Master’s Degree Studies in

International and Comparative Education

—————————————————

Education Policy in the European Context

The Case of Iceland

Valgerður S. Bjarnadóttir

May, 2013

Institute of International education,

Department of Education

2

3

Abstract

Globalization has influenced educational objectives and frameworks, by causing

policies to be borrowed from the leading world model as well as affecting social

changes within countries. Nation-states within the world system have been directed

towards common goals and frameworks from international organizations, such as the

European Union.

This study focuses on the European Union as a global policymaker within the field

of education, and how the policy presented by the Union is reflected in Iceland’s

education policy. The overall aim of this case study is to compare the Icelandic

education policy to the European Union’s education policy and priorities, in order to

find out how the policy in Iceland has developed in the European context. Qualitative

content analysis was conducted, using public policy documents published for the past

twenty years, from the two bodies.

The main result of this research is that the Icelandic education policy, especially for

upper secondary schools and higher education, has been formulated hand in hand with

the European one. This applies especially to the past 5-10 years, or after the carrying out

of the Lisbon strategy for growth and development. The relationship has been openly

confirmed by Icelandic authorities in communication with the European Union. The

most important tool used by the European Union to direct the policy formulation in

Iceland is through the Open Method of Cooperation, which appears to create a strong

social coercion within European nation states, to follow the guidance and path created

by the Union.

4

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... 4

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. 6

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. 6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... 7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 8

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 9

1.1 Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................ 11

1.2 Significance of the Study ................................................................................. 11

1.3 Limitations of the Study .................................................................................. 12

1.4 Structure of the Thesis ..................................................................................... 12

2. MAIN ELEMENTS AND CONCEPTS .............................................................................. 13

2.1 The European Union ........................................................................................ 13

2.2 Iceland .............................................................................................................. 14

2.3 Policy ............................................................................................................... 15

2.4 Nation States and Policy Making in time of Globalization ............................. 16

2.4.1 Globalization and Education ......................................................................... 16

2.4.2 World Culture in Education – Nation States and Policy Making .................. 17

2.4.3 EU-ification and the Open Method of Coordination ..................................... 20

3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 23

3.1 Research Strategies .......................................................................................... 23

3.2 Research Design .............................................................................................. 24

3.3 Selection of a Case ........................................................................................... 25

3.4 Research Method ............................................................................................. 26

3.5 Data Collection and Analysis .......................................................................... 26

3.6 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................... 30

3.7 Considerations and Limitations ....................................................................... 30

4. RESEARCH SETTING: THE ICELANDIC SCHOOL SYSTEM ............................................ 32

4.1 General Structure of the Education System ..................................................... 32

4.2 The Upper Secondary School Level ................................................................ 34

5. EDUCATION POLICY WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION ................................................. 37

5.1 European Union: General Education Ideas ...................................................... 37

5

5.2 The Lisbon Strategy, 2000 ............................................................................... 38

5.3 Mid-term Lisbon Review, 2005 ....................................................................... 40

5.4 European Commission – The Development After 2005 .................................. 43

5.5 Key Competences and Qualifications Frameworks ......................................... 44

5.6 Education in Europe: The Future ..................................................................... 47

6. THE ICELANDIC EDUCATION POLICY IN THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT ........................... 49

6.1 European Cooperation and Comparison .......................................................... 49

6.1.1 School Dropout .............................................................................................. 50

6.1.2 The Reduction of the Length of Studies Leading to Matriculation ............... 52

6.1.3 Summary ........................................................................................................ 53

6.2 Mobility, Frameworks and Qualifications ....................................................... 55

6.2.1 The Issue of National Qualifications Frameworks and Key Competences in

Iceland .................................................................................................................... 56

6.2.2 Summary ........................................................................................................ 62

6.3 Research and Development ............................................................................. 64

6.3.1 Competition Funds ......................................................................................... 66

6.3.2 Summary ........................................................................................................ 66

6.4 The Open Method of Coordination .................................................................. 68

7. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 70

7.1 General Conclusions ........................................................................................ 70

7.2 Answers to the Research Questions ................................................................. 71

7.3 Concluding Remarks and Recommendations .................................................. 72

8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 74

APPENDIX I. LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON THE EDUCATION POLICY IN ICELAND, REVIEWED FOR

THE STUDY. ....................................................................................................................... 90

6

List of Tables

Table I: Documents by the EU

Table II: Documents on the education policy in Iceland

Table III: Comparison of key competences

List of Figures

Figure I: Diagram of the Icelandic school system

Figure II: Percentage of the labour force which is unemployed

Figure III: Key competences and fundamental pillars

Figure IV: Student enrolment in higher education in Iceland 1999-2011

7

List of Abbreviations

CWEC Common World Educational Culture

EC European Commission

EEA European Economic Area

ERA European Research Area

EU European Union

EQF European Qualification Framework

HDI Human Development Index

HE Higher Education

HEIs Higher Education Institutions

ICT Information and Communications Technology

IGOs Intergovernmental Organizations

IMF International Monetary Fund

IOs International Organizations

LLP Lifelong Learning Programme

MoESC Ministry of Education, Science and Culture

NQF National Qualification Framework

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OMC Open Method of Co-ordination

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment

R&D Research and Development

STPC (Icelandic) Science and Technology Policy Council

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

8

Acknowledgements

I received a lot of support throughout the preparation and writing of this Master’s thesis.

I want to thank teachers and staff at the Institute of International Education, Stockholm

University, for being supportive and inspirational and providing the academic support

necessary.

I am deeply grateful to my supervisor, Prof. Emeritus, Holger Daun, for sharing his

experience and wisdom with me, for being patient and encouraging during the process

and for providing constructive criticism and valuable comments.

Special thanks go to my friends and colleagues, at IIE and in Akureyri, Iceland, who

encouraged me and took the time to debate and discuss my research and listen to my

thoughts and ideas. I am sincerely grateful to Sarah Davies for all her support and help.

But first and foremost, I want to thank Arnar, my husband, and our children

Rannveig and Jóhannes for all the tolerance, support and for believing in me. Takk

elskurnar.

9

1. Introduction

Important aspects of education policymaking and processes are taking place

within, as well as beyond, national borders, and that policy is produced or

mediated by an expanding array of actors, not just the state, who are

operating across multiple scales (Robertson & Dale, 2008:27).

The international policy environment has changed in many ways since World War II

causing and impact on policy decisions, implementation and research. These changes

have varied between different parts of the world, in economic, demographic and

ideological ways. The role of the nation state1 has changed, as boundaries between

states have faded and transnational events are not in control of a single nation state (Rui,

2007).

The world’s nation states are connected through all kinds of networks. The power

and importance of these networks can exhibit great power seen by many International

Organizations2 (IOs) and Intergovernmental Organizations

3 (IGOs). The World Bank,

International Monetary Fund (IMF), UNESCO, OECD and the European Union (EU)

are among those organizations, and all of them have placed much emphasis on

education as the driving force for development and growth, to a successful economy. In

fact, some scholars have noted that those organizations have developed coalitions and

when combined their forces can be quite powerful (Taylor & Henry, 2000; Rizvi &

Lingard, 2006) by letting economic and political motives shape educational policy from

outside of the traditional national education systems (Robertson & Dale, 2008).

Many international organizations have argued for more decentralization of the

educational sector within nation states, but at the same time developed exterior

1A nation state is “a political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people

sharing a common culture, history, and language”. (The Free Dictionary, n.d.)

2 International organization (n.d.) is an institution which members come from at least three states, have

activities in several states and are held together by a formal agreement. They can be both

intergovernmental and nongovernmental.

3 “The term intergovernmental organization (IGO) refers to an entity created by treaty, involving two or

more nations, to work in good faith, on issues of common interest”. (Harvard Law School, 2012).

10

guidelines and framework for international policy and educational goals. Rui (2007) and

Robertson & Dale (2008) have pointed out that the nation state is not the same as it was

25 years ago. The spaces it operates in are totally different since intergovernmental

actors, like the EU, have become more influential following increased globalization.

This is an interesting development and is important to view at both the macro and the

micro levels, to better understand the context and relationship between the global and

the local.

According to Checkel (2008), one of the most common debates within world politics

is the affects of the European institutions on the diminishment national values while

nations adapt to more central, European values. Checkel claims that this debate is not

clear-cut and more information is needed about the process and mechanism concerning

this possible causal relation.

Iceland is a small state in Europe, and one of the few countries in Europe that is not a

member of the European Union. It has been forming and developing its education

policy recently, but in the years 2006-2010 the Icelandic Parliament agreed on a new

educational act for all four school levels, teachers’ recruitment and education, as well as

adult education. According to the Icelandic Ministry of Education, Science and Culture

(MoESC)4 (2011a) the school laws represent a new educational policy. Outlined with

the new policy was to systematically instil with students with the knowledge, skills and

attitudes that are necessary for active, critical and competent participants in equal and

democratic society; the future society of the 21st century.

This study focuses on the European Union as a global policymaker within the field

of education, and how the policy presented by the Union is reflected in Iceland’s

education policy. The main focus will be on post-compulsory5 formal education and

components of the policy that emphasize both actors role.

4 From now on, the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture will be called MoESC, including

references.

5 Upper secondary education and higher education within the formal education system.

11

1.1 Aims and Objectives

The overall aim of the study is to compare the Icelandic educational policy to the

European Union’s education policy and priorities, in order to find out how the education

policy in Iceland has developed in accordance to the policy formulated by the EU, as

presented in public documents published by the two bodies. The following research

questions were developed to guide the study:

1. What have been the main education policy, ideas and agendas of the European

Union, introduced to the member countries as collective goals, for the past two

decades?

2. What tools does the EU possess to be able to impact education policy in a nation

state like Iceland?

3. How has the education policy in Iceland developed in accordance to the policy

formulated by the EU specifically at the post-compulsory school level?

1.2 Significance of the Study

A lot has been written on global policy making in education and how international

comparison and policy borrowing has become a larger part of national education policy

making. However, according to Daun (2011), researchers have not explored how

different recommendations from the European Union have influenced national

educational policy. Also, not much has been written and investigated on the case of

Iceland in the global context. This study can therefore be an important contribution to

this field of education.

Many scholars, such as Dale (2000), have stressed the importance of putting

education research into larger context. Doing a single case study within state borders

does not give a holistic picture of the formulation of education policy. Curriculum

within a nation state is usually not unique or entirely “home-made”, as ideas are

borrowed from different locations and often without being tailor-made for the specific

cultures need and circumstances, dependent on each country, yet. One cannot realise

this without widening the ground for analysis. That is being done to some extend in this

study, and therefore it gives important insight to the policy formulation in the European

context.

12

1.3 Limitations of the Study

Studying one case in a broad context is challenging and despite good will it is not

possible to be aware of all the different factors that can influence the case and the results

of the study. There are many political, historical and international issues that may be left

out or not considered as deeply within the context of this study. The main focus is on

the EU as a global actor – although it is a well-known fact that Iceland has a long

tradition of cooperation with the other Nordic countries and has followed many of their

examples when it comes to the education system (as well as other elements of

comparison), not to mention all the comparison done within the context of OECD. It is

also well known that the OECD and the EU exchange information and many of EU’s

recommendations arrive from the OECD. Unfortunately, the scope of this study does

not allow these multiple layers, as a unit of analysis, but it would provide an interesting

topic to do so in a larger study.

1.4 Structure of the Thesis

The thesis is divided in to seven chapters. Starting with the introduction, where aim and

objectives of the study, were provided, as well as the significance and limitations have

been discussed, chapter two gives a brief introduction of the main concepts of the study,

the EU and Iceland, to present the basic context of the study. Chapter two also presents

and discusses the key concepts and theories that guide the study. Chapter three

describes the methodology used in the thesis, data collection and main criteria of the

analysis. The fourth chapter presents the research setting, which is the Icelandic school

system, its development and challenges. Then, in chapter five, the EU’s education

policy will be discussed and analysed, from the time when the Maastricht treaty was

signed in 1992. In chapter six the results from the document analysis of the Icelandic

education policy will be framed and discussed in detail, in the European and theoretical

perspective. Chapter seven presents and summarises the main results in addition to

providing answers to the four research objectives.

13

2. Main Elements and Concepts

The aim of this chapter is to describe the main elements and concepts in this study, to

provide further background information and a link to important concepts and theories.

First, the main units of analysis in the study, the European Union and Iceland, will be

introduced. The educational policy of the EU will be analysed and discussed in further

detail later in the thesis, as well as the school system in Iceland. Then, the most

important concepts of the study will be presented, as well as the main theoretical ideas

that the study is based on. That includes ideas about policy making and education policy

within nation states in the global context.

2.1 The European Union

The European Union was formed after the Second World War and now consists of 27

European countries sharing economic and political corporation. An important aim of the

EU is for Europe to find common ground to avoid conflict and honour peace. At first it

was an economic community, created in 1958, and included six countries. Since then,

the EU has grown and developed a large internal market and is now an organization

whose interests apply to themes within all policy areas. Borders between countries have

been opened and a single European currency has been launched among the majority of

the countries (European Union, n.d.[a]).

The European Commission (EC) is one of the three main foundations of the EU. The

others are the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. The role of

the EC is to draft proposals for new European laws, implement EU policies, manage

funding and the EU’s budget as well as, represent the EU internationally. The EC has 27

commissioners, one from each member country (The European Commission, n.d.[a]).

The Commission is the core of decision-making, at all levels, within the EU. Education

and culture6 is one of the services of the EC, which forms the EU’s education policy as

well as other frameworks for policy and action. The EC possesses experts and

6 The Commission is divided into several departments and services, which are known as Directorates-

General. Education and Culture is one of EC’s many departments (European Commission, 2013d).

14

specialists and consultants that are closely involved in the management, direction and

operation of EU policies (Nugent, 2003).

2.2 Iceland

Iceland is an island in the North Atlantic Ocean, a country of around 320.000

inhabitants (Statistics Iceland, 2012a) and one of the Nordic countries. It was a poor and

rather remote country until in the 20th

century. Iceland became an independent state in

1944, after being under Danish rule for centuries, and is a democrat with a president as a

head of state (Ramstedt, 2009).

Like many other countries that were included in the Marshall Program after the

Second World War, Iceland’s economy improved in many ways during the 20th

century.

In 2007/2008 Iceland ranked first on the Human Development Index (HDI), but

unfortunately Iceland has fallen down the list due to the financial crisis that hit the

country hard in 2008. The education index is though among the highest of all countries

of the World, with 18 years as the number for expected years of schooling (United

Nations Development Programme, 2007; United Nations Development Programme,

2011a; United Nations Development Programme, 2011b) and a universal literacy rate,

which has been the case since the 18th

century (Iceland.is, n.d). Iceland has a rather

homogeneous population, with around 8% immigration rate (Statistics Iceland, 2011b)

and according to PISA Iceland scores around average in math, science and literacy

compared to other OECD countries (OECD, 2010).

Iceland is not an EU member state, but is a part of the European Economic Area

(EEA). The EEA comprises the EU countries as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and

Norway. They share a mutual agreement on participation in Europe’s internal market

and projects (EFTA, n.d.).

In Iceland, education, like in almost all states of the world (Daun, 2007), is

constructed, controlled and organized by the state and applies to all school levels. The

majority of schools are financed by the state (post-compulsory education) or

municipalities (primary and pre-primary education), and there are few schools that are

run independently and allowed to charge student-fees. Those who do so, also get state

15

support (MoESC, 2002; Eurypedia, 2012). In October 2008, Iceland’s economy

crashed, which was the worst financial crisis ever experienced by a small country from

the late 20th

century and the largest banking collapse in small and open economies

(Spruk, 2010). The difficult financial situation has brought financial cut-backs to the

school system in general (Jónasson & Blöndal, 2011) as well as, consequently

contributed to the collapse of the national currency, causing Iceland to apply for

membership to the European Union in 2009 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013).

2.3 Policy

Policy is a concept that has been defined and used in many different ways. According to

Rui (2007) it can include plans, decisions, documents and proposals, as well as actions

and practices. Rui also notes that the most common way to define policy is to outline it

as documents, such as legal texts, policy documents, speeches and public performances

of politicians. Usually there is political conflict when it comes to policy making. There

are power struggles, compromises and winners and losers. Therefore it is important to

look at educational policy formulation in the broader context, since it cannot be easily

separated from for an example economic and environmental policy. It would probably

be relatively easier to develop and follow education policy, based on professional

knowledge of teaching and learning, if legislators did not have to worry about its

sustainability, both regarding cost and environmental effects.

Most scholars doing policy research look at public policy (Rui, 2007). In this study,

it is definitely the case. The school system in Iceland is publicly and politically directed

and a large base of documents has presented the public education policy through the

years. The education policy within EU is of a somewhat different kind. It includes

policy documents and statements, which are – unlike the public education policy

documents in Iceland – more of guidelines and suggestions than a public policy, since

the EU does not have direct legal power, in nation states education systems.

16

2.4 Nation States and Policy Making in time of Globalization

2.4.1 Globalization and Education

There does not seem to be an agreed definition of the concept globalization (Dale, 2000;

Caporaso & Madeira, 2012). Lauder, Brown, Dillabough & Halsey (2006) claim that

globalization is a political process, emerging in global markets, stressing less

importance of geographical borders, easier communications (both through the internet

and transportation), more extensive global networks in business, education and

immigration, to name a few indicators.

Caparaso and Madeira (2012) note that globalization is the main cause for how

people in different parts of the world are affected by actions of external factors, negative

as well as positive, outside of their own borders. Globalization means that many actors

are involved and the spatial scope of interdependence is extensive or multi-continental.

As Strömquist and Monkman (2000) and Caporaso and Madeira (2012) point out,

globalization is an economic, political and cultural phenomenon. Currently, there exists

an on-going debate about whether globalization carries more positive or negative

factors. One prominent argument concerning education and globalization is the role of

the nation state to shape educational governance and policy according to national

interests (Lauder, et al, 2006). One sign of globalization, according to Powell (2007) is

the breakdown of cultural characteristics within each nation state causing more

standardization and evaluative metrics, across national borders within both education

and political and economic areas.

Daun (2007:5) has pointed out that globalization has “direct as well as indirect

effects on education”. The direct influences are when policies are borrowed from the

leading world model. Indirect influences are more difficult to identify, but include social

changes affecting the school community. Furthermore, Daun (2005:99) has argued that

most countries have been participating within educational reform during the past two

decades and that the “fact that the formulated policies are rather similar everywhere,

indicates that ideas related to the construction of education have been borrowed from

the world models”.

17

The effect globalization has had on education is in many ways based on economic

ideas. The production of knowledge has become a central element for economic

competitiveness and global economic competition. In this way, education and

knowledge has become the core of discussion in economic development and concepts

like “the global knowledge economy” which has become a central issue. With the

creation of multinational companies and a more open labour market (as within the EU),

the relationship between nation states, education and jobs has been challenged (Lauder

et al., 2006). Reich (2006) has argued that the worker’s opportunities greatly depend on

how the global labour market values his credentials, skills and knowledge, even within

the his own national context.

There are different theories that deal with the phenomenon of globalization and

education, but the aim to make the EU the world’s most competitive knowledge

economy is often linked to the world system theories (Daun, 2011).

2.4.2 World Culture in Education – Nation States and Policy Making

According to the world system theory, the world is divided in two unequal parts. The

“main zone” is the US, EU and Japan, which dominate nations within the other zone.

The goal of the dominating zone is to legitimize power by pressing its values into the

marginal countries, through aid agencies, more specifically through support of

education. Education is seen as a perfect resource to implement neoliberal thought and

values into the marginal cultures (Arnove, 2009; Spring, 2012).

The theory of Common World Educational Culture (CWEC) has been developed for

the last 40 years or so, by John Meyer and the Stanford University team, often called the

world institutionalists. It explains the development of national educational systems by

universal models of education. According to the theory, educational culture is common

and not constructed within nation states independent of external influences. The

institution named in the theory is the institution of the nation state, which is not thought

to be a national creation, but rather shaped at a supranational level by a dominant

Western ideology (Dale, 2000). Thus, it is believed that education will turn into a single

global educational culture, and that the Western one is seen as a preferable model or a

world primary curriculum, based on official standards (Spring, 2012). In that way,

18

Western norms and culture have influence on the nation states’ policies. It is, however,

very hard or even impossible to show the causality (Dale, 2000).

The theory states that nations structure their education systems due to the strong

cultural pressure from IGOs, suggesting the world model. A study of policy documents

published by large IGOs showed how much they valued decentralization, privatization,

choice and accountability as means to improve and organize education systems. Some

of the core elements of the world model for education are that education “contributes to

development, economic growth, democracy, rational human beings” as well as, the

national curriculum should aim at providing education for global competitiveness,

equality, empowerment, democracy, human rights and citizenship. Other highly

important subjects to be taught in education are scientific and technological,

environmental education and English as a second language. Two core elements of the

world model are national frameworks and decentralized bodies for decision-making and

an outcome-based education (Daun, 2007:12).

Robertson & Dale (2008) have criticised the basic idea of education policies as

thought to be produced and circulated within the nation state. Robertson & Dale point

out that this idea is misleading in many ways, not least because it assumes that policy is

being designed and implemented at the interest of the national level, which does not

take into account the reality of globalization and the fact that nation states are not free

from external influences. Nation states are in a dilemma – preserving their own ideas

and culture, while competing and meeting international standards.

Steiner-Khamsi (2004) has given many examples of this dilemma, especially from

devoloping countries. But in the developed world, decisions are often made and

supported within nation states, because those particular decisions have worked well in

other developed countries. Therefore, an imagined world culture in education, or

international model of education, is being formed. Steiner-Khamsi (2010) has also

criticised the pressure put on nation states in the name of globalization, and how policy

makers and analysts constantly refer to globalization and international standards to

create a believed educational crisis at home:

19

How come everyone talks international standards, but nobody knows what

they are? Why is the same set of global reform packages imported and sold as

the solution to a diverse set of local problems? (Steiner-Khamsi, 2010:329).

Further, she asks about the need for creating a collective framework and standards for

European countries? It is done to ease mobility - but how big problem has the lack of

mobility been up until now?

Steiner-Khamsi (2010) claims that international standards are just “empty shells”

that could be filled with whatever is needed to encourage these debated reforms.

According to her it is important to ask the critical questions, like why should the same

work everywhere? In whose interest is it that nation states develop similar education

objectives? Steiner-Khamsi (2004) has argued that many educational systems pursue

their own interests and want other systems to adopt the same reforms in order to

confirm its value and “for their own survival”.

Robertson & Dale (2008) have criticised that the interests and aims of global actors

are assumed knowledge and not systematically investigated, even though the actors

invoke policymaking, standardization and a certain political order. Robertson & Dale

(2008) and Steiner-Khamsi (2010), as mentioned before, agree on the importance of

making a macro-level studies on educational policy; studies that go beyond national

borders and avoid simplifying educational policy-making as a closed operation within

nation-state borders, independent of the global policy actors. Robertson & Dale (2008)

do not just stop at the nation state – they want to go beyond framing and analysis of

education within the educational sector only. Meaning that education policy making is

more than what is formulated in a certain sector of the nation state. In a globalized

world, nation states are influenced by each other, and it is an over simplification to

assume educational policy is created only at the national level, by the education

authorities within each country.

Antunes (2012) has stressed the idea that “frequently the global and the local

dimensions and levels of action are articulated by a set of political and technical

instruments for monitoring the development of the central guidelines of supranational

bodies, regulating the local“. These instruments, or tools, used by the EU, will be

discussed in the next section.

20

2.4.3 EU-ification and the Open Method of Coordination

Not so long ago, educational policies used to be disclosed to the nation state. This was

the case until the 1980s, when international actors began to influence education policy

globally. Daun (2011:10) has argued that “today, education, and especially educational

governance, needs to be seen in the context of globalization and EU-ification”. This

concept is important in the context of this study, as it is “the implementation and

application of laws, rules, and recommendations emerging from the EU bodies”

(ibid:16). Harmonization of standards for quality assurance systems has for example

been put at the top of the European Commission’s political agenda (Hartmann, 2008). A

possible example of EU-ification is the post-socialist education reform processes in

Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union, following integration to the EU. According to

Silova (2004), the countries had to reform their educational system before joining the

EU, making references to “Western educational concepts” like democracy and

multiculturalism. Daun (2011) has argued that even though EU-ification can consist of

different factors, the Open Method of Coordination is the most common one.

The Open Method of Coordination (OMC) is a method introduced in 2000, by the

EU to follow up on the aims of the Lisbon strategy for growth and development, on

topics such as education and research. An example of the Lisbon strategy objectives,

which were to be reached in 2010, was to improve access to education as well as,

quality and effectiveness of education within the EU.

The OMC includes four main factors. First, the EU member states were encouraged

to set up aims and timeframes in each area. Secondly, benchmarks and indicators were

to be developed to ease comparison between the EU member states as well as

comparability between the EU and other countries. Thirdly, every member state was

meant to implement specific goals and agendas, based on their national specialities and

context. At last, regular monitoring of the process was to be implemented as a tool for

member states to learn from each other (good practices) (Ingþórsson, 2009).

The main idea behind the OMC was to provide a framework for cooperation between

member states so that national policies “can thus be directed towards certain common

objectives” (European Commission, 2012a). It was developed to be able to influence

issues where coordinated action is seen to be required, like in education, but where there

21

is no Treaty mandate for European level action (Dale, 2005). OMC is probably the most

important tool the EU has to influence education within nation states. Even though the

method does not steer education policy within nation states, it can influence it to a great

deal by “setting out of the basis of a collective European future” (Dale, 2005:53).

Ingþórsson (2009) has argued that even though nations are not obliged to be a part of

this process, it involves a strong social coercion to participate. Gortnitzka (cited in

Daun, 2011:20) agrees with Ingþórsson and stating that, “the comparison taking place

through the usage of indicators result in a normative pressure [being] placed on

countries to look good and fear embarrassment.“ Common policy objectives were

presented, but implementation left to member countries. However, benchmarks and

good practices have been used to influence the direction of implementation (Robertson,

2008). Dale (2005:57) has argued that

...the discussion of the use of “best practice” in the area of the new

competences; it is difficult to see how there might be examples of best

practice in a new area, which makes entirely plausible the conclusion that in

this case what is to count as best practice is being newly constructed, as a

new and specific goal, rather than representing the optimum combination of

existing practices.

According to this statement, the “best practice” is simply a tool for the EU to guide

countries onto the right path of implementation.

Beech (2009) states that the three most important tools used by the EU to orient

education policy within member countries are a) good practices (OMC), b) benchmarks

and indicators (OMC) and c) the Bologna process7. However, there are other important

tools worth mentioning. One is the ECTS, or European Course Transfer System. It is

voluntary but proposes the development of equivalences of degrees and diplomas in

Europe, as a means towards more transparency and facilitating student mobility (Rust &

Jacob, 2005).

The European Union has applied programs for educational cooperation in Europe,

for all school stages, in order to encourage and implement the Union’s education ideas.

7 The Bologna process was launched in 1999 and its aims are to create a European Higher Education Area

(EHEA), e.g. with student and staff mobility and adoption of credit transfer system (Robertson, 2008).

22

The programs include funding for their participants. One is Erasmus Mundus, which,

according to Robertson (2008), was supposed to be an answer to keep talented students

within the European HEIs, instead of losing them to American or Asian Universities.

Other programs, for example, are the Lifelong Learning programme (LLP), Tempus and

Youth in Action. The LLP consists of several programmes for different education

sectors, such as, Comenius, Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci and they all support

learning opportunities from childhood to old age. Tempus includes partner countries

from Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Western Balkans and the Mediterranean region,

and the aim is to support the modernisation of higher education, through cooperative

projects (European Commission, 2013b). Tempus is supposed to “…make the necessary

curricular changes that are emerging from the Bologna Process” (Europa, 2008). Youth

in action “aims to inspire a sense of active European citizenship, solidarity and tolerance

among young Europeans and to involve them in shaping the Union’s future.” (European

Commission, 2013a).

The budget for these programmes is considerable. The LLP (with several sub-

programmes) has a budget of nearly €7 billion for the period 2007-2013 (European

Commission, 2013b) and the Erasmus Mundus programme has a budget of €930 million

(European Commission, 2009). Silova (2009) argues that the EU influences regulation

of national systems and policies through the European education cooperation, like the

previously mentioned funds and programmes. Countries in Eastern Europe and the

former Soviet Union, that joined the EU in 2007, had prior to that participated and

received funds from many of that EU-funded educational programs, “which were

specifically designed to help the countries prepare for accession into the EU” (Silova,

2009:302). The objectives of the EU educational policy, like promoting international

cooperation, as well as boosting social integration and employability, are reflected in the

EU-funded programs and have formed the policies in the new member countries (ibid).

The tools used to implement the European education policies – or EU-ificate

member countries – seem to be in the form of OMC and the many EU-funded programs

within it, as well as the Bologna process.

23

3. Methodology

This chapter gives an overview of the research design and methods applied in this

present study, which is a qualitative case-study using document analysis as the main

method of analysis. The research strategy is explained, which includes the research

design and case selection. The research method, data collection and analysis are then

discussed in detail. The chapter ends with thoughts on ethical considerations and

limitations.

The education policy in Iceland has been under considerable construction over the

past few years, affecting the whole education setting in the country. The reasons behind

changes in education policy are not always clear, though it is quite clear that

globalization and actors independent from the nation state have some influence on

education policy world-wide. However, the nature of that impact is not evident and it is

hard to predict the relationship of educational borrowing. In this study, the education

policy in Iceland, mainly regarding the secondary school level, is compared to and put

in context with, the education priorities as seen within the EU, to better understand the

position of the nation state amid the European context. More specifically, the research

aim is to analyse and compare the education policy in Iceland to contemporary

education policy/priorities as represented by the EU.

3.1 Research Strategies

A qualitative research approach was chosen for this study since the aim is to gain a

better understanding of the education policy in Iceland, while viewing it within the

context of external forces. The main arguments against using quantitative method when

analysing policy through official documents, is that it has great limitations to the

underlying meaning and content of the documents (Bos & Tarnai, 1999). Qualitative

methods are convenient when the research topic is context-sensitive and when the goal

is to understand a certain pattern or a relation (Davíðsdóttir, 2003; Creswell, 2005;

Fairbrother, 2007; Bryman, 2008; Silverman, 2010).

24

The epistemological position of the researcher is interpretive, as the aim is to

understand and explain a phenomenon (in this case a policy) in relation to its socio-

cultural context, rather than test hypotheses or provide scientific statements. The content

and understanding of the documents being analysed, within the study, must be

considered in the natural context, as they are marked by the ideas, culture and tradition

that are reflected in the reality from which they have developed out of. The documents

used in this research have been written in various social settings, while the analysis is

also being done in another social setting and therefore the knowledge is indeterminate,

since the researcher also has his own perspective and version of the social reality

(Bryman, 2008). As Steiner-Khamsi (2002) has stressed, it is very important to not lose

sight of the context in research on education policy, borrowing and lending. It has also

been noted (Rui, 2007) that policy processes are complex and it is not easy or even

possible to locate the beginning or end to policy making causing the contextuality to

weigh more heavily.

3.2 Research Design

The framework for the collection and analysis of data is chosen to fit the criteria and

aims of the study. Therefore, the study is a qualitative case study, using documents as a

ground for analysis. There are various ways to analyse policies and tracing process, but

the most popular way to define policies are through documents (Rui, 2007).

The case is the education policy in Iceland, which will be compared to and put in

context of the formulated education policy of the EU. The education policy of the EU

serves as an interesting “window” through which the Icelandic education policy can be

viewed. That is best done looking at underlying themes in the policy discourse

(Manzon, 2007).

Qualitative case studies tend to take an “inductive approach to the relationship

between theory and research” (Bryman, 2008:55). That means the research does not aim

at testing a specific theory or a hypothesis, but rather it tries to explain the research

objectives or problems in its own context (Scott and Morrison, 2006; Bryman, 2008).

25

Therefore, the aims and research questions can change during the procedure and the

data collection and analysis is an on-going process, which was applied during this study.

3.3 Selection of a Case

The case in this study is the Icelandic education policy. Iceland is a country in Europe,

and despite the fact that the country is not an EU member state, it has openly followed

EU’s guidelines regarding many issues, such as leading with education as an example.

Iceland follows the Bologna system in higher education and is a part of the EU’s

lifelong learning strategy as well as other EU educational programs. It has not received

help from the World Bank and not considered a developing country that UNESCO tends

to look at. Therefore, the EU is chosen as an organization assumed to be in good

position to influence Icelandic education policy.

There are a few factors that make it relevant to have the Icelandic policy as a unit of

analysis in this study. First, because of the education policy that has been formed for the

past few years, resulting in new school laws affecting education at all school levels.

Secondly, because Iceland has up until now not been a member of the European Union,

but had access to its programmes through EEA. Therefore, it is not a member country

and has not been obliged to be a part of the OMC, but none the less decided to be.

Thirdly, Iceland’s application to the EU in 2009 makes the comparison extremely

relevant.

The upper-secondary school level has been affected the most by the new education

policy (Minister of Education, 2011; Jóhannesson, 2012) causing the primary focus to

include the upper-secondary level alongside Higher Education (HE).

Klotz (2008: 49) has pointed out that “…case studies trace a causal process that links

the proposed independent variable to the dependent one, in order to offer an explanation

for why the pattern emerges.” Although this study traces the causal process, its aims are

not to predict the relationship between variables, such as the direct influence the EU’s

educational policy has had on the Icelandic policy, but patterns can be found and

inferences made through the data set.

26

3.4 Research Method

The research method used in this study is qualitative content analysis. According to

Bryman (2008) and Bos & Tarnai (1999), this is the most prevalent approach to analyse

documents in a qualitative way. Underlying themes are highlighted and analysed, after

reading through the documents several times and coding them. Special focus is laid on

being systematic, analytic and objective, but flexible at the same time (Bryman, 2008).

Researchers using qualitative content analysis pay special attention to the content or

contextual meaning of the text. Texts can be in many varying document formats and

collected in different ways such as, interviews, public documents or books. It is not

about counting words, but rather the focus is on themes, characteristics and the meaning

that the text is based on (Hsieh, H-F and Shannon, 2005). Such thematic analysis is not

uncommon to use with qualitative content analysis (Bryman, 2008). Documents used in

this research are official documents deriving from the EU, EC and MoESC in Iceland.

3.5 Data Collection and Analysis

The main body of data in the study are public documents including education policy

formulation from the EU and the MoESC in Iceland, written and published over the past

20 years. The time span is based on two criteria, first, a limit is placed on how old the

available online documents are and secondly, the EU did not consider education a

priority until about 20 years ago.

The policy documents were used to build an in depth understanding of their

education policy for the last couple of decades and make it possible to reflect on the

Icelandic education policy formulation in the European context. The following table

includes a list of all the documents from the European Union analysed in the study.

They were chosen on the criteria that they included the main ideas of the EU for the past

twenty years.

27

Table I. The main European Union documents reviewed for the study

General Treaties Year

(S)8

Year

(E)9

Source

Treaty of Maastricht

(Treaty on European Union)

1992 1993 Treaty on European Union (1992). Official Journal of

the European Communities, July 29th

(35):1-65.

Treaty of Amsterdam 1997 1999 Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty of the

European Union, the Treaties establishing the European

Communities and certain related acts (1997). Official

Journal C November 10th

(340).

Treaty of Lisbon 2007 2009 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of

the European Union (2012). Official Journal of the

European Union, 55: 47-200.

Specific Education

Documents

Lisbon Agreement

(Process Development Plan)

2000 Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000.

Presidency Conclusions.

Making a European Area of

Lifelong Learning a Reality

2001 European Commission. (2001).

Lisbon High Level Group 2004 The High Level Group (2004). Facing the challenge. The

Lisbon strategy for growth and Employment.

Lisbon Mid-term review 2005 Mid-Term Review of the Lisbon Strategy. (2005).

European Parliament resolution on the mid-term review

of the Lisbon Strategy.

A new start for the Lisbon

Strategy

2005 European Commission (2005a). Communication to the

spring European Council. Working together for growth a

jobs, A new start for the Lisbon Strategy.

Integrated Guidelines for

Growth and Jobs (2005-

2008)

2005 European Commission (2005b). Communications to the

spring European Council. Working together for growth

and jobs. Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs

(2005-2008).

EC: Green Paper 2007 European Commission (2007a ). The European Research

Area: New Perspectives. Green Paper.

8 Signed

9 Entered into Force

28

The European Interest:

Succeeding in the age of

globalisation

2007 European Commission. (2007b). Communication from

the Commission to the European Parliament, the

council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of Regions.

Integrated Guidelines for

Growth and Jobs (2008-

2010)

2007 European Commission (2007c). Communication from the

Commission to the Spring European Council. Integrated

Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (2008-2010).

EU’s Key Competences for

Lifelong Learning

201110

2007

European Union (2011). Key Competences for Lifelong

Learning.

European Commission (2007d). Key Competences for

Lifelong Learning. European Reference Framework.

Europe 2020 2010 European Commission. (2010). Communication from the

Commission: Europe 2020. A European strategy for

smart, sustainable and inclusive growth

Early School Leaving

„Tackling Early School

Leaving“

2011 European Commission. (2011b). Communication from

the Commission to the European Parliament, the

Council, the European Economic and Social Committee

and the Committee of the Regions. Tackling early school

leaving: A key contribution to the Europe 2020 Agenda.

Assessment of Key

Competences in initial

education and training:

Policy Guidance

2012 European Commission. (2012). Commission Staff

Working Document. Assessment of Key Competences in

initial Education and Training: Policy Guidance.

Found online, the MoESC, in Iceland keeps a lot of information, for example news,

publications, reports, policy documents, laws and legislations published the last three

decades. The site www.namskra.is possesses all public documents published regarding

the new education laws from 2006-2010 and http://vinnuvefur.namskra.is/ is a site

specifically set up during the process of implementation for the new school laws, as a

way to keep records in both drafts, working files and final publications from the

MoESC. All documents from the MoESC covering the Icelandic education policy were

analysed by the researcher. The following table illustrates what documents were

collected for this study, but they were too many to make a complete list of them here in

this section. A full list is provided in Appendix I and all of them are included in the

References.

10 Formulated by the EC in 2006

29

Table II. Documents on the education policy in Iceland, reviewed for the study.

List of Documents for Analysis

Source What kind of documents Timeframe

MoESC Laws, regulations and main

curriculums

From 1994

MoESC Policy formulations and reports. From 1994

MoESC Drafts and documents openly

published on the web, regarding the

2008 laws.

From 2006

The main unit of analysis is the education policy formulation of the EU and Iceland.

This is presented by the MoESC in form of laws, regulations, main curriculum and

other policy documents. The data collection and analysis was an on-going process, as

suggested by e.g. Silverman (2010) and Bryman (2008) and took place from November

2012 to April 2013.

During the data analysis process, the researcher searched for themes by reading the

documents many times, highlighting and making notes and memos at the same time.

Annotations, thoughts and reflections were made while going through each document.

Topics that recurred multiple times were drawn out using a thematic content analysis

approach. This method for document analysis has been recommended by many scholars

(Richards 2005; Bryman, 2008; Hermann, 2008). The thematic analysis included both

the theoretical background of the study, implying that the concepts and theories

presented previously were kept in mind, while also basing the themes patterns that

emerged in the EU’s education policy analysis.

Along with the main themes, the Open Method of Coordination will also be included

in the analysis, since it is an issue internally linked to the themes and the policies in

general. Three main themes derived from the data that are: European cooperation and

comparison, mobility, frameworks and qualifications as well as research and

30

development (R&D). They all have certain sub-themes presented as well in following

sections. The OMC is also an important common ground of the comparison and is

included in the thematic analysis.

3.6 Ethical Considerations

Since all the data collected in the study are public documents, published online for the

public and no password is required to access them, the data collection is not ethically

sensitive. No human contact had to be made for the purpose of the study. Therefore,

concerns about confidentiality are not prominent.

Concerns about ethics mostly have to do with the fact that the documents used in this

study are political. The research is not funded or being influenced in any way by the

MoESC in Iceland. Access was not a problem and the content is not ethically delicate.

3.7 Considerations and Limitations

In qualitative studies the researcher is the main research-tool, and therefore it is

important for him or her to be aware of possible biased opinions. By the researcher

explaining their pertinent experiences and views, with regards to the research topic, the

approach utilizes interpretation (Silverman, 2010). Therefore, my professional

background includes teaching and project management in an Icelandic upper-secondary

school from 2005-2011. During parts of that time I, among few other managers within

the school, led the school reform and curriculum development according to the new

education policy, which came to law in 2008. I am aware this may affect my objectivity

during this research yet, this could also been seen as an advantage, since I know where

to look for data and I am familiar with the new policy. I have reflected deeply on my

own position and taken it into consideration during the whole process.

Some considerations when selecting official political documents can contribute as a

limitation to research. As Bryman (2008) points out, the question of credibility is a valid

one. For example, official documents, from the political sphere, can be biased and it is

important to keep that in mind during the analysis. Some documents might not have

31

been published, others taken away, and others carefully selected to fulfil some

“politically right” standards.

Many of the documents are in Icelandic. They are being read and analysed in

Icelandic and the thesis is written in English. There is always a possibility that some

meanings get lost or misinterpreted when working between languages. Some of the

direct quotations in the thesis have been translated from Icelandic to English by the

researcher. Many of the Icelandic documents were also available in English, which

when that was the cases the English version was used.

This study can give some ideas of the impact that global education policy, as

represented within the EU, can have on education policy of a nation state. The study

should also been seen as a base for further studies. It can give a good understanding of

the process of policy making and the interconnections of it, in this particular context.

The scope of this research is limited, but in a larger study on the same subject matter,

the validity could be increased by deepening the analysis, and broadening the research

methods, to widen the scope of the study.

32

4. Research Setting: The Icelandic School System

This chapter will give further insight and detail into the Icelandic school system. First,

the general structure of the system will be described and then a special focus will be laid

on the upper-secondary school level.

4.1 General Structure of the Education System

The Icelandic constitution (1944) verifies the fundamental right of basic education for

everyone, according to his or her needs. This is verified in the United Nations

Convention of the Child, which was signed in Iceland in 1990 (Samningur sameinuðu

þjóðanna um réttindi barnsins, 1992/18). The fundamental principle of the Icelandic

education system is that “everyone should have equal opportunities to acquire an

education, irrespective of sex, economic status, residential location, religion, possible

handicap, and cultural or social background” (MoESC, 2002; The Compulsory School

Act No. 91/2008; Iceland.is, n.d.).

Iceland started its transition from a poor agrarian country to modernity relatively late

but has developed at a rapid speed (Ramstedt, 2009) and it is also the case when it

comes to the Icelandic school system. According to Guttormsson (2008) the school

system in Iceland was poorly developed in the beginning of the 20th

century, but made

great progress in the years to come. In 1907, laws were presented for compulsory

schooling and in 1974, nine years of education became obligatory and in 1991, the tenth

year was added (Lög um grunnskóla nr. 46/1991; Ramstedt, 2009). According to

Markussen (2011) and Blöndal et al. (2011), many studies have indicated that the

Icelandic school system developed in the same way as other larger school systems in the

Western World.

In 2011, 96% of four-year olds and 95% of three-years olds in Iceland attended pre-

primary schools. That is well above the 81% and 66% OECD average, and exceeds the

95% objective of the EU (European Commission, 2010). As much as 99% of every age

cohort attends primary schools (OECD, 2012b). In Iceland there is a rather long history

of national testing at the end of compulsory schools. Nowadays, the tests are used as a

survey to find out if schools have fulfilled the goals set in national curriculum in certain

33

subjects at grades 4, 7 and 10, as well as, to give students, parents and schools

information about academic achievement of students. Upper secondary schools cannot

use them to handpick students, as they did a few years ago (Reglugerð um fyrirkomulag

og framkvæmd samræmdra könnunarprófa í 4., 7. og 10. bekk grunnskóla nr.

435/2009).

According to Markussen (2011) and Statistics Iceland (as cited in Blöndal et al,

2011) over 90% of 16 year olds enrol at the upper secondary level each year, and have

done so since 2000. However, the completion rate is lower than within many OECD

countries, as will be described further in the next section of this chapter.

There are seven higher education institutions in Iceland, in which four schools are

operated by the state, and three by private parties with state support. Adult education

and training is offered by institutions at the upper secondary and higher education

levels, including lifelong learning centres, companies and private institutions (MoESC,

2009a; Blöndal et al, 2011).

All the HEIs offer various programs, though paths within social sciences, business

and law are the most popular ones. However, there is a long tradition of Icelandic

students studying overseas, especially in one of the Nordic countries, USA or Europe

(Hermannsson, 2010). Around 10% of Icelandic tertiary students in 2011 were studying

in Universities outside of Iceland (Statistics Iceland, 2011a). The proportion of

population with higher education (26-64 year old) is around 33%, which is slightly

above the OECD average (OECD, 2012b). The university level is a 3+2+3 cycle

system, as suggested by the European Bologna framework for higher education

(Blöndal et al, 2011). See following figure.

34

Figure I. Diagram of the Icelandic school system (MoESC, n.d. [a]).

4.2 The Upper Secondary School Level

There are mainly three types of upper secondary schools in the country. First there is the

traditional grammar school that prepares students for the matriculation exams and later

further education. Then there are vocational schools that offer mainly industrial

vocational programs. The third type was developed in the 1970s, called comprehensive

secondary schools, which, offers paths to matriculation exams, as well as various

vocational programs. In 2007 and 2008 the comprehensive schools were attended by

more than half of 16-19 year old students while, about one-third attended grammar

schools and less than 10% studied within a vocational school (Blöndal et al, 2011).

35

Before 2008 the curriculum for matriculation exams were set up as a four year

program (MoESC, 1999) but now secondary schools have a flexible three to four year

curriculum that lead to matriculation examinations and the vocational school, which

vary between two to six year programs (Stefansson & Karlsdottir, 2007; The Upper

Secondary School Act No. 92/2008). Students at the secondary school level can choose

from around 100 different paths or study programmes, where most of them are

vocational and every path can lead to higher education (Blöndal et al, 2011).

There are 34 upper secondary schools all around Iceland, with 16 in Reykjavík and

surrounding areas, and 18 outside of Reykjavík. Fifteen are grammar schools, 15

comprehensive schools and four are vocational schools (MoESC, n.d.[b]).

There are different ways to estimate dropout rates, but in the OECD’s Education at a

Glance, completion rates are used. When based on numbers for students that started

secondary education in 2002, 45% had completed secondary education after four years.

Two years later 58% of students had finished secondary education. Students that have

not completed secondary education after six years of enrolment are considered drop-

outs, which in 2002, 42% of students enrolled did not finish. However, graduation rates

are much higher than completion rates. The graduation rate means the proportion of an

age cohort that completed secondary education, independent of the time it takes. In

2011, the graduation rate was 89% in Iceland, but the OECD rate was 82%. The

difference between completion rates and graduation rates means that students in Iceland

take a longer time to complete upper secondary education than the OECD average. At

least 10% of Icelandic students complete secondary education after the age of 25. That

also applies to some of the other Nordic countries such as, Finland, Denmark and

Norway (Minister of Education, 2011; OECD, 2011). According to Markussen (2011)

early upper secondary school leavers, are considered the main social problem when it

comes to education in all of the Nordic countries. However, dropout rates seem to be

higher in Iceland than the other Nordic countries.

A number of changes to the education system in Iceland have been done or

considered in an attempt to try to make it easier for students to finish secondary

education. By adding extra courses to vocational programs, students have been able to

36

graduate with matriculation exams. It is also relatively easy to change paths from

academic programs to vocational education as well as switch between schools by

transferring credits from different studies. The education act from 2008 has stressed

further the importance of flexibility as a way to fight against high dropout (Blöndal et

al, 2011).

The new school laws from 2008 is a holistic educational act that has affected

everyone working and studying in the formal and non-formal school system in Iceland

including changes that require new teachers, at all school levels, to have a Master’s

degree in Teacher Education to be able to obtain a teaching certificate (Act on the

Education and Recruitment of Teachers and Head Teachers in Pre-School, Compulsory

School and Upper Secondary School No. 87/2008). The educational act followed

changes at the tertiary level, which involved the move into the Bologna process. The

changes required every course to be set up with educational goals, for skills, knowledge

and competence (MoESC, 2007a).

The new upper secondary school laws include several changes and a greater

autonomy for schools to write individualized curriculum, both regarding content and

structure of the education they offer students. The laws entail decentralization to the

upper secondary school level, with the main goal to provide education that fits the

different needs of students and provides them with flexibility (The Upper Secondary

School Act No. 92/2008; OECD, 2012b). The biggest change consists of the six

fundamental pillars of education that should be practiced and implemented into

education at every school level, which are: equality, creative work, education for

sustainability, literacy in the widest sense, health and welfare as well as democracy and

human rights (MoESC, 2012a). Those six factors will be discussed further later in the

thesis.

37

5. Education Policy within the European Union

In this chapter, the education ideas and policy within the European Union will be

discussed in detail, based on analysis of public documents presented within the EU’s

education policy. The process of involvement in education will be traced, policy and

ideas presented, as well as some of the tools the EU has to influence countries when it

comes to education policy.

5.1 European Union: General Education Ideas

Since the EU was founded, several agreements and treaties have been signed. In the first

years, treaties concerning free trade, economic communities and the structure of the co-

operation, were the most prominent. Education did not become a noticeable theme in

the EU’s policy documents until 1992, when the Maastricht treaty was signed (Treaty

on European Union, 1992; Hartmann, 2008). The chapter on education in the EU’s

general policy documents has more or less remained unchanged since then, but the latest

publication is from 2012 (Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union, 2012). However, since the year 2000, education has become a big

issue within the EU though discussion on the matter is primarily to be seen in special

agreements concerning education, knowledge and development, rather than in its

general treaties.

The Maastricht Treaty from 1992 marked the formation of the EU as we know it

today and its goal was to establish the Union and introduce the co-decision procedure,

since new forms of cooperation were in the making (European Union, n.d.[b]). The

Maastricht Treaty, The Amsterdam Treaty from 1997 as well as, the 2007 Lisbon treaty,

all include a special chapter on education within the EU countries (Treaty on European

Union, 1992; Treaty of Amsterdam, 1997; Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the

Functioning of the European Union, 2012).

The general idea concerning education within the Union is that the EU should

“promote the development of the highest possible level of knowledge for their peoples

through a wide access to education and through its continuous updating” (Treaty of

38

Amsterdam 1997; Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union, 2012). The EU wanted to make a “contribution to education and

training of quality and to the flowering of the cultures of the Member State”. In order to

do so, the EU’s aims were to encourage cooperation between Member States “while

fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and

the organization of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity” (Treaty

on European Union, 1992). It is clear in the treaties that the emphasis is on soft

governance in education, respecting the autonomy of each member state, but at the same

time, dialogue about “gradual implementation”, “measures” and “directives”. The

general ideas included cooperation between educational establishments, exchange of

information and experience, building a language bridge between the Member States,

boosting mobility of students and teachers (by recognising diplomas, to name one

example) and build a good network of distance education. In the treaties, education is

divided in general education and vocational education. The goals are more or less to

increase and ease mobility of workers and make them more qualified for the labour

market, not least in times of industrial change. One way to do so, according to the

treaties, is to develop a better relationship between businesses and educational

institutions (Treaty on European Union, 1992).

The main change of the education and culture chapter in the EU treaties from 1992 to

2007 is the weight put on sports and encouraging the participation of young people in

democratic life in Europe (Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union, 2012). To sum up, it can be said that quality education for all, mobility

of students and teachers as well as the importance of education that fits the labour

market, has been part of the EU’s objectives since 1992. Specific education strategies

did not come to light within the EU until 2000, with the Lisbon Strategy.

5.2 The Lisbon Strategy, 2000

The Lisbon strategy, as it has become known (and must not be confused with the Lisbon

treaty from 2007), was an agreement made in March 2000, by the 15 countries of which

the EU then consisted. The strategy aimed at making the EU, by 2010:

39

…the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world,

capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater

social cohesion. (European Parliament, 2000).

The strategy was to build a knowledge-based economy (KBE), which could compete

globally against large nations like the USA and China (ibid).

The main weakness of the EU, as presented in the Lisbon strategy, was

unemployment and skill gap, mostly related to the technology innovation and lack of

skills to keep up with the information society. It is interesting to look at the terms used

the most in the document. The concepts information society, information technology

and information networks are in total used 14 times in the document, which counts

around 18 pages. Knowledge-based economy/ society and knowledge economy/society

appears 17 times and education nine times. Knowledge and technology obviously are on

the main schedule to improve the economy within the EU at this time.

In the Lisbon strategy, the European council calls on member states to modernise

education, to better serve goals related to making a knowledge-based economy in an

information society. This includes ensuring internet and multimedia access for every

school within the Union, by the end of 2001. One year later, or by the end of 2002,

teachers should be skilled enough to make proper use of those resources. To implement

the strategy Open Method of Coordination was to be used.

OMC, as previously discussed, a part of soft governance in education, where

common policy objectives are presented and implementation is left to each country.

Some “benchmarks” and “good practices” guide the path, to increase the likelihood of

everyone heading in the same direction. This is quite clear in the Lisbon strategy, where

it says that

…implementation of the strategic goal will be facilitated by applying a new

open method of coordination as the means of spreading best practice and

achieving greater convergence towards the main EU goals.

Moreover, it is stated that OMC is designed to help Member States to develop their own

policy, with already fixed guidelines from the Union, goals, qualitative and quantitative

indicators and benchmarks, translating the European guidelines into “national and

40

regional policies” by setting specific targets – though – always taking into account

national and regional differences (European Parliament, 2000).

The Lisbon strategy recognises three main components of the approach. Those

components are: a) local learning centres to improve access to education, b) promotion

of new basic skills (mostly related to information technologies) and c) increased

transparency of qualifications (European Parliament, 2000). The Member States were

supposed to have reached those goals ten years later, or in 2010. In order to reach those

goals several community programmes were strengthened, such as Socrates and

Leonardo da Vinci (European Commission, 2001).

5.3 Mid-term Lisbon Review, 2005

Today, we see that progress has at best been mixed

(European Commission, 2005a:3).

In 2005, the status of the Lisbon Strategy from 2000 was reviewed. Short to say, the

progress was a disappointment. As stated, in a report by the High Level Group,

(2004:6), one of the fundamental publications used by the Commission, published the

year before the Commission’s mid-term meeting:

The Lisbon strategy is even more urgent today as the growth gap with North

America and Asia has widened, while Europe must meet the combined

challenges of low population growth and ageing. Time is running out and

there can be no room for complacency. Better implementation is needed

now to make up for lost time.

At the mid-term meeting, held in Strasburg in March 2005, (Mid-term review of the

Lisbon strategy, 2005) the priority of the Lisbon strategy was stressed by the European

Parliament and suggested that it should be the EU’s top priory for the next five years. It

is indicated in the mid-term review that:

European excellence in the knowledge economy depends on the creation of

a well-educated and highly-trained workforce and on a big increase in the

scale and effectiveness of research and innovation; insists that high-

quality education, accessible to all, is essential to a strong economy and to

a just society

41

In 2005, it was quite clear that OMC was not working according to plans, and the OMC

ideas were moved further with a commitment based national action programme with

yearly reports from each country (European Commission, 2005a). The European

Parliament, at this point, wanted to go further than stated in the original Lisbon strategy,

by for example “check[ing] all draft legislative proposals for their consistency with the

Lisbon strategy”, even national plans. Public database, more transparent progress

measurement, bench-marking, financial support and evaluation of the implementation

are among features for progress (Mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy, 2005). The

European Commission (2005a:5) stresses that “[The Lisbon goals] must become part of

national political debate.”

The EC wanted member states to spend 3% of their GDP in research and

development by 2010, as well as make labour mobility easier by removing “all

restriction in this area as quickly as possible”. Investment was to be made in human

capital by improving education and skills and the member states were supposed to

submit national strategies by 2006 (Europa, 2008).

The Lisbon strategy process obviously was considered a disappointment. The new

agreement included closer cooperation with the employment sector, since

...the existing approaches to financing, governance and quality are proving

inadequate to meet the challenge of what has become a global market for

academies, students and knowledge itself. (European Commission, 2005a).

Some kind of “scare tactics” were used, as it was stressed how much the European

universities lagged behind the American and Asian ones, and that state run Universities

were just not well fit for worldwide competition. Private funding meant activating

knowledge (Robertson, 2008). In the report “A New Start for the Lisbon strategy”

(European Commission, 2005a) the need for private funding in education was stressed,

so that Universities in Europe would be able to compete with schools outside of the EU

zone:

In many ways, the existing approaches to financing, governance and quality

are proving inadequate to meet the challenge of what has become a global

market for academics, students and knowledge itself.

42

Much emphasis is laid on knowledge in one field, mainly technology; or as stated in the

“New Start” report (European Commission, 2005a):

In order to reinforce our commitment to knowledge as a key to growth, the

Commission proposes the creation of a “European Institute of

Technology” to act as a pole of attraction for the very best minds, ideas

and companies from around the World.

Furthermore, it was stressed that “increased participation in mathematics, science,

technology and engineering studies” was important, as well as to improve effectiveness

of investments in education and reduce dropout and low school achievement (European

Commission, 2005a:27)

What seems to have changed between 2000 and 2005 is mainly the importance of

those two factors – the suggested private funding in higher education and the greater

emphasis on technology education, research and development for economic growth. The

“soft governance” also seems to have developed into straighter guidelines and

frameworks for action.

Subsequently, guidelines for growth and development for 2005-2008 were published

in 2005 (European Commission, 2005b). The guidelines placed emphasis on

investments in research and development as well as education, and the importance of

innovation as a key driver of long-run growth. Some concerns were noted regarding the

fact that “only around 55% of research spending in the EU is financed by the business

sector“. This was mentioned as the main reason for the EU/US innovation gap. It is

suggested that the private sector should be linked more directly to investments in

education, research and development. Companies should also operate in a more

competitive environment “since competition provides an important incentive to private

spending on innovation”. The guidelines also include suggestions that governments

should make sure that educational attainment levels are improved, that life-long

learning strategies are established and that access to education applies to every student,

young as well as, adults. Dropout rates should be reduced, so that the average rate of

early school leavers would not excide 10% (European Commission, 2005b).

43

5.4 European Commission – The Development After 2005

After the mid-term review and publication of guidelines for growth and development in

2005, many reports and policy papers have been published by the EC. It seems as if full

effort was put into the education policy formulation within the Union.

In 2007, two years after the mid-term report, a “Green-Paper” was published by the

EC (European Commission, 2007a). The content of the paper mainly regarded the

European Research Area (ERA), which served as the cornerstone for a European

knowledge society. Once again, the importance of internal market for research and

development was stressed, not least because of competition with China and India when

it comes to research and technology and relation with the industry. In 2007, the main

difficulty seen within the EU was the fragmentation of the European public research

base, which included hindrances regarding flow of researchers. In the Green-Paper it

was stressed that the process might take a while and the goals might not been fulfilled

until 2020, yet also noted, “urgent action is required” (ibid:10). As before, the main

focus seemed to have stayed within the field of technology and science, to build up a

better and more efficient European research area, which could compete with the giants

in the East and West. In a shorter communication document, also from 2007, the tone is

more positive towards the fulfilment of the Lisbon goals (European Commission,

2007b). It is stated that the success has been considerable and that European nations

have succeeded in many ways since the New Lisbon strategy was created in 2005. In the

document, the importance of modernising education and fighting against school dropout

rates is noted, to prevent European citizens from unemployment and stagnation. A third

document from 2007, titled Guideline for Growth and Jobs 2008-2010 (European

Commission, 2007c) harmonized with the 2005 guidelines for growth and jobs, when it

comes to education. The main goal is to increase and improve investment in research

and development, mainly in the field of science and technology, by the private industry.

The relationship between private and public is stressed further, as well as the

importance of successful Information and Communications Technology (ICT) use. A

substantial emphasis has been placed on key competences and qualifications

framework, as discussed specifically in the next section.

44

5.5 Key Competences and Qualifications Frameworks

In 2006, eight key competences for lifelong learning were acknowledged as

fundamental for every one living and working successfully in a knowledge-based

society. The key competences consist of certain knowledge, skills and attitudes that

should be acquired by everyone, to add value for the labour market and for more active

citizenship. The EU encourages countries to “ensure that these key competences are

fully integrated into their strategies and infrastructures, particularly in the context of

lifelong learning.” (European Union, 2011).

The eight key competences are:

1. Communication in the mother tongue.

2. Communication in foreign languages.

3. Mathematical competence and basic competences in science and technology.

4. Digital competence.

5. Learning to learn.

6. Social and civic competences.

7. Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship.

8. Cultural awareness and expression. (European Commission, 2007d):

In 2008, the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) for lifelong learning was

adopted by the European Council and Parliament (European Commission, 2011a).

Three years earlier, a qualifications framework for the European higher education area

was adopted by the EU (European Commission, 2005c). Since then, most EU and EEA

countries have started implementation of the National Qualifications Framework

(NQF), in accordance with the previously mentioned EQF, and furthermore, the eight

key competences are supposed to be intertwined with the EQF.

The qualifications framework was designed and developed in accordance to the

Lisbon strategy section dealing with Europe as a knowledge society, as a tool to

compare different qualifications across Europe, based on learning outcomes. The aim is

to increase the transparency of qualifications in Europe as it provides a common

European translation tool for comparison. It was recommended by the EC that countries

would relate their qualifications systems to the EQF by 2010, both by referencing the

national qualifications levels to it and by developing their own frameworks (NQF) in

45

accordance to the EQF (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training,

2009). According to the European Commission (2011a), all countries in Europe that

cooperate on education policy are now using the EQF as the basis for qualifications

comparison between countries, and are developing (or have already started to

implement) NQF.

The EQF consists of eight levels that are defined by learning outcomes. The learning

outcomes are divided in three, based on knowledge, skills and competences, and should

be measurable through the learning process:

The ‘learning outcomes’ approach shifts the emphasis from the duration of

learning and the institution where it takes place to the actual learning and

the knowledge, skills and competences that have been or should be acquired

through the learning process (European Commission, 2011a:5).

The eight levels of the EQF cover education from the end of compulsory education until

the end of the third cycle of HE. The first four levels should reflect the knowledge,

skills and competences, or the learning outcomes, for students at upper-secondary

school level. The latter four levels reflect the learning outcomes for the three cycles of

higher education. Each level is defined by certain learning outcomes, that are general at

lower levels and become more specific and advanced as students move up to a higher

level of qualifications (European Commission, n.d.[b]).

It should not come as a surprise that the implementation of EQF and key

competences is an answer to the problems of previously mentioned fragmentation

within the EU, which has been the biggest hindrance towards reaching the goals of the

Lisbon strategy. It is stated on the EU website that:

In response to the concerns expressed at the Lisbon European Council on

23 and 24 March 2000, which were repeated in the revised Lisbon strategy

in 2005, the key competences form part of the objectives of the Education

and Training 2010 work programme, the Commission communication of

2001 on making a European area of lifelong learning a reality… (European

Union, 2011).

The European Commission (2011:5) notes that “The EQF aims to increase the

transparency of qualifications throughout Europe” and that the plan to make a single

European labour market has also promoted the use of learning outcomes. The

46

framework and key competences might be seen as a way to push forward certain goals

that the OMC was not able to do.

The learning outcomes were first introduced for tertiary education, following the

Bologna process, but now the post-compulsory phase of general education has started to

implement it to a great deal. In many cases, according to the European Commission

(2011a), education at the upper-secondary level is general and selective and has been

tied to specific curriculum and knowledge, as a preparation for higher education. This

has made it harder to implement learning outcomes for that school level, but the EC

(2011a:12) implies that:

If learning outcomes begin to have a formative impact on university curricula

and pedagogies, this may in due course have a consequential effect on the

curriculum, pedagogy and assessment in upper secondary general education.

The argument for EQF and NQF for higher education is quite strong, but seems to be

weaker at lower levels. One aspect mentioned in this context is disappointing PISA

results, and the need to improve frameworks for learning outcomes due to poor results

that some countries have had to face on PISA (European Commission, 2011a).

After putting a policy like this into action, there is a lot to think about. One is the

assessment – both assessment of the policy per se, as well as how to assess students

according to the new policy – which includes key competences like “learning to learn”

or “civic competences”, which might be skills that are difficult to assess with traditional

subject knowledge assessment. To meet questions like that, the EC recently published

policy guidance (European Commission, 2012b) on assessment of the 21st century

skills. The guidance is mainly based on successful examples from member countries on

evaluation of the key competences; or good practices. It is interesting to note that

implementation of the key competences is followed by change in teaching and learning

curricula in many of the EU member states. Traditional walls between school subjects

have been cracked down and new cross-curricular subjects have even been introduced,

such as entrepreneurship education and new approaches to reach the objective of

“learning to learn”. This change is in accordance to suggestions by the EC in 2008

(European Commission, 2008), where the Commission highlighted the need for more

flexible learning environments, cross-curricular approaches to supplement single-

47

subject teaching (learning within and across subjects) as well as, a greater involvement

of students in the design of their own learning.

5.6 Education in Europe: The Future

In 2010, ten years after the Lisbon strategy and two years after the financial crisis hit

Europe, the European Commission (2010) published an important document called

Europe 2020. The document included a strategy for continued growth in Europe and

recovery from the crisis. It stresses the importance of member countries working

collectively together as one to build a strong Union based on, among other things,

knowledge, innovation, social cohesion and sustainability. The 2020 goals include

continuing emphasis on investment in research and development as well as, actions

against early school leavers. In the report it is emphasised that “Member states will

need: … To give a strong impetus to the implementation of the European Qualifications

Framework, through the establishment of national qualification frameworks...”

(European Commission, 2010:18). The key competences are discussed and highlighted

in the document and the importance of every member state to implement the tools, as an

approach to work toward better educational outcomes, as well as more openness and

flexibility of the education system. The strategy revolves around growth and it is

obvious that the EC sees skills, education, research, development and innovation as one

of the most important links to growth and recovery from the financial crisis (European

Commission, 2010).

It is interesting to see the weight put on specific subjects as the key to the recovery

of Europe. The EC says that countries will need to “…ensure a sufficient supply of

science, maths and engineering graduates…” and to “…prioritise knowledge

expenditure, including by using tax incentives and other financial instruments to

promote greater private R&D investments” (European Commission, 2010:13).

Following the 2020 strategy, the European Commission (2013c) put forward an

agenda tackling low achievement in maths, science and reading. The three subjects are

among the key competences, and are seen as a basis for strong innovative skills,

especially maths and science. The EC stresses that improving achievement in the three

48

core subjects is the main focus among education policymakers at the European level to

reach the goals of the 2020 strategy, for example, “by 2020, less than 15% of 15-year-

olds should be classed as 'low-achieving' in those basic skills, as measured by PISA

tests”. One part of the strategy is to work together to develop and implement policies

that can build up better attitudes towards mathematics, science and technology and raise

achievement levels in the subjects. A special group has been gathered to work towards

those goals.

The fight against school dropout rates has also been important in the EU’s strategy to

growth and development, and is emphasised in the Union’s education documents. In

2011, the European Commission published a report on tackling early school leaving,

presenting it as a key contribution to the Europe 2020 agenda. There, it is stated that

To reduce the average European early school leaving rate by just 1

percentage point would provide the European economy each year with nearly

half a million additional qualified potential young employees (European

Commission, 2011b)

The report discussed this problem in detail and offered several ways to explain it and

fight it. It is likely that early school leaving will be one of the key issues in the debate of

the future of education in the European Context.

49

6. The Icelandic Education Policy in the European Context

In this chapter, the main results from the qualitative content analysis of the Icelandic

policy documents are presented and discussed in detail, in the European and theoretical

context. The main themes drawn out from the public documents are three: European

cooperation and comparison, frameworks and qualifications, and research and

development (R&D). The OMC is also an important common ground of the comparison

and is included in the thematic analysis.

6.1 European Cooperation and Comparison

Iceland is small in population and a relatively isolated community, which causes

dependency on different sources outside its borders. There has been a long tradition of

Icelandic students studying abroad, partly because there was no university in Iceland

until 1911. Universities within the other Nordic countries, USA or Europe have been the

most sought out by Icelandic students. European cooperation has been considerable, as

Iceland has for example been an active participant in the EU’s LLP since 1995

(Hermannsson, 2010) and “Education and Training” since 2002 (MoESC, 2009). As

stated by the MoESC (2011b:2):

Iceland has participated in centralised and decentralised programmes on

education/training and culture since the early 1990s. Iceland has also

participated in the EU OMC on education since 2002 and has expressed

its wish to participate in the EU OMC on culture. Overall, Iceland

develops its policies in these fields in line with European policies.

International competition research funds have become important for HEIs in Iceland,

since sources, human as well as financial, are limited within the research community in

the country. Access to education, work and funds are important for the nation, not least

to promote and improve positive international comparison and mobility of academics.

According to Hermannsson (2010), Iceland could be considered as having reached

three out of five of the EU’s 2020 objectives. Participation in pre-primary education is

above 95%, adult participation in lifelong learning is above 15% (25,1%) and higher

education attainment is above 40%. Dropout rates are still too high as well as the level

50

of low achievers in PISA. Hermannsson (2010:21) states “the EU education and training

policies and its priorities have had a positive impact on these developments in Iceland.”

When going through the Icelandic policy documents, the argument on European

comparison was prominent. Almost always, some reference is made to what is

happening in Europe or within the Nordic countries and that “we cannot lag behind” and

“other nations are implementing this, so we should do that too”. In 2008, with new laws

on teacher education, a master’s degree became the requirement for certified teachers at

all pre-tertiary school levels. That was decided, according to MoESC (2009b), after a

discussion in Europe in relation to the Lisbon strategy. The ministry announced the

following:

These changes in teaching education in Iceland are thus in line with

increased demands on the teaching profession and development of Teacher

education in the countries we compare ourselves with. (MoESC, 2009b:46).

Two quite bulky themes concerning education policy in Iceland, in the European

context, are school dropout and the reduction of the length of studies leading to

matriculation examination. These two themes will be discussed in the following

sections.

6.1.1 School Dropout

The first Icelandic document reviewed for this study was written in 1994. At that time,

the dropout from the upper-secondary school level was discussed and identified as a

serious problem (MoESC, 1994). From that time, dropout has been one of the main

issues for improvements in the Icelandic school system. In 2000, the MoESC addressed

the importance of finding out what reasons were for the dropout and try to fight it.

Dropout is one of the subjects discussed in the context of international comparison. One

of the 2020 goals by the EU is that the labour market should not have more than 10% of

its people without secondary education. Iceland is working towards this 10% goal

(Hermannsson, 2010; MoESC, 2011b), but at the same time seems to find ways to

explain and justify the high dropout rates in comparison to other European countries. It

is for example often highlighted how flexible the upper secondary school system is,

compared to other European countries, as it is pretty easy for students to turn back to

their studies. Another explanation is that it has been relatively easy for students to get

51

jobs without certificated qualifications – at least before the financial crisis in 2008

(MoESC, 2007a; MoESC, 2009a; MoESC, 2011b). According to Statistics Iceland

(2012b) the medium unemployment rate in Iceland from 1992-2008 was 2.82%. In 2009

and 2010, due to the financial crisis, it rose to 8.0-8.1% but the rate has gone down

since then and was 5.8% in 2012. See following figure for a comparison of

unemployment rates in Iceland and the 27 EU countries, from 2003-2012.

Figure II. Percentage of the unemployed labour force. Source: Statistics Iceland (2012b)

and Eurostat (2013).

In 2003-2012, 61,5%-73,1% of students, 15-24 years old, were working along with their

studies, topping in 2007 (Statistics Iceland, 2012b).

In the negotiating position with the EU, written by the MoESC (2011b:3), it is

clearly stated that:

Due to the high level of labour demand in recent years in lceland, the

proportion of early school leavers has been higher than the EU average.

Another explanation for the high dropout rate of Icelandic students compared to their

European peers is related to the criteria on which the rate is based:

3,4 3,1

2,1 1,3 1

1,6

8 8,1 7,4

5,8

9,1 9 9

8 7,2 7,1

9 9 9

10,6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

%

Unemployment rates in Iceland and the EU

Iceland

EU 27

52

According to The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED),

a student is considered not to have completed upper secondary education if he

has completed a course of studies that is more than one year shorter in

duration than a traditional curriculum for matriculation. In this way a student

who has completed a regular curriculum in commercial education (2 years

duration) is included in the dropout group in this context as the curriculum for

matriculation is defined as having duration of four years. In neighbouring

countries however a two year curriculum is considered sufficient for the

completion of upper secondary school in the context of this debate on

dropout.(MoESC, 2009b)

The long duration of studies leading to matriculation has been identified as one of the

reasons for students dropping out of school, so the fight against dropouts has

occasionally been used as one argument for reducing the length of the studies (MoESC,

2003a). In the next sector, the length of studies leading to matriculation examination

will be discussed in greater detail.

6.1.2 The Reduction of the Length of Studies Leading to Matriculation

The reduction of the length of studies leading to matriculation has been a debated issue

in the Icelandic school system for years. In a report from the MoESC, published in

1994, concerns were addressed. Icelandic students finish matriculation exams one or

two years later than European students, or at the age of 19-20, since the academic path

leading to matriculation has been organized as a four year programme. In 1994

(MoESC, 1994:18), it is suggested that this should be changed because “the education

system should be seen as a part of a global unit” and

…if foreign students have acquired enough preparation for higher

education when they are 18 or 19 years old, there should be a good reason

for us to evaluate our policy to keep students in secondary school until they

fill 20 years

One of the arguments for the reduction, as presented in the report, was that it would

make the general framework for pre-tertiary education more similar to what it is

elsewhere. Consequently, new laws passed for both school levels in 1996 and a year

later (MoESC, 1998) the MoESC published a document promoting the new act. There it

is argued that Iceland is different from other nations and the ministry would work

towards this change in the following years, but that it might be complicated. In 2003,

the Minister of Education published a brochure introducing the change and referring to

the 1994 report, arguing once again that Iceland should be a part of a global unit.

53

Therefore, it was not seen as a desirable choice to be different from the countries

Iceland usually compared itself to (MoESC, 2003a). The same year, two reports were

published, and another one a year later, by the MoESC (2003b, 2003c; 2004), stressing

the three-year study path, with the same argument, Iceland cannot afford staying behind

other nations when it comes to education. The importance of getting students into the

labour market earlier was highlighted also. In order to make a decision based on

knowledge and professionalism, a comparative study had been made of the school

systems in Iceland and the other Nordic countries, in which the results were used as one

of the argument for the change.

The three-year upper secondary school curriculum was never implemented, as it was

a political and contested issue. This is still an important and debated subject in

education policy in Iceland (Forsætisráðuneytið, 2012), and a good example of the

importance of international comparison – since the main argument was directly related

to European and Nordic comparison and the existing pressure not to stay behind

neighbouring countries.

6.1.3 Summary

In times of increased globalization and EU-ification, nation-states have become caught

up in a dilemma between preserving their own ideas and culture, while meeting

international standards (Robertson & Dale, 2008). Steiner-Khamsi (2010) has argued

that international standards are just empty shells, which could be filled with whatever.

Decisions regarding education in one state is often based on and supported because

those particular decisions have worked well elsewhere (Steinar-Khamsi, 2004).

This can very well apply to Iceland in the European comparison. No one wants to lag

behind – but behind what? In this case, the European Commission publishes strategies

for education and common objectives for member countries to follow. Even though

Iceland is not (yet) part of the Union, it seems as if the country cannot afford not to

follow the example. Yearly publications reveal how far countries are on the way of

fulfilling the common goals. In this context, it is interesting to look at both the plans to

reduce the length of studies leading to matriculation examination as well as the battle

against dropout rates.

54

The argument concerning the length of studies leading to matriculation is hardly ever

professional, based on ideas of teaching and learning. The public discussion reveals that

the dispute is mostly built around international comparison, not being willing to lag

behind and the negative impacts that affects the labour market, later on, as the aim is

more growth and development. The MoESC seemed to have tried very hard to

implement the change during the years 2003-2004, but somehow the idea did not gain

adherence. It might be difficult for those aiming at higher education, to believe that it is

for their own good to be “less” prepared for university education.

Dropout rates have been viewed as a major defect of the Icelandic school system, as

well as within school systems in Europe. One of the Lisbon 2000 goals is to reduce

dropout rates, to less than 10% should not have completed secondary education. As has

been pointed at many times by the MoESC, an important reason for dropout rates in

Iceland are due to cultural related issues. Icelandic teenagers have always worked a lot

and in many cases, it has been the labour market that pulled students away from school,

which positively causes production for the state, as young people became tax-payers

instead of receivers. High dropout rates in Iceland, in the European comparison, have

also been explained by inconsistent measurement. One part of the secondary school

legislation in 2008 was to get schools to design a shorter study programmes, enabling

students to obtain an “upper secondary school leaving certificate” in two years. The

changes can be a way to reduce dropout rates – on paper at least - since students that

have finished some kind of education (have a diploma) are not considered dropout in

the international comparison framework. By implementing these changes, Iceland is

more likely to be able to fulfil the EU’s objectives to reduce the dropout rates.

International comparison is often used as a justification for changes within the

education system. Yet, as many scholars have pointed at, there is no guarantee that

successful changes in one country have the same results in another.

55

6.2 Mobility, Frameworks and Qualifications

In 1994, the MoESC in Iceland published the previously mentioned report on

formulation of a new education policy. A committee had been formed two years earlier

to review the then existing laws for primary and secondary education. The committee,

consisting of specialists from the MoESC, teachers, principals and others involved in

the education system, wrote the report and made a draft of new laws for the school

levels (MoESC, 1994). One of the main concerns was that the quality of education in

Iceland should be comparable with the best systems in the world in times of global

communications. References were made to what was happening in Europe, within the

Nordic countries and USA. Decentralization in the school system was the key word at

this time, followed by a well-defined framework and evaluation. The committee

recommended that changes should be made at the upper secondary school level and

schools should be more independent – but the external framework stronger at the same

time, included the implementation of national matriculation exams. The school system

should stop focusing so much on individual subjects and start thinking about the

necessary knowledge, understanding and skills students should retain as well as the

educational experience (MoESC, 1994). This is probably the first step towards the idea

of making a NQF for Iceland.

In 2000, the MoESC stressed the importance of following or having an idea of

universal requirements for school inspection and evaluations and that the study goals

must be even clearer (MoESC, 2000). The question for frameworks was more

protuberant within higher education, since the quest for mobility has always been

greater at that level. In 1988, Iceland became a part of agreement on recognition of

diplomas between European countries and there is also a long tradition of co-operation

between the Nordic countries in this area (European Commission, 1988; Agreement

concluded by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden on Admission to Higher

Education, from 1996, updated 2009; Lög um viðurkenningu á menntun og

prófskírteinum nr. 83/1993; Auglýsing um samning um viðurkenningu á menntun og

hæfi á æðra skólastigi á Evrópusvæðinu, nr. 7/2001). The main goal has been to make

access to education easier between countries and stress the importance of finding ways

to increase transparency and fairness when it comes to evaluation of qualifications

56

between countries. However, in the Icelandic case, it is likely that the recognitions of

qualifications and access to HEIs in other countries have been of greater interest than

getting foreign students and workers to the country. In 2007, the current Minister of

education in Iceland said

…by developing the framework system in rhythm with what is being done

in other European countries, we make it easier for Icelandic students and

employees to get their education and work-experience appreciated in

foreign countries. (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2007a:5).

In the same year, it was suggested that the NQF should not only be implemented within

HEIs, but also for life-long learning and the upper secondary school level, to make it

easier for people to work and get their qualifications recognised outside of the country

(MoESC, 2007b). At the secondary school level the goal has been to create flexibility

for students nationally to switch schools and move their previously finished credits

between them (MoESC, 1999; MoESC, 2009b).

6.2.1 The Issue of National Qualifications Frameworks and Key

Competences in Iceland

With laws for HEIs, from 2006, Iceland formally started adapting to the Bologna

process. The argument was that Iceland, as other countries in Europe, had to make sure

the education system fulfilled requirements regarding Education for All and it was

important to look at the development in Europe. Therefore, the new act was regulated in

the context of the Bologna process (MoESC, 2007a). The Ministry of Education,

Science and Culture (2011b:9) states that “the Higher Education Act fully implements

the Bologna Process into Icelandic higher education“. Following the legislation, the

debate and development in Iceland, related to NQF and key competences has been quite

extensive in relation to The University of Iceland, which is the oldest and largest

university in the country. The MoESC made an agreement with the University in 2007,

to contribute to mobility of students and teachers and be a leading institution in the

development of the NQF for higher education. The main goal was to make the

university one of the best in the world and to increase structured cooperation with

foreign universities, as well as adapting all the study programmes to NQF and later be

able to connect it to EQF (Samningur milli menntamálaráðuneytis og Háskóla Íslands

57

um kennslu og rannsóknir, 2007). In 2007, a NQF was published for HEIs and reviewed

again in 2011, in which the language was different in many ways, such as, knowledge

and skills were replaced with knowledge, skills and competences, and the connection to

EQF was much clearer (Notification about a publication of a National Qualificaton

Framework for Iceland, No. 80/2007; Notification about a Publication of a National

Qualifications Framework for Higher Education, No. 530/2011). According to the

MoESC (2009a:9), “all higher education institutions in Iceland, accredited by the

[MoESC] shall follow the National Qualifications Framework for Iceland which is

aligned to the EQF as agreed in the Bologna process”.

The argument for working on NQF for Icelandic universities seems to be the need

for taking into consideration the policies and trends in Europe. In a policy document

from 2007 it says, “most European nations are now making comparable frameworks”

and that even though it is necessary to consider national circumstances, the problems are

usually the same. It is stressed that it is not effective if everyone reinvent the wheel, and

instead – learning from each other is more important (MoESC, 2007a:5).

The European model includes the previously mentioned eight key competences, and

it is quite interesting to see how the Icelandic policy has formulated around them. In

2007, when the new education act for upper secondary schools was in preparation, the

MoESC referred to the global argument on education and the skills students had to

develop, to be able to live and compete in the ever changing and complex 21st century.

The eight key competences were introduced alongside the importance of changing

teaching practices, to an increased emphasis on learning goals based on skills and

attitudes because

in the universal discussion on education and employment, important

perspectives on aims based on skills and attitudes have become prominent,

which implies that traditional focus in the school system have been too tied

to knowledge-based goals (MoESC, 2007b).

58

In an article by Pétursdóttir (2009:57), a curriculum specialist working in the MoESC,

she presents the new framework for the Icelandic school system and refers to some of

the key competences,

The EU, OECD and the countries around have started to focus more on the

student’s skills in mother-tongue, foreign languages, everyday mathematical

competences, social and civic competences and learning to learn.

Furthermore, in a compilation written for the Iceland’s EU application (MoESC,

2009:a) it is made clear that Iceland’s policy in education is a comprehensive national

lifelong learning strategy, since Iceland has worked according the EU’s LLPs for years,

like most other European countries. According to the compilation, the new curriculum

for pre-primary, primary and secondary education is

…based on national development of the eight Key Competences

recommended by the European Union in 2006…and as matters stand it is

clear that the Icelandic version will be in line with the EU recommendation.

… The Key Competences will be a fundamental part of the Lifelong

Learning Strategy and will be continuous through all school stages and

adult education and will mirror the main emphasis and objectives of the

country’s education system...the schools are to define each course in

accordance with the competence level on the basis of the Key Competences.

(MoESC, 2009a:16).

It is also stated (MoESC, 2009a:16) that “if the study line proposed by a school is to be

certified by the Ministry it will have to be clear how the students are to gain basic

competence in all eight key competences”, in general studies, vocational education, arts

and special education. So, in 2009, in accordance to the EU application, it is made clear

that Iceland is following the European policy towards lifelong learning, using NQF and

key competences as a clear guide.

In 2011, the Minister of Education in Iceland published a report about the Icelandic

school system, as by parliament’s request. In the report, the key competences are only

mentioned once, but it is stressed that the main curriculum for secondary school (then in

progress within the MoESC) would include six important pillars of education. Those six

pillars would guide the education system and even help the country score higher on

PISA. One year later, the national curriculum for secondary education was published

(but in progress since 2008). There, the main focus is on the six pillars of education, or

as is stated, “the educational policy that appears in the National Curriculum Guide is

59

based on six fundamental pillars on which the curriculum guidelines are based”

(MoESC, 2012a:14). It should be noted that in the compilation for the EU’s application,

there is no introduction of the six fundamental pillars.

The pillars are supposed to be cross-curricular and visible in education at all school

levels as well as in every subject. Those six pillars are in a way related to the key

competences, but much more subjective, student related and aim at social change more

than being subject related like some of the EU’s key competences. The six pillars are

literacy, sustainability, health and welfare, democracy and human rights, equality and

creativity. They are based on various national legislation (such as laws for gender

equality) and international conventions, like United Nations Convention on the Rights

of the Child and the European Council’s policy on democracy and human rights:

The fundamental pillars refer to social, cultural, environmental and

ecological literacy so that children and youth may develop mentally and

physically, thrive in society and cooperate with others. The fundamental

pillars also refer to a vision of the future, ability and will to influence and

be active in maintaining society, change it and develop. (MoESC,

2012a:14).

In the main curriculum for upper secondary schools, the previously mentioned eight key

competences are not as prominent as the pillars. The MoESC adapted the key

competences to the Icelandic aims and now they are nine (MoESC, 2012:a), presented

in this order (with the EU’s key competences as a comparison). The numbers in the

right column stand for in which order the key competences are presented within the EU.

60

Table III: Comparison of key competences

Key Competences in Iceland Key Competences for life-long learning

in Europe

Learnability Learning to learn (5)

Health

Creative thinking and utilisation of

knowledge

Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship

(7)

Equality

Democracy and human rights Cultural awareness and expression (8)

Social and civic competences (6)

Education towards sustainability

Literacy, expression and communication

in Icelandic

Communication in mother tongue (1)

Literacy, expression and communication

in foreign languages

Communication in foreign languages (2)

Literacy, expression and communication

about numbers and information

Mathematical competence and basic

competences in science and technology (3)

Digital competence (4)

An attempt is made here to try to group the competences together, to see what is similar

and what is not. The Icelandic key competences are in some ways different. They are

not as subject-related and focus more obviously on the student as a participant in a

democratic society. Also, instead of highlighting communication in the mother tongue,

like in the European edition, Iceland wants to focus on competence in the Icelandic

language. In the main curriculum it is stated that:

61

Key competence is to link the fundamental pillars to the objectives of

student competence upon graduation. Key competence relates to the

students themselves and is thus student oriented implementation of the most

important issues of the fundamental pillars (MoESC, 2012a:31).

This vision is explained in a figure, published in the main curriculum. It is explained

this way, “The fundamental pillars are to be mirrored in all school activities, but the key

competence links the fundamental pillars with the demand for the students’

competence” (MoESC, 2012a:32).

Figure III: Key competences and fundamental pillars (MoESC, 2012a:32)

In this way, the Icelandic policy disconnects somewhat from the EU’s policy, which is

interesting when put in context to the previous weight laid on the key competences,

which was stressed in the policy formulation. This disconnection is confirmed even

further with recent publications of educational material related to all of the six

fundamental pillars. The Minister of Education in Iceland introduces the publications

with the wish for the publications to have a positive influence on schools in the country,

which is recovering from the financial crisis. The minister also encourages students,

teachers and parents to learn to know the six pillars of education and reflect upon them

in their work (MoESC, 2012b). There are no similar publications related to the nine key

competences. Interestingly, as well, there is no mentioning of the European connection,

mobility or the relationship with the labour market in the main curriculum for the

62

secondary school level – even though the ideas derive from the European policy,

presenting NQF and key competences.

Concerning the NQF, key competences and learning outcomes, Iceland started the

work early, compared to many European nations, and the public aim has been to be

among the first to implement NQF for upper secondary schools and lifelong learning

(MoESC, 2009b), as well as linking it to EQF. The argument for connecting the

Icelandic NQF to EQF was that it would bring “added value and allowing for

comparability” (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, 2009:50)

– but international comparability is hardly ever mentioned in the dialogue concerning

the upper secondary level (MoESC, 2012a).

6.2.2 Summary

There is a long tradition for Icelandic students to study abroad and it is important for a

small country like Iceland to possess well-educated people that can seek knowledge

internationally and bring it “home”. Iceland is dependent on mobility and being able to

study and work in other countries. So this part of the EU’s policy is important for

Iceland, especially after 2008, when unemployment became a problem. So the quest for

mobility, frameworks and qualifications is well understandable for the HE level.

However, it is interesting to note how quickly the MoESC in Iceland responded to the

implementation of NQF and the Bologna system, as being one of the first countries in

Europe to regulate it.

One sign of globalization, according to Powell (2007), is more standardization and

evaluative metrics, to ease mobility across national borders. If a small nation-state, like

Iceland, wants to be able to compete in the global labour world, it might be hard to

ignore the effects of globalization and stand aside while other countries implement

frameworks and qualifications that can affect mobility of educated people and students

within HEIs. This assumption is not least based on the fact that the production of

knowledge has become an important component of economic competitiveness within

the European labour market (Lauder et al, 2006). The wage earner’s opportunities are

highly depended on how the global labour market values his credentials and

qualifications, even within his own national context, as has been argued by Reich

(2006). Theories on common world culture in education explain this phenomenon to

63

some extent. According to the cultural theorists, nations are under pressure from IGOs

to structure their education systems according to the Western world model. An

important aspect of the world model is to provide education for global competitiveness,

which is related to national frameworks and outcome based education (Daun, 2007)

The justification for implementing European frameworks is somewhat more difficult

on the upper secondary school level than within HEIs. However, a lot of work has taken

place within the secondary school level, to implement the EU’s policy on frameworks,

qualifications and learning outcomes. The need for mobility, at that school level, is first

and foremost between schools within the country, not on the international level.

The documents from the MoESC tell an interesting story. What is presented for

students, teachers and the learning community in Iceland, is in most cases not linked to

the EU’s education policy. If taken out of the European context, it looks as if the

MoESC formulated the specific priorities on the national level, without consideration of

what is happening in Europe. However, in documents published in English, as part of

the European cooperation or application to the EU, it is stressed how much the Icelandic

education policy and curriculum is formulated in accordance to what is happening in

Europe.

It is also interesting to see the shift of emphasis from the eight key competences to

nine, somewhat different, key competences and then to the six fundamental pillars of

education. Shortly after the EU published the eight key competences for lifelong

learning, the Icelandic MoESC introduced them as one of the educational aims.

However, the MoESC has recently published cross-curricular themes that are supposed

to be a guiding light in the education system from pre-primary level to the end of

secondary school level, and seem to be of much more importance within the policy than

the key competences. The change happened after the financial crisis hit the country and

that can be of some explanation. The six fundamental pillars are socially oriented as

they aim at the development of a good citizen in a democratic society. It may be seen as

an answer to the financial crisis, to start evaluating other things rather than only growth

and subject-based knowledge and move to focusing on societal factors.

This is an example of an important part of the Icelandic education policy, which is

based on the EU’s framework, but not directly related to the EU’s ideas of competences

64

and learning outcomes. Then again, implementing socially connected, cross-curricular

themes/pillars in the European context is not unique for Iceland, as Finland, for

example, has also done a similar strategy, to be reached by 202011

.

6.3 Research and Development

For many years, the EU and Iceland have valued the importance of R&D, as an

important element of growth and development. In 2000, the MoESC stated that R&D

was a fundamental issue in economic development and that there was a need to boost

the HEIs and even get private parties involved (MoESC, 2000). Since then, the number

of students enrolled in higher education, in Iceland, has doubled, as can be seen in

figure IV. In 1999, 9849 students were enrolled compared to 20.162 in 2011.

Figure IV: Student enrolment in higher education in Iceland 1999-2011. Source: Statistics Iceland

(2012c).

In 2003, legislation was passed for state support research (Act on Public Support for

Scientific Research No. 3/2003). A research fund was established to fund basic

research, science, technology and innovation. Collaboration between firms, research

11 The Cross-curricular themes in Basic Education in Finland are: Growth as a person, Cultural identity

and internationalism, Media skills and communication, Participatory citizenship and entrepreneurship,

Responsibility for the environment, Well-being and a sustainable future, Safety and traffic and

Technology and the Individual (Finnish National Board of Education, 2003).

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Higher Education: Enrollment

65

institutions and HEIs were grounded. During the same year, laws were passed for the

Icelandic Science and Technology Policy Council (STPC), which is a steering group on

research priorities (Lög um vísinda- og tækniráð nr. 2/2003). In 2001, Iceland spent 3%

of its GDP on R&D, which is the EU’s goal for 2020. The high percentage was mostly

due to increased participation of private companies in the funding of R&D. In a

document published by the STPC (2004), this success is emphasised, as well as the

importance of continuing the good work, since OECD claims that education, research,

innovation and entrepreneurship is the driving power for economic growth. The STPC

also thanks Iceland’s participation in the EU’s framework programmes for the

achievement.

In the following years, R&D was discussed in the context of competition funds,

international cooperation and tax concession to companies that support R&D – to name

a few themes. In 2006, the STPC published an R&D policy, where the main objective

was for Iceland to become a leading nation in science and technology. One important

goal was to build up a better science and technology education within HEIs.

Competition funds were to be reinforced and the role of private companies was

specifically emphasised along with their cooperation with the state and HEIs. It was

underlined that universities are and should be a part of international science society,

building up a market with valuable knowledge production. It is interesting to note that

the STPC suggested that an evaluation should be made of the opportunities for R&D

within humanities and social sciences (The Icelandic Science and Technology Policy

Council, 2006). However, much more emphasis has been laid on science and

technology. In the same report, the STPC encouraged the state to increase its

contributions to science and technology, to be comparable with the countries “we like to

compare us with” (which are usually, according to the discourse, the other Nordic

countries and European countries). At this time, the Icelandic business sector had

expanded internationally and the STPC wanted to see similar expansion by the science

society (The Icelandic Science and Technology Policy Council, 2006).

In 2007, the University of Iceland and the Icelandic government made an agreement

on R&D and its empowerment. It was a part of the Bologna implementation as well as

the goal of seeing the University of Iceland as one of the leading universities in the

world. Another aspect to be improved, were publications in respected international

66

research journals. Innovation and cooperation between HEIs and the labour market was

highlighted as well as access to international research funds through the EU and Nordic

cooperation (Samningur milli menntamálaráðuneytis og Háskóla Íslands um kennslu og

rannsóknir, 2007).

An on-going theme in the discussion on R&D is more cooperation between

education institutions and the labour market in Iceland, with private companies in the

vanguard. This applies both to the upper secondary school level and HEIs, in the

context of innovation, creativity and financing. Another important topic is access to

overseas research funds, especially after the financial crisis in 2008.

6.3.1 Competition Funds

As previously mentioned, increased access to research funds has been a vital objective

within HEIs in Iceland. According to Hermannsson (2010), increase in

internationalisation of HE in Iceland somewhat started due to Iceland’s participation in

the EU’s programs, such as Socrates and Erasmus, and the EU’s cooperation is

extremely important for Iceland, not least because researchers are able to obtain funds

from foreign competition funds. In a science and technology policy document, by the

STPC (2004), it is stated that competition between individuals and research teams is

very important and that such process would increase the quality of research projects.

Also, that Iceland should aim at being known internationally as a leading knowledge

based society, and therefore more fees should be provided to the competition funds.

Almost all upper secondary schools in Iceland, and over 60% of primary schools,

have participated in the Comenius project, which is a part of the EU’s LLP. In a report

written for the MoESC, Hermannsson (2010) suggests that Iceland establishes one

office that contains all information on the EU’s lifelong learning programs and funds for

R&D, to increase the level of international funding available to Icelandic projects and

participants. This has become very important after 2008, as the country has faced

serious economic problems and cutbacks since then.

6.3.2 Summary

Research and development has been an important theme in the European context for the

past few years, where two dominant issues that have been particularly noticeable in the

discussion on R&D, which are financing and the fields of research. The EU lays

67

emphasis on investment by private partners in R&D and one of the Union’s aims is to

increase the proportion of investment in R&D, as a percentage of GDP, deriving from

private sources. Tax concessions, more involvement of private companies, competition

funds, knowledge production and the importance of R&D as the driving power for

growth and development, are all frequently mentioned themes in both the EU’s policy

and the Icelandic one. When it comes to financing R&D, the discourse, aims and

objectives of the EU and the MoESC in Iceland, seem be concerted.

According to theories on world models in education, science and technology are

seen as important subjects to improve competitiveness in the global labour market

contributing to growth and development (Daun, 2007). The discussion on growth and

development within the EU seems to go hand in hand with estimated importance of

previously mentioned subjects. R&D has been an important theme within the EU for

years, and according to the EU’s policy documents the significance of science and

technology is praised within the Union. R&D within the EU seems to mean R&D within

the field of science and technology. In Iceland, the discourse on R&D has mostly been

related to these two subjects as well, and not least within the context of the Icelandic

Science and Technology Policy council.

Many international research funds have been formed around the R&D EU project,

which Iceland has benefitted from. For the past few years, the University of Iceland has

been working towards becoming one of the leading universities in the world. Following

that goal, the importance of international comparison, research funds and cooperation

with the private market has increased alongside with the EU’s objectives. The standards

that the university sets are developed internationally and in that way they can influence

education in Iceland in many ways.

According to Arnove (2009) and Spring (2012), the EU can be seen as a dominating

world zone, in the context of the world system theory. The goal of the dominating zone

is to legitimize its power by pressing its values onto marginal countries, through

education. That is somewhat being done by aid agencies. It is questionable if Iceland

can be considered a marginal country in relation to the EU, but it is clear, that since the

market for R&D is small in Iceland, the Icelandic HEIs, researchers and the science

community in the country has become dependent on the European cooperation and the

68

funds offered by the EU programmes. Research competition funds can influence

knowledge production within nation states to a great deal. The research projects have to

fit the pre-described goals of the funds provided. This does not only apply to European

competition funds for researchers and HEIs, the LLP programmes also offer funds for

cooperation and specific projects, outlined by the EC.

6.4 The Open Method of Coordination

As previously discussed, the OMC has been a method used within the EU since the

Lisbon strategy was first circulated. As Iceland has taken part in many of the EU

programmes following the Lisbon strategy, it has clearly been involved in this method.

In a report on Iceland’s participation in the EU’s education and training projects,

Ingþórsson (2009) states that OMC has been a highly appreciated method to push

reforms into the Icelandic education system, and Iceland’s participation in OMC has

had a direct impact on education policy formulation in Iceland. As Daun (2011) and

Beeck (2009) have argued, the OMC is probably the most important tool the EU

possesses, to influence education policy within Europe – or to EU-ificate members as

well as non-member countries, like Iceland. Silova (2004) has furthermore claimed, by

joining the EU, countries have to reform their education systems and make references to

the educational concepts used within it. This can be seen as a part of the world model of

education. Iceland has openly confirmed that it has been developing its education policy

in line with the EU’s policy, by following the EU’s education programmes and OMC.

In 2007, the MoESC published a report on Iceland’s involvement in the EU’s

education policy formulation, after a conference was held, financially supported by the

EU. At the conference, five projects were presented, which the Icelandic MoESC was

working on in the European context, as a part of the OMC. They included reforms such

as, HEIs, teacher’s education, mathematics, science and technology education, the use

of ICT and frameworks for educational assessment (MoESC, 2007a). All of these

reforms, except for ICT use, have been covered in this study, as all of them have been

implemented and regulated in Iceland, in the European context. From these several

examples, it is obvious that OMC has influenced education policy reforms in Iceland to

some extent. As stated by the EC, the OMC was developed to be able to direct national

policies towards certain common objectives. The pressure can be quite high, as

69

benchmarks and good practices have been used to influence and guide the

implementation and where it leads (Robertson, 2008; European Commission, 2012a).

Once a nation like Iceland has become part of certain projects within the OMC, it is

probably hard to back out of them or the direction the EC sets for that specific project.

An interesting part about OMC in the Icelandic context is that Icelandic policy

makers have somewhat started to use the EU language in policy formulation. In the

same education and training report (MoESC, 2009b) as well as in an article published

on behalf of the MoESC (Pétursdóttir, 2009), the term OMC (IS: opið samráð) is used

for cooperation within Iceland, for the development of learning outcomes for secondary

schools. Pétursdóttir (2009) states that the MoESC emphasises policy formulation is

supposed to be characterized by OMC and done in good cooperation between the

MoESC, the school society and the labour market. The term “good practices” has also

been used in the process. Schools that were leading in policy implementation and

published learning outcomes and plans for specific subjects, according to the new act,

were identified as delivering “good practices” and their models published for other

schools to follow and learn from their examples (MoESC, 2011c; MoESC, 2012c). It

seems as if the discourse of the EU for OMC has been integrated into the policy

discourse in Iceland.

70

7. Conclusion

This chapter will present the general conclusions of the study and provide answers to

the research questions. The main aim of the study was to compare the Icelandic

education policy formulation over the past two decades, to the education policy

presented on behalf of the European Union.

7.1 General Conclusions

It is obvious that the EU’s education policy has affected the Icelandic education policy

in many ways for the past 20 years, but especially after 2006. Before Lisbon 2000, the

EU had published general ideas about education in its member states, yet had not

developed any specific tools to influence policy formulation within member states.

Therefore, it is hard to point out a pattern in the comparison. As the ideas were general,

they applied to Iceland as well.

With the Lisbon strategy in 2000, education was placed higher up on the agenda and

OMC was developed as a tool to motivate member countries. Subsequently, Iceland

founded STPC, became a part of the Lisbon strategy and OMC and the quest for

frameworks became louder. R&D became an important subject in the discourse on

education as well as efficiency. However, it is not until after 2005 that one can really

see the relationship clearly. Iceland has adapted to the EU’s programmes, quickly and

without hesitation. The country became a part of the Bologna program for HEIs, laws

for HEIs were adapted to the EU’s qualification frameworks and learning outcomes,

knowledge, skills and competences became prominent concepts. Iceland introduced the

eight key competences one year after the EU and started to develop NQF for secondary

schools as one of the first countries in Europe. Then, after the financial crisis hit

Europe, even more focus has been on R&D, both in Iceland and within the EU.

It has become easier for the EU to affect education policy in Iceland since OMC

entails regular reports back to the EC with certain benchmarks and indicators. The same

applies for national conferences funded by the EU. Participating countries are not

expected to spend time talking about and planning something completely different from

the EU goals. After the financial crisis hit Iceland, competition funds have become even

more important for HEIs in the country.

71

7.2 Answers to the Research Questions

1. What have been the main education policy, ideas and agendas of the European

Union, introduced to the member countries as collective goals, for the past two

decades?

First and foremost, the EU has aimed at growth and development within the Union,

acknowledging education and knowledge as the main tools to fulfil that goal. Increased

access to education, lifelong learning, better quality of education, reduced dropout,

improved skills, emphasis on research, development and innovation and increased

mobility of workers and researchers has been on the agenda. These objectives are

elements to increase the economic growth within the Union and to reduce

unemployment and be competitive in comparison to the USA, China and India. In order

to fulfil these ambitious goals, the Lisbon process has been introduced, European

Qualifications Framework and learning outcomes, based on knowledge, skills and

competences. Special emphasis has been laid on skills in the field of science and

technology. Furthermore, the Union has suggested ways for better efficiency in

education, competition funds and the involvement of private businesses in education,

especially R&D.

2. What tools does the EU possess to be able to impact education policy in a nation

state like Iceland?

The main tool the EU has to influence education policy is the OMC and several

programmes related to it, like the Erasmus Mundus and the LLP (including Comenius,

Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci). These programmes offer funds for participants and

the EU sets the general guidelines and goals. The OMC provides a framework for

cooperation between member states and directs them towards certain common

objectives, by requesting them to set up timeframes, by providing benchmarks and

indicators and good practices. Though the OMC is a form of soft governance, and thus

not able to have direct influence on education legislation within nation states, it has

proved to be an effective, influential tool, since it involves a strong social coercion to

participate and follow the common framework and ideas.

72

3. How has the education policy in Iceland developed in accordance to the policy

formulated by the EU, specifically at the post-compulsory school level?

In many ways, it can be said that the education policy in Iceland has developed hand in

hand with the European policy. It is quite clear that the EU’s education policy presented

in the Lisbon strategy 2000, and then reaffirmed in 2005, has had several impacts on

education policy in Iceland. The clearest examples are changes within HEIs following

the Bologna process, implementation of learning outcomes and development of NQF in

relation to the EQF at the upper secondary school level, as well as the R&D policy.

Iceland has also adopted the same objectives as seen in the EU’s policy, for example

regarding an attempt to decrease dropout rates at the upper secondary school level. The

EU-ification is openly referred to in public documents published by the EU, especially

those available in English, after Iceland applied for the EU membership.

7.3 Concluding Remarks and Recommendations

According to the world system theory in education, nation states are under a lot of

pressure from intergovernmental organizations when formulating their educational

policy. Similar changes and reforms have taken place, not just in Europe, but also

throughout the world. Nation-states are under pressure from above, to fulfil inter-

national standards and fit certain frameworks, decentralize and “modernize” their

education systems. Iceland is no exception of this and it is obvious from this study that

the European education policy has been implemented up to a certain extent in Iceland.

However, there are many factors to consider, such as, would Iceland have reformed its

education system in similar ways even if it had not been part of the OMC and European

cooperation? According to the world model, it is likely, since there is a global cultural

pressure regarding education, as globalization calls for mobility and transparency and it

is the “main zone” that tends to design the framework and press its values onto others,

one way or another. In a competitive world, competitiveness is important and not taking

part in the international comparison is difficult.

The aim of this study was to compare the Icelandic education policy to the European

Union’s education policy and priorities, as presented in public documents published by

the two bodies, in order to explain how the education policy in Iceland has developed in

accordance to the policy formulated by the EU. In a more extensive study, it would be

73

important to considerate multiple layers of comparison and units of analysis. That

applies especially to the OECD, which is strongly related to the EU’s education policy,

as well as the Nordic countries, that have cooperated with each other on a number of

issues, including education. It was noticeable in the Icelandic education policy that the

most preferable unit of comparison was Nordic countries. Including these two

institutions in the comparison would give a better idea on what the Icelandic education

policy is based and what impacts global units have on its formulation, even though the

relationship is without a doubt complex. It would also be interesting to follow up more

closely on Iceland’s adaption to the EU, when and if Iceland joins the Union.

74

8. References

Act on public support for scientific research No. 3/2003. Retrieved from

http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/media/MRN-PDF-Althjodlegt/Act-on-Public-

Support-for-Scientific-Research-No.-3-2003.pdf

Act on the education and recruitment of teachers and head teachers in pre-School,

compulsory school and upper secondary school no. 87/ 2008.

Agreement concluded by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden on admission

to higher education, from 1996, updated 2009. Retrieved February 22nd

, 2013 from

http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation/agreements/treaties-and-

agreements/education-and-research/agreement-concluded-by-denmark-finland-

iceland-norway-and-sweden-on-admission-to-higher-education

Antunes, F. (2012). ‘Tuning’ education for the market in ‘Europe’? Qualifications,

competences and learning outcomes: reform and action on the shop floor. European

Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 446-470.

Arnove, R. (2009). World-systems Analysis and Comparative Education in the Age of

Globalization. In Cowen, R. and Cazamias, A. M. (Ed.), International handbook of

Comparative education (pp. 101-120). London: Springer.

Auglýsing um samning um viðurkenningu á menntun og hæfi á æðra skólastigi á

Evrópusvæðinu, nr. 7/2001 [Notification about a convention on the recognition of

qualifications concerning higher education in the European region, No. 7/2001].

Blöndal, K.S., Jónasson, J. T. & Tannhäuser, A-C. (2011). Dropout in a small society:

Is the Icelandic case somehow different? In S. Lamb, E. Markussen, R. Teesse, N.

Sandberg & J. Polesel (Eds.), School dropout and completion: International

comparative studies in theory and policy (pp. 223-251). London: Springer.

Beech, J. (2009). Who is strolling through the global garden? International agencies and

educational transfer. In R. Cowen & A. M. Cazamias (Eds.), International handbook

of comparative education (pp. 295-320). London: Springer.

Bos, W. & Tarnai, C. (1999). Content analysis in empirical social research.

International Journal of Education Research 31, 659-671.

75

Bryman, A. (2006). Social research methods: Third edition. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Caporaso, J. A. & Madeira, M. A. (2012). Globalization, institutions & governance.

London: Sage Publication.

Checkel, J. T. (2008). Process tracing. In A. Klotz & D. Prakash (Eds.), Qualitative

methods in international relations. A pluralistic guide (pp. 114-127). New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Consolidated version of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. (2012).

Official Journal of the European Union, 55, 47-200.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research, 2nd

edition. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill

Prentice Hall.

Dale, R. (2000). Globalization and education: Demonstrating a “common world

educational culture” or locating a “globally structured educational agenda”?

Educational Theory 50(4), 427-448.

Dale, R. (2005). The potentialities of “La mesure en éducation”: the European Union’s

open method of coordination and the construction of a European education space.

Cahiers de la recherche sur l’éducation et les savoirs, hors-série n°1, 49-65.

Daun, H. (2005). Globalisation and the governance of national education systems. In J.

Zajda (Ed.), International handbook on globalisation, education and policy

research (pp. 93-107). Dordrecht: Springer.

Daun, H. (2006).

Daun, H. (2007). Globalization and the governance of national education systems. In H.

Daun (Ed.), School decentralization in the context of globalizing governance.

Dordrecht: Springer

Daun, H. (2011). Globalization, EU-ification, and the new mode of educational

governance in Europe. European Education, 45(1), 9-32.

76

Davíðsdóttir, S. (2003). Eigindlegar eða megindlegar rannsóknaraðferðir [Qualitative or

quantitave methods]. In S. Halldórsdóttir & K. Kristjánsson (Eds.), Handbók í

aðferðafræði og rannsóknum í heilbrigðisvísindum (pp. 219-235). Akureyri:

Háskólinn á Akureyri.

EFTA. (n.d.). European Economic Area. Retrieved February 2nd

, 2012 from

http://www.efta.int/eea.aspx

Europa. (2008). A new start for the Lisbon strategy (2005). Retrieved March 20th

, 2013

from

europa.eu/legislation_summaries/employment_and_social_policy/eu2020/growth_a

nd_jobs/c11325_en.htm

European centre for the development of vocational training. (2009). The development of

national qualifications frameworks in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of

the European Union.

European Commission. (1988). Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on

a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on

completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration.

Retrieved February 22nd

, 2013 from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31989L0048:EN:NOT

European Commission. (2001). Communication from the Commission. Making a

European area of lifelong learning a reality. Retrieved March 12th

, 2013 from

http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2001:0678:FIN:EN:PDF

European Commission. (2005a). Communication to the spring European Council.

Working together for growth and jobs. A new start for the Lisbon strategy. COM

(2005) 24, final. Retrieved March 22nd

, 2013 from

http://ec.europa.eu/archives/growthandjobs/pdf/COM2005_024_en.pdf

European Commission. (2005b). Communications to the spring European Council.

Working together for growth and jobs. Integrated guidelines for growth and jobs

(2005-2008). Retrieved March 28th

, 2013 from

http://www.espa.gr/elibrary/integrated_guidelines_Growth_Jobs_en.pdf

77

European Commission. (2005c). A framework for qualifications in the European higher

education area. Retrieved April 5th

, 2013 from

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/QF-EHEA-

May2005.pdf

European Commission. (2007a). The European research area: New perspectives. Green

paper. Retrieved March 29th,

2013 from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=en&

type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2007&nu_doc=161.

European Commission. (2007b). Communication from the Commission to the European

Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the

Committee of the regions. The European interest: Succeeding in the age of

globalisation. Retrieved March 29th,

2013 from

http://ec.europa.eu/archives/growthandjobs/pdf/COM2007_581_en.pdf.

European Commission. (2007c). Communication from the Commission to the spring

European Council. Integrated guidelines for growth and jobs (2008-2010).

Retrieved March 29th

, 2013 from

http://ec.europa.eu/archives/growthandjobs/pdf/european-dimension-200712-

annual-progress-report/200712-annual-report-integrated-guidelines_en.pdf

European Commission. (2007d). Key competences for lifelong learning. European

reference framework. Retrieved April 9th

, 2013 from

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/ll-learning/keycomp_en.pdf

European Commission. (2008). Commission staff working document. Improving

competences for the 21st Century, An agenda for European cooperation on schools.

Retrieved April 12th, 2013 from

http://ec.europa.eu/education/school21/sec2177_en.pdf

European Commission. (2009). Erasmus Mundus 2009-2013, programme guide.

Retrieved April 22nd

, 2013 from http://www.tempus.ac.rs/uploads/documents/2009-

13%20guide_en.pdf

European Commission. (2010). Communication from the Commission: Europe 2020. A

European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Retrieved March

78

10th

, 2013 from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF

European Commission. (2011a). Using learning outcomes. European qualifications

framework series: Note 4. Retrieved February 7th

, 2013 from

http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/eqf/note4_en.pdf

European Commission. (2011b). Communication from the Commission to the European

Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the

Committee of the regions. Tackling early school leaving: A key contribution to the

Europe 2020 agenda. Retrieved March 1st, 2013 from

http://ec.europa.eu/education/school-education/doc/earlycom_en.pdf

European Commission. (2012a). Open method of coordination. Retrieved April 23rd

,

2013 from http://ec.europa.eu/youth/focus/open-method-of-coordination_en.htm

European Commission. (2012b). Commission staff working document. Assessment of

key competences in initial education and training: Policy guidance. Retrieved April

9th

, 2013 from http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/rethinking/sw371_en.pdf

European Commission. (2013a). The education, audiovisual and culture executive

agency. Retrieved April 23rd

, 2013 from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/index_en.php

European Commission. (2013b). About lifelong learning programme. Retrieved April

22nd

, 2013 from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/about_llp/about_llp_en.php

European Commission. (2013c). Education and training. mathematics, science and

technology. Retrieved April 13th

, 2013 from http://ec.europa.eu/education/school-

education/math_en.htm

European Commission. (2013d). Departments (directorates-general) and services.

Retrieved April 26th

, 2013 from http://ec.europa.eu/about/ds_en.htm

European Commission. (n.d.[a]). European Commission. Retrieved December 14th

,

2012 from http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-

commission/index_en.htm.

European Commission. (n.d.[b]). The European qualifications framework for lifelong

learning (a leaflet). Retrieved April 9th

, 2013 from

ttp://ec.europa.eu/education/pub/pdf/general/eqf/leaflet_en.pdf

79

European Parliament. (2000). Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000,

presidency conclusions. Retrieved March 13th

, 2013 from

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm

European Union. (2011). Key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved April 9th

,

2013 from

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/

c11090_en.htm.

European Union. (n.d.[a]). Basic information on the European Union. Retrieved

December 7th

2012 from http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/index_en.htm

European Union. (n.d.[b]). EU treaties. Retrieved March 20th

2013 from

http://europa.eu/eu-law/treaties/index_en.htm

Eurostat. (2013). Unemployment rates by sex, age and nationality. Retrieved April 12th

,

2013 from

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do?dvsc=0

Eurypedia. (2012). Iceland, funding in education. Retrieved February 6th

, 2012 from

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Iceland:Funding_in_

Education

Fairbrother, G. P. (2007). Quantitative and qualitative approaches. In M. Bray, B.

Adamson & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research, approaches and

methods (pp. 39-62). Hong Kong: Springer.

Finnish National Board of Education (2003). National core curriculum for secondary

schools, 2003. Retrieved March 10th

, 2013 from

http://www.oph.fi/download/47678_core_curricula_upper_secondary_education.pd

f

Forsætisráðuneytið. (2012). Allir stundi nám og vinnu við sitt hæfi. Tillögur um

samþættingu menntunar og atvinnu [Education and work based on individual

needs. Suggestions on the integration of education and work]. Reykjavík:

Forsætisráðuneytið. Retrieved March 12th, 2013 from

http://www.forsaetisraduneyti.is/media/Skyrslur/Menntahopur-tilloguskjal-

121112.pdf

80

Guttormsson, L. (2008). Almenningsfræðsla á Íslandi 1880-2007 [History of public

education in Iceland 1880-2007]. Reykjavík: University Press.

Hartmann, E. (2008). The EU as an emerging normative power in the global

knowledge-based economy? Recognition regimes for higher education

qualifications. In B. Jessop, N. Fairclough & R. Wodak (Eds.), Education and the

knowledge-based economy in Europe (pp. 63-86).

Harvard Law School. (2012). Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). Retrieved April

26th

, 2013 from http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/careers/opia/public-interest-

law/public-international/interngovernmental-organizations.html

Hermann, M. G. (2008). Content analysis. In A. Klotz & D. Prakash (Eds.), Qualitative

methods in international relations, a pluralistic guide (pp. 151-167). London:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Hermannsson, U. (2010). National report on the LLP implementation in Iceland 2007-

2009. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Retrieved January

21st, 2013 from

http://brunnur.stjr.is/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttac

hment/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/2AA3D5912403C1FD00257782003D54E0/Attac

hment/national_report_LLP_implementaion_in_iceland_2010.pdf

Hsieh, H-F. & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. In

Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.

Iceland.is. (n.d.). Education. Retrieved February 19th

, 2013 from

http://www.iceland.is/the-big-picture/people-society/education/

Ingþórsson Á. (2009). “Softness in education”. In the report: Policy-making for lifelong

learning. The development of education policy in Iceland in the context of Europe

(pp. 9-14). Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

International organization. (n.d.). Encyclopaedia Britannica online. Retrieved from

http://global.britannica.com/

81

Jóhannesson, I. Á. (2012). Grunnþættir menntunar í aðalnámskrá og fagmennska

kennara: Hugleiðing til Heiðurs Ólafi J. Proppé [Fundamental pillars of education

in the national curriculum and teacher professionalism: A reflection in honour of

Ólafur J. Proppé]. In Netla – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. Retrieved March

13th

, 2013 from http://netla.hi.is/greinar/2012/alm/003.pdf

Jónasson, J.T. & Blöndal, K.S. (2011). The development in Icelandic education:

situation in 2011 in the perspective of a century. In P. Mikiewicz (Ed.), Social

capital and education. Comparative research between Poland and Iceland. Final

report (52-95). Poland: Wrocław.

Klotz, A. (2008). Case selection. In A. Klotz & D. Prakash (Eds.), Qualitative methods

in international relations. A pluralistic guide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lauder, H., Brown, P., Dillabough, J. & Halsey, A. H. (Eds.). (2006). Introduction: The

prospects for education: Individualization, globalization, and social change. In H.

Lauder, P. Brown, J. Dillabough and A. H. Halsey, Education, globalization & social

change (pp. 1-70 ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lög um grunnskóla nr. 46/1991 [Compulsary school act, No. 46/1991].

Lög um viðurkenningu á menntun og prófskírteinum nr. 83/1993. [Recognition of

educational qualifications act, No. 83/1993]

Lög um vísinda- og tækniráð nr. 2/2003 [Act No. 2/2003 on the Science and

Technology Policy Council]

Manzon, M. (2007). Comparing places. In M. Bray, B. Adamson & M. Mason (Eds.),

Comparative education research, approaches and methods (pp. 85-122). Hong

Kong: Springer.

Markussen, E. (2011). Introduction to the Nordic education systems. In S. Lamb, E.

Markussen, R. Teesse, N. Sandberg & J. Polesel (Eds.), School dropout and

completion: International comparative studies in theory and policy (pp. 213-214).

London: Springer.

82

Mid-Term review of the Lisbon strategy. (2005). European Parliament resolution on

the mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy. Retrieved March 20th

, 2013 from

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-

//EP//NONSGML+TA+P6-TA-2005-0069+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN

Minister of Education. (2011). Skýrsla mennta- og menningarmálaráðherra um stöðu

skólamála samkvæmt beiðni [Report from the Minister of Education on the status of

education, by request]. Submitted to the Parliament, 139th

Congress.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (1994). Nefnd um mótun menntastefnu.

Skýrsla [Committee for the formation of policy in education. Committee report.].

Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (1998). Enn betri skóli. Þeirra réttur, okkar

skylda. [An even better school. Their right, our obligation]. Reykjavík: Ministry of

Education, Science and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (1999). Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla,

almennur hluti [The national curriculum for upper secondary schools]. Retieved

February 12th

2012 from

http://brunnur.stjr.is/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/SearchResult.xsp?documentId=F78

1B6FD851ADE2D002576F00058D4BB&action=openDocument

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2000). Menntun og menning fyrir alla.

Verkefnaáætlun 1999-2003 [Education and culture for everyone. Project plan

1999-2003]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2002). The educational system in Iceland.

Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2003a). Stytting náms til stúdentsprófs

[Reduction of the length of studies leading to matriculation examination].

[Brochure]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2003b). Stytting náms til stúdentsprófs

[Reduction of the length of studies leading to matriculation examination].

Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

83

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2003c). Áfangaskýrsla um styttingu

námstíma til stúdentsprófs [Progress report: Reduction of the length of studies

leading to matriculation examination]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science

and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2004). Breytt námsskipan til

stúdentsprófs: Aukin samfella í skólastarfi. Skýrsla starfshóps og verkefnistjórnar

[Reconstruction of studies leading to the matriculation examination: A report from

a work group and project leaders]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education. Retrieved

March 22nd

, 2013 from http://www.ki.is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=1950

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2007a). Education and training 2010. The

development of education policy in Iceland in the context of Europe. [Summary

from the conference, Education & Training 2010, the development of education

policy in Iceland in the context of Europe, held in Reykjavík, October, 2006].

Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2007b). Skýrsla starfshóps um

fjölbreytileika og sveigjanleika í skipulagi náms og námsframboðs [Report from a

working group on diversity and flexibility in educational structure and study

programmes]. Retrieved April 10th

, 2013 from

http://brunnur.stjr.is/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/SearchResult.xsp?documentId=CD5

996F02770ECDD002576F00058DC3D&action=openDocument

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2009a). Education and culture, chapter

26. [Responds from the Icelandic Government to the information requested for the

preparation of the opinion on the application of Iceland for membership of the

European Union]. Retrieved March 23rd, 2013 from

http://www.vidraedur.is/media/esb_svor/26_-_Education_and_Culture/Ch._26_-

_Education_and_Culture-FINAL.pdf

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (2009b). Policy-making for lifelong

learning. The development of education policy in Iceland in the context of Europe

[Summary from the Conference: Policy-making for Lifelong Learning, held in

Reykjavík February 26th

, 2009]. Retrieved March 12th

, 2013 from

84

http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/media/MRN-pdf-namskrar/ET_2010_Iceland_-

_English_translation.pdf

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2011a). Ný menntastefna, útgáfa

aðalnámskrár [A new education policy, publishing of the national curriculum].

Retrieved December 12th

, 2012 from

http://www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/frettir/Frettatilkynningar/nr/6004

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2011b). Negotiating position of Iceland.

Chapter 26. Education and culture. Retrieved March 22th, 2013 from

http://eu.mfa.is/media/ESB/samningskaflar/26/NegPosICEch26_FINAL.pdf

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2011c). Staða innleiðingar [Status of

implementation, powerpoint slides]. Retrieved February 10th

, 2013 from

http://vinnuvefur.namskra.is/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/fif_fundur_190911.pdf.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2012a). The Icelandic national curriculum

Guide for upper Secondary schools: General section. Reykjavík: Ministry of

Education, Science and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2012b). Ritröð um grunnþætti menntunar.

Sköpun: Grunnþáttur menntunar á öllum skólastigum [Series on fundamental

pillars of education. Creativity: A fundamental pillar of education on all school

levels]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and The National

Centre for Educational Materials.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2012c). Lærum hvert af öðru – virkjum

grunnþættina. Málþing í Flensborg 31. Ágúst 2012, glærur [Learn from each other

– activate the fundamental pillars. Seminar powerpoint slides]. Retrieved February

12th

, 2013 from http://vinnuvefur.namskra.is/malthing/.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (n.d. [a]). The education system in Iceland.

Retrieved April 17th

, 2013 from http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/education-in-

iceland/Educational_system/.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (n.d. [b]). Stofnanir [Institutions].

Retrieved March 13th

, 2013 from

http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/subjects/institutions/.

85

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2013, April). Aðildarviðræður Íslands og ESB. Framvinda

og staða [Negotiations between Iceland and the EU. Process and position].

Retrieved April 16th

, 2013 from

http://www.utanrikisraduneyti.is/media/Skyrslur/Skyrsla-um-samningavidraedur-

Islands-um-adild-ad-Evropusambandinu.pdf

Notification about a publication of a national qualificaton framework for Iceland, No.

80/2007.

Notification about a publication of a national qualifications framework for higher

education, No. 530/2011.

Nugent, N. (2003). The government and politics of the European Union (5th

edition).

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do – student

performance in reading, mathematics and science (Volume I).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en

OECD. (2011). Education at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing.

http//dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011

OECD. (2012a). Budget. Retrieved December 10th

2012 from

http://www.oecd.org/about/budget/

OECD. (2012b). Iceland key facts. Education at a glance 2012: OECD indicators.

OECD Publishing. Retrieved January 23rd

, 2013 from

http://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2012%20-%20Key%20Facts%20-%20Iceland.pdf

Pétursdóttir, B. (2009). Viðmið um íslenskt skólakerfi [A framework for the Icelandic

school system]. In Gátt, Ársrit um fullorðinsfræðslu og starfsmenntun, 57-63.

Retrieved March 28th

, 2013 from

http://www.frae.is/files/G%C3%A1tt_2009_komplett_web_979945303.pdf

Powell, W. W. (2007). The new institutionalism. In The international encyclopaedia of

organization studies. London: Sage Publishers. Retrieved from

http://www.stanford.edu/group/song/papers/NewInstitutionalism.pdf

Ramstedt, K. (2009). The Nordic countries. In T. Matti (Ed.), Nordic lights on PISA

2006 (pp. 9-30). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

86

Reglugerð um fyrirkomulag og framkvæmd samræmdra könnunarprófa í 4., 7. og 10.

bekk grunnskóla nr. 435/2009 [Regulation on the arrangement and carrying out of

nationalized tests in grades 4, 7 and 10, No. 435/2009.]

Reich, R. B. (2006). Why the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer. In H. Lauder,

P. Brown, J. Dillabough & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Education, globalization & social

change (pp. 308-316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data, a practical guide. London: Sage.

Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2006). Globalization and the changing nature of the OECD’s

educational work. In H. Lauder, P. Brown, J. Dillabough & A. H. Halsey (Eds.),

Education, globalization & social change (pp. 247-260). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Robertson, S. L. (2008). Embracing the global: crisis and the creation of a new semiotic

order to secure Europe’s knowledge based economy. In B. Jessop, N. Fairclough &

R. Wodak (Eds.). Education and the knowledge-based economy in Europe (pp. 89-

108). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.

Robertson, S. L. & Dale, R. (2008). The World Bank, the IMF and the possibilities of

critical education. In M. Apple, W. Au & L. Gandin (Eds.), International handbook

of critical education (pp. 23-35). New York: Routledge.

Rui, Y. (2007). Comparing policies. In M. Bray, B. Adamson & M. Mason (Eds.),

Comparative education research. Approaches and methods. Hong Kong: Springer.

Rust, V. D. & Jacob, W. J. (2005). Globalisation and education policy shifts. In J. Zajda

(Ed.), International handbook on globalisation, education and policy research

(235-252). Dordrecht: Springer.

Samningur milli menntamálaráðuneytis og Háskóla Íslands um kennslu og rannsóknir

[Agreement between the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and the

University of Iceland on teaching and research], signed January, 2007.

Samningur sameinuðu þjóðanna um réttindi barnsins [UNs convention on the rights of

the child], no. 18/1992.

Scott, D. & Morrison, M. (2006). Key Ideas in Educational Research. London:

Continuum International Publishing Group.

87

Silova, I. (2004). Adopting the language of new allies. In G. Steiner-Khamsi (Ed.), The

global politics of educational borrowing and lending (pp. 75-87). New York:

Teachers College.

Silova, I. (2009). Varieties of educational transformation: The post-socialist states of

Central/Southeastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In R. Cowen & A. M.

Cazamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (pp. 295-320).

London: Springer.

Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research, a practical guide (3rd

Edition).

London: SAGE Publications

Spring, J. (2012). Research on globalization and education. In J. H. Ballantine & J. Z.

Spade (Eds.), Schools and society. A sociological approach to education. (pp. 447-

454). Los Angeles: Sage.

Spruk, R. (2010). Iceland's economic and financial crisis: Causes, consequences and

implications. EEI Policy Paper,1(23. February 2010).

Statistics Iceland. (2011a). Nemendur í námi erlendis eftir löndum, almennum sviðum

náms og kyni 2011 [Students abroad by country, general area of study and gender].

Retrieved November 20th

2012 from

http://hagstofan.is/Hagtolur/Skolamal/Haskolar

Statistics Iceland. (2011b). Upper secondary schools. Retrieved December 12th

2012

from http://www.statice.is/Statistics/Education/Upper-secondary-schools

Statistics Iceland. (2012a). Key figures. Retrieved November 30th

, 2012 from

http://www.statice.is/

Statistics Iceland. (2012b). Wages, income and labour market. Retrieved April 10th

,

2013 from http://www.statice.is/Statistics/Wages,-income-and-labour-

market/Labour-market

Statistics Iceland. (2012c). Registered students by mode of teaching and types of school

in autumn 1997-2011. Retrieved April 10th

, 2013 from

http://www.statice.is/?PageID=1297&src=/temp_en/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=SKO04

101%26ti=Registered+students+by+mode+of+teaching+and+type+of+school+in+a

88

utumn+1997-

2011%26path=../Database/skolamal/hsNemendur/%26lang=1%26units=Number

Stefansson, T., & Karlsdottir, R. (2007). Iceland. Í Hörner, Döbert, v. Kropp, & Mitter

(Eds.), The education systems of Europe. Dordrecht: Springer.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2002). Re-territorializing educational import: Explorations into the

politics of educational borrowing. In A. Nóvova & M. Lawn (Eds.), Fabricating

Europe: The formation of an education space. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004). Introduction. In Steiner-Khamsi (Ed.), The global politics of

educational borrowing and lending (pp. 1-6). New York: Teachers College Press.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2010). The politics and economics of comparison [Presidential

Address]. Comparative Education Review 54(3): 323-342.

Strömquist, N. P. & Monkman, K. (2000). Defining globalization and assessing its

implications on knowledge and education. In N. P. Strömquist & K. Monkman

(Eds.), Globalization and education. Integration and contestation across cultures

(pp. 3-25). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Taylor, S. & Henry, M. (2000). Globalization and educational policymaking: A case

study. Educational Theory, 50(4),487-503.

The compulsory school Act No. 91/2008.

The Free Dictionary. (n.d.). Nation state. Retrieved April 26th

, 2013 from

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nation-state

The High Level Group. (2004). Facing the challenge. The Lisbon strategy for growth

and employment. Retrieved February 12th

, 2013 from

http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/fp6-evidence-

base/evaluation_studies_and_reports/evaluation_studies_and_reports_2004/the_lisb

on_strategy_for_growth_and_employment__report_from_the_high_level_group.pd

f.

The Icelandic constitution, no. 33/1944.

The Icelandic Science and Technology Policy Council. (2004). Science and technology

policy: Iceland. Reykjavík: Prime Minister’s Office.

89

The Icelandic Science and Technology Policy Council. (2006). Vísinda- og tæknistefna

2006-2009 [Science and technology policy 2006-2009]. Reykjavík: Prime

Minister’s Office.

The upper secondary school act No. 92/2008.

Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing

the European Communities and certain related acts, 1997 O.J. C 340/1. Official

Journal C November 10th

(340). Retrieved March 20th

2013 from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/11997D/htm/11997D.html

Treaty on European Union [Maastricht text] (1992). Official Journal of the European

Communities, July 29th

(35):1-65.

United Nations Development Programme. (2007). Human development report

2007/2008. Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world. New

York: UNDP.

United Nations Development Programme. (2011a). International human development

indicators. Iceland , country profile. Retrieved December 12th

2012 from

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/ISL.html

United Nations Development Programme. (2011b). Human development report 2011.

Sustainability and equity: A better future for all. New York: UNDP.

90

Appendix I. List of documents on the education policy

in Iceland, reviewed for the study.

Act on public support for scientific research No. 3/2003. Retrieved from

http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/media/MRN-PDF-Althjodlegt/Act-on-Public-

Support-for-Scientific-Research-No.-3-2003.pdf

Agreement concluded by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden on admission

to higher education, from 1996, updated 2009. Retrieved February 22nd

, 2013 from

http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation/agreements/treaties-and-

agreements/education-and-research/agreement-concluded-by-denmark-finland-

iceland-norway-and-sweden-on-admission-to-higher-education

Auglýsing um samning um viðurkenningu á menntun og hæfi á æðra skólastigi á

Evrópusvæðinu, nr. 7/2001 [Notification about a convention on the recognition of

qualifications concerning higher education in the European region, No. 7/2001].

Forsætisráðuneytið. (2012). Allir stundi nám og vinnu við sitt hæfi. Tillögur um

samþættingu menntunar og atvinnu [Education and work based on individual

needs. Suggestions on the integration of education and work]. Reykjavík:

Forsætisráðuneytið. Retrieved March 12th, 2013 from

http://www.forsaetisraduneyti.is/media/Skyrslur/Menntahopur-tilloguskjal-

121112.pdf

Hermannsson, U. (2010). National report on the LLP implementation in Iceland 2007-

2009. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Retrieved January

21st, 2013 from

http://brunnur.stjr.is/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttac

hment/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/2AA3D5912403C1FD00257782003D54E0/Attac

hment/national_report_LLP_implementaion_in_iceland_2010.pdf

Ingþórsson Á. (2009). “Softness in education”. In the report: Policy-making for lifelong

learning. The development of education policy in Iceland in the context of Europe

(pp. 9-14). Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Lög um viðurkenningu á menntun og prófskírteinum nr. 83/1993. [Recognition of

educational qualifications act, No. 83/1993]

Lög um vísinda- og tækniráð nr. 2/2003 [Act No. 2/2003 on the Science and

Technology Policy Council]

Minister of Education. (2011). Skýrsla mennta- og menningarmálaráðherra um stöðu

skólamála samkvæmt beiðni [Report from the Minister of Education on the status of

education, by request]. Submitted to the Parliament, 139th

Congress.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (1994). Nefnd um mótun menntastefnu.

Skýrsla [Committee for the formation of policy in education. Committee report.].

Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (1998). Enn betri skóli. Þeirra réttur, okkar

skylda. [An even better school. Their right, our obligation]. Reykjavík: Ministry of

Education, Science and Culture.

91

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (1999). Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla,

almennur hluti [The national curriculum for upper secondary schools]. Retieved

February 12th

2012 from

http://brunnur.stjr.is/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/SearchResult.xsp?documentId=F78

1B6FD851ADE2D002576F00058D4BB&action=openDocument

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2000). Menntun og menning fyrir alla.

Verkefnaáætlun 1999-2003 [Education and culture for everyone. Project plan

1999-2003]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2002). The educational system in Iceland.

Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2003a). Stytting náms til stúdentsprófs

[Reduction of the length of studies leading to matriculation examination].

[Brochure]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2003b). Stytting náms til stúdentsprófs

[Reduction of the length of studies leading to matriculation examination].

Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2003c). Áfangaskýrsla um styttingu

námstíma til stúdentsprófs [Progress report: Reduction of the length of studies

leading to matriculation examination]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science

and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2004). Breytt námsskipan til

stúdentsprófs: Aukin samfella í skólastarfi. Skýrsla starfshóps og verkefnistjórnar

[Reconstruction of studies leading to the matriculation examination: A report from

a work group and project leaders]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education. Retrieved

March 22nd

, 2013 from http://www.ki.is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=1950

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2007a). Education and training 2010. The

development of education policy in Iceland in the context of Europe. [Summary

from the conference, Education & Training 2010, the development of education

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2007b). Skýrsla starfshóps um

fjölbreytileika og sveigjanleika í skipulagi náms og námsframboðs [Report from a

working group on diversity and flexibility in educational structure and study

programmes]. Retrieved April 10th

, 2013 from

http://brunnur.stjr.is/mrn/utgafuskra/utgafa.nsf/SearchResult.xsp?documentId=CD5

996F02770ECDD002576F00058DC3D&action=openDocument

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2009a). Education and culture, chapter

26. [Responds from the Icelandic Government to the information requested for the

preparation of the opinion on the application of Iceland for membership of the

European Union]. Retrieved March 23rd, 2013 from

http://www.vidraedur.is/media/esb_svor/26_-_Education_and_Culture/Ch._26_-

_Education_and_Culture-FINAL.pdf

92

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (2009b). Policy-making for lifelong

learning. The development of education policy in Iceland in the context of Europe

[Summary from the Conference: Policy-making for Lifelong Learning, held in

Reykjavík February 26th

, 2009]. Retrieved March 12th

, 2013 from

http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/media/MRN-pdf-namskrar/ET_2010_Iceland_-

_English_translation.pdf

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2011a). Ný menntastefna, útgáfa

aðalnámskrár [A new education policy, publishing of the national curriculum].

Retrieved December 12th

, 2012 from

http://www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/frettir/Frettatilkynningar/nr/6004

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2011b). Negotiating position of Iceland.

Chapter 26. Education and culture. Retrieved March 22th, 2013 from

http://eu.mfa.is/media/ESB/samningskaflar/26/NegPosICEch26_FINAL.pdf

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2011c). Staða innleiðingar [Status of

implementation, powerpoint slides]. Retrieved February 10th

, 2013 from

http://vinnuvefur.namskra.is/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/fif_fundur_190911.pdf.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2012a). The Icelandic national curriculum

Guide for upper Secondary schools: General section. Reykjavík: Ministry of

Education, Science and Culture.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2012b). Ritröð um grunnþætti menntunar.

Sköpun: Grunnþáttur menntunar á öllum skólastigum [Series on fundamental

pillars of education. Creativity: A fundamental pillar of education on all school

levels]. Reykjavík: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and The National

Centre for Educational Materials.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2012c). Lærum hvert af öðru – virkjum

grunnþættina. Málþing í Flensborg 31. Ágúst 2012, glærur [Learn from each other

– activate the fundamental pillars. Seminar powerpoint slides]. Retrieved February

12th

, 2013 from http://vinnuvefur.namskra.is/malthing/.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (n.d. [a]). The education system in Iceland.

Retrieved April 17th

, 2013 from http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/education-in-

iceland/Educational_system/.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (n.d. [b]). Stofnanir [Institutions].

Retrieved March 13th

, 2013 from

http://eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is/subjects/institutions/.

Notification about a publication of a national qualificaton framework for Iceland, No.

80/2007.

Notification about a publication of a national qualifications framework for higher

education, No. 530/2011.

Pétursdóttir, B. (2009). Viðmið um íslenskt skólakerfi [A framework for the Icelandic

school system]. In Gátt, Ársrit um fullorðinsfræðslu og starfsmenntun, 57-63.

Retrieved March 28th

, 2013 from

http://www.frae.is/files/G%C3%A1tt_2009_komplett_web_979945303.pdf

93

Samningur milli menntamálaráðuneytis og Háskóla Íslands um kennslu og rannsóknir

[Agreement between the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and the

University of Iceland on teaching and research], signed January, 2007.

The compulsory school Act No. 91/2008.

The Icelandic Science and Technology Policy Council. (2004). Science and technology

policy: Iceland. Reykjavík: Prime Minister’s Office.

The Icelandic Science and Technology Policy Council. (2006). Vísinda- og tæknistefna

2006-2009 [Science and technology policy 2006-2009]. Reykjavík: Prime

Minister’s Office.

The upper secondary school act No. 92/2008.