Due to the increase of immigration from other countries, schools have grown significantly in their diverse student population. Migration patterns have affected every aspect of society and especially educational system in many countries around the world, (UNESCO, 2018). One of the goals in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development introduced by the United Nations in 2015, it is to provide inclusive and equitable quality education for all (SDG4 United Nations, 2015).

In the Norwegian context, social and educational inclusion of children who have an immigrant background has become one of the current issues for Norwegian educational authorities (Ministry of Children Equality and Social Inclusion, 2012; Norwegian Government, 2017). However, previous studies report that newly arrived students of (16-24) age is the most vulnerable group of learners when it comes to  underachievement and completion of upper secondary education(Kirkeberg, Dzamarija, Bratholmen & Strøm, 2019). Recent publication from IMDI (2020) shows that newly arrived students  have the highest drop out in upper secondary education. Educational basis and marks from the end of lower secondary education can be one of the factors that influences the completion of upper secondary school (Kirkeberg, Dzamarija, Bratholmen & Strøm, 2019).  In 2015, there were registered 65 % of newly arrived students with the residence time in Norway from 0- 3 years who did not obtained school grades when leaving lower secondary education (Bjugstad, 2016).

In order to make upper secondary education accessible to newly arrived students, the Norwegian Government offers a training programme that provides more lover secondary education for newly arrived students and can last up to three years.  Recent rapports showed that there has been little research about education provisions for newly arrived students of the age group 16-19 who come to Norway late in their educational pathways, especially it concerns refugees and unaccompanied minors. Moreover, there is a need for more knowledge about organization, content and the scope of training programmes for newly arrived learners (Lidén, Aasen, Seeberg &Staver 2020; Svendsen, Berg, Paulsen, Garvik & Valenta 2018).

 The question that immerges is how educational system in Norway can secure effective transition and completion of upper secondary education by this group of students. Another question is how newly arrived students in a short period of time should in 1-3 years reach the level of as Norwegian born students would do in 10 years and in a foreign language. How educational system can ensure fear and inclusive educational provisions for newly arrived students and create conditions for them to develop as individuals and democratic citizens within the society.

Thus, the main aim of this paper is to investigate to what degree organizational structures and educational content of training programme in Oslo municipality contribute to social and educational inclusion of newly arrived students of (16-19) age and their preparedness to upper secondary education. 

For this study, I employ a theoretical framework, which focuses on inclusion vs. exclusion and its complex interplay. I also look at theoretical framework based on equity in education and integration. According to Luhman (1997), inclusion and exclusion is seen as a linked pair. Taking into account his system-theoretical perspective on inclusion vs. exclusion Luhman states that the systems have certain requirements that actually exclude those who do not fulfil the systems’ conditions. Newly arrived students in my study are included and excluded at the same time on different levels. So-called “Domino effect of exclusions” can influence not just newly arrived students’ integration but also their social positioning in Norwegian society and their place in the labor market in the future.

Qualitative research design is applied in this study. Semi–structured interviews were conducted in three different upper secondary schools that provide the training programme in Oslo municipality. Interviews were conducted with newly arrived students, teachers, school leaders and principals. Since the training programme can last up to three years, students were interviewed one month before finishing the training programme. Two representatives from Educational Directorate who are responsible for organizing and creating of the training programme in Oslo municipality were also interviewed. As the study deals with eliciting and analyzing the experiences of participants, a phenomenological research approach was applied to analyze the data. Themes that are included in interviews are: social and educational inclusion/ exclusion, integration of newly arrived students in the school environment and with Norwegian peers at school; localization of schools that provide the training programme and possible consequences for students’ inclusion and integration; curriculum for newly arrived students; motivation and opportunities to learn language through interaction with Norwegian peers; monitoring and following up implementation of the training programme at local level.

In this paper I expect to establish new insight into what inclusion means to newly arrived students and what inclusion means to the societal actors that are responsible for including them; actors who have the power to define inclusion and implement inclusion in education. As Luhman states, “The educational system creates internal inequalities, despite its symbolic value of equality” (Luhmann, 1997). In my study, newly arrived students are provided with the same educational rights as their Norwegian peers, but the question remains whether equal rights for education give them equal opportunities for completion of upper secondary education and their further career.

Bakken, A., & Hyggen, C. (2018). Trivsel og utdanningsdriv blant minoritetselever i videregående: Hvordan forstå karakterforskjeller mellom elever med ulik innvandrerbakgrunn? (NOVA Rapport 1/2018). Retrieved from http://www.hioa.no/Om-OsloMet/Senter-for-velferds-og-arbeidslivsforskning/NOVA/Publikasjonar/Rapporter/2018/Trivsel-og-utdanningsdriv-blant-minoritetselever-i-videregaaende Bunar, N. (2010). Choosing for quality or inequality: current perspectives on the implementation of school choice policy in Sweden. Journal of Education Policy, 25(1), 1-18. doi:10.1080/02680930903377415 Dewilde, J., & Kulbrandstad, L. A. (2016). Nyankomne barn og unge i den norske utdanningskonteksten. Haugen, C. R. (2019). Teachers´ experiences of school choice from ´marginalised´ and ´privileged´ public schools in Oslo. Journal of Education Policy, . doi:10.1080/02680939.2019.1587519 Hegna, K. (2013). Ungdom med innvandringsbakgrunn etter overgangen til videregående opplæring. Tapte nettverk og svekket skoletrivsel? Tidsskrift for ungdomsforskning, 13(1), 49-79. doi:http://www.nova.no/asset/6728/1/6728_1.pdf Hilt, L. T. (2015). Included as excluded and excluded as included: minority language pupils in Norwegian inclusion policy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(2), 165-182. doi:10.1080/13603116.2014.908966 Hilt, L. T., & Bøyum, S. (2015). Kulturelt mangfold og intern eksklusjon. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 99, 181-193. doi:https://www-idunn-no.ezproxy.inn.no//npt/2015/03-04 Hilt, L. T. (2016). ‘They don’t know what it means to be a student’: Inclusion and exclusion in the nexus between ‘global’ and ‘local’. Policy Futures in Education, 14(6), 666-686. doi:10.1177/1478210316645015 Hilt, L. T. (2017). Education without a shared language: dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in Norwegian introductory classes for newly arrived minority language students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(6), 585-601. doi:10.1080/13603116.2016.1223179 Ministry of Children Equality and Social Inclusion. (2012). A comprehensive integration policy: Diversity and community. (White Paper 6, 2012-2013). (2012). Oslo, Norway Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/bld/ima/integreringsmelding_mangfold_eng.pdf Luhmann, N. (1982) The World Society as a Social System. International Journal of General Systems 8: 131-138. Luhmann, N. (1993) Deconstruction as Second-Order Observing. New Literary History 24: 763-782. Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Luhmann, N. (1997) Globalization or world society: How to conceive of modern society? International Review of Sociology 7: 67-79. Nilsson, J., & Bunar, N. (2016). Educational Responses to Newly Arrived Students in Sweden: Understanding the Structure and Influence of Post-Migration Ecology. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(4), 399-416. doi:10.1080/00313831.2015.1024160 Rambøll. (2016). Evaluering av særskilt språkopplæring og innføringstilbud. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/tall-og-forskning/forskningsrapporter/evaluering-av-sarskilt-sprakopplaring-2016.pdf Thorud, E., Ministry of Justice and Public Security, Ministry of Education and Research, Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Ministry of Children and Equality, & Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ([2019]). Immigration and Integration 2017-2018: Report for Norway to the OECD. Retrieved from regjeringen.no