Equity in Education? - DocsLib

sign in sign up

<<

Home , Educational equity

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

A comparative analysis of educational outcomes among refugee children in the Nordic countries

Andrea Dunlavy, Christopher Jamil de Montgomery, Thomas Lorentzen, Maili Malin & Anders Hjern

CAGE PROJECT REPORT 1

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Authors & Data Analysts

Andrea Dunlavy, Researcher Centre for Health Equity Studies Department of Public Health Sciences Stockholm University, Sweden

Anders Hjern, Professor Centre for Health Equity Studies Karolinska Institutet/Stockholm University, Sweden

Lisa Berg, Researcher Centre for Health Equity Studies Department of Public Health Sciences Stockholm University, Sweden

Karl Gauffin, Post-doc Centre for Health Equity Studies Department of Public Health Sciences Stockholm University, Sweden

Christopher Jamil de Montgomery, Post-doc Danish Research Centre for Migration, Ethnicity and Health (MESU) Department of Public Health Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Thomas Lorentzen, Professor Department of Sociology, University of Bergen/ Department of Health-, Social- and Welfare Studies, University of South-Eastern Norway, Porsgrunn, Norway

Maili Malin, Senior Researcher Migration Institute of Finland, Turku, Finland

Correspondence to: Andrea Dunlavy Centre for Health Equity Studies Department of Public Health Sciences Stockholm University, Sweden [email protected]

2

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

A comparative analysis of educational outcomes among refugee children in the Nordic countries

Andrea Dunlavy, Christopher Jamil de Montgomery, Thomas Lorentzen, Maili Malin & Anders Hjern

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 6

Executive Summary ...... 7 Similarities between countries ...... 7 Age matters ...... 7 Country of origin matters ...... 8 Differences between countries ...... 8 Policy Implications ...... 8

1. Introduction ...... 11 1.1 Migration in the Nordic region ...... 11 1.2 The importance of education for integration ...... 12 1.3 Aims and research questions ...... 14 A note on terminology ...... 15

2. Background ...... 16 2.1 Educational outcomes in migrant-origin children ...... 16 2.2 Educational systems in the Nordic countries ...... 17 2.3 Additional educational determinants among migrant-origin children ...... 20 Migration policy context ...... 20 Pre-migration contexts and post-migration stressors ...... 21 Age at migration ...... 21

3. Methods...... 23 3.1 Data and study populations ...... 23 3.2 Data Analysis ...... 25

4. Results ...... 26 Composition of study populations ...... 26 Refugee children and the children of refugee immigrants by country of origin ...... 27 Year of arrival among refugee children ...... 28 4.1 Educational outcomes among migrant-origin children in the Nordic countries ...... 29 School performance in compulsory education ...... 29 Upper secondary school drop-outs ...... 33 Upper secondary school educational attainment ...... 34 Academic and vocational upper secondary school educational programs ...... 36 Higher educational attainment ...... 39

5. Discussion ...... 41

4

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Compulsory school performance in refugees ...... 41 Compulsory school performance in the children of refugee- and non-refugee immigrants ...... 42 Upper secondary dropout in refugee students ...... 43 Upper secondary dropout in non- refugee students ...... 44 Upper secondary education attainment ...... 45 Academic and vocational upper secondary education programs ...... 45 Higher education attainment ...... 46 Strengths and Limitations ...... 46 Concluding remarks ...... 48 6. References ...... 50

7. Appendix...... 55

5

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Acknowledgements

This report was written for the Nordic Research Council (NordForsk) project “Coming of Age in Exile” (CAGE). The authors would like to thank NordForsk for the opportunity to research this important topic. We are grateful for the comments on the first draft of this report by the members of the Swedish reference group of the CAGE project: Donya Azimi, Sara Thalberg, Åsa Heimer, Daniel Hed- lund, Monica Brendler-Lindqvist, Sofie Bäärnhielm, Magdalena Bjerneld and Ul- rika Jepson Wigg. We are similarly grateful to Lisa Berg, Karl Gauffin, and Sol Juárez for their contributions and feed- back on the report.

Andrea Dunlavy & Anders Hjern

6

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Executive Summary Similarities between countries The overall results showed that to vary- This report assesses educational out- ing degrees, the Nordic educational sys- comes among refugee children in the tems have not been as successful in fos- Nordic region. The comparative results tering the educational achievements of presented in this report were derived refugee students as they have been for from joint efforts to harmonize register majority population students. Average data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, grades from compulsory school were and Sweden. The primary study popula- lower among refugees compared to their tion consisted of refugee children who Nordic majority population counter- were granted residency in the Nordic re- parts. Inequalities in upper secondary gion as children (0-17 years) between educational attainment were also evi- 1986 and 2005, and were followed up dent in each of the Nordic countries. through 2015. Higher proportions of dropouts from up-

per secondary school were observed in Refugee children’s educational outcomes refugee children compared to their na- were assessed within and across the Nor- tive-born majority population counter- dic countries relative to: parts. Similarly, smaller proportions of

refugees who immigrated as children 1. their Nordic majority population completed upper secondary education by counterparts age 25 relative to their native-born ma- 2. the Nordic-born children of refugee- jority population peers. and non-refugee migrants

3. non-refugee migrant children Age matters

The educational outcomes analysed in- Refugee children who arrived at younger cluded: ages tended to have better school performance than those who arrived at older 1. average grades from the last year of ages. This is consistent with previous re- compulsory education search and could be attributed to a 2. dropouts from upper secondary edu- greater adaptability in younger ages in cation combination with the fact that younger 3. completion of upper secondary edu- children spend more time in the educa- cation tional system of the destination country. 4. type of upper secondary education Within each country, the children of ref- degree (academic or vocational) ugee and non-refugee migrants had 5. completion of higher education school performance outcomes that were similar to each other, and were also slightly higher than the performance of refugee children who arrived before school age.

7

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Country of origin matters In Finland, refugee children more often completed a vocational track in second- Refugee children’s educational outcomes ary education compared to the majority varied by country of origin. This is con- population, while the opposite was true sistent with previous research which has in the other three countries. The differ- highlighted the continued relevance of ence in the proportion of dropouts be- origin factors for children’s educational tween countries was much larger for the integration in the destination country, refugee populations than for the majority such as social and economic conditions populations. While the proportion of and educational experiences in origin. dropouts in all Nordic countries differed Five heterogeneous refugee groups that notably by country of origin, the magni- accounted for large proportions of the to- tude varied by residence context. For ex- tal refugee study population across the ample, refugees from Afghanistan, Iran, four Nordic countries were assessed, in- Iraq and Somalia dropped out between cluding Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia 50-140% more often in Denmark com- and former Yugoslavia. Yet the observed pared with Sweden. Again, this points to performance differences by origin the importance of pre-migration factors tended to be smaller in scale than those for educational integration in the desti- by age of arrival. nation context, but also suggest that there may be differences in how effective Differences between countries existing educational policies are in diminishing educational inequalities Refugee children and the children of ref- across the region. ugees in Sweden, the Nordic country with the most experience in receiving refugee Among those who completed an upper children, tended to have the smallest secondary education by age 25, the high- gaps in compulsory and secondary edu- est overall proportion of completed cational outcomes relative to the major- higher education by age 30 was observed ity population. Overall, Denmark and Fin- among refugees in Norway, and slightly land tended to have the poorest primary exceeded the proportion of completion and secondary educational outcomes, among their native-born majority popu- even when country of origin and age of lation counterparts. This gap in higher arrival were considered. educational attainment between refu- Although average grades from compul- gees and the native-born majority popu- sory school among refugees were the lations in Denmark and Sweden was highest in Sweden overall, the perfor- small to moderate, respectively, and larg- mance gap by age at arrival was also est in Finland. larger than that observed in Denmark and Norway, suggesting that Sweden has Policy Implications done a better job of integrating younger refugee children into compulsory educa- This report shows both similarities and tion than older refugee children. differences in several key educational outcomes between four Nordic countries.

8

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

In all countries, refugee children that ar- countries of origin. Educational experi- rived in late school age had lower educa- ences in origin, including interruptions in tional achievements than refugees who education and mental health issues that arrived before school age and the Nordic- can result from trauma, may be factors of born children of refugees. Thus, intro- particular concern here, for refugee chil- duction into the educational system dren as well as their parents. This points among refugees who arrive in late school to the importance of taking pre-migra- age should be of particular concern for tion factors into account when develop- educational policies for refugee children. ing education and integration policies for refugee children. In all four countries, the gap in secondary educational attainment between refu- Refugee children and the children of ref- gees and the native-born majority was of ugees in Sweden had better compulsory a much greater magnitude than the cor- and secondary education outcomes than responding achievement gaps in higher did their counterparts in the other Nor- education. Given this, and the importance dic countries. Further studies that take of completing secondary education for la- both pre- and post-migration factors into bour market integration, policies that fa- account are needed to clarify the extent cilitate secondary education attainment to which cross-country differences are among refugees should be given greater explained by variation in the composi- priority than those aimed at higher edu- tion of refugees received, by age at arri- cation. val, country of origin and parental educational levels, as well as country-specific Previous studies in other OECD countries education policies. Educational systems have shown that migrant children pursue and policies that facilitate secondary ed- vocational secondary education more of- ucational attainment via the provision of ten than native-origin populations. alternative educational opportunities for Among the Nordic countries, this was young adults may be of particular inter- only the case among refugee students in est for further research. Finland. In Norway, Sweden and Den- mark, the majority of refugee and non- Although the Nordic countries share refugee migrant students completed aca- many commonalities, their integration demic programs. This finding could have and education policies have increasingly implications for the educational counsel- diverged in recent years. The evalua- ling of refugee students, who may have tion of educational performance among greater academic ambitions than has young migrants who reside in different been shown in previous studies, which Nordic countries provides the oppor- have focused on non-refugee migrants. tunity to identify relevant areas for policy reform. Educational achievement has In all four Nordic countries, educational been shown to be a key determinant of achievements differed substantially social integration and health in native- among refugee children from different origin Nordic populations. Thus, the in-

9

EQUITY IN EDUCATION? equitable educational outcomes of refugees described in this report should be of major concern for policy makers. Future studies from this project will investigate specific pathways from education into the labour market among refugees and non-refugees to further inform integration policies.

10

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

1. Introduction

Modern society is becoming increasingly tury to the present, and discusses the im- globalized, with greater international portance of education for the successful communications, connections, and integration of refugee and migrant chil- movements than ever before. The Nordic dren. The report aims and primary re- countries are a part of this global demo- search questions are also presented. graphic transformation. The scale and nature of immigration into the Nordic region has changed over time, and varies 1.1 Migration in the Nordic region between countries, yet immigrants and their children comprise increasingly For much of the 20th century, labour mi- larger shares of the Nordic population. As gration was the dominant type of inter- this population has grown, so too has the national migration within the Nordic re- public debate surrounding the benefits gion. This labour migration was domi- and challenges of migration and integra- nated by movements between the Nordic tion for destination countries. countries up until the mid-twentieth century, but also included large numbers of The Nordic countries have a common his- labour migrants from other countries in tory and share many similar cultural and Europe. Migration trends began to shift social features, yet there are also im- in the 1970s, as refugee, asylum seeker portant refugee reception and education and family reunification migration be- policy differences between countries. came more common. Ongoing conflicts This report uses quantitative data from within different world regions have sus- four Nordic countries to compare educa- tained forced and family reunification tional outcomes among refugee children, migration to the present day. Increased in order to 1) assess for differences in ref- freedom of movement within the Euro- ugee children’s educational outcomes be- pean Union (EU) and Schengen Area tween the Nordic countries, and 2) iden- countries, as well as the eastern expan- tify inequalities in educational outcomes sion of the EU, have also substantially among refugee children relative to their contributed to increased migration to the native-origin majority counterparts, and Nordic region. Immigrants represent a to other children with migrant back- growing proportion of the Nordic popu- grounds. This knowledge can help to in- lation as a whole, currently comprising form potential educational policy re- 10% of the population in Denmark (1), forms, both within countries and across 7% in Finland (2), 14% in Norway (3), the Nordic region as a whole. and 23% in Sweden (4).

The introductory chapter of this report In conjunction with increasing global and provides a brief overview of Nordic mi- regional migration trends, the number of gration trends from the twentieth cen- refugee children and adults has also grown. Globally, approximately half

11

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

(51%) of all refugees are under the age of in the region. However, restrictions on 18 (5). Between 2012 and 2016, approx- immigrants’ rights to permanent resi- imately one-third of all asylum applica- dence were recently implemented, in re- tions in Denmark and Sweden and one- sponse to the record high number of asy- fourth of applications in Finland and Nor- lum applications that were received in way were filed for children under the age 2015 (9, 10). In contrast, until the 1960s of 18 (6). The number of asylum applica- and 1970s, Finland was a country of em- tions by unaccompanied minors has sim- igration, and consequently most immi- ilarly increased in all Nordic countries, grants arrived in Finland at later dates but this development has been most evi- relative to the other Nordic countries. dent in Sweden, where unaccompanied The scale of Finnish immigration has also minors now comprise the majority of been much smaller when compared to teenage immigrants (7). Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, and annual immigration has never culminated Throughout the last decade, immigration in more than 0.5 percent of the popula- has been the primary source of population in any given year (8). tion growth in Denmark, Finland, Nor- way, and Sweden (8), resulting in demo- Migration patterns in Denmark and Nor- graphic changes within these popula- way fall in between those of Sweden and tions. Foreign-born persons from diverse Finland. Increased migration of persons countries of origin, including those from from diverse world regions has initiated outside of the EU, as well as asylum seek- the demographic transformation of both ers and refugees, comprise increasingly countries from fairly homogenous to in- larger proportions of the total Nordic creasingly multicultural societies. Since population. Yet the timing, type, and scale 1990, annual rates of immigration in of immigration as well as immigrants’ Denmark have generally comprised over countries of origin differs by the specific one percent of the existent Danish popu- Nordic country context. Such differences lation, however in Norway, it was not un- are important to bear in mind, as they can til the mid-2000s that immigration flows have important implications for mi- reached a similar proportion (8). grants’ integration as well as the comparability of integration outcomes, including education, across countries. 1.2 The importance of education for integration Within the Nordic region, Sweden has the longest history of immigration, and refu- Integration is a multi-dimensional con- gee resettlement in particular, and as cept, but broadly refers to the extent to such stands out as the country with the which individuals participate in and con- highest rates of immigration. Refugee tribute to social, cultural, economic and and family reunification migration has political aspects of society (11). Integra- been the most common reason for mov- tion has been identified as an important ing to Sweden since the 1970s, and his- determinant of migrant health, quality of torically, Sweden has had the most gen- life, and life chances (12-15). While em- erous migration and integration policies ployment and labour market position are

12

EQUITY IN EDUCATION? often used as the primary indicators of can provide children with social support successful integration in adults, educa- and a sense of belonging or community tion is similarly utilized as a key indicator (23). Language skills, social norms, and of integration among migrant children as values are also communicated to chil- well as the children of migrants (16). dren within the school environment. School attendance likewise enables im- From a political standpoint, the social migrant children to physically inhabit an and economic integration of young mi- “ordinary” environment alongside their grants has been presented as a vital con- peers (24), which may be particularly im- tribution to the maintenance of sustaina- portant for the well-being of refugee chil- ble welfare states (6). Education is a core dren or children who have experienced component of the welfare state that facil- trauma. Relatedly, participation in itates societal participation via the provi- schooling also serves several latent func- sion of knowledge, skills and social inter- tions that can be particularly important action, as well as the prevention of unem- for immigrant children’s integration and ployment and social exclusion (17). Edu- well-being; for example, school attend- cational attainment level is widely recog- ance provides children with predictable nized as a key determinant of occupa- daily time structures, which in turn can tional class, income, and health (18, 19), increase their confidence (7). with higher educational achievements generally associated with better social The Nordic educational systems are and health outcomes. Early measures of based on similar principles of equal ac- human capital, such as school perfor- cess and rights to primary and lower sec- mance, are also essential in fostering ondary education (17). However, ine- knowledge and skills development and qualities in educational participation and promoting economic and labour market performance between immigrants and opportunities in adulthood (20). non-immigrants have previously been identified to varying degrees within the Although education is important for both Nordic region (6, 17), but also in several immigrant and non-immigrant children other high-income country contexts (18- alike, it also plays a central role in shap- 20). Educational inequalities do not refer ing immigrant children’s resettlement merely to differences in educational out- and integration transitions as well as comes between groups, but rather to their developmental trajectories from modifiable differences, which are also un- childhood to adulthood (17). Immigrant fair, unnecessary, and avoidable, and can children’s integration experiences are be reduced through intervention and pol- necessarily intertwined with their educa- icy reform (25). tional experiences, with schools serving as key institutions through which immi- Differences between the Nordic coun- grant children socially interact and par- tries in terms of their education policies, ticipate in the new society (21). Schools the structure and characteristics of their are crucial in fostering social participa- educational systems, and their general tion and interpersonal relationships dur- approaches to education (17, 26) may ing the resettlement process (22), and differentially impact the integration and

13

EQUITY IN EDUCATION? education of children with an immigrant 1.3 Aims and research questions background, and thus may contribute to some of the previously observed educa- In this report, we make use of high qual- tional inequalities. Yet immigrant chil- ity, longitudinal registry data from four dren also face a myriad of challenges that Nordic countries to address the limita- can impede educational performance tions of previous studies and provide an which their non-immigrant counterparts overview of educational outcomes do not, such as learning a new language among highly specified groups of mi- and adapting to a new school system. The grant-origin children, categorized by ref- age at which children migrate likewise ugee background, generational status, influences the child’s level of difficulty in country of origin, and age of arrival. The adapting to a new country or school sys- overall purpose of this report is to con- tem The age at which children migrate tribute to existing knowledge on educa- can similarly influence their level of diffi- tional outcomes among migrant-origin culty in adapting to a new country, as children in the Nordic region, and to help well their learning and educational per- inform education policies. An additional formance (27, 28). Refugee children in aim is to motivate future research, by particular may experience additional providing knowledge that can serve as a stressors, such as worry over their legal stepping-stone to inform more advanced residency status or experiences of research hypotheses and analyses. trauma, which can impair mental health The primary research questions of this or cognitive abilities and impede school report include: performance or attendance (29). 1) How do the educational outcomes of Despite the importance of education for young refugees compare to those of the integration and documented native-im- native-born majority populations and migrant inequalities in educational out- children with other immigrant back- comes, only a paucity of quantitative re- grounds in their Nordic country of resi- search has examined educational out- dence? comes among refugee children specifically (6). Much of the existing evidence is 2) Do the educational outcomes of young limited by 1) a lack of longitudinal infor- refugees vary by Nordic country of resi- mation on educational attainment and dence? performance, and 2) a lack of specificity, with most studies using broad compari- 3) Is there variation in the educational sons of immigrant and non-immigrant achievements of refugee children de- children that do not account for reason pending on the age at which they mi- for migration, country of origin, or par- grated? ents’ migration background. As such, lit- tle is known about the academic achievements of young refugees and the children of refugees.

14

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

A note on terminology

There is ongoing discussion within civil society and the research community as to what constitutes the most appropriate terminology to describe persons of foreign-origin, a large and heterogeneous population. As such, some clarifications need to be made from the outset regarding the terms used in this report to describe and categorize the different study population groups.

The terms foreign-origin, foreign-origin background, migrant-origin, migrant background, and migration background are broadly used in this report, and refer to both foreign-born persons and native-born persons with two foreign-born parents. The terms migrant, immigrant, and foreign-born are used to refer to persons who themselves have migrated internationally.

Immigrants are additionally classified according to their migration background characteristics, including refugee and non-refugee migration, country of origin and age at arrival. Refugees are defined as those persons who were forced to migrate due to fear of persecution or circumstances in their country of origin that threaten their safety and/or well-being; more specifically, in this report refugee children are defined as those who were born abroad and forced to migrate as refugees.

The terms children of (im)migrants and children with (im)migrant parents and Nordic-born children of im(migrants) are used specifically to describe children born in a Nordic country with two foreign-born parents. In addition, the terms native-origin and native-born majority population are used to refer to native-born persons with two native-born parents. Immigrant children whose parents migrated for different reasons or who were from two different countries of origin are not included in the study populations that are assessed in this report. Similarly, children born in a Nordic country with one foreign-born parent and one native- born majority population parent or with two foreign-born parents of differing countries of origin or reasons for migration were also excluded.

At the time of this writing, there is no international consensus regarding the most appropriate terminology to describe persons who have migrated or whose parents have migrated. However, glossaries are available in the scientific literature that provide suggestions for appropriate terminology related to ethnicity and race (30) and migration background (31).

15

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

those of native-origin students, and aver- 2. Background age scores of the children of migrants generally fall in between those of migrant students and native-born majority popu- This chapter provides a summary of pre- lation students (37). Performance gaps vious findings on educational outcomes between native- and foreign-born chil- among children and young adults with an dren in general also tend to be greater in immigrant background. A brief overview reading than in mathematics (37), with of Nordic educational policies and sys- Denmark, Finland, and Sweden included tems and additional determinants of ed- among the OECD countries with the larg- ucational outcomes that are relevant for est such literacy gaps. Average perfor- immigrant children in particular are also mance gaps in science between non-mi- provided. grants, migrants, and the children of migrants are also larger in the Nordic countries than the overall OECD performance 2.1 Educational outcomes in migrant- gaps between these groups (36). origin children Differences in educational participation Within the Nordic region as a whole, chil- have similarly been noted between na- dren’s educational performance out- tive- and migrant-origin children and comes have generally been quite good. young adults. A recent literature review Finland has consistently been shown to of education, employment, and health have among the best educational perfor- outcomes among young refugees in the mance outcomes within the Organization Nordic countries found that unaccompa- for Economic Cooperation and Develop- nied minors enrolled in education to a ment (OECD) countries, despite recent lesser degree than did accompanied mi- trends that have shown declines in aver- nors and non-migrants (6). Differences in age Program for International Student rates of early school leaving have also Assessment (PISA) scores (32). Data been reported, with age at arrival being a from 2015 showed that Norway (33) key factor implicated in the likelihood of Denmark (34) and Sweden (35) all dropout among migrant children and achieved average PISA scores that were youth (38). For instance, accompanied at or above the OECD average. Yet despite children who migrated at younger ages overall patterns demonstrating sound have higher educational attainment than school performance, migrant-origin chil- those who migrated as unaccompanied dren within the Nordic region tend to minors at older ages (39, 40). Migration have lower average PISA scores than do background has also been associated native-origin children (17, 36). This is with student’s choice of educational pro- consistent with existing evidence of edu- gram, with migrant students in OECD cational inequalities from other OECD countries showing a tendency to enrol countries, whereby migrant students’ av- more frequently in vocational rather erage PISA scores tend to be lower than than academic upper secondary education programs (37, 38).

16

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Educational performance among the na- parents to increase their understanding tive-born children of migrants generally of new school systems if they reside in tends to fall between that of the native- segregated areas and do not interact with origin majority population and those persons who have more experience with who migrated as children (38). Although school systems in the country of resi- native-born children of migrants may not dence. experience the resettlement and adaptation challenges as those of migrant children, some of the obstacles they may face 2.2 Educational systems in the Nordic are similar, such as experiences of dis- countries crimination or racism, identity conflicts, or intergenerational conflicts (41). Their The educational school systems in the parents’ reason for migration as well as Nordic countries are built upon a shared parental education level, social capital, principle of equal rights and access to ed- and socioeconomic status in the destina- ucation for all children (17). As such, they tion context also influence educational share many similarities in how education outcomes; for example, such parental is offered and organized, most notably in factors can influence the extent to which the provision of primary and lower sec- children have access to different types of ondary education. However, there are economic or social resources that may also important country differences in the promote educational performance. extent to which educational policies af- ford access to immigrant and refugee In addition, some native-born children of children. These similarities and differ- migrants may even face language chal- ences are briefly described below. Key lenges that are similar to those of newly features of the Nordic educational sys- arrived migrants. For example, migrant- tems that have particular relevance for origin children who reside and attend refugee and migrant children are out- school in segregated areas may be less lined in Table 1. For a more detailed over- likely to speak the language of the desti- view of education policies targeting im- nation country at home. The language migrant children in the Nordic region, spoken within the home is an important please refer to the CAGE Policy Report 2, determinant of the school performance Refugee and Immigrant Children’s Right for both migrant children and the native- to Education. born children of migrants; speaking the language of the destination country at Compulsory education, which comprises home has been associated with a 50% re- primary and lower secondary school, is duction in the PISA language score gap organized as a non-tracked comprehen- between students with native- and for- sive education that is provided for free to eign-born parents (38). Parent’s familiar- children between the ages of 6-16. All ity with the school system in the country children in Finland, Norway, and Sweden of residence also has implications for have the right to this education, regard- their children’s educational success (42); less of their migration background or le- for instance, it may be more difficult for gal status, whereas in Denmark, only children who are legal residents have the

17

EQUITY IN EDUCATION? right to compulsory education. All four vocational tracks are nonetheless enti- countries offer some additional services tled to such preparation (26). By con- at no cost to students during compulsory trast, vocational programs in Finland and education, such as free school meals, Sweden are primarily school based, alt- transportation, or health services, which hough workplace-based training options are provided to varying degrees by coun- are available. Another important distinc- try context (17). tion is that upper secondary education in Finland, Norway, and Sweden is inte- Finland and Sweden offer upper second- grated, whereby both academic and vo- ary education to children under the age cational tracks are organized within the of 18 regardless of their legal status. Nor- same system, and can help to facilitate way offers upper secondary education to the pursuit of higher education; in con- children under age 18 who have legal res- trast, the Danish upper secondary educa- idence or who have applied for a resi- tion system is not integrated, entailing dence permit, but does not extend this greater difficulty for students who may right to undocumented children. In Den- want to transition between program mark, asylum seeking children under the types. Finally, Sweden has an upper age age of 18 do not have the right to upper limit for upper secondary education, and secondary education (rather only com- students are required to pass compre- pulsory education), and undocumented hensive exams in key subjects in order to children have no specified rights to com- qualify for conventional upper secondary pulsory or upper secondary education. education. Such restrictions are not pre- Schools in Finland, Norway, and Sweden sent in the other countries. offer language training classes in the student’s mother tongue, whereas Denmark All four countries also have free school ensures this only for children from the choice in upper secondary education. EU/EEA, Greenland and the Faroe Is- This entails that students and parents are lands. not limited by geographic catchment area policies that determine where chil- Upon transition to upper secondary dren attend school. Proponents of free school, all students must choose to pur- school choice policies argue that such sue a general, theoretical education pro- policies create opportunities for children gram or a vocational program. Vocational from disadvantaged neighbourhoods to training is the most highly prioritized in access better schools outside of their Denmark, with students offered work- neighbourhoods, and by extension can place-based apprenticeships that can fa- also help to decrease ethnic segregation cilitate labour market entry. However, in schools. However, the extent to which this vocational training does not prepare free choice is accessible in practice varies students for higher education. Norway considerably between and within coun- also offers students workplace based vo- tries (17). cational training, which likewise does not necessarily prepare students for tertiary education, however students that pursue

18

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Table 1. Migrant children’s right to education and key characteristics of educational systems in the Nordic countries.

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Right to education Yes, limited to com- Yes, compulsory and Yes, compulsory and Yes, compulsory and as asylum seeker pulsory education upper secondary upper secondary upper secondary education education education1 Right to education No specified rights Yes, compulsory and Yes, compulsory Yes, compulsory and as undocumented to education upper secondary education upper secondary education education Right to language Yes, limited to chil- Yes Yes Yes training in mother dren from EU/EEA, tongue Greenland and the Faroe Islands Vocational pro- Yes, workplace Yes, primarily Yes, workplace Yes, primarily grams offered in up- based apprentice- school based; in- based apprentice- school based; in- per secondary ships offered; no cludes preparation ships offered; prep- cludes preparation school preparation for for tertiary aration for tertiary for tertiary tertiary education education education optional education Integrated upper No Yes Yes Yes secondary education Upper age limit for No No No Yes upper secondary education

For example, access to high-quality since the introduction of free school schools may be limited due to a larger de- choice policies (43, 44). mand for enrolment, and immigrant fam- There is also considerable variation be- ilies may lack the necessary resources or tween and within countries in terms of knowledge of school systems to make in- how immigrant and refugee children are formed choices, particularly recently ar- integrated into their new school systems. rived families. Research has also sug- Debate continues over different modes of gested that school choice has actually led school entry for newly arrived children, to an increase in school segregation. and whether inclusive (mainstreaming) Findings from the Danish and Swedish or separate (introductory or transition contexts in particular have shown in- classes) modes of entry are preferable. creased ethnic segregation in schools There is no systematic way in which immigrant children in the Nordic countries

1 Legislated right since 2013

19

EQUITY IN EDUCATION? are integrated into their new schools, having generous migration policies, with local authorities, such as municipal- whereas Denmark has been identified as ities, generally determining which meth- having more restrictive migration poli- ods are used in their districts (17). As cies (48). However, in response to the such, the educational integration efforts large number of asylum seeking immi- within the Nordic region are largely de- grants that arrived in Europe in 2015, centralized. there has been a quite radical departure from the historically more inclusive migration policy regimes in the Nordic 2.3 Additional educational determi- countries; for example, the Swedish gov- nants among migrant-origin children ernment in 2015 expressed an explicit aim to adjust the country’s migration pol- There are multiple determinants of edu- icy to the minimum standards of the cational outcomes among migrant-origin European Union. children in addition to education policies and school system structures. Although Prior research has demonstrated poorer not exhaustive, in the sections below, health and higher rates of depression several additional factors that are partic- among migrants residing in countries ularly relevant for the educational suc- with restrictive policies relative to those cess of migrant-origin children are out- in countries with inclusive policies (48, lined, including a description of how such 49). This suggests that migrant children factors may contribute to the formation living in restrictive contexts may face ad- of educational inequalities between na- ditional stressors, such as anti-immi- tive-origin and migrant-origin children. grant hostility (50), which could influence their well-being and educational performance. Migration policies also Migration policy context have implications for the welfare services available to refugee families and The Nordic countries share many social youth, and as such may indirectly influ- and cultural similarities, and are often ence educational outcomes and access to lauded for their generous social and wel- educational opportunities (50). Simi- fare policies. However, recent societal larly, restrictive policy contexts may in- and welfare state policy changes have re- crease difficulties for refugee and mi- sulted in growing social and economic in- grant parents to find employment and se- equalities within the region (45, 46). Po- cure the family’s socioeconomic position, litical divisions regarding the generosity which in turn could negatively impact of migration policies and welfare service children’s wellbeing and subsequent provisions to migrants have also grown, school performance. resulting in more restrictive migration policies (10) and migrants’ reduced access to welfare services and benefits (47). Despite this, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are still generally regarded as

20

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Pre-migration contexts and post-mi- The resettlement challenges faced by migration stressors grant children, including learning a new language, adapting to a new school envi- The increasing diversity of the foreign- ronment, and resettlement stressors born populations in the Nordic countries within the family, can strongly influence entails that the region is becoming more their overall well-being and their school culturally heterogeneous. The social and performance. Yet migrant children may economic conditions as well as cultural have widely different resettlement expe- traditions and norms that characterize riences based on their reasons for migra- migrants’ countries of origin are simi- tion (i.e., forced or voluntary migration). larly diverse, and as such, the education Refugee children in particular may be levels, financial resources, and social po- particularly vulnerable to difficulties in sitions of migrants also vary considera- school, and can face challenges that non- bly, particularly upon arrival in the desti- refugee migrant children do not. Trau- nation country. These factors in turn will matic experiences in the country of origin have an influence on the ease or difficulty (e.g., being forced to flee, experiences of of language, educational, and labour mar- violence, malnutrition) and poor mental ket integration in the destination context health symptoms as a result of such trau- for immigrants and their children. For ex- mas can negatively influence health (53) ample, research has shown associations and human capital (54). Mental health between parents’ level of education and problems in turn can negatively impact their children’s educational achieve- children’s learning and cognition abilities ments (51, 52), with highly educated par- (29, 55). Refugee children may also be ents tending to have highly educated chil- more likely to have experienced disrup- dren, and vice versa. As such, the educa- tions in their education in the country of tional attainment outcomes of migrant origin, which has implications for their children as well as the children of mi- continued education in the new country grants may be influenced by 1) their own of residence. educational experiences in the country of origin, 2) the education level of their parents, and 3) the extent to which their par- Age at migration ents are socially and economically integrated into the destination country. For The timing of children’s migration expe- instance, a child who migrates to a new riences has important implications for in- country in their mid-late teens or who tegration and education. Important life has had a sporadic or short schooling ex- events that occur at key developmental perience in origin will be more likely to stages or critical periods during the life- have poorer educational outcomes than a course can have a lasting influence on child who migrates at an early age or who health and life trajectories (56). Migra- has consistently attended school in the tion at older ages has been negatively as- country of origin. sociated with educational performance (27, 37) and labour market outcomes

21

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

(15, 27). Still, there is substantial variation between destination countries in the extent to which age at arrival impacts learning (37). For instance, the conse- quences of migration at older ages have been shown to be more severe for children who migrate from lower-income countries that are geographically distant from high-income destination countries (27), as these children often face greater integration challenges than children who migrate to countries that are less geographically distant or with similar macro-level socioeconomic conditions.

Age-specific differences in language acquisition, acculturation, and adaptation abilities, as well as the development of a sense of self and self-awareness have been put forth as some of the most important drivers behind associations between age at migration and educational success. In addition, children who migrate at later ages also miss out on the linguistic and cultural integration benefits of early education programs in the destination context, which can provide intensive instruction in second language literacy and numeracy (27). Learning a second language tends to be more difficult for older children, who also face greater educational curriculum demands in middle- and upper secondary school (37). Children who migrate before the age of five have been shown to have literacy scores that are on average 30 points higher than those who arrive between the ages of 11-16 (OECD), and those who migrate after age 15 have demonstrated a greater likelihood of dropping out of school (25% vs 14% among those arrived before 15) (38).

22

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

3. Methods The native-born majority population comprised residents of the Nordic countries born between 1969 and 1999 in This chapter describes the data and in- Denmark, Norway, and Sweden and be- clusion criteria for the study population tween 1971 and 1999 in Finland. The groups from Denmark, Finland, Norway year 1969 was chosen because this group and Sweden, including how these groups turned 17 years of age in 1986, which is were identified in each destination coun- the first year for which information was try. A brief description of the data coding available for the educational follow-up. and data analysis procedures utilized is The year 1999 was chosen since this also provided. group turned 16 years of age and received their first educational performance marker (compulsory school 3.1 Data and study populations grades) in 2015, which is the end of the educational follow-up period. The Finn- Refugee children aged 0-17 years who re- ish data differed from that of the other ceived residency in four Nordic countries countries in that the native-born major- between 1986 and 2005 were the main ity population was comprised of an age study population of interest. Population- and gender matched random sample of based register data from each country individuals (N=37 588), whereas the na- was used to identify and compare rele- tive-born majority populations in the vant educational outcomes from the four other countries comprised the total pop- countries. Aged matched native-born ulations that met the inclusion criteria. children with two native-born parents were used as the primary reference pop- Migrants who resettled after 2005 were ulation in each country; however, non- excluded to ensure that all migrants in- refugee migrant children and native- cluded in the study had a minimum of ten born children with refugee and non-refu- years of residence in the destination gee parents were also assessed as rele- country at the end of the follow-up pe- vant populations of comparison. Table 2 riod in 2015. To facilitate relevant com- below outlines the year of birth, year of parisons with migrants, the native-born migration, and age at migration criteria children of refugee- and non-refugee mi- used to define the study population grants included those born between groups.

23

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

1986 and 1999 (i.e., 1986 was the first Table 3 provides a brief description of year of the migration year inclusion cri- the migration background criteria used teria and 1999 was the last year of the to define the primary study population birth year inclusion criteria for migrant groups. In Denmark, Norway, and Swe- children). Children born in a Nordic den, refugee migrant children were iden- country with one foreign-born parent tified with register information on the and one native-born majority population reason for migration recorded in the in- parent or with two foreign-born parents dividuals’ residence permit. Due to data of differing countries of origin or reasons availability limitations, country of birth for migration were also excluded to min- was used as a proxy measure to identify imize additional heterogeneity within refugees in Finland, as well as in Den- this study population category. Individu- mark for those who migrated prior to als with recorded out-migration dates 1993 and in Norway for those who mi- were also excluded from relevant grated prior to 1990. analyses as appropriate.

24

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

As stated previously, refugee children are migration educational outcomes be- of primary interest in this report. Several tween groups). comparison population groups are utilized in order to gain a more nuanced understanding of the extent to which differ- 3.2 Data Analysis ences in educational outcomes may exist between refugees and the native-origin The results presented in this report con- majority population, as well as popula- sist of comparative descriptive statistics. tions with different migration back- Data managers in each Nordic country ground characteristics; we may expect were responsible for data acquisition, differences in educational outcomes data cleaning and coding, and calculation within the migrant-origin study popula- of proportional statistics for the study tions based on differences in their migra- populations in their country. The infor- tion background histories. mation from each country was then com- piled for comparative analysis. Differ- Given the diversity of refugee popula- ences in the availability of information tions by origin, both within and between between countries or differences in cod- the Nordic countries, analyses were also ing procedures are noted where relevant conducted specifically among refugee in the results section below. immigrant children by country of origin. In order to facilitate comparability of the refugee study populations across the Nordic destination countries, refugees from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and former Yugoslavia2 were compared, as these countries of origin account for a significant proportion of the total refugee study population. However, these origin countries differ from one another in term of social, economic, and health conditions, as measured by the human development index (HDI) (57). As such, the analyses by origin also allow for consid- eration of how pre-migration factors in origin may continue to influence educational outcomes post-migration (e.g., children from lower HDI countries may have lower educational attainment upon arrival than children from higher HDI countries, which may continue to influence the severity of differences in post-

2 Includes Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Yugoslavia, and Macedonia.

25

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

4. Results

This chapter provides a descriptive largest overall population size within the overview of the study population com- Nordic region, roughly double that of positional characteristics in each desti- Denmark, Finland, and Norway (58). The nation country, and a comparative anal- absolute number of refugee children and ysis of educational outcomes between the native-born children of refugees was different study populations across the similar in Denmark and Norway. Nordic region. Refugee children and the native-born children of refugees comprised 2.3% of Composition of study populations the study population in Denmark, 2.2% in Norway, and 6.0% in Sweden. Due to Figure 1 shows the absolute number of the utilization of an age and gender refugees and children of refugees in- matched random sample of the native- cluded in each Nordic country study pop- origin majority population in Finland, a ulation. The largest absolute number of comparable calculation of the proportion refugees and children of refugees was ob- of refugees and the children of refugees served in Sweden, which also has the was not possible.

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0 Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Refugee children Children of refugees

Figure 1. Refugee children and the children of refugees by Nordic country of residence.

26

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

The proportional representation of the Refugee children and the children of refugee-origin study populations (refu- refugee immigrants by country of gees and children of refugees) by these origin country of origin is shown in Figure 2b. Similar to patterns observed for the ab- Figure 2a below shows the absolute num- solute number of refugees and children ber of refugee children and the children of refugees, those from former Yugosla- of refugee immigrants from Afghanistan, via comprised the greatest proportion of Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and former Yugosla- the refugee-origin study populations in via that were included in the refugee Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, whereas study populations. Individuals from for- refugees from Somalia comprised the mer Yugoslavia comprised the largest largest refugee population group in Fin- refugee-origin group in terms of absolute land. A list of the top ten countries of numbers in Denmark, Norway and Swe- origin that comprise the refugee-origin den, while those from Somalia comprised study populations in each Nordic coun- the largest number in Finland. try, including origins not shown in Fig- ures 2a and 2b, are listed in the Appendix (Table 2).

45.000 40.000 35.000 30.000 25.000 20.000 15.000 10.000 5.000 0 Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia former Yugoslavia

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 2a. Country of origin among refugee children and the children of refugees born in the Nordic region.

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia Former Yugoslavia

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 2b. Proportion of refugee children and children of refugee study populations by country of origin (%).

27

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

with Nordic migration trends among Year of arrival among refugee chil- adults during this period, the largest ab- dren solute number of refugee migrant children resettled in Sweden, and the small- Refugee children’s year of arrival was est in Finland. Yet all countries saw an in- proxy measured using information on crease in the number of refugee children birth year and the year that residence in who arrived in the early to mid-1990s, the Nordic country was granted, rather due to armed conflicts that occurred in than the actual year of arrival, which was several world regions during this time. unavailable in our register data.3 Alt- hough in more recent years residency ap- The age distribution of refugee children plication processing times have in- who arrived in the Nordic region during creased, we assume that for persons who this time was fairly equal between coun- arrived prior to 2015, the date of arrival tries. For instance, in all countries, ap- occurred in the same or previous year as proximately 25-30% of the refugee chil- the year that the residence permit was dren who arrived during the period granted.4 1986-2005 were between the ages of 0-5 years of age. Table 3a in the Appendix Figure 3 shows the absolute number of shows the age of arrival of all refugee refugee children aged 0-17 years that ar- children who migrated during this pe- rived in the Nordic region annually dur- riod. ing the period 1986-2005. Consistent

20.000 18.000 16.000 14.000 12.000 10.000 8.000 6.000 4.000 2.000 0 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 3: Year of arrival among refugee children who migrated to the Nordic region, 1986-2005.

3 This method of defining arrival time with information on residence permits is commonly utilized in Nordic studies of migration that use register data. 4 Due to the large number of refugee arrivals in the Nordic countries in 2015, waiting times for asylum applications have drastically increased, whereby many refugees have been forced to wait several years for a final decision on their asylum application.

28

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

pulsory education in the refugee and chil- 4.1 Educational outcomes among mi- dren of refugees study populations. How- grant-origin children in the Nordic ever, Finland was excluded from this countries analysis due to a lack of comparable data on grades from compulsory school.6 The This report examines five key educa- results presented in the figures are strat- tional outcomes that represent im- ified by gender, given the commonly ob- portant educational milestones and char- served gender differences in grades, acteristics of an individual’s educational whereby girls tend to earn higher grades attainment trajectory, from school per- on average than boys (59). The average formance in compulsory school to higher grades of the native-born majority popu- education attainment. The report Appen- lations in all countries7 are denoted in dix presents this information in table for- the figures with a blue dashed line to fa- mat, and includes additional descriptive cilitate comparisons and assess for edu- statistics that are not presented in the fig- cational inequalities between this refer- ures, (e.g., gender stratified educational ence population and the migrant-origin outcomes in additional study popula- populations of interest. tions). Figure 4a shows average grades among refugee girls and boys by age of arrival. In School performance in compulsory all countries, average grades were higher education among girls than among boys, regardless of age at arrival. Average grades among Primary and lower secondary education refugee children were lower than the na- is compulsory in all of the Nordic coun- tive-born majority population across all tries included in this report and is gener- age of arrival categories; the lowest aver- ally completed around age 16. Figures age scores were observed among girls 4a-c below show the average school and boys who arrived between 15-17 grades5 earned upon completion of com- years of age, ranging from 23 to 30 among girls, and 19 to 25 among boys.

5 Individual grade point averages at the end of compulsory school were standardized and converted into average percentile ranked scores to enable cross-country comparisons. Students with missing information on grades were excluded from the analysis. 6 Compulsory school grades in Finland were only available for students who continued their education and attended non-compulsory, upper secondary school; 22% of students in the Finnish study population did not apply for upper secondary education. 7 Average grades among the native-origin majority populations in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were similar, ranging from 55.3-57.5 among girls and 46.3-47.5 among boys. For simplicity of presentation in the figures 4a, 4b, and 4c, these scores have been totalled and averaged across countries to create one overall average to represent the native-origin majority populations. Table 4a in the Appendix includes the native-origin students’ average grades in each Nordic country.

29

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

The gap in average grades between the higher average scores than those who ar- native-born majority population and ref- rived at older ages. The performance gap ugees was smallest in Sweden, among by age of arrival among refugees was refugee children who arrived before the largest in Sweden, and smallest in Nor- age of seven. Nonetheless, a gradient in way. Furthermore, the average grades of average grades by age of arrival was ob- refugee boys who arrived in Norway be- served in all countries, whereby refugee tween the ages 7-14 and 15-17 were sim- children who arrived at younger ages had ilar, and the corresponding difference among girls was modest.

GIRLS BOYS

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0 Refugees, arrived <7 Refugees, arrived 7- Refugees, arrived Refugees, arrived <7 Refugees, arrived 7- Refugees, arrived yrs. 14 yrs. 15-17 yrs. yrs. 14 yrs. 15-17 yrs.

Denmark Norway Sweden Denmark Norway Sweden

Figure 4a. Average grades among refugee children by age of arrival. 8

8 The average score among the native-origin majority populations across all countries was 56.6 for girls and 46.5 for boys, denoted in the figure above with a blue dashed line.

30

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Figure 4b shows average grades among boys from Somalia had the lowest. Com- refugee children from Afghanistan, Iran, parison of destination countries showed Iraq, Somalia, and former Yugoslavia. Av- the highest average scores in Sweden erage scores among refugee girls and across all countries of origin, with the ex- boys from all origin countries were lower ception of students from former Yugosla- than the average scores of their native- via, for whom average scores among both born majority population counterparts. girls and boys were similar across all However, although evident, performance three destination contexts (although differences by origin were smaller in slightly higher in Denmark and Norway). scale than those by age of arrival. Across Refugee students from the same coun- all destination countries, girls from Af- tries of origin had similar average grades ghanistan, Iran, and former Yugoslavia in Denmark and Norway. had the highest average scores, while

GIRLS BOYS 60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0 Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia former Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia former Yugoslavia Yugoslavia

Denmark Norway DenmarkSweden Norway Sweden Denmark Norway Sweden

Figure 4b. Average grades among refugees by country of origin.9

9 The average score among the native-origin majority populations across all countries was 56.6 for girls and 46.5 for boys, denoted in the figure above with a blue dashed line.

31

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Figure 4c shows average grades among the children of refugee and non-refugee the Nordic-born children of refugee- and immigrants were comparable to the av- non-refugee immigrants. Similar to the erage scores of refugees who arrived at findings described above, girls with im- ages six and younger. In Norway, average migrant parents had higher average scores among the children of immigrants scores than boys with immigrant parents fell in between those observed among the in all destination contexts. Also con- refugee and native majority students. Fi- sistent with the patterns noted above, the nally, despite variation in average grades children of refugees and non-refugee im- by Nordic country of residence, the aver- migrants in Sweden had average scores age scores among children of refugees that were the most similar to their na- and non-refugees were nearly equivalent tive-born majority population counter- within each Nordic country. parts. In Denmark, average scores among

GIRLS BOYS 60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0 Children of refugees Children of non-refugees Children of refugees Children of non-refugees

Denmark Norway Sweden Denmark Norway Sweden

Figure 4c. Average grades among the children of refugee- and non-refugee immigrants.10

10 The average score among the native-origin majority populations across all countries was 56.6 for girls and 46.5 for boys, denoted in the figure above with a blue dashed line.

32

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

students with different migration back- Upper secondary school drop-outs grounds in each Nordic context. In all countries, native-born majority popula- The proportion of students in each Nor- tion students had the lowest proportions dic country who started, but later of dropout, ranging from 8-15%. Cross- dropped out of upper secondary educa- country comparisons of dropout rates tion were examined. Assessment criteria among refugees showed a clear gradient from previous research was used to iden- by Nordic country of residence. For in- tify cases of dropout (26), whereby the stance, the proportion of refugee student student’s highest level of educational at- dropouts in Denmark was nearly twice as tainment was measured seven years af- high as the proportion of dropouts in ter the completion of compulsory school, Sweden (31% versus 17%); however, ad- or at age 25. Information on enrolment in ditional analyses from Denmark showed upper secondary education during all that dropouts from vocational programs years of follow-up was available in Den- were much higher than those from aca- mark, Finland, and Norway; however, in demic programs (51% vs. 22%, respec- Sweden, this information was only avail- tively). Proportions of dropout among able from 1995, and as such, the Swedish both refugee- and non-refugee migrants study populations for this analysis were were equivalent in Denmark and Nor- limited to persons who were born be- way, while in Sweden, the share of drop- tween 1979 and 1990.11 outs among non-refugee immigrants was slightly larger than among refugees. By Figure 5a displays the proportion of up- contrast, dropout among non-refugee per secondary school dropouts among students was lower than that observed among refugee students in Finland.

50 45 40 35

30 25 20 15

10

5 0 Native-born majority Refugee migrant children Non-refugee migrant children

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 5a: Proportion of upper secondary school dropouts in students with different migration backgrounds (%).

11 Supplementary analyses that limited the birth years of study populations in Denmark, Finland, and Norway to match those of the Swedish data were similar to the results found when using the entire relevant study populations.

33

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Upper secondary school dropouts were served among refugees from former Yu- similarly assessed among refugees by goslavia, with proportions of dropouts country of origin, with considerable vari- ranging from 17-22%. The lowest pro- ation by country of origin and country of portion of dropout was observed among residence (see Figure 5b). For example, Iranian refugees living in Sweden (12%); the proportion of dropouts in all coun- this was particularly pronounced among tries was highest among Somali refugees, women (8.5%, not shown in figure). Ta- but varied in magnitude by residence ble 5 in the Appendix provides gender context, with nearly half of Somali refu- stratified information on the proportion gees dropping out in Denmark and Fin- of students in each country who gradu- land, and just over 30% dropping out in ated, dropped out, or were still in second- Norway and Sweden. Conversely, less ary education by age 25 in each study variation by country of residence was ob- population group.

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia f. Yugoslavia

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 5b. Proportion of upper secondary school dropouts among refugees by country of origin (%).

study populations with a recorded enrol- Upper secondary school educational ment in upper secondary school; immi- attainment grant children may be more likely than non-immigrants to utilize non-tradi- Figure 6a below compares the proportional forms of education to complete tions of completed upper secondary edu- their training, as their schooling in origin cation or its equivalent across the study may have been interrupted by their mi- populations. However, unlike the assess- gration. All persons with a recorded In- ment of upper secondary school drop- ternational Standard Classification of Ed- outs, these analyses were not limited to ucation (ISCED) level 3 of education or

34

EQUITY IN EDUCATION? higher by the age of 25 were considered Finland (58%), and Norway (66%), while to have completed an upper secondary the vast majority (84%) did so in Swe- level of education. den. Children who arrived between the ages of 7 and 14 had somewhat lower The native-born majority study popula- completion proportions (5-10% lower tions in all Nordic countries had the high- across countries) than those who arrived est proportions of upper secondary before the age of seven; however, the gap school completion, ranging from 78- in completion was most severe when 89%. Approximately 60-65% of refugee comparing the native-origin majority children who arrived before the age of populations and refugee children who ar- seven completed an upper secondary ed- rived at 15-17 years of age. ucation by age 25 in Denmark (65%),

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Native-born majority Refugee children, Refugee children, Refugee children, arrive <7 yrs. arrive 7-14 yrs. arrive 15-17 yrs.

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 6a. Completed upper secondary education by age 25 among native- and refugee-origin youth (%).

35

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Comparisons of refugees by country of secondary education across all Nordic origin similarly showed variation in up- countries, although the proportion of per secondary education completion completion was higher in Sweden than in rates across the Nordic countries (see the other countries (56% versus 30-39%, Figure 6b). However, in all destination respectively). The majority of refugee contexts at least 50% of refugees from children from Iraq completed an upper Afghanistan, Iran, and former Yugoslavia secondary education in Sweden (71%), completed an upper secondary education whereas approximately half did so in by age 25. Refugee children from Somalia Denmark (46%), Finland (50%) and Nor- had the lowest proportion of completed way (47%).

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia f. Yugoslavia

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 6b. Completed upper secondary education by age 25 among refugee migrants by country of origin (%).

not be classified by their educational de- Academic and vocational upper sec- gree program. As such, the proportions ondary school educational programs for Sweden represented in the figures below do not account for all upper second- Students’ completion of an academic or ary school graduates in the Swedish vocational degree program was also as- study population. Tables 7a and 7b in the sessed among individuals who com- Appendix outlines the percentages of pleted an upper secondary education by missing (no information on track) in each age 25. However, information on stu- Swedish study population group; gender- dents’ educational degree programs was stratified information on the proportion not available in all years of follow-up in of students that completed vocational Sweden. Although we were able to assess and academic upper secondary educa- whether or not a student had graduated tion programs by age 25 in all countries by age 25, up to 10% of graduates could is also shown.

36

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Figures 7a-b below show the proportions native-origin, refugee, and non-refugee of upper secondary school graduates that students completing vocational degrees completed vocational and academic de- were fairly similar within each Nordic grees. Results from Denmark, Norway, country context. Similar percentages of and Sweden showed that nearly equiva- native-origin, refugee, and non-refugee lent or smaller proportions of refugees migrant students likewise completed ac- and non-refugees finished vocational ademic degrees in Denmark, Norway, programs relative to their native-born and Sweden, whereas in Finland, a lower majority counterparts. Refugees in Fin- percentage of refugee students com- land had the highest proportion of voca- pleted an academic degree relative to tional degrees overall (64%), but apart their native-origin and non-refugee mi- from this exception, the proportions of grant counterparts.

80 70 60

50

40

30 20

10

0 Native-born majority Refugee migrant children Non-refugee migrant children

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 7a. Proportion of upper secondary school graduates who completed vocational programs by age 25 among students with different migration backgrounds (%).

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Native-born majority Refugee migrant children Non-refugee migrant children

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 7b. Proportion of upper secondary school graduates who completed academic programs by age 25 among students with different migration backgrounds (%).

37

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Figures 7c-d show the proportions of vo- refugees from all origins in Finland, the cational and academic upper secondary lowest by refugees in Norway. In both education degrees earned among refu- Denmark and Norway, the majority of gees by country of origin in each Nordic refugee graduates from all countries of residence context. The largest propor- origin achieved academic degrees, rang- tion of vocational degrees was earned by ing from 58-87 percent.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia f. Yugoslavia

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 7c. Proportion of upper secondary school graduates who completed vocational degrees, among refugees by country of origin (%).

90

80 70 60

50

40

30 20

10 0 Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia f. Yugoslavia

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 7d. Proportion of upper secondary school graduates who completed academic degrees, among refugees by country of origin (%).

38

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Graduates from Iran had the highest pro- to meet this age criteria, these analyses portion of academic degrees overall, but were limited to persons born between proportions varied by country of resi- 1969 and 1985, which entails the exclu- dence; for example, approximately 83- sion of native-born children with immi- 87% of Iranian refugees in Denmark and grant parents (who were born between Norway earned an academic degree, 1986 and 1999). Non-refugee migrant compared to 47% in Finland. In Sweden, children were also excluded from this the proportions of academic and voca- analysis, given the risk of bias due to un- tional degrees earned also varied by stu- recorded out-migration in this group. dents’ country of origin, but showed less Approximately 50% of the native-born variation, with 37-54% of students earn- majority in Norway and one-third of the ing vocational and 40-66% earning aca- native born in Denmark (34%), Finland demic degrees. (29%), and Sweden (34%) completed a higher education by the age of 30. Similar Higher educational attainment to the findings on completed secondary education, the largest discrepancies in Figures 8a and 8b below show propor- higher educational attainment between tions of higher educational attainment the native-born majority and refugee im- among the native-born majority and ref- migrant groups were observed in Finland ugee study populations. All persons who (16% difference). However, the propor- had completed an upper secondary edu- tion of refugees who achieved a higher cation by the age of 25 and who had rec- education degree by the age of 30 was orded ISCED 6 or higher levels of educa- slightly higher relative to the native-born tion by the age of 30 were considered to majority in Norway. The gaps in higher have completed a higher education and education attainment between refugees included in the analyses. As such, in order and the majority population groups were similar in Denmark and Sweden. 60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Native-born majority Refugee migrant children

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 8a. Higher education attainment by age 30 among native-origin and migrant youth who completed secondary education by age 25 (%).

39

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Figure 8b displays the proportions of the exception of Finland, the proportion higher educational attainment among of Iranians with higher educational at- refugees by country of origin. Consistent tainment by age 30 was greater than pro- with overall patterns by destination con- portions observed among the native- text, Iranian refugees had amongst the origin majority population in each Nordic highest proportions of higher educa- context. Refugees from Somalia had the tional attainment by age 30, ranging from lowest proportion of higher education in 20% in Finland to 59% in Norway. With all Nordic countries.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia f. Yugoslavia Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Figure 8b. Higher education attainment by age 30 among refugees who completed secondary education by age 25 by country of origin (%).

40

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

5. Discussion integration transitions in general, could partially explain these findings. How- This report used register data from Den- ever, recent Swedish research has shown mark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden to that the native-refugee gap in compul- describe educational outcomes among sory school performance has been in- immigrants who were granted residency creasing since 2008; an increased ten- as children (0-17 years) during 1986- dency for refugee children to arrive at 2005. Educational outcomes among refu- older ages may contribute to the widen- gees were of primary interest, and were ing of this gap (60). assessed relative to their native-born Consistent with prior findings from other majority population counterparts as well high-income destination country con- as other groups with migrant back- texts (16, 27, 28, 37, 60, 61), refugee chil- grounds, within and across the Nordic dren who arrived at younger ages had countries. The sections below provide a higher average grades than those who ar- discussion of the overall findings by the rived at older ages. This age of arrival educational outcome and migrant-origin gradient in average grades was observed study population group of interest. among the refugee study populations in all assessed Nordic country contexts. It is unlikely that the observed age of arrival Compulsory school performance in gradient can be explained by composi- refugees tional differences between countries in the arrival age of refugee children, since Average grades from compulsory, lower the proportions of refugee children arriv- secondary school among refugee stu- ing at different ages was similar across all dents in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden Nordic countries. Rather, the confluence were lower than those of their native- of both migration-specific and post-mi- born majority population counterparts; gration factors likely contributes to these Finland was not included in this analysis. gradients. For instance, there may be dif- This pattern held in analyses of refugees ferences in the integration experiences that considered country of origin. between older and younger refugee chil- School performance gaps between refu- dren that could influence school perfor- gee- and native-origin majority popula- mance. Socialization processes within tion students were of a similar magni- the school environment and broader tude in the Danish and Norwegian con- community at large may be more chal- texts, while these performance gaps were lenging at older ages, and the need to smallest in Sweden, where refugee stu- start over again in a new country and to dents had the highest average grades. learn a new language may be particularly Sweden’s longer history of refugee mi- disruptive for older children’s social and gration and resettlement, which poten- emotional development (27, 62). Age-re- tially also entails smoother school lated differences in cognitive abilities (e.g., language learning ability) might

41

EQUITY IN EDUCATION? also be disrupted by migration at critical also been a critique of the physical sepa- developmental periods (e.g., in adoles- ration of such students, and that intro- cence) (27) and could contribute to some duction programs often entail fewer of the observed age of arrival disparities classroom hours and school subjects of- among refugee children. In addition, chil- ferings (67), which can hinder transition dren that arrive at younger ages spend out of such programs (68). Such school more time in the educational systems of environment factors may contribute to the new country of residence, entailing the larger relative performance gaps by greater opportunities for adaptation and age of arrival observed in Sweden. Yet necessary skills development. These chil- other factors which have been shown to dren may also benefit from early educa- influence school performance gaps be- tion programs, which have been shown tween refugee and non-refugee students, to improve educational outcomes in mi- including parental education level and grant children (37) and reduce perfor- socioeconomic status as well as school mance inequalities by socioeconomic sta- and neighbourhood factors (60) also tus (63). need to be investigated to determine the extent to which family and compositional Although average grades among refugees factors in the post-migration context con- were the highest in Sweden overall, the tribute to the observed inequalities in the performance gap by age at arrival was school performance of refugees by Nor- also larger than that observed in Den- dic country of residence. mark and Norway, suggesting better relative integration of younger (versus older) refugee children into the Swedish Compulsory school performance in educational system. The introduction the children of refugee- and programs offered to refugee students non-refugee immigrants upon arrival vary considerably both within and between the Nordic countries, The average grades of Nordic-born chil- given the decentralized responsibility for dren of refugees tended to fall between such programs to local authorities. How- those of refugee students and native- ever, while younger children are often born majority population students. Find- placed into regular classroom learning ings from other country contexts have environments upon arrival, there is a shown similar patterns of results (28, growing tendency for older refugee chil- 38), whereby school performance out- dren in Sweden to be placed in special comes among the children of migrants preparatory classes, separate from the are generally better than those of mi- rest of their student peers (64). Findings grants but not equal to those of native- on the implications of separate introduc- born majority population students. tions for newly arrived students in Swe- den have been mixed. While separate in- Contrary to our expectations, within each troductions may provide safe learning country, average grades were nearly environments with specialized social and identical for the children of refugees and pedagogical support (65, 66), there has the children of non-refugee immigrants.

42

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Importantly, this suggests that although Nordic countries included in this study. educational inequalities relative to the To various degrees, this suggests that native-origin persist, the Nordic educa- current educational policies in the Nordic tional systems have been able to foster region as a whole have not effectively ad- equitable educational performance out- dressed educational inequalities be- comes among the children of migrants in tween groups of refugee students. general, regardless of their parents’ mi- The proportions of dropout among refu- gration background (e.g., refugees vs. gees were highest in Denmark and Fin- non-refugees). Future research should land, and the lowest in Sweden. The dif- explore this finding further in order to ference in the proportion of dropouts be- identify educational policies or educa- tween native-origin majority and refugee tional systems, such as early education students was the smallest in Norway; programs, which may be key in promot- however, the proportion of native-origin ing educational equality in among the majority dropouts was also the highest. children of refugees and migrants. Inequality gaps between the native- origin and refugees were largest in Den- Upper secondary dropout in refugee mark and Finland. Cross-country differ- students ences in school systems could also play a large role in the observed differences in In all Nordic countries, a higher propor- refugee student dropout between the tion of dropouts was observed in refu- Nordic countries. One possibility for the gees than in the native-born majority higher rates of dropouts among refugees population, which supports previous in Denmark could be related to the prior- findings of higher rates of dropout itization of workplace-based vocational among students with a migrant back- training available to students; if formal ground (16, 69). Like other educational qualifications are not necessary for such outcomes, the likelihood of upper sec- positions, some students may opt to ondary education dropout is influenced dropout in favour of entering the labour by the cumulative effect of multiple fac- market earlier. For example, refugee stu- tors at several levels of influence. These dents may be more likely to dropout in include, but are not limited to, individual order to send remittances to friends or and family socioeconomic situation, family in the country of origin, which available resources in the country of res- have increased globally by over 50% in idence, as well as education-specific fac- the last decade (71). Conversely, stu- tors like previous educational experi- dents may also drop out due to difficul- ences in origin, sense of school belonging, ties finding an apprenticeship in relation and school system characteristics (70). to discriminatory hiring practices. In ad- The confluence of such factors may help dition, unlike the other countries, in Den- to explain the observed differences in mark vocational training and academic dropout among refugees by origin; for in- upper secondary programs are not inte- stance, the proportion of dropouts was grated, thus impairing transition to a dif- highest among Somali refugees, across all ferent form of secondary educational

43

EQUITY IN EDUCATION? training, which could also contribute to upper secondary education grades to the observed differences across coun- complete their education in Komvux ra- tries. ther than in conventional upper secondary school systems. This suggests that The lower rates of dropout observed in the delineations between conventional Sweden may be related to alternative upper secondary education and Komvux secondary education options that are in Sweden may be more fluid than those available to adults, namely Komvux found in the other Nordic countries, and ( ). Komvux is kommunal vuxenutbildning might help to explain the lower relative primarily intended for adults who have dropout proportion in Sweden. not yet completed a primary or secondary education, as well as those who did not achieve the necessary grades to pur- Upper secondary dropout in non- sue higher education. Sensitivity anal- refugee students yses showed that when Komvux degrees were not accounted for in the analysis, Dropout rates among non-refugee immi- dropout rates in Sweden were consider- grant children were similar to those ob- ably higher (approximately 20% in the served in refugees in Denmark and Nor- native-origin majority population and way, and slightly higher than rates 40% in refugees). This suggests that the among refugees in Sweden. In Finland, alternative secondary education options non-refugee immigrants had lower rates available in Sweden could be a key factor of dropout relative to refugees. Non-refu- in promoting further educational attain- gee immigrants are often a very hetero- ment among young adults in Sweden. geneous group, and may be quite differ- However, similar adult education pro- ent compositionally across the Nordic re- grams are also offered in Denmark, Nor- gion; as such, it is difficult to speculate as way, and Finland, and it is unclear why to why rates of dropout among this group Komvux could be a more relevant facili- differed in Finland. Furthermore, non- tator of upper secondary education refugee groups in Finland may composi- among young people in the Swedish con- tionally differ relative to Denmark, Nor- text. One potential explanation relates to way, and Sweden, which may provide a the structure of the educational system in partial explanation. For example, Finland Sweden, which has an upper age limit of has higher proportions of non-refugee 20 years of age for conventional upper migrants from the Baltic states and Rus- secondary education. This entails that sia than do the other Nordic countries, persons who experience interruptions in and these groups might experience fewer their education earlier in life may be educational integration difficulties than more likely to finish their secondary edu- non-refugees from other countries. cation at Komvux. In addition, there are circumstances in which persons under 20 years of age can attend Komvux education (72), and it is also fairly common for students who want to improve their

44

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Upper secondary education secondary educational attainment, and attainment the smallest achievement gap between the native-origin majority and refugees. Inequalities in educational attainment, Sweden’s longer relative history of immi- including upper secondary education gration and its larger relative migrant and higher education, were also ob- population overall, as well as the Komvux served between refugees and the native- adult education program described born majority populations in all Nordic above, may help to promote educational countries, confirming previous findings attainment among “non-traditional” stu- from other high-income country contexts dents, such as those with special needs or (16). The proportions of upper second- whose education was interrupted by ary education attainment in refugee chil- their migration experience. dren were fairly similar in Denmark, Fin- land, and Norway; however, the educational achievement gap between native- Academic and vocational upper origin majority and refugee students was secondary education programs largest in Finland, even when refugees’ age of arrival was considered. Finland’s Although previous research has shown relatively recent history of migration and that migrant students tend to pursue vo- smaller immigrant population may par- cational programs to a greater degree tially drive these findings. Countries like than native-origin students (38), our Finland that have more recently become findings largely deviated from this pat- countries of immigration may face tern; with the exception of refugees in greater difficulties in the integration of Finland, migrant students with both ref- migrant populations than countries ugee- and non-refugee backgrounds which have a longer history of immigra- completed vocational programs to a tion (73). In addition, migrant students, slightly lesser degree and academic pro- particularly those who have some previ- grams to a slightly higher degree than did ous knowledge of Germanic languages, their native-born majority counterparts. may find it easier to learn Danish, Norwe- Differences in the overall proportions of gian, and Swedish, due to common Ger- refugee and non-refugee students that manic roots, compared to Finnish, which completed academic and vocational has Uralic roots, and may be more diffi- tracks were minimal. However, refugee cult to learn as a second language. children from Iran had the highest pro- Differences in upper secondary school at- portions of academic programs and low- tainment by age of arrival were also ob- est proportions of vocational programs served in each country, with refugee chil- across all Nordic countries. Prior studies dren who arrived at older ages showing have pointed to the importance of mi- the lowest proportion of completion in grant parents’ expectations and hopes all countries, consistent with previous for their children as important determi- findings (27). Refugees in Sweden had nants of their children’s educational suc- the highest relative proportion of upper cess (74-77), which may encourage

45

EQUITY IN EDUCATION? young migrants to choose academic over who had also completed an upper sec- vocational training. In addition, parental ondary education by age 25 were ob- education may also play a role in migrant served among refugees in Norway, and student’s type of education (e.g., highly slightly exceeded proportions of comple- educated parents may be more likely to tion among the native-origin majority. encourage their children to pursue aca- However, inequalities in higher educa- demic educational programs). Variation tion attainment between the native-born between the Nordic countries in how vo- majority and refugees were observed in cational programs are offered to students all other countries, with the lowest pro- could likewise have influenced students’ portions of completion found among ref- choice of training program, such as Den- ugees in Finland. Taken together, these mark’s greater prioritization of voca- findings provide evidence of the persis- tional training relative to the other coun- tence of educational attainment inequali- tries (26). However, it should be noted ties among refugees in the Nordic region that the majority of both native- and mi- well into young adulthood. At the same grant-origin students completed aca- time however, the pattern of findings in demic programs over vocational ones. terms of the magnitude of inequality be- This is in line with general trends ob- tween the native-origin majority and ref- served in upper secondary education in ugees is of a smaller degree than that ob- Europe, whereby the majority of stu- served among educational outcomes ear- dents now tend to pursue academic lier in life. This pattern of findings sup- tracks in order to facilitate higher educa- ports prior evidence which has high- tional attainment. Given the long follow lighted the importance of early human up period covered by this report, changes capital and equity in early educational at- in student’s choice of educational pro- tainment outcomes (60). Likewise, fol- gram over time may not be reflected in lowing patterns observed in the attain- the results. In addition, the ways in which ment of academic upper secondary edu- programs are categorized as vocational cation, refugees from Iran had the high- or academic can change over time, which est proportions of higher education at- could also impact our findings. Finally, tainment by origin. many studies merely assess enrolment in academic or vocational educational programs, whereas in the current report we Strengths and Limitations have assessed program completion; this too may help to explain the divergence in This report provides a comparative over- findings from previous research. view of multiple educational outcomes among migrant-origin children in the Nordic region. The comparison of out- Higher educational attainment comes in highly specific groups of migrant-origin children in multiple country The highest proportions of higher educa- contexts represents a contribution to the tional attainment by age 30 among those existing knowledge base. The utilization

46

EQUITY IN EDUCATION? of longitudinal data also permitted an as- Due to our study population inclusion sessment of educational outcomes at dif- criteria and the resulting smaller sample ferent stages in the life course, helping to size of the children of refugee and non- inform which policies should be priori- refugee study populations, we were una- tized in order to decrease educational in- ble to make reliable comparisons of edu- equalities between groups. cational attainment outcomes among these groups at age 25 (including upper Despite the utilization of high quality, secondary school dropouts, upper sec- population-based register data in this re- ondary school completion, and upper port, our findings are tempered by sev- secondary educational program). How- eral limitations. First, we were unable to ever, the corresponding percentages of harmonize data across all countries for these outcomes are presented in the Ap- comparison of some educational out- pendix for completion purposes. This re- comes. This entailed the exclusion of Fin- port also excludes a specific analysis of land from the analysis of average grades educational outcomes among unaccom- in compulsory school. In addition, lack of panied refugee minors; although unac- comparable data in Sweden on students’ companied minors are included in our educational program choice in upper sec- refugee study population, they do not ondary school was not available for all comprise a discrete study population years of follow up, which could reduce group. However, a forthcoming report by the reliability of these findings. Relatedly, CAGE researchers will examine educa- a higher percentage of missing infor- tional outcomes in this group specifically. mation in some study populations, most notably among non-refugee immigrants, In addition, the study populations exam- who may have been more likely to mi- ined in this report are perhaps not en- grate, could likewise limit the reliability tirely reflective of the refugee and mi- of some estimates; however, as this grant-origin populations migrating to group was not our primary study popula- and residing in the Nordic region today. tion of interest, this limitation is minimal. All countries have experienced demo- Nonetheless, cross-country comparisons graphic changes in their refugee and mi- such as those included in this report are grant populations over time, as well as entirely dependent on the possibility of changes in the restrictiveness of their mi- having comparable information. As such, gration policies. It is also important to efforts to develop regional information keep in mind the potential influence of systems are needed, particularly in rela- migration patterns and differences be- tion to the migrant population. The de- tween countries when interpreting re- velopment of strategies to overcome data sults. Similarly, this report summarizes harmonization limitations is essential in information from several decades; as order to be able to identify the actual such, positive changes in educational needs of migrant populations and design outcomes may have been suppressed suitable policies to address such needs. (78), and an understanding of changes over time is missing. The descriptive na-

47

EQUITY IN EDUCATION? ture of this report also precludes an anal- as well as those pertaining to the settle- ysis of the role of additional factors that ment and integration of the children may contribute to the observed inequali- themselves and their families. ties in education, such family socioeco- Refugee children’s educational outcomes nomic status and educational character- tended to be the poorest in Denmark and istics of parents. Nonetheless, the report Finland. The greater number of re- provides an overview of educational out- strictions on asylum seeking children’s comes among refugee-origin populations rights to education in Denmark relative with earlier migration histories, who are to the other Nordic countries, such as the long-time residents and citizens of the right to compulsory education, could be Nordic region, and makes a useful contri- an important contributor here. The im- bution towards informing future policy and research. pact of such restrictive policies should be investigated further. Similarly, the poorer outcomes observed in Finland Concluding remarks could be related to the country’s relatively shorter history of migration, and Relative to their native-origin counter- less experience with integration in gen- parts, the report findings broadly suggest eral. However, some caution should be the presence of educational inequalities exercised when interpreting the Finnish among the approximately 200 000 refu- findings; compositional differences in gee children who came to the Nordic re- Finland’s migrant and refugee popula- gion during the period 1986-2005. These tion, as well as the relatively small size of educational inequalities were evident to this group, may drive some of the ob- varying degrees, depending on migration served differences. background characteristics and the des- In Norway, differences in educational tination context. outcomes between the migrant-origin Migrant-origin children in Sweden, with populations tended to be smaller than both refugee and non-refugee back- those in the other Nordic countries. The grounds, tended to show the best overall reasons behind this remain unclear, educational outcomes relative to their pointing to the need for further study. counterparts in the other Nordic coun- However, we may speculate that the tries. Sweden’s longer history of migra- strong socioeconomic context of Norway tion may entail an overall smoother inte- may have allowed for greater resource gration of migrant children into schools. distribution to address the educational At the same time however, large inequal- needs of migrant and refugee children in ities by age of arrival were observed general. However, with the exception of among refugees in Sweden; this should higher educational attainment, the per- be explored in future studies to identify sistence of educational inequalities be- relevant contributing factors, including tween refugees and the native-majority those related to the school environment points to the need for additional policy measures to improve educational equity.

48

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

The report findings also confirm previous research on patterns of educational performance by age of arrival, with better outcomes observed in children who migrate at younger ages (relative to older ages) and in the native-born children of migrants (relative to migrants). Within countries, similar educational outcomes were observed between the children of refugee- and non-refugee migrants. This points to the potential of educational policies as facilitators of equality, but also suggests that within the Nordic region, factors related to being a migrant or mi- nority may have a stronger bearing on the educational outcomes of native-born children than parents’ refugee experiences. The prevalence of educational inequalities in all countries, and the importance of education for refugee children’s health, well-being, and socioeconomic integration points to the need for increased attention to the educational needs of all children within national educational systems in the Nordic countries.

Future studies from CAGE researchers will investigate refugee children’s trajectories from school to labour market entry in young adulthood, in order to better un- derstand the development of socioeconomic and health inequalities in young refugees.

49

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

6. References 8. Heleniak T. From Migrants to Workers: International migration trends in the Nordic countries. Nordregion 1. Statistics Denmark. Population and Working Paper 2018:1. Available at: population projections. Available at: http://doi.org/10.30689/WP2018:1.14 https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner 03-2511. 2018. /befolkning-og-valg. 9. Government Offices of Sweden. Press 2. Statistics Finland. Population release: Proposal to temporarily restrict according to citizenship, country of the possibility of being granted a birth, language and origin 1990-2017. residence permit in Sweden 2016. Available at: Available at: http://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en http://www.government.se/press- /Maahanmuuttajat_ja_kotoutuminen/M releases/2016/05/proposal-to- aahanmuuttajat_ja_kotoutuminen__Maa temporarily-restrict-the-possibility-of- hanmuuttajat_ja_kotoutuminen/005_kai being-granted-a-residence-permit-in- kki.px/?rxid=281a91a1-7c70-4008- sweden/. a966-fc37a37de882 2018 [. 10. Sveriges Riksdag. Lag (2016:752) om 3. Statistics Norway. 14 percent of tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten population are immigrants. Available at: att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige 2016. https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/arti Available at: kler-og-publikasjoner/14-per-cent-of- https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokumen population-are-immigrants 2018 [. t-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattnings samling/lag-2016752-om-tillfalliga- 4. Statistics Sweden. Official statistics. begransningar-av_sfs-2016-752. Statistical Database. Available at: http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/p 11. United Nations. Programme of xweb/en/ssd/START__BE__BE0101/?rxi Action of the World Summit for Social d=2310ff83-0654-4658-8f50- Development. World Summit for Social 1989886a4dbe 2017 [. Development. Copenhagen: United Nations; 1995. 5. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Global trends: Forced dis- 12. Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I, placement in 2016. Geneva: United Na- Seeman TE. From social integration to tions High Commissioner for Refugees; health: Durkheim in the new 2017. millennium. Social Science & Medicine. 2000;51(6):843-57. 6. Borsch AS, de Montgomery CJ, Gauffin

K, Eide K, Heikkila E, Smith Jervelund S. 13. Gauffin K, Lyytinen E. Working for Health, education and employment integration: A comparative analysis of outcomes in young refugees in the policies impacting labour market access Nordic countries: A systematic review. among young refugees in the Nordic Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. countries. CAGE Policy Report 1; 2017. 2018:1403494818787099.

14. Valenta M, Bunar N. State Assisted 7. Eide K, Hjern A. Unaccompanied Integration: Refugee integration policies refugee children--Vulnerability and in Scandinavian welfare states: The agency. Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : Swedish and Norwegian experience. 1992). 2013;102(7):666-8.

50

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Journal of Refugee Studies. Norway. International Journal of 2010;23(4):463-83. Educational Development. 2015;41:245- 54. 15. Åslund O, Böhlmark A, Skans ON. Childhood and family experiences and 24. Pastoor LdW. Skolen – et sted å lære the social integration of young migrants. og et sted å være [The school- a place to Labour Economics. 2015;35:135-44. learn and a place to be]. In: Eide K, editor. Barn på flukt: Psykososialt arbeid 16. OECD. Immigrant students at school: med enslige mindreårige. Oslo: Easing the journey towards integration. Gyldendal Akademisk; 2012. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2015. 25. Krieger N. A glossary for social 17. Torslev MK, Roth Borsch AS. Refugee epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology and immigrant children's right to and Community Health. education: A comparative analysis of 2001;55(10):693-700. education policies targeting immigrant children in the Nordic countries. CAGE 26. Bäckman O, Jakobsen V, Lorentzen T, Policy Report 2; 2017. Österbacka E, Dahl E. Early school leaving in Scandinavia: Extent and 18. Graham H. Unequal lives: Health and labour market effects. Journal of socioeconomic inequalities. Berkshire: European Social Policy. 2015;25(3):253- Open University Press, McGraw Hill 69. Education; 2007. 27. Hermansen AS. Age at arrival and life 19. Lahelma E, Martikainen P, chances among childhood immigrants. Laaksonen M, Aittomaki A. Pathways Demography. 2017:1-29. between socioeconomic determinants of health. Journal of Epidemiology and 28. Chiswick BR, DebBurman N. Community Health. 2004;58(4):327-32. Educational attainment: Analysis by immigrant generation. Economics of 20. Cunha F, Heckman J. The technology Education Review. 2004;23(4):361-79. of skill formation. American Economic Review. 2007;97(2):31-47. 29. Kaplan I, Stolk Y, Valibhoy M, Tucker A, Baker J. Cognitive assessment of 21. Hek R. The experiences and needs of refugee children: Effects of trauma and refugee children and asylum seeking new language acquisition. Transcultural children in the UK: A literature review. Psychiatry. 2016;53(1):81-109. Nottingham: DFES Publications; 2005. 30. Bhopal R. Glossary of terms relating 22. Wade J, Mitchell F, Baylis G. to ethnicity and race: For reflection and Unaccompanied asylum seeking debate. Journal of Epidemiology and children. The response of social work Community Health. 2004;58(6):441-5. services. London: BAAF Adoption and Fostering; 2005. 31. Urquia ML, Gagnon AJ. Glossary: Migration and health. Journal of 23. Pastoor LdW. The mediational role Epidemiology and Community Health. of schools in supporting psychosocial 2011;65(5):467-72. transitions among unaccompanied young refugees upon resettlement in

51

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

32. OECD. Compare your country. PISA Journal of Public Health. 2018; 2015. Finland 2018. Available at: 28(5):891-97. http://www.compareyourcountry.org/p isa/country/FIN?lg=en. 42. Schnell P, Fibbi R, Crul M, Montero- Sieburth M. Family involvement and 33. OECD. Compare your country. PISA educational success of the children of 2015. Norway 2018. Available at: immigrants in Europe: Comparative http://www.compareyourcountry.org/p perspectives. Comparative Migration isa/country/NOR?lg=en. Studies. 2015;3(1):14.

34. OECD. Compare your country. PISA 43. Skolverket. Kartläggning av 2015. Denmark 2018. Available at: huvudmäns arbete med att motverka http://www.compareyourcountry.org/p skolsegregation2018; (DNR isa/country/DNK?lg=en. 2018:00332).

35. OECD. Compare your country. PISA 44. Nielsen RS, Andersen HT. Ethnic 2015. Sweden 2018. Available at: school segregation in Copenhagen: A http://www.compareyourcountry.org/p step in the right direction? Urban isa/country/SWE?lg=en. Studies.0(0):0042098019847625.

36. OECD. PISA 2015 Results: Excellence 45. Kananen J. Nordic paths from and Equity in Education. Paris: PISA, welfare to workfare: Danish, Swedish OECD Publishing; 2016. and Finnish labour market reforms in comparison. Local Economy. 2012;27(5- 37. OECD. Helping Immigrant Students 6):558-76. to Succeed at School-and Beyond. OECD; 2015. 46. OECD. Income inequality data update: Sweden (January 2015) 2015. 38. OECD/European Union. Indicators of Available at: Immigrant Integration 2015: Settling In. https://www.oecd.org/els Paris: OECD Publishing; 2015. /soc/OECD-Income-Inequality- Sweden.pdf. 39. Celikaksoy A, Wadensjö E. Unaccompanied minors and separated 47. Andersen JG. Restricting access to refugee children in Sweden: An outlook social protection for immigrants in the on demography, education and Danish welfare state. Benefits. employment. Report no. 8963. Bonn; 2007;15(3):257-69. Institute for the Study of Labor. 2015. 48. Malmusi D. Immigrants' health and 40. Eide K. Barn i bevegelse. Om health inequality by type of integration oppvekst og levekår for enslige policies in European countries. mindreårige flyktninger. Telemark: European Journal of Public Health. Høgskolen i Telemark. 2000. 2015;25(2):293-9.

41. Dunlavy AC, Juárez S, Rostila M. 49. Malmusi D, Palencia L, Ikram UZ, Employment status and risk of all-cause Kunst AE, Borrell C. Inequalities by mortality among native- and foreign- immigrant status in depressive origin persons in Sweden. European symptoms in Europe: The role of integration policy regimes. Social

52

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Psychiatry and Psychiatric Report 2015: Work for Human Epidemiology. 2017;52(4):391-8. Development. 2015.

50. Viruell-Fuentes EA, Miranda PY, 58. Nordic Council. Population 1 January Abdulrahim S. More than culture: by reporting country, citizenship, sex, Structural racism, intersectionality age and time. Available at: theory, and immigrant health. Social https://www.nordicstatistics.org/statist Science & Medicine. 2012;75(12):2099- ics/ (Accessed 2019-09-09). 106. 59. Statistics Sweden. Women and Men 51. Hill NE, Castellino DR, Lansford JE, in Sweden, 2018. Nowlin P, Dodge KA, Bates JE, et al. Parent academic involvement as related 60. Grönqvist H, Nikami S. The school to school behavior, achievement, and achievements of refugee children: aspirations: Demographic variations Lessons from Sweden. 2017. In: Nordic across adolescence. Child Development. Economic Policy Review: Labour Market 2004;75(5):1491-509. Integration in the Nordic Countries. Rosendahls, Denmark: Nordic Council of 52. Dickson M, Gregg P, Robinson H. Ministers; [p. 159-84]. Early, late, or never? When does parental education impact child 61. Böhlmark A. Age at immigration and outcomes? Economic Journal (London, school performance: A siblings analysis England). 2016;126:F184-F231. using Swedish register data. Labour Economics. 2008;15(6):1366-87. 53. Van den Berg GJ, Pinger PR, Schoch J. Instrumental variable estimation of the 62. Suarez-Orozco MM, Suarez-Orozco C. causal effect of hunger early in life on Children of immigration. Cambridge, health later in life. Economic Journal. MA: Harvard University Press; 2001. 2016;126(591):465-506. 63. Burger K. How does early childhood 54. Currie J, Stabile M. Mental health in care and education affect cognitive childhood and human capital. In: Gruber development? An international review J, editor. The problems of disadvantaged of the effects of early interventions for youth: An economic perspective. children from different social University of Chicago Press; 2009. p. backgrounds. Early Childhood Research 115-48. Quarterly. 2010;25(2):140-65.

55. Graham HR, Minhas RS, Paxton G. 64. Forte. Newly arrived child migrants Learning problems in children of and the Swedish arrival structure: refugee background: A systematic Interviews about the autumn of 2015 review. Pediatrics. 2016;137(6). and a literature review. 2016.

56. Kuh D, Ben-Shlomo Y, Lynch J, 65. Nilsson J, Axelsson M. “Welcome to Hallqvist J, Power C. Life course Sweden”: Newly arrived students’ epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology experiences of pedagogical and social and Community Health. 2003;57(10):778-83. classes. International Electronic Journal 57. United Nations Development ofprovision Elementary in ıntroductory Education. 2017(1):137and regular - Programme. Human Development 64, V 6.

53

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

66. Skowronski E. Skola med fördröjning. https://www.skolverket.se/regler-och- Nyanlända elevers sociala spelrum i ”en ansvar/ansvar-i-skolfragor/ratt-till- skola för alla”. Avhandling. Lunds komvux-pa-gymnasial-niva. universitet. 2013. 73. Levels M, Dronkers J, Kraaykamp G. 67. Nilsson J, Bunar N. Educational Immigrant children's educational responses to newly arrived students in achievement in Western countries: Sweden: Understanding the structure Origin, destination, and community and influence of post-migration ecology. effects on mathematical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Educational American Sociological Review. Research. 2016;60(4):399-416. 2008;73(5):835-53.

68. Bunar N. Nyanlända och lärande. En 74. Fuligni AJ. The academic forskningsöversikt om nyanlända elever i achievement of adolescents from den svenska skolan. Vetenskapsrådets immigrant families: The role of family rapportserie nr 6. Stockholm: background, attitudes, and behavior. Vetenskapsrådet. 2010. Child Development. 1997;68(2):351-63.

69. UNESCO. Global Education 75. Duong MT, Badaly D, Liu FF, Monitoring Report 2019: Migration, Schwartz D, McCarty CA. Generational Displacement and Education – Building differences in academic achievement Bridges, Not Walls. Paris, UNESCO. 2018. among immigrantyYouths: A meta- analytic review. Review of Educational 70. Lamb S, Rice S. Effective intervention Research. 2016;86(1):3-41. strategies for students at risk of early leaving. Discussion Paper. Centre for 76. Støren LA, Helland H. Ethnicity Post-compulsory Education and Lifelong differences in the completion rates of Learning, The University of Melbourne upper secondary education: How do the 2008. effects of gender and social background variables interplay? European 71. OECD. Development aid rises again Sociological Review. 2009;25(6). in 2016 but flows to poorest countries dip. Development Co-operation 77. Støren LA. Choice of study and Directorate (DCD-DAC), OECD. Accessed persistence in higher education by 2017-12-10 at: http://wwwoecdorg immigrant background, gender, and /dac/development-aid-rises-again-in- social background. NIFU STEP 2016-but-flows-to-poorest-countries- report;2009-43. 2009. diphtm. 2017. 78. de Montgomery CJ, Petersen JH, 72. Skolverket. Rätt till, behörighet och Jervelund SS. Diminishing social antagning för komvux på gymnasial nivå inequality between refugee children and [cited 2019 July 11]. Available at: their peers growing up in Denmark. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 2018:1-29.

54

7. Appendix

Table 1. Study populations in the Nordic countries*.

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden n Percent n Percent n Percent n Percent Native-born majority population 1 454 604 94,0 36 865 54,3 1 522 777 95,1 2 369 643 89,5 Refugee migrant children 29 427 1,9 9 495 14,0 29 410 1,8 113 549 4,3 Native-born children of refugees 6 695 0,4 4 446 6,6 5 718 0,4 44 949 1,7 Non-refugee migrant children 18 518 1,2 13 814 20,4 19 717 1,2 44 228 1,7 Native-born children of non-refugees 38 845 2,5 3 249 4,8 22 960 1,4 75 876 2,9 Total 1 548 089 100,0 67 870 100,0 1 600 582 100,0 2 648 245 100,0

*The native-born majority population in Finland is comprised of an age and gender matched random sample of the native-born majority population. As such, sample proportions are not comparable with the other Nordic countries, which utilized total population data.

Table 2. Country of origin among refugee children and parents' country of origin among the children of refugees.

Denmark n Percent Finland n Percent former Yugoslavia 8 426 23,3 Somalia 3 749 26,9 Iraq 7 027 19,5 former Yugoslavia 2715 19,5 Somalia 4 336 12,0 Iraq 2 044 14,7 Lebanon 4 113 11,4 Vietnam 1 799 12,9 Afghanistan 3 970 11,0 Iran 1 017 7,3 Iran 1 881 5,2 Afghanistan 611 4,4 Sri Lanka 1 434 4,0 Congo 249 1,8 Vietnam 1 400 3,9 Sudan 215 1,5 Syria 435 1,2 Ethiopia 201 1,4 Kuwait 321 0,9 Pakistan 149 1,1 Other refugees 2 779 7,7 Other refugees 1 192 8,6 Total 36 122 100,0 Total 13 941 100,0

Norway n Percent Sweden n Percent former Yugoslavia 8 533 24,3 former Yugoslavia 43 299 27,3 Iraq 5 438 15,5 Iraq 26 682 16,8 Somalia 4 222 12,0 Iran 15 385 9,7 Iran 2 963 8,4 Lebanon 8 578 5,4 Vietnam 2 197 6,3 Somalia 8 244 5,2 Afghanistan 1 994 5,7 Syria 5 730 3,6 Sri Lanka 1 725 4,9 Chile 5 690 3,6 Russia 872 2,5 Afghanistan 3 557 2,2 Ethiopia 679 1,9 Ethiopia 3 345 2,1 Turkey 598 1,7 Vietnam 3 028 1,9 Other refugees 5 907 16,8 Other refugees 34 960 22,1 Total 35 128 100,0 Total 158 498 100,0

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Table 3a. Age and year of arrival among refugee children.

Denmark Finland Age Age 0 to 5 6 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 17 Total 0 to 5 6 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 17 Total 1986 481 339 104 157 1081 1986 14 21 / / 37 1987 480 439 135 81 1135 1987 13 29 10 / 54 1988 286 344 137 90 857 1988 19 35 16 7 77 1989 440 435 153 115 1143 1989 32 70 28 18 148 1990 358 371 122 109 960 1990 104 153 57 33 347 1991 369 392 155 138 1054 1991 127 160 41 65 393 1992 353 443 195 183 1174 1992 189 215 61 55 520 1993 176 256 102 63 597 1993 465 584 172 108 1 329 1994 220 272 93 64 649 1994 149 232 90 64 535 1995 1242 2296 678 425 4641 1995 108 228 81 69 486 1996 617 1129 348 208 2302 1996 123 213 66 78 480 1997 366 566 164 113 1209 1997 125 296 111 79 611 1998 502 734 210 153 1599 1998 142 279 80 57 558 1999 428 670 186 138 1422 1999 149 225 86 55 515 2000 673 1033 321 192 2219 2000 133 204 87 76 500 2001 785 1345 474 287 2891 2001 148 390 172 112 822 2002 430 1092 367 217 2106 2002 78 286 131 97 592 2003 196 681 224 132 1233 2003 58 229 110 71 468 2004 53 475 158 99 785 2004 26 263 106 94 489 2005 / 216 88 66 370 2005 / 270 145 119 534 Total 8 455 13 528 4 414 3 030 29 427 Total 2 202 4 382 1 652 1 259 9 495

Norway Sweden Age Age 0 to 5 6 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 17 Total 0 to 5 6 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 17 Total 1986 40 52 12 37 141 1986 874 865 340 195 2 274 1987 299 205 54 88 646 1987 1 018 1 253 505 289 3 065 1988 335 285 71 49 740 1988 1 330 1 753 559 416 4 058 1989 304 327 90 87 808 1989 2 159 3 080 1 053 718 7 010 1990 409 525 208 162 1 304 1990 1 889 2 570 752 488 5 699 1991 413 535 189 145 1 282 1991 1 950 3 002 916 634 6 502 1992 523 694 193 149 1 559 1992 1 543 2 466 829 640 5 478 1993 908 1 185 444 291 2 828 1993 3 879 5 299 1 832 1 172 12 182 1994 424 635 214 128 1 401 1994 4 958 8 254 2 637 1 522 17 371 1995 323 432 162 115 1 032 1995 873 1 543 573 378 3 367 1996 237 287 121 83 728 1996 595 1 212 445 296 2 548 1997 289 377 171 114 951 1997 1 036 2 551 923 553 5 063 1998 342 481 189 160 1 172 1998 1 031 2 178 873 559 4 641 1999 853 1 106 439 316 2 714 1999 906 1 906 807 553 4 172 2000 535 792 325 291 1 943 2000 1 223 2 472 1 023 649 5 367 2001 384 838 315 292 1 829 2001 1 065 2 478 1 072 770 5 385 2002 563 1 433 535 420 2 951 2002 941 2 798 1 170 821 5 730 2003 298 1 091 428 334 2 151 2003 685 2 711 1 121 794 5 311 2004 146 973 322 302 1 743 2004 301 2 513 1 028 672 4 514 2005 / 903 345 239 1 487 2005 / 2 221 965 626 3 812 Total 7 625 13 156 4 827 3 802 29 410 Total 28 256 53 125 19 423 12 745 113 549

56

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Table 3b. Year of birth among the children of refugees.

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden 1986 9 1986 21 1986 / 1986 276 1987 18 1987 23 1987 / 1987 667 1988 18 1988 25 1988 4 1988 1 118 1989 35 1989 40 1989 4 1989 1 360 1990 49 1990 62 1990 77 1990 1 830 1991 134 1991 112 1991 227 1991 2 315 1992 262 1992 186 1992 356 1992 3 228 1993 546 1993 343 1993 512 1993 4 537 1994 704 1994 456 1994 618 1994 4 778 1995 839 1995 519 1995 722 1995 5 161 1996 887 1996 594 1996 702 1996 4 823 1997 1 022 1997 646 1997 739 1997 4 790 1998 968 1998 693 1998 772 1998 4 989 1999 1 204 1999 726 1999 984 1999 5 077 Total 6 695 Total 4 446 Total 5 718 Total 44 949

Table 4a. Average school marks in ninth grade among the study populations.

Average Proportion in Proportion in Denmark n Standardized score percentile score the highest 10 % the lowest 10 % Native-born majority population 653 314 50,7 0,0 9,7 9,1 female 320 673 55,3 0,2 12,3 6,3 male 332 641 46,3 -0,1 7,2 11,8 Refugees, arriving before age 7 8 105 37,9 -0,5 3,7 20,8 female 3 934 41,9 -0,3 5,0 16,7 male 4 171 34,2 -0,6 2,5 24,6 Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 7 378 29,0 -0,8 2,4 33,0 female 3 370 33,4 -0,6 3,6 27,2 male 4 008 25,3 -1,0 1,4 38,0 Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 428 21,9 -1,1 1,4 40,0 female 194 25,8 -0,9 1,5 29,9 male 234 18,6 -1,2 1,3 48,3 Non-refugee migrants 7 995 37,5 -0,5 5,3 22,4 female 3 998 40,9 -0,3 6,7 18,2 male 3 997 34,1 -0,6 4,0 26,5 Native-born children of refugees 6 091 39,1 -0,4 4,5 19,6 female 3 034 42,9 -0,3 5,5 15,9 male 3 057 35,4 -0,5 3,5 23,2 Native-born children of non-refugees 35 299 38,3 -0,4 4,8 21,7 female 17 331 42,3 -0,3 6,1 17,2 male 17 968 34,4 -0,6 3,4 26,1 Total 718 610 49,5 0,0 9,2 10,4 female 352 534 54,0 0,1 11,7 7,4 male 366 076 45,1 -0,2 6,8 13,2

57

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Average Proportion in Proportion in Norway n Standardized score percentile score the highest 10% the lowest 10 % Native-born majority population 684 386 52,2 0,0 10,3 9,2 female 337 878 57,1 0,2 13,1 6,8 male 346 508 47,5 -0,1 7,6 11,5 Refugees, arriving before age 7 8 417 37,0 -0,5 4,0 22,3 female 4 022 42,0 -0,3 5,2 17,2 male 4 395 32,3 -0,6 2,8 26,9 Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 9 308 28,9 -0,8 1,9 30,3 female 4 383 33,5 -0,6 2,5 24,0 male 4 925 24,8 -0,9 1,3 35,9 Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 1 929 27,5 -0,8 1,6 30,4 female 790 30,1 -0,7 1,7 26,7 male 1 139 25,7 -0,9 1,6 32,9 Non-refugee migrants 11 485 40,7 -0,4 6,0 19,0 female 5 698 45,5 -0,2 7,1 14,7 male 5 787 36,0 -0,5 4,9 23,2 Native-born children of refugees 4 389 43,5 -0,3 6,9 17,0 female 2 144 48,8 -0,1 9,3 13,2 male 2 245 38,4 -0,4 4,6 20,7 Native-born children of non-refugees 19 314 45,4 -0,2 7,5 15,5 female 9 387 51,0 0,0 9,6 11,1 male 9 927 40,2 -0,4 5,5 19,7 Total 739 228 51,3 0,0 10,0 10,0 female 364 302 56,2 0,2 12,7 7,4 male 374 926 46,5 -0,2 7,3 12,5

Average Proportion in Proportion in Sweden n Standardized score percentile score the highest 10% the lowest 10 % Native-born majority population 2 179 195 51,4 0,1 10,3 8,2 female 1 058 410 57,5 0,2 14,3 6,2 male 1 120 785 45,7 -0,1 6,6 10,0 Refugees, arriving before age 7 34 690 45,2 -0,2 6,0 12,8 female 16 765 50,1 0,0 8,3 10,3 male 17 925 40,6 -0,3 3,8 15,1 Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 54 368 36,4 -0,5 4,1 21,5 female 25 845 41,0 -0,3 5,7 18,0 male 28 523 32,3 -0,6 2,6 24,7 Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 6 283 25,1 -1,3 1,5 46,4 female 2 894 23,4 -1,3 1,8 45,3 male 3 389 21,2 -1,4 1,3 47,3 Non-refugee migrants 35 845 45,6 -0,2 9,1 16,0 female 17 260 50,3 -0,1 12,7 14,0 male 18 585 41,2 -0,3 5,8 18,0 Native-born children of refugees 42 893 48,9 0,0 7,5 10,7 female 21 131 53,9 0,1 10,1 8,6 male 21 762 44,1 -0,2 4,9 12,8 Native-born children of non-refugees 72 562 49,2 -0,1 8,8 12,0 female 35 439 54,1 0,1 11,7 10,1 male 37 123 44,6 -0,2 6,0 13,7 Total 2 425 836 50,7 0,0 10,0 8,9 female 1 177 744 56,6 0,2 13,8 6,9 male 1 248 092 45,1 -0,1 6,4 10,8

58

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Table 4b. Average school marks in ninth grade among refugee students by country of origin.

Average Proportion in Proportion in Denmark n Standardized score percentile score the highest 10 % the lowest 10 % Afghanistan 2 963 37,6 -0,5 3,4 20,6 female 1 366 41,7 -0,3 4,6 16,3 male 1 597 34,2 -0,6 2,4 24,2 Iran 672 34,7 -0,6 3,3 24,3 female 307 38,9 -0,4 4,2 18,2 male 365 31,1 -0,7 2,5 29,3 Iraq 4 071 29,9 -0,8 2,3 31,6 female 1 928 34,1 -0,6 3,2 24,8 male 2 143 26,1 -0,9 1,4 37,7 Somalia 1 696 23,9 -1,0 0,5 39,3 female 818 26,5 -0,9 0,9 34,7 male 878 21,5 -1,1 0,2 43,6 former Yugoslavia 3 612 38,1 -0,5 4,4 22,6 female 1 718 42,9 -0,3 6,3 17,6 male 1 894 33,8 -0,6 2,6 27,1 Total 13 014 33,4 -0,6 2,9 27,2 female 6 137 37,5 -0,5 4,1 21,9 male 6 877 29,8 -0,8 1,9 32,0

Average Proportion in Proportion in Norway n Standardized score percentile score the highest 10 % the lowest 10 % Afghanistan 1 614 34,7 -0,6 3,1 21,1 female 697 39,2 -0,4 4,6 17,4 male 917 31,3 -0,7 2,0 24,0 Iran 1 417 33,7 -0,6 3,5 25,0 female 642 36,9 -0,5 3,3 21,8 male 775 31,1 -0,7 3,7 27,6 Iraq 3 847 29,5 -0,7 2,3 30,1 female 1 746 34,2 -0,6 2,9 23,5 male 2 101 25,5 -0,9 1,8 35,7 Somalia 2 443 23,4 -0,9 0,7 37,9 female 1 165 29,0 -0,8 0,9 28,1 male 1 278 18,3 -1,1 0,5 46,8 former Yugoslavia 4 195 37,4 -0,5 4,1 22,4 female 2 017 42,7 -0,3 5,9 17,3 male 2 178 32,5 -0,6 2,4 27,0 Total 13 516 31,9 -0,7 2,8 27,5 female 6 267 36,8 -0,5 3,7 21,5 male 7 249 27,7 -0,8 2,0 32,7

Average Proportion in Proportion in Sweden n Standardized score percentile score the highest 10 % the lowest 10 % Afghanistan 2 573 40,3 -0,4 4,7 21,9 female 1 154 44,5 -0,3 6,2 19,6 male 1 419 36,9 -0,5 3,4 23,8 Iran 9 520 45,7 -0,2 7,9 12,8 female 4 229 50,7 0,0 10,5 10,3 male 5 291 41,6 -0,3 5,8 14,8 Iraq 17 655 35,1 -0,6 3,3 26,8 female 8 421 39,3 -0,5 4,6 23,2 male 9 234 31,3 -0,8 2,2 30,1 Somalia 3 636 27,2 -0,9 0,8 33,1 female 1 682 30,5 -0,8 1,3 30,8 male 1 954 24,4 -1,0 0,4 35,0 former Yugoslavia 12 696 33,1 -0,6 2,6 23,9 female 6 145 37,1 -0,5 3,7 20,2 male 6 551 29,3 -0,8 1,5 27,3 Total 46 080 36,4 -0,5 3,9 23,3 female 21 631 40,5 -0,4 5,3 20,2 male 34 449 32,8 -0,7 2,7 26,0

59

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Table 5a. Upper secondary education drop-outs among the study populations.

Still in secondary Did not start Denmark Graduated Drop-outs education secondary

n % n % n % n % Native-born majority population 714 081 83,6 93 358 10,9 47 216 5,5 123 838 12,7 female 348 724 84,9 41 458 10,1 20 690 5,0 54 745 11,8 male 365 357 82,3 51 900 11,7 26 526 6,0 69 093 13,5 Refugee migrants 8 724 58,0 4 636 30,8 1 694 11,3 4 537 23,2 female 4 274 64,7 1 697 25,7 636 9,6 1 975 23,0 male 4 450 52,7 2 939 34,8 1 058 12,5 2 562 23,3 Native-born children of refugees 67 58,8 26 22,8 21 18,4 15 11,6 female 44 68,8 7 10,9 13 20,3 8 11,1 male 23 46,0 19 38,0 8 16,0 7 12,3 Non-refugee migrants 5 296 58,4 2 753 30,3 1 022 11,3 4 569 33,5 female 2 841 63,1 1 187 26,4 471 10,5 2 343 34,2 male 2 455 53,7 1 566 34,3 551 12,1 2 226 32,7 Native-born children of non-refugees 6 202 67,3 2 280 24,8 730 7,9 942 9,3 female 3 260 74,2 830 18,9 303 6,9 362 7,6 male 2 942 61,1 1 450 30,1 427 8,9 580 10,7 Total 734 370 82,7 103 053 11,6 50 683 5,7 133 901 13,1 female 359 143 84,2 45 179 10,6 22 113 5,2 59 433 12,2 male 375 227 81,3 57 874 12,5 28 570 6,2 74 468 13,9

Still in secondary Did not start Finland Graduated Drop-outs education secondary

n % n % n % n % Native-born majority population 9 941 77,3 1 096 8,5 1 827 14,2 711 5,2 female 4 899 79,6 365 5,9 890 14,5 267 4,2 male 5 042 75,1 731 10,9 937 14,0 444 6,2 Refugee migrants 2 291 55,9 1 242 30,3 563 13,8 1 331 24,5 female 1 041 60,7 426 24,8 249 14,5 632 26,9 male 1 250 52,5 816 34,3 314 13,2 699 22,7 Native-born children of refugees 65 47,5 15 11,0 57 41,5 18 11,6 female 31 50,0 / 3,2 29 46,8 10 13,9 male 34 45,3 13 17,4 28 37,3 8 9,6 Non-refugee migrants 4 557 69,7 1 205 18,4 776 11,9 986 13,1 female 2 198 73,7 407 13,6 379 12,7 449 13,1 male 2 359 66,4 798 22,4 397 11,2 537 13,1 Native-born children of non-refugees 58 45,0 14 10,9 57 44,1 20 13,4 female 33 51,6 4 6,3 27 42,1 12 15,8 male 25 38,4 10 15,4 30 46,2 8 11,0 Total 16 912 71,2 3 572 15,0 3 280 13,8 3 066 11,4 female 8 202 74,7 1 204 11,0 1 574 14,3 1 370 11,1 male 8 710 68,2 2 368 18,5 1 706 13,3 1 696 11,7

60

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Still in secondary Did not start Norway Graduated Drop-outs education secondary

n % n % n % n % Native-born majority population 772 935 80,4 146 544 15,2 42 201 4,4 105 626 9,9 female 389 258 82,4 65 240 13,8 17 680 3,7 44 517 8,6 male 383 677 78,4 81 304 16,6 24 521 5,0 61 109 11,1 Refugee migrants 9 934 71,3 3 056 21,9 947 6,8 4 456 24,2 female 5 050 76,0 1 171 17,6 422 6,4 1 504 18,5 male 4 884 67,0 1 885 25,8 525 7,2 2 952 28,8 Native-born children of refugees 56 73,7 14 18,4 6 7,9 10 11,6 female 32 0,8 8 2,1 / 0,0 4 8,7 male 24 70,6 6 17,7 4 11,8 6 15,0 Non-refugee migrants 7 226 72,6 2 163 21,7 563 5,7 2 921 22,7 female 3 873 0,8 972 1,9 269 0,1 1 133 18,1 male 3 353 69,3 1 191 24,6 294 6,1 1 788 27,0 Native-born children of non-refugees 4 462 80,2 905 16,3 195 3,5 745 11,8 female 2 353 0,8 376 1,3 85 0,0 250 8,2 male 2 109 76,8 529 19,3 110 4,0 495 15,3 Total 794 613 80,2 152 682 15,4 43 912 4,4 113 758 10,3 female 400 566 0,8 67 767 1,4 18 458 0,0 47 408 8,9 male 394 047 78,1 84 915 16,8 25 454 5,1 6 635 11,6

Still in secondary Did not start Sweden Graduated Drop-outs education secondary

n % n % n % n % Native-born majority population 853 611 91,5 72 457 7,8 6 513 0,7 17 638 1,9 female 420 650 92,9 28 038 6,2 3 976 0,9 6 804 1,5 male 432 961 90,2 44 419 9,3 2 537 0,5 10 834 2,2 Refugee migrants 55 651 80,9 11 879 17,3 1 278 1,9 2 550 3,6 female 27 485 84,3 4 379 13,4 728 2,2 1 205 3,6 male 28 166 77,8 7 500 20,7 550 1,5 1345 3,6 Native-born children of refugees 4 472 87,9 562 11,1 51 1,0 166 3,2 female 2 301 90,5 217 8,5 23 1,0 76 2,9 male 2 171 85,4 345 13,6 26 1,0 90 3,4 Non-refugee migrants 16 515 78,5 4 218 20,0 319 1,5 1 960 8,5 female 8 219 81,4 1 699 16,8 175 1,7 958 8,7 male 8 296 75,7 2 519 23,0 144 1,3 1 002 8,4 Native-born children of non-refugees 23 256 88,0 2905 10,9 281 1,06 1 046 3,8 female 11 663 90,4 1 086 8,4 148 1,2 449 3,4 male 11 593 85,6 1 819 13,4 133 1,0 597 4,2 Total 953 505 90,5 92 021 8,7 8 442 0,8 23360 2,2 female 470 318 90,4 35 419 6,8 5 052 1,0 9 492 1,8 male 483 187 89,0 56 602 10,4 3 390 0,6 13868 2,5

Drop-out was measured seven years after graduation from compulsory school or at age 25 (if compulsory school information was unavailable) The percentage of persons who graduated, were drop-outs, and were still in secondary school totals to 100%, and percentages do not include those who did not start secondary education. The percentage of those who did not start secondary education refers to a percentage calculation that includes all categories of educational attainment in the table columns.

61

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Table 5b. Upper secondary education drop-outs among refugees by country of origin.

Still in secondary Did not start Denmark Graduated Drop-outs education secondary

n % n % n % n % Afghanistan 824 59,7 372 27,0 184 13,3 281 16,9 female 390 68,4 110 19,3 70 12,3 109 16,1 male 434 53,6 262 32,3 114 14,1 172 17,5 Iran 769 61,8 347 27,9 128 10,3 205 14,1 female 357 67,6 131 24,8 40 7,6 79 13,0 male 412 57,5 216 30,2 88 12,3 126 15,0 Iraq 1 198 50,5 866 36,5 307 12,9 819 25,7 female 591 57,6 318 31,0 117 11,4 339 24,8 male 607 45,1 548 40,7 190 14,1 480 26,3 Somalia 498 38,0 591 45,1 220 16,8 832 38,9 female 269 51,1 169 32,1 88 16,7 354 40,2 male 229 29,2 422 53,9 132 16,9 478 37,9 former Yugoslavia 2 774 71,1 829 21,3 296 7,6 466 10,7 female 1 429 76,9 320 17,2 109 5,9 222 10,7 male 1 345 65,9 509 24,9 187 9,2 244 10,7 Total 6 063 59,4 3 005 29,5 1 135 11,1 2 603 20,3 female 3 036 67,3 1 048 23,2 424 9,4 1 103 19,7 male 3 027 53,2 1 957 34,4 711 12,5 1 500 20,8

Still in secondary Did not start Finland Graduated Drop-outs education secondary

n % n % n % n % Afghanistan 136 60,4 42 18,7 47 20,9 33 12,8 female 71 68,3 13 12,5 20 19,2 13 11,1 male 65 53,7 29 24,0 27 22,3 20 14,2 Iran 196 57,7 94 27,7 50 14,6 59 14,8 female 88 63,3 31 22,3 20 14,4 21 13,1 male 108 53,7 63 31,4 30 14,9 38 15,9 Iraq 357 50,6 215 30,5 133 18,9 207 22,7 female 170 54,8 82 26,5 58 18,7 99 25,2 male 187 47,3 133 33,7 75 19,0 108 21,5 Somalia 415 41,6 472 47,3 110 11,1 552 35,6 female 166 46,6 141 39,6 49 13,8 271 43,2 male 249 38,9 331 51,6 61 9,5 281 30,5 former Yugoslavia 588 64,8 199 21,9 121 13,3 172 15,9 female 273 69,1 75 19,0 47 11,9 83 17,4 male 315 61,4 124 24,2 74 14,4 89 14,8 Total 1 692 53,3 1 022 32,2 461 14,5 1 023 24,4 female 768 58,9 342 26,2 194 14,9 487 27,2 male 924 49,4 680 36,3 267 14,3 536 22,3

62

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Still in secondary Did not start Norway Graduated Drop-outs education secondary

n % n % n % n % Afghanistan 451 68,1 160 24,2 51 7,7 185 21,8 female 191 74,0 44 17,1 23 8,9 47 15,4 male 260 64,4 116 28,7 28 6,9 138 25,5 Iran 1 263 73,7 344 20,1 106 6,2 347 16,8 female 615 76,7 134 16,7 53 6,6 121 13,1 male 648 71,1 210 23,1 53 5,8 226 19,9 Iraq 1 138 64,5 475 26,9 151 8,6 754 29,9 female 559 70,0 175 21,9 65 8,1 228 22,2 male 579 60,0 300 31,1 86 8,9 526 35,3 Somalia 759 56,1 406 30,0 187 13,8 731 35,1 female 379 61,0 158 25,4 84 13,5 243 28,1 male 380 52,0 248 33,9 103 14,1 488 40,0 former Yugoslavia 3 155 79,4 684 17,2 135 3,4 937 19,1 female 1 674 83,3 283 14,1 52 2,6 342 14,6 male 1 481 75,4 401 20,4 83 4,2 595 23,2 Total 6 766 71,5 2 069 21,9 630 6,7 2 954 23,8 female 3 418 76,1 794 17,7 277 6,2 981 17,9 male 3 348 67,3 1 275 25,6 353 7,1 1 973 15,4

Still in secondary Did not start Sweden Graduated Drop-outs education secondary

n % n % n % n % Afghanistan 1 451 82,8 261 14,9 40 2,3 36 2,0 female 626 85,2 84 11,4 25 3,4 16 2,1 male 825 81,1 177 17,4 15 1,5 20 1,9 Iran 6 232 87,1 829 11,6 93 1,3 161 2,2 female 2 973 90,3 279 8,5 42 1,3 80 2,4 male 3 259 84,4 550 14,3 51 1,3 81 2,1 Iraq 8 703 74,4 2 668 22,8 324 2,8 415 3,4 female 4 336 80,4 866 16,1 194 3,6 171 3,1 male 4 367 69,3 1 802 28,6 130 2,1 244 3,7 Somalia 1 928 64,3 945 31,5 125 4,2 489 14,0 female 887 66,3 387 28,9 64 4,8 230 14,7 male 1 041 62,7 558 33,6 61 3,7 259 13,5 former Yugoslavia 8 307 78,8 2 067 19,6 173 1,6 344 3,2 female 4 125 81,5 818 16,2 119 2,4 163 3,1 male 4 182 76,2 1 249 22,8 54 1,0 181 3,2 Total 26 621 78,0 6 770 19,8 755 2,2 1 445 4,1 female 12 947 81,8 2 434 15,4 444 2,8 660 4,0 male 13 674 74,6 4 336 23,7 311 1,7 785 4,1

Drop-out was measured seven years after graduation from compulsory school or at age 25 (if compulsory school information was unavailable) The percentage of persons who graduated, were drop-outs, and were still in secondary school totals to 100%, and percentages do not include those who did not start secondary education. The percentage of those who did not start secondary education refers to a percentage calculation that includes all categories of educational attainment in the table columns.

63

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Table 6a: Completed upper secondary education by age 25 among the study populations.

Denmark Secondary Education at Age 25 Completed Not completed Total n % n % n % Native-born majority population 762 186 77,9 216 318 22,1 978 504 100 female 374 046 80,3 91 574 19,7 465 620 100 male 388 140 75,7 124 744 24,3 512 884 100 Refugees, arriving before age 7 2 804 64,7 1 528 35,3 4 332 100 female 1 356 70,8 559 29,2 1 915 100 male 1 448 59,9 969 40,1 2 417 100 Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 5 796 53,8 4 986 46,2 10 782 100 female 2 880 60,8 1 854 39,2 4 734 100 male 2 916 48,2 3 132 51,8 6 048 100 Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 1 619 36,1 2 864 63,9 4 483 100 female 774 40,0 1 163 60,0 1 937 100 male 845 33,2 1 701 66,8 2 546 100 Native-born children of refugees 82 63,6 47 36,4 129 100 female 48 66,7 24 33,3 72 100 male 34 59,6 23 40,4 57 100 Non-refugee migrants 6 585 48,3 7 060 51,7 13 645 100 female 3 581 52,3 3 262 47,7 6 843 100 male 3 004 44,2 3 798 55,8 6 802 100 Native-born children of non-refugees 6 964 68,6 3 192 31,4 10 156 100 female 3 654 76,8 1 102 23,2 4 756 100 male 3 310 61,3 2 090 38,7 5 400 100 Total 786 036 76,9 235 995 23,1 1 022 031 100 female 386 339 79,5 99 538 20,5 485 877 100 male 399 697 74,5 136 457 25,5 536 154 100

Finland Secondary Education at Age 25 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Native-born majority population 11 579 85,3 1996 14,7 13 575 100 female 5 714 89,0 707 11,0 6 421 100 male 5 865 82,0 1 289 18,0 7 154 100 Refugees, arriving before age 7 647 58,3 462 41,7 1 109 100 female 299 59,7 202 40,3 501 100 male 348 57,2 260 42,8 608 100 Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 1 513 53,5 1 313 46,5 2 826 100 female 698 57,9 508 42,1 1 206 100 male 815 50,3 805 49,7 1 620 100 Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 542 36,3 950 63,7 1 492 100 female 236 36,8 405 63,2 641 100 male 306 36,0 545 64,0 851 100 Native-born children of refugees 112 72,3 43 27,7 155 100 female 54 75,0 18 25,0 72 100 male 58 69,9 25 30,1 83 100 Non-refugee migrants 5 158 68,6 2 366 31,4 7 524 100 female 2 497 72,7 936 27,3 3 433 100 male 2 661 65,0 1 430 35,0 4 091 100 Native-born children of non-refugees 105 70,5 44 29,5 149 100 female 56 73,7 20 26,3 76 100 male 49 67,1 24 32,9 73 100 Total 19 656 73,3 7 174 26,7 26 830 100 female 9 554 77,4 2 796 22,6 12 350 100 male 10 102 69,8 4 378 30,2 14 480 100

64

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Norway Secondary Education at Age 25 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Native-born majority population 838 869 78,6 228 437 21,4 1 067 306 100 female 418 290 81,0 98 405 19,1 516 695 100 male 420 579 76,4 130 032 23,6 550 611 100 Refugees, arriving before age 7 2 694 65,6 1412 34,4 4 106 100 female 1 400 72,3 537 27,7 1 937 100 male 1 294 59,7 875 40,3 2 169 100 Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 5 542 57,3 4131 42,7 9 673 100 female 2 865 64,7 1561 35,3 4 426 100 male 2 677 51,0 2570 49,0 5 247 100 Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 2 117 45,9 2497 54,1 4 614 100 female 936 52,5 848 47,5 1 784 100 male 1 181 41,7 1649 58,3 2 830 100 Native-born children of refugees 60 69,8 26 30,2 86 100 female 33 71,7 13 28,3 46 100 male 27 67,5 13 32,5 40 100 Non-refugee migrants 7 649 59,4 5 224 40,6 12 873 100 female 4 044 64,7 2203 35,3 6 247 100 male 3 605 54,4 3021 45,6 6 626 100 Native-born children of non-refugees 4 553 72,2 1 754 27,8 6 307 100 female 2 399 78,3 665 21,7 3 064 100 male 2 154 66,4 1089 33,6 3 243 100 Total 861 484 78,0 243 481 22,0 1 104 965 100 female 429 967 80,5 104 232 19,5 534 199 100 male 431 517 75,6 139 249 24,4 570 766 100

Sweden Secondary Education at Age 25 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Native-born majority population 1 475 188 88,9 185 138 11,2 1 660 326 100 female 723598 90,1 79 600 9,9 803 198 100 male 751 590 87,7 105 538 12,3 857 128 100 Refugees, arriving before age 7 17 669 83,7 3 434 16,3 21 103 100 female 8 624 85,8 1 429 14,2 10 053 100 male 9 045 81,9 2 005 18,1 11 050 100 Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 35 097 77,1 10 450 22,9 45 547 100 female 17 119 80,0 4 272 20,0 21 391 100 male 17 978 74,4 6 178 25,6 24 156 100 Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 13 042 68,6 5 961 31,4 19 003 100 female 6 088 70,6 2 532 29,4 8 620 100 male 6 954 67,0 3 429 33,0 10 383 100 Native-born children of refugees 4 422 84,2 829 15,8 5 251 100 female 2 268 86,6 351 13,4 2 619 100 male 2 154 81,8 478 18,2 2 632 100 Non-refugee migrants 20 707 65,8 10 761 34,2 31 468 100 female 10 211 66,9 5 062 33,1 15 273 100 male 10496 64,8 5699 35,2 16195 100 Native-born children of non-refugees 23 021 83,8 4 467 16,3 27 488 100 female 11 510 86,2 1 836 13,8 13 346 100 male 11 511 81,4 2 631 18,6 14 142 100 Total 1 589 146 87,8 221 040 12,2 1 810 186 100 female 779 418 89,1 95 082 10,9 874 500 100 male 809 728 86,5 125 958 13,5 935 686 100

65

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Table 6b: Completed upper secondary education by age 25 among refugees by country of origin.

Denmark Secondary Education at Age 25 Completed Not completed Total n % n % n % Afghanistan 990 59,6 672 40,4 1 662 100 female 474 69,7 206 30,3 680 100 male 516 52,5 466 47,5 982 100 Iran 897 61,9 552 38,1 1 449 100 female 416 68,5 191 31,5 607 100 male 481 57,1 361 42,9 842 100 Iraq 1 473 46,1 1 720 53,9 3 193 100 female 733 53,6 634 46,4 1 367 100 male 740 40,5 1 086 59,5 1 826 100 Somalia 631 29,5 1 511 70,5 2 142 100 female 337 38,3 544 61,7 881 100 male 294 23,3 967 76,7 1 261 100 former Yugoslavia 3 008 68,9 1 357 31,1 4 365 100 female 1 546 74,3 534 25,7 2 080 100 male 1 462 64,0 823 36,0 2 285 100 Total 6 999 54,6 5 812 45,4 12 811 100 female 3 506 62,4 2 109 37,6 5 615 100 male 3 493 48,5 3 703 51,5 7 196 100

Finland Secondary Education at Age 25 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Afghanistan 168 65,1 90 34,9 258 100 female 84 71,8 33 28,2 117 100 male 84 59,6 57 40,4 141 100 Iran 230 57,6 169 42,4 399 100 female 102 63,8 58 36,2 160 100 male 128 53,6 111 46,4 239 100 Iraq 457 50,1 455 49,9 912 100 female 216 52,8 193 47,2 409 100 male 241 47,9 262 52,1 503 100 Somalia 485 31,3 1 064 68,7 1 549 100 female 197 31,4 430 68,6 627 100 male 288 31,2 634 68,8 922 100 former Yugoslavia 684 63,3 396 36,7 1 080 100 female 314 65,7 164 34,3 478 100 male 370 61,5 232 38,5 602 100 Total 2 024 48,2 2 174 51,8 4 198 100 female 913 51,0 878 49,0 1791 100 male 1 111 46,2 1 296 53,8 2 407 100

66

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Norway Secondary Education at Age 25 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Afghanistan 460 54,3 387 45,7 847 100 female 195 63,9 110 36,1 305 100 male 265 48,9 277 51,1 542 100 Iran 1 328 64,5 732 35,5 2 060 100 female 645 69,9 278 30,1 923 100 male 683 60,1 454 39,9 1 137 100 Iraq 1 183 47,0 1 335 53,0 2 518 100 female 584 56,9 443 43,1 1 027 100 male 599 40,2 892 59,8 1 491 100 Somalia 806 38,7 1 277 61,3 2 083 100 female 391 45,3 473 54,8 864 100 male 415 34,0 804 66,0 1 219 100 former Yugoslavia 3 245 66,1 1 666 33,9 4 911 100 female 1 695 72,1 656 27,9 2 351 100 male 1 550 60,6 1 010 39,5 2 560 100 Total 7 022 56,5 5 397 43,5 12 419 100 female 3 510 64,2 1 960 35,8 5 470 100 male 3 512 50,5 3 437 49,5 6 949 100

Sweden Secondary Education at Age 25 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Afghanistan 1 500 80,2 370 19,8 1 870 100 female 633 81,3 146 18,7 779 100 male 867 79,5 224 20,5 1 091 100 Iran 8 383 83,8 1 625 16,2 10 008 100 female 3 816 86,4 600 13,6 4 416 100 male 4 567 81,7 1 025 18,3 5 592 100 Iraq 3 733 71,3 9 277 28,7 13 010 100 female 4 564 23,5 1 403 76,5 5 967 100 male 4 713 33,1 2 330 66,9 7 043 100 Somalia 1 875 55,8 2 371 44,2 4 246 100 female 1 037 44,2 820 55,8 1 857 100 male 1 334 44,2 1 055 55,8 2 389 100 former Yugoslavia 2 861 75,9 8 985 24,2 11 846 100 female 4 428 22,1 1 254 77,9 5 682 100 male 4 557 26,1 1 607 73,9 6 164 100 Total 30 516 74,5 10 464 25,5 40 980 100 female 14 478 77,4 4 223 22,6 18 701 100 male 16 038 72,0 6 241 28,0 22 279 100

67

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Table 7a. Completed upper secondary educational track by age 25 among the study populations.

Denmark Age 25 Academic track vocational track no info on track n % n % n % Native-born majority population 377 918 57,1 283 732 42,9 0 0,0 female 214 812 68,4 99 299 31,6 0 0,0 male 163 106 46,9 184 433 53,1 0 0,0 Refugee migrants 5 975 65,3 3 175 34,7 0 0,0 female 3 018 68,7 1 375 31,3 0 0,0 male 2 957 62,2 1 800 37,8 0 0,0 Native-born children of refugees 52 70,3 22 29,7 0 0,0 female 32 74,4 11 25,6 0 0,0 male 20 64,5 11 35,5 0 0,0 Non-refugee migrants 3 333 60,2 2 208 39,8 0 0,0 female 1 844 63,2 1 075 36,8 0 0,0 male 1 489 56,8 1 133 43,2 0 0,0 Native-born children of non-refugees 4 785 75,4 1 562 24,6 0 0,0 female 2 605 78,8 699 21,2 0 0,0 male 2 180 71,6 863 28,4 0 0,0 Total 392 063 57,4 290 699 42,6 0 0,0 female 222 311 68,5 102 459 31,5 0 0,0 male 169 752 47,4 188 240 52,6 0 0,0

Finland Age 25 Academic track vocational track no info on track n % n % n % Native-born majority population 6 169 55,5 4 943 44,5 0 0,0 female 3 622 65,3 1 926 34,7 0 0,0 male 2 547 28,1 3 017 33,3 0 0,0 Refugee migrants 807 35,6 1 460 64,4 0 0,0 female 414 38,7 655 61,3 0 0,0 male 393 32,8 805 67,2 0 0,0 Native-born children of refugees 68 67,3 33 32,7 0 0,0 female 35 71,4 14 28,6 0 0,0 male 33 63,5 19 36,5 0 0,0 Non-refugee migrants 2 315 52,4 2 102 47,6 0 0,0 female 1 315 59,4 897 40,6 0 0,0 male 1 000 45,4 1 205 54,6 0 0,0 Native-born children of non-refugees 70 74,5 24 25,5 0 0,0 female 40 78,4 11 21,6 0 0,0 male 30 69,8 13 30,2 0 0,0 Total 9 429 52,4 8 562 47,6 0 0,0 female 5 426 60,8 3 503 39,2 0 0,0 male 4 003 44,2 5 059 55,8 0 0,0

68

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Norway Age 25 Academic track vocational track no info on track n % n % n % Native-born majority population 691 498 70,9 283 661 29,1 0 0,0 female 399 591 81,2 92 342 18,8 0 0,0 male 291 907 60,4 191 319 39,6 0 0,0 Refugee migrants 10 228 73,3 3 719 26,7 0 0,0 female 5 377 74,1 1 875 25,9 0 0,0 male 4 851 72,5 1 844 27,5 0 0,0 Native-born children of refugees 1 750 89,1 213 10,9 0 0,0 female 964 89,6 112 10,4 0 0,0 male 786 88,6 101 11,4 0 0,0 Non-refugee migrants 7 305 74,1 2 558 25,9 0 0,0 female 4 093 77,3 1 200 22,7 0 0,0 male 3 212 70,3 1 358 29,7 0 0,0 Native-born children of non-refugees 9 488 85,5 1 611 14,5 0 0,0 female 5 164 86,7 791 13,3 0 0,0 male 4 324 84,1 820 15,9 0 0,0 Total 720 269 71,2 291 762 28,8 0 0,0 female 415 189 81,2 96 320 18,8 0 0,0 male 305 080 61,0 195 442 39,0 0 0,0

Sweden Age 25 Academic track vocational track no info on track n % n % n % Native-born majority population 693 935 49,1 661 705 46,8 58 207 4,1 female 354 853 51,3 305 467 44,2 30 814 4,5 male 339 082 46,9 356 238 49,3 27 393 3,8 Refugee migrants 30 046 51,1 24 102 41,0 4 638 7,9 female 15 918 55,4 10 743 37,4 2 065 7,2 male 14 128 47,0 13 359 44,4 2 573 8,6 Native-born children of refugees 2 668 60,8 1 540 35,1 182 4,2 female 1 455 64,2 705 31,1 105 4,6 male 1 213 57,1 835 39,3 77 3,6 Non-refugee migrants 10 876 55,7 7 510 38,5 1 141 5,8 female 5 707 58,9 3 469 35,8 514 5,3 male 5 169 52,6 4 041 41,1 627 6,4 Native-born children of non-refugees 13 969 61,3 7 799 34,2 1 008 4,4 female 7 503 65,9 3 401 29,9 477 4,2 male 6 466 56,7 4 398 38,6 531 4,7 Total 751 494 49,5 702 656 46,3 65 176 4,3 female 385 436 51,9 323 785 43,6 33 975 4,6 male 366 058 47,2 378 871 48,8 31 201 4,0

69

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Table 7b. Completed upper secondary educational track by age 25 among refugees by country of origin.

Denmark Age 25 Academic track vocational track no info on track n % n % n % Afghanistan 668 76,2 209 23,8 0 0,0 female 305 73,3 111 26,7 0 0,0 male 363 78,7 98 21,3 0 0,0 Iran 685 82,5 145 17,5 0 0,0 female 318 84,8 57 15,2 0 0,0 male 367 80,7 88 19,3 0 0,0 Iraq 864 66,5 435 33,5 0 0,0 female 438 69,1 196 30,9 0 0,0 male 426 64,1 239 35,9 0 0,0 Somalia 329 58,0 238 42,0 0 0,0 female 152 49,7 154 50,3 0 0,0 male 177 67,8 84 32,2 0 0,0 former Yugoslavia 1 601 58,3 1 146 41,7 0 0,0 female 898 65,0 483 35,0 0 0,0 male 703 51,5 663 48,5 0 0,0 All 4 147 65,6 2 173 34,4 0 0,0 female 2 111 67,8 1 001 32,2 0 0,0 male 2 036 63,5 1 172 36,5 0 0,0

Finland Age 25 Academic track vocational track no info on track n % n % n % Afghanistan 60 40,0 90 60,0 0 0,0 female 23 31,5 50 68,5 0 0,0 male 37 48,1 40 51,9 0 0,0 Iran 97 47,1 109 52,9 0 0,0 female 50 54,3 42 45,7 0 0,0 male 47 41,2 67 58,8 0 0,0 Iraq 117 28,4 295 71,6 0 0,0 female 69 34,5 131 65,5 0 0,0 male 48 22,6 164 77,4 0 0,0 Somalia 137 38,8 216 61,2 0 0,0 female 65 38,2 105 61,8 0 0,0 male 72 39,3 111 60,7 0 0,0 former Yugoslavia 160 27,6 419 72,4 0 0,0 female 80 30,4 183 69,6 0 0,0 male 80 25,3 236 74,7 0 0,0 All 571 33,6 1 129 66,4 0 0,0 female 287 36,0 511 64,0 0 0,0 male 284 31,5 618 68,5 0 0,0

70

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Norway Age 25 Academic track Vocational track no info on track n % n % n % Afghanistan 660 76,4 204 23,6 0 0,0 female 317 77,7 91 22,3 0 0,0 male 343 75,2 113 24,8 0 0,0 Iran 1 262 86,7 193 13,3 0 0,0 female 644 89,1 79 10,9 0 0,0 male 618 84,4 114 15,6 0 0,0 Iraq 1 462 71,3 588 28,7 0 0,0 female 760 72,0 296 28,0 0 0,0 male 702 70,6 292 29,4 0 0,0 Somalia 859 72,0 334 28,0 0 0,0 female 436 67,4 211 32,6 0 0,0 male 423 77,5 123 22,5 0 0,0 former Yugoslavia 2 821 70,5 1 183 29,5 0 0,0 female 1 549 73,5 559 26,5 0 0,0 male 1 272 67,1 624 32,9 0 0,0 All 7 064 73,8 2 502 26,2 0 0,0 female 3 706 75,0 1 236 25,0 0 0,0 male 3 358 72,6 1 266 27,4 0 0,0

Sweden Age 25 Academic track vocational track no info on track n % n % n % Afghanistan 708 54,3 477 36,6 120 9,2 female 313 55,8 197 35,1 51 9,1 male 395 53,1 280 37,6 69 9,3 Iran 5 050 66,4 2 088 27,5 465 6,1 female 2 491 71,0 818 23,3 199 5,7 male 2 559 62,5 1 270 31,0 266 6,5 Iraq 3 793 47,2 2 972 37,0 1 279 15,9 female 2 055 51,7 1 347 33,9 575 14,5 male 1 738 42,7 1 625 40,0 704 17,3 Somalia 786 41,1 893 46,7 234 12,2 female 357 42,8 383 45,9 95 11,4 male 429 39,8 510 47,3 139 12,9 former Yugoslavia 3 236 39,5 4 442 54,2 520 6,3 female 1 772 43,4 2 064 50,6 246 6,0 male 1 464 35,6 2 378 57,8 274 6,7 All 13 573 50,2 10 872 40,2 2 618 9,7 female 6 988 53,9 4 809 37,1 1 166 9,0 male 6 585 46,7 6 063 43,0 1 452 10,3

71

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Table 8a: Completed higher education at age 30, among the study populations with completed upper secondary education by age 25.

Denmark Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not completed Total n % n % n % Native-born majority population 196 262 33,8 385 168 66,2 581 430 100 female 117 814 41,5 166 208 58,5 284 022 100 male 78 448 26,4 218 960 73,6 297 408 100 Refugee migrants 1 646 32,3 3 445 67,7 5 091 100 female 918 37,8 1 508 62,2 2 426 100 male 728 27,3 1 937 72,7 2 665 100 Non-refugee migrants 1 010 26,7 2 776 73,3 3 786 100 female 627 30,1 1 457 69,9 2 084 100 male 383 22,5 1 319 77,5 1 702 100 Total 198 918 33,7 391 389 66,3 590 307 100 female 119 359 41,4 169 173 58,6 288 532 100 male 79 559 26,4 222 216 73,6 301 775 100

Finland Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Native-born majority population 1 680 28,9 4 134 71,1 5 814 100 female 936 34,8 1 754 65,2 2 690 100 male 744 23,8 2 380 76,2 3 124 100 Refugee migrants 179 12,5 1 248 87,5 1 427 100 female 81 12,7 558 87,3 639 100 male 98 12,4 690 87,6 788 100 Non-refugee migrants 664 22,6 2 279 77,4 2 943 100 female 393 28,1 1 004 71,9 1 397 100 male 271 17,5 1 275 82,5 1 546 100 Total 2 523 24,8 7 661 75,2 10 184 100 female 1 410 29,8 3 316 70,2 4 726 100 male 1 113 20,4 4 345 79,6 5 458 100

Norway Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Native-born majority population 326 616 50,0 326 387 50,0 653 003 100 female 190 246 58,6 134 652 41,4 324 898 100 male 136 370 41,6 191 735 58,4 328 105 100 Refugee migrants 2 736 48,6 2889 51,4 5 625 100 female 1 475 53,5 1281 46,5 2 756 100 male 1 261 44,0 1608 56,1 2 869 100 Non-refugee migrants 2 148 46,4 2 478 53,6 4 626 100 female 1 270 51,9 1175 48,1 2 445 100 male 878 40,3 1303 59,7 2 181 100 Total 331 500 50,0 331 754 50,0 663 254 100 female 192 991 58,5 137 108 41,5 330 099 100 male 138 509 41,6 194 646 58,4 333 155 100

72

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Sweden Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Native-born majority population 368 207 33,9 717 962 66,1 1 086 169 100 female 216 980 40,8 314 883 59,2 531 863 100 male 151 227 27,3 403 079 72,7 554 306 100 Refugee migrants 10 791 27,9 27 878 72,1 38 669 100 female 6 329 34,2 12 171 65,8 18 500 100 male 4 462 22,1 15 707 77,9 20 169 100 Non-refugee migrants 3 781 27,7 9 883 72,3 13 664 100 female 2 205 32,4 4 600 67,6 6 805 100 male 1 576 23,0 5 283 77,0 6 859 100 Total 382 779 33,6 755 723 66,4 1 138 502 100 female 225 514 40,5 331 654 59,5 557 168 100 male 157 265 27,1 424 069 73,0 581 334 100

Table 8b: Completed higher education at age 30 among refugees with completed upper secondary education by age 25, by country of origin.

Denmark Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not completed Total n % n % n % Afghanistan 87 34,4 166 65,6 253 100 female 40 36,4 70 63,6 110 100 male 47 32,9 96 67,1 143 100 Iran 270 43,7 348 56,3 618 100 female 142 50,2 141 49,8 283 100 male 128 38,2 207 61,8 335 100 Iraq 186 36,6 322 63,4 508 100 female 108 41,5 152 58,5 260 100 male 78 31,5 170 68,5 248 100 Somalia 39 17,5 184 82,5 223 100 female 21 19,3 88 80,7 109 100 male 18 15,8 96 84,2 114 100 former Yugoslavia 467 32,7 962 67,3 1 429 100 female 296 39,7 450 60,3 746 100 male 171 25,0 512 75,0 683 100 All 1 049 34,6 1 982 65,4 3 031 100 female 607 40,3 901 59,7 1 508 100 male 442 29,0 1 081 71,0 1 523 100

73

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Finland Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Afghanistan 4 9,3 39 90,7 43 100 female 4 14,3 24 85,7 28 100 male 0 0,0 15 100,0 15 100 Iran 24 19,5 99 80,5 123 100 female 13 21,7 47 78,3 60 100 male 11 17,5 52 82,5 63 100 Iraq 17 9,1 169 90,9 186 100 female 5 5,3 89 94,7 94 100 male 12 13,0 80 87,0 92 100 Somalia 24 9,0 244 91,0 268 100 female 10 11,8 75 88,2 85 100 male 14 7,7 169 92,4 183 100 former Yugoslavia 30 8,5 322 91,5 352 100 female 20 11,9 148 88,1 168 100 male 10 5,4 174 94,6 184 100 All 99 10,2 873 89,8 972 100 female 52 12,0 383 88,0 435 100 male 47 8,8 490 91,3 537 100

Norway Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Afghanistan 51 48,6 54 51,4 105 100 female 25 59,5 17 40,5 42 100 male 26 41,3 37 58,7 63 100 Iran 548 59,4 374 40,6 922 100 female 270 60,5 176 39,5 446 100 male 278 58,4 198 41,6 476 100 Iraq 209 50,2 207 49,8 416 100 female 113 57,4 84 42,6 197 100 male 96 43,8 123 56,2 219 100 Somalia 158 38,8 249 61,2 407 100 female 67 44,4 84 55,6 151 100 male 91 35,6 165 64,5 256 100 former Yugoslavia 937 50,8 906 49,2 1 843 100 female 552 58,1 398 41,9 950 100 male 385 43,1 508 56,9 893 100 All 1 903 51,5 1 790 48,5 3 693 100 female 1 027 57,5 759 42,5 1 786 100 male 876 45,9 1 031 54,1 1 907 100

74

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Sweden Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Afghanistan 164 29,0 402 71,0 566 100 female 78 34,7 147 65,3 225 100 male 86 25,2 255 74,8 341 100 Iran 2 690 40,3 3 986 59,7 6 676 100 female 1 416 47,1 1 590 52,9 3 006 100 male 1 274 34,7 2 396 65,3 3 670 100 Iraq 985 26,1 2 788 73,9 3 773 100 female 586 32,2 1235 67,8 1821 100 male 399 20,4 1553 79,6 1952 100 Somalia 142 11,0 1 149 89,0 1 291 100 female 74 14,2 449 85,9 523 100 male 68 8,9 700 91,2 768 100 former Yugoslavia 846 19,1 3 582 80,9 4 428 100 female 544 24,7 1 662 75,3 2 206 100 male 302 13,6 1 920 86,4 2 222 100 All 4 827 28,9 11 907 71,2 16 734 100 female 2 698 34,7 5 083 65,3 7 781 100 male 2 129 23,8 6 824 76,2 8 953 100

Table 8c. Completed higher education at age 30 among the study populations.

Denmark Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not completed Total n % n % n % Native-born majority population 202 526 27,0 547 674 73,0 750 200 100 female 122 111 34,3 233 894 65,7 356 005 100 male 80 415 20,4 313 780 79,6 394 195 100 Refugee migrants 1 737 15,9 9 189 84,1 10 926 100 female 979 20,5 3 791 79,5 4 770 100 male 758 12,3 5 398 87,7 6 156 100 Non-refugee migrants 1 085 12,2 7 813 87,8 8 898 100 female 679 14,9 3 879 85,1 4 558 100 male 406 9,4 3 934 90,6 4 340 100 Total 205 348 26,7 564 676 73,3 770 024 100 female 123 769 33,9 241 564 66,1 365 333 100 male 81 579 20,2 323 112 79,8 404 691 100

Finland Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Native-born majority population 3 273 39,6 4 985 60,4 8 258 100 female 1 945 49,0 2 025 51,0 3 970 100 male 1 328 31,0 2 960 69,0 4 288 100 Refugee migrants 307 10,4 2 647 89,6 2 954 100 female 153 11,9 1 129 88,1 1 282 100 male 154 9,2 1 518 90,8 1 672 100 Non-refugee migrants 1 166 25,6 3 394 74,4 4 560 100 female 709 33,2 1 426 66,8 2 135 100 male 457 18,9 1 968 81,2 2 425 100 Total 4 746 30,1 11 026 69,9 15 772 100 female 2 807 38,0 4 580 62,0 7 387 100 male 1 939 23,1 6 446 76,9 8 385 100

75

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Norway Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Native-born majority population 332 447 40,2 493 856 59,8 826 303 100 female 193 478 48,3 206 765 51,7 400 243 100 male 138 969 32,6 287 091 67,4 426 060 100 Refugee migrants 2 842 28,6 7098 71,4 9 940 100 female 1 535 35,4 2800 64,6 4 335 100 male 307 23,3 4298 76,7 5 605 100 Non-refugee migrants 2 251 28,0 5 796 72,0 8 047 100 female 1 328 34,3 2549 65,8 3 877 100 male 923 22,1 3247 77,9 4 170 100 Total 337 540 40,0 506 750 60,0 844 290 100 female 196 341 48,1 212 114 51,9 408 455 100 male 141 199 32,4 294 636 67,6 435 835 100

Sweden Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Native-born majority population 369 629 30,2 856 288 69,9 1 225 917 100 female 217 830 36,8 374 829 63,3 592 659 100 male 151 799 24,0 481 459 76,0 633 258 100 Refugee migrants 10 847 21,1 40 562 78,9 51 409 100 female 6 354 26,7 17 412 73,3 23 766 100 male 4 493 16,3 23 150 83,8 27 643 100 Non-refugee migrants 3 808 17,6 17 795 82,4 21 603 100 female 2 223 21,0 8 358 79,0 10 581 100 male 1 585 14,4 9 437 85,6 11 022 100 Total 384 284 29,6 914 645 70,4 1 298 929 100 female 226 407 36,1 400 599 63,9 627 006 100 male 157 877 23,5 514 046 76,5 671 923 100

Table 8d: Completed higher education among refugees by country of origin at age 30.

Denmark Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not completed Total n % n % n % Afghanistan 93 17,5 438 82,5 531 100 female 43 22,5 148 77,5 191 100 male 50 14,7 290 85,3 340 100 Iran 282 27,5 743 72,5 1 025 100 female 151 36,0 269 64,0 420 100 male 131 21,7 474 78,3 605 100 Iraq 201 15,9 1 063 84,1 1 264 100 female 118 20,9 446 79,1 564 100 male 83 11,9 617 88,1 700 100 Somalia 42 3,8 1 066 96,2 1 108 100 female 21 4,9 407 95,1 428 100 male 21 3,1 659 96,9 680 100 former Yugoslavia 488 22,2 1 709 77,8 2 197 100 female 311 29,2 753 70,8 1 064 100 male 177 15,6 956 84,4 1 133 100 All 1 106 18,1 5 019 81,9 6 125 100 female 644 24,1 2 023 75,9 2 667 100 male 462 13,4 2 996 86,6 3 458 100

76

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Finland Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Afghanistan 7 10,1 62 89,9 69 100 female 6 16,7 30 83,3 36 100 male / 3,0 32 97,0 33 100 Iran 35 16,5 177 83,5 212 100 female 20 20,4 78 79,6 98 100 male 15 13,2 99 86,8 114 100 Iraq 33 8,4 360 91,6 393 100 female 15 8,2 169 91,9 184 100 male 18 8,6 191 91,4 209 100 Somalia 40 4,7 808 95,3 848 100 female 16 4,9 313 95,1 329 100 male 24 4,6 495 95,4 519 100 former Yugoslavia 72 12,2 516 87,8 588 100 female 46 17,7 214 82,3 260 100 male 26 7,9 302 92,1 328 100 All 187 8,9 1 923 91,1 2 110 100 female 103 11,4 804 88,6 907 100 male 84 7,0 1 119 93,0 1 203 100

Norway Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Afghanistan 53 26,5 147 73,5 200 100 female 27 41,5 38 58,5 65 100 male 26 19,3 109 80,7 135 100 Iran 567 41,0 816 59,0 1 383 100 female 279 44,9 342 55,1 621 100 male 288 37,8 474 62,2 762 100 Iraq 220 22,5 758 77,5 978 100 female 117 31,0 260 69,0 377 100 male 103 17,1 498 82,9 601 100 Somalia 169 15,7 907 84,3 1 076 100 female 73 18,8 315 81,2 388 100 male 96 14,0 592 86,1 688 100 former Yugoslavia 963 34,7 1 809 65,3 2 772 100 female 572 42,8 765 57,2 1 337 100 male 391 27,3 1 044 72,8 1 435 100 All 1 972 30,8 4 437 69,2 6 409 100 female 1 068 38,3 1 720 61,7 2 788 100 male 904 25,0 2 717 75,0 3 621 100

77

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Sweden Higher Education at Age 30 Completed Not Completed Total n % n % n % Afghanistan 165 22,5 569 77,5 734 100 female 78 27,5 206 72,5 284 100 male 87 19,3 363 80,7 450 100 Iran 2 705 33,9 5 279 66,1 7 984 100 female 1 422 40,7 2 068 59,3 3 490 100 male 1 283 28,6 3 211 71,5 4 494 100 Iraq 990 17,5 4 682 82,6 5 672 100 female 588 23,2 1948 76,8 2536 100 male 402 12,8 2734 87,2 3136 100 Somalia 145 5,8 2 348 94,2 2 493 100 female 74 7,1 964 92,9 1 038 100 male 71 4,9 1 384 95,1 1 455 100 former Yugoslavia 847 13,9 5 251 86,1 6 098 100 female 544 18,4 2 412 81,6 2 956 100 male 303 9,6 2 839 90,4 3 142 100 All 4 852 21,1 18 129 78,9 22 981 100 female 2 706 26,3 7 598 73,7 10 304 100 male 2 146 16,9 10 531 83,1 12 677 100

78

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

About the project Coming of Age in Exile (CAGE) CAGE is a research project based on collaboration between five leading research institutions in the Nordic countries; the Danish Research Centre for Migration, Eth- nicity and Health, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Migration Institute of Finland, Finland; Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies and University College of Southeast Norway, Norway; and Centre for Health Equity Studies, Stockholm University and Univer- sity of Gothenburg, Sweden.

CAGE brings together a pan-Nordic, multidisciplinary team of leading scholars and research students to shed light on some of our time’s most pressing social challenges related to the societal integration of young refugees. CAGE will provide analyses and insights to inform policy and practice related to health, education and employment among young refugees arriving in the Nordic countries and beyond. CAGE is funded by the Nordic Re- search Council (NordForsk). DANISH RESEARCH CENTRE FOR MIGRATION, ETHNICITY AND HEALTH CAGE was developed within the “Nordic Network for Re- search on Refugee Children” and its sister network “Nor- dic Network for Research Cooperation on Unaccompa- nied Refugee Minors”.

You can read more about CAGE at www.cage.ku.dk

79

Web Analytics