ROE970951 640..651

Policy Review

Norwegian Policy Initiative

of Offering Free Homework

Assistance in Schools

Aihua Hu (胡爱华)

Western Norway University of Applied Sciences

Lihong Huang (黄丽红)

Oslo Metropolitan University

Abstract

Purpose: Through reviewing an education policy blueprint in Norway, titled “An Offer of Homework

Assistance” (issued by the Norwegian D irectorate for Education and Training in June 2010), the present

article aims to shed light on how Norway uses education as an arena to realize social equality and equity.

Design/Approach/Methods: This is an analytical policy review.

Findings: By examining the background, goals, contents, and implementation of the homework

assistance program, we have found that the Norwegian government institutes evidence-based

policies in education. Although there is criticism concerning the policy and its implementation,

empirical evaluative investigations have found that it brings a variety of benefits.

Originality/Value: The present article is useful to understand educational policymaking in Norway

and how the country is making efforts to achieve social equality and equity through education.

Keywords

Homework assistance, Norway, policy review

Date received: 18 April 2020; accepted: 10 October 2020

Corresponding author:

Aihua Hu, Department of Pedagogy, Religion and Social Studies Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Proms

Gate 1, Bergen 5018 Norway.

Email: [email protected]

ECNU Review of Education

2021, Vol. 4(3) 640–651

ª The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/2096531120970951

journals.sagepub.com/home/roe

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative

Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits

non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as

specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Although both advantages and disadvantages of homework assistance exist, I think the benefits are more

important than the disadvantages. Therefore, it is important to be able to offer homework assistance based

on what each individual student’s level in the particular subjects is. This means that even though you are

good at one subject, you must be able to have the option to be helped (with other subjects). That is why I

say yes to the benefit of homework assistance for all students during school hours.

Amalie Nilssen

A pupil from the Rothaugen School

(Authors’ translation from a news report

)

Introduction

In June 2010, the Norwegian Parliament passed an amendment to the Education Act requiring all

primary schools across Norway to offer homework assistance to all pupils from Grade 1 to Grade

4. The government covers the cost for all schools—public or private—to offer this service, and

all schools are obliged to offer it. H owever, it is the parents’ decision whether to accept this offer.

The policy was implemented starting from the school year of 2010/2011. In June 2014, the

Norwegian Parliament passed an additional amendment to the Education Act extending the free

homework assistance arrangement to all schools of compulsory education (i.e., from Grade 1 to

Grade 10).

The present article reviews this policy in terms of its background, go als and values, main

content, and implementation evaluation with reference to two research reports produced by Nor-

wegian Social Research (NOVA) and the Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research, and

Education (NIFU) under the invitation of the government with the aim of shedding light on how

Norway uses education as an arena to realize social equality and equity.

Background

Homework assistance originates in the 1980s. At that time, the aim was to help schools with a high

proportion of students of minority language backgrounds, most of whom could not get help from

their parents due to their limited Norwegian skills. Homework assistance was usually offered by

voluntary organizations and was free of charge. This practice was gradually expanded. During the

2006/2007 school year, around 50% of Norwegian schools offered homework assistance to their

students. During this period, some schools offered homework assistance as an integral part of the

school day or skolefritidsordningen (SFO),

while others received help from parent groups or

volunteer organizations (Haugsbakken et al., 2009).

During the time of 2006 and 2008, the government submitted two reports produced by the

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research to the Parliament for discussion, that is, White

Paper No. 16 (2006–2007) and White Paper No. 31 (2007–2008),

which instigated sequential

Hu and Huang 641

piloting tests, evaluations, and eventual amendment in the Education Act of offering home assis-

tance in schools. In the White Paper No. 16 (2006–2007) titled … and No One Was Left—Early

Intervention for Lifelong Learning, it was pointed out that a rather large number of Norwegian

pupils graduated from primary school with insufficient skills and competencies. The government

believed that it was a social responsibility to change this situation. Additionally, the school day for

the pupils at primary schools in Norway used to be short compared to other countries. Conse-

quently, the government implemented an extension of the school day from 21 hr to 28 hr per week

and proposed universal homework assistance as part of a gradual extension of the school day and

to improve the pupils’ skills and competencies. As stated in the White Paper, this scheme should

enhance the quality of education for all students and be especially helpful to those who receive

little help with schoolwork outside school hours. The proposal had been tested for 2 years, from

2006 to 2008, and evaluated by researchers from SINTEF Technology and Society. According to

the final evaluation report, homework assistance can be a good tool to increase learning outcomes

and reduce social inequality (Haugsbakken et al., 2009).

White Paper No. 31 (2007–2008), entitled Quality in School, pointed out that it was important

to strengthen education in different subjects, to provide homework assistance and ensure daily

physical activity. At the same time, it emphasized the important goal of schools to help equalize

social differences through promoting learning, better well-being and health for all students. In

response to this, the Norwegian government submitted the Proposition to Parliament 95 L (2009–

2010) proposing amendments to the Education Act and Private Schools Act for all primary schools

across Norway through which homework assistance was offered to all pupils from Grade 1 to

Grade 4. At the beginning of June 2010, the Parliament passed these amendments; section 13-7a of

the Education Action read:

The municipality will have a homework assistance offer to pupils of Grades 1 to 4. The offer must be

free for pupils. Pupils should be entitled to participate in the homework assistance, but they must be

voluntary if they wish to participate.

The policy took effect in August 2010. Commissioned by the Directorate of Education, research

institute Norwegian Social Research (NOVA), in collaboration with the Nordic Institute for Studies

in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU), carried out a multi-method designed evaluation

project on the implementation of the scheme from February 2011 to May 2013.

The evaluation project between 2011 and 2013 resulted in two NOVA reports. The first report

(Seeberg et al., 2012) was based on two qualitative studies, that is, an analysis of policy documents

and planning documents of implementation of homework assistance at schools from municipality

educational aut horities and a case study in four schools through observation, interviews, and

school document analysis. The second evaluation report (Backe-Hansen et al., 2013) was based

642 ECNU Review of Education 4(3)

on quantitative data derived from a national survey on school principals, a questionnaire survey on

parents of pupils attending Grades 1–4, and the results of national exam on Grade 5 pupils from 2

years after the implementation of the scheme at school comparing with those from 2 years before.

The evaluation reports presented positive results of the initiative from perspectives of the school

principals, teachers, parents, and pupils’ learning outcome as well as some negative critics on the

scheme and some uncertainty of its effect on student outcomes. Following the publication of the

two evaluatio n reports, the homework assistance scheme was proposed to the Parliament for

amendment in the Education Act. A public hearing process with municipal authorities and relevant

stakeholder organizations (e.g., parents, student council) and a sequential voting process in the

Parliament both resulted in a majority of supporting the proposal. During the hearing process,

many representatives suggested that free homework assistance should be available for all pupils in

all grades in both primary and lower secondary schools. All these processes were documented in

the Proposition to Parliament 68 L (2013–2014) titled Amendments to the Education Act, the

Private School Act, and the National Higher Education Act (homework assistance, etc.) (Norwe-

gian Ministry of Education and Research, 2013). Having been passed in Parliament, from August

1, 2014, the eight hours of homework assistance have been mandatory and all pupils from Grade 1

to Grade 10 have the right to receive free homework assistance at school if they wish to. The

amendment in Private School Act states that municipalities and private schools have the flexibility

and freedom to decide for themselves the homework assistance arrangement according to local

conditions and assessments.

The goals and values of the policymakers

As stated by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research in the Proposition to Parliament

95 L (2009–2010), the homework assistance policy initiative has the following goals: to support

pupils in their learning process and to encourage feelings of mastery and independent work. In

addition, homework assistance should also help narrow social inequality gaps in education.

Moreover, one can observe that the stated goals are at the individual and societal levels. Ideally,

if the goals at the individual level are achieved, the societal goal of social equality will be

reached as well.

Equality and equity are among the Norwegian core values. In Norway, school is seen as having

a central role in social equalization and a place that lays a foundation for people to have a better

life. The Kindergarten Act and Education Act states that education must be based on and promote

fundamental values, such as equality and solidarity (Norwegian Ministry of Education and

Research, 1998a, 1998b). Norway is committed to an education system that supports the devel-

opment and learning of all its students (OECD, 2019). These ideas are explicitly stated in different

policy documents:

Hu and Huang 643

The Norwegian school system is based on the principles of equality and adapted learning for everyone

within an inclusive environment. All students should develop key skills, and in the course of their

education they should both face challenges and experience a sense of achievement. (European Com-

mission, 2019)

In another policy document, it is stated that children and young people must have an equal

right to education, regardless of where they live, gender, social and cultural background, or any

special needs (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, n.d.-a, n.d.-b, p. 5). The Home-

work Assistance Program is one of the measures taken by the government to reduce differences

caused by the impact of parents’ education on student achievement by focusing resources on

the youngest pupils and enabling more of the learning process to take place at school (OECD,

2015).

Norway is known as a welfare state with high levels of public social expenditures, priority

being given to education. In practice, Norway is making efforts to achieve the basic precept of

Norwegian educational policy—education for all—through its high public expenditure on educa-

tion at all levels and different education policies and reforms targeting the improvement of

education quality (OECD, 2019). Although parents must pay some fees at the preprimary level,

education at other levels is free of charge. These efforts are also reflected in the government’s

generous funding of private educational institutions—which, similarly to public institutions, get

most of their funding from public sources—at all levels.

Main contents

As mention ed a bove , public and priva te educational in st ituti ons enjoy the sam e f und ing from

thegovernment,althoughtheyareruledbydifferent laws. Public primary schools are run by

municipalities, while private schools are owned by individuals or private organizations. Nor-

way has a pub lic- fu nde d education system with only a few priva te schools (9% of the t ot al

number of schools) offering religious or pedagogical alternatives that receive public funding as

well. Currently, only 4% of the pupil s at 10-year compulsory primary and lower secondary

education le v els i n the country attend pri va te sc hools (Statistics Norway, 2020). In the policy

analyzed in the present work, although the same content applies to both sectors, the responsible

stakeholders are different. Municipalities t ake the responsibility of public primary schools,

while private schools are themselves responsible for implementing t he policy. As a result,

when referring to certain matters, this article will use the t erm “municipalities/schools.”

The policy covers mainly two aspects—the obligations of municipalities/schools and the

rights of pupils and families. According to the poli cy, it has be en obligatory f or m un ici pal i-

ties/schools to offer homework assistance from Grade 1 to Grade 4 from August 2010 to July

2014 and from Grade 1 to Grade 10 since August 2014. They are responsible for how to organize

644 ECNU Review of Education 4(3)

the assistance a nd are obliged to inform the parents of their right to homework assistance and the

arrangeme nts. The munici pa lity should al so ensure that pupils have a good ps ych osoc ia l e nvi-

ronment for homework assistance, one which promotes health, well-being, and learning. Home-

work assistance should be offered at least 8 hr per week, with at least 1 hr per grade per week.

The municipalities/schools decide at w hat time of the day this assistance should be offered and

the ratio of adults to pupils. More importantly, the assistance must be free for the students. If

homework assistance is organized as part of the SFO, the municipality/school cannot charge for

the time during which homework assistance is receiv ed. This also a ppl ies to those p upil s who do

not participate in SFO but need the assistance. Additionally, homework assistance should help

students with schoolwork and should not be considered part of the education but should be

viewed in the context of it.

Furthermore, families have the right to know that there is a homework assistance offer in place

and how the offer is organized. They are entitled to participate in the assistance scheme, and the

participation is voluntary. They also have the right to request measures that promote the psycho-

social environment if they find it is not appropriate.

Implementation of the policy

In this section, we draw on the findings of two evaluation reports mentioned in the “Background”

section and of a journal article which was written based on the first report to explore the imple-

mentation of this policy.

The legal status of the homework assistance reform makes it compulsory for all primary schools

to implement it. In practice, the policy is indeed implemented in all primary schools across Nor-

way. Differences do exist in terms of how many pupils take part in the homework assistance

program and how the municipalities and schools are arranging this assistance. The reports found

that the municipalities and schools went a long way to follow the state’s instructions for the

program (Seeberg et al., 2012). It should also be noted that Norway is a decentralized country.

The Ministry of Education and Research sets the goals and frameworks leaving decision-making to

counties and municipalities as well as private schools on how the homework assistance should be

provided. This partly explains why the implementing bodies went a long way to adhere to the

Ministry’s recommendations. According to OECD (2015), an imbalanced governance and the

ineffic ient use of resources make implementation challenging as long a s there are no clearly

defined implementation strategies for education reforms that are adapted to Norway’s decentralized

framework.

As stated in the policy, municipalities and schools can entrust the homework assistance offer to

different organizations. In practice, schools, SFO, parent groups, and voluntary organizations are

providing this assistance. According to the report, just below half of the 1,008 investigated schools

Hu and Huang 645

offered the program within the auspices of the school, one third used a combination of SFO, the

school and other organizations, while one sixth used a combination of SFO and others (Backe-

Hansen et al., 2013). Since there are no specific requirements for the competence of the people

who help pupils with the homework, the available expertise varies. The report indicated that only

11% of the schools employed persons with pedagogical competence as homework assistants, while

55% of the schools did not. The rest used a combination of the two types of instructors (Backe-

Hansen et al., 2013).

In terms of who chose to use the homework assistance, public statistics showed that just above

half of the pupils in the target group participated in the program since the reform was implemented

(Backe-Hansen et al., 2013). Family backgrounds seemed to influence the use of this offer.

Specifically, Backe-Hans en et al. (2 013) found th at homework ass is tance was used least by

families from Norway or other Nordic countries in which both parents lived with the child and

who had higher levels of education. Meanwhile, the program was used most by single parents from

African or Asian countries who had low levels of education. The participation rates were also

higher at schools where many of the parents had immigrant backgrounds. Moreover, Seeberg et al.

(2012) found that children with learning proficiency tended to be more able to use this assistance.

One of the possible explanations could be that less-advanced students need more pedagogical help,

which a large number of the instructors who offer the assistance do not possess.

As with the implementations of any policy/reform, there are positive and negative perspectives.

The quote at the beginning of this article indicates that some students who used this offer think it is

necessary to get help with their homework. Seeberg et al. (2012) found that some of the pupils who

benefit from the assistance are able to do more of their homework, do it better or more thoroughly,

which increases self-esteem, provides a sense of mastering schoolwork, and positively contributes

to learning and wanting to learn more. As such, the intended goals of the policy have been partly

achieved. The evaluation team and the reports also found a positive relationship between the use of

homework assistance and the improvement of performance in national tests.

One of our main findings was that schools which did not offer homework assistance prior to the

reform, but introduced a programme with large participation rates when the programme became

mandatory to offer, had shown a more positive development over time on national test results than

schools with low participation rates. (Backe-Hansen et al., 2013, p. 127)

Those with negative views of the policy take a different perspective. For example, there are

doubts about who really benefits from the program. More precisely, many school principals and

owners as well as parents question the usefulness of homework assistance for first-year pupils.

However, parents whose children did participate in the scheme were pleased with it. There is also

criticism on offering too little help to children with special needs and, according to Backe-Hansen

646 ECNU Review of Education 4(3)

et al. (2013), on benefiting proficient students more than less proficient students. This may lead to

even larger gaps among pupils. In addition, Seeberg et al. (2012) pointed out that a scarcity of

highly qualified homework helpers means that pupils who need more help than others and of better

quality cannot get it, which in turn causes them to lag further and further behind. This means that

neither the goals at the individual level nor the goals at the societal level would be fully achieved.

Other opposing voices claimed that the homework assistance program confused pupils and/or

the public regarding what homework means. Traditionally, homework meant the assignment given

by teachers to the pupils to finish independently or with some help from their parents at home.

However, the introduction of homework assistance has given homework another meaning:

“Through introducing homework assistance at school as a universal programme for pupils in year

1 through 4, homework has become a more integrated part of the school day and thus part of a

more integrated whole” (Backe-Hansen et al., 2013, p. 126).

As mentioned in the background, starting from the 2014/2015 school year, the mandatory eight

hours of homework assistance extended to all pupils from Grade 1 to Grade 10, who now have the

right to receive free homework assistance at school if they wish to. All municipalities and schools

are arranging this according to their local conditions. At present, homework assistance is an article

of the Education Act. And there is no evaluation or empirical research on the implementation of

this revised policy.

Concluding remarks

This policy is an example illustrating that Norway designs evidence-based education policies,

which means that policy decisions are following scientific evidence from research (Parkhurst,

2017). Research and higher education are highly regarded and given priority to develop to meet

the different challenges in Norway (OECD, 2017). The policy of universalization of homework

assistance in primary schools across Norway was based on the evaluation of SINTEF Technology

and Society, while the amendment was made with reference to the reports of a 2-year compre-

hensive evaluation on the implementation of the policy. Policies based on systematic evidence

seem to produce better outcomes (Sutcliffe & Court, 2005). Nevertheless, they are not enough. It is

also important to make good use of the evidence (Parkhurst, 2017).

As a social democratic welfare state, Norway is generous and dedicated to achieving equality

through the universal provision of social services (Mehrara, 2020). Universalism is thought as a

way to support national cohesion or unity and increase the functional capacity of citizens (Meh-

rara, 2020) as well as prevent marginalization. Besides, Norway is internationally recognized as a

country with long egalitarianism tradition (Abram, 2018) and Norwegians need to know that they

are treated the same to feel equal (Gullestad, 2001). Universalization of homework assistance is

reflection of this. It is a good practice to offer this universalization of homework assistance also

Hu and Huang 647

because it makes it possible that all students can get help if they need any. As what Amalie Nilssen

(quoted at the beginning of this article) has mentioned, a student academically good at one subject

or more still may need to have some assistance in doing homework. This also avoids stigmatizing

the students who seek assistance as academically weak ones.

“Equality, defined as all students receiving the same, is insufficient in ensuring positive out-

comes for all learners … an equal education may be inherently unequal” (Cramer et al., 2018,

p. 484). Universal access to all students connotes more equality than equity as it was reflected in

the evaluation report (Backe-Hansen et al., 2013) that the scheme might increase the achievement

gap in learning outcomes when high achievement pupils receiving the assistance would become

more so and low achievement pupils would be left more behind. This has led us to recommend

paying more attention to equity in implementing this policy. Equity here means the provision of

personalized resources needed for all individuals to reach common goals (Latta, 2019).

If the government wishes to achieve the set goals at both the individual and societal levels, the

homework assistance scheme should be implemented according to local conditions and needs. To

this purpose, the amendment implemented in 2014 has given municipalities and schools more

autonomy and freedom to decide how to implement this policy. As pointed out by Mehrara (2020),

a balance between equity and equality could be achieved through the collaboration of service

users, service providers, and policymakers in reevaluating policy measures and devising a more

nuanced application of universalism in accordance with the diversifying needs of contemporary

Norwegian society (p. 143).

More importantly, to achieve the goal of helping pupils falling behind with schoolwork, it is

important to employ pedagogically competent people, which may re quire a higher monetary

investment. It might be a good idea to use student teachers who can make good use of this

opportunity to put into practice what they learned in the classroom. Additionally, it might be

beneficial for both parties to exploit peer help; peers could come from the higher grades or from

secondary schools. However, this form of assistance should be offered in rather small groups and

to the more proficient students who do not require that much help. Giving students the opportunity

to work as mentors can also enhance their confidence and interest in learning. They might also be

able to understand their peers’ learning difficulties and struggles and know in what aspects to help

since they have recently gone through the same experience. Furthermore, learning from peers may

make pupils feel relaxed and, as mentioned in the quotation at the beginning, although students

might do well in one or several subjects, they may need help in other ones, which offers an

opportunity to establish learning communities.

Although the private tutoring industry is popular around the world, it may increase the

disparities in the students’ ac hiev em ents , future ed uca tio n, and caree r and, thu s, further i nc rea se

social inequality. Private tutoring is rare in Norway, especially during the 10-year compulsory

648 ECNU Review of Education 4(3)

education period. In this context, universalization of homework assistance scheme in Norway

might be a better and more efficient way to ease social inequality. Abram (2018, p. 88) points out

“the reference to policy analysis is perhaps particularly important, since its consequences can be

profound in terms of new policy introductions in other countries and the material impact this

may have on the lives of very many people.” We are aware of this and wish that this policy

analysis can be of some inspiration for new policy introductions in other countries. At the same

time, we want to emphasize that Norway has i ts unique traditions and resources to make and

implement this policy, and other countries need to consider their own conditions to introduce

similar policy. We conclude this articl e with a quote from Norwegian White Paper No. 25 (2012–

2013) Sharing for prosperity:

The Nordic model … It has evolved through a historical process of conflict and cooperation and cannot

necessarily be transferred to other countries. Each country must find its own solutions, and for some, the

Nordic model can serve as useful inspiration. (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013, p. 21)

Contributorship

Aihua Hu was responsible for writing the abstract, the bulk of the main body, finalizing the paper and

responding to reviewers comments. Lihong Huang contributed by writing some of background, implemen-

tation of the policy, and responding to reviewers comments.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or

publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

1. Nilssen (2016). Er leksehjelp løsningen? [Is homework assistance the solution?] [Blog post]. Retrieved

from https://www.ba.no/rothaugsbloggen/blogg/sandviken/er-leksehjelp-losningen/s/5-8-280169.

2. Skolefritidsordningen (SFO), literally translated as “s chool free time arrangement ,” is a program offered

by municipali ties . It provides care and supervision before and after schoo l hours to pupils in Grades 1

through 4 and to pupils with special needs from Grade 1 to Grade 7. SFO should facilitate play and

cultural and leisure activities in a safe place. Parents need to pay if they want their children to be in the

program.

3. White Paper No. 16 (2006–2007) in English is accessible here: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumen

ter/report-no.-16-to-the-storting-2006-2007/id441395/; White Paper No. 31 (2007–2008) in Norwegian

only is accessible here: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/stmeld-nr-31-2007-2008-/id516853/.

Hu and Huang 649

’

References

Abram, S. (2018). Likhet is not equality: Discussing Norway in English and Norwegian. In S. Bendixsen, M.

B. Bringsli, & H. Vike (Eds.), Egalitarianism in Scandinavia: Historical and contemporary perspectives

(pp. 87–108). Palgrave Macmillan.

Backe-Hansen, E., Bakken, A., & Huang, L. (2013). Evaluering av leksehjelptilbudet 1.–4. Trinn Sluttrapport

[Evaluation of homework assistance grade1—4 final report]. NIFU og NOVA Rapport.

Cramer, E., Little, M. E., & McHatton, P. A. (2018). Equity, equality, and standardization: Expanding the

conversations. Education and Urban Society, 50(5), 483–501.

European Commission. (2019). Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education. https://eacea.ec.

europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/upper-secondary-and-post-secondary-non-tertiary-education-

17_en

Gullestad, M. (2001). Likhetens grenser [The boundaries of equality]. In M. Lien, H. Lidén, & V. Halvard

(Eds.), Likhetens paradokser [The paradoxes of equality] (pp. 32–67). Universitetsforlaget.

Haugsbakken, H., Buland, T., Valenta, M., & Molden, T. H. (2009). Leksehjelp— Ingen tryllestav? Sluttrap-

port fra evaluering av Prosjekt leksehjelp [Homework assistance—No magic? Final report of the evalua-

tion of homework assistance project]. SINTEF Teknologi og samfunn.

Latta, L. (2019, November 26). Equity in education: Defining equity, equality, and standardization. https://

www.impacttulsa.org/impacttulsa-equity-in-education-defining-equity/

Mehrara, L. (2020). Seeking the ideal of universalism within Norway’s social reality. Social Inclusion, 8(1),

133–144. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8iX1.2535

Nilssen, A. (2016, F ebruary 18). Er leksehjelp løsningen? [Is homework assistance the solution?]

[Blog post]. https://www.ba.no/rothaugsbloggen/blogg/sandviken/er-leksehjelp-losningen/s/5-8-280169

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (1998a). Act relating kindergartens (the Kindergarten Act).

https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2005-06-17-64

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (1998b). Act relating to primary and secondary education

and training (the education act). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/1998-07-17-61

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2009). Prop. 95 L (2009–2010) Endringar I opplæringslova

og privateskolelova (leksehjelp m.m.) [Prop. 95 L (2009–2010) amendments to the Education Act and

Private Schools Act (homework help, etc.)]. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/Prop-95-L-2009-

2010/id599259/?ch=1

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2013). Prop. 68 L (2013–2014) Endringer i opplæringslo-

ven, privatskolelova og folkehøyskoleloven (leksehjelp m.m.) [Prop. 68 L (2013–2014) Amendments to the

Education Act, the Private School Act and the folk high school Act (homework help, etc.)]. https://www.

regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/Prop-68-L-20132014/id756224/?ch=1

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (n.d.-a). Education: From kindergarten to adult education.

https://www.udir.no/globalassets/upload/brosjyrer/5/education_in_norway.pdf

Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (n. d.-b). Informasjon om leksehjelp i grunnskolen Udir-6-

2010 [Information of homework assistance for primary schools Udir-6-2010]. https://www.udir.no/regel

verkstolkninger/opplaring/Leksehjelp/Informasjon-om-leksehjelp-i-grunnskolen-Udir-6-2010?depth=0&

print=1#1-Innledning

650 ECNU Review of Education 4(3)

Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2013). Sharing for prosperity: Promoting democracy, f air distribu-

tion and growth in development policy. https://www.r egjeringen.no/contentassets/4a44b0028c

5b43d5845c2e84247136cf/en-gb/pdfs/stm201220130025000engpdfs.pdf

OECD. (2015). Education policy outlook 2015: Making reforms happen. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1787/9789264225442-en

OECD. (2017). OECD Reviews of innovation Policy: Norway 2017, OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy,

OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264277960-en

OECD. (2019). Improving school quality in Norway: The new competence development model. Implementing

Education Policies. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/179d4ded-en

Parkhurst, J. (2017). The politics of evidence: From evidence-based policy to the good governance of

evidence. Routledge Studies in Governance and Public Policy.

Seeberg, M. L., Seland, I., & Hassan, S. C. (2012). Litt vanskelig at alle skal med!: Rapport 1: Evaluering av

leksehjelpstilbudet 1.–4. trinn. [A little difficult that all participate!: Report 1: Evaluation of homework

assistance Grade1—4]. NIFU og NOVA Rapport.

Statistics Norway. (2020). Facts about education in Norway 2020—Key figures 2018. https://www.ssb.no/en/

utdanning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/_attachment/408683?_ts=16f7a2eff50

Sutcliffe, S., & Court, J. (2005). Evidence-based policymaking: What is it? How does it work? What

relevance for developing countries? https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opin

ion-files/3683.pdf

Hu and Huang 651