cage.ku.dk · 1 day ago · EQUITY IN EDUCATION? 2 . Authors & Data Analysts . Andrea Dunlavy,...

CAGE PROJECT REPORT 1

A comparative analysis of educational outcomes among refugee children

in the Nordic countries

EQUITY IN EDUCATION?

Andrea Dunlavy, Christopher Jamil de Montgomery, Thomas Lorentzen, Maili Malin & Anders Hjern


2

Authors & Data Analysts Andrea Dunlavy, Researcher Centre for Health Equity Studies Department of Public Health Sciences Stockholm University, Sweden Anders Hjern, Professor Centre for Health Equity Studies Karolinska Institutet/Stockholm University, Sweden Lisa Berg, Researcher Centre for Health Equity Studies Department of Public Health Sciences Stockholm University, Sweden Karl Gauffin, Post-doc Centre for Health Equity Studies Department of Public Health Sciences Stockholm University, Sweden Christopher Jamil de Montgomery, Post-doc Danish Research Centre for Migration, Ethnicity and Health (MESU) Department of Public Health Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Thomas Lorentzen, Professor Department of Sociology, University of Bergen/ Department of Health-, Social- and Welfare Studies, University of South-Eastern Norway, Porsgrunn, Norway Maili Malin, Senior Researcher Migration Institute of Finland, Turku, Finland Correspondence to: Andrea Dunlavy Centre for Health Equity Studies Department of Public Health Sciences Stockholm University, Sweden [email protected]


A comparative analysis of educational

outcomes among refugee children

in the Nordic countries

Andrea Dunlavy, Christopher Jamil de Montgomery, Thomas Lorentzen, Maili Malin & Anders Hjern


4

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................... 6

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

Similarities between countries ............................................................................................................................. 7

Age matters .................................................................................................................................................. 7

Country of origin matters ............................................................................................................................ 8

Differences between countries ............................................................................................................................. 8

Policy Implications ................................................................................................................................................ 8

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 11

1.1 Migration in the Nordic region ..................................................................................................................... 11

1.2 The importance of education for integration .............................................................................................. 12

1.3 Aims and research questions ........................................................................................................................ 14

A note on terminology .......................................................................................................................................... 15

2. Background ................................................................................................................................................................... 16

2.1 Educational outcomes in migrant-origin children ...................................................................................... 16

2.2 Educational systems in the Nordic countries .............................................................................................. 17

2.3 Additional educational determinants among migrant-origin children ..................................................... 20

Migration policy context ............................................................................................................................ 20

Pre-migration contexts and post-migration stressors ............................................................................ 21

Age at migration ......................................................................................................................................... 21

3. Methods........................................................................................................................................................................... 23

3.1 Data and study populations .......................................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 25

4. Results ............................................................................................................................................................................. 26

Composition of study populations ............................................................................................................ 26

Refugee children and the children of refugee immigrants by country of origin ................................... 27

Year of arrival among refugee children .................................................................................................... 28

4.1 Educational outcomes among migrant-origin children in the Nordic countries ...................................... 29

School performance in compulsory education ........................................................................................ 29

Upper secondary school drop-outs .......................................................................................................... 33

Upper secondary school educational attainment .................................................................................... 34

Academic and vocational upper secondary school educational programs ........................................... 36

Higher educational attainment ................................................................................................................. 39

5. Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................................... 41


5

Compulsory school performance in refugees ......................................................................................... 41

Compulsory school performance in the children of refugee- and non-refugee immigrants ............... 42

Upper secondary dropout in refugee students ....................................................................................... 43

Upper secondary dropout in non- refugee students ............................................................................... 44

Upper secondary education attainment .................................................................................................. 45

Academic and vocational upper secondary education programs ......................................................... 45

Higher education attainment .................................................................................................................... 46

Strengths and Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 46

Concluding remarks ............................................................................................................................................ 48

6. References ........................................................................................................................................................ 50

7. Appendix......................................................................................................................................................................... 55


6

Acknowledgements

This report was written for the Nordic Research Council (NordForsk) project “Coming of Age in Exile” (CAGE). The au-thors would like to thank NordForsk for the opportunity to research this im-portant topic. We are grateful for the comments on the first draft of this report by the members of the Swedish reference group of the CAGE project: Donya Azimi, Sara Thalberg, Åsa Heimer, Daniel Hed-lund, Monica Brendler-Lindqvist, Sofie Bäärnhielm, Magdalena Bjerneld and Ul-rika Jepson Wigg. We are similarly grate-ful to Lisa Berg, Karl Gauffin, and Sol Juárez for their contributions and feed-back on the report.

Andrea Dunlavy & Anders Hjern


7

Executive Summary

This report assesses educational out-comes among refugee children in the Nordic region. The comparative results presented in this report were derived from joint efforts to harmonize register data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The primary study popula-tion consisted of refugee children who were granted residency in the Nordic re-gion as children (0-17 years) between 1986 and 2005, and were followed up through 2015. Refugee children’s educational outcomes were assessed within and across the Nor-dic countries relative to: 1. their Nordic majority population

counterparts 2. the Nordic-born children of refugee-

and non-refugee migrants 3. non-refugee migrant children

The educational outcomes analysed in-cluded: 1. average grades from the last year of

compulsory education 2. dropouts from upper secondary edu-

cation 3. completion of upper secondary edu-

cation 4. type of upper secondary education

degree (academic or vocational) 5. completion of higher education

Similarities between countries

The overall results showed that to vary-ing degrees, the Nordic educational sys-tems have not been as successful in fos-tering the educational achievements of refugee students as they have been for majority population students. Average grades from compulsory school were lower among refugees compared to their Nordic majority population counter-parts. Inequalities in upper secondary educational attainment were also evi-dent in each of the Nordic countries. Higher proportions of dropouts from up-per secondary school were observed in refugee children compared to their na-tive-born majority population counter-parts. Similarly, smaller proportions of refugees who immigrated as children completed upper secondary education by age 25 relative to their native-born ma-jority population peers. Age matters

Refugee children who arrived at younger ages tended to have better school perfor-mance than those who arrived at older ages. This is consistent with previous re-search and could be attributed to a greater adaptability in younger ages in combination with the fact that younger children spend more time in the educa-tional system of the destination country. Within each country, the children of ref-ugee and non-refugee migrants had school performance outcomes that were similar to each other, and were also slightly higher than the performance of refugee children who arrived before school age.


8

Country of origin matters

Refugee children’s educational outcomes varied by country of origin. This is con-sistent with previous research which has highlighted the continued relevance of origin factors for children’s educational integration in the destination country, such as social and economic conditions and educational experiences in origin. Five heterogeneous refugee groups that accounted for large proportions of the to-tal refugee study population across the four Nordic countries were assessed, in-cluding Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia and former Yugoslavia. Yet the observed performance differences by origin tended to be smaller in scale than those by age of arrival. Differences between countries

Refugee children and the children of ref-ugees in Sweden, the Nordic country with the most experience in receiving refugee children, tended to have the smallest gaps in compulsory and secondary edu-cational outcomes relative to the major-ity population. Overall, Denmark and Fin-land tended to have the poorest primary and secondary educational outcomes, even when country of origin and age of arrival were considered. Although average grades from compul-sory school among refugees were the highest in Sweden overall, the perfor-mance gap by age at arrival was also larger than that observed in Denmark and Norway, suggesting that Sweden has done a better job of integrating younger refugee children into compulsory educa-tion than older refugee children.

In Finland, refugee children more often completed a vocational track in second-ary education compared to the majority population, while the opposite was true in the other three countries. The differ-ence in the proportion of dropouts be-tween countries was much larger for the refugee populations than for the majority populations. While the proportion of dropouts in all Nordic countries differed notably by country of origin, the magni-tude varied by residence context. For ex-ample, refugees from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Somalia dropped out between 50-140% more often in Denmark com-pared with Sweden. Again, this points to the importance of pre-migration factors for educational integration in the desti-nation context, but also suggest that there may be differences in how effective existing educational policies are in di-minishing educational inequalities across the region.

Among those who completed an upper secondary education by age 25, the high-est overall proportion of completed higher education by age 30 was observed among refugees in Norway, and slightly exceeded the proportion of completion among their native-born majority popu-lation counterparts. This gap in higher educational attainment between refu-gees and the native-born majority popu-lations in Denmark and Sweden was small to moderate, respectively, and larg-est in Finland. Policy Implications

This report shows both similarities and differences in several key educational outcomes between four Nordic countries.


9

In all countries, refugee children that ar-rived in late school age had lower educa-tional achievements than refugees who arrived before school age and the Nordic-born children of refugees. Thus, intro-duction into the educational system among refugees who arrive in late school age should be of particular concern for educational policies for refugee children. In all four countries, the gap in secondary educational attainment between refu-gees and the native-born majority was of a much greater magnitude than the cor-responding achievement gaps in higher education. Given this, and the importance of completing secondary education for la-bour market integration, policies that fa-cilitate secondary education attainment among refugees should be given greater priority than those aimed at higher edu-cation. Previous studies in other OECD countries have shown that migrant children pursue vocational secondary education more of-ten than native-origin populations. Among the Nordic countries, this was only the case among refugee students in Finland. In Norway, Sweden and Den-mark, the majority of refugee and non-refugee migrant students completed aca-demic programs. This finding could have implications for the educational counsel-ling of refugee students, who may have greater academic ambitions than has been shown in previous studies, which have focused on non-refugee migrants. In all four Nordic countries, educational achievements differed substantially among refugee children from different

countries of origin. Educational experi-ences in origin, including interruptions in education and mental health issues that can result from trauma, may be factors of particular concern here, for refugee chil-dren as well as their parents. This points to the importance of taking pre-migra-tion factors into account when develop-ing education and integration policies for refugee children. Refugee children and the children of ref-ugees in Sweden had better compulsory and secondary education outcomes than did their counterparts in the other Nor-dic countries. Further studies that take both pre- and post-migration factors into account are needed to clarify the extent to which cross-country differences are explained by variation in the composi-tion of refugees received, by age at arri-val, country of origin and parental educa-tional levels, as well as country-specific education policies. Educational systems and policies that facilitate secondary ed-ucational attainment via the provision of alternative educational opportunities for young adults may be of particular inter-est for further research. Although the Nordic countries share many commonalities, their integration and education policies have increasingly diverged in recent years. The evalua-tion of educational performance among young migrants who reside in different Nordic countries provides the oppor-tunity to identify relevant areas for policy reform. Educational achievement has been shown to be a key determinant of social integration and health in native-origin Nordic populations. Thus, the in-


10

equitable educational outcomes of refu-gees described in this report should be of major concern for policy makers. Future studies from this project will investigate specific pathways from education into the labour market among refugees and non-refugees to further inform integra-tion policies.


11

1. Introduction

Modern society is becoming increasingly globalized, with greater international communications, connections, and movements than ever before. The Nordic countries are a part of this global demo-graphic transformation. The scale and nature of immigration into the Nordic re-gion has changed over time, and varies between countries, yet immigrants and their children comprise increasingly larger shares of the Nordic population. As this population has grown, so too has the public debate surrounding the benefits and challenges of migration and integra-tion for destination countries.

The Nordic countries have a common his-tory and share many similar cultural and social features, yet there are also im-portant refugee reception and education policy differences between countries. This report uses quantitative data from four Nordic countries to compare educa-tional outcomes among refugee children, in order to 1) assess for differences in ref-ugee children’s educational outcomes be-tween the Nordic countries, and 2) iden-tify inequalities in educational outcomes among refugee children relative to their native-origin majority counterparts, and to other children with migrant back-grounds. This knowledge can help to in-form potential educational policy re-forms, both within countries and across the Nordic region as a whole.

The introductory chapter of this report provides a brief overview of Nordic mi-gration trends from the twentieth cen-

tury to the present, and discusses the im-portance of education for the successful integration of refugee and migrant chil-dren. The report aims and primary re-search questions are also presented.

1.1 Migration in the Nordic region

For much of the 20th century, labour mi-gration was the dominant type of inter-national migration within the Nordic re-gion. This labour migration was domi-nated by movements between the Nordic countries up until the mid-twentieth cen-tury, but also included large numbers of labour migrants from other countries in Europe. Migration trends began to shift in the 1970s, as refugee, asylum seeker and family reunification migration be-came more common. Ongoing conflicts within different world regions have sus-tained forced and family reunification migration to the present day. Increased freedom of movement within the Euro-pean Union (EU) and Schengen Area countries, as well as the eastern expan-sion of the EU, have also substantially contributed to increased migration to the Nordic region. Immigrants represent a growing proportion of the Nordic popu-lation as a whole, currently comprising 10% of the population in Denmark (1), 7% in Finland (2), 14% in Norway (3), and 23% in Sweden (4).

In conjunction with increasing global and regional migration trends, the number of refugee children and adults has also grown. Globally, approximately half


12

(51%) of all refugees are under the age of 18 (5). Between 2012 and 2016, approx-imately one-third of all asylum applica-tions in Denmark and Sweden and one-fourth of applications in Finland and Nor-way were filed for children under the age of 18 (6). The number of asylum applica-tions by unaccompanied minors has sim-ilarly increased in all Nordic countries, but this development has been most evi-dent in Sweden, where unaccompanied minors now comprise the majority of teenage immigrants (7).

Throughout the last decade, immigration has been the primary source of popula-tion growth in Denmark, Finland, Nor-way, and Sweden (8), resulting in demo-graphic changes within these popula-tions. Foreign-born persons from diverse countries of origin, including those from outside of the EU, as well as asylum seek-ers and refugees, comprise increasingly larger proportions of the total Nordic population. Yet the timing, type, and scale of immigration as well as immigrants’ countries of origin differs by the specific Nordic country context. Such differences are important to bear in mind, as they can have important implications for mi-grants’ integration as well as the compa-rability of integration outcomes, includ-ing education, across countries.

Within the Nordic region, Sweden has the longest history of immigration, and refu-gee resettlement in particular, and as such stands out as the country with the highest rates of immigration. Refugee and family reunification migration has been the most common reason for mov-ing to Sweden since the 1970s, and his-torically, Sweden has had the most gen-erous migration and integration policies

in the region. However, restrictions on immigrants’ rights to permanent resi-dence were recently implemented, in re-sponse to the record high number of asy-lum applications that were received in 2015 (9, 10). In contrast, until the 1960s and 1970s, Finland was a country of em-igration, and consequently most immi-grants arrived in Finland at later dates relative to the other Nordic countries. The scale of Finnish immigration has also been much smaller when compared to Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, and an-nual immigration has never culminated in more than 0.5 percent of the popula-tion in any given year (8).

Migration patterns in Denmark and Nor-way fall in between those of Sweden and Finland. Increased migration of persons from diverse world regions has initiated the demographic transformation of both countries from fairly homogenous to in-creasingly multicultural societies. Since 1990, annual rates of immigration in Denmark have generally comprised over one percent of the existent Danish popu-lation, however in Norway, it was not un-til the mid-2000s that immigration flows reached a similar proportion (8).

1.2 The importance of education for integration

Integration is a multi-dimensional con-cept, but broadly refers to the extent to which individuals participate in and con-tribute to social, cultural, economic and political aspects of society (11). Integra-tion has been identified as an important determinant of migrant health, quality of life, and life chances (12-15). While em-ployment and labour market position are


13

often used as the primary indicators of successful integration in adults, educa-tion is similarly utilized as a key indicator of integration among migrant children as well as the children of migrants (16).

From a political standpoint, the social and economic integration of young mi-grants has been presented as a vital con-tribution to the maintenance of sustaina-ble welfare states (6). Education is a core component of the welfare state that facil-itates societal participation via the provi-sion of knowledge, skills and social inter-action, as well as the prevention of unem-ployment and social exclusion (17). Edu-cational attainment level is widely recog-nized as a key determinant of occupa-tional class, income, and health (18, 19), with higher educational achievements generally associated with better social and health outcomes. Early measures of human capital, such as school perfor-mance, are also essential in fostering knowledge and skills development and promoting economic and labour market opportunities in adulthood (20).

Although education is important for both immigrant and non-immigrant children alike, it also plays a central role in shap-ing immigrant children’s resettlement and integration transitions as well as their developmental trajectories from childhood to adulthood (17). Immigrant children’s integration experiences are necessarily intertwined with their educa-tional experiences, with schools serving as key institutions through which immi-grant children socially interact and par-ticipate in the new society (21). Schools are crucial in fostering social participa-tion and interpersonal relationships dur-ing the resettlement process (22), and

can provide children with social support and a sense of belonging or community (23). Language skills, social norms, and values are also communicated to chil-dren within the school environment. School attendance likewise enables im-migrant children to physically inhabit an “ordinary” environment alongside their peers (24), which may be particularly im-portant for the well-being of refugee chil-dren or children who have experienced trauma. Relatedly, participation in schooling also serves several latent func-tions that can be particularly important for immigrant children’s integration and well-being; for example, school attend-ance provides children with predictable daily time structures, which in turn can increase their confidence (7).

The Nordic educational systems are based on similar principles of equal ac-cess and rights to primary and lower sec-ondary education (17). However, ine-qualities in educational participation and performance between immigrants and non-immigrants have previously been identified to varying degrees within the Nordic region (6, 17), but also in several other high-income country contexts (18-20). Educational inequalities do not refer merely to differences in educational out-comes between groups, but rather to modifiable differences, which are also un-fair, unnecessary, and avoidable, and can be reduced through intervention and pol-icy reform (25).

Differences between the Nordic coun-tries in terms of their education policies, the structure and characteristics of their educational systems, and their general approaches to education (17, 26) may differentially impact the integration and


14

education of children with an immigrant background, and thus may contribute to some of the previously observed educa-tional inequalities. Yet immigrant chil-dren also face a myriad of challenges that can impede educational performance which their non-immigrant counterparts do not, such as learning a new language and adapting to a new school system. The age at which children migrate likewise influences the child’s level of difficulty in adapting to a new country or school sys-tem The age at which children migrate can similarly influence their level of diffi-culty in adapting to a new country, as well their learning and educational per-formance (27, 28). Refugee children in particular may experience additional stressors, such as worry over their legal residency status or experiences of trauma, which can impair mental health or cognitive abilities and impede school performance or attendance (29).

Despite the importance of education for integration and documented native-im-migrant inequalities in educational out-comes, only a paucity of quantitative re-search has examined educational out-comes among refugee children specifi-cally (6). Much of the existing evidence is limited by 1) a lack of longitudinal infor-mation on educational attainment and performance, and 2) a lack of specificity, with most studies using broad compari-sons of immigrant and non-immigrant children that do not account for reason for migration, country of origin, or par-ents’ migration background. As such, lit-tle is known about the academic achieve-ments of young refugees and the children of refugees.

1.3 Aims and research questions

In this report, we make use of high qual-ity, longitudinal registry data from four Nordic countries to address the limita-tions of previous studies and provide an overview of educational outcomes among highly specified groups of mi-grant-origin children, categorized by ref-ugee background, generational status, country of origin, and age of arrival. The overall purpose of this report is to con-tribute to existing knowledge on educa-tional outcomes among migrant-origin children in the Nordic region, and to help inform education policies. An additional aim is to motivate future research, by providing knowledge that can serve as a stepping-stone to inform more advanced research hypotheses and analyses.

The primary research questions of this report include:

1) How do the educational outcomes of young refugees compare to those of the native-born majority populations and children with other immigrant back-grounds in their Nordic country of resi-dence?

2) Do the educational outcomes of young refugees vary by Nordic country of resi-dence?

3) Is there variation in the educational achievements of refugee children de-pending on the age at which they mi-grated?


15

A note on terminology

There is ongoing discussion within civil society and the research community as to what constitutes the most appropriate terminology to describe persons of foreign-origin, a large and heterogeneous population. As such, some clarifications need to be made from the outset regarding the terms used in this report to describe and categorize the different study population groups.

The terms foreign-origin, foreign-origin background, migrant-origin, migrant background, and migration background are broadly used in this report, and refer to both foreign-born persons and native-born persons with two foreign-born parents. The terms migrant, immigrant, and foreign-born are used to refer to persons who themselves have migrated internationally.

Immigrants are additionally classified according to their migration background characteristics, including refugee and non-refugee migration, country of origin and age at arrival. Refugees are defined as those per-sons who were forced to migrate due to fear of persecution or circumstances in their country of origin that threaten their safety and/or well-being; more specifically, in this report refugee children are defined as those who were born abroad and forced to migrate as refugees.

The terms children of (im)migrants and children with (im)migrant parents and Nordic-born children of im(mi-grants) are used specifically to describe children born in a Nordic country with two foreign-born parents. In addition, the terms native-origin and native-born majority population are used to refer to native-born persons with two native-born parents. Immigrant children whose parents migrated for different reasons or who were from two different countries of origin are not included in the study populations that are assessed in this report. Similarly, children born in a Nordic country with one foreign-born parent and one native-born majority population parent or with two foreign-born parents of differing countries of origin or reasons for migration were also excluded.

At the time of this writing, there is no international consensus regarding the most appropriate terminology to describe persons who have migrated or whose parents have migrated. However, glossaries are available in the scientific literature that provide suggestions for appropriate terminology related to ethnicity and race (30) and migration background (31).


16

2. Background

This chapter provides a summary of pre-vious findings on educational outcomes among children and young adults with an immigrant background. A brief overview of Nordic educational policies and sys-tems and additional determinants of ed-ucational outcomes that are relevant for immigrant children in particular are also provided.

2.1 Educational outcomes in migrant-origin children

Within the Nordic region as a whole, chil-dren’s educational performance out-comes have generally been quite good. Finland has consistently been shown to have among the best educational perfor-mance outcomes within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment (OECD) countries, despite recent trends that have shown declines in aver-age Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores (32). Data from 2015 showed that Norway (33) Denmark (34) and Sweden (35) all achieved average PISA scores that were at or above the OECD average. Yet despite overall patterns demonstrating sound school performance, migrant-origin chil-dren within the Nordic region tend to have lower average PISA scores than do native-origin children (17, 36). This is consistent with existing evidence of edu-cational inequalities from other OECD countries, whereby migrant students’ av-erage PISA scores tend to be lower than

those of native-origin students, and aver-age scores of the children of migrants generally fall in between those of migrant students and native-born majority popu-lation students (37). Performance gaps between native- and foreign-born chil-dren in general also tend to be greater in reading than in mathematics (37), with Denmark, Finland, and Sweden included among the OECD countries with the larg-est such literacy gaps. Average perfor-mance gaps in science between non-mi-grants, migrants, and the children of mi-grants are also larger in the Nordic coun-tries than the overall OECD performance gaps between these groups (36).

Differences in educational participation have similarly been noted between na-tive- and migrant-origin children and young adults. A recent literature review of education, employment, and health outcomes among young refugees in the Nordic countries found that unaccompa-nied minors enrolled in education to a lesser degree than did accompanied mi-nors and non-migrants (6). Differences in rates of early school leaving have also been reported, with age at arrival being a key factor implicated in the likelihood of dropout among migrant children and youth (38). For instance, accompanied children who migrated at younger ages have higher educational attainment than those who migrated as unaccompanied minors at older ages (39, 40). Migration background has also been associated with student’s choice of educational pro-gram, with migrant students in OECD countries showing a tendency to enrol more frequently in vocational rather than academic upper secondary educa-tion programs (37, 38).


17

Educational performance among the na-tive-born children of migrants generally tends to fall between that of the native-origin majority population and those who migrated as children (38). Although native-born children of migrants may not experience the resettlement and adapta-tion challenges as those of migrant chil-dren, some of the obstacles they may face are similar, such as experiences of dis-crimination or racism, identity conflicts, or intergenerational conflicts (41). Their parents’ reason for migration as well as parental education level, social capital, and socioeconomic status in the destina-tion context also influence educational outcomes; for example, such parental factors can influence the extent to which children have access to different types of economic or social resources that may promote educational performance.

In addition, some native-born children of migrants may even face language chal-lenges that are similar to those of newly arrived migrants. For example, migrant-origin children who reside and attend school in segregated areas may be less likely to speak the language of the desti-nation country at home. The language spoken within the home is an important determinant of the school performance for both migrant children and the native-born children of migrants; speaking the language of the destination country at home has been associated with a 50% re-duction in the PISA language score gap between students with native- and for-eign-born parents (38). Parent’s familiar-ity with the school system in the country of residence also has implications for their children’s educational success (42); for instance, it may be more difficult for

parents to increase their understanding of new school systems if they reside in segregated areas and do not interact with persons who have more experience with school systems in the country of resi-dence.

2.2 Educational systems in the Nordic countries

The educational school systems in the Nordic countries are built upon a shared principle of equal rights and access to ed-ucation for all children (17). As such, they share many similarities in how education is offered and organized, most notably in the provision of primary and lower sec-ondary education. However, there are also important country differences in the extent to which educational policies af-ford access to immigrant and refugee children. These similarities and differ-ences are briefly described below. Key features of the Nordic educational sys-tems that have particular relevance for refugee and migrant children are out-lined in Table 1. For a more detailed over-view of education policies targeting im-migrant children in the Nordic region, please refer to the CAGE Policy Report 2, Refugee and Immigrant Children’s Right to Education.

Compulsory education, which comprises primary and lower secondary school, is organized as a non-tracked comprehen-sive education that is provided for free to children between the ages of 6-16. All children in Finland, Norway, and Sweden have the right to this education, regard-less of their migration background or le-gal status, whereas in Denmark, only chil-dren who are legal residents have the


18

right to compulsory education. All four countries offer some additional services at no cost to students during compulsory education, such as free school meals, transportation, or health services, which are provided to varying degrees by coun-try context (17).

Finland and Sweden offer upper second-ary education to children under the age of 18 regardless of their legal status. Nor-way offers upper secondary education to children under age 18 who have legal res-idence or who have applied for a resi-dence permit, but does not extend this right to undocumented children. In Den-mark, asylum seeking children under the age of 18 do not have the right to upper secondary education (rather only com-pulsory education), and undocumented children have no specified rights to com-pulsory or upper secondary education. Schools in Finland, Norway, and Sweden offer language training classes in the stu-dent’s mother tongue, whereas Denmark ensures this only for children from the EU/EEA, Greenland and the Faroe Is-lands.

Upon transition to upper secondary school, all students must choose to pur-sue a general, theoretical education pro-gram or a vocational program. Vocational training is the most highly prioritized in Denmark, with students offered work-place-based apprenticeships that can fa-cilitate labour market entry. However, this vocational training does not prepare students for higher education. Norway also offers students workplace based vo-cational training, which likewise does not necessarily prepare students for tertiary education, however students that pursue

vocational tracks are nonetheless enti-tled to such preparation (26). By con-trast, vocational programs in Finland and Sweden are primarily school based, alt-hough workplace-based training options are available. Another important distinc-tion is that upper secondary education in Finland, Norway, and Sweden is inte-grated, whereby both academic and vo-cational tracks are organized within the same system, and can help to facilitate the pursuit of higher education; in con-trast, the Danish upper secondary educa-tion system is not integrated, entailing greater difficulty for students who may want to transition between program types. Finally, Sweden has an upper age limit for upper secondary education, and students are required to pass compre-hensive exams in key subjects in order to qualify for conventional upper secondary education. Such restrictions are not pre-sent in the other countries.

All four countries also have free school choice in upper secondary education. This entails that students and parents are not limited by geographic catchment area policies that determine where chil-dren attend school. Proponents of free school choice policies argue that such policies create opportunities for children from disadvantaged neighbourhoods to access better schools outside of their neighbourhoods, and by extension can also help to decrease ethnic segregation in schools. However, the extent to which free choice is accessible in practice varies considerably between and within coun-tries (17).


19

Table 1. Migrant children’s right to education and key characteristics of educational

systems in the Nordic countries.

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden

Right to education

as asylum seeker

Yes, limited to com-

pulsory education

Yes, compulsory and

upper secondary

education

Yes, compulsory and

upper secondary

education

Yes, compulsory and

upper secondary

education1

Right to education

as undocumented

No specified rights

to education

Yes, compulsory and

upper secondary

education

Yes, compulsory

education

Yes, compulsory and

upper secondary

education

Right to language

training in mother

tongue

Yes, limited to chil-

dren from EU/EEA,

Greenland and the

Faroe Islands

Yes Yes Yes

Vocational pro-

grams offered in up-

per secondary

school

Yes, workplace

based apprentice-

ships offered; no

preparation for

tertiary education

Yes, primarily

school based; in-

cludes preparation

for tertiary

education

Yes, workplace

based apprentice-

ships offered; prep-

aration for tertiary

education optional

Yes, primarily

school based; in-

cludes preparation

for tertiary

education

Integrated upper

secondary education

No Yes Yes Yes

Upper age limit for

upper secondary

education

No No No Yes

For example, access to high-quality schools may be limited due to a larger de-mand for enrolment, and immigrant fam-ilies may lack the necessary resources or knowledge of school systems to make in-formed choices, particularly recently ar-rived families. Research has also sug-gested that school choice has actually led to an increase in school segregation. Findings from the Danish and Swedish contexts in particular have shown in-creased ethnic segregation in schools

1 Legislated right since 2013

since the introduction of free school choice policies (43, 44).

There is also considerable variation be-tween and within countries in terms of how immigrant and refugee children are integrated into their new school systems. Debate continues over different modes of school entry for newly arrived children, and whether inclusive (mainstreaming) or separate (introductory or transition classes) modes of entry are preferable. There is no systematic way in which im-migrant children in the Nordic countries


20

are integrated into their new schools, with local authorities, such as municipal-ities, generally determining which meth-ods are used in their districts (17). As such, the educational integration efforts within the Nordic region are largely de-centralized.

2.3 Additional educational determi-nants among migrant-origin children

There are multiple determinants of edu-cational outcomes among migrant-origin children in addition to education policies and school system structures. Although not exhaustive, in the sections below, several additional factors that are partic-ularly relevant for the educational suc-cess of migrant-origin children are out-lined, including a description of how such factors may contribute to the formation of educational inequalities between na-tive-origin and migrant-origin children.

Migration policy context

The Nordic countries share many social and cultural similarities, and are often lauded for their generous social and wel-fare policies. However, recent societal and welfare state policy changes have re-sulted in growing social and economic in-equalities within the region (45, 46). Po-litical divisions regarding the generosity of migration policies and welfare service provisions to migrants have also grown, resulting in more restrictive migration policies (10) and migrants’ reduced ac-cess to welfare services and benefits (47). Despite this, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are still generally regarded as

having generous migration policies, whereas Denmark has been identified as having more restrictive migration poli-cies (48). However, in response to the large number of asylum seeking immi-grants that arrived in Europe in 2015, there has been a quite radical departure from the historically more inclusive mi-gration policy regimes in the Nordic countries; for example, the Swedish gov-ernment in 2015 expressed an explicit aim to adjust the country’s migration pol-icy to the minimum standards of the European Union.

Prior research has demonstrated poorer health and higher rates of depression among migrants residing in countries with restrictive policies relative to those in countries with inclusive policies (48, 49). This suggests that migrant children living in restrictive contexts may face ad-ditional stressors, such as anti-immi-grant hostility (50), which could influ-ence their well-being and educational performance. Migration policies also have implications for the welfare ser-vices available to refugee families and youth, and as such may indirectly influ-ence educational outcomes and access to educational opportunities (50). Simi-larly, restrictive policy contexts may in-crease difficulties for refugee and mi-grant parents to find employment and se-cure the family’s socioeconomic position, which in turn could negatively impact children’s wellbeing and subsequent school performance.


21

Pre-migration contexts and post-mi-gration stressors

The increasing diversity of the foreign-born populations in the Nordic countries entails that the region is becoming more culturally heterogeneous. The social and economic conditions as well as cultural traditions and norms that characterize migrants’ countries of origin are simi-larly diverse, and as such, the education levels, financial resources, and social po-sitions of migrants also vary considera-bly, particularly upon arrival in the desti-nation country. These factors in turn will have an influence on the ease or difficulty of language, educational, and labour mar-ket integration in the destination context for immigrants and their children. For ex-ample, research has shown associations between parents’ level of education and their children’s educational achieve-ments (51, 52), with highly educated par-ents tending to have highly educated chil-dren, and vice versa. As such, the educa-tional attainment outcomes of migrant children as well as the children of mi-grants may be influenced by 1) their own educational experiences in the country of origin, 2) the education level of their par-ents, and 3) the extent to which their par-ents are socially and economically inte-grated into the destination country. For instance, a child who migrates to a new country in their mid-late teens or who has had a sporadic or short schooling ex-perience in origin will be more likely to have poorer educational outcomes than a child who migrates at an early age or who has consistently attended school in the country of origin.

The resettlement challenges faced by mi-grant children, including learning a new language, adapting to a new school envi-ronment, and resettlement stressors within the family, can strongly influence their overall well-being and their school performance. Yet migrant children may have widely different resettlement expe-riences based on their reasons for migra-tion (i.e., forced or voluntary migration). Refugee children in particular may be particularly vulnerable to difficulties in school, and can face challenges that non-refugee migrant children do not. Trau-matic experiences in the country of origin (e.g., being forced to flee, experiences of violence, malnutrition) and poor mental health symptoms as a result of such trau-mas can negatively influence health (53) and human capital (54). Mental health problems in turn can negatively impact children’s learning and cognition abilities (29, 55). Refugee children may also be more likely to have experienced disrup-tions in their education in the country of origin, which has implications for their continued education in the new country of residence.

Age at migration

The timing of children’s migration expe-riences has important implications for in-tegration and education. Important life events that occur at key developmental stages or critical periods during the life-course can have a lasting influence on health and life trajectories (56). Migra-tion at older ages has been negatively as-sociated with educational performance (27, 37) and labour market outcomes


22

(15, 27). Still, there is substantial varia-tion between destination countries in the extent to which age at arrival impacts learning (37). For instance, the conse-quences of migration at older ages have been shown to be more severe for chil-dren who migrate from lower-income countries that are geographically distant from high-income destination countries (27), as these children often face greater integration challenges than children who migrate to countries that are less geo-graphically distant or with similar macro-level socioeconomic conditions.

Age-specific differences in language ac-quisition, acculturation, and adaptation abilities, as well as the development of a sense of self and self-awareness have been put forth as some of the most im-portant drivers behind associations be-tween age at migration and educational success. In addition, children who mi-grate at later ages also miss out on the linguistic and cultural integration bene-fits of early education programs in the destination context, which can provide intensive instruction in second language literacy and numeracy (27). Learning a second language tends to be more diffi-cult for older children, who also face greater educational curriculum demands in middle- and upper secondary school (37). Children who migrate before the age of five have been shown to have liter-acy scores that are on average 30 points higher than those who arrive between the ages of 11-16 (OECD), and those who migrate after age 15 have demonstrated a greater likelihood of dropping out of school (25% vs 14% among those ar-rived before 15) (38).


23

3. Methods

This chapter describes the data and in-clusion criteria for the study population groups from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, including how these groups were identified in each destination coun-try. A brief description of the data coding and data analysis procedures utilized is also provided.

3.1 Data and study populations

Refugee children aged 0-17 years who re-ceived residency in four Nordic countries between 1986 and 2005 were the main study population of interest. Population-based register data from each country was used to identify and compare rele-vant educational outcomes from the four countries. Aged matched native-born children with two native-born parents were used as the primary reference pop-ulation in each country; however, non-refugee migrant children and native-born children with refugee and non-refu-gee parents were also assessed as rele-vant populations of comparison. Table 2 below outlines the year of birth, year of migration, and age at migration criteria used to define the study population groups.

The native-born majority population comprised residents of the Nordic coun-tries born between 1969 and 1999 in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden and be-tween 1971 and 1999 in Finland. The year 1969 was chosen because this group turned 17 years of age in 1986, which is the first year for which information was available for the educational follow-up. The year 1999 was chosen since this group turned 16 years of age and re-ceived their first educational perfor-mance marker (compulsory school grades) in 2015, which is the end of the educational follow-up period. The Finn-ish data differed from that of the other countries in that the native-born major-ity population was comprised of an age and gender matched random sample of individuals (N=37 588), whereas the na-tive-born majority populations in the other countries comprised the total pop-ulations that met the inclusion criteria.

Migrants who resettled after 2005 were excluded to ensure that all migrants in-cluded in the study had a minimum of ten years of residence in the destination country at the end of the follow-up pe-riod in 2015. To facilitate relevant com-parisons with migrants, the native-born children of refugee- and non-refugee mi-grants included those born between


24

1986 and 1999 (i.e., 1986 was the first year of the migration year inclusion cri-teria and 1999 was the last year of the birth year inclusion criteria for migrant children). Children born in a Nordic country with one foreign-born parent and one native-born majority population parent or with two foreign-born parents of differing countries of origin or reasons for migration were also excluded to min-imize additional heterogeneity within this study population category. Individu-als with recorded out-migration dates were also excluded from relevant analyses as appropriate.

Table 3 provides a brief description of the migration background criteria used to define the primary study population groups. In Denmark, Norway, and Swe-den, refugee migrant children were iden-tified with register information on the reason for migration recorded in the in-dividuals’ residence permit. Due to data availability limitations, country of birth was used as a proxy measure to identify refugees in Finland, as well as in Den-mark for those who migrated prior to 1993 and in Norway for those who mi-grated prior to 1990.


25

As stated previously, refugee children are of primary interest in this report. Several comparison population groups are uti-lized in order to gain a more nuanced un-derstanding of the extent to which differ-ences in educational outcomes may exist between refugees and the native-origin majority population, as well as popula-tions with different migration back-ground characteristics; we may expect differences in educational outcomes within the migrant-origin study popula-tions based on differences in their migra-tion background histories.

Given the diversity of refugee popula-tions by origin, both within and between the Nordic countries, analyses were also conducted specifically among refugee immigrant children by country of origin. In order to facilitate comparability of the refugee study populations across the Nordic destination countries, refugees from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and former Yugoslavia2 were compared, as these countries of origin account for a significant proportion of the total refugee study population. However, these origin countries differ from one another in term of social, economic, and health condi-tions, as measured by the human devel-opment index (HDI) (57). As such, the analyses by origin also allow for consid-eration of how pre-migration factors in origin may continue to influence educa-tional outcomes post-migration (e.g., children from lower HDI countries may have lower educational attainment upon arrival than children from higher HDI countries, which may continue to influ-ence the severity of differences in post-

2 Includes Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Yugoslavia, and Macedonia.

migration educational outcomes be-tween groups).

3.2 Data Analysis

The results presented in this report con-sist of comparative descriptive statistics. Data managers in each Nordic country were responsible for data acquisition, data cleaning and coding, and calculation of proportional statistics for the study populations in their country. The infor-mation from each country was then com-piled for comparative analysis. Differ-ences in the availability of information between countries or differences in cod-ing procedures are noted where relevant in the results section below.


26

4. Results

This chapter provides a descriptive overview of the study population com-positional characteristics in each desti-nation country, and a comparative anal-ysis of educational outcomes between different study populations across the Nordic region.

Composition of study populations

Figure 1 shows the absolute number of refugees and children of refugees in-cluded in each Nordic country study pop-ulation. The largest absolute number of refugees and children of refugees was ob-served in Sweden, which also has the

largest overall population size within the Nordic region, roughly double that of Denmark, Finland, and Norway (58). The absolute number of refugee children and the native-born children of refugees was similar in Denmark and Norway.

Refugee children and the native-born children of refugees comprised 2.3% of the study population in Denmark, 2.2% in Norway, and 6.0% in Sweden. Due to the utilization of an age and gender matched random sample of the native-origin majority population in Finland, a comparable calculation of the proportion of refugees and the children of refugees was not possible.

Figure 1. Refugee children and the children of refugees by Nordic country of residence.

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000


Refugee children Children of refugees


27

Refugee children and the children of refugee immigrants by country of origin

Figure 2a below shows the absolute num-ber of refugee children and the children of refugee immigrants from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and former Yugosla-via that were included in the refugee study populations. Individuals from for-mer Yugoslavia comprised the largest refugee-origin group in terms of absolute numbers in Denmark, Norway and Swe-den, while those from Somalia comprised the largest number in Finland.

The proportional representation of the refugee-origin study populations (refu-gees and children of refugees) by these country of origin is shown in Figure 2b. Similar to patterns observed for the ab-solute number of refugees and children of refugees, those from former Yugosla-via comprised the greatest proportion of the refugee-origin study populations in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, whereas refugees from Somalia comprised the largest refugee population group in Fin-land. A list of the top ten countries of origin that comprise the refugee-origin study populations in each Nordic coun-try, including origins not shown in Fig-ures 2a and 2b, are listed in the Appendix (Table 2).

Figure 2a. Country of origin among refugee children and the children of refugees born in the Nordic region.

Figure 2b. Proportion of refugee children and children of refugee study populations by country of origin (%).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia Former Yugoslavia


05.000

10.00015.00020.00025.00030.00035.00040.00045.000

Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia former Yugoslavia



28

Year of arrival among refugee chil-dren

Refugee children’s year of arrival was proxy measured using information on birth year and the year that residence in the Nordic country was granted, rather than the actual year of arrival, which was unavailable in our register data.3 Alt-hough in more recent years residency ap-plication processing times have in-creased, we assume that for persons who arrived prior to 2015, the date of arrival occurred in the same or previous year as the year that the residence permit was granted.4

Figure 3 shows the absolute number of refugee children aged 0-17 years that ar-rived in the Nordic region annually dur-ing the period 1986-2005. Consistent

with Nordic migration trends among adults during this period, the largest ab-solute number of refugee migrant chil-dren resettled in Sweden, and the small-est in Finland. Yet all countries saw an in-crease in the number of refugee children who arrived in the early to mid-1990s, due to armed conflicts that occurred in several world regions during this time.

The age distribution of refugee children who arrived in the Nordic region during this time was fairly equal between coun-tries. For instance, in all countries, ap-proximately 25-30% of the refugee chil-dren who arrived during the period 1986-2005 were between the ages of 0-5 years of age. Table 3a in the Appendix shows the age of arrival of all refugee children who migrated during this pe-riod.

Figure 3: Year of arrival among refugee children who migrated to the Nordic region, 1986-2005.

3 This method of defining arrival time with information on residence permits is commonly utilized in Nordic studies of migration that use register data. 4 Due to the large number of refugee arrivals in the Nordic countries in 2015, waiting times for asylum applications have drastically increased, whereby many refugees have been forced to wait several years for a final decision on their asylum application.

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005



29

4.1 Educational outcomes among mi-grant-origin children in the Nordic countries

This report examines five key educa-tional outcomes that represent im-portant educational milestones and char-acteristics of an individual’s educational attainment trajectory, from school per-formance in compulsory school to higher education attainment. The report Appen-dix presents this information in table for-mat, and includes additional descriptive statistics that are not presented in the fig-ures, (e.g., gender stratified educational outcomes in additional study popula-tions).

School performance in compulsory education

Primary and lower secondary education is compulsory in all of the Nordic coun-tries included in this report and is gener-ally completed around age 16. Figures 4a-c below show the average school grades5 earned upon completion of com-

pulsory education in the refugee and chil-dren of refugees study populations. How-ever, Finland was excluded from this analysis due to a lack of comparable data on grades from compulsory school.6 The results presented in the figures are strat-ified by gender, given the commonly ob-served gender differences in grades, whereby girls tend to earn higher grades on average than boys (59). The average grades of the native-born majority popu-lations in all countries7 are denoted in the figures with a blue dashed line to fa-cilitate comparisons and assess for edu-cational inequalities between this refer-ence population and the migrant-origin populations of interest.

Figure 4a shows average grades among refugee girls and boys by age of arrival. In all countries, average grades were higher among girls than among boys, regardless of age at arrival. Average grades among refugee children were lower than the na-tive-born majority population across all age of arrival categories; the lowest aver-age scores were observed among girls and boys who arrived between 15-17 years of age, ranging from 23 to 30 among girls, and 19 to 25 among boys.

5 Individual grade point averages at the end of compulsory school were standardized and converted into average per-centile ranked scores to enable cross-country comparisons. Students with missing information on grades were ex-cluded from the analysis. 6 Compulsory school grades in Finland were only available for students who continued their education and attended non-compulsory, upper secondary school; 22% of students in the Finnish study population did not apply for upper secondary education. 7 Average grades among the native-origin majority populations in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were similar, ranging from 55.3-57.5 among girls and 46.3-47.5 among boys. For simplicity of presentation in the figures 4a, 4b, and 4c, these scores have been totalled and averaged across countries to create one overall average to represent the native-origin majority populations. Table 4a in the Appendix includes the native-origin students’ average grades in each Nordic coun-try.


30

The gap in average grades between the native-born majority population and ref-ugees was smallest in Sweden, among refugee children who arrived before the age of seven. Nonetheless, a gradient in average grades by age of arrival was ob-served in all countries, whereby refugee children who arrived at younger ages had

higher average scores than those who ar-rived at older ages. The performance gap by age of arrival among refugees was largest in Sweden, and smallest in Nor-way. Furthermore, the average grades of refugee boys who arrived in Norway be-tween the ages 7-14 and 15-17 were sim-ilar, and the corresponding difference among girls was modest.

Figure 4a. Average grades among refugee children by age of arrival. 8

8 The average score among the native-origin majority populations across all countries was 56.6 for girls and 46.5 for boys, denoted in the figure above with a blue dashed line.

GIRLS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Refugees, arrived <7yrs.

Refugees, arrived 7-14 yrs.

Refugees, arrived15-17 yrs.

Denmark Norway Sweden

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Refugees, arrived <7yrs.

Refugees, arrived 7-14 yrs.

Refugees, arrived15-17 yrs.


BOYS


31

Figure 4b shows average grades among refugee children from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and former Yugoslavia. Av-erage scores among refugee girls and boys from all origin countries were lower than the average scores of their native-born majority population counterparts. However, although evident, performance differences by origin were smaller in scale than those by age of arrival. Across all destination countries, girls from Af-ghanistan, Iran, and former Yugoslavia had the highest average scores, while

boys from Somalia had the lowest. Com-parison of destination countries showed the highest average scores in Sweden across all countries of origin, with the ex-ception of students from former Yugosla-via, for whom average scores among both girls and boys were similar across all three destination contexts (although slightly higher in Denmark and Norway). Refugee students from the same coun-tries of origin had similar average grades in Denmark and Norway.

Figure 4b. Average grades among refugees by country of origin.9


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia formerYugoslavia

Denmark Norway Denmark Norway Sweden

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia formerYugoslavia


GIRLS BOYS

Sweden


32

Figure 4c shows average grades among the Nordic-born children of refugee- and non-refugee immigrants. Similar to the findings described above, girls with im-migrant parents had higher average scores than boys with immigrant parents in all destination contexts. Also con-sistent with the patterns noted above, the children of refugees and non-refugee im-migrants in Sweden had average scores that were the most similar to their na-tive-born majority population counter-parts. In Denmark, average scores among

the children of refugee and non-refugee immigrants were comparable to the av-erage scores of refugees who arrived at ages six and younger. In Norway, average scores among the children of immigrants fell in between those observed among the refugee and native majority students. Fi-nally, despite variation in average grades by Nordic country of residence, the aver-age scores among children of refugees and non-refugees were nearly equivalent within each Nordic country.

Figure 4c. Average grades among the children of refugee- and non-refugee immigrants.10


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Children of refugees Children of non-refugees


GIRLS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Children of refugees Children of non-refugees


BOYS


33

Upper secondary school drop-outs

The proportion of students in each Nor-dic country who started, but later dropped out of upper secondary educa-tion were examined. Assessment criteria from previous research was used to iden-tify cases of dropout (26), whereby the student’s highest level of educational at-tainment was measured seven years af-ter the completion of compulsory school, or at age 25. Information on enrolment in upper secondary education during all years of follow-up was available in Den-mark, Finland, and Norway; however, in Sweden, this information was only avail-able from 1995, and as such, the Swedish study populations for this analysis were limited to persons who were born be-tween 1979 and 1990.11

Figure 5a displays the proportion of up-per secondary school dropouts among

students with different migration back-grounds in each Nordic context. In all countries, native-born majority popula-tion students had the lowest proportions of dropout, ranging from 8-15%. Cross-country comparisons of dropout rates among refugees showed a clear gradient by Nordic country of residence. For in-stance, the proportion of refugee student dropouts in Denmark was nearly twice as high as the proportion of dropouts in Sweden (31% versus 17%); however, ad-ditional analyses from Denmark showed that dropouts from vocational programs were much higher than those from aca-demic programs (51% vs. 22%, respec-tively). Proportions of dropout among both refugee- and non-refugee migrants were equivalent in Denmark and Nor-way, while in Sweden, the share of drop-outs among non-refugee immigrants was slightly larger than among refugees. By contrast, dropout among non-refugee students was lower than that observed among refugee students in Finland.

11 Supplementary analyses that limited the birth years of study populations in Denmark, Finland, and Norway to match those of the Swedish data were similar to the results found when using the entire relevant study populations.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Native-born majority Refugee migrant children Non-refugee migrant children


Figure 5a: Proportion of upper secondary school dropouts in students with different migration backgrounds (%).


34

Upper secondary school dropouts were similarly assessed among refugees by country of origin, with considerable vari-ation by country of origin and country of residence (see Figure 5b). For example, the proportion of dropouts in all coun-tries was highest among Somali refugees, but varied in magnitude by residence context, with nearly half of Somali refu-gees dropping out in Denmark and Fin-land, and just over 30% dropping out in Norway and Sweden. Conversely, less variation by country of residence was ob-

served among refugees from former Yu-goslavia, with proportions of dropouts ranging from 17-22%. The lowest pro-portion of dropout was observed among Iranian refugees living in Sweden (12%); this was particularly pronounced among women (8.5%, not shown in figure). Ta-ble 5 in the Appendix provides gender stratified information on the proportion of students in each country who gradu-ated, dropped out, or were still in second-ary education by age 25 in each study population group.

Figure 5b. Proportion of upper secondary school dropouts among refugees by country of origin (%).

Upper secondary school educational attainment

Figure 6a below compares the propor-tions of completed upper secondary edu-cation or its equivalent across the study populations. However, unlike the assess-ment of upper secondary school drop-outs, these analyses were not limited to

study populations with a recorded enrol-ment in upper secondary school; immi-grant children may be more likely than non-immigrants to utilize non-tradi-tional forms of education to complete their training, as their schooling in origin may have been interrupted by their mi-gration. All persons with a recorded In-ternational Standard Classification of Ed-ucation (ISCED) level 3 of education or

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia f. Yugoslavia



35

higher by the age of 25 were considered to have completed an upper secondary level of education.

The native-born majority study popula-tions in all Nordic countries had the high-est proportions of upper secondary school completion, ranging from 78-89%. Approximately 60-65% of refugee children who arrived before the age of seven completed an upper secondary ed-ucation by age 25 in Denmark (65%),

Finland (58%), and Norway (66%), while the vast majority (84%) did so in Swe-den. Children who arrived between the ages of 7 and 14 had somewhat lower completion proportions (5-10% lower across countries) than those who arrived before the age of seven; however, the gap in completion was most severe when comparing the native-origin majority populations and refugee children who ar-rived at 15-17 years of age.

Figure 6a. Completed upper secondary education by age 25 among native- and refugee-origin youth (%).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Native-born majority Refugee children,arrive <7 yrs.

Refugee children,arrive 7-14 yrs.

Refugee children,arrive 15-17 yrs.



36

Comparisons of refugees by country of origin similarly showed variation in up-per secondary education completion rates across the Nordic countries (see Figure 6b). However, in all destination contexts at least 50% of refugees from Afghanistan, Iran, and former Yugoslavia completed an upper secondary education by age 25. Refugee children from Somalia had the lowest proportion of completed

secondary education across all Nordic countries, although the proportion of completion was higher in Sweden than in the other countries (56% versus 30-39%, respectively). The majority of refugee children from Iraq completed an upper secondary education in Sweden (71%), whereas approximately half did so in Denmark (46%), Finland (50%) and Nor-way (47%).

Academic and vocational upper sec-ondary school educational programs

Students’ completion of an academic or vocational degree program was also as-sessed among individuals who com-pleted an upper secondary education by age 25. However, information on stu-dents’ educational degree programs was not available in all years of follow-up in Sweden. Although we were able to assess whether or not a student had graduated by age 25, up to 10% of graduates could

not be classified by their educational de-gree program. As such, the proportions for Sweden represented in the figures be-low do not account for all upper second-ary school graduates in the Swedish study population. Tables 7a and 7b in the Appendix outlines the percentages of missing (no information on track) in each Swedish study population group; gender-stratified information on the proportion of students that completed vocational and academic upper secondary educa-tion programs by age 25 in all countries is also shown.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Figure 6b. Completed upper secondary education by age 25 among refugee migrants by country of origin (%).


37

Figures 7a-b below show the proportions of upper secondary school graduates that completed vocational and academic de-grees. Results from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden showed that nearly equiva-lent or smaller proportions of refugees and non-refugees finished vocational programs relative to their native-born majority counterparts. Refugees in Fin-land had the highest proportion of voca-tional degrees overall (64%), but apart from this exception, the proportions of

native-origin, refugee, and non-refugee students completing vocational degrees were fairly similar within each Nordic country context. Similar percentages of native-origin, refugee, and non-refugee migrant students likewise completed ac-ademic degrees in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, whereas in Finland, a lower percentage of refugee students com-pleted an academic degree relative to their native-origin and non-refugee mi-grant counterparts.

Figure 7a. Proportion of upper secondary school graduates who completed vocational programs by age 25 among students with different migration backgrounds (%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



Figure 7b. Proportion of upper secondary school graduates who completed academic programs by age 25 among students with different migration backgrounds (%).


38

Figures 7c-d show the proportions of vo-cational and academic upper secondary education degrees earned among refu-gees by country of origin in each Nordic residence context. The largest propor-tion of vocational degrees was earned by

refugees from all origins in Finland, the lowest by refugees in Norway. In both Denmark and Norway, the majority of refugee graduates from all countries of origin achieved academic degrees, rang-ing from 58-87 percent.

Figure 7d. Proportion of upper secondary school graduates who completed academic degrees, among refugees by country of origin (%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90



Figure 7c. Proportion of upper secondary school graduates who completed vocational degrees, among refugees by country of origin (%).


39

Graduates from Iran had the highest pro-portion of academic degrees overall, but proportions varied by country of resi-dence; for example, approximately 83-87% of Iranian refugees in Denmark and Norway earned an academic degree, compared to 47% in Finland. In Sweden, the proportions of academic and voca-tional degrees earned also varied by stu-dents’ country of origin, but showed less variation, with 37-54% of students earn-ing vocational and 40-66% earning aca-demic degrees.

Higher educational attainment

Figures 8a and 8b below show propor-tions of higher educational attainment among the native-born majority and ref-ugee study populations. All persons who had completed an upper secondary edu-cation by the age of 25 and who had rec-orded ISCED 6 or higher levels of educa-tion by the age of 30 were considered to have completed a higher education and included in the analyses. As such, in order

to meet this age criteria, these analyses were limited to persons born between 1969 and 1985, which entails the exclu-sion of native-born children with immi-grant parents (who were born between 1986 and 1999). Non-refugee migrant children were also excluded from this analysis, given the risk of bias due to un-recorded out-migration in this group.

Approximately 50% of the native-born majority in Norway and one-third of the native born in Denmark (34%), Finland (29%), and Sweden (34%) completed a higher education by the age of 30. Similar to the findings on completed secondary education, the largest discrepancies in higher educational attainment between the native-born majority and refugee im-migrant groups were observed in Finland (16% difference). However, the propor-tion of refugees who achieved a higher education degree by the age of 30 was slightly higher relative to the native-born majority in Norway. The gaps in higher education attainment between refugees and the majority population groups were similar in Denmark and Sweden.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Native-born majority Refugee migrant children


Figure 8a. Higher education attainment by age 30 among native-origin and migrant youth who completed secondary education by age 25 (%).


40

Figure 8b displays the proportions of higher educational attainment among refugees by country of origin. Consistent with overall patterns by destination con-text, Iranian refugees had amongst the highest proportions of higher educa-tional attainment by age 30, ranging from 20% in Finland to 59% in Norway. With

the exception of Finland, the proportion of Iranians with higher educational at-tainment by age 30 was greater than pro-portions observed among the native-origin majority population in each Nordic context. Refugees from Somalia had the lowest proportion of higher education in all Nordic countries.

Figure 8b. Higher education attainment by age 30 among refugees who completed secondary education by age 25 by country of origin (%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Afghanistan Iran Iraq Somalia f. YugoslaviaDenmark Finland Norway Sweden


41

5. Discussion

This report used register data from Den-mark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden to describe educational outcomes among immigrants who were granted residency as children (0-17 years) during 1986-2005. Educational outcomes among refu-gees were of primary interest, and were assessed relative to their native-born majority population counterparts as well as other groups with migrant back-grounds, within and across the Nordic countries. The sections below provide a discussion of the overall findings by the educational outcome and migrant-origin study population group of interest.

Compulsory school performance in refugees

Average grades from compulsory, lower secondary school among refugee stu-dents in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were lower than those of their native-born majority population counterparts; Finland was not included in this analysis. This pattern held in analyses of refugees that considered country of origin.

School performance gaps between refu-gee- and native-origin majority popula-tion students were of a similar magni-tude in the Danish and Norwegian con-texts, while these performance gaps were smallest in Sweden, where refugee stu-dents had the highest average grades. Sweden’s longer history of refugee mi-gration and resettlement, which poten-tially also entails smoother school

integration transitions in general, could partially explain these findings. How-ever, recent Swedish research has shown that the native-refugee gap in compul-sory school performance has been in-creasing since 2008; an increased ten-dency for refugee children to arrive at older ages may contribute to the widen-ing of this gap (60).

Consistent with prior findings from other high-income destination country con-texts (16, 27, 28, 37, 60, 61), refugee chil-dren who arrived at younger ages had higher average grades than those who ar-rived at older ages. This age of arrival gradient in average grades was observed among the refugee study populations in all assessed Nordic country contexts. It is unlikely that the observed age of arrival gradient can be explained by composi-tional differences between countries in the arrival age of refugee children, since the proportions of refugee children arriv-ing at different ages was similar across all Nordic countries. Rather, the confluence of both migration-specific and post-mi-gration factors likely contributes to these gradients. For instance, there may be dif-ferences in the integration experiences between older and younger refugee chil-dren that could influence school perfor-mance. Socialization processes within the school environment and broader community at large may be more chal-lenging at older ages, and the need to start over again in a new country and to learn a new language may be particularly disruptive for older children’s social and emotional development (27, 62). Age-re-lated differences in cognitive abilities (e.g., language learning ability) might


42

also be disrupted by migration at critical developmental periods (e.g., in adoles-cence) (27) and could contribute to some of the observed age of arrival disparities among refugee children. In addition, chil-dren that arrive at younger ages spend more time in the educational systems of the new country of residence, entailing greater opportunities for adaptation and necessary skills development. These chil-dren may also benefit from early educa-tion programs, which have been shown to improve educational outcomes in mi-grant children (37) and reduce perfor-mance inequalities by socioeconomic sta-tus (63).

Although average grades among refugees were the highest in Sweden overall, the performance gap by age at arrival was also larger than that observed in Den-mark and Norway, suggesting better rel-ative integration of younger (versus older) refugee children into the Swedish educational system. The introduction programs offered to refugee students upon arrival vary considerably both within and between the Nordic countries, given the decentralized responsibility for such programs to local authorities. How-ever, while younger children are often placed into regular classroom learning environments upon arrival, there is a growing tendency for older refugee chil-dren in Sweden to be placed in special preparatory classes, separate from the rest of their student peers (64). Findings on the implications of separate introduc-tions for newly arrived students in Swe-den have been mixed. While separate in-troductions may provide safe learning environments with specialized social and pedagogical support (65, 66), there has

also been a critique of the physical sepa-ration of such students, and that intro-duction programs often entail fewer classroom hours and school subjects of-ferings (67), which can hinder transition out of such programs (68). Such school environment factors may contribute to the larger relative performance gaps by age of arrival observed in Sweden. Yet other factors which have been shown to influence school performance gaps be-tween refugee and non-refugee students, including parental education level and socioeconomic status as well as school and neighbourhood factors (60) also need to be investigated to determine the extent to which family and compositional factors in the post-migration context con-tribute to the observed inequalities in the school performance of refugees by Nor-dic country of residence.

Compulsory school performance in the children of refugee- and non-refugee immigrants

The average grades of Nordic-born chil-dren of refugees tended to fall between those of refugee students and native-born majority population students. Find-ings from other country contexts have shown similar patterns of results (28, 38), whereby school performance out-comes among the children of migrants are generally better than those of mi-grants but not equal to those of native-born majority population students.

Contrary to our expectations, within each country, average grades were nearly identical for the children of refugees and the children of non-refugee immigrants.


43

Importantly, this suggests that although educational inequalities relative to the native-origin persist, the Nordic educa-tional systems have been able to foster equitable educational performance out-comes among the children of migrants in general, regardless of their parents’ mi-gration background (e.g., refugees vs. non-refugees). Future research should explore this finding further in order to identify educational policies or educa-tional systems, such as early education programs, which may be key in promot-ing educational equality in among the children of refugees and migrants.

Upper secondary dropout in refugee students

In all Nordic countries, a higher propor-tion of dropouts was observed in refu-gees than in the native-born majority population, which supports previous findings of higher rates of dropout among students with a migrant back-ground (16, 69). Like other educational outcomes, the likelihood of upper sec-ondary education dropout is influenced by the cumulative effect of multiple fac-tors at several levels of influence. These include, but are not limited to, individual and family socioeconomic situation, available resources in the country of res-idence, as well as education-specific fac-tors like previous educational experi-ences in origin, sense of school belonging, and school system characteristics (70). The confluence of such factors may help to explain the observed differences in dropout among refugees by origin; for in-stance, the proportion of dropouts was highest among Somali refugees, across all

Nordic countries included in this study. To various degrees, this suggests that current educational policies in the Nordic region as a whole have not effectively ad-dressed educational inequalities be-tween groups of refugee students.

The proportions of dropout among refu-gees were highest in Denmark and Fin-land, and the lowest in Sweden. The dif-ference in the proportion of dropouts be-tween native-origin majority and refugee students was the smallest in Norway; however, the proportion of native-origin majority dropouts was also the highest. Inequality gaps between the native-origin and refugees were largest in Den-mark and Finland. Cross-country differ-ences in school systems could also play a large role in the observed differences in refugee student dropout between the Nordic countries. One possibility for the higher rates of dropouts among refugees in Denmark could be related to the prior-itization of workplace-based vocational training available to students; if formal qualifications are not necessary for such positions, some students may opt to dropout in favour of entering the labour market earlier. For example, refugee stu-dents may be more likely to dropout in order to send remittances to friends or family in the country of origin, which have increased globally by over 50% in the last decade (71). Conversely, stu-dents may also drop out due to difficul-ties finding an apprenticeship in relation to discriminatory hiring practices. In ad-dition, unlike the other countries, in Den-mark vocational training and academic upper secondary programs are not inte-grated, thus impairing transition to a dif-ferent form of secondary educational


44

training, which could also contribute to the observed differences across coun-tries.

The lower rates of dropout observed in Sweden may be related to alternative secondary education options that are available to adults, namely Komvux (kommunal vuxenutbildning). Komvux is primarily intended for adults who have not yet completed a primary or second-ary education, as well as those who did not achieve the necessary grades to pur-sue higher education. Sensitivity anal-yses showed that when Komvux degrees were not accounted for in the analysis, dropout rates in Sweden were consider-ably higher (approximately 20% in the native-origin majority population and 40% in refugees). This suggests that the alternative secondary education options available in Sweden could be a key factor in promoting further educational attain-ment among young adults in Sweden. However, similar adult education pro-grams are also offered in Denmark, Nor-way, and Finland, and it is unclear why Komvux could be a more relevant facili-tator of upper secondary education among young people in the Swedish con-text. One potential explanation relates to the structure of the educational system in Sweden, which has an upper age limit of 20 years of age for conventional upper secondary education. This entails that persons who experience interruptions in their education earlier in life may be more likely to finish their secondary edu-cation at Komvux. In addition, there are circumstances in which persons under 20 years of age can attend Komvux edu-cation (72), and it is also fairly common for students who want to improve their

upper secondary education grades to complete their education in Komvux ra-ther than in conventional upper second-ary school systems. This suggests that the delineations between conventional upper secondary education and Komvux in Sweden may be more fluid than those found in the other Nordic countries, and might help to explain the lower relative dropout proportion in Sweden.

Upper secondary dropout in non- refugee students

Dropout rates among non-refugee immi-grant children were similar to those ob-served in refugees in Denmark and Nor-way, and slightly higher than rates among refugees in Sweden. In Finland, non-refugee immigrants had lower rates of dropout relative to refugees. Non-refu-gee immigrants are often a very hetero-geneous group, and may be quite differ-ent compositionally across the Nordic re-gion; as such, it is difficult to speculate as to why rates of dropout among this group differed in Finland. Furthermore, non-refugee groups in Finland may composi-tionally differ relative to Denmark, Nor-way, and Sweden, which may provide a partial explanation. For example, Finland has higher proportions of non-refugee migrants from the Baltic states and Rus-sia than do the other Nordic countries, and these groups might experience fewer educational integration difficulties than non-refugees from other countries.


45

Upper secondary education attainment

Inequalities in educational attainment, including upper secondary education and higher education, were also ob-served between refugees and the native-born majority populations in all Nordic countries, confirming previous findings from other high-income country contexts (16). The proportions of upper second-ary education attainment in refugee chil-dren were fairly similar in Denmark, Fin-land, and Norway; however, the educa-tional achievement gap between native-origin majority and refugee students was largest in Finland, even when refugees’ age of arrival was considered. Finland’s relatively recent history of migration and smaller immigrant population may par-tially drive these findings. Countries like Finland that have more recently become countries of immigration may face greater difficulties in the integration of migrant populations than countries which have a longer history of immigra-tion (73). In addition, migrant students, particularly those who have some previ-ous knowledge of Germanic languages, may find it easier to learn Danish, Norwe-gian, and Swedish, due to common Ger-manic roots, compared to Finnish, which has Uralic roots, and may be more diffi-cult to learn as a second language.

Differences in upper secondary school at-tainment by age of arrival were also ob-served in each country, with refugee chil-dren who arrived at older ages showing the lowest proportion of completion in all countries, consistent with previous findings (27). Refugees in Sweden had the highest relative proportion of upper

secondary educational attainment, and the smallest achievement gap between the native-origin majority and refugees. Sweden’s longer relative history of immi-gration and its larger relative migrant population overall, as well as the Komvux adult education program described above, may help to promote educational attainment among “non-traditional” stu-dents, such as those with special needs or whose education was interrupted by their migration experience.

Academic and vocational upper secondary education programs

Although previous research has shown that migrant students tend to pursue vo-cational programs to a greater degree than native-origin students (38), our findings largely deviated from this pat-tern; with the exception of refugees in Finland, migrant students with both ref-ugee- and non-refugee backgrounds completed vocational programs to a slightly lesser degree and academic pro-grams to a slightly higher degree than did their native-born majority counterparts.

Differences in the overall proportions of refugee and non-refugee students that completed academic and vocational tracks were minimal. However, refugee children from Iran had the highest pro-portions of academic programs and low-est proportions of vocational programs across all Nordic countries. Prior studies have pointed to the importance of mi-grant parents’ expectations and hopes for their children as important determi-nants of their children’s educational suc-cess (74-77), which may encourage


46

young migrants to choose academic over vocational training. In addition, parental education may also play a role in migrant student’s type of education (e.g., highly educated parents may be more likely to encourage their children to pursue aca-demic educational programs). Variation between the Nordic countries in how vo-cational programs are offered to students could likewise have influenced students’ choice of training program, such as Den-mark’s greater prioritization of voca-tional training relative to the other coun-tries (26). However, it should be noted that the majority of both native- and mi-grant-origin students completed aca-demic programs over vocational ones. This is in line with general trends ob-served in upper secondary education in Europe, whereby the majority of stu-dents now tend to pursue academic tracks in order to facilitate higher educa-tional attainment. Given the long follow up period covered by this report, changes in student’s choice of educational pro-gram over time may not be reflected in the results. In addition, the ways in which programs are categorized as vocational or academic can change over time, which could also impact our findings. Finally, many studies merely assess enrolment in academic or vocational educational pro-grams, whereas in the current report we have assessed program completion; this too may help to explain the divergence in findings from previous research.

Higher educational attainment

The highest proportions of higher educa-tional attainment by age 30 among those

who had also completed an upper sec-ondary education by age 25 were ob-served among refugees in Norway, and slightly exceeded proportions of comple-tion among the native-origin majority. However, inequalities in higher educa-tion attainment between the native-born majority and refugees were observed in all other countries, with the lowest pro-portions of completion found among ref-ugees in Finland. Taken together, these findings provide evidence of the persis-tence of educational attainment inequali-ties among refugees in the Nordic region well into young adulthood. At the same time however, the pattern of findings in terms of the magnitude of inequality be-tween the native-origin majority and ref-ugees is of a smaller degree than that ob-served among educational outcomes ear-lier in life. This pattern of findings sup-ports prior evidence which has high-lighted the importance of early human capital and equity in early educational at-tainment outcomes (60). Likewise, fol-lowing patterns observed in the attain-ment of academic upper secondary edu-cation, refugees from Iran had the high-est proportions of higher education at-tainment by origin.

Strengths and Limitations

This report provides a comparative over-view of multiple educational outcomes among migrant-origin children in the Nordic region. The comparison of out-comes in highly specific groups of mi-grant-origin children in multiple country contexts represents a contribution to the existing knowledge base. The utilization


47

of longitudinal data also permitted an as-sessment of educational outcomes at dif-ferent stages in the life course, helping to inform which policies should be priori-tized in order to decrease educational in-equalities between groups.

Despite the utilization of high quality, population-based register data in this re-port, our findings are tempered by sev-eral limitations. First, we were unable to harmonize data across all countries for comparison of some educational out-comes. This entailed the exclusion of Fin-land from the analysis of average grades in compulsory school. In addition, lack of comparable data in Sweden on students’ educational program choice in upper sec-ondary school was not available for all years of follow up, which could reduce the reliability of these findings. Relatedly, a higher percentage of missing infor-mation in some study populations, most notably among non-refugee immigrants, who may have been more likely to mi-grate, could likewise limit the reliability of some estimates; however, as this group was not our primary study popula-tion of interest, this limitation is minimal.

Nonetheless, cross-country comparisons such as those included in this report are entirely dependent on the possibility of having comparable information. As such, efforts to develop regional information systems are needed, particularly in rela-tion to the migrant population. The de-velopment of strategies to overcome data harmonization limitations is essential in order to be able to identify the actual needs of migrant populations and design suitable policies to address such needs.

Due to our study population inclusion criteria and the resulting smaller sample size of the children of refugee and non-refugee study populations, we were una-ble to make reliable comparisons of edu-cational attainment outcomes among these groups at age 25 (including upper secondary school dropouts, upper sec-ondary school completion, and upper secondary educational program). How-ever, the corresponding percentages of these outcomes are presented in the Ap-pendix for completion purposes. This re-port also excludes a specific analysis of educational outcomes among unaccom-panied refugee minors; although unac-companied minors are included in our refugee study population, they do not comprise a discrete study population group. However, a forthcoming report by CAGE researchers will examine educa-tional outcomes in this group specifically.

In addition, the study populations exam-ined in this report are perhaps not en-tirely reflective of the refugee and mi-grant-origin populations migrating to and residing in the Nordic region today. All countries have experienced demo-graphic changes in their refugee and mi-grant populations over time, as well as changes in the restrictiveness of their mi-gration policies. It is also important to keep in mind the potential influence of migration patterns and differences be-tween countries when interpreting re-sults. Similarly, this report summarizes information from several decades; as such, positive changes in educational outcomes may have been suppressed (78), and an understanding of changes over time is missing. The descriptive na-


48

ture of this report also precludes an anal-ysis of the role of additional factors that may contribute to the observed inequali-ties in education, such family socioeco-nomic status and educational character-istics of parents. Nonetheless, the report provides an overview of educational out-comes among refugee-origin populations with earlier migration histories, who are long-time residents and citizens of the Nordic region, and makes a useful contri-bution towards informing future policy and research.

Concluding remarks

Relative to their native-origin counter-parts, the report findings broadly suggest the presence of educational inequalities among the approximately 200 000 refu-gee children who came to the Nordic re-gion during the period 1986-2005. These educational inequalities were evident to varying degrees, depending on migration background characteristics and the des-tination context.

Migrant-origin children in Sweden, with both refugee and non-refugee back-grounds, tended to show the best overall educational outcomes relative to their counterparts in the other Nordic coun-tries. Sweden’s longer history of migra-tion may entail an overall smoother inte-gration of migrant children into schools. At the same time however, large inequal-ities by age of arrival were observed among refugees in Sweden; this should be explored in future studies to identify relevant contributing factors, including those related to the school environment

as well as those pertaining to the settle-ment and integration of the children themselves and their families.

Refugee children’s educational outcomes tended to be the poorest in Denmark and Finland. The greater number of re-strictions on asylum seeking children’s rights to education in Denmark relative to the other Nordic countries, such as the right to compulsory education, could be an important contributor here. The im-pact of such restrictive policies should be investigated further. Similarly, the poorer outcomes observed in Finland could be related to the country’s rela-tively shorter history of migration, and less experience with integration in gen-eral. However, some caution should be exercised when interpreting the Finnish findings; compositional differences in Finland’s migrant and refugee popula-tion, as well as the relatively small size of this group, may drive some of the ob-served differences.

In Norway, differences in educational outcomes between the migrant-origin populations tended to be smaller than those in the other Nordic countries. The reasons behind this remain unclear, pointing to the need for further study. However, we may speculate that the strong socioeconomic context of Norway may have allowed for greater resource distribution to address the educational needs of migrant and refugee children in general. However, with the exception of higher educational attainment, the per-sistence of educational inequalities be-tween refugees and the native-majority points to the need for additional policy measures to improve educational equity.


49

The report findings also confirm previ-ous research on patterns of educational performance by age of arrival, with bet-ter outcomes observed in children who migrate at younger ages (relative to older ages) and in the native-born children of migrants (relative to migrants). Within countries, similar educational outcomes were observed between the children of refugee- and non-refugee migrants. This points to the potential of educational pol-icies as facilitators of equality, but also suggests that within the Nordic region, factors related to being a migrant or mi-nority may have a stronger bearing on the educational outcomes of native-born children than parents’ refugee experi-ences. The prevalence of educational ine-qualities in all countries, and the im-portance of education for refugee chil-dren’s health, well-being, and socioeco-nomic integration points to the need for increased attention to the educational needs of all children within national edu-cational systems in the Nordic countries. Future studies from CAGE researchers will investigate refugee children’s trajec-tories from school to labour market entry in young adulthood, in order to better un-derstand the development of socioeco-nomic and health inequalities in young refugees.


50

6. References

1. Statistics Denmark. Population and population projections. Available at: https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/befolkning-og-valg. 2. Statistics Finland. Population according to citizenship, country of birth, language and origin 1990-2017. Available at: http://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/Maahanmuuttajat_ja_kotoutuminen/Maahanmuuttajat_ja_kotoutuminen__Maahanmuuttajat_ja_kotoutuminen/005_kaikki.px/?rxid=281a91a1-7c70-4008-a966-fc37a37de882 2018 [. 3. Statistics Norway. 14 percent of population are immigrants. Available at: https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/14-per-cent-of-population-are-immigrants 2018 [. 4. Statistics Sweden. Official statistics. Statistical Database. Available at: http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__BE__BE0101/?rxid=2310ff83-0654-4658-8f50-1989886a4dbe 2017 [. 5. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Global trends: Forced dis-placement in 2016. Geneva: United Na-tions High Commissioner for Refugees; 2017.

6. Borsch AS, de Montgomery CJ, Gauffin K, Eide K, Heikkila E, Smith Jervelund S. Health, education and employment outcomes in young refugees in the Nordic countries: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2018:1403494818787099. 7. Eide K, Hjern A. Unaccompanied refugee children--Vulnerability and agency. Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992). 2013;102(7):666-8.

8. Heleniak T. From Migrants to Workers: International migration trends in the Nordic countries. Nordregion Working Paper 2018:1. Available at: http://doi.org/10.30689/WP2018:1.1403-2511. 2018. 9. Government Offices of Sweden. Press release: Proposal to temporarily restrict the possibility of being granted a residence permit in Sweden 2016. Available at: http://www.government.se/press-releases/2016/05/proposal-to-temporarily-restrict-the-possibility-of-being-granted-a-residence-permit-in-sweden/. 10. Sveriges Riksdag. Lag (2016:752) om tillfälliga begränsningar av möjligheten att få uppehållstillstånd i Sverige 2016. Available at: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattnings samling/lag-2016752-om-tillfalliga-begransningar-av_sfs-2016-752. 11. United Nations. Programme of Action of the World Summit for Social Development. World Summit for Social Development. Copenhagen: United Nations; 1995. 12. Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I, Seeman TE. From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science & Medicine. 2000;51(6):843-57. 13. Gauffin K, Lyytinen E. Working for integration: A comparative analysis of policies impacting labour market access among young refugees in the Nordic countries. CAGE Policy Report 1; 2017. 14. Valenta M, Bunar N. State Assisted Integration: Refugee integration policies in Scandinavian welfare states: The Swedish and Norwegian experience.


51

Journal of Refugee Studies. 2010;23(4):463-83. 15. Åslund O, Böhlmark A, Skans ON. Childhood and family experiences and the social integration of young migrants. Labour Economics. 2015;35:135-44. 16. OECD. Immigrant students at school: Easing the journey towards integration. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2015. 17. Torslev MK, Roth Borsch AS. Refugee and immigrant children's right to education: A comparative analysis of education policies targeting immigrant children in the Nordic countries. CAGE Policy Report 2; 2017. 18. Graham H. Unequal lives: Health and socioeconomic inequalities. Berkshire: Open University Press, McGraw Hill Education; 2007. 19. Lahelma E, Martikainen P, Laaksonen M, Aittomaki A. Pathways between socioeconomic determinants of health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2004;58(4):327-32. 20. Cunha F, Heckman J. The technology of skill formation. American Economic Review. 2007;97(2):31-47. 21. Hek R. The experiences and needs of refugee children and asylum seeking children in the UK: A literature review. Nottingham: DFES Publications; 2005. 22. Wade J, Mitchell F, Baylis G. Unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The response of social work services. London: BAAF Adoption and Fostering; 2005. 23. Pastoor LdW. The mediational role of schools in supporting psychosocial transitions among unaccompanied young refugees upon resettlement in

Norway. International Journal of Educational Development. 2015;41:245-54. 24. Pastoor LdW. Skolen – et sted å lære og et sted å være [The school- a place to learn and a place to be]. In: Eide K, editor. Barn på flukt: Psykososialt arbeid med enslige mindreårige. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk; 2012. 25. Krieger N. A glossary for social epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2001;55(10):693-700. 26. Bäckman O, Jakobsen V, Lorentzen T, Österbacka E, Dahl E. Early school leaving in Scandinavia: Extent and labour market effects. Journal of European Social Policy. 2015;25(3):253-69. 27. Hermansen AS. Age at arrival and life chances among childhood immigrants. Demography. 2017:1-29. 28. Chiswick BR, DebBurman N. Educational attainment: Analysis by immigrant generation. Economics of Education Review. 2004;23(4):361-79. 29. Kaplan I, Stolk Y, Valibhoy M, Tucker A, Baker J. Cognitive assessment of refugee children: Effects of trauma and new language acquisition. Transcultural Psychiatry. 2016;53(1):81-109. 30. Bhopal R. Glossary of terms relating to ethnicity and race: For reflection and debate. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2004;58(6):441-5. 31. Urquia ML, Gagnon AJ. Glossary: Migration and health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2011;65(5):467-72.


52

32. OECD. Compare your country. PISA 2015. Finland 2018. Available at: http://www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa/country/FIN?lg=en. 33. OECD. Compare your country. PISA 2015. Norway 2018. Available at: http://www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa/country/NOR?lg=en. 34. OECD. Compare your country. PISA 2015. Denmark 2018. Available at: http://www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa/country/DNK?lg=en. 35. OECD. Compare your country. PISA 2015. Sweden 2018. Available at: http://www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa/country/SWE?lg=en. 36. OECD. PISA 2015 Results: Excellence and Equity in Education. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing; 2016. 37. OECD. Helping Immigrant Students to Succeed at School-and Beyond. OECD; 2015. 38. OECD/European Union. Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015: Settling In. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2015. 39. Celikaksoy A, Wadensjö E. Unaccompanied minors and separated refugee children in Sweden: An outlook on demography, education and employment. Report no. 8963. Bonn; Institute for the Study of Labor. 2015. 40. Eide K. Barn i bevegelse. Om oppvekst og levekår for enslige mindreårige flyktninger. Telemark: Høgskolen i Telemark. 2000. 41. Dunlavy AC, Juárez S, Rostila M. Employment status and risk of all-cause mortality among native- and foreign-origin persons in Sweden. European

Journal of Public Health. 2018; 28(5):891-97. 42. Schnell P, Fibbi R, Crul M, Montero-Sieburth M. Family involvement and educational success of the children of immigrants in Europe: Comparative perspectives. Comparative Migration Studies. 2015;3(1):14. 43. Skolverket. Kartläggning av huvudmäns arbete med att motverka skolsegregation2018; (DNR 2018:00332). 44. Nielsen RS, Andersen HT. Ethnic school segregation in Copenhagen: A step in the right direction? Urban Studies.0(0):0042098019847625. 45. Kananen J. Nordic paths from welfare to workfare: Danish, Swedish and Finnish labour market reforms in comparison. Local Economy. 2012;27(5-6):558-76. 46. OECD. Income inequality data update: Sweden (January 2015) 2015. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/els /soc/OECD-Income-Inequality-Sweden.pdf. 47. Andersen JG. Restricting access to social protection for immigrants in the Danish welfare state. Benefits. 2007;15(3):257-69. 48. Malmusi D. Immigrants' health and health inequality by type of integration policies in European countries. European Journal of Public Health. 2015;25(2):293-9. 49. Malmusi D, Palencia L, Ikram UZ, Kunst AE, Borrell C. Inequalities by immigrant status in depressive symptoms in Europe: The role of integration policy regimes. Social


53

Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2017;52(4):391-8. 50. Viruell-Fuentes EA, Miranda PY, Abdulrahim S. More than culture: Structural racism, intersectionality theory, and immigrant health. Social Science & Medicine. 2012;75(12):2099-106. 51. Hill NE, Castellino DR, Lansford JE, Nowlin P, Dodge KA, Bates JE, et al. Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development. 2004;75(5):1491-509. 52. Dickson M, Gregg P, Robinson H. Early, late, or never? When does parental education impact child outcomes? Economic Journal (London, England). 2016;126:F184-F231. 53. Van den Berg GJ, Pinger PR, Schoch J. Instrumental variable estimation of the causal effect of hunger early in life on health later in life. Economic Journal. 2016;126(591):465-506. 54. Currie J, Stabile M. Mental health in childhood and human capital. In: Gruber J, editor. The problems of disadvantaged youth: An economic perspective. University of Chicago Press; 2009. p. 115-48. 55. Graham HR, Minhas RS, Paxton G. Learning problems in children of refugee background: A systematic review. Pediatrics. 2016;137(6). 56. Kuh D, Ben-Shlomo Y, Lynch J, Hallqvist J, Power C. Life course epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2003;57(10):778-83. 57. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development

Report 2015: Work for Human Development. 2015. 58. Nordic Council. Population 1 January by reporting country, citizenship, sex, age and time. Available at: https://www.nordicstatistics.org/statistics/ (Accessed 2019-09-09). 59. Statistics Sweden. Women and Men in Sweden, 2018. 60. Grönqvist H, Nikami S. The school achievements of refugee children: Lessons from Sweden. 2017. In: Nordic Economic Policy Review: Labour Market Integration in the Nordic Countries. Rosendahls, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers; [p. 159-84]. 61. Böhlmark A. Age at immigration and school performance: A siblings analysis using Swedish register data. Labour Economics. 2008;15(6):1366-87. 62. Suarez-Orozco MM, Suarez-Orozco C. Children of immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2001. 63. Burger K. How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2010;25(2):140-65. 64. Forte. Newly arrived child migrants and the Swedish arrival structure: Interviews about the autumn of 2015 and a literature review. 2016. 65. Nilsson J, Axelsson M. “Welcome to Sweden”: Newly arrived students’ experiences of pedagogical and social provision in ıntroductory and regular classes. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. 2017(1):137-64, V 6.


54

66. Skowronski E. Skola med fördröjning. Nyanlända elevers sociala spelrum i ”en skola för alla”. Avhandling. Lunds universitet. 2013. 67. Nilsson J, Bunar N. Educational responses to newly arrived students in Sweden: Understanding the structure and influence of post-migration ecology. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2016;60(4):399-416. 68. Bunar N. Nyanlända och lärande. En forskningsöversikt om nyanlända elever i den svenska skolan. Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie nr 6. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. 2010. 69. UNESCO. Global Education Monitoring Report 2019: Migration, Displacement and Education – Building Bridges, Not Walls. Paris, UNESCO. 2018. 70. Lamb S, Rice S. Effective intervention strategies for students at risk of early leaving. Discussion Paper. Centre for Post-compulsory Education and Lifelong Learning, The University of Melbourne 2008. 71. OECD. Development aid rises again in 2016 but flows to poorest countries dip. Development Co-operation Directorate (DCD-DAC), OECD. Accessed 2017-12-10 at: http://wwwoecdorg /dac/development-aid-rises-again-in-2016-but-flows-to-poorest-countries-diphtm. 2017. 72. Skolverket. Rätt till, behörighet och antagning för komvux på gymnasial nivå [cited 2019 July 11]. Available at:

https://www.skolverket.se/regler-och-ansvar/ansvar-i-skolfragor/ratt-till-komvux-pa-gymnasial-niva. 73. Levels M, Dronkers J, Kraaykamp G. Immigrant children's educational achievement in Western countries: Origin, destination, and community effects on mathematical performance. American Sociological Review. 2008;73(5):835-53. 74. Fuligni AJ. The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: The role of family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Development. 1997;68(2):351-63. 75. Duong MT, Badaly D, Liu FF, Schwartz D, McCarty CA. Generational differences in academic achievement among immigrantyYouths: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research. 2016;86(1):3-41. 76. Støren LA, Helland H. Ethnicity differences in the completion rates of upper secondary education: How do the effects of gender and social background variables interplay? European Sociological Review. 2009;25(6). 77. Støren LA. Choice of study and persistence in higher education by immigrant background, gender, and social background. NIFU STEP report;2009-43. 2009. 78. de Montgomery CJ, Petersen JH, Jervelund SS. Diminishing social inequality between refugee children and their peers growing up in Denmark. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 2018:1-29.

7. Appendix

n Percent n Percent n Percent n PercentNative-born majority population 1 454 604 94,0 36 865 54,3 1 522 777 95,1 2 369 643 89,5Refugee migrant children 29 427 1,9 9 495 14,0 29 410 1,8 113 549 4,3Native-born children of refugees 6 695 0,4 4 446 6,6 5 718 0,4 44 949 1,7Non-refugee migrant children 18 518 1,2 13 814 20,4 19 717 1,2 44 228 1,7Native-born children of non-refugees 38 845 2,5 3 249 4,8 22 960 1,4 75 876 2,9Total 1 548 089 100,0 67 870 100,0 1 600 582 100,0 2 648 245 100,0


Denmark n Percent Finland n Percentformer Yugoslavia 8 426 23,3 Somalia 3 749 26,9Iraq 7 027 19,5 former Yugoslavia 2715 19,5Somalia 4 336 12,0 Iraq 2 044 14,7Lebanon 4 113 11,4 Vietnam 1 799 12,9Afghanistan 3 970 11,0 Iran 1 017 7,3Iran 1 881 5,2 Afghanistan 611 4,4Sri Lanka 1 434 4,0 Congo 249 1,8Vietnam 1 400 3,9 Sudan 215 1,5Syria 435 1,2 Ethiopia 201 1,4Kuwait 321 0,9 Pakistan 149 1,1Other refugees 2 779 7,7 Other refugees 1 192 8,6Total 36 122 100,0 Total 13 941 100,0

Norway n Percent Sweden n Percentformer Yugoslavia 8 533 24,3 former Yugoslavia 43 299 27,3Iraq 5 438 15,5 Iraq 26 682 16,8Somalia 4 222 12,0 Iran 15 385 9,7Iran 2 963 8,4 Lebanon 8 578 5,4Vietnam 2 197 6,3 Somalia 8 244 5,2Afghanistan 1 994 5,7 Syria 5 730 3,6Sri Lanka 1 725 4,9 Chile 5 690 3,6Russia 872 2,5 Afghanistan 3 557 2,2Ethiopia 679 1,9 Ethiopia 3 345 2,1Turkey 598 1,7 Vietnam 3 028 1,9Other refugees 5 907 16,8 Other refugees 34 960 22,1Total 35 128 100,0 Total 158 498 100,0

Table 1. Study populations in the Nordic countries*.

Table 2. Country of origin among refugee children and parents' country of origin among the children of refu-gees.

*The native-born majority population in Finland is comprised of an age and gender matched random sample of the native-born majority population. As such, sample proportions are not comparable with the other Nordic countries, which utilized total population data.


56

Table 3a. Age and year of arrival among refugee children.

Denmark Finland

0 to 5 6 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 17 Total 0 to 5 6 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 17 Total1986 481 339 104 157 1081 1986 14 21 / / 37

1987 480 439 135 81 1135 1987 13 29 10 / 54

1988 286 344 137 90 857 1988 19 35 16 7 77

1989 440 435 153 115 1143 1989 32 70 28 18 148

1990 358 371 122 109 960 1990 104 153 57 33 347

1991 369 392 155 138 1054 1991 127 160 41 65 393

1992 353 443 195 183 1174 1992 189 215 61 55 520

1993 176 256 102 63 597 1993 465 584 172 108 1 329

1994 220 272 93 64 649 1994 149 232 90 64 535

1995 1242 2296 678 425 4641 1995 108 228 81 69 486

1996 617 1129 348 208 2302 1996 123 213 66 78 480

1997 366 566 164 113 1209 1997 125 296 111 79 611

1998 502 734 210 153 1599 1998 142 279 80 57 558

1999 428 670 186 138 1422 1999 149 225 86 55 515

2000 673 1033 321 192 2219 2000 133 204 87 76 500

2001 785 1345 474 287 2891 2001 148 390 172 112 822

2002 430 1092 367 217 2106 2002 78 286 131 97 592

2003 196 681 224 132 1233 2003 58 229 110 71 468

2004 53 475 158 99 785 2004 26 263 106 94 489

2005 / 216 88 66 370 2005 / 270 145 119 534

Total 8 455 13 528 4 414 3 030 29 427 Total 2 202 4 382 1 652 1 259 9 495

Norway Sweden

0 to 5 6 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 17 Total 0 to 5 6 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 17 Total1986 40 52 12 37 141 1986 874 865 340 195 2 2741987 299 205 54 88 646 1987 1 018 1 253 505 289 3 0651988 335 285 71 49 740 1988 1 330 1 753 559 416 4 0581989 304 327 90 87 808 1989 2 159 3 080 1 053 718 7 0101990 409 525 208 162 1 304 1990 1 889 2 570 752 488 5 6991991 413 535 189 145 1 282 1991 1 950 3 002 916 634 6 5021992 523 694 193 149 1 559 1992 1 543 2 466 829 640 5 4781993 908 1 185 444 291 2 828 1993 3 879 5 299 1 832 1 172 12 1821994 424 635 214 128 1 401 1994 4 958 8 254 2 637 1 522 17 3711995 323 432 162 115 1 032 1995 873 1 543 573 378 3 3671996 237 287 121 83 728 1996 595 1 212 445 296 2 5481997 289 377 171 114 951 1997 1 036 2 551 923 553 5 0631998 342 481 189 160 1 172 1998 1 031 2 178 873 559 4 6411999 853 1 106 439 316 2 714 1999 906 1 906 807 553 4 1722000 535 792 325 291 1 943 2000 1 223 2 472 1 023 649 5 3672001 384 838 315 292 1 829 2001 1 065 2 478 1 072 770 5 3852002 563 1 433 535 420 2 951 2002 941 2 798 1 170 821 5 7302003 298 1 091 428 334 2 151 2003 685 2 711 1 121 794 5 3112004 146 973 322 302 1 743 2004 301 2 513 1 028 672 4 5142005 / 903 345 239 1 487 2005 / 2 221 965 626 3 812Total 7 625 13 156 4 827 3 802 29 410 Total 28 256 53 125 19 423 12 745 113 549

Age

Age Age

Age


57

Table 3b. Year of birth among the children of refugees.

Table 4a. Average school marks in ninth grade among the study populations.

Denmark Finland Norway Sweden1986 9 1986 21 1986 / 1986 2761987 18 1987 23 1987 / 1987 6671988 18 1988 25 1988 4 1988 1 1181989 35 1989 40 1989 4 1989 1 3601990 49 1990 62 1990 77 1990 1 8301991 134 1991 112 1991 227 1991 2 3151992 262 1992 186 1992 356 1992 3 2281993 546 1993 343 1993 512 1993 4 5371994 704 1994 456 1994 618 1994 4 7781995 839 1995 519 1995 722 1995 5 1611996 887 1996 594 1996 702 1996 4 8231997 1 022 1997 646 1997 739 1997 4 7901998 968 1998 693 1998 772 1998 4 9891999 1 204 1999 726 1999 984 1999 5 077Total 6 695 Total 4 446 Total 5 718 Total 44 949

Denmark n Average percentile score

Standardized score Proportion in the highest 10 %

Proportion in the lowest 10 %

Native-born majority population 653 314 50,7 0,0 9,7 9,1female 320 673 55,3 0,2 12,3 6,3male 332 641 46,3 -0,1 7,2 11,8Refugees, arriving before age 7 8 105 37,9 -0,5 3,7 20,8female 3 934 41,9 -0,3 5,0 16,7male 4 171 34,2 -0,6 2,5 24,6Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 7 378 29,0 -0,8 2,4 33,0female 3 370 33,4 -0,6 3,6 27,2male 4 008 25,3 -1,0 1,4 38,0Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 428 21,9 -1,1 1,4 40,0female 194 25,8 -0,9 1,5 29,9male 234 18,6 -1,2 1,3 48,3Non-refugee migrants 7 995 37,5 -0,5 5,3 22,4female 3 998 40,9 -0,3 6,7 18,2male 3 997 34,1 -0,6 4,0 26,5Native-born children of refugees 6 091 39,1 -0,4 4,5 19,6female 3 034 42,9 -0,3 5,5 15,9male 3 057 35,4 -0,5 3,5 23,2Native-born children of non-refugees 35 299 38,3 -0,4 4,8 21,7female 17 331 42,3 -0,3 6,1 17,2male 17 968 34,4 -0,6 3,4 26,1Total 718 610 49,5 0,0 9,2 10,4female 352 534 54,0 0,1 11,7 7,4male 366 076 45,1 -0,2 6,8 13,2


58

Norway n Average percentile score

Standardized score Proportion in the highest 10%


Native-born majority population 684 386 52,2 0,0 10,3 9,2female 337 878 57,1 0,2 13,1 6,8male 346 508 47,5 -0,1 7,6 11,5Refugees, arriving before age 7 8 417 37,0 -0,5 4,0 22,3female 4 022 42,0 -0,3 5,2 17,2male 4 395 32,3 -0,6 2,8 26,9Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 9 308 28,9 -0,8 1,9 30,3female 4 383 33,5 -0,6 2,5 24,0male 4 925 24,8 -0,9 1,3 35,9Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 1 929 27,5 -0,8 1,6 30,4female 790 30,1 -0,7 1,7 26,7male 1 139 25,7 -0,9 1,6 32,9Non-refugee migrants 11 485 40,7 -0,4 6,0 19,0female 5 698 45,5 -0,2 7,1 14,7male 5 787 36,0 -0,5 4,9 23,2Native-born children of refugees 4 389 43,5 -0,3 6,9 17,0female 2 144 48,8 -0,1 9,3 13,2male 2 245 38,4 -0,4 4,6 20,7Native-born children of non-refugees 19 314 45,4 -0,2 7,5 15,5female 9 387 51,0 0,0 9,6 11,1male 9 927 40,2 -0,4 5,5 19,7Total 739 228 51,3 0,0 10,0 10,0female 364 302 56,2 0,2 12,7 7,4male 374 926 46,5 -0,2 7,3 12,5

Sweden n Average percentile score

Standardized score Proportion in the highest 10%


Native-born majority population 2 179 195 51,4 0,1 10,3 8,2female 1 058 410 57,5 0,2 14,3 6,2male 1 120 785 45,7 -0,1 6,6 10,0Refugees, arriving before age 7 34 690 45,2 -0,2 6,0 12,8female 16 765 50,1 0,0 8,3 10,3male 17 925 40,6 -0,3 3,8 15,1Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 54 368 36,4 -0,5 4,1 21,5female 25 845 41,0 -0,3 5,7 18,0male 28 523 32,3 -0,6 2,6 24,7Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 6 283 25,1 -1,3 1,5 46,4female 2 894 23,4 -1,3 1,8 45,3male 3 389 21,2 -1,4 1,3 47,3Non-refugee migrants 35 845 45,6 -0,2 9,1 16,0female 17 260 50,3 -0,1 12,7 14,0male 18 585 41,2 -0,3 5,8 18,0Native-born children of refugees 42 893 48,9 0,0 7,5 10,7female 21 131 53,9 0,1 10,1 8,6male 21 762 44,1 -0,2 4,9 12,8Native-born children of non-refugees 72 562 49,2 -0,1 8,8 12,0female 35 439 54,1 0,1 11,7 10,1male 37 123 44,6 -0,2 6,0 13,7Total 2 425 836 50,7 0,0 10,0 8,9female 1 177 744 56,6 0,2 13,8 6,9male 1 248 092 45,1 -0,1 6,4 10,8


59

Table 4b. Average school marks in ninth grade among refugee students by country of origin.

Denmark nAverage

percentile score Standardized scoreProportion in

the highest 10 %Proportion in

the lowest 10 %

Afghanistan 2 963 37,6 -0,5 3,4 20,6female 1 366 41,7 -0,3 4,6 16,3male 1 597 34,2 -0,6 2,4 24,2Iran 672 34,7 -0,6 3,3 24,3female 307 38,9 -0,4 4,2 18,2male 365 31,1 -0,7 2,5 29,3Iraq 4 071 29,9 -0,8 2,3 31,6female 1 928 34,1 -0,6 3,2 24,8male 2 143 26,1 -0,9 1,4 37,7Somalia 1 696 23,9 -1,0 0,5 39,3female 818 26,5 -0,9 0,9 34,7male 878 21,5 -1,1 0,2 43,6former Yugoslavia 3 612 38,1 -0,5 4,4 22,6female 1 718 42,9 -0,3 6,3 17,6male 1 894 33,8 -0,6 2,6 27,1Total 13 014 33,4 -0,6 2,9 27,2female 6 137 37,5 -0,5 4,1 21,9male 6 877 29,8 -0,8 1,9 32,0

Norway nAverage



the lowest 10 %

Afghanistan 1 614 34,7 -0,6 3,1 21,1female 697 39,2 -0,4 4,6 17,4male 917 31,3 -0,7 2,0 24,0Iran 1 417 33,7 -0,6 3,5 25,0female 642 36,9 -0,5 3,3 21,8male 775 31,1 -0,7 3,7 27,6Iraq 3 847 29,5 -0,7 2,3 30,1female 1 746 34,2 -0,6 2,9 23,5male 2 101 25,5 -0,9 1,8 35,7Somalia 2 443 23,4 -0,9 0,7 37,9female 1 165 29,0 -0,8 0,9 28,1male 1 278 18,3 -1,1 0,5 46,8former Yugoslavia 4 195 37,4 -0,5 4,1 22,4female 2 017 42,7 -0,3 5,9 17,3male 2 178 32,5 -0,6 2,4 27,0Total 13 516 31,9 -0,7 2,8 27,5female 6 267 36,8 -0,5 3,7 21,5male 7 249 27,7 -0,8 2,0 32,7

Sweden nAverage



the lowest 10 %

Afghanistan 2 573 40,3 -0,4 4,7 21,9female 1 154 44,5 -0,3 6,2 19,6male 1 419 36,9 -0,5 3,4 23,8Iran 9 520 45,7 -0,2 7,9 12,8female 4 229 50,7 0,0 10,5 10,3male 5 291 41,6 -0,3 5,8 14,8Iraq 17 655 35,1 -0,6 3,3 26,8female 8 421 39,3 -0,5 4,6 23,2male 9 234 31,3 -0,8 2,2 30,1Somalia 3 636 27,2 -0,9 0,8 33,1female 1 682 30,5 -0,8 1,3 30,8male 1 954 24,4 -1,0 0,4 35,0former Yugoslavia 12 696 33,1 -0,6 2,6 23,9female 6 145 37,1 -0,5 3,7 20,2male 6 551 29,3 -0,8 1,5 27,3Total 46 080 36,4 -0,5 3,9 23,3female 21 631 40,5 -0,4 5,3 20,2male 34 449 32,8 -0,7 2,7 26,0


60

Table 5a. Upper secondary education drop-outs among the study populations.

n % n % n % n %Native-born majority population 714 081 83,6 93 358 10,9 47 216 5,5 123 838 12,7female 348 724 84,9 41 458 10,1 20 690 5,0 54 745 11,8male 365 357 82,3 51 900 11,7 26 526 6,0 69 093 13,5Refugee migrants 8 724 58,0 4 636 30,8 1 694 11,3 4 537 23,2female 4 274 64,7 1 697 25,7 636 9,6 1 975 23,0male 4 450 52,7 2 939 34,8 1 058 12,5 2 562 23,3Native-born children of refugees 67 58,8 26 22,8 21 18,4 15 11,6female 44 68,8 7 10,9 13 20,3 8 11,1male 23 46,0 19 38,0 8 16,0 7 12,3Non-refugee migrants 5 296 58,4 2 753 30,3 1 022 11,3 4 569 33,5female 2 841 63,1 1 187 26,4 471 10,5 2 343 34,2male 2 455 53,7 1 566 34,3 551 12,1 2 226 32,7Native-born children of non-refugees 6 202 67,3 2 280 24,8 730 7,9 942 9,3female 3 260 74,2 830 18,9 303 6,9 362 7,6male 2 942 61,1 1 450 30,1 427 8,9 580 10,7Total 734 370 82,7 103 053 11,6 50 683 5,7 133 901 13,1female 359 143 84,2 45 179 10,6 22 113 5,2 59 433 12,2male 375 227 81,3 57 874 12,5 28 570 6,2 74 468 13,9

Denmark Graduated Drop-outsStil l in secondary

educationDid not start

secondary

n % n % n % n %Native-born majority population 9 941 77,3 1 096 8,5 1 827 14,2 711 5,2female 4 899 79,6 365 5,9 890 14,5 267 4,2male 5 042 75,1 731 10,9 937 14,0 444 6,2Refugee migrants 2 291 55,9 1 242 30,3 563 13,8 1 331 24,5female 1 041 60,7 426 24,8 249 14,5 632 26,9male 1 250 52,5 816 34,3 314 13,2 699 22,7Native-born children of refugees 65 47,5 15 11,0 57 41,5 18 11,6female 31 50,0 / 3,2 29 46,8 10 13,9male 34 45,3 13 17,4 28 37,3 8 9,6Non-refugee migrants 4 557 69,7 1 205 18,4 776 11,9 986 13,1female 2 198 73,7 407 13,6 379 12,7 449 13,1male 2 359 66,4 798 22,4 397 11,2 537 13,1Native-born children of non-refugees 58 45,0 14 10,9 57 44,1 20 13,4female 33 51,6 4 6,3 27 42,1 12 15,8male 25 38,4 10 15,4 30 46,2 8 11,0Total 16 912 71,2 3 572 15,0 3 280 13,8 3 066 11,4female 8 202 74,7 1 204 11,0 1 574 14,3 1 370 11,1male 8 710 68,2 2 368 18,5 1 706 13,3 1 696 11,7

Finland Graduated Drop-outsStil l in secondary


secondary


61

Drop-out was measured seven years after graduation from compulsory school or at age 25 (if compulsory school information was unavailable) The percentage of persons who graduated, were drop-outs, and were still in secondary school totals to 100%, and percentages do not include those who did not start secondary educa-tion. The percentage of those who did not start secondary education refers to a percentage calculation that includes all categories of educational attainment in the table columns.

n % n % n % n %Native-born majority population 772 935 80,4 146 544 15,2 42 201 4,4 105 626 9,9female 389 258 82,4 65 240 13,8 17 680 3,7 44 517 8,6male 383 677 78,4 81 304 16,6 24 521 5,0 61 109 11,1Refugee migrants 9 934 71,3 3 056 21,9 947 6,8 4 456 24,2female 5 050 76,0 1 171 17,6 422 6,4 1 504 18,5male 4 884 67,0 1 885 25,8 525 7,2 2 952 28,8Native-born children of refugees 56 73,7 14 18,4 6 7,9 10 11,6female 32 0,8 8 2,1 / 0,0 4 8,7male 24 70,6 6 17,7 4 11,8 6 15,0Non-refugee migrants 7 226 72,6 2 163 21,7 563 5,7 2 921 22,7female 3 873 0,8 972 1,9 269 0,1 1 133 18,1male 3 353 69,3 1 191 24,6 294 6,1 1 788 27,0Native-born children of non-refugees 4 462 80,2 905 16,3 195 3,5 745 11,8female 2 353 0,8 376 1,3 85 0,0 250 8,2male 2 109 76,8 529 19,3 110 4,0 495 15,3Total 794 613 80,2 152 682 15,4 43 912 4,4 113 758 10,3female 400 566 0,8 67 767 1,4 18 458 0,0 47 408 8,9male 394 047 78,1 84 915 16,8 25 454 5,1 6 635 11,6

Did not start secondary

Stil l in secondary educationDrop-outsGraduatedNorway

n % n % n % n %Native-born majority population 853 611 91,5 72 457 7,8 6 513 0,7 17 638 1,9female 420 650 92,9 28 038 6,2 3 976 0,9 6 804 1,5male 432 961 90,2 44 419 9,3 2 537 0,5 10 834 2,2Refugee migrants 55 651 80,9 11 879 17,3 1 278 1,9 2 550 3,6female 27 485 84,3 4 379 13,4 728 2,2 1 205 3,6male 28 166 77,8 7 500 20,7 550 1,5 1345 3,6Native-born children of refugees 4 472 87,9 562 11,1 51 1,0 166 3,2female 2 301 90,5 217 8,5 23 1,0 76 2,9male 2 171 85,4 345 13,6 26 1,0 90 3,4Non-refugee migrants 16 515 78,5 4 218 20,0 319 1,5 1 960 8,5female 8 219 81,4 1 699 16,8 175 1,7 958 8,7male 8 296 75,7 2 519 23,0 144 1,3 1 002 8,4Native-born children of non-refugees 23 256 88,0 2905 10,9 281 1,06 1 046 3,8female 11 663 90,4 1 086 8,4 148 1,2 449 3,4male 11 593 85,6 1 819 13,4 133 1,0 597 4,2Total 953 505 90,5 92 021 8,7 8 442 0,8 23360 2,2female 470 318 90,4 35 419 6,8 5 052 1,0 9 492 1,8male 483 187 89,0 56 602 10,4 3 390 0,6 13868 2,5

Did not start secondary Drop-outs

Stil l in secondary educationSweden Graduated


62

Table 5b. Upper secondary education drop-outs among refugees by country of origin.

n % n % n % n %Afghanistan 824 59,7 372 27,0 184 13,3 281 16,9female 390 68,4 110 19,3 70 12,3 109 16,1male 434 53,6 262 32,3 114 14,1 172 17,5Iran 769 61,8 347 27,9 128 10,3 205 14,1female 357 67,6 131 24,8 40 7,6 79 13,0male 412 57,5 216 30,2 88 12,3 126 15,0Iraq 1 198 50,5 866 36,5 307 12,9 819 25,7female 591 57,6 318 31,0 117 11,4 339 24,8male 607 45,1 548 40,7 190 14,1 480 26,3Somalia 498 38,0 591 45,1 220 16,8 832 38,9female 269 51,1 169 32,1 88 16,7 354 40,2male 229 29,2 422 53,9 132 16,9 478 37,9former Yugoslavia 2 774 71,1 829 21,3 296 7,6 466 10,7female 1 429 76,9 320 17,2 109 5,9 222 10,7male 1 345 65,9 509 24,9 187 9,2 244 10,7Total 6 063 59,4 3 005 29,5 1 135 11,1 2 603 20,3female 3 036 67,3 1 048 23,2 424 9,4 1 103 19,7male 3 027 53,2 1 957 34,4 711 12,5 1 500 20,8

Denmark Graduated Drop-outsStil l in secondary


secondary

n % n % n % n %Afghanistan 136 60,4 42 18,7 47 20,9 33 12,8female 71 68,3 13 12,5 20 19,2 13 11,1male 65 53,7 29 24,0 27 22,3 20 14,2Iran 196 57,7 94 27,7 50 14,6 59 14,8female 88 63,3 31 22,3 20 14,4 21 13,1male 108 53,7 63 31,4 30 14,9 38 15,9Iraq 357 50,6 215 30,5 133 18,9 207 22,7female 170 54,8 82 26,5 58 18,7 99 25,2male 187 47,3 133 33,7 75 19,0 108 21,5Somalia 415 41,6 472 47,3 110 11,1 552 35,6female 166 46,6 141 39,6 49 13,8 271 43,2male 249 38,9 331 51,6 61 9,5 281 30,5former Yugoslavia 588 64,8 199 21,9 121 13,3 172 15,9female 273 69,1 75 19,0 47 11,9 83 17,4male 315 61,4 124 24,2 74 14,4 89 14,8Total 1 692 53,3 1 022 32,2 461 14,5 1 023 24,4female 768 58,9 342 26,2 194 14,9 487 27,2male 924 49,4 680 36,3 267 14,3 536 22,3

Finland Graduated Drop-outsStil l in secondary


secondary


63

Drop-out was measured seven years after graduation from compulsory school or at age 25 (if compulsory school information was unavailable) The percentage of persons who graduated, were drop-outs, and were still in secondary school totals to 100%, and percentages do not include those who did not start secondary educa-tion. The percentage of those who did not start secondary education refers to a percentage calculation that includes all categories of educational attainment in the table columns.

n % n % n % n %Afghanistan 451 68,1 160 24,2 51 7,7 185 21,8female 191 74,0 44 17,1 23 8,9 47 15,4male 260 64,4 116 28,7 28 6,9 138 25,5Iran 1 263 73,7 344 20,1 106 6,2 347 16,8female 615 76,7 134 16,7 53 6,6 121 13,1male 648 71,1 210 23,1 53 5,8 226 19,9Iraq 1 138 64,5 475 26,9 151 8,6 754 29,9female 559 70,0 175 21,9 65 8,1 228 22,2male 579 60,0 300 31,1 86 8,9 526 35,3Somalia 759 56,1 406 30,0 187 13,8 731 35,1female 379 61,0 158 25,4 84 13,5 243 28,1male 380 52,0 248 33,9 103 14,1 488 40,0former Yugoslavia 3 155 79,4 684 17,2 135 3,4 937 19,1female 1 674 83,3 283 14,1 52 2,6 342 14,6male 1 481 75,4 401 20,4 83 4,2 595 23,2Total 6 766 71,5 2 069 21,9 630 6,7 2 954 23,8female 3 418 76,1 794 17,7 277 6,2 981 17,9male 3 348 67,3 1 275 25,6 353 7,1 1 973 15,4

Graduated Drop-outsStil l in secondary

education NorwayDid not start

secondary

n % n % n % n %Afghanistan 1 451 82,8 261 14,9 40 2,3 36 2,0female 626 85,2 84 11,4 25 3,4 16 2,1male 825 81,1 177 17,4 15 1,5 20 1,9Iran 6 232 87,1 829 11,6 93 1,3 161 2,2female 2 973 90,3 279 8,5 42 1,3 80 2,4male 3 259 84,4 550 14,3 51 1,3 81 2,1Iraq 8 703 74,4 2 668 22,8 324 2,8 415 3,4female 4 336 80,4 866 16,1 194 3,6 171 3,1male 4 367 69,3 1 802 28,6 130 2,1 244 3,7Somalia 1 928 64,3 945 31,5 125 4,2 489 14,0female 887 66,3 387 28,9 64 4,8 230 14,7male 1 041 62,7 558 33,6 61 3,7 259 13,5former Yugoslavia 8 307 78,8 2 067 19,6 173 1,6 344 3,2female 4 125 81,5 818 16,2 119 2,4 163 3,1male 4 182 76,2 1 249 22,8 54 1,0 181 3,2Total 26 621 78,0 6 770 19,8 755 2,2 1 445 4,1female 12 947 81,8 2 434 15,4 444 2,8 660 4,0male 13 674 74,6 4 336 23,7 311 1,7 785 4,1

Did not start secondary Drop-outs

Stil l in secondary education Sweden Graduated


64

Table 6a: Completed upper secondary education by age 25 among the study populations.

Denmark

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 762 186 77,9 216 318 22,1 978 504 100female 374 046 80,3 91 574 19,7 465 620 100male 388 140 75,7 124 744 24,3 512 884 100Refugees, arriving before age 7 2 804 64,7 1 528 35,3 4 332 100female 1 356 70,8 559 29,2 1 915 100male 1 448 59,9 969 40,1 2 417 100Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 5 796 53,8 4 986 46,2 10 782 100female 2 880 60,8 1 854 39,2 4 734 100male 2 916 48,2 3 132 51,8 6 048 100Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 1 619 36,1 2 864 63,9 4 483 100female 774 40,0 1 163 60,0 1 937 100male 845 33,2 1 701 66,8 2 546 100Native-born children of refugees 82 63,6 47 36,4 129 100female 48 66,7 24 33,3 72 100male 34 59,6 23 40,4 57 100Non-refugee migrants 6 585 48,3 7 060 51,7 13 645 100female 3 581 52,3 3 262 47,7 6 843 100male 3 004 44,2 3 798 55,8 6 802 100Native-born children of non-refugees 6 964 68,6 3 192 31,4 10 156 100female 3 654 76,8 1 102 23,2 4 756 100male 3 310 61,3 2 090 38,7 5 400 100Total 786 036 76,9 235 995 23,1 1 022 031 100female 386 339 79,5 99 538 20,5 485 877 100male 399 697 74,5 136 457 25,5 536 154 100

Not completedSecondary Education at Age 25

Completed Total

Finland

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 11 579 85,3 1996 14,7 13 575 100female 5 714 89,0 707 11,0 6 421 100male 5 865 82,0 1 289 18,0 7 154 100Refugees, arriving before age 7 647 58,3 462 41,7 1 109 100female 299 59,7 202 40,3 501 100male 348 57,2 260 42,8 608 100Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 1 513 53,5 1 313 46,5 2 826 100female 698 57,9 508 42,1 1 206 100male 815 50,3 805 49,7 1 620 100Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 542 36,3 950 63,7 1 492 100female 236 36,8 405 63,2 641 100male 306 36,0 545 64,0 851 100Native-born children of refugees 112 72,3 43 27,7 155 100female 54 75,0 18 25,0 72 100male 58 69,9 25 30,1 83 100Non-refugee migrants 5 158 68,6 2 366 31,4 7 524 100female 2 497 72,7 936 27,3 3 433 100male 2 661 65,0 1 430 35,0 4 091 100Native-born children of non-refugees 105 70,5 44 29,5 149 100female 56 73,7 20 26,3 76 100male 49 67,1 24 32,9 73 100Total 19 656 73,3 7 174 26,7 26 830 100female 9 554 77,4 2 796 22,6 12 350 100male 10 102 69,8 4 378 30,2 14 480 100

Secondary Education at Age 25Completed Not Completed Total


65

Norway

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 838 869 78,6 228 437 21,4 1 067 306 100female 418 290 81,0 98 405 19,1 516 695 100male 420 579 76,4 130 032 23,6 550 611 100Refugees, arriving before age 7 2 694 65,6 1412 34,4 4 106 100female 1 400 72,3 537 27,7 1 937 100male 1 294 59,7 875 40,3 2 169 100Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 5 542 57,3 4131 42,7 9 673 100female 2 865 64,7 1561 35,3 4 426 100male 2 677 51,0 2570 49,0 5 247 100Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 2 117 45,9 2497 54,1 4 614 100female 936 52,5 848 47,5 1 784 100male 1 181 41,7 1649 58,3 2 830 100Native-born children of refugees 60 69,8 26 30,2 86 100female 33 71,7 13 28,3 46 100male 27 67,5 13 32,5 40 100Non-refugee migrants 7 649 59,4 5 224 40,6 12 873 100female 4 044 64,7 2203 35,3 6 247 100male 3 605 54,4 3021 45,6 6 626 100Native-born children of non-refugees 4 553 72,2 1 754 27,8 6 307 100female 2 399 78,3 665 21,7 3 064 100male 2 154 66,4 1089 33,6 3 243 100Total 861 484 78,0 243 481 22,0 1 104 965 100female 429 967 80,5 104 232 19,5 534 199 100male 431 517 75,6 139 249 24,4 570 766 100


Sweden

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 1 475 188 88,9 185 138 11,2 1 660 326 100female 723598 90,1 79 600 9,9 803 198 100male 751 590 87,7 105 538 12,3 857 128 100Refugees, arriving before age 7 17 669 83,7 3 434 16,3 21 103 100female 8 624 85,8 1 429 14,2 10 053 100male 9 045 81,9 2 005 18,1 11 050 100Refugees, arriving 7-14 yrs. 35 097 77,1 10 450 22,9 45 547 100female 17 119 80,0 4 272 20,0 21 391 100male 17 978 74,4 6 178 25,6 24 156 100Refugees, arriving 15-17 yrs. 13 042 68,6 5 961 31,4 19 003 100female 6 088 70,6 2 532 29,4 8 620 100male 6 954 67,0 3 429 33,0 10 383 100Native-born children of refugees 4 422 84,2 829 15,8 5 251 100female 2 268 86,6 351 13,4 2 619 100male 2 154 81,8 478 18,2 2 632 100Non-refugee migrants 20 707 65,8 10 761 34,2 31 468 100female 10 211 66,9 5 062 33,1 15 273 100male 10496 64,8 5699 35,2 16195 100Native-born children of non-refugees 23 021 83,8 4 467 16,3 27 488 100female 11 510 86,2 1 836 13,8 13 346 100male 11 511 81,4 2 631 18,6 14 142 100Total 1 589 146 87,8 221 040 12,2 1 810 186 100female 779 418 89,1 95 082 10,9 874 500 100male 809 728 86,5 125 958 13,5 935 686 100



66

Table 6b: Completed upper secondary education by age 25 among refugees by country of origin.

Denmark

n % n % n %Afghanistan 990 59,6 672 40,4 1 662 100female 474 69,7 206 30,3 680 100male 516 52,5 466 47,5 982 100Iran 897 61,9 552 38,1 1 449 100female 416 68,5 191 31,5 607 100male 481 57,1 361 42,9 842 100Iraq 1 473 46,1 1 720 53,9 3 193 100female 733 53,6 634 46,4 1 367 100male 740 40,5 1 086 59,5 1 826 100Somalia 631 29,5 1 511 70,5 2 142 100female 337 38,3 544 61,7 881 100male 294 23,3 967 76,7 1 261 100former Yugoslavia 3 008 68,9 1 357 31,1 4 365 100female 1 546 74,3 534 25,7 2 080 100male 1 462 64,0 823 36,0 2 285 100Total 6 999 54,6 5 812 45,4 12 811 100female 3 506 62,4 2 109 37,6 5 615 100male 3 493 48,5 3 703 51,5 7 196 100

Secondary Education at Age 25Completed Not completed Total

Finland

n % n % n %Afghanistan 168 65,1 90 34,9 258 100female 84 71,8 33 28,2 117 100male 84 59,6 57 40,4 141 100Iran 230 57,6 169 42,4 399 100female 102 63,8 58 36,2 160 100male 128 53,6 111 46,4 239 100Iraq 457 50,1 455 49,9 912 100female 216 52,8 193 47,2 409 100male 241 47,9 262 52,1 503 100Somalia 485 31,3 1 064 68,7 1 549 100female 197 31,4 430 68,6 627 100male 288 31,2 634 68,8 922 100former Yugoslavia 684 63,3 396 36,7 1 080 100female 314 65,7 164 34,3 478 100male 370 61,5 232 38,5 602 100Total 2 024 48,2 2 174 51,8 4 198 100female 913 51,0 878 49,0 1791 100male 1 111 46,2 1 296 53,8 2 407 100



67

Norway

n % n % n %Afghanistan 460 54,3 387 45,7 847 100female 195 63,9 110 36,1 305 100male 265 48,9 277 51,1 542 100Iran 1 328 64,5 732 35,5 2 060 100female 645 69,9 278 30,1 923 100male 683 60,1 454 39,9 1 137 100Iraq 1 183 47,0 1 335 53,0 2 518 100female 584 56,9 443 43,1 1 027 100male 599 40,2 892 59,8 1 491 100Somalia 806 38,7 1 277 61,3 2 083 100female 391 45,3 473 54,8 864 100male 415 34,0 804 66,0 1 219 100former Yugoslavia 3 245 66,1 1 666 33,9 4 911 100female 1 695 72,1 656 27,9 2 351 100male 1 550 60,6 1 010 39,5 2 560 100Total 7 022 56,5 5 397 43,5 12 419 100female 3 510 64,2 1 960 35,8 5 470 100male 3 512 50,5 3 437 49,5 6 949 100

TotalCompleted Not Completed Secondary Education at Age 25

Sweden

n % n % n %Afghanistan 1 500 80,2 370 19,8 1 870 100female 633 81,3 146 18,7 779 100male 867 79,5 224 20,5 1 091 100Iran 8 383 83,8 1 625 16,2 10 008 100female 3 816 86,4 600 13,6 4 416 100male 4 567 81,7 1 025 18,3 5 592 100Iraq 3 733 71,3 9 277 28,7 13 010 100female 4 564 23,5 1 403 76,5 5 967 100male 4 713 33,1 2 330 66,9 7 043 100Somalia 1 875 55,8 2 371 44,2 4 246 100female 1 037 44,2 820 55,8 1 857 100male 1 334 44,2 1 055 55,8 2 389 100former Yugoslavia 2 861 75,9 8 985 24,2 11 846 100female 4 428 22,1 1 254 77,9 5 682 100male 4 557 26,1 1 607 73,9 6 164 100Total 30 516 74,5 10 464 25,5 40 980 100female 14 478 77,4 4 223 22,6 18 701 100male 16 038 72,0 6 241 28,0 22 279 100

Not Completed TotalSecondary Education at Age 25

Completed


68

Table 7a. Completed upper secondary educational track by age 25 among the study populations.

Denmark

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 377 918 57,1 283 732 42,9 0 0,0female 214 812 68,4 99 299 31,6 0 0,0male 163 106 46,9 184 433 53,1 0 0,0Refugee migrants 5 975 65,3 3 175 34,7 0 0,0female 3 018 68,7 1 375 31,3 0 0,0male 2 957 62,2 1 800 37,8 0 0,0Native-born children of refugees 52 70,3 22 29,7 0 0,0female 32 74,4 11 25,6 0 0,0male 20 64,5 11 35,5 0 0,0Non-refugee migrants 3 333 60,2 2 208 39,8 0 0,0female 1 844 63,2 1 075 36,8 0 0,0male 1 489 56,8 1 133 43,2 0 0,0Native-born children of non-refugees 4 785 75,4 1 562 24,6 0 0,0female 2 605 78,8 699 21,2 0 0,0male 2 180 71,6 863 28,4 0 0,0Total 392 063 57,4 290 699 42,6 0 0,0female 222 311 68,5 102 459 31,5 0 0,0male 169 752 47,4 188 240 52,6 0 0,0

Academic track vocational trackAge 25

no info on track

Finland

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 6 169 55,5 4 943 44,5 0 0,0female 3 622 65,3 1 926 34,7 0 0,0male 2 547 28,1 3 017 33,3 0 0,0Refugee migrants 807 35,6 1 460 64,4 0 0,0female 414 38,7 655 61,3 0 0,0male 393 32,8 805 67,2 0 0,0Native-born children of refugees 68 67,3 33 32,7 0 0,0female 35 71,4 14 28,6 0 0,0male 33 63,5 19 36,5 0 0,0Non-refugee migrants 2 315 52,4 2 102 47,6 0 0,0female 1 315 59,4 897 40,6 0 0,0male 1 000 45,4 1 205 54,6 0 0,0Native-born children of non-refugees 70 74,5 24 25,5 0 0,0female 40 78,4 11 21,6 0 0,0male 30 69,8 13 30,2 0 0,0Total 9 429 52,4 8 562 47,6 0 0,0female 5 426 60,8 3 503 39,2 0 0,0male 4 003 44,2 5 059 55,8 0 0,0

Academic track vocational trackAge 25

no info on track


69

Norway

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 691 498 70,9 283 661 29,1 0 0,0female 399 591 81,2 92 342 18,8 0 0,0male 291 907 60,4 191 319 39,6 0 0,0Refugee migrants 10 228 73,3 3 719 26,7 0 0,0female 5 377 74,1 1 875 25,9 0 0,0male 4 851 72,5 1 844 27,5 0 0,0Native-born children of refugees 1 750 89,1 213 10,9 0 0,0female 964 89,6 112 10,4 0 0,0male 786 88,6 101 11,4 0 0,0Non-refugee migrants 7 305 74,1 2 558 25,9 0 0,0female 4 093 77,3 1 200 22,7 0 0,0male 3 212 70,3 1 358 29,7 0 0,0Native-born children of non-refugees 9 488 85,5 1 611 14,5 0 0,0female 5 164 86,7 791 13,3 0 0,0male 4 324 84,1 820 15,9 0 0,0Total 720 269 71,2 291 762 28,8 0 0,0female 415 189 81,2 96 320 18,8 0 0,0male 305 080 61,0 195 442 39,0 0 0,0

no info on trackAcademic trackAge 25

vocational track

Sweden

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 693 935 49,1 661 705 46,8 58 207 4,1female 354 853 51,3 305 467 44,2 30 814 4,5male 339 082 46,9 356 238 49,3 27 393 3,8Refugee migrants 30 046 51,1 24 102 41,0 4 638 7,9female 15 918 55,4 10 743 37,4 2 065 7,2male 14 128 47,0 13 359 44,4 2 573 8,6Native-born children of refugees 2 668 60,8 1 540 35,1 182 4,2female 1 455 64,2 705 31,1 105 4,6male 1 213 57,1 835 39,3 77 3,6Non-refugee migrants 10 876 55,7 7 510 38,5 1 141 5,8female 5 707 58,9 3 469 35,8 514 5,3male 5 169 52,6 4 041 41,1 627 6,4Native-born children of non-refugees 13 969 61,3 7 799 34,2 1 008 4,4female 7 503 65,9 3 401 29,9 477 4,2male 6 466 56,7 4 398 38,6 531 4,7Total 751 494 49,5 702 656 46,3 65 176 4,3female 385 436 51,9 323 785 43,6 33 975 4,6male 366 058 47,2 378 871 48,8 31 201 4,0

no info on trackAge 25

Academic track vocational track


70

Table 7b. Completed upper secondary educational track by age 25 among refugees by country of origin.

Denmark

n % n % n %Afghanistan 668 76,2 209 23,8 0 0,0female 305 73,3 111 26,7 0 0,0male 363 78,7 98 21,3 0 0,0Iran 685 82,5 145 17,5 0 0,0female 318 84,8 57 15,2 0 0,0male 367 80,7 88 19,3 0 0,0Iraq 864 66,5 435 33,5 0 0,0female 438 69,1 196 30,9 0 0,0male 426 64,1 239 35,9 0 0,0Somalia 329 58,0 238 42,0 0 0,0female 152 49,7 154 50,3 0 0,0male 177 67,8 84 32,2 0 0,0former Yugoslavia 1 601 58,3 1 146 41,7 0 0,0female 898 65,0 483 35,0 0 0,0male 703 51,5 663 48,5 0 0,0All 4 147 65,6 2 173 34,4 0 0,0female 2 111 67,8 1 001 32,2 0 0,0male 2 036 63,5 1 172 36,5 0 0,0

no info on trackAge 25

Academic track vocational track

Finland

n % n % n %Afghanistan 60 40,0 90 60,0 0 0,0female 23 31,5 50 68,5 0 0,0male 37 48,1 40 51,9 0 0,0Iran 97 47,1 109 52,9 0 0,0female 50 54,3 42 45,7 0 0,0male 47 41,2 67 58,8 0 0,0Iraq 117 28,4 295 71,6 0 0,0female 69 34,5 131 65,5 0 0,0male 48 22,6 164 77,4 0 0,0Somalia 137 38,8 216 61,2 0 0,0female 65 38,2 105 61,8 0 0,0male 72 39,3 111 60,7 0 0,0former Yugoslavia 160 27,6 419 72,4 0 0,0female 80 30,4 183 69,6 0 0,0male 80 25,3 236 74,7 0 0,0All 571 33,6 1 129 66,4 0 0,0female 287 36,0 511 64,0 0 0,0male 284 31,5 618 68,5 0 0,0

no info on trackAcademic track vocational trackAge 25


71

Norway

n % n % n %Afghanistan 660 76,4 204 23,6 0 0,0female 317 77,7 91 22,3 0 0,0male 343 75,2 113 24,8 0 0,0Iran 1 262 86,7 193 13,3 0 0,0female 644 89,1 79 10,9 0 0,0male 618 84,4 114 15,6 0 0,0Iraq 1 462 71,3 588 28,7 0 0,0female 760 72,0 296 28,0 0 0,0male 702 70,6 292 29,4 0 0,0Somalia 859 72,0 334 28,0 0 0,0female 436 67,4 211 32,6 0 0,0male 423 77,5 123 22,5 0 0,0former Yugoslavia 2 821 70,5 1 183 29,5 0 0,0female 1 549 73,5 559 26,5 0 0,0male 1 272 67,1 624 32,9 0 0,0All 7 064 73,8 2 502 26,2 0 0,0female 3 706 75,0 1 236 25,0 0 0,0male 3 358 72,6 1 266 27,4 0 0,0

Vocational trackAcademic trackAge 25

no info on track

Sweden

n % n % n %Afghanistan 708 54,3 477 36,6 120 9,2female 313 55,8 197 35,1 51 9,1male 395 53,1 280 37,6 69 9,3Iran 5 050 66,4 2 088 27,5 465 6,1female 2 491 71,0 818 23,3 199 5,7male 2 559 62,5 1 270 31,0 266 6,5Iraq 3 793 47,2 2 972 37,0 1 279 15,9female 2 055 51,7 1 347 33,9 575 14,5male 1 738 42,7 1 625 40,0 704 17,3Somalia 786 41,1 893 46,7 234 12,2female 357 42,8 383 45,9 95 11,4male 429 39,8 510 47,3 139 12,9former Yugoslavia 3 236 39,5 4 442 54,2 520 6,3female 1 772 43,4 2 064 50,6 246 6,0male 1 464 35,6 2 378 57,8 274 6,7All 13 573 50,2 10 872 40,2 2 618 9,7female 6 988 53,9 4 809 37,1 1 166 9,0male 6 585 46,7 6 063 43,0 1 452 10,3

Age 25Academic track vocational track no info on track


72

Table 8a: Completed higher education at age 30, among the study populations with completed upper sec-ondary education by age 25.

Denmark

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 196 262 33,8 385 168 66,2 581 430 100female 117 814 41,5 166 208 58,5 284 022 100male 78 448 26,4 218 960 73,6 297 408 100Refugee migrants 1 646 32,3 3 445 67,7 5 091 100female 918 37,8 1 508 62,2 2 426 100male 728 27,3 1 937 72,7 2 665 100Non-refugee migrants 1 010 26,7 2 776 73,3 3 786 100female 627 30,1 1 457 69,9 2 084 100male 383 22,5 1 319 77,5 1 702 100Total 198 918 33,7 391 389 66,3 590 307 100female 119 359 41,4 169 173 58,6 288 532 100male 79 559 26,4 222 216 73,6 301 775 100

Higher Education at Age 30Completed Not completed Total

Finland

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 1 680 28,9 4 134 71,1 5 814 100female 936 34,8 1 754 65,2 2 690 100male 744 23,8 2 380 76,2 3 124 100Refugee migrants 179 12,5 1 248 87,5 1 427 100female 81 12,7 558 87,3 639 100male 98 12,4 690 87,6 788 100Non-refugee migrants 664 22,6 2 279 77,4 2 943 100female 393 28,1 1 004 71,9 1 397 100male 271 17,5 1 275 82,5 1 546 100Total 2 523 24,8 7 661 75,2 10 184 100female 1 410 29,8 3 316 70,2 4 726 100male 1 113 20,4 4 345 79,6 5 458 100

Higher Education at Age 30Completed Not Completed Total

Norway

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 326 616 50,0 326 387 50,0 653 003 100female 190 246 58,6 134 652 41,4 324 898 100male 136 370 41,6 191 735 58,4 328 105 100Refugee migrants 2 736 48,6 2889 51,4 5 625 100female 1 475 53,5 1281 46,5 2 756 100male 1 261 44,0 1608 56,1 2 869 100Non-refugee migrants 2 148 46,4 2 478 53,6 4 626 100female 1 270 51,9 1175 48,1 2 445 100male 878 40,3 1303 59,7 2 181 100Total 331 500 50,0 331 754 50,0 663 254 100female 192 991 58,5 137 108 41,5 330 099 100male 138 509 41,6 194 646 58,4 333 155 100



73

Table 8b: Completed higher education at age 30 among refugees with completed upper secondary education by age 25, by country of origin.

Sweden

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 368 207 33,9 717 962 66,1 1 086 169 100female 216 980 40,8 314 883 59,2 531 863 100male 151 227 27,3 403 079 72,7 554 306 100Refugee migrants 10 791 27,9 27 878 72,1 38 669 100female 6 329 34,2 12 171 65,8 18 500 100male 4 462 22,1 15 707 77,9 20 169 100Non-refugee migrants 3 781 27,7 9 883 72,3 13 664 100female 2 205 32,4 4 600 67,6 6 805 100male 1 576 23,0 5 283 77,0 6 859 100Total 382 779 33,6 755 723 66,4 1 138 502 100female 225 514 40,5 331 654 59,5 557 168 100male 157 265 27,1 424 069 73,0 581 334 100


Denmark

n % n % n %Afghanistan 87 34,4 166 65,6 253 100female 40 36,4 70 63,6 110 100male 47 32,9 96 67,1 143 100Iran 270 43,7 348 56,3 618 100female 142 50,2 141 49,8 283 100male 128 38,2 207 61,8 335 100Iraq 186 36,6 322 63,4 508 100female 108 41,5 152 58,5 260 100male 78 31,5 170 68,5 248 100Somalia 39 17,5 184 82,5 223 100female 21 19,3 88 80,7 109 100male 18 15,8 96 84,2 114 100former Yugoslavia 467 32,7 962 67,3 1 429 100female 296 39,7 450 60,3 746 100male 171 25,0 512 75,0 683 100All 1 049 34,6 1 982 65,4 3 031 100female 607 40,3 901 59,7 1 508 100male 442 29,0 1 081 71,0 1 523 100

Completed Not completed TotalHigher Education at Age 30


74

Finland

n % n % n %Afghanistan 4 9,3 39 90,7 43 100female 4 14,3 24 85,7 28 100male 0 0,0 15 100,0 15 100Iran 24 19,5 99 80,5 123 100female 13 21,7 47 78,3 60 100male 11 17,5 52 82,5 63 100Iraq 17 9,1 169 90,9 186 100female 5 5,3 89 94,7 94 100male 12 13,0 80 87,0 92 100Somalia 24 9,0 244 91,0 268 100female 10 11,8 75 88,2 85 100male 14 7,7 169 92,4 183 100former Yugoslavia 30 8,5 322 91,5 352 100female 20 11,9 148 88,1 168 100male 10 5,4 174 94,6 184 100All 99 10,2 873 89,8 972 100female 52 12,0 383 88,0 435 100male 47 8,8 490 91,3 537 100

Completed Not Completed TotalHigher Education at Age 30

Norway

n % n % n %Afghanistan 51 48,6 54 51,4 105 100female 25 59,5 17 40,5 42 100male 26 41,3 37 58,7 63 100Iran 548 59,4 374 40,6 922 100female 270 60,5 176 39,5 446 100male 278 58,4 198 41,6 476 100Iraq 209 50,2 207 49,8 416 100female 113 57,4 84 42,6 197 100male 96 43,8 123 56,2 219 100Somalia 158 38,8 249 61,2 407 100female 67 44,4 84 55,6 151 100male 91 35,6 165 64,5 256 100former Yugoslavia 937 50,8 906 49,2 1 843 100female 552 58,1 398 41,9 950 100male 385 43,1 508 56,9 893 100All 1 903 51,5 1 790 48,5 3 693 100female 1 027 57,5 759 42,5 1 786 100male 876 45,9 1 031 54,1 1 907 100



75

Table 8c. Completed higher education at age 30 among the study populations.

Sweden

n % n % n %Afghanistan 164 29,0 402 71,0 566 100female 78 34,7 147 65,3 225 100male 86 25,2 255 74,8 341 100Iran 2 690 40,3 3 986 59,7 6 676 100female 1 416 47,1 1 590 52,9 3 006 100male 1 274 34,7 2 396 65,3 3 670 100Iraq 985 26,1 2 788 73,9 3 773 100female 586 32,2 1235 67,8 1821 100male 399 20,4 1553 79,6 1952 100Somalia 142 11,0 1 149 89,0 1 291 100female 74 14,2 449 85,9 523 100male 68 8,9 700 91,2 768 100former Yugoslavia 846 19,1 3 582 80,9 4 428 100female 544 24,7 1 662 75,3 2 206 100male 302 13,6 1 920 86,4 2 222 100All 4 827 28,9 11 907 71,2 16 734 100female 2 698 34,7 5 083 65,3 7 781 100male 2 129 23,8 6 824 76,2 8 953 100


Denmark

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 202 526 27,0 547 674 73,0 750 200 100female 122 111 34,3 233 894 65,7 356 005 100male 80 415 20,4 313 780 79,6 394 195 100Refugee migrants 1 737 15,9 9 189 84,1 10 926 100female 979 20,5 3 791 79,5 4 770 100male 758 12,3 5 398 87,7 6 156 100Non-refugee migrants 1 085 12,2 7 813 87,8 8 898 100female 679 14,9 3 879 85,1 4 558 100male 406 9,4 3 934 90,6 4 340 100Total 205 348 26,7 564 676 73,3 770 024 100female 123 769 33,9 241 564 66,1 365 333 100male 81 579 20,2 323 112 79,8 404 691 100


Finland

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 3 273 39,6 4 985 60,4 8 258 100female 1 945 49,0 2 025 51,0 3 970 100male 1 328 31,0 2 960 69,0 4 288 100Refugee migrants 307 10,4 2 647 89,6 2 954 100female 153 11,9 1 129 88,1 1 282 100male 154 9,2 1 518 90,8 1 672 100Non-refugee migrants 1 166 25,6 3 394 74,4 4 560 100female 709 33,2 1 426 66,8 2 135 100male 457 18,9 1 968 81,2 2 425 100Total 4 746 30,1 11 026 69,9 15 772 100female 2 807 38,0 4 580 62,0 7 387 100male 1 939 23,1 6 446 76,9 8 385 100

Not Completed TotalHigher Education at Age 30

Completed


76

Table 8d: Completed higher education among refugees by country of origin at age 30.

Norway

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 332 447 40,2 493 856 59,8 826 303 100female 193 478 48,3 206 765 51,7 400 243 100male 138 969 32,6 287 091 67,4 426 060 100Refugee migrants 2 842 28,6 7098 71,4 9 940 100female 1 535 35,4 2800 64,6 4 335 100male 307 23,3 4298 76,7 5 605 100Non-refugee migrants 2 251 28,0 5 796 72,0 8 047 100female 1 328 34,3 2549 65,8 3 877 100male 923 22,1 3247 77,9 4 170 100Total 337 540 40,0 506 750 60,0 844 290 100female 196 341 48,1 212 114 51,9 408 455 100male 141 199 32,4 294 636 67,6 435 835 100


Sweden

n % n % n %Native-born majority population 369 629 30,2 856 288 69,9 1 225 917 100female 217 830 36,8 374 829 63,3 592 659 100male 151 799 24,0 481 459 76,0 633 258 100Refugee migrants 10 847 21,1 40 562 78,9 51 409 100female 6 354 26,7 17 412 73,3 23 766 100male 4 493 16,3 23 150 83,8 27 643 100Non-refugee migrants 3 808 17,6 17 795 82,4 21 603 100female 2 223 21,0 8 358 79,0 10 581 100male 1 585 14,4 9 437 85,6 11 022 100Total 384 284 29,6 914 645 70,4 1 298 929 100female 226 407 36,1 400 599 63,9 627 006 100male 157 877 23,5 514 046 76,5 671 923 100

Higher Education at Age 30Not Completed TotalCompleted

Denmark

n % n % n %Afghanistan 93 17,5 438 82,5 531 100female 43 22,5 148 77,5 191 100male 50 14,7 290 85,3 340 100Iran 282 27,5 743 72,5 1 025 100female 151 36,0 269 64,0 420 100male 131 21,7 474 78,3 605 100Iraq 201 15,9 1 063 84,1 1 264 100female 118 20,9 446 79,1 564 100male 83 11,9 617 88,1 700 100Somalia 42 3,8 1 066 96,2 1 108 100female 21 4,9 407 95,1 428 100male 21 3,1 659 96,9 680 100former Yugoslavia 488 22,2 1 709 77,8 2 197 100female 311 29,2 753 70,8 1 064 100male 177 15,6 956 84,4 1 133 100All 1 106 18,1 5 019 81,9 6 125 100female 644 24,1 2 023 75,9 2 667 100male 462 13,4 2 996 86,6 3 458 100



77

Finland

n % n % n %Afghanistan 7 10,1 62 89,9 69 100female 6 16,7 30 83,3 36 100male / 3,0 32 97,0 33 100Iran 35 16,5 177 83,5 212 100female 20 20,4 78 79,6 98 100male 15 13,2 99 86,8 114 100Iraq 33 8,4 360 91,6 393 100female 15 8,2 169 91,9 184 100male 18 8,6 191 91,4 209 100Somalia 40 4,7 808 95,3 848 100female 16 4,9 313 95,1 329 100male 24 4,6 495 95,4 519 100former Yugoslavia 72 12,2 516 87,8 588 100female 46 17,7 214 82,3 260 100male 26 7,9 302 92,1 328 100All 187 8,9 1 923 91,1 2 110 100female 103 11,4 804 88,6 907 100male 84 7,0 1 119 93,0 1 203 100


Norway

n % n % n %Afghanistan 53 26,5 147 73,5 200 100female 27 41,5 38 58,5 65 100male 26 19,3 109 80,7 135 100Iran 567 41,0 816 59,0 1 383 100female 279 44,9 342 55,1 621 100male 288 37,8 474 62,2 762 100Iraq 220 22,5 758 77,5 978 100female 117 31,0 260 69,0 377 100male 103 17,1 498 82,9 601 100Somalia 169 15,7 907 84,3 1 076 100female 73 18,8 315 81,2 388 100male 96 14,0 592 86,1 688 100former Yugoslavia 963 34,7 1 809 65,3 2 772 100female 572 42,8 765 57,2 1 337 100male 391 27,3 1 044 72,8 1 435 100All 1 972 30,8 4 437 69,2 6 409 100female 1 068 38,3 1 720 61,7 2 788 100male 904 25,0 2 717 75,0 3 621 100



78

Sweden

n % n % n %Afghanistan 165 22,5 569 77,5 734 100female 78 27,5 206 72,5 284 100male 87 19,3 363 80,7 450 100Iran 2 705 33,9 5 279 66,1 7 984 100female 1 422 40,7 2 068 59,3 3 490 100male 1 283 28,6 3 211 71,5 4 494 100Iraq 990 17,5 4 682 82,6 5 672 100female 588 23,2 1948 76,8 2536 100male 402 12,8 2734 87,2 3136 100Somalia 145 5,8 2 348 94,2 2 493 100female 74 7,1 964 92,9 1 038 100male 71 4,9 1 384 95,1 1 455 100former Yugoslavia 847 13,9 5 251 86,1 6 098 100female 544 18,4 2 412 81,6 2 956 100male 303 9,6 2 839 90,4 3 142 100All 4 852 21,1 18 129 78,9 22 981 100female 2 706 26,3 7 598 73,7 10 304 100male 2 146 16,9 10 531 83,1 12 677 100

Completed Not CompletedHigher Education at Age 30

Total


79

About the project Coming of Age in Exile (CAGE)

CAGE is a research project based on collaboration be-tween five leading research institutions in the Nordic countries; the Danish Research Centre for Migration, Eth-nicity and Health, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Migration Institute of Finland, Finland; Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies and University College of Southeast Norway, Norway; and Centre for Health Equity Studies, Stockholm University and Univer-sity of Gothenburg, Sweden.

CAGE brings together a pan-Nordic, multidisciplinary team of leading scholars and research students to shed light on some of our time’s most pressing social chal-lenges related to the societal integration of young refu-gees. CAGE will provide analyses and insights to inform policy and practice related to health, education and em-ployment among young refugees arriving in the Nordic countries and beyond. CAGE is funded by the Nordic Re-search Council (NordForsk).

CAGE was developed within the “Nordic Network for Re-search on Refugee Children” and its sister network “Nor-dic Network for Research Cooperation on Unaccompa-nied Refugee Minors”.

You can read more about CAGE at www.cage.ku.dk

D A N I S H R E S E A R C H C E N T R E F O R M I G R A T I O N , E T H N I C I T Y A N D H E A L T H

cage.ku.dk · 1 day ago · EQUITY IN EDUCATION? 2 . Authors & Data Analysts . Andrea Dunlavy,...

Documents

Transcript of cage.ku.dk · 1 day ago · EQUITY IN EDUCATION? 2 . Authors & Data Analysts . Andrea Dunlavy,...