| by Christian W. Beck Norway is a sparsely populated country with a population of 4.5 million, spread over 328,000 square kilometers (about 120,000 square miles). The nature of the country's education system is directly related to its historical development as an independent nation. For a span of approximately 500 years, Norway was part of either Denmark or Sweden; it has been an autonomous nation only since 1905. The country's school system is dominated by the Norwegian concept of "enhetsskole tanken," or comprehensive school for all. This ideology conceives of education as something that promotes equal rights among social groups, while also helping to unify the national culture (Lauglo, 1998). In Norway, historically, local communities have had a strong influence on education policies concerning both the content of teaching and the management of schools (Darnell & Hoem, 1996; Lauglo, 1998). Operating parallel to this decentralized process, however, has been the state's effort to exert more management and control over the schools in order to protect a democratic popular education. Such control is considered necessary for maintaining equality in education. In 1997, Norway developed a new national curriculum plan for primary and lower secondary schools. The 343-page plan (Laereplanen, 1997) is ideologically based on nationalism, is oriented both to children and to the community, and focuses on projecting methods and integrative strategies for teaching. The plan also stresses subject knowledge and explains, in detail, "what should be learned." Today, not only public schools but also private schools receive almost all of their funding from the state, and they must follow an overall state policy for education. The vast majority of students attend public schools. At the university and college level, only about 10 percent of students attend private institutions. At the upper secondary level, 4 percent are in private education. More than 98 percent of primary and lower secondary education students attend public state schools. Only a very few children are home schooled. Essentially, the state has a say in virtually all school matters in Norway, and its reach is extending toward such alternative education methods as home schooling. Alternative Education From the time of the first Norwegian school law in 1739, parents have been accorded the principal responsibility for educating their children. Schools' influence was much less--they were only meant to assist parents in this endeavor. Eventually, however, this ideological principle gave way to a school system in which parents have delegated their authority to the state. Some Norwegian children traditionally have been educated outside the mainstream system. Norway has only relatively recently become urbanized, and education in rural areas often conformed to the demands of an agrarian lifestyle and economic realities. Up until the mid-1960s, for example, rural children went to school only three days a week. Eventually, this practice was eliminated as part of the trend toward nationalization. Private Schools. As a result of the special geography and history of Norway, there is no historically rooted national upper class. While some children have learned from private tutors, or at Christian schools or other private schools, Norway does not have a strong tradition of private, upper-class schools. Some alternative schools at the primary and lower secondary levels were established by special interest groups for religious or other ideological reasons. Teaching in the state schools has long been based on the state religion of the Lutheran church. Religious hegemony in the country has been decreasing, however. Christian groups and others have pressed for the establishment of private schools that are based on more secular issues such as parents' rights and human rights, as outlined in international conventions (Habermas, 1995; United Nations, 1948; UNESCO, 1960; Vestre, 1999). After a long political conflict, a law establishing private schools was passed in 1970 and renewed in 1985 (Privatskoleloven, 1985). Alternative schools, including those based on a different religion, now were allowed, and they could receive financial support from the state, at a rate of 85 percent of the cost for a state school pupil. Up until the late 1980s, however, only Christian and Rudolf Steiner schools were sanctioned. Some years later, Montessori schools were permitted. Today, Norway has 28 Rudolf Steiner schools, approximately 40 Christian schools, and 8 Montessori schools as alternatives to the 3,200 Norwegian public state schools. The first Muslim school is expected to open soon. Home Schooling. Home schooling has existed in Norway since 1739. Up until 1998, home schooling in Norway was primarily a rural phenomena. In the last three years, however, the greatest increase has been in urban areas. (Statistics concerning this form of alternative education are only approximate and estimates vary). During 1993-94, parents and school authorities took up the issue of "the modern" home school movement. The issue was given much attention in the media, generating a lot of political debate. Some "grunder" families were reported to the police and to the social security office. Since 1995, three cases involving home schooling have been brought before the courts. One case may end up in the European Human Rights Court in Strassbourg (Beck, 2000). In 1996, only 50 children were home schooled in Norway. In 2001, the number exceeded 500. This rapid increase in home schooling is the result of the following factors: * In 1997, the school entrance age for public schools was lowered from 7 years old to 6 years old. The majority of the Norwegian population were against this reform. Some parents with 6-year-old children chose to teach them at home, rather than send them to school. * Parents were upset with the inclusion of new religious subjects in school. * Parents were concerned about violence and bullying in schools. * When school authorities closed schools in small, rural communities for financial reasons (in the last 20 years, hundreds of such schools have been closed), parents increasingly chose home schooling. * Some families started home schooling for pedagogical reasons, believing in more "natural" learning. Home Schooling -- The "Normative" Case in Norway Both the history of Norwegian schools and a new school law enacted August 1, 1999, are based on the principle of "obligation to education," rather than "obligation to schooling" (Opplaeringsloven, 1998). This law contains two paragraphs of special importance to home schooling. Section 2-1 states three ways to fulfill the mandatory first 10 years of education: public schools, private schools, or home schooling. Parents have the right to home school their children, but they receive no financial support for education from the state if they do so. Local school authorities may elect to dispense free textbooks and other school materials to families, however. Section 14-2, called the "control" paragraph, of the law states that local school authorities are obligated to ensure that the home schooling programs are adequate. The authorities can, by law, test home-schooled children as a means of determining the quality of their education. One particular sentence in the law has been the subject of much discussion, and is the reason for serious conflict between national and local authorities and home schoolers: "The community can demand that the child go to school, if the conditions for home schooling according to the school law are not fulfilled." State authorities interpret the sentence as a mandatory requirement that home schooling plans have to be approved before home schooling can start. Home schoolers interpret the same sentence as a demand for documentation that home schooling is, in fact, being done, and that it is valid and adequate. The Mosvik case is an example of one such conflict. In December 1995, a boy was required to take part in his school's dance lesson. His parents, conservative Lutherans, had asked several times to have their child excused from such school activities. When the school did not comply with their request, they took all of their children out of school and started home schooling them instead. In a show of support, another dissenting family also removed their children from the same school. Both families were taken to court by the state, which sought to make the families comply with the school decision. In November 1998, Inderoy Herredsrett (the lowest level court) returned a verdict of two to one against the home schooling families. Each pair of parents had to pay a fine of Nkr 10,000 ($1,100 U.S.) for keeping their children out of school without sufficient reason. The case then developed along two lines. The authorities wanted to use the case as an example of a situation in which families had not fulfilled the conditions for home schooling, and therefore could not exempt their children from compulsory school attendance. The home schoolers and their lawyer saw the case as a confirmation of home schooling's validity. The parents appealed to Lagmannsretten (the next level of judiciary review). Here, they won their case. The school authorities appealed to Hoyesterett (the highest court level). In February 1999, this court decided, 3 to 2, in favor of the school authorities. According to the dictates of the Norwegian court system, the case then returned to the second-level court, the Lagmannsretten, for reconsideration. One week before the case was to be reheard, however, it was withdrawn by the school authorities "because the proofs were inadequate." As a consequence, the Mosvik case was closed. Something important developed as a result of this legal case. While school authorities took up the case as a way to reaffirm and strengthen their control over home schooling, the general consensus is that it ended with the opposite effect. Many Norwegians believe that the case strengthened parents' rights to educate their children as they choose. Comments on Future Education Needs A strong, state-controlled school system has been the norm during Norway's relatively short existence as an autonomous national state. A 1998 Organization for Economical and Cultural Development (OECD) report determined Norway and Turkey to be the most centralized countries in the OECD area. The OECD report specifically expressed concern that these countries' education systems erode religious freedom, and it highlighted the fact that most decisions in school matters are made at centralized, rather than local, administrative levels (OECD, 1998). It must be added that almost 100 percent of teachers receive training in state teacher training colleges. In general, research and evaluation in schools are initiated and financed by the state. Profits from the oil trade have made Norway a rich nation that can afford to fund an expensive system of school administrators, teachers, and special education programs. Although many countries would envy this situation, in Norway, the result is a large bureaucracy, with many regulations and central control. Today, the pressure from Norwegian parents for more liberal school laws and more alternative education possibilities is increasing and strong. More freedom in education is a "hot" national political issue. Consequently, the politics of education and public discussion have developed along the following lines: * Family and school. The dissolution of the family (because of divorce and societal changes) has created new education challenges for schools, which are being asked to provide more direction in terms of acculturating and socializing Norwegian children. These areas once were the domain of parents, and many dislike schools assuming such control. * Globalization. Large-scale migration, and increased levels of communication brought about by the Internet and advances in information technology, have increased the globalization of knowledge. The universal availability of knowledge--independent of ethnicity, culture, and nation--is closer than ever. Therefore, it appears questionable to center curriculum on a national culture; global knowledge would be more relevant. * The Welfare State. Norway has achieved some success in using state education policies to remove gender differences and the disparities between rural and urban areas. It has not, however, been as successful in terms of removing the differences between social classes. In spite of modernization and a resulting higher level of education for the working class, economic and other social inequalities have expanded in recent years. It seems reasonable to handle social inequality in a more direct manner, and to direct education policies toward more clear-cut goals. * The Multicultural Society. Large-scale migration and global mobility have affected nearly every country, including Norway (Darnell & Hoem, 1996). Issues of discrimination are bound to arise in countries where the state, the church, and education are closely entwined. In Norway, Muslims, atheists, and Christian groups want to protect their freedom by running their own schools, or by choosing home schooling. Maintaining religious education in schools mostly oriented to the Lutheran church, without the freedom of and full access to an alternative religious education, seems problematic. * The Postmodern Situation. An open society calls for greater individual choice in education. Strong national control over education can impinge upon human rights and thwart knowledge acquisition. Freedom in choice of education needs to be encouraged. Norway does not have enough viable alternative educational opportunities to meet the demands of the future. The private school law should be changed to allow more possibilities for free schools and parental choice. Central issues in education will always challenge the balance between community rules and personal freedom (Bauman, 1997; Giddens, 1991; Habermas, 1995; MacIntyre, 1995). Without an effort toward preserving a sense of community, societies can fall apart. On the other hand, too much community, in terms of national control and administration, weakens the personal initiative to pursue knowledge. Modern countries often put too much faith in state control of education. On the other hand, without such control, education could collapse. Although large-scale private financial support of education may not be feasible, parents should retain the choice in deciding what type of school is best for their children. State support is necessary to finance education, to make and administer education regulations, and to set minimum education standards. After that point, however, good education is based on personal choice, local control, and open communication. Concluding Remarks A society such as Norway's demands more freedom in education. Home schooling in Norway, as in other modern countries, draws attention to an important discussion: In any society, who should control the education of children? Many societies struggle to balance the need to respect the rights of parents with the state's responsibility to have a say in education policies. It seems that this balance is more often than not tipped in favor of state control. Opinions vary about the nature and value of home schooling. I have studied modern home schooling in Norway since 1994. My conclusions are that parents who choose home schooling most often make good and responsible decisions. Of course, there are exceptions. Inadequate socialization is the argument most often used against home schooling. Teachers and politicians often express the opinion that home schooling desocializes children and that they often end up with distorted ideas of the norms of society, because they mostly have contact only with the family, or within a small-scale, fundamentalist religious society. Sometimes, such criticism is valid. Seen from another aspect of socialization, however, home-schooled children spend a significant amount of time with their parents, a benefit that many children do not have. Although the parent's right to choose is fundamental, there should be limits to home schooling if the children suffer for it. Nevertheless, the practice of home schooling may be part of a larger trend in Norway. References Bauman, Z. (1997). Postmodernity and its discontents. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Beck, C. W. (2000). Kodenavn skole: Kampen om norsk utdannings framtid. Vallset: Oplandske bokforlag. Darnell, F., & Hoem, A. (1996). Taken to extremes --Education in the far north. Oslo - Boston: Scandinavian University Press. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and social identity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (1995). Struggles for recognition in the democratic constitutional state. In A. Gutman (Ed.), Multiculturialism. Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 107-147). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lauglo, J. (1998). Populism and education in Norway. In A. Tjeldvoll (Ed.), Education and the Scandinavian welfare state in Year 2000 (pp. 25-56). New York: Garland. Lov om okonomisk tilskott til private skoler (Privatskoleloven). (1985). (The Norwegian private school law.) Laereplanen. (1997). (The national curriculum plan in Norway.) MacIntyre, A. (1995). Communitarianism and its critics--D. Bell. Radical Philosophy, 70. OECD. (1998). Education at glance. Report. Opplaeringsloven. (1998). (The law for primary and secondary education in Norway.) United Nations. (1966, December 16). Convention for economical, social and cultural rights, and convention for civil and political rights. UNESCO. (1960). Konvensjon: Overenskomst mot diskriminering i undervisning. Vestre, S. E. (1999). Foreldrerett og brukerorientering. In D. Bredal (Ed.), Frihetens kar 1999 (pp. 118-128). Oslo: Liberalt forskningsinstitutt. | |
Christian W. Beck is Associate
Professor, Institute of Educational
Research, University of
Oslo, Norway.
|