Advertisement

School Misconduct in a Unified System: Norwegian 10th Graders in Bergen

  • Thea Bertnes StrømmeEmail author
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the International Study of City Youth Education book series (SCYE, volume 2)

Abstract

In this chapter the focus is on school misconduct in Bergen, Norway, a country with a comprehensive school system, especially on the level studied here. Late tracking and a unified system combined with the relatively egalitarian structure of the society overall are seen as explanations for that the proportion of variance in measured school misconduct explained at the school level is close to zero. The coefficient for SES as measured on the ISEI scale is relatively low, while the more subjective variable measuring if students think their family struggle economically is more important. As expected, a positive relationship to teachers as well as a sense of belonging is related to less school misconduct.

Keywords

Subjective economic deprivation Sense of belonging Teacher-student relationships Comprehensive system School misconduct 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this chapter was funded by the Research Council of Norway (Grant number: 212352/H20).

References

  1. Andersen, P. L., & Bakken, A. (2015). Ung i Oslo i Nova rapport 8/15. Oslo, Norway: Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, P. L., & Hansen, M. N. (2011). Class and cultural capital – The case of class inequality in educational performance. European Sociological Review, 28, 607–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakken, A. (1998). Ungdomstid i storbyen. Rapport 7/98. Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd oeg aldring.Google Scholar
  4. Bakken, A., & Elstad, I. (2012). For store forventinger. Kunnskapsløftet og ulikheten i grunnskolekarakterer. Rapport 7/12. Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, S. (2003). Class strategies and the education market. The middle classes and social advantage. London: Routledge Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berge, Ø., & Hyggen, C. (2011). Privatskoler i Norden. Omfang, utvikling og den politiske debatten. Fafo-notat 2011. Oslo, Norway: Fafo.Google Scholar
  7. Bol, T. (2013). Why does education pay off? Relations between institutional context and the mechanisms by which education pays of in the labor market. PhD thesis. Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research.Google Scholar
  8. Bottero, W. (2005). Stratification: Social division and inequality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). Social-ethnic school composition and school misconduct: Does sense of futility clarify the picture? Sociological Spectrum, 31(2), 224–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). School belonging and school misconduct: The differing role of teacher and peer attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freidenfelt Liljeberg, J., Eklund, J. M., Fritz, M. V., & Klinteberg, B. (2011). Poor school bonding and delinquency over time: Bidirectional effects and sex differences. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frøseth, M. W., Hovdehaugen, E., Høst, H., & Vibe, N. (2008). Tilbudsstruktur og gjennomføring i videregående opplæring. Raport 40/2008. Oslo, Norway: Norsk institutt for studier av forskning og utdanning.Google Scholar
  15. Frøyland, L. R., & Sletten, M. A. (2012). Mindre problemadferd for de fleste, større problemer for de få? En studie av tidstrender i problemadferd: 1992, 2002 og 2010. Tidsskrift for ungdomssforskning, 12(2), 43–66.Google Scholar
  16. Frøyland, L. R., & Soest, T. V. (2018). Trends in the perpetration of physical aggression among Norwegian adolescents 2007–2015. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 1938 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0793-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ganzeboom, H. B. G., De Graaf, P. M., & Treiman, D. J. (1992). A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21(1), 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Helland, H., & Lauglo, J. (2005). Har frittstående grunnskoler økt segregeringen? Konsekvenser av ny lov om frittstående skoler – baselinerapport II: Elevsammensetningen. Oslo: Norsk institutt for studier av forskning og utdanning. Rapport 2/2005.Google Scholar
  20. Helland, H., & Ness, T. (2005). God trivlse, middels motivasjon og liten faglig medvirkning. En analyse av elevinnspektørene 2004. Skriftserie 4/2005. Oslo, Norway: Norsk institutt for studier av forskning og utdanning.Google Scholar
  21. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Hox, J. (1998). Multilevel modeling: When and why. In I. Balderjahn, R. Mathar, & M. Schader (Eds.), Classification, data analysis, and data highways (pp. 147–154). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kjærsnli, M., & Olsen, R. V. (2012). Fortsatt en vei å gå. Norske elevers kompetanse i matematikk, naturfag og lesing i PISA 2012. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  24. Lamb, S., Markussen, E., Teese, R., Sandberg, N., & Polesel, J. (2011). School dropout and completion. International Comparativ Studies in Theory and Policy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markussen, E. (2016). Forskjell på folk. In K. Reegård & J. Rogstad (Eds.), De frafalne. Om frafall i videregående opplæring. Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
  26. Markussen, E., Frøseth, M. W., & Sandberg, N. (2011). Reaching for the unreacheable: Identifying factors predicting early school leaving and non-completion in Norwegian Upper Secondary Education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(3), 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Markussen, E., Lødding, B., Sanberg, N., & Vibe, N. (2006). Forskjell på folk – Hva gjør skolen? Valg, bortvalg og kompetanseoppnåelse i videregående opplæring blant 9749 ungdommer som gikk ut av grunnskolen på Østlandet våren 2002. Hovedfunn, konklusjoner og implikasjoner tre og et halvt år etter. NIFU Rapport 3/2006. Oslo, Norway: Norsk institutt for studier av forskning og utdanning.Google Scholar
  28. Markussen, E., & Sandberg, N. (2004). Bortvalg og prestasjoner. Skriftserie 4/2004. Oslo, Norway: Norsk institutt for studier av forskning og utdanning.Google Scholar
  29. Mooij, T. (1998). Pupil-class determinants of aggressive and victim behavior in pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. OECD. (2004). Learning for Tomorrow’s World: First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Øia, T. (2007). Ung i Oslo. Levekår og sosiale forskjeller. NOVA Rapport, 6(07).Google Scholar
  32. Øia, T. (2011a). Ung i Oslo – levekår og sosiale forskjeller. Rapport 6/2007. Oslo, Norway: Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring.Google Scholar
  33. Øia, T. (2011b). Ungdomsskoleelever. Motivasjon, mestring og resultater. Rapport 9/2011. Oslo, Norway: Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring.Google Scholar
  34. Øia, T. (2012). Ung i Oslo 2012. Nøkkeltall. Notat nr 7/12. Oslo, Norway: Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring.Google Scholar
  35. Rumberger, R. W., & Rotermund, S. (2012). The relationship between engagement and high school dropout. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Sellström, E., & Bremberg, S. (2005). Is there a “school effect” on pupil outcomes? A review of multilevel studies. Epidemial Community Health, 60, 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simons-Morton, B. G., Crump, D. A., Haynie, D. L., & Saylor, K. E. (1999). Student-school bonding and adolescent problem behaviour. Health Education Research, 14(1), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Skogen, K., & Wichstrøm, L. (1995). Kriminalitet og klasse. Nordisk tidskrift for kriminalvideskap, 82(1), 32–49.Google Scholar
  39. Sørlie, M., & Ogden, T. (2007). Mindre problemadferd i grunnskolen? – Lærervurderinger et 10-års perspektiv. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 3, 190–202.Google Scholar
  40. Sørlie, M.-A., & Torsheim, T. (2011). Multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher collective efficacy and problem behaviour in school. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sutherland, E., Cressey, H., Donald, R., & Luckenbill, D. (1995). The theory of differential association. In N. J. Herman (Ed.), Deviance: A symbolic interactionist approach (pp. 64–71). Boston, MA: General Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Toft, M., & Ljunggren, J. (2016). Geographies of class advantage: The influence of adolescent neighbourhoods in Oslo. Urban Studies, 53(14), 2939–2955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Mijs, J. J. B. (2010). Achievement inequality and the institutional structure of educational systems: A comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Houtte, M., & Stevens, P. A. (2008). Sense of futility. The missing link between track position and self-reported school misconduct. Youth & Society, 40(2), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Willis, P. E. (1977). Learning to labour. How working class kids get working class jobs. Aldershot, UK: Gower.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of ProfessionsOslo Metropolitan UniversityOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options