Student dropout in upper secondary education in Norway: A challenge to the principles of the welfare state?

ThisarticlepresentsareviewofextantresearchonstudentdropoutinNorway,originallyundertakenaspartofasystematicreview.ThearticlecontextualizesthefoundationalprincipleofequalityaschampionedbythewelfarestateandidentifiesthesignificanceofdropoutinuppersecondaryeducationinNorway.Thearticlethenassesseswhetherdropouthasbeensufficientlyaddressed,byexploringdropoutmeasuresthathavebeenimplementedandevaluated.Itisarguedthatalthoughequalityof access touppersecondaryeducationhas beenimproved,theenduringsignificanceofstudentdropoutrevealsconcealededucationalinequalitiesof outcomes inasocialdemocratic‘welfarestate’.

Recognizingthispaucityofmethodologicallysoundevaluationstudiesandamidstincreased public scrutiny and pressure to reduce dropout, the Norwegian Ministry of Education and ResearchaskedtheKnowledgeCentreforEducationtosummarizeinternationalresearchin asystematicreviewoneffectivedropoutmeasuresinuppersecondaryeducation (Lillejordet al.,2015).Bycommissioningasystematicreviewofeffectivedropoutmeasuresimplemented and evaluated in other contexts, the commissioner signalled an intention to transfer these measurestotheNorwegiancontextandrecognizedthatmuchcanbelearnedfromelsewhere. Although education systems and cultures vary between Norway and other countries -with varying structures, organizations, and qualification requirements for enrolment in upper secondary education and for its successful completion -there are noticeable cross-national similaritieswhenexaminingeducationalpracticesandexpectationsaswellasthemaincauses of dropout. A review of 13 different OECD countries (Lamb et al., 2010) concluded that similarpatternscanbeidentifiedwhenexplainingdropoutinuppersecondaryeducationinthe individualcountries,includingvariablesrelatingtopreviousschoolperformance,thesocialand demographicbackgroundofthestudentsandaprocessofsocialreproductionofinequalities acrossgenerations.

The value (and limitations) of systematic reviews
Asthecurrentarticlehasemergedfromasystematicreview,itisinstructivetobeginbyexplaining the aim and procedure of systematic reviewing. While many factors might be of interest in relationtoanissuesuchasstudentdropout,theaimofasystematicreviewistoidentifythe most relevant literature -i.e. research that can answer the review's particular scope. This is achievedthroughatransparentandreplicableprocessofdocumentingcomprehensivesearch strategiesandgeneratingobjectivecriteriaforselectingstudiestobeincludedinthereview. Thiscontrastswithatraditionalliteraturereview,inwhicharelativelackofaccountabilityasto howtheliteraturewasidentifiedandselectedoftenleavesthereaderuninformedonwhether theauthors'variousdecisionswereappropriateand/orappliedconsistently.Forinstance,the authorsmayhavefailedtoidentifysomerelevantstudiesastheydidnotprovidecomprehensive enoughsearches,orpossiblyexcludedstudiesdeliberatelywheretheycontradictedtheirown arguments.Aliteraturereviewmayalsolacktherigorousassessmentofmethodologicalquality of included studies and the synthesis of the overall body of evidence that often accompany systematicreviews (Brown,2013;Goughet al.,2012;PetticrewandRoberts,2006).
Concerns have been voiced over the adaptation of systematic reviews to an increasing rangeoffieldsbeyondhealthresearch-thefieldinwhichitbecameestablished.Ithasbeen argued(e.g. Biesta,2007;MacLure,2005;seealsoMajorandSavin-Baden,2010)thattheinroads madebysystematicreviewsintothefieldofeducationalresearchmightnotbeappropriatedue tocertainfundamentaldifferencesfromhealthresearch,andparticularlyfromthesubfieldof epidemiology.Thesecritiquestakeparticularaimatthe'whatworks'paradigmofeffectiveness reviewsandtheinclusionmainlyofquantitativecause-and-effectexperiments,suchasRCTs. Although this selection criterion may be justified on the grounds that other factors need to be controlled for when establishing the effects of physical/clinical interventions such as drug trials, these critics argue that the classroom is a fundamentally different setting consisting of symbolically mediated interactions between teachers and students. Hence, to capture these dynamicinteractions,educationalresearchneedstoaccommodatethemorein-depthinsights intoteachingandlearningthatcanbegleanedfromothertypesofstudy,andespeciallyqualitative studies.
Adesiretotranscendtraditionaldividesbetweenthegeneralacademicuppersecondary schools and vocational schools became evident with the development of a common upper secondaryschoolin1974.Thismeantthatvocationaleducationandtraining(VET)andgeneral studies were clustered within the same school environment/campus. However, this did not preventcertainyouthsfrombeingdeclinedadmissiontoanapprenticeshipplaceinVET.Withthe introductionofReform94in1994,uppersecondaryeducationwasthereforemadeastatutory right.Anyonewhohascompletedcompulsoryeducationatprimaryandlowersecondaryschool levelinNorwayisnowentitledtoanuppersecondaryeducationof,normally,aminimumof three years. In the application process, three choices of study programme can be listed and students are guaranteed admission to at least one of these (Markussen et al., 2010: 253-4). Asaconsequenceofthisreform,almost98percentofstudentswhocompletecompulsory schoolinginNorwayenrolinuppersecondaryeducationimmediately-usuallytheyearthey turn16yearsofage (NorwegianDirectorateforEducationandTraining,2014:105).

The significance of dropout in Norway
Despite the integral role of the Nordic welfare model in providing educational access to upper secondary education, figures show that 27 per cent of the students who commenced their upper secondary education in 2010 did not complete their upper secondary education successfullywithinfiveyears-i.e.hadnotwithinthattimeobtainedavocational/craftcertificate oradiplomatostudyatuniversityoranotherhighereducationinstitution.Althoughthisisthe lowestrateofdropoutsincethefive-yearstatisticwasfirstrecorded(forthe1994cohort),it remainstobeseenwhetherthistrendcanbesustained.Thepercentagethatfailstocomplete successfully within five years has fluctuated around 30 per cent for the 1994-2009cohorts (StatisticsNorway,2016. Some policymakers, nevertheless, celebrate these figures as showing that, while only 30 per cent of students who started VET in 1991 completed their education, this had risen to closeto60percentforthe1994and1995cohortsfollowingtheimplementationofReform 94 (NorwegianDirectorateforEducationandTraining,2006).Asthesefiguresarebasedon a few cohorts, Hansen and Mastekaasa (2010) have been less convinced of the longer-term importanceofReform94onceothervariables,suchaswidereconomictrendsandconjunctures in the labour market, have been controlled for. Hansen  AsVETtendstocomprisestudentswhoseparentshaveobtainedalowerlevelofeducation, acorrelatingfactorisparents'educationallevel.While88percentofstudentswhoseparents have completed more than four years of higher education (in Norway, a bachelor's and subsequent master's degree typically takes five years combined) complete upper secondary educationsuccessfullywithinfiveyears,thisappliestoonly49percentofstudentswhoseparents havelowersecondaryschoolastheirhighesteducationallevel(StatisticsNorway,2016).These numbersaresometimesignored,however,asastudent'sgradepointaverage(GPA)inlower secondaryeducationhasbeendemonstratedtobethemostsignificantvariableinexplaining dropout in upper secondary education, a situation similar to that in other OECD contexts (Lambet al.,2010).Althoughalongitudinalstudyof9,749studentsinsouth-easternNorway confirmedtheimportanceofthisvariable,itwassimultaneouslyshownthattheGPAinlower secondary school is itself influenced by students' social background (Markussen et al., 2008(Markussen et al., , 2011.Theimportanceofsocialbackgroundarguablyreflectsaprocessofsocialreproduction, orhowthevalueofeducationiscommunicateddifferentlytochildrendependingonparents' classpositions.Whentheeducationsystemfavoursmiddle-classvalues,moreworking-than middle-classyouthsarelikelytodropout (Boudon,1974;BourdieuandPasseron,1977).

Evaluations of dropout measures in Norway
Above,theinfluenceofvariousbackgroundvariablesondropoutinNorwayhasbeenshown. A strand of researchers claim that since students' background is such a strong predictor of dropout,dropoutisaninevitableoutcomeforsomestudents(seeMarkussenet al.,2011for acriticaloverview).Iwould,however,takeissuewiththisdeterministicviewanddrawupon Rumberger's insight that '[a]lthough schools cannot do anything about the demographic and socialcharacteristicsoftheirstudents,theycanchangetheirownpracticesthathaveadirect bearing on whether students remain in school ' (1995: 618). The question still remains as to whetherdropoutinuppersecondaryeducationhasinfactbeensufficientlydealtwith-reflecting theextenttowhichtheNorwegianwelfarestatehasbeenintoleranttoandsoughttoredress educationalinequalitiesinoutcomesasreflectedbydropoutrates.
Similar to the systematic search for international literature (Lillejord et al., 2015: chap. 4), an overview of former evaluations of dropout measures implemented in Norway (ibid., 2015:chap.1)indicatedthatthereisinsufficientevidenceintheextantliteraturetoconclude with certainty which category of dropout measures is the most effective. Notwithstanding, Markussen(2010)
The Knowledge Promotion Reform (Kunnskapsløftet) in 2006 included measures to strengthen the counselling service and career guidance. Two subjects were introduced with the aim that students should make informed decisions. A subject on educational choice (Utdanningsvalg)wasintroducedinlowersecondaryschool,aimedathelpingstudentstomake choices for upper secondary education. Concurrently, an in-depth study project (Prosjekt til fordypning)wasintroducedinallVETstudyprogrammesinthefirstandsecondyeartoenable studentstotestdifferentsubjectsandobservehowadultsworkindifferentprofessions.Thishas aimedtofacilitatestudents'choiceofsubjects/coursesinthefollowingyearsoftheireducation (Markussen, 2010: 213). However, the outcomes of initiatives relating to student choice are challengingtomeasure,andinthesearchforevidencetherewasanoticeablelackofstudies documentingtheisolatedeffectsoftheseinitiativesondropout.

Elements of practice in VET
As some students do not feel they fit in with mainstream, theoretical classroom education, attempts have been made to make the theoretical instruction more relevant to professions thatstudentsarebeingtrainedforinVET.Forexample,foreignlanguagewordsusedincertain professionscanbeintroducedduringlanguageclasses(HansenandMastekaasa,2010).Forthose whohavealreadydroppedout,moreover,itisrealizedthatitisnotnecessarilybeneficialto returnthemtothesametheoretical-styleclassroomeducationthatperhapspushedthemout ofeducationinthefirstplace(seee.g. Frostadet al.,2015).

Improved in-service training and education for adults responsible for students
Improved in-service training and education includes measures that aim to improve the competence level of key actors working around and for the students. It is thus recognized that these actors can encourage studentsto fulfil their aspirations and successfully complete uppersecondaryeducation.Theseactorsincludeteachersandotherstaffinschool,butalso externalactorsresponsibleforstudents'careerprospects(e.g.Oppfølgingstjenesten)orfortheir well-being,suchasthroughthehealthcareservices.Acommonmeasurehasbeentoofferpostqualifyingeducationtosuchactors.Measuresaimedatin-servicetrainingandeducationoften emphasizetheacquisitionofexpertiseenablingkeyactorsto'see'theindividualstudent,i.e. toidentifyearlywarningindicatorsandactpromptlytopreventdropout (Slettenet al.,2015).
Despitetherelativelybleakoutlookpresentedinthisarticle,itisviewedaspromisingthat policymakersinNorwayhavecommissionedasystematicreviewondropoutinuppersecondary education -emphasizing the importance of improving the knowledge base in the education sector.TheProgrammeforEnhancedCompletionofUpperSecondaryEducationandTraining [Program for bedre gjennomføring i videregående opplaering]wasarecentlyimplementedincremental reformtotestahandfulofdropoutmeasuresinselecteduppersecondaryschoolsinorderto measure their effects locally before they are implemented on a national scale. The selection of measures for evaluation has been influenced by, among other sources of information, the KnowledgeCentreforEducation'ssystematicreviewofeffectivedropoutmeasures(Norwegian Government,2016).Itishopedthat,bytakingintoaccountthatsystematicreview,policymakers willbeinabetterpositiontomoreconfidentlyassesswhetherandwhichdropoutmeasures willwork,underwhichcircumstancesandforwhom-contributingtowardstherealizationof someofthecoreprinciplesofthewelfarestateintheNorwegianeducationsystem,ratherthan predominantlythroughrhetoric.

Notes on the contributor
Dr Kristoffer Halvorsrud is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Centre for Psychiatry (WolfsonInstituteofPreventiveMedicine)atQueenMaryUniversityofLondon.Priortotaking up this position, he worked as a research associate in the Evidence Synthesis Team in the Institute of Health and Society at Newcastle University and as a research associate for the KnowledgeCentreforEducation(partoftheResearchCouncilofNorway).Kristofferobtained hisPhDinSociologyfromtheUniversityofNottingham.