Tài liệu Reviews of National Policies for EducationImproving Lower Secondary Schools in Norway pptx

Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2011), Improving Lower Secondary Schools in Norway 2011, Reviews of National Policies for Education,
OECD Publishing.
/>This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases.
Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org, and do not hesitate to contact us for more information.
Reviews of National Policies for Education
Improving Lower Secondary Schools in Norway
Contents
Chapter 1. Lower secondary education across countries
Chapter 2. Lower secondary in Norway: progress and challenges
Chapter 3. Policy levers for quality lower secondary in Norway
Further reading
Improving Schools: Strategies for Action in Mexico (2010)
www.oecd.org/edu/improvingschools
ISBN 978-92-64-11456-2
91 2011 19 1 P
-:HSTCQE=VVYZ[W:
Improving Lower Secondary Schools in NorwayReviews of National Policies for Education
Reviews of National Policies for Education
Improving Lower Secondary
Schools in Norway

Reviews of National Policies for Education
Improving Lower
Secondary Schools
in Norway
2011
This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The
opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.
ISBN 978-92-64-11456-2 (print)

ISBN 978-92-64-11457-9 (PDF)
Series: Reviews of National Policies for Education
ISSN 1563-4914 (print)
ISSN 1990-0198 (online)
Photo credits: Cover © Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2011
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and
multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable
acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should
be submitted to Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be
addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC)
at
Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2011), Improving Lower Secondary Schools in Norway 2011, Reviews of National Policies for
Education, OECD Publishing.
/>FOREWORD - 3




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
FOREWORD
Education is key for the future of our countries. It contributes to strengthening economic
growth, development and social cohesion and to the well-being of our societies as a whole. Lower
secondary education plays a crucial role within education systems: it is typically the final stage of
compulsory education where students consolidate basic levels of knowledge and skills.
At the same time it provides the bridge to children’s educational future, whether academic or
more vocational, in a world in which upper secondary education has largely become a prerequisite
for success in adult life and in the labour market.

Students’ motivation for schooling tends to diminish between the ages of 12 to 16 and the
lower secondary level offers one of the last chances to identify students at risk of dropping out and
get them back on track. Therefore, an attractive, relevant and high quality lower secondary
education is a key vehicle for success in schooling overall.
This report proposes a set of policy levers for reforming lower secondary education in Norway.
It is based on empirical and comparative analysis that can also be used to support policy
development across OECD and partner countries in general. More specifically, Improving Lower
Secondary Education in Norway aims to improve quality of lower secondary education in the
country and raise student achievement. It focuses on raising the quality of teaching, on ensuring that
all schools are effective in meeting the learning needs of adolescents, and on providing smooth
transitions for students from primary into lower secondary school and then on to upper secondary
school. It also suggests a framework of policy implementation that is aligned to Norway’s
decentralised governance system.
A key element in preparing the recommendations contained in this report was the close
engagement of key partners in Norway and in particular, Minister of Education, Ms. Kirstin
Halvorsen and her team, Eli Telhaug, Kirsti Flåten, Alette Schreiner and Håkon Kavli.
This report has also served as a key input into the OECD Seminar for Leaders in Education
Improvement in Ontario. This seminar, organised in cooperation with the Harvard Graduate School
of Education and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, brought together more than 30 high-
level policy makers and key stakeholders from Norway to learn about other country practices and
work together to develop a plan of action to be implemented back home. Robert Schwartz and
Nancy Hoffman (Harvard GSE), Ben Levin and Barbara Bodkin (OISE) played a key role in its
organisation.
4 - FOREWORD




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
The report has been prepared by the OECD Norway Steering Group on Lower Secondary

Education in Norway, a selected group of experts and OECD analysts. Members of the group are:
Beatriz Pont, Diana Toledo Figueroa, Nancy Hoffman, Kirsti Klette, Pasi Sahlberg, and Dennis
Shirley. Chapter one is based on a paper prepared Pauline Musset (OECD) with contributions from
Vania Rosas (OECD). Elvira Berrueta-Imaz provided assistance in the layout of the report. The
authors would like to thank those who contributed to the discussions in Norway, and to OECD
colleagues who have contributed in different ways to the review, Miho Taguma and Cassandra
Davis, Cecilia Lyche (while a secondee at OECD), and in particular, Deborah Roseveare, Head of
the Education and Training Policy Division for her support.

I hope this analysis will be a useful reference for Norway and other countries in their quest to
improve student achievement by strengthening the crucial lower secondary education level.
Barbara Ischinger
Director for Education

TABLE OF CONTENTS - 5




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
CHAPTER 1. LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION ACROSS COUNTRIES 17
Introduction and background to the report 18
Why is lower secondary education important? 19
Characteristics of this education level 23
Challenges facing lower secondary education 30
Conclusion 42
REFERENCES 46
CHAPTER 2. LOWER SECONDARY IN NORWAY: PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES 51

Student achievement is high and can be improved 53
An important starting point: education is a public priority in Norway 57
Norway’s comprehensive system emphasises equity and inclusion 60
Schools are positive environments, but there is low student motivation 64
Teachers are engaged, but need better teaching strategies and support 66
Governance and policy makers shape education improvement 70
Conclusion 73
REFERENCES 75
CHAPTER 3. POLICY LEVERS FOR QUALITY LOWER SECONDARY IN NORWAY 79
R1. Align policy with governance 81
R2. Nurture excellent teaching quality 95
R3. Promote school improvement 112
R4. Ensure student success throughout education 129
REFERENCES 140
ANNEX 1. EVENTS RELATED TO THE OECD NORWAY REVIEW 147
ANNEX 2. THE AUTHORS 148


6 - TABLE OF CONTENTS




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
Tables
Table 1.1. Structure of compulsory education in OECD countries 25
Table 1.2. A typology of lower secondary education across OECD countries 28
Table 1.3. Types of differentiation in lower secondary across countries 29
Table 1.4. Number of student transitions in OECD countries 40
Table 3.1. Student admission into teacher education programmes, Norway 2008-11 98

Table 3.2. Configuration of lower secondary education across OECD countries 132

Figures
Figure 1.1. Instruction time per subject for 12-to-14-year-olds, 2008 24
Figure 1.2. Student engagement across OECD countries, PISA 2000 31
Figure 1.3. Student performance and attitudes towards school, PISA 2009 32
Figure 1.4. Teachers and professional development, TALIS 2007-08 36
Figure 2.1. Norway’s 4
th
grade student performance in TIMMS 2007 53
Figure 2.2. Performance of 15-year-old students in reading, selected countries PISA 2009 55
Figure 2.3. Student knowledge of learning strategies, PISA 2009 56
Figure 2.4. Proportion of total public expenditure on education, 2000, 2007 57
Figure 2.5. Schools providing secondary education in Norway by size, 2009-10 58
Figure 2.6. Adult participation in formal and non formal education, 2007 59
Figure 2.7. Income inequality, socio-economic background and education performance 60
Figure 2.8. Variation in reading performance between and within schools, PISA 2009 62
Figure 2.9. Gender differences in reading performance, PISA 2009 62
Figure 2.10. Performance across schools in Norway, PISA, 2009 63
Figure 2.11. How some student related factors affect school climate, TALIS 2007-08 65
Figure 2.12. Teacher’s sense of self efficacy and job satisfaction, TALIS 2007-08. 67
Figure 2.13. Teacher participation in professional development TALIS 2007-08. 68
Figure 2.14. Impact of teacher professional development, TALIS 2007-08 69
Figure 2.15. Number of teachers by county and type of school, Norway 2010 72
Figure 3.1. Changes in decision-making in lower secondary education, 1998-2007 84
Figure 3.2. Decision making in lower secondary education, 2007 85
Figure 3.3. How Norwegians view the teaching profession, 2009-11 97
Figure 3.4. Percentage of lower secondary teachers' working time spent teaching, 2008 102
Figure 3.5. Comparison of salaries of different professions in Norway, 2010 103
Figure 3.6. Evolution of teacher salaries, OECD countries 2010 103

Figure 3.7. Adolescent development issues 114
Figure 3.8. School principals’ reports of their roles in school, PISA 2009 118
Figure 3.9. Relative earnings by level of education, OECD countries 2008 130


TABLE OF CONTENTS - 7




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
Boxes
Box 1.1. The OECD country education policy and implementation reviews 19
Box 1.2. An ISCED definition of lower secondary education 21
Box 1.3. Lower secondary education in the United Kingdom and the United States 27
Box 1.4. Practices to engage students in lower secondary schools 34
Box 1.5. Strategies to improve teacher quality in Ontario (Canada) 37
Box 2.1. A snapshot of the Norwegian education system 61
Box 2.2. The knowledge promotion reform in Norway 71
Box 3.1. Reform principles of high performing education systems 81
Box 3.2. Teacher education programmes for primary and lower secondary, Norway 99
Box 3.3. Research-based teacher education in Finland 101
Box 3.4. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards in the United States 108
Box 3.5. AVID, a curricular supplement 115
Box 3.6. The Project Building the Knowledge Base for Student-Centered Learning 116
Box 3.7. School improvement and school effectiveness research 120
Box 3.8. The Ontario School Improvement process 123
Box 3.9. Finland's networks for school improvement 124

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - 9




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The report Improving lower secondary schools in Norway aims to help education
authorities in Norway and other OECD countries to understand the importance of lower
secondary education and to find approaches to strengthen this key education level. It
provides an overview of the structure of lower secondary education and the main
challenges it faces across OECD countries, develops a comparative framework of the key
policy levers for success in lower secondary and adapts it to Norway’s specific context.
The recommendations focus on teacher quality, school success, student pathways and on
the process of effective policy implementation. The report is a result of the OECD’s
efforts to support making reform happen across OECD and partner countries.
Lower secondary is key to consolidate
student achievement in education
Lower secondary is a fundamental level of education with two complementary
objectives: to offer all students the opportunity to obtain a basic level of knowledge and
skills considered necessary for adult life; and to provide relevant education for all
students, as they choose either to continue studying further on in academic or a more
vocational route, or to enter the labour market. It is a key stage of basic education, in
transition between primary and upper secondary. The first years of secondary education
are the best chance to consolidate basic skills and to get the students at risk of academic
failure back on track.
Lower secondary education is the level that usually caters to early adolescents
between the ages of 10 and 16. It starts between the ages of 10 and 13 and ends between
the ages of 13 and 16. It is compulsory across OECD and partner countries. It marks the
end of compulsory education in a number of countries. This is typically a time when

young people go through profound transitions in their social, physical and intellectual
development, as they leave childhood behind and prepare for adult responsibilities. These
years are a critical point for maturation as children’s roles in school and society change.
10 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
This level has different configurations and duration across countries, varying from
three to six years. The main patterns of provision are:
a single structure for primary and lower secondary schools;
distinct structures for primary, lower secondary and upper secondary education;
distinct structure for primary, with lower and upper secondary grouped together.
In terms of the curriculum, the teaching of reading and writing, mathematics and
science take up on average 40% of the compulsory instructional time across OECD. The
rest is distributed between foreign languages and other compulsory core curriculum, and a
varying degree of compulsory flexible curriculum, which ranges from 40% to none.
This level presents similar challenges
across countries
Although there is much diversity across countries, lower secondary education faces
some similar challenges: some countries have difficulties ensuring high academic
achievement, and many students fall behind at this stage, resulting eventually in their
dropping out from upper secondary schools. Also, some evidence shows that there may
be lack of motivation from students at these ages and that the configuration and practices
for schooling at this level may not cater to the specific development needs of adolescents
adequately. There is a noticeable absence of research evidence on the comparative
efficacy of the different structures of lower secondary education, especially in
comparison with the primary and upper secondary stages of education.
To design suitable policies to improve lower secondary education, it is important to

understand the common challenges facing this level of education and provide responses:
School practices often fail to engage all students. On average in OECD
countries, one in four students is disengaged with school at age 15. There seems
to be a gap between what is taught and the practices most likely to engage
students. In addition, this could be a result of students not having consolidated a
set of basic skills during primary education. Schools need to be more responsive
to the needs of adolescents by providing student centered teaching and learning
strategies, challenging and relevant curriculum and support. This can have
positive effects on engagement and potentially contribute to higher performance
and lower dropout rates.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - 11




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
Teaching and learning strategies may not cater adequately to adolescent needs.
Evidence shows that entry to lower secondary schools may lead to gradual
decline in academic motivation, self-perception, and school-related behaviours
over the early adolescent years. Lower secondary classrooms are characterised
by greater emphasis on discipline and less personal teacher-student relationships
in a time when students’ desire for control over their own life is growing.
Teachers need to be prepared to deliver the curriculum effectively, and are
required to have solid content knowledge and teaching strategies that
specifically cater to this age group.
Transitions can have a negative impact on student outcomes. There is often a
decline in academic achievement and engagement in the transition from primary
to lower secondary when this level is provided separately. Also, students that
undergo two transitions (from primary and from lower into upper secondary)
seem to have larger risks of falling behind than those who undergo one. Easing

the negative impact of transitions is key to facilitate higher achievement and to
prevent students from falling behind and dropping out. Strategies to smooth the
transitions, delay the transition or eliminate it and combine primary and lower
secondary, reducing total cohort sizes or providing personalised support can
help.
Why is lower secondary education
important for Norway?
Strengthening the quality of the education provided in lower secondary education in
Norway can contribute to overall attainment and to the prevention of dropout, as success
in key subjects in lower secondary is a prerequisite to succeed in upper secondary or to
enter into the labour market with adequate competencies. To respond to these challenges,
the Norwegian Ministry of Education has developed a White Paper on the quality of
lower secondary education in Norway. This report provides comparative analysis and
contextualised recommendations to support policies to strengthen this key level of
education.
Norway’s lower secondary education has
strengths but also faces challenges
Strengths
Student performance is in the path towards improvement. PISA results for
15-year-old students, which mark the end of lower secondary education in
Norway, are high and have improved since 2006, with Norway above the
OECD average in reading skills, and have shown some progress for lower
performing students.
Education is a public priority in Norway with strong social support and high
financial resources per student to invest in education, compared to OECD
countries.
12 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
Norway has a comprehensive education system that emphasises equity and
inclusion, keeps students together until the end of lower secondary education,
and student performance is less dependent on socioeconomic factors than in
many OECD countries.
Overall, schools have positive learning environments, and there are good
relationships between students and teachers.
Teachers have strong motivation to teach. Evidence shows a high sense of
engagement and sense of self-efficacy towards their work.
Policy efforts and governance are geared towards improvement. On one
hand, there are sustained national efforts targeting school and educational
improvement, among which the most recent curricular reform (the Knowledge
Promotion) and the new initial teacher education programmes and continuing
training support are important dimensions. On the other hand, the decentralised
governance approach allows for strong local involvement in the delivery of
education and for responses that may be closer to local needs.
Challenges
Students’ learning needs along their learning pathways are not currently
being addressed. While the 2009 PISA scores suggest that a good number of
these students are catching up by age 15, too many are still entering lower
secondary with weak basic skills and decreased motivation for learning.
Norwegian adolescents do not feel sufficiently engaged with learning in
schools. Studies have shown that there is a decline in student motivation in
lower secondary schools, perhaps triggered by external factors and lack of
incentives, but also by the way in which schools are responding to their specific
learning requirements.
Conditions that nurture excellent teachers need to be strengthened.
Norwegian teachers in lower secondary are not sufficiently prepared in their
subject areas, in pedagogy of instructional skills and practices, or in adolescent

development. They receive little guidance or support from the school or school
owners and have a relatively low salary, combined with low teaching hours.
Imbalanced governance and inefficient use of resources make
implementation challenging. Norway’s decentralised education system has
advantages in promoting local engagement and control, but the governance of
the system is not adapted to this structure. There is no clearly defined
implementation strategy for education reform throughout the different levels,
including municipalities and schools.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - 13




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
Norway can work on four policy levers to
improve lower secondary education
Norway is already on the path to improvement, and has been making relevant
reforms. The Knowledge Promotion, which introduced a new curriculum for basic
education in 2006, is one of its main pillars, as are the current priorities set out in the
White Paper on Quality Education. Nonetheless, Norway needs to have a clearer strategy
to improve lower secondary education. It can do so by building on existing policy
pathways, prioritising and targeting them to the specific challenges faced by pupils and
teachers. A set of recommendations brings together the key four policy levers of
governance, teachers, schools and students, to improve the quality of lower secondary
education in Norway.
Aligning policy with governance
R1: Align the different levels of governance and resources to ensure effective policy
implementation.
Action Steps
Define and develop clear implementation strategies: Define a vision and

communicate a few key priorities for lower secondary education to achieve
higher student engagement and performance. Use the Norwegian Directorate to
develop clear implementation strategies that engage those working across the
system. Develop public information campaigns and ensure student and parental
engagement in the process.
Reinforce the role and capacities of policy makers at the different levels of
the system: In a decentralised environment, striking an appropriate balance
between central direction and local flexibility requires strengthening the role of
key players, such as the county governors and municipality education
authorities, to ensure the implementation and adaptation of priorities and the
curriculum from the Knowledge Promotion reform for lower secondary. This
requires ensuring that they have the appropriate information, support and skills
to manage and deliver education services effectively.
Build a culture of evidence using data strategically: Data needs to be used
and managed systematically to signal priorities and support improvement of
students in lower secondary education by tracking and reporting on a limited set
of key progress indicators. It would be useful to create incentives for
municipalities and counties to improve information management (for example,
on the financing of lower secondary education) and thereby improve the
system’s accountability, shared responsibility and efficiency.
14 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
Nurturing excellent teacher quality
R2: Raise the status of teaching and improve teacher performance through better
initial teacher education, professional development, standards and incentives.
Action Steps

Strengthen the profession by building up teachers’ skills in content,
adolescent development and teaching strategies, raising the initial education
level to a master’s degree and linking it to incentives for quality people to enter
the profession.
Enhance teachers’ skills to implement the Knowledge Promotion curriculum
in lower secondary a) requiring participation in continuing education and
professional development to update pedagogical and content knowledge and b)
providing them with a set of concrete teaching strategies, especially in
mathematics and science, which gives them options to respond to different
needs of their students.
Define what is an effective lower secondary teacher in Norway is, using
clear professional expectations or standards for teachers, and ensure that
teachers receive regular feedback and evaluation on their ability to meet those
standards.
Promoting school improvement
R3: Ensure that every school has the capacity and is effective in meeting the
learning requirements of all its lower secondary students.
Action Steps
Develop a national strategy to strengthen schools as organisations to help
build their collective capacity for engaging and motivating youngsters and to
continuously improve their learning.
Strengthen and support instructional leadership at the school level and
across schools by requiring initial and on-going training for leaders and
fostering collaborative support among schools.
Ensure that schools provide a challenging and yet supportive environment
and offer a relevant curriculum that gives some flexibility and choice to make it
attractive to adolescent needs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - 15

IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
And ensuring student success
throughout education
R4: Ensure that all primary school leavers are prepared to succeed in lower
secondary, and that lower secondary students are prepared to succeed in further
education and later in their professional lives.
Action Steps
Prepare all students to enter lower secondary education by intervening in early
childhood education and care as well as primary school and providing
support as soon as learning difficulties are identified.
Support the transition to lower secondary school by creating a culture of
assessment, self-assessment, and feedback for improvement in all primary
school classrooms; this will allow students to understand their learning profiles
and to become self-regulating within an optimal framework of improvement.
Ensure alignment of curriculum sequences and student supports by
establishing vertical teaming in the content areas, and assessing individual
student needs as students move from early childhood education and care to
primary, and to secondary school. Also, ensure effective transitions into upper
secondary/VET (county to municipality) by enhancing advice and curricular
alignment.

CHAPTER 1. LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION ACROSS COUNTRIES - 17




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
CHAPTER 1.

LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION
ACROSS COUNTRIES
This chapter argues that lower secondary is a key level within education systems, and
that success in this specific level has a positive impact in education achievement
overall. However, lower secondary education has not been a clear focus of research or
policy priority across countries. A comparative analysis shows different ways in which
it is delivered across countries and raises issues such as the duration of lower
secondary school, how this level fits with primary or upper upper secondary, the role it
plays in comprehensive schooling, and teaching and learning approaches to maintain
the motivation of students.
After a review of the literature on the purpose and the types of lower secondary
education prevalent across OECD countries, the chapter presents some conclusions on
the current situation and the challenges to improve this level, and international
evidence and research findings on how lower secondary can be more effective.
18 - CHAPTER 1. LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION ACROSS COUNTRIES




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
Introduction and background to the report
A strong lower secondary education can contribute to better educational attainment
overall, as it is a fundamental level to lay the foundation of educational, social, and
economic outcomes that follow. The report Improving lower secondary schools in
Norway aims to help education authorities in Norway and other OECD countries to
understand the importance of lower secondary education and to find approaches to
strengthen this key education level. The report provides an overview of the structure of
lower secondary education and the key challenges it faces across OECD countries. It then
develops a comparative framework of the key policy levers for success in lower
secondary and adapts it to Norway’s specific context. The recommendations focus on

strengthening teacher quality, designing school improvement strategies, ensuring
effective student pathways and focusing on the process of policy implementation. The
report is a result of OECD’s increased efforts to support education reforms to improve
outcomes across the OECD and its partner countries.
This report is part of the country education policy and implementation review
process at the OECD (Box 1.1). The report and recommendations are based on evidence,
qualitative and quantitative
1
research and comparative analysis, as well as the specific
work of the OECD-Norway Steering Group on the Quality of Lower Secondary
Education to Norway, composed of international and OECD experts. The OECD
undertook research and analysis on lower secondary education policies and practices, and
then reviewed and adapted the international knowledge base to the specific challenges
facing Norway in this area. To ensure the contextualisation of the recommendations to
Norwegian education policies and the engagement of stakeholders, the process was
complemented with consultation events and the OECD Seminar for Leaders in Education
Improvement. Annex 1 provides more specific details of the review and events related to
the review.
CHAPTER 1. LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION ACROSS COUNTRIES - 19




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
Box 1.1. The OECD country education policy and implementation reviews
The OECD-Norway review follows increasing efforts by the OECD to strengthen capacity
for education reforms across the OECD and its partner countries. The methodology aims to
promote effective policy design and implementation. It focuses on supporting specific reforms by
tailoring comparative analysis and recommendations to specific country context and by engaging
and developing capacity of key stakeholders throughout the process. More specifically, this

requires:
• Comparative analysis: Comparative reports provide analysis and research evidence on
the given policy issue.
• OECD Recommendations: The OECD develops a set of recommendations based on a
study visit of the Steering Group, on comparative analysis, previous OECD work
related to the country and to the topic.
• Consultation and engagement: Workshops are organised in the country to consult and
engage with key national stakeholders, to discuss key messages and present research
and international practices, to encourage reflection and support for the reform.
• The OECD Seminar for Leaders in Education Improvement: This tailored seminar
combines a country visit with academic training to provide participants with capacity
building in policy design and implementation. Participants travel to a relevant practice
country, and during 4 days develop a comparative perspective, exchange ideas and
experiences with leaders from another country and work together to develop an
implementable plan of action for their own context.
• An OECD Steering Group: To guide the work, provide analysis, advice, support and
liaison, the OECD establishes a specialised group of experts that combines international
and OECD educational policy expertise with policy and implementation knowledge.
More information can be found on the site www.oecd.org/edu/improvingschools.
Why is lower secondary education important?
Lower secondary is a fundamental level of education with two complementary
objectives. First, it offers to all students an opportunity to obtain and consolidate a basic
level of knowledge and skills considered necessary for adult life. Second, it should
provide a relevant education for all students as they choose either to continue studying
further on in an academic or a more vocational route, or to enter the labour market
(Cuadra and Moreno, 2005; Crahay and Delhaxhe, 2003; OECD, 2004). In many
countries, lower secondary marks the end of compulsory education and prepares students
for either further academic or more vocational studies. It is a key stage of basic education,
in transition between primary and upper secondary. The first years of secondary
education are the best chance to get the students at risk of dropping out from school back

on track. Box 1.2 presents a definition of this level according to the International
Standard Classification of Education (ISCED).
20 - CHAPTER 1. LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION ACROSS COUNTRIES




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
At least two elements must be considered to understand the importance of secondary
education today. One is that lower secondary education contributes to consolidate basic
skills required for economic competitiveness, as countries increasingly need an educated
labour force with the skills and the knowledge to operate in today’s global markets
(Opertti, Brady and Duncombe, 2009). These sophisticated competences cannot be
developed only in primary schools; nor can they be developed in low quality secondary
schools that fail to prepare students for a world of rapid technological and economic
change (Sahlberg, 2007). A second element is that, alongside and complementary to
primary education, as highlighted by Cuadra and Moreno (2005), a fundamental role of
secondary education is “to equip students and graduates to become active, contributing
partners in their communities.” Secondary education then plays a crucial role in educating
early adolescents to be capable of exercising their rights and duties.
In addition to consolidating basic levels of knowledge, there is a specific feature of
lower secondary education: it caters to early adolescents between the ages of 10 to 15
years old. This is a time when young people go through a profound transition in their
social, physical and intellectual development, as they leave childhood for adulthood, and
their role in school and society changes.
The psychological literature highlights that some
of the needs and characteristics attributed to young adolescents are unique to this age.
Dramatic physical changes take place which the individual must incorporate into his or
her evolving body image. Social and emotional maturation leads to a shift in the
behavioural characteristics valued by early adolescents, including changes in

relationships with parents (Paikoff and Brooks-Gunn, 1991 in Véronneau and Dishion,
2011). Resentment of authority figures and movement toward peers as primary social
referents is common (Dishion, Nelson and Bullock, 2004 in Véronneau and Dishion,
2011). However, adolescence is as much a social construct as a biological one. Therefore,
the exact nature of the transformation that adolescents go through may vary according to
their given social context.
CHAPTER 1. LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION ACROSS COUNTRIES - 21




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
Box 1.2. An ISCED definition of lower secondary education
Lower secondary education (ISCED 2) generally continues the basic programmes of the
primary level, although teaching is typically more subject-focused, often employing more
specialised teachers who teach classes in their field of specialisation. Lower secondary education
may either be “terminal” (i.e. preparing students for entry directly into working life) and/or
“preparatory” (i.e. preparing students for upper secondary education). This level usually consists
of two to six years of schooling (the mode of OECD countries is three years). The specific
ISCED 1997 categories are as follows:
ISCED 2A: General/ pre-vocational programmes designed to prepare students for direct
access to level 3 in a sequence that would ultimately lead to tertiary education, that is, entrance
to ISCED 3A or 3B.
ISCED 2B: Programmes designed to prepare students for direct access to programmes at
level 3C.
ISCED 2C: Vocational programmes primarily designed for direct access to the labour
market at the end of this level (sometimes referred to as “terminal” programmes).
Upper secondary education (3A, 3B, 3C): The final stage of secondary education in most
countries. Instruction is often more organised along subject-matter lines than at ISCED 2 and
teachers typically need to have a higher level or more subject-specific qualification that at

ISCED 2. There are substantial differences in the typical duration of ISCED 3 programmes, both
across and between countries, typically ranging from two to five years of schooling. The
entrance age is typically 15 or 16 years old.
Source: OECD (1999), Classifying Educational Programmes: Manual for ISCED-97 Implementation in
OECD Countries, OECD, Paris.
Countries have developed different configurations of schools for this level of
education. In some countries, lower secondary is grouped with primary education. Many
OECD countries have chosen to address the specific needs of this age group by separating
them from other students into a different structure, with clear boundaries from both
primary and upper secondary education. Nevertheless, there is a noticeable absence of
research evidence on the comparative efficacy of the different structures of lower
secondary education. In fact, this research area seems relatively neglected in comparison
with the primary and upper secondary stages of education.
The move from primary to secondary education often results in a specific transition,
when students leave their familiar schools to enter larger and more impersonal secondary
schools. They are taught by several teachers and surrounded by a larger group of peers.
At the same time, the nature of academic studies becomes more difficult and students are
required to be more autonomous in the management of their work. As lower secondary
students are required to adapt to their many physical, social and academic transitions,
they may experience confusion and decreased motivation towards school. A high
incidence of disengagement, disruptive behaviour and boredom often occurs during the
first years of secondary school (Australian Curriculum Studies Association, 1996 in
Chadbourne, 2001; Hargreaves, Earl & Ryan, 1996 Alspaugh, 1998
). For some students,
22 - CHAPTER 1. LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION ACROSS COUNTRIES




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011

this period can be considered as the beginning of a downward spiral in school-related
behaviours and motivation (Eccles et al., 1991). Yet, traditionally, secondary schools
have not been particularly responsive to the transitional needs of young adolescents.
Lower secondary education today: between inclusion and differentiation
There is debate surrounding the role of lower secondary in relation to the education
system: whether it presents a continuation of primary education or whether its main aim
should be to prepare students for the upper secondary phase. Aligning lower secondary
too closely with the primary phase can result in students being insufficiently prepared
academically for the next stages to come. However, when lower secondary is oriented
mostly towards upper secondary education, the gap between primary and secondary
education is widened, leading to problems in progression and continuity (Greenaway,
1999).
Most OECD countries have established two relatively distinct levels of secondary
education, namely lower and upper secondary. Lower secondary mainly serves as a
prolongation of primary education and is the final phase of compulsory schooling in
many countries. Upper secondary education is often, but not always, divided into several
tracks of study leading to different destinations.
Nowadays, lower secondary school has two complementary objectives (Cuadra and
Moreno, 2005). On the one hand, lower secondary schools offer all students the
opportunity to obtain a certain set of knowledge and skills considered necessary for adult
life. On the other hand, they aspire to provide relevant education for each and every
student, either to support further study or a pathway leading to the labour market (Crahay
and Delhaxhe, 2003). Therefore, lower secondary education has many particularities. It
has to be at the same time terminal (as it is generally the last phase of compulsory
education) and preparatory (as it also needs to prepare students to enter higher studies). It
has to foster the integration of all students, giving them a common base of knowledge,
while at the same time setting high expectations for them, offering courses according to
their academic abilities.
Those particularities make the design of lower secondary education especially
challenging. For Cuadra and Moreno (2005), the study of lower secondary schools

represents a fascinating research subject, as it intrinsically embodies the dilemma of
education: “The type of articulation between primary and secondary education, and
between secondary and tertiary education, defines and depicts in an unequivocal way the
overall features of a country’s education system. (…) Secondary education is a bridge
between primary education, the labour market, and tertiary education. The bridge can
have many lanes and pathways, so that everybody fits, or it may act as a bottleneck,
squeezing a minority of privileged students from primary through tertiary education and
heavily conditioning participation rates and the quality of both primary and tertiary
education.” Therefore, according to the education policy choices made, lower secondary
can either be the “weakest link” or the keystone of education systems.
In summary, lower secondary is important because it is the best opportunity to
develop and consolidate basic skills and competencies for all students that will allow
them to be successful in adulthood, as it is in many countries the last stage of compulsory
CHAPTER 1. LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION ACROSS COUNTRIES - 23




IMPROVING LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORWAY © OECD 2011
education. Success in key subjects in lower secondary is a prerequisite to successfully
enter either upper secondary education or the labour market with the adequate
competences. At the same time, the first years of secondary education are the last chance
to identify students at risk of dropping out or failure and get them back on track in time to
succeed in their further studies.
Characteristics of this education level
Lower secondary education is the level that caters to early adolescence between the
ages of 10 and 15. It starts between the ages of 10 and 13 and ends between the ages of 13
and 16, and is compulsory across OECD and partner countries. This is typically a time
when young people go through a profound transition in their social, physical and
intellectual development, as they leave childhood for adulthood. These years are a critical

point for maturation as children’s roles in school and society change.
Lower secondary has different configurations across OECD countries. A common
trait is that it is part of compulsory education, but it only marks the end of compulsory
education in about half of the countries. Not only does the organisation of education
systems vary between countries, but also the length of time for a student to complete an
educational level. For example, in Norway the typical age group ranges from 13 to 16
years (three years); whereas in Germany it is 10 to 16 years (six years) and in Hungary 10
to 14 years (four years) (Table 1.1).
In addition, the analysis shows three patterns of institutional provision across
countries:
a) countries with a single structure for primary and lower secondary schools;
b) countries with distinct structures for primary, lower secondary and upper
secondary education;
c) countries in which primary is separate and lower and upper secondary are
grouped together.
In terms of the curriculum, while seven study areas form the major part of the
curriculum in OECD countries, the teaching of reading and writing, mathematics and
science are on average 40% of the core compulsory instructional time for 12-to-14-year-
olds, the age group corresponding to lower secondary education (Figure 1.1). The rest is
distributed among foreign languages, and other compulsory core curriculum. It is also
important to note that there is a varying degree of compulsory flexible curriculum for 12-
to-14-year-olds, which ranges from 40% in Australia and 18% in Korea to less than 5% in
Italy, Hungary, Norway or Austria for example (OECD, 2010b).