has expressed the wish to obtain an overview of and research on students starting school one year early in Norway so the service can improve the guidance they give to children and parents about this choice.

The Committee finds that competence in understanding the rules and regulations relating to skipping years should be raised to clarify the legal provisions and the options available to school owners and school leaders. The Committee recommends that the national authorities should clarify what options school leaders, school owners and the county governors have in the current rules and regulations, for example by using national competence development measures such as Regelverk i Praksis [Rules in practice] and RefLex. Even if measures have been initiated to clarify the available legal options, there is a need to ensure that school owners, school leaders and the county governors are acting in a consistent and coordinated manner. Table 6.1 shows the options available to schools in creating measures for the students, but the Committee finds that these provisions are not being used in the students' best interests.

When it comes to the opportunity for school owners to redistribute 25 per cent of the tuition periods for individual students, the Committee believes that the guidelines and information material relating to this should be reviewed to ascertain more closely how the possible options can be communicated and exploited in a better way.

It is important to make it possible for students to skip a year and move ahead when this type of measure will benefit them, and this must be independent of geography and budgets. We believe that it is important to provide good and continuous learning pathways for these students, but that this group of students should not amount to more than one to two percent of the student population. The main aim must be that the regular instruction is good enough to satisfy the needs of the highest possible number of students, where skipping years and moving ahead is not found to be necessary for academic stimulation. The Committee recommends that the national authorities assess measures to ensure that the school owners cooperate and assume responsibility for programmes that will make it possible for the students in question to skip years/move ahead.

Research from special schools for students with higher learning potential does not supply clear answers as to what is in the best interests of the students. On the other hand, researchers and schools agree that a good social environment is extremely important. This may refer both to nurturing the academic interests and creating a good social environment. The Committee does not recommend separate schools for students with higher learning potential.

When it comes to extracurricular programmes, these may nurture the interests of the students and raise topics not covered in the regular education, or give opportunities for in-depth studies of various topics from school. The experience35 of Norwegian students shows that these programmes may offer more challenging and inspiring learning situations than they encounter in school, and that they provide opportunities to meet other like-minded peers.



Børte et al. 2016


It is also possible to use period-intense instruction for whole classes in subjects with locally administered examinations in upper secondary education so that the subjects are finished after one term rather than after the full year of education


Børte et al. 2016


Børte et al. 2016


Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2013a


Ministry of Education and Research 2016d


Cf. section 2-1 of the Education Act


Information given in Circular Udir-4-2013


Input from input-meetings, meetings with the organisations, school visits and written input


Børte et al. 2016


Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2013c


Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2015a


Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2015c


Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2016e


Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2013b


Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2013b


Input from pupils, parent and teachers


Midling 2014


Børte et al. 2016


Børte et al. 2016


Bordvik, M. (07.08.13). Flytter familien til Danmark fordi datteren får for lite utfordring i norsk skole [Moving the family to Denmark because the daughter does not get adequate challenges in Norwegian school]. Aftenposten


Input from parents


Børte et al. 2016


Børte et al. 2016


Follow-up of the natural science strategy Tett på realfag [Close on natural science subjects]


Worldskills, Vocational WC / EC / NM


Input from pupils




Germany, Switzerland and Austria


Børte et al. 2016


Mehlbye 2015


Mehlbye 2015


Børte et al. 2016


Børte et al. 2016


Input from students

Go to front page