Educating ‘the new Norwegian we’: an examination of national

and cosmopolitan education policy discourses in the context of

extremism and Islamophobia

Audrey Osler and Lena Lybaek

Buskerud and Vestfold University College, Norway

Introduction

On July 22, a horrific crime was committed against the Norwegian people, especially against the youth. The young people who were robbed of their lives that day loved democracy, the rule of law and respect for human dignity. For them, these were the means by which political differences and cultural diversity should be addressed.

(Frimpong and Blom, 2011)

So write employees of Utdannings Forbundet, Norway’s largest

teachers’ union, of Anders Behring Breivik’s killing of 77

people on 22 July 2011. In this paper, we explore the

political context in which the massacre occurred; examine ways

in which political rhetoric and education policy contribute to

the ‘imagined community’ (Anderson, 1991) of the Norwegian

nation; and reflect on the degree to which education policy

supports the development of a democracy in which political

differences and cultural diversity can be addressed.

Breivik’s two attacks, a deadly car bomb targeting Oslo

government buildings, followed by mass shooting at the

Arbeidernes Ungdomsfylking (AUF) (Workers' Youth League) annual

summer camp, on Utøya island, Buskerud, were motivated by

belief in a Muslim conspiracy to take over Europe. The AUF is

affiliated with the Labour Party and the attack was on

Norwegian state policies and the next generation of party

leaders, to stop what Breivik saw as the disintegration of

Nordic culture in the wake of mass immigration. His aim was to

trigger a revolution to stop Islam spreading in Europe.

Breivik’s actions can be seen, as Frimpong and Blom and

others have observed, as an attack on democracy itself, and on

the fundamental principles of freedom, justice and the rule of

law. Yet to pursue his agenda of hatred, intolerance,

violence, destruction and even murder, Breivik took advantage

of freedoms of movement, expression and communication, and

association. For example, he records how he was inspired by

the far-right English Defence League on a visit to London.

What concerns us here is the wider Scandinavian and

European political climate in which the attacks occurred,

specifically the presence of extreme right and undemocratic

political movements. We consider education policy responses to

right-wing extremism, Islamophobic and racist sentiments in

Norway. We focus on the far-right, but recognise that both

institutional racism and Islamophobia extend more widely and

are not confined to extremist organisations. The Norwegian

Labour Party, for example, has itself been criticised for

racism (Larsen, 2009).

In the wake of the attacks, Prime Minister Jens

Stoltenberg spoke of ‘the new Norwegian we’, cautioning

against a ‘them’ and ‘us’ discourse and underlining that

Muslims/minorities are an equal part of society, to be

regarded as Norwegian. Yet Stoltenberg’s response raises

further questions about the degree to which Norway, Norwegian

ideals, and identities are inclusive of minorities. In what

ways is the national narrative constructed to emphasise past

homogeneity, consensus and cohesion? To what extent do

Norwegians perceive cultural and religious diversity as ‘new’

and how is this reinforced by the rhetoric of

intellectual/political elites? How is the national narrative

constructed to emphasise past consensus and cohesion? Does the

task of creating the imagined Norwegian community occlude

long-standing diversity, past political divisions and/or

complex realities? We consider these questions by addressing

education laws and curriculum frameworks.

Thomas Hylland Eriksen (2011), writing in the immediate

aftermath of the attacks, considered its longer-term

significance, suggesting that the challenge of coming to terms

with a domestic attacker means society must acknowledge its

vulnerability. He argued that the implications of Breivik’s

association with right-wing, anti-Islamic currents in

Norwegian society needed to be taken seriously, since ‘recent

years have seen a proliferation of hate-speech against

immigrants, and Muslims in particular, on certain websites’

and a climate has developed in which ‘defenders of cultural

diversity ... are routinely attacked ... for betraying

Norwegian culture’. He anticipated that domestic politics and

political parties (including the Labour party and extreme

right) would be affected.

We share Eriksen’s perception of society’s vulnerability,

recognising both democracy’s fragility and the potential of

education to promote resilience to extremism. We focus on

right-wing and anti-Islamic currents to underline the

importance of educating against extremism. We recognise that

political rhetoric changed following the attacks, but argue

the government needs to review both discourse and education

policy to strengthen democracy in the context of diversity.

Notwithstanding debates within Norway about Breivik’s

psychological heath, and whether a sane person is capable of

such atrocities, we contend his actions and motivations need

to be understood as political. We therefore begin by examining

the broader European political climate, focussing on far

right-wing revival and on what we suggest is a sustaining

climate for extremist and anti-democratic rhetoric and

violence in the anti-Muslim, anti-immigration discourses of

European intellectual and political elites. We contend that

educational policy-makers need to understand this context, and

consider the impact of both far-right and mainstream political

and intellectual discourses (including areas of silence) to

devise policy responses that enable the full social and

political participation of minorities and educate all for

democracy and diversity.

The Scandinavian radical right and anti-immigration sentiments

Processes of extreme right-wing revival at the turn of the

twenty-first century have been uneven, revealing significant

variations between countries, linked to specific political

cultures and circumstances (Hainsworth, 2000). From the 1980s,

the European far-right has gradually adopted a discourse which

rejects crude racist expression, reasserts a commitment to

democratic processes, but nevertheless focuses on the costs of

immigration and the need for a nationalist perspective in the

face of globalisation, Europeanization, and multiculturalism,

which, it is claimed, undermine social cohesion.

Bjørklund (2001) questions whether, in a Europe-wide

context, the Scandinavian radical right-wing parties can be

labelled ‘extremist’. Focussing on the Danish Progress Party

(1972-2005), the Norwegian Progress Party (NPP)

(Fremskrittspartiet) (1973-), the Danish People’s Party (DPP)

(Dansk Folkeparti) (1995-) and the short-lived Swedish New

Democracy (1991-1995), he identifies them as deviant in the

Scandinavian context, in their challenge to other parties’

agendas. The two Progress parties were originally anti-tax,

with immigration not on their agendas.

The NPP drew much of its original inspiration from the

Danish Progress Party. It secured more than 10 percent of the

vote in 1987 local elections, rising to 13 percent in the 1989

general election, with immigration high on the agenda, as a

consequence of an increase in asylum-seekers. As well as

adopting a strong anti-immigration stance, it remains anti-tax

and has gained trust and support through proposals on health

and social care for elders.i In the 1997 parliamentary election

the NPP became the second largest in Norway, a position it has

maintained. Following the 2013 parliamentary election, the NPP

was invited into coalition government by new centre-right

Conservative Prime Minister Erna Solberg. This marks its first

period in government.ii

In Denmark, the DPP, with its strong anti-immigration

rhetoric, succeeded the Progress Party when the latter was

weakened by internal divisions. From 2001-2011 the DPP held

particular influence, cooperating with the ruling Liberal-

Conservative coalition until 2011, when a centre-left Social

Democrat-led coalition took office. In Sweden, far right

parties historically have had less parliamentary influence

than in Denmark or Norway. The populist, anti-immigrant Sweden

Democrats, founded in 1988, secured 20 parliamentary seats for

the first time in 2010, the first from the far-right since

1994.

Interestingly, radical right anti-immigration parties

have developed across Scandinavia in prosperous nations with

strong welfare states. Bjørklund (2007) challenges the

assumption that high unemployment necessarily favours radical

right electoral support. The unemployed in Denmark never had a

systematic leaning towards the far-right. Although this has

proved the case in Norway, unemployed voters form small

portion of NPP support. Nor do these parties depend

significantly on those fearing the personal consequences of

recession. Only in Sweden can a causal link be claimed between

unemployment and radical right support.

Citizenship, integration and education in Norway and

Scandinavia

The impact of differential far-right parliamentary

representation across Scandinavia is felt both in social

policy and expressions of anti-immigration/anti-Muslim

sentiment at the political margins. The MIPEX policy index

(2011) assesses EU member-states (and some other nations,

including Norway), providing a comparative assessment of laws

and policies to promote equality and participation and prevent

discrimination. MIPEX rankings are necessarily a rough measure

of policy development, but enable a comparative overview.

MIPEX ranks Sweden (85 points) first across participating

states. According to MIPEX, Sweden adopts a mainstreaming

approach to enable equal opportunities for residents,

nationals and non-nationals; guarantees legal protection from

discrimination; the right to family reunification; and an

inclusive model of social entitlement, covering labour-market

access, orientation, and Swedish language and mother-tongue

classes. Norway is ranked at 7 (66 points), scoring well on

the formal political participation of newcomers. However, the

2008 Immigration Act imposes new conditions on family reunion,

making these among the least favourable in Europe. Such

conditions are arguably in tension with overall policy

initiatives to enable cohesion and integration. Denmark’s much

lower position at 14 (53 points) in the MIPEX index reflects

the influence of the parliamentary DPP on the Liberal-

Conservative government 2001-2011. Denmark also scores badly

on family reunification, with migrants receiving targeted

labour-market support but lacking equal social support to

established citizens.

According to MIPEX, education is an area of weakness in

integration and social cohesion policies in most European

nation-states. MIPEX notes however that Norway has, since

2004, introduced education reforms to enable monitoring of

achievement and the targeting of needs and outcomes for

’Norwegians with other cultural backgrounds’, citing the

strategic plan: Equal Education in Practice! (MER, 2007). In

education, Norway is ranked 4 (63 points) (alongside Finland

and Portugal) and ahead of the UK, ranked 7 (58), and Denmark

10 (51) but behind top-ranked Sweden (77) Canada and Belgium.

Migrants study Norwegian at all school levels, while receiving

mother-tongue support. MIPEX claims multicultural education

has been strengthened in Norwegian curricula through the

National Centre for Multicultural Education (NAFO).

However, in Norway ‘multicultural education’ is equated

with Norwegian language learning by speakers of other

languages. The equal education strategy focuses almost

exclusively on speakers of ‘minority languages’iii, suggesting

that once learners achieve Norwegian language competence,

equal outcomes follow. It does not consider other barriers to

participation. No significant proposals are made for changes

in mainstream society or curricula. The foreword states: ‘The

Government will work against racism and for a tolerant,

multicultural society’. However, subsequent measures to

address ‘bullying, violence, racism and discrimination’ focus

largely on the minority child, with the plan citing research

that ‘minority students seem to benefit greatly’ from the

Positive Behaviour, Supportive Learning Environment (PALS)

programme (MER, 2007: p.46). The strategy locates the

challenge of integration among minoritised students, rather

than within mainstream society.

The overall policy direction is not necessarily towards

greater integration. The 2008 Immigration Act reduced access

to secondary and higher education for unaccompanied minors

over 16 (MIPEX, 2011). Young undocumented immigrants cannot

access vocational training, and these limitations on

educational access are likely to impact negatively on economic

integration and labour-market access. In this respect, Norway

compares unfavourably with many other nations.

The Scandinavian countries have a proud tradition in

education for democracy. A comparative assessment of students’

civic knowledge can be made by reference to the International

Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement

(IEA) Civic Education study (1994-98) and subsequent on-going

International Civic and Citizenship Education studies (ICCS).iv

Analysis of Norwegian ICCS data confirms that Scandinavian

students score strongly on democratic knowledge and skills,

significantly above the international average. Despite this,

the research suggests that, in contrast to 14-year-olds in

other countries, this civic knowledge and competence does not

correlate with intended conventional political participation

as adult citizens (Fjeldstad and Mikkelsen, 2004).

Education for democratic citizenship (EDC) in

multicultural contexts may, in any case, require dispositions

and experiences not consistently promoted in Scandinavian

schools. A comparative study of multicultural schools in

Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm found teachers uncertain how to

prepare students for a multicultural society. Minority

students reported low teacher expectations and teachers

assumed minorities need more support in understanding

democracy (Biseth, 2011). Minority students in Norway report

racism and discrimination at school (Øia and Vestel, 2006).

The evidence suggests that rather than recognising diversity

as a prerequisite for democracy (Parker, 2003), teachers do

not fully recognise democratic preparedness includes education

for diversity. Education for democracy and diversity are not

separate enterprises but two sides of the same coin.

Islam, multiculturalism and the 22 July attacks

Discussion of 22 July focusses on the nation’s trauma.

Interestingly, this discussion generally addresses mainstream

society, and is not recognised as part of minoritised

communities’ experiences. Before a full picture emerged, some

commentators, in Norway and internationally, apportioned blame

to Muslims. Visible minorities remain vulnerable to

Islamophobic discourses, hate speech, and the threat of

extremist violence.

Feteke (2012), in a paper contextualising the massacre,

shows how claims of a Muslim conspiracy are not peculiar to

Breivik, but extensively promulgated across Europe and beyond.

While Breivik’s actions were abhorrent and aberrant, many of

his arguments are circulated widely. Also contributing to a

climate of intolerance are neoconservative and cultural

conservative commentators, and certain politicians from

mainstream parties accessing mainstream media. While these

sources do not support the notion of a conspiracy to

Islamicise Europe, their arguments are used by conspiracy

theorists to justify their stance and actions. Feteke

(2012:32) cites the movements ‘Stop Islamisation of Europe’

and ‘Stop Islamization of America’, which bear the motto:

‘Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but

Islamophobia is the height of common sense’.

The political fallout ranges from test court cases over

free speech to agitation by defence leagues. Many of Breivik’s

ideas cannot be dismissed since they ‘are in danger of

travelling from the far Right to the mainstream’ supported by

‘those conservatives, liberals and dogmatic secularists who

believe that an absolute right to free speech frees them to

mock and abuse Muslims without fear of prosecution’ (Feteke,

2012:37, Khosravi, 2012). European anti-minaret campaigns aim

to demonise Muslim communities. Swiss People’s Party (SVP)

deputy Oskar Freysinger is quoted as describing minarets as a

‘symbol of political and aggressive Islam… a symbol of Islamic

law’ (Feteke, 2012:34). In such discourses, multiculturalism

is equated with cultural relativism and abandonment of ‘our’

values.

Senior political figures, including French President

Sarkozy, German Chancellor Merkel, and UK Prime Minister

Cameron have attacked multiculturalism. Cameron claimed ’state

multiculturalism’ undermines community (Osler, 2009), while

Merkel asserted multiculturalism has 'failed utterly’ and that

Germans and foreign workers cannot 'live happily side by

side'. Ironically, neither Germany nor France has aspired to

multiculturalism, nor has Britain developed comprehensive

state multiculturalism or ‘multicultural citizenship’

(Kymlicka, 1996). What has not been tried cannot be said to

have failed. Europe’s leaders are criticised for ‘reacting in

a defensive and unimaginative way’ (Group of Eminent Persons

Council of Europe, 2011).

Through a complex process, involving mass media, popular

culture and academic writing, anti-Muslim rhetoric and

sentiments are naturalised and become part of a dominant con-

sensus. Islam is the limiting case for multiculturalism

(Osler, 2009).v This is the prevailing climate in which

education policy is formulated and enacted. We now turn to the

framework for analysing Norwegian education policy.

Conceptual framework

To analyse the curriculum, we selected two of the original

framing questions from phase one of the comparative civic

education study (IEA, 1995), addressing national identity and

social cohesion.vi The published case studies adopting this

framework (Torney-Purta et al.1999) do not include Norway.

This paper covers different ground from existing and

anticipated Norwegian ICCS reports since the international

study reduced the 18 original questions to 6, no longer

addressing national identity or social cohesion (Schulz et

al.2010).vii

Our conceptualisation of EDC includes a focus on both

democracy and diversity and specifically ways in which youth

are educated for living in contexts of diversity, at various

scales from local to global. This approach has been

characterised as ‘education for cosmopolitan citizenship’

(Osler and Starkey, 2003, 2005). We are interested in how

education policy conceptualises ‘the new Norwegian we’. We

focus both on the mainstream and on minorities. For this

reason we apply the Core International Framing Question

addressing National Identity and Relations between Nations

(Figure1).

Figure 1: Framing question: national identity and relations

between nations

What expectations are there about acquiring a sense of

national identity or loyalty?

How important is sense of belonging to the nation, to

communities, to traditions and institutions?

What supranational structures and international organisations

and sub national (e.g. ethnic or religious groups) are

considered important enough to have a place in the young

person’s awareness, identity or loyalty?

Are either supranational or sub national groups thought of as

presenting a threat to national identity or loyalty? (IEA,

1995)

The Core International Framing Question on Social

Cohesion and Social Diversity (Figure 2), allows us to

consider how minoritised groups (those set apart by ethnicity,

race, immigrant status, mother tongue or other factors) are

conceptualised in policy papers and curriculum formulations

targeted at the mainstream. It considers questions of

disadvantage and discrimination (past and present) and how

these are addressed. Centrally, it addresses political

participation or exclusion, fundamental to the concept of

citizenship. We have seen how in Europe diversity is

increasingly problematized, rather than recognised as a

democratic asset. This Framing Question allows us to examine

potential tensions between the need for social cohesion and

recognition of minorities’ rights. It enables consideration of

whether and how educational policy confronts issues of

respect, justice and societal tolerance/intolerance. At heart,

it considers questions of power.

FIGURE 2: Framing question: social cohesion and social

diversity

What do young people learn about those belonging to groups

that are seen as set apart or disenfranchised (e.g. by

ethnicity, race, immigrant status, mother tongue, social

class, religion, gender)?

What groups are viewed as subject to discrimination in

contemporary society?

How are instances of past discrimination dealt with?

Are differences in participation rates or leadership roles

(e.g. men and women; minorities) discussed or ignored?

Is there tension in the society between perceptions of the

need for social cohesion and the need to recognise cultural,

social, political or economic situation of groups?

How is conflict between groups or between groups and society

dealt with?

Are attitudes of respect and tolerance between groups encouraged? (IEA, 1995)

There is in Norway no specific timetabled subject

addressing EDC. Citizenship education was not perceived as

major concern in the 2006 school reforms (Stray,2010) nor does

it appear central to more recent political discourse.viii A

commonly-held assumption among policy-makers, reflected in

documents such as the White Paper, Motivation, Coping, Opportunities

(St Meld, 2010-2011:48), is that since Norwegian youth score

relatively highly in international comparative studies

measuring democratic competences (Mikkelsen, 2003; Mikkelsen et

al., 2010), no further action is necessary. Shortly after the

July 2011 attacks, a government-appointed commission submitted

its report Youth, Power and Participation. Although EDC was not part

of its original brief, it proposed the introduction of

citizenship as a new subject (NOU, 2011:20).

Since there is currently no specific EDC curriculum, we

focus on social sciences (including history and geography),

Norwegian, and religions, philosophies of life and ethics

(RPE), to examine how national identity and social cohesion

are addressed. These subjects continue throughout compulsory

schooling (Years 1-10). Our selection is pragmatic, since we

cannot review the whole curriculum here. RPE is included not

just because the guidelines might be expected to include

relevant material, but also because it has been a contentious

area, subject to legal challenges and revisions following UN

and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rulings (discussed

below). We also consider School Council curriculum guidelines,

since our understanding of EDC encompasses knowledge and

experience of democracy.

Documents analysed

The documents are those which form the current legal framework

for schools, namely, curriculum documents, related government-

commissioned policy documents and White Papers from which the

national curriculum stems, and the 2008 Purpose Clause, an

amendment to the 1998 Education Act. A summary is shown in

Figure 3 (labelled A-I).

The core curriculum was introduced in 1994, and remains

in force as an overarching legal framework for Years 1-13. The

1997 and 2006 curricular reforms were perceived as embodying

the Norwegian ideal of education for equality and democracy

(Thuen, 2010). Our analysis traces developments 1994-2008.

Since the curriculum is broadly defined by competences

and values, rather than specific content, we restrict our

analysis to policy documents and legal frameworks. We are as

interested in silences as in explicit focus. By including

policy papers which precede curricular documents, it is

possible to uncover and elucidate formulations and gaps in the

latter. While recognising policy implementation as a dynamic

process in which teachers and students are actors, this study

is an analysis of official policy.ix

Figure 3: Norwegian curriculum legal framework: documents analysed

Type Date Title Status Official translation

Applicable(Years)

A Core curriculum forprimary/secondary/ adult education in Norway

1994 Generell læreplan Legal guidelines

Yes 1-10

B Government-commissioned policy paper examining religions and ethics curriculum. Chair: Erling Pettersen

1995 Identitet og dialog(Identity and Dialogue)

Norwegian Official ReportNorsk Offentlig Utredning (NOU)

No

C Policy paper: basedon several NOUs. Commisssioned by Quality Commission, examining primary & secondary education quality.

2003-2004

Kultur for læring(Culture for Learning)

White Paper Stortingmelding (St Meld)

Yes (abridged)

D The (LK06) NationalCurriculum for Knowledge Promotion in Primary and Secondary Education and Training:- core curriculum, quality framework, - subject curricula, teachinghours

2006 Kunnskapsløftet(Knowledge Promotion)

Legal guidelines: all subjectsreformed

Yes

E Curriculum: Social Sciences

2006 SamfunnsfagLK06(Social Sciences)

Legal guidelines

Yes 1-10

F Curriculum: Norwegian language

2006 Norsk(Norwegian )

Legal guidelines

Yes 1-10

G Curriculum: StudentCouncil (see note viii)

2006 Elevrådsarbeid (Student Council Work)

Legal guidelines

Yes 8-10(76 hours)

H Government- commissioned report/policy paper: examining the PurposeClause in Education

2007 Formål for framtida (Objectives forthe Future)

Norwegian Official Report (NOU)

No

Act. Chair: Inga Bostad.I Curriculum: Religions and Ethics

2008 Religion, livssyn og etikk (Religion, Philosophies ofLife and Ethics)

Legal guidelines

Yes 1-10

J Education Act 2008 Purpose Clause Law Yes 1-13

Together, the documents in Figure 3 (the core curriculum,

the quality framework and various subject curricula) make up

the national curriculum and the legal guidelinesx by which

Norwegian schools in general and the teaching of

religious/ethical education, social sciences and Norwegian are

governed. They can be placed in three groups. The first group

(documents B and I) relate to RPE: the policy paper Identity and

Dialogue (NOU, 1995:9)(B) on which this subject is based and the

curriculum (I). The second set forms the 2006 Education Reform

Kunnskapsløftet (quality framework), addressing social sciences,

Norwegian and school councils.xi It includes the White Paper,

Culture for Learning(C), and a series of curriculum documents (D-G).

The quality framework summarises and elaborates the provisions

in the 1998 Education Act. The third set consists of documents

A, H and J. These are the 1994 core curriculum (A), the 2008

Purpose Clause (J) of the 1998 Education Act, and Objectives for

the Future (NOU:2007:6)(H) that examines the Purpose Clause. The

core curriculum explicates the Purpose Clause, specifying

education’s central objectives. It addresses values, the

cultural basis and foundational knowledge upon which education

is built.

Our analysis is limited to compulsory schooling and we

exclude from our consideration the report Diversity and Coping (NOU

2010:7), addressing multilingual children, youth and adults,

and the White Paper Diversity, Coping Skills and Opportunities (St

Meld.22, 2010-2011) because they have not yet found their way

into curricula. These latter documents are nevertheless

discussed in our reflections below on education for

cosmopolitan citizenship.

Schooling and national identity

National identity, community and belonging

National identity and a sense of belonging feature strongly in

both the 1994 core curriculum(A) and the 2008 Purpose

Clause(H). Indeed, national identity and belonging are seen as

inseparable: the nation is presented as learners’ primary unit

of belonging. Both documents stress the role of education in

shaping cultural identity, realised ‘through becoming familiar

with inherited forms of conduct, norms of behavior and modes

of expression’ (document A:p.4) and, as the 2006 quality

framework clarifies, through developing a sense of social

belonging. Education is not exclusively nationalistic: ‘It

must promote democracy, national identity and international

awareness’ (A:p.5, our emphasis). Here the curriculum includes

cosmopolitan elements, or minimally, a claim that Norwegian

identity is international in outlook. The Purpose Clause

reaffirms the role of education as opening ‘doors to the

world’ and giving learners ‘historical and cultural anchorage’

explicitly linked to ‘Christian and humanist values’.

The most striking feature of curriculum documents and

reports is the frequent references to ‘Christian and humanist

values’, presented as the foundation of the nation and of

education. This formulation may unwittingly exclude students

from other religious traditions and risks the interpretation

that Christianity is the only tradition compatible with

humanist principles or human rights,xii since in the core

curriculum we discover that:

Christian and humanistic values both demand and foster tolerance, providing room for other cultures and customs. They buttress the rule of law and the democratic state as

the framework for equal political participation and debate. …Our Christian and humanistic tradition places equality, human rights and rationality at the fore (A:1994:p.7).

Although the phrase ‘Christian and humanistic values’ is

repeated so often as to become something of a mantra, these

values are variously listed. In the core curriculum they are:

tolerance, respect for other cultures and traditions, charity,

brotherhood, hope and rationality. The Purpose Clause

identifies them as: ‘respect for human dignity and nature,

intellectual freedom, charity, forgiveness, equality and

solidarity. (H, 2008: para.1.1). In this later document the

values are understood to be universal since they are ‘found in

different religions and beliefs and are rooted in human

rights’. Here other (non-identified) religions may be

interpreted as also putting equality, human rights and

rationality to the fore. While Christian and humanist values

predominate, we observe a small but significant shift in

perspective over time.

The core curriculum(A) also emphasises the national

canon, and subject knowledge essential to building a common

(national) identity. This identity is founded in a common

history, language and culture, in the face of increasing

global complexity. The curriculum asserts a relationship

between individual identity formation and the acquisition of

inherited norms and behaviours. Implicit is an understanding

that ‘preserving and deepening’ national and local heritage

will also strengthen and preserve a common national identity

(A,1994: p.9).

The core curriculum acknowledges a fast changing global

context, but the foreword (English language version) by then

Education Minister Gudmund Hernes, noting that ‘schools have

become increasingly multicultural’, is the only

acknowledgement that Norway’s school population is changing.

There is no suggestion that curricula need to change in

response to changing demography.

The Identity and Dialogue Commission’s brief was to

consider changes in demography and religious affiliation,

specifically increased cultural and religious diversity

resulting from immigration. Its report (NOU, 1995)(B)

considered how all children might learn about the nation’s

Christian heritage and world religions, philosophy and ethics.

It recommended the introduction of a compulsory subject

‘religion and ethics’ to support the Purpose Clause in the

Education Act, concerning learners’ development of a

(national) religious and cultural identity. This was to be

realised through an emphasis on Christianity and the

introduction of other religious/moral traditions at primary

school, laying the ground for dialogue and a common set of

values and ethics at secondary level (Stray, 2010). This

common curriculum would unite children of different faiths and

cultures by building a shared national identity through an

understanding of Norway’s ‘Christian and humanistic’ heritage.

Introduced in 1997, this curriculum was challenged in

Norwegian and international courts by secular parents

concerned that a compulsory religious curriculum with limited

exemptions undermined the principle of freedom of religion.

Following a UN ruling that Norway’s mandatory religious

education programme was not delivered in a ‘neutral and

objective way’ (UNHCR, 2004),xiii and a subsequent international

legal challenge and 2007 ECHR ruling, the subject was revised

and the 2008 Purpose Clause of the Education Act formulated.

RPE continues to give priority to Christian and humanist

traditions but the ‘neutral, pluralistic, objective’ and

inclusive nature of education is stressed (NOU, 2007:

p.122[H]; Kunnskapsløftet, 2006[D]; I and J). The claim, that the

‘stable, basic values that our society is grounded in’ are

essential for developing a secure national identity (NOU,

2007:p.43), reiterates previous policy.

The UN and Strasbourg judgements are important as they

uphold parents’ and children’s rights to freedom of religion

and to be educated in public schools that respect and nurture

diverse cultures. Indirectly, these judgements challenge the

assumption that Norwegian national identity is monolithic.

They support the claim that there are multiple ways of being

Norwegian.

From 2006, policy documents also suggest multiple ways of

belonging, recognising the school’s obligations to three

groups:

Norwegians with a Norwegian cultural background and

identity;

indigenous and national minorities or ‘Norwegians of

other cultural backgrounds’ (St Meld, 2003-

2004(49):p.24)(C);

others: ‘cultural and linguistic minorities’,

‘newcomers’, ‘immigrant population’, ‘minority-language

students’.

This third group ‘do not share the common Norwegian heritage’

(A,1994:p.20). Their identities and sense of belonging are

seen as related to their various traditions and the

development of Norwegian identity. The school’s role is to

enable them to acquire Norwegian-ness, while developing a

learning environment affirmative of other cultural, ethnic and

religious expressions (St Meld, 2003-2004 (30):p.4)(C).

Norwegians ‘with a Norwegian cultural background’, is the

reference group to which newcomers should aspire. Acceptance

of a shared cultural heritage is the key to integration (NOU,

2007)(H), rather than the political loyalty and acceptance of

common human rights standards that Parekh (2000) stresses.

The documents acknowledge national historical and

cultural heritage is not static but must incorporate new

impulses(A and H). There is no suggestion, however, that

integration is a two-way process, with established Norwegians

learning from newcomers. Recognition of diversity implies an

abstract respect for the other, rather than curricular

recognition of diverse cultures.

Policy documents stress the importance of specific

knowledge, values and skills, drawn from the national

‘Christian and humanist tradition’, for living together.

These skills are those necessary for democratic participation

(D: p.3; I:pp.34, 68) for cooperation and to solve conflicts

that may arise in the meeting between different cultures

(A:p.4). Given that newcomers do not share ‘our Christian and

humanist heritage’, the implication is that extra school

socialisation is necessary, to make good this deficiency. .

The emphasis on a monolithic national culture is

reinforced in the curriculum for Norwegian, which affirms

knowledge of Norwegian language and culture as essential for

identity formation. These ideas are reiterated in the 2003-

2004 White Paper(C). In this subject students ‘find their own

voices, are able to express themselves and be heard’

(F,2006:p.43). The purpose clause for Norwegian stresses

Norwegian language as the key to participation in public life.

Ethnocentrism or xenophobia is not anticipated as a barrier.

Supranational structures and international organisations

International awareness is encompassed in the overarching aim

that ‘our country can remain a creative member of the global

community’ (A,1994:p.5). Purpose statements for both social

sciences and RPE curricula(E and I) highlight

internationalism. Norwegian language and literature are placed

in national, Nordic and international contexts(F); world

religions and contemporary diversity, as well as transnational

religious organisations, are addresses in RPE(I). In the

social sciences, students learn about Norway’s international

role and ‘international cooperation, terrorism, conflicts and

conflict management, and peace-work’(E). Both social sciences

and RPE have cosmopolitan elements addressing human rights and

children’s human rights. Students learn about the UN and

international cooperation between indigenous peoples.

Indigenous people and national minorities

The core and subject curricula express a responsibility to

preserve Sami language and traditions: ‘This legacy must be

nourished so that it can grow in schools with Sami pupils, in

order to strengthen Sami identity as well as our common

knowledge of Sami culture’ (A, 1994: p.9). The primary

responsibility is on the Sami; the responsibilities of the

mainstream towards the Sami are not elaborated. Mainstream

students learn about Sami language, religion, culture and

literature as part of Norwegian language, RPE, and social

sciences. Responsibility to preserve languages and traditions

is extended to include national minorities in accordance with

1995 Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection

of National Minorities (St. Meld 2003-4:24; NOU, 2007:2.4)(C

and H). xiv Policy documents also assert that schools must be

inclusive of students from immigrant communities. The focus is

on the standard curriculum adapted to meet the specific needs

of the individual, as determined by the teacher (as for

students with special needs), to enable future societal

participation (NOU, 1995; St Meld, 2003-2004[30]) (B and C).

There is no discussion of differential teacher expectations of

minoritised students or group needs arising from historical or

current discrimination, such as skills to overcome

inequalities.

The quality framework suggests that knowledge of other

cultures will ‘develop the pupils’ cultural competence for

participation in a multicultural society’ and ‘develop self-

insight and identity, respect and tolerance’ (St Meld, 2003-

2004 [30]:p.4; NOU 1995)(C, B). The assumption is that

knowledge of other cultures, taught within the framework of

‘Christian and humanist values’ will promote respect and

tolerance. Banks (2001), drawing on the research evidence,

proposes a four-dimensional multicultural education model:

content integration, knowledge construction, prejudice

reduction and an empowering school culture. The proposed

Norwegian model is partial content integration. It overlooks

research which suggests this is unlikely to suffice.

Threats to national identity / loyalty

Policy documents present a perceived tension between the

benefits and challenges of diversity. Cultural diversity

requires critical reflection; the young must understand that

in a multicultural society ‘moral standards can be a source of

conflict’. (A: p.4) While cultural diversity is enriching and

valuable (A:1994, pp.4, 22; St. Meld, 2003-2004:para.3.2[C]),

students need conflict resolution skills rather than study of

cultural diversity, which is missing from learning outcomes.

Understanding of culture and diversity are depoliticised:

education should ‘tend our national heritage and local

traditions in order to preserve variety and uniqueness - and to

meet other cultures openly in order to find pleasure in the

diversity of human expression and to learn from contrast’

(A:p.40). Despite passing reference to diverse Norwegian

cultural expressions from Sami and national minorities,

diversity is generally understood as new, arising from

immigration (St. Meld, 2003-2004,para.3.2; NOU, 2007:p.42)(C

and H). No reference is made, for example, to the long-

standing Jewish presence in Norway or to official attempts to

exclude Jews, as in Article 2 of the 1814 Constitution, which

banned Jews from entering the kingdom.  

Diversity of values is accepted, but human rights

principles prevail (NOU, 2007). Here, a normative rather than

culturally relativist position is adopted, in which human

rights trump culture. Yet the strong and binding union

presented between human rights and Christian values in

official documents imply that Christian values may trump those

of other religions. It appears that other religions and

cultures (but never Christianity?) may espouse values out-of-

keeping with international human rights standards.

Diversity is seen as a challenge both to identity

development and national heritage, therefore education should

stress ‘historical roots’ (NOU, 2007:p.42) and reassert

national characteristics (A,1995:p.10). The Identity and

Dialogue report addressing religious education judged a

pluralist multi-faith approach would cause learners ‘deep

confusion in terms of identity, values and belonging’

(NOU,1995:pp.34-37 our translation). The commission mandated to

reformulate the Purpose Clause, following international human

rights judgements against Norway’s approach to religious

education, emphasised education which prepares children to

live in a diverse and pluralist society, developing

competences for living together, and strengthening the

functional workings of democracy. It pointed, however, to

particular conflicts resulting from the ‘Islamic presence in

Norway’ and ‘international conflicts based in religious

differences’ arguing for greater public awareness of religious

matters and the relationships between religion and politics,

gender, and identity. It noted, on the one hand, society is

becoming more secular, and simultaneously, religion (Islam) is

more visible, and more strongly critiqued. Two pages later, it

presents ‘totalitarian ideas and regimes, ignorance,

intolerance and conflicts’, as potential threats to Norway,

although there is no reference to Islam in this section (NOU,

2007:pp.58-60) (H). The ability to discuss what might

constitute threats to democracy is a social sciences learning

outcome in upper secondary school(E).

Social cohesion and social diversity

Our analysis identifies a tension in policy between

recognition of diversity and concerns about social cohesion.

The IEA Framing Question addressing social cohesion and social

diversity (Figure 2) is concerned with what young people learn

about diversity and social cohesion.

Discrimination in contemporary society

Groups considered as being subject to discrimination in

government action plans (KRD, 2009) are: immigrants,xv the

Sami, and national minorities. Education policy (St. Meld

2003-2004[30]) recognises children with disabilities as

subject to discrimination. Since 2006, all recognised forms of

discrimination are addressed in the office of the Ombudsperson

for Equality and Anti-discrimination. Reports from the

Ombudsperson indicate that complaints relating to gender

discrimination and ethnic discrimination are most frequently

received and as noted above, minority children also report

racism and discrimination at school.

The social science curriculum(E) covers culture, the

relationship between religion and culture, discrimination and

tolerance. From Year 7, learners are expected to be able to

name various national minorities and the Sami, and to give an

account of their history and life conditions. Students are

also expected to be able to talk about gender, sexual

orientation, and different types of families (St Meld, 2003-

2004[30]: 123)(C).

Research on young people’s knowledge of Sami history and

the discrimination to which they have been subjected, suggests

that curriculum fails to meet learners’ entitlements under the

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Lile,2011;

Vedvik,2011). Formulations in the core curriculum relating to

‘loyalty to heritage’ and ‘respect and appreciation of what

people before us have accomplished’ are weak (Lile, 2011).

Teachers report they are ill-prepared, having learnt little

about minorities or discrimination in their professional

training (Vedvik,2011).

Norway has a long history of institutional and State

discrimination against the Sami and national minorities.

Although the core curriculum stresses the need for knowledge

about other cultures and religions, ‘foster[ing] equal worth

and solidarity for those whose skills differ from those of the

majority’ and ‘knowledge about mankind’s conflict-ridden

history’ as a prerequisite for solidarity and equity (A,

1995:9, 40), before 2013, subject curricula were silent with

regard to issues of past discrimination towards indigenous

people. A new learning outcome requires students to be able to

outline Sami history; consider the consequences of the

Norwegianification from the mid-nineteenth century to the

present day; and study the Sami struggle for rights. There is

an on-going silence concerning the 1942 deportation of Jewish

Norwegians and their murder at Auschwitz, and about anti-

Semitism today.

Tolerance and respect

The purpose of RPE is to develop knowledge, respect and

tolerance of different religions and beliefs present in the

classroom and in Norway. It reiterates that learners’

‘identity and ethical, social and cultural competence, [and]

ability to understand democracy and democratic participation’

are at the heart of schooling (D, 2006). Respect for human

dignity, human rights, and affirmation of diversity are also

stressed in subject curricula(E, F and I). Understanding and

communication are emphasised in preparing learners for

international cooperation(NOU, 2007:p.22). Pluralistic,

objective and neutral teaching of religion, values and ethics

is described as a prerequisite for this kind of education. The

report claims this this approach to religion, ethics and

values is not at odds with the foundational aim of the

curriculum concerning ‘our Christian and humanist tradition’.

Nevertheless worthy statements of commitment to tolerance and

respect are likely to be undermined by an over-riding concern

for preserving national heritage and tradition, in the face of

diversity, immigration and globalisation. Silences and gaps in

addressing past inequalities together with neglect of present-

day extremism, Islamophobia and other forms of racism, further

undermine the stated policy goal of promoting tolerance and

respect.

Educating for cosmopolitan citizenship

Recognition of learners’ multiple and flexible identities is

at the heart of education for cosmopolitan citizenship,

recognising diversity at all scales from the local to the

global and equipping learners with skills and attitudes to

engage in struggles for justice and human rights. Education

for cosmopolitan citizenship emphasises our common humanity

and human solidarity.

It appears Norwegian policy-makers see no urgent need to

develop citizenship education. A 2005 Plan of Action for

active citizenship in schools was later abandoned. The 2011

White Paper Motivation, Coping, Opportunities cites research which

claims the curriculum has greater ambitions concerning

education for democratic citizenship and global perspectives

than that of comparative nations (St Meld, 2010-2011:p.48).

Yet knowledge about democracy and general expressions of

tolerance are insufficient guarantors of social justice or

minority rights. Education policy stresses Norway’s role in an

interdependent world, but there is limited value in fostering

solidarity with strangers in distant places if solidarity with

strangers in one’s neighbourhood is neglected or neighbours

are not fully recognised as citizens.

In Norway, additional questions relating to the

Holocaust, genocide and racism were added to the 2009 ICCS

study. Learners were found to have a higher tolerance profile

than the international average, expressed in responses to

general statements, such as ‘all ethnic groups should have the

same rights’, where 9 out of 10 students agreed. However, in

response to specific claims, such as: ‘To refuse Muslims to

build mosques in Norwegian cities is an expression of racism’,

tolerance levels appear to fall, with more than 56 per cent

disagreeing (Mikkelsen et al., 2010:15,19).

Our analysis suggests education policy operates within a

framework in which identity is assumed to be singular and

constant. A learner is either ‘Norwegian’, from ‘a national

minority’, ‘Sami’, or ‘other’. Despite contrary statements,

national heritage is presented as monolithic and unchanging.

The two official reports, Objectives for the Future (NOU, 2007), and

Diversity and Coping (NOU, 2010) addressing the needs of

multilingual learners, assess globalisation and its impact in

more positive terms than previous documents. We encounter the

language of liberation (from national cultural hegemonies) and

references to cultural innovation (NOU,2007:66). There is, for

the first time, discussion of transnationalism and identity

formation and hybrid and multiple identities (NOU,2010).

Although the core curriculum recognises ‘Norwegians of

different cultural backgrounds’ who represent societal

enrichment, encounter with ‘the other’ is largely about

developing tolerance, not solidarity. Despite growing public

recognition of Norway as a multicultural nation, education

policy promotes an ‘us’ and ‘them’ discourse, counter to

education for cosmopolitan citizenship.

The teacher’s knowledge and competence is critical in

discussing past discrimination and its continuing impact on

minoritised people. Public debates about the role of religion

in society and conflicts identified with the Islamic presence

in Norway (NOU, 2007)(H), need to be contextualised and

interpreted within a global context in which Islamophobia

thrives as a contemporary form of racism. This implies

objective knowledge of Islam and the social experiences of

Muslims. In particular, trainee teachers need to examine how

racism and xenophobia undermine the democratic ideals which

the nation and schools espouse. They need a language to

discuss racism, culture and power, and skills to support

students in struggles for justice.

Some documents seem more concerned with establishing an

educational framework which preserves children’s right to

participation, than with what students should learn or how

they will experience participation, equality and justice,

particularly if they are from minority communities. The 2008

Purpose Clause guarantees the right to a healthy physical and

psycho-social learning environment. Schools have a

responsibility to act if a student experiences discrimination,

on the basis of physical/ intellectual disabilities, gender,

sexual orientation, or ethnicity (NOU 2009:14). Yet a

political and pedagogical discourse focusing largely on

immigrants’ language acquisition (MER,2007; NOU, 2010)

reflects an failure to identify structural and institutional

barriers to inclusion which can be reinforced or challenged

through curriculum. Racism and discrimination are rarely

considered in academic or political discussions concerning

education, despite evidence suggesting the psycho-social

learning environment is the most significant factor

determining minority students’ access to learning (Bakken,

2009).

Education policy and the legal framework stress the

individual’s right to equal participation, with Norwegian

language as the key. Students with an ‘immigrant background’

are assumed to experience language deficits, with teachers

anticipating other democratic deficits. Effectively, minority

students are pathologised. Government initiatives addressing

forced marriages, domestic violence and genital mutilation

stress an equality deficit in minoritised communities, perhaps

concealing these communities’ positive features and gender

injustices in mainstream society. In this context, teaching

and learning about minoritised groups will be distorted,

reinforcing an ‘us and them’ discourse.

Conclusion

Stoltenberg’s emphasis on the ‘new Norwegian we’ and his

appeal against exclusionary discourses won him widespread

respect across Europe, demonstrating his leadership in

challenging racism and Islamophobia. One of the most shocking

features of the 22 July tragedy is that many of Breivik’s

beliefs are replicated in mainstream European politics. Some

ideas of the radical right have already travelled to the

mainstream and possibly into schools, with the Islamic

presence in Norway presented as a potential threat to

democracy and source of conflict. Yet we identified no mention

of right-wing extremism, ethnocentrism or Islamophobia as

threats to democracy. Unless diversity is seen as an essential

feature of democratic life and potential source of strength,

education for democracy remains flawed.

In a Norway which is both multi-faith and increasingly

secular, it is difficult to justify adherence to ‘Christian

and humanist values’ as a central policy goal. Policy-makers

already acknowledge these values in other faiths and belief

systems and readily accept Norway’s ideals are aligned with

international human rights standards. Rather than look to an

imagined old homogeneous Norwegian we, which may promote

ethnocentrism and exclusionary practices, policy-makers might

take the next step and make Norway’s commitments to

international human rights standards the basis for values

education.

The realisation of a ‘new Norwegian we’ requires a

curriculum which genuinely integrates minority perspectives

and narratives. It requires an acknowledgement of asymmetrical

power relationships. When children enter school they are

positioned in histories which privilege or repress their voices.

Their identities, including ascribed identities, relate these lived

experiences. An ascribed identity is designated by powerful others:

policy-makers and teachers. Policy labels some students as

‘immigrant’ even when they are Norwegian-born and hold Norwegian

nationality; and designates them ‘multicultural’ when they are of

non-European heritage, regardless of citizenship. Ascribed

identities have an impact on self-identity, learning and sense of

belonging.

According to Bhabha (2003) an ethics of recognition permits an

examination of power struggles and power relations in which

histories and identities are given recognition. The right of

children to develop their own identities is critical; schooling

should extend rather than limit learners’ identities. Drawing on

children’s experiences and cultural backgrounds as a resource rather

than as a deficit may support genuine integration into community of

the school and nation. This involves allowing children to discover

and create their own narratives at school. It is what Bhabha (2003)

refers to as ‘the right to narrate’. Such narratives can contribute

to a new collective narrative of the school, community, and

ultimately the nation. By acknowledging Norway’s long-standing

diversity and complex past, it may be possible to construct

new solidarities and new knowledge, recognising that diversity

and diverse histories and struggles for justice enrich rather

than undermine democracy.

Conceptualising the ‘new Norwegian we’ implies the

development of a school culture in which students are not

encouraged to participate for the sake of an abstract

democratic ideal, but one in which they feel empowered to

build a newly-imagined Norway. This implies critical

examination of the past, contributions in the present, and

school cultures which empower all, regardless of their family

or community heritage, to express their multiple identities

and shape the future. .

Education for cosmopolitan citizenship is not an

inoculation against extremism. Norwegian educational policy

promotes international solidarity. The challenge is to extend

this to the nation and the neighbourhood, not merely by

embracing diversity but by promoting human solidarity across

difference at all scales: in the school, neighbourhood, across

the nation, and globally.

References

Amadeo, J.-A., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Husfeldt, V. &

Nikolova, R. (2002) Civic knowledge and engagement: An IEA study of

upper secondary students in sixteen countries (Amsterdam,

International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Achievement),

Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities (London: Verso).

Bakken, A.(2009) Ulikhet på tvers. Har foreldres utdanning, kjønn og

minoritetsstatus like stor betydning for elevers karakterer på alle skoler?

[Inequality across the board. Are parents' education,

gender and minority status equally important for

students' grades in all schools?] NOVA Report 8/2009.

(Oslo, Norwegian Institute for Research on Welfare and

Aging).

Banks, J.A. (2001) Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum

and teaching (4th ed.) Boston, London: Alleyn and Bacon.

Banks, J. A. (2006). Approaches to multicultural curriculum

reform, in: J.A. Banks (Ed.) Race, culture, and education: the

selected works of James A. Banks (London and New York: Routledge),

140-144.

Banks, J.A., Banks, C. M., Cortes, C., Hahn, et al. (2005)

Democracy and diversity: Principles and concepts for educating citizens in a

global age (Seattle, WA: Center for Multicultural

Education, University of Washington).

http://education.washington.edu/cme/DemDiv.pdf (accessed

8 August 2011)

Bhabha, H. J. (2003). On writing rights. In M. Gibney (Ed.)

Globalizing Rights: the Oxford Amnesty Lectures (pp. 162-183).

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bhabha, H. J. (2004). The location of culture. New York: Routledge,

2nd edition.

Biseth, H. (2011) Citizenship education in Scandinavian

multicultural schools: a comparative study of students’

and teachers’ perceptions, Citizenship Teaching and Learning

7(1),71-88.

Bjørklund, T. (2001) Extreme right parties in Scandinavia: An

overview.

http://www.politik.uni-mainz.de/ereps/download/scandinavi

a_overview.pdf (accessed 16 December 2011)

Bjørklund, T. (2007) Unemployment and the radical right in

Scandinavia: beneficial or non-beneficial for electoral

support? Comparative European Politics 7(5),245–263.

Bjørklund, T. & Andersen, J.G. (2008) Scandinavia and the far-

right, in: P. Davies & P. Jackson (eds) The far right in

Europe. An encyclopaedia (Greenwood , World Publishing), 147–

163.

BBC News (2013) Norway election: Conservative Erna Solberg

triumphs, 10 September.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-

europe-24014551 (accessed 10 September 2013).

Bruun, J., Johannesen, J. & Allerup, P. (2003)

Gymnasieungdommens politiske dannelse [The political education

of high school students] (Copenhagen, Danish University

of Education Press).

Butler, J. (2006). Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence.

(New York, Verso).

Camicia, S. P., & Bayon, A. (2012). Curriculum development

collaboration between colonizer and colonized:

contradictions and possibilities for democratic

education. In T. C. Mason & R. J. Helfenbein (Eds.),

Ethics and international curriculum work: The challenges of culture and

context (pp. xxx-xxx). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Council of Europe (2011) Living together: Combining diversity and freedom in

21st-centry Europe. Report of the Group of Eminent Persons of

the Council of Europe (Strasbourg, Council of Europe).

Education Act (1998) Act of 17 July 1998 no. 61 relating to

Primary and Secondary Education and Training (the

Education Act) reformulated with amendments as of 19

December 2008. http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-

19980717-061-eng.pdf (accessed 5 August 2012)

Engelstad, F. & G. Ødegård (2003) Ungdom, makt og mening [Youth ,

power and meaning]. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.

Eriksen, T.H. (2011) Norway’s tragedy: contexts and

consequences. Open Democracy

http://www.opendemocracy.net/thomas-hylland-eriksen/norwa

y%E2%80%99s-tragedy-contexts-and-consequences

Feteke, L. (2012) The Muslim conspiracy theory and the Oslo

massacre, Race and Class 53(3),30-47.

Figueroa, P. (2004) Diversity and Citizenship Education in

England, in J.A. Banks (Ed.) Diversity and citizenship education:

Global perspectives (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass), 219-244.

Fjeldstad, D., Mikkelsen, R. & Lauglo, J. (2010). Demokratisk

beredskap. Kortrapport om norske ungdomsskoleelevers prestasjoner og svar

på spørsmål i den internasjonale demokratiundersøkelsen International Civic

and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) 2009. .[Democratic

preparedness. Brief Report on the Norwegian school students'

performance in the international democracy survey.

International Civic and Citizenship Education Study] (Oslo, IEA/ University of Oslo).

Frimpong, Y. & Blom, L.(2011) After 22/07/11- reflections. Race

Equality Teaching 30(1a), 6-9.

Føllesdal, A. (2002) KRL-faget og høyesterett. Erklæring til

bruk i ankesak i høyesterett [Religious studies and the

Supreme Court. Statement for use in the Supreme Court

appeal], Nordic Journal of Human Rights 2002/1,70-79.

Gravem, P. (2005) KRL-faget etter uttalelsen fra FNS

menneskerettighetskomite [KRL subject for the statement

made by UN human rights committee]. Nordic Journal of Human

Rights, 2005/4:407-424.

Hainsworth, P. (2000) (Ed.)The politics of the extreme Right from the

margins to the mainstream (London, New York, Pinter).

İnce, B, (2012) Citizenship education in Turkey: inclusive or

exclusive? Oxford Review of Education, 38(2),115-131.

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational

Achievement (IEA) (1995) National case studies final guidelines

(Amsterdam, IEA) www.iea.nl.

Khosravi, S. (2012) White masks/Muslim names: immigrants and

name-changing in Sweden, Race and Class, 53(3), 65–80.

Kymlicka, W. (1996) Multicultural citizenship: a liberal theory of minority

rights (Oxford, Oxford University Press).

Kommunal og Regionaldepartementet (2002) National Plan of Action to

Combat Racism and Discrimination (2002-2006). Oslo: Kommunal

og Regionaldepartementet.

Kommunal og Regionaldepartementet (2009) National Plan of Action to

Combat Racism and Discrimination (2009-2012). Oslo: Kommunal

og Regionaldepartementet.

Larsen, O.J. (2009) Arbeiderpartieffekten [Labour effects].

Dagbladet 04.04.2009.

http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/04/04/kultur/integrering/som

alia/innenriks/5614200/ (accessed 22 January 2012).

Lauglo, J. & Øia, T. (2007) Education and civic engagement: Review of

research and a study on Norwegian youths, OECD Education Working

Papers, 12, (Paris: OECD Publishing) http://www.oecd-

ilibrary.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/docserver/download/5l4cpg49

f6d7.pdf?

expires=1381884399&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=94697C303

B287785211449D421C978DE

(last accessed 15 October 2013).

Lile, H. K. (2011a) FNs barnekonvensjon artikkel 29 (1) om formålet med

opplæring: En rettssosiologisk studie om hva barn lærer om det samiske folk.

[UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 29 (1)

the purpose of education: A sociological study of what

children learn about the Sami people]. PhD thesis. (Oslo,

Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of Oslo)

November. Summary at:

http://www.jus.uio.no/smr/forskning/arrangementer/disputa

ser/hadi_lile.html (accessed 22 January 2012)

Lile, H. (2011b) Hvitvasket historieundervisning. Vil det

norske folk virkelig at våre barn utelukkende skal

oppfostres til «lojalitet, respekt og aktelse» overfor

den «feilfrie» regjering? Kronikk [Whitewashed history

lessons. Will the Norwegian people really think our

children should only grows up to ‘loyalty, respect and

deference’ to the ‘fault free’ government? Chronicle].

Dagbladet 16.12.2011.

http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/12/16/kultur/debatt/kronikk/

samer/historie/19440444/ (accessed 22 January 2012)

Mamdani, M. (2004)Good Muslim,bBad Muslim (New York, Pantheon

Press).

Mikkelsen, R. (2003) Conditions for high democratic awareness

and participation in Norwegian schools. Journal of Social

Science Education 2003-1,

Mikkelsen, R., Fjeldstad, D.T. & Lauglo, J. (2011)

Morgendagens samfunnsborgere. Norske ungdomsskoleelevers prestasjoner

og svar på spørsmål i den internasjonale demokratiundersøkelsen ICCS.

[Tomorrow's citizens. Norwegian high school students'

performance and responses in the international democracy

ICCS study]. International Civic and Citizenship

Education Study 2009. Acta Didactica Oslo 2/2011. (Oslo,

Department of Education and School Research, University

of Oslo).

MIPEX (Migrant Integration Policy Index) (2011)

http://www.mipex.eu/

Ministry of Education and Research (2007) Likeverdig opplæring i

praksis! (Equal Education in Practice!) Strategy for better

learning and greater participation by language minorities

in day-care centres, schools and education, 2007–2009.

February. Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/Grunnskole/St

rategiplaner/Likeverdig_ENG_nett.pdf

News in English Norway (2013) Here's Norway's new government.

16 October. http://www.newsinenglish.no/2013/10/16/heres-

norways-new-government/ Accessed 16 October 2013.

NOU (1995) Identitet og dialog. Kristendomskunnskap,

livssynskunnskap og religionsundervisning. Utredning fra

et utvalg oppnevnt av Kirke-, utdannings- og

forskningsdepartementet i august 1994. [Identity and

Dialogue: Christian knowledge, ethics and religion.

Report from a committee appointed by the Ministry of

Education and Research, August 1994. Published 3 May.

NOU 1995:9. Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste.

NOU (2003) Makt og demokrati [Power and Democracy]. Final report

2003:19. 26 August.

http://www.regjeringen.no/Rpub/NOU/20032003/019/PDFS/NOU2003200300

19000DDDPDFS.pdf

NOU (2007) Formål for framtida. Formål for barnehagen og opplæringen.

(Objectives for the Future. Purpose of kindergartens and

elementary schools) Report by a committee appointed by

Royal Decree 2 June 2006. Submitted to the Ministry of

Education 8 June (2007:6). Oslo: Statens

forvaltningstjeneste.

NOU (2009) Et helhetlig diskrimineringsvern. Diskrimineringslovutvalgets

utredning om en samlet diskrimineringslov, grunnlovsvern og ratifikasjon av

tilleggsprotokoll nr. 12 til EMK. (Comprehensive protection against

discrimination. Report on comprehensive anti-

discrimination laws, constitutional protection and the

ratification of Protocol 12 to the ECHR). Report from a

committee appointed by Royal Decree 1 June 2007.Submitted

to Ministry of Children and Equality and Social Inclusion

19 June 2009. NOU 2009:14. Oslo: Departementets

servicesenter.

NOU (2010) Mangfold og mestring. Flerspråklige barn, unge og voksne i

opplæringssystemet. (Diversity and Coping. Multilingual

children, adolescents and adults in the education

system). NOU 2010:14. Report from the committee appointed

by Royal Decree 24 October 2008. Submitted to the

Ministry of Education 1 June, 2010. Oslo: Departementets

servicesenter.

NOU (2011) Ungdom, makt og medvirkning. (Youth, Power and

Participation) 2011:20. Report from the committee

appointed by Royal Decree 29 October 2010. Submitted to

the Ministry for Children, Equality and Inclusion 13

December 2011. Oslo: Departementets servicesenter.

http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/36520908/PDFS/NOU20112011

0020000DDDPDFS.pdf

Norwegian Direcotorate for Education and Training

(2006)Læreplanverket for kunnskapsløftet i grunnskolen. (Kunnskapsløftet)

(Quality framework) (2006) (Oslo: Norwegian Directorate

for Education and training).

http://www.udir.no/Upload/larerplaner/Fastsatte_lareplane

r_for_Kunnskapsloeftet/5/prinsipper_lk06_Eng.pdf?

epslanguage=no (accessed 1 August 2012)

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2008) Religion,

livssyn og etikk (Religion, Philosophies of life, and ethics)

http://www.udir.no/Stottemeny/English/Curriculum-in-

English/_english/Curricula-in-English/ (accessed 25 July

2012)

Øia, V. and Vestel, T. (2006) Møter i det Flerkulturelle (Multicultural

meetings). Rapport 21/7.  Oslo: NOVA.

 OMOD (2006) Pionerer i Norge. Ung, svart og norsk (Pioneers in

Norway. Young black and Norwegian). OMOD rapport. Oslo:

Organisasjonen mot offentlig diskriminering.

Osler, A. (2009) Patriotism, multiculturalism and belonging:

political discourse and the teaching of history. Educational

Review 61 (1), 85-100.

Osler, A. (2011) Education policy, social cohesion and

citizenship, in: I. Newman and P. Ratcliffe (eds.)

Promoting Social Cohesion: Implications for Policy and Frameworks for

Evaluation. Bristol, UK and Portland, OR: Policy Press.

Osler, A. (forthcoming) Human rights education, scholarship

and action for change. Paper submitted to Theory and

research in Social Education.

Osler, A. (2012) Higher Education, Human Rights and Inclusive

Citizenship, in: T. Basit & S. Tomlinson (eds) Higher

Education and Social Inclusion. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2001) Citizenship Education and

National Identities in France and England: Inclusive or

exclusive? Oxford Review of Education 31(2),195-215.

Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2003) Learning for cosmopolitan

citizenship: theoretical debates and young people’s

experiences, Educational Review, 55(3), 243-254

Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2005) Changing Citizenship: democracy and

inclusion in education. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Osler, A., & Vincent, K. (2002) Citizenship and the Challenge of Global

Education (Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham).

Parekh, B. (2000) Rethinking multiculturalism: cultural diversity and political theory (London, Macmillan).

Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching Democracy: unity and diversity in public life. (New York, Teachers College Press).

Royal Ministry of Education, Research and Church Affairs (1994) Den Generelle delen av læreplanen.(1993)(Core curriculum for primary, secondary and adult education in Norway) English language version 1994 (Oslo, Norwegian Directorate of Education). http://www.udir.no/Upload/larerplaner/generell_del/5/Core_Curriculum_English.pdf?epslanguage=no ( Accessed 22 January 2012)

Schaffer, K. and Smith, S. (2004). Human rights and narrated lives: The

ethics of recognition. (New York, Palgrave).

Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D. & Losito, B.

(2010) Initial Findings from the IEA International Civic and Citizenship

Education Study (Amsterdam, IEA).

http://iccs.acer.edu.au/uploads/File/Reports/ICCS_10_Init

ial_Findings.pdf Accessed 17 July 2012

St Meld (2003-2004) (30) Kultur for læring (Culture for Learning).

30, 2003-2004 (Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research).

St Meld (2003-2004) (49) Mangfold gjennom inkludering og deltakelse

Ansvar og frihet (Diversity through inclusion and

participation. Responsibility and freedom) 49, 2003-2004

(Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research).

St Meld (2010-2011) Motivasjon, mestring, muligheter. Ungdomstrinnet [

Motivation, Coping, Opportunities. Secondary school] 48,

2010-2011 (Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research).

Stray, J. H. (2010) Demokratisk medborgerskap i norsk skole? En kritisk

analyse [Democratic Citizenship in Norwegian schools? A

critical analysis]. PhD thesis. Oslo: Faculty of

Education, University of Oslo.

Thuen, H. (2010) Skolen – et liberalistisk prosjekt? 1860-

1890.[The school: a liberal project? 1860-1890]. Norsk

pedagogisk tidsskrift 4: 274-287.

Tomlinson, S. (2009) Multicultural Education in the United

Kingdom, in J.A. Banks (Ed.) The Routledge International

Companion to Multicultural Education. New York, NY: Routledge,

121-133.  

Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J. and Amadeo, J-A. (1999) Civic

e ducation across countries: twenty-four national case studies from the IEA

Civic Education Project . (Amsterdam, International Association

for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement).

Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann,R. Oswald, H. & Schulz, W. (2001)

Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries : civic knowledge and

engagement at age fourteen.

UNHCR (United Nations Human Rights Committee) (2004)

Communication No. 1155/2003. (Geneva, United Nations).

Vedvik, K.O.(2011) ”Begredelig kunnskap om samer. Den norske

stat viser liten vilje til å passe på at barn lærer om

det samiske folk, til tross for at det er lovfestet.”

Forskning.no.

http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2011/desember/306997

(Accessed 22 January 2012)

i Here the NPP spoke without responsibility since it was not in government until2013. ii Interestingly, on election night Erna Solberg described her win as 'a historicelection victory for the right wing parties' (BBC News 10 September, our emphasis)iii ‘Minority languages’ refers to all languages other than Norwegian, Sami, Danish and Swedish. It includes widely-spoken UN official languages, such as Mandarin, (estimated 900 million native speakers) and Arabic (estimated 280 million native speakers). Norwegian has an estimated 5 million speakers.iv The first phase IEA study referred to here and subsequent ICCS studies have each generated vast amounts of data, published in international comparative volumes and country studies. See the University of Maryland website for details:www.wam.umd.edu/~ieav Among the political and intellectual elites who adopt such discourses, Feteke (2012) lists, in the UK, Conservative education minister Michael Gove, Baroness Caroline Cox (former education adviser to PM Thatcher), Melanie Phillips (Daily Mail columnist), and in Germany, the philosopher Henryk M. Broder (writer at Der Spiegel/ Die Welt).vi This permits comparisons between our analysis and that of scholars using the same IEA framework for independent small scale studies published in Oxford Review of Education (Osler and Starkey, 2001; İnce, 2012).vii The first phase was intended to reflect the voices of teachers and students as well as producing data amenable to statistical analysis, hence the structuredcase studies. This qualitative data enabled the development of a test of civic knowledge, political attitudes and civic behaviour used in later phases and provided a context for subsequent quantitative data analysis (Torney-Purta, 2003)viii Education was given limited attention in the large government-initiated research project Power and Democracy (1998-2003) (NOU, 2003). ix It does not review the extensive range of commercially-produced text-books. x We have used the Norwegian originals for our preliminary analysis but, where possible provide references/web links to an English language translation.xi When we began our study in 2011 school council work was part of the formal national curriculum. This is no longer the case. xii There is little, if any, acknowledgment that historically the Christian church has not generally buttressed democratic participation, defended minority rights, or supported gender equalityxiii The Committee on the Rights of the Child Concluding Observations (2 June 2000, para: 26-7) expressed the view that Norway’s curriculum on ‘Religions, Knowledge, and Ethical Education’ may be discriminatory; expressing concern regarding the exemption process, recommending a review of implementation and an alternative exemption process. Some parents took their case to the UNHCR (Leirvåg and others v. Norway 2004), claiming that the subject, with its Christian emphasis, was incompatible with freedom of religion under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 18: Rightto freedom of thought, conscience and religion and respect for the liberty of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their convictions (UNCHR, 2004). Other parents took their case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (Folgerø and others v. Norway, 15472/02, judgment of 29/06/2007 – Grand Chamber). The UNHCR concluded the religion and ethics curriculum and the limited exemption system breached ICCPR Article 18(4) and was incompatible with other instrumentsincluding the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The UNHRC ruled the Christian education curriculum was not delivered in ‘neutral and objective way’. For the full judgement: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/6187ce3dc0091758c1256f7000526973?Opendocument The ECHR found the religions and ethics curriculum violated Article 2, Protocol 1 of the European Convention. The 2008 Purpose Clause of the Education

Act aimed ‘to respond to the concern of qualitative equality between Christianity and other religions and philosophies’ with changes in the exemptionprovisions. xiv The listed national minorities are Kvens (people of Finnish descent), Jews, Forest Finns, Roma and Romani people/Travellers. xv Immigrants are defined as persons not born in Norway and those born in Norway without a Norwegian-born parent.