Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Second International Handbook of Urban Education pp 695–717Cite as

Social Class, Inclusion and Exclusion: Teacher and Student Practices in Norwegian Urban Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

Abstract

This chapter examines how social class is played out in urban education in Norway. It is well documented that schooling maintains class hierarchies; however, class has not adequately been addressed within schooling, neither in terms of conceptualization nor empirical investigation. This chapter is a response to this deficiency and explores how processes of class, inclusion and exclusion are played out in urban classrooms, and the significance of social class in these processes. In engaging with these issues, I adopt a notion of class, not merely as a dimension of educational stratification, but as a multi-dimensional (gender, minority status and special needs) and dynamic configuration, played out within tensions of inclusion and exclusion. I draw on material from an ethnographic study of urban schools, which enables consideration both of the implications of standardized teaching and assessment practices and the subtle relations of differentiation that occur between teachers and students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   469.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    At the national level several major large scale education reforms have been introduced implying changes in rights, content and structure at all levels of education. From the 1960s through to the 1980s social justice, equality and inclusion in and through education were in the forefront. The common goals of the reforms introduced during the last two decades have mainly emphasized education as a pivotal tool for economic growth and for meeting the requirements of international competition and the ‘knowledge society’, contributing to renewal and more emphasis on students as human capital, privileging academic knowledge and accountability (NMER 2003; Arnesen 2011; Arnesen and Lundahl 2006).

  2. 2.

    The urban/rural dimension has been an important issue in Norway, as the state has had an active regional policy since World War II. Through legislation, regulations and subsidies, the same educational resources for education in urban and rural areas have been guaranteed, based on the principle that all pupils should receive the same quality of education regardless of where they live.

  3. 3.

    It is recognized that the generous welfare system together with active housing, work and education policies in Norway after World War II, have helped raise better life conditions and well-being among people. Norway is, as other Nordic countries, preeminent in terms of combining a high standard of living with equality and an extensive public welfare sector (Arnesen and Lundahl 2006; Bart et al. 2003). It is at the top of UN ranking regarding human development, with comparatively small socio-economic differences (UN 2014 Human Development Index; OECD 2015). Despite this favourable review, social inequalities persist and hierarchies are produced and maintained, not least in urban schools.

  4. 4.

    In using the concept of ‘disadvantaged’ students here I refer to students who are victims of troublesome family circumstances such as poverty, abuse or inadequate care, and students who for other reasons (e.g. conflicts with school) may face considerable risk of stigmatization and marginalization in school (Frønes and Strømme 2010). Ethnicity/race, religion, citizenship status, gender, disability and class are not by themselves contained in this definition.

  5. 5.

    This is due to almost full employment, low youth unemployment, transition policies and measures oriented towards early school leavers as well as police intervention, the presence of social services and active work of organizations in the local communities directed towards young people.

  6. 6.

    There are very few private schools in Norway.

  7. 7.

    Differences between the schools, and the social and discursive practices of teachers and students were analysed earlier on the basis of a multi-methodical- and theoretical design (Arnesen 2002, 2003).

  8. 8.

    See for example, Arnesen and Sollie (1992/2003) and Arnesen et al. (2013) which confirm the argument on the relative stability of curriculum and classroom practices in Norwegian lower-secondary schools.

  9. 9.

    Only the principal of the West End School (the most affluent) raised the issue. She reflected on the contradiction between setting marks in compulsory education and guidance of individual students in their learning.

  10. 10.

    All students in Norway are entitled to ‘quality’ education and instruction adapted to their abilities and needs (NMER 1998). Special education (spesialundervisning) is the formal term used in the education act (§5) for provision for those students who do not benefit from regular tuition. This provision should be available to all students, including minority students who need it, after particular formal (diagnostic) procedures. Adapted language tuition is the formal term in the education act (§ 2–8), specially designed for minority lingual students with limited Norwegian language skills. Adapted language tuition encompasses Special Norwegian tuition, Bilingual subject tuition and Mother tongue tuition. The extent to which and how all of these provisions are implemented varies considerably between municipalities and schools (NDET 2014).

  11. 11.

    In her longitudinal study of one class over 10 years, Nielsen (2009) concluded that the most important marginalizing mechanism in school, was not bullying, but discrete invisibility of ‘quiet’ minority students.

  12. 12.

    A former Minister of Education, Kristin Clement (2001–2005), used much the same rhetoric in the preface to the Report to the Storting 30 (2003–2004) entitled Culture for Learning, i.e. ‘We shall all work towards the ideal to provide all students irrespective of their backgrounds and needs, access to adapted and differentiated teaching. All students are equal (likeverdige), but no-one is the same. Both ‘those tired of theory’ and ‘those with a thirst for theory’ should be met with respect’ (NMER 2003, author’s translation).

  13. 13.

    It is interesting to observe that minority students resisted being moved to special education or other alternative provisions away from their ordinary school class. They did not want to stand out, and insisted on following the regular class, even if they were not given any special support. They insisted on being ‘normal’. The case study gives examples of different situations where students faced low expectations. Some students would invest in trying to get on, irrespective of the teachers’ expectation -with the help of other students, and teachers who were supportive of their efforts to make academic progress. Others were more resigned, became invisible in the classroom, and/or showed open frustration and anger.

  14. 14.

    Democratic negotiation was marginal at the Central City school, but a central feature at West End school.

  15. 15.

    In 2000 there was hearing or debate about school conditions with 12–15 year-old students from Oslo. It generated a strongly worded, unambiguous critique of traditional classroom teaching which they felt dominated most classrooms. The hearing was followed up by the book Tre års kjedsomhet? Om å være elev i ungdomsskolen [Three years of boredom? Being a student in lower secondary school] (Grepperud 2000).

References

  • Alghasi, S., Eide, E., & Eriksen, T. H. (Eds.). (2012). Den globale drabantbyen. Groruddalen og det nye Norge. [The global suburb. The Grorud valley and the new Norway]. Oslo: Cappelen Damm A/S.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, B. (2014). Westbound and eastbound. Managing sameness and the making of separations in Oslo. Dissertation. The Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, B., & Biseth, H. (2013). The myth of failed integration: The case of Eastern Oslo. City and Society, 25(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnesen, A.L. (2002). Ulikhet og marginalisering med referanse til kjønn og sosial bakgrunn. En etnografisk studie av sosial og diskursiv praksis i skolen. [Difference and marginalization with reference to gender and social background. An ethnographic study of social and discursive practices in school]. HiO-rapport nr. 13/2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnesen, A. L. (2003). Construction of an ‘Outsider’: Contradictions and ambiguities in institutional practices. In D. Beach, T. Gordon, & E. Lahelma (Eds.), Democratic education: Ethnographic challenges (pp. 42–65). London: Tufnell Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnesen, A. L. (2011). International politics and national reforms: The dynamics between ‘competence’ and the ‘inclusive school’ in Norwegian Education Policies. Education Inquiry, 2(2), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnesen, A. L. (2012). Inkludering – Perspektiver i barnehagefaglige praksiser. [Inclusion – Perspectives in professional practices in kindergarten]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnesen, A. L., & Lundahl, L. (2006). Still social and democratic? Inclusive education policies in the Nordic Welfare States. The Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnesen, A.L., & Sollie, U. (1992/2003). Differensiering og tilpasset opplæring. [Differentiation and individually adjusted teaching]. Oslo: HiO-rapport nr. 11/2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnesen, A. L., Mietola, R., & Lahelma, E. (2007). Language of inclusion and diversity: Policy discourses and social practices in Finnish and Norwegian schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(1), 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnesen, A. L., Nilsen, S. E., Lien Holte, K., & Martinsen Dyrnes, E. (2013). Elevers vei mot yrkeskompetanse. Praksis ved en videregående skole 2012–2013. [Students’ pathways to vocational competences. Practices at a vocational upper secondary school 2012–2013]. Halden: Høgskolen i Østfold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asp-Onsjö, L., & Holm, A. S. (2014). Governance by marks – An ethnographic study of school achievements and gender. In A. L. Arnesen, E. Lahelma, L. Lundahl, & E. Öhrn (Eds.), Fair and competitive? Critical perspectives on contemporary Nordic schooling (pp. 61–84). London: Tufnell Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakken, A. (2007). Ungdomsskolens klasseskiller [Class divisions in lower secondary school]. In Å. Strandbu & T. Øia (Eds.), Ung i Norge. Skole, fritid og ungdomskultur. (pp. 42–61). [Young in Norway. School, leisure, and youth culture], chapter (pp. 42–61). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakken, A., & Elstad, J. (2012). For store forventninger? Kunnskapsløftet og ulikheter i grunnskolekarakterer [Too high expectations? The knowledge promotion and differences regarding marks from compulsory school]. Oslo: NOVA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bart, E., Moene, K., & Wallerstein, M. (2003). Likhet under press – utfordringer for den skandinaviske fordelingsmodellen. Makt- og demokratiutredningen 1998–2003 [Equality under pressure – Challenges for the Scandinavian distribution model. The power and democracy study 1998–2003]. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, D., & Sernhede, O. (2013). On creativity and resistance in Nordic youth culture on the margins. In G. Gudmundsson, D. Beach, & V. Vestel (Eds.), Youth and marginalisation. Young people from immigrant families in Scandinavia (pp. 61–84). London: The Tufnell Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, D., Dovemark, M., Schwartz, A., & Öhrn, E. (2013). Complexities and contradictions of educational inclusion. A meta-ethnographic analysis. Nordic Studies in Education, 33, 254–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkelund, G. E., & Mastekaasa, A. (2009). Innledning [Introduction]. In G. E. Birkelund & A. Mastekaasa (Eds.), Integrert? Innvandrere og barn av innvandrere i utdanning og arbeidsliv. (pp. 11–42) [Integrated? Immigrants and children of immigrants in education and working life] (pp. 11–42). Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language & symbolic power. Edited and Introduced by John B. Thompson. Cambridge/Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buendía, E. (2011). Reconsidering the urban in urban education: Interdisciplinary conversations. Urban Review, 43(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, D. L., Nilholm, C., & Persson, B. (2012). School district administrators’ perspectives on special education policy and practice in Scandinavian. Journal of Disability Research, 14(3), 212–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W., Ashenden, D. J., Kessler, S., & Dowsett, G. W. (1982). Making the difference. Schools, families and social division. Sydney/London/Boston: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fangen, K., & Frønes, I. (2013). Structural barriers and individual agency: A mixed-methods approach to school-work transitions among young adult immigrants and descendants. In G. Gudmundsson, D. Beach, & V. Vestel (Eds.), Youth and marginalisation. Young people from immigrant families in Scandinavia (pp. 9–33). London: The Tufnell Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frønes, I., & Strømme, H. (2010). Risiko og marginalisering. [Risk and marginalisation]. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grepperud, G. (Ed.). (2000). Tre års kjedsomhet. Om å være elev i ungdomsskolen [Three years of boredom. On being student in lower secondary school]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irby, D. J. (2015). Urban is floating face down in the mainstream: Using hip-hop-based education research to resurrect “the Urban” in urban education. Urban Education, 50(1), 7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klette, K. (2003). Lærernes klasseromsarbeid: Interaksjons- og arbeidsformer i norske klasserom etter Reform 97 [Teachers’ classroom work: Interaction and working in Norwegian classrooms after reform 97]. In K. Klette (Ed.), Klasserommets praksisformer etter Reform 97 [Classroom practices after reform 97] (pp. 39–76). Oslo: Unipub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ljunggren, J., & Andersen, P. L. (2015). Vertical and horizontal segregation: Spatial class divisions in Oslo, 1970–2003. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research., 39(2), 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, K., & Lodge, A. (2002). Equality and power in schools: Redistribution, recognition, and representation. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markussen, E., & Seland, I. (2013). Den gode timen. En kvalitativ studie av undervisning og lærerarbeid på fire ungdomsskoler i Oslo. [The successful lesson. A qualitative study of teaching and teacher work at four lower secondary schools in Oslo]. Trondheim: NIFU Step. Rapport 3/2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mccall, Z., & Skrtic, T. (2009). Intersectional needs politics: A policy frame for the wicked problem of disproportionality. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(2), 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller, Å. (2013). Cultural racism in liberal democratic education in Sweden. In G. Gudmundsson, D. Beach, & V. Vestel (Eds.), Youth and marginalisation. Young people from immigrant families in Scandinavia (pp. 133–154). London: The Tufnell Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NDET. (2014). The education mirror. Facts and analysis of kindergarten, primary and secondary education in Norway. Oslo: Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, H. B. (2009). Skoletid. [School time]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • NMER. (1997). The national curriculum for the 10-year compulsory school. (L97). Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • NMER. (1998). The education act relating to primary and secondary education. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • NMER. (2003). Report to the storting 30 (2003–2004) culture for learning: The proposals of the committee for quality in primary and secondary education in Norway. [Report to the storting] abridged version. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. Retrieved 24 Sep 2015, from www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kd/Documents/Brochures-and-handbooks/2004/Report-no-30-to-the-Storting-2003-2004.html?id=419442

  • NMER. (2006). Report to the storting16 (2006–2007). Early intervention for life long learning. Oslo: The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. Retrieved 19 Oct 2015, from https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/report-no.-16-to-the-storting-2006-2007/id441395/?q=Early intervention for life long learning

  • NMER. (2007). The knowledge promotion. The quality framework (LK06). Oslo: The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. Retrieved 19 Oct 2015, from http://www.udir.no/globalassets/upload/larerplaner/fastsatte_lareplaner_for_kunnskapsloeftet/5/prinsipper_lk06_eng.pdf

  • Nordahl, T., & Hausstätter, R. S. (2009). Spesialundervisningens forutsetninger, innsatser og resultater. Situasjonen til elever med særskilte behov for opplæring i grunnskolen under Kunnskapsløftet. [The conditions, provisions and effects of special education. The situation for students with special needs for instruction in compulsory school]. Hamar: Hedmark University College.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2015). Growing income equality in OECD countries: What drives it and how can policy tackle it? Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 33(6), 881–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pihl, J. (2010). Etnisk mangfold i skolen. Det sakkyndige blikket. [Ethnic diversity in school. The expert gaze] (2nd ed.). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reay, D. (2006). The zombie stalking English schools: Social class and education inequality. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(3), 288–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, H. (2003). Social exclusion. Indicators, 2(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (1971). On indivuality and social forms. Selected writings. Edited and introduced by Donald N. Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Norway (2014). Samfunsspeilet. [The society mirror] 5/2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Norway (2015). Kommune-Stat-Rapportering. KOSTRA-databasen – Nøkkeltall og grunnlagsdata [Municipality-State-Reporting. KOSTRA database – Key figures and basic data].

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (2014). Human development index.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zanten, A. (2007). School differentiation and segregation in the Parisian periphery: An analysis of urban schools’ logics of action and their effects. In W. T. Pink & G. W. Noblit (Eds.), International handbook of urban education (pp. 431–445). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wacquant, L. (2013). Symbolic power and group-making: On Pierre Bourdieu’s reframing of class. Journal of Classical Sociology, 13(2), 274–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour. Farnborough: Saxon House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oslo & Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway

    Anne-Lise Arnesen

Authors
  1. Anne-Lise Arnesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne-Lise Arnesen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Educational Policy & Lead'ship, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

    William T. Pink

  2. School of Education, Uni. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

    George W. Noblit

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Arnesen, AL. (2017). Social Class, Inclusion and Exclusion: Teacher and Student Practices in Norwegian Urban Education. In: Pink, W., Noblit, G. (eds) Second International Handbook of Urban Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40317-5_37

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40317-5_37

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40315-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40317-5

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation