Review of Policies to Improve theEffectiveness of Resource Use in Schools
Country Background Report
Iceland

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture
December 2014
The OECD and the European Commission (EC) have established a partnership for the Project,
whereby participation costs of countries that are part of the European Union’s Erasmus+ program arepartly covered. The participation of Iceland was organized with the support of the EC in the context
of this partnership.
Disclaimer: This report was prepared by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Iceland, as an input
to the OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools (School Resources
Review). The document was prepared in response to guidelines the OECD provided to all countries. The
opinions expressed are not those of the OECD or its Member countries. Further information about the OECD
Review is available at www.oecd.org/edu/school/schoolresourcesreview.htm.

Iceland Country Background Report

2

Table of contents
List of tables and charts ...................................................................................................................... 4
List of abbreviations and glossary of terms ...................................................................................... 6
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................. 9
Chapter 1. The national context ....................................................................................................... 13
1.1 The economic and social context ............................................................................................ 13
1.2 Demographic developments.................................................................................................... 14
1.3 Political context........................................................................................................................ 17
1.4 Public sector management ...................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 2. The school system ........................................................................................................... 21
2.1 Organization of the school system ......................................................................................... 21
2.2 Education environment ........................................................................................................... 25
2.3 Objectives of the educational system and student learning objectives ............................... 28
2.4 Distribution of responsibilities within the school system ..................................................... 30
2.5 Market mechanisms in the school system ............................................................................. 33
2.6 Performance of the school system .......................................................................................... 34
2.7 Policy approaches to equity in education .............................................................................. 38
2.8 Main challenges ....................................................................................................................... 41
Chapter 3. Governance of resource use in schools ......................................................................... 44
3.1 Level of resources and policy concerns ................................................................................. 44
3.2 Sources of revenue ................................................................................................................... 46
3.3 Planning of resource use ......................................................................................................... 47
3.4 Implementation of policies to improve the effectiveness of resource use ........................... 50
3.5 Main challenges ....................................................................................................................... 50
Chapter 4. Resource distribution ..................................................................................................... 52
4.1 Distribution of resources between levels of the education administration......................... 52
4.2 Distribution of financial resources across resource types ................................................... 54
4.3 Distribution of resources between levels and sectors of the school system ........................ 56
4.4. Distribution of resources across individual schools ............................................................ 56
4.5 Distribution of school facilities and materials ...................................................................... 59
4.6 Distribution of teacher resources ........................................................................................... 63
4.7 Distribution of school leadership resources .......................................................................... 68
4.8 Distribution across specific student groups .......................................................................... 70
4.9 Main challenges ....................................................................................................................... 72
Chapter 5. Resource utilisation ........................................................................................................ 75
5.1 Matching resources to individual student learning needs ................................................... 75
5.2 Organization of student learning time................................................................................... 77
5.3 Allocation of teacher resources to students ........................................................................... 78
5.4 Organization of school leadership.......................................................................................... 88
5.5 Teaching and learning environment within schools ............................................................. 90
5.6 Use of school facilities and materials ..................................................................................... 93
5.7 Organization of education governance .................................................................................. 95
5.8 Main challenges ....................................................................................................................... 97

Iceland Country Background Report

3

Chapter 6. Resource management ................................................................................................... 99
6.1 Capacity building for resource management ........................................................................ 99
6.2 Monitoring of resource use ................................................................................................... 100
6.3 Transparency and reporting ................................................................................................ 101
6.4 Incentives for the effective use of resources ........................................................................ 102
6.5 Main challenges ..................................................................................................................... 103
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................... 104
Annex 1 Trends in the number of public and private schools, 1998 to 2012 ............................. 114
Annex 2 Comparison of teachers’ regular salaries to other occupations, 2013 ......................... 115
Annex 3 Comparison of teachers’ total salaries to other occupations with a graduate degree,
2013 ................................................................................................................................................... 116
Annex 4 Pre-primary school staff, other than teaching and management, 2004 to 2012 ......... 117
Annex 5 Compulsory school staff, other than teaching and management, 2004 to 2013 ......... 118
Annex 6 Upper secondary school staff, other than teaching and management, 2004 – 2012 ... 119

Iceland Country Background Report

4

List of tables and charts
Table 1 The age distribution of the labour force, 2000 to 2014 – number of individuals by age groups
16-24, 25-54 and 55-75 ....................................................................................................................... 15
Table 2 The number of unemployed individuals and rate of unemployment, 2005 - 2014 ................ 16
Table 3 Proportion of the population aged 16-29 in upper secondary and tertiary education, 2004 to2012 – by age ...................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 4 Proportion of foreign nationals in the local population, 2005 to 2013 .................................. 16
Table 5 The number of students in pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools, 2012 .... 22
Table 6 The number of students at all education levels by gender, 2004 to 2012 .............................. 35
Table 7 The education level of the population aged 25-64, 2004 to 2012 - proportions and by gender............................................................................................................................................................. 36
Table 8 The dropout rate of those students who enrolled in upper secondary school in 2004 - four, sixand seven years after enrolment, by gender and type of studies ......................................................... 36
Table 9 Average normal distribution of grades in Icelandic, math and English in 4th, 7th. and 10th
grade in compulsory schools, 2013 – by regions ................................................................................ 37
Table 10 Distribution of financial resources across the different levels of the education system, 2004
to 2013 – in million IKR and as a proportion of funding .................................................................... 44
Table 11 The average cost of spending per students at pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary
schools, 2004 to 2012 in million IKR ................................................................................................. 45
Table 12 Capital and current spending for the pre-primary schools, 2004 to 2012 – divided into
physical resources, employee cost and other resources ...................................................................... 54
Table 13 Capital and current spending for the compulsory schools, 2004 to 2012 – divided into
physical resources, employee cost and other resources ...................................................................... 55
Table 14 Capital and current cost for the upper secondary schools, 2004 to 2011 – divided into
physical resources, employee cost and other resources ...................................................................... 56
Table 15 The number of schools and students and average number of students by school level, 2004
to 2013 ................................................................................................................................................. 59
Table 16 The total number of staff in pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools, 2004 to2012 ..................................................................................................................................................... 63
Table 17 The composition of the employee body of all pre-primary schools, 2004 to 2012 – grouped
into school teachers, others with pedagogical education, unskilled employees with education
responsibilities and other / unspecified ............................................................................................... 64
Table 18 The composition of the employee body of all compulsory schools, 2004 to 2012 – grouped
into principals, assistant principals, department managers, teachers, special teachers, support
assistants and others/unspecified ......................................................................................................... 64
Table 19 The composition of the employee body in all upper secondary schools, 2004 to 2011 –grouped into principals, assistant principals, department managers, teachers, experts/specialized andothers ................................................................................................................................................... 65

Iceland Country Background Report

5

Table 20 School leadership by school level, profession, age and gender, 2014 ................................. 68
Table 21 The expected number of working hours of compulsory school teachers, and how they are
split between tasks ............................................................................................................................... 81
Table 22 The expected number of working hours of upper secondary school teachers...................... 83

Chart 1 The number of public and private pre-primary and compulsory schools, 1998 to 2012 ........ 26
Chart 2 Number of students in pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools, 2004 to 2013............................................................................................................................................................. 47
Chart 3 The size and number of pre-primary schools based on the number of students, 2012 ........... 59
Chart 4 The size and number of compulsory schools based on the number of students, 2012 ........... 60
Chart 5 The size and number of upper secondary schools based on the number of students, 2011 ... 61
Chart 6 School leadership by gender, proportions .............................................................................. 69
Chart 7 School leadership by age, proportions.................................................................................... 69
Chart 8 Average student/teacher ratio for the pre-primary schools, 2005 to 2012 ............................. 79
Chart 9 Average student/teacher ratio for the compulsory schools, 2004 to 2013 ............................. 79
Chart 10 Average teacher/student ratio for upper secondary schools, 2004 - 2011 ............................ 80
Chart 11 Comparison of teachers’ regular salaries to other occupations, 2013 – for pre-primary,compulsory and secondary school teachers, all state employees, all employees of the local
communities, all working in the duration sector and specialist in the private sector .......................... 84
Chart 12 Comparison of teachers’ total salaries to other occupations with a graduate degree, 2013 by pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary school teachers, all, state employees, employees of
the City of Reykjavík, other local communities, non-governmental, foundations, private companies
and self-employed owners ................................................................................................................... 85
Chart 13 The number of pre-primary school staff, other than teaching and management, 2004 to 2012
– by teaching and other support functions, kitchen, cleaning, and other/undefined ........................... 86
Chart 14 The number of compulsory school staff, other than teaching and management, 2004 to 2013
– by librarians / library staff, school psychologist and educational counsellors, school nurses, social
pedagogues, school assistants, secretaries and computer administrators, sport and recreational
assistants, dining room, janitors, hall monitors / shower monitors / cleaning assistants / student
assistants and other .............................................................................................................................. 87
Chart 15 The number of upper secondary school staff, other than teaching and management, 2004 to2012 – by experts and specialists, consultants and library, office and computer, facility
administrators and others ..................................................................................................................... 88
Chart 16 The proportional time compulsory school head teachers spend on different tasks, 2013 .... 89

Iceland Country Background Report

6

List of abbreviations and glossary of terms
Althing (IS Alþingi) – The national parliament of Iceland.
Collective labour agreement – The framework for the work and salaries of public employees isdetermined in collective labour agreements that apply to the whole country. An exception is thehighest level of employees whose salaries are frequently determined by a Salary Arbitrary
Committee.
Compulsory school (IS grunnskóli) – The second school level, primary and lower secondary
education typically in a single structure, compulsory for 6-16 year olds.
Hagstofa Íslands – Statistics Iceland, the centre for official statistics in Iceland, which collects,
processes and disseminates data on the economy and society.
Icelandic – The native and official language of Iceland, along with the Icelandic sign language.
Icelandic Student Loan Fund (IS Lánasjóður íslenskra námsmanna) – A state operated fund thatoffers student loans to those attending university and some upper secondary school studies.
Local communities – The second level of public administration in Iceland, with 74 municipalities
that govern local matters.
Local Council – A statutory body with responsibility for the governing and operation of the local
community, consisting of elected representatives.
National Centre for Educational Materials (IS Námsgagnastofnun) – A state operated institutionthat is responsible for developing and publishing educational materials for compulsory schools,
distributing them to schools free of charge. The Centre will merge with the National Testing Institutein July 2015.
National curriculum guidelines – Guidelines published by the state that all schools have to follow.
The guidelines determine the policy, objectives, subjects taught and the fundamental working
methods of a particular school level.
National standardized test - A test given in Icelandic and math in grades 4 and 7 in the compulsory
schools, and in Icelandic, math and English in grade 10.
National Testing Institute (IS Námsmatsstofnun) – A state operated institution that is responsible
for organising, setting and grading the nationally co-ordinated examinations and for undertaking
comparative analysis of the educational system through participation in international surveys. The
Institute will merge with the National Centre for Educational Materials in July 2015.
Nám er vinnandi vegur – A special initiative which aims to aid those unemployed to get moreeducation and to keep them active.
Occupational Councils – Councils under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture. Each Council has the role to define the needs of a particular trade in respect to theIceland Country Background Report

7knowledge and ability required, the aims and structure of the education and the curriculum
guidelines.
Parents Councils – Statutory bodies at each pre-primary school, consisting of representatives fromthe school and parents. The Councils have the role to comment on and monitor the implementationof the schools curricula and other plans developed for the schools.
Pre-primary school (IS leikskóli) - The first school level, for children up to 6 years of age.
School Boards – 1. A governing body of each local community, with a statutory responsibility forthe operation of pre-primary and compulsory schools in the community. B. A statutory body for each
upper secondary school, with representatives from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science,stakeholders in the local community and the schools. The Boards have the role to determine theemphases in school activities and are, among other things, responsible for the annual operating andfinancial plans of the schools.
School Councils – A statutory body of each compulsory school, consisting of various school
stakeholders. The Councils role are to advice and participate in the development of the schools
strategies and discuss the schools curricula, annual operational plans and other school related plans.
Skólavog – A project of The Association of Local Authorities, collecting information from the local
communities on various operational information regarding the compulsory schools. The informationcollected is on the educational background of the teachers, student performance results in thenationally standardized tests and the results of attitude surveys for students, parents and school
employees.
Special services – Support services to pre-primary and compulsory schools, that local communities
are responsible for operating. The service includes support for students and their families as well as
for pre-primary and compulsory school activities and their personnel – particularly in relation to
students with special needs.
Stjórnlagaráð – A constitutional assembly elected to draft a new constitution.
The Association of Local Authorities (IS Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga) – The forum for cooperation between local authorities. It was established in 1945 and since 1973 all local authorities in
the country have been members of the association.
The Local Governments’ Equalizations Fund (IS Jöfnunarsjóður) – A state fund that has the
purpose to even out the difference in expenditure and income of those local communities with a
specific or a greater need.
Upper secondary school (IS framhaldsskóli) – The third school level, aimed at 16 – 20 year olds,
not a compulsory education.
Upplýsingaveita sveitarfélaga - An information centre that gathers centrally financial informationfrom the local communities.
Vocational Committee - An eighteen-member co-operation committee that is the national forum forcomprehensive policy-making in the affairs of vocational education at the upper secondary level.
The committee is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Iceland Country Background Report

8

Introduction
This report is written as a part of an OECD review of policies to improve the effectiveness ofresource use in schools. The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture in Iceland is the owner ofthe report.
The report aims to answer specific questions set forward by the office of the OECD Secretariat(OECD, 2013a) based on existing data. The OECD Secretariat also predetermined the chapters in thereport. A certain amount of repetition is to be found in the text, in correspondence to the questions
asked and chapters decided.
The responses to the questions are basically structured around a description of an existing situationor policy, the status in regard to that specific policy and a description of the impact where known.
During the writing of the report it became clear that the policy is often expressed in the relevant
legislative framework and that the general legislative foundation is in place. Information on thestatus was also often available in existing statistical data and / or reports. It was however frequently achallenge to find research and other data that gives an objective view of the impact of the policy.
Therefore the impact description is often based on opinions and other subjective information, or
altogether missing.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture appointed a steering group to oversee and assist withthe writing of the report, with the members of the steering group consulting with others as required.
The members of the group were:¡

Sigríður Lára Ásbergsdóttir, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture¡Guðbjörg Ragnarsdóttir, The Association of Teachers in Primary and Lower Secondary
Schools¡

Svandís Ingimundardóttir, The Icelandic Association of Local Authorities¡

Svanhildur Ólafsdóttir, The Association of Headteachers¡Valgerður Ágústsdóttir, The Icelandic Association of Local Authorities

Björgvin G. Sigurðsson and Hrönn Pétursdóttir processed and wrote the report, with the latterfunctioning as the project manager. Most of the writing took place from February to September
2014. The information and data used is the newest found when the different sections were written.
Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir associate professor in education at the School of Education of the
University of Iceland, Guðríður Árnadóttir chairman of The Assocation of Teachers in Upper
Secondary Schools and Haraldur Gíslason chairman of The Association of Teachers in Preschools
read through the report in its final draft phase and gave their suggestions for improvement.
For the ease of the reader a common terminology is used throughout the report. As an example,
children in pre-primary schools, pupils in compulsory schools and students in upper secondary
school all go by the word “student”. The same applies to the heads of schools, which go by “headteacher” in the report, and so on.

Iceland Country Background Report

9

Executive summary
There are four school levels in Iceland. The pre-primary schools are for children up to 6 years of age,the compulsory schools are for students aged 6-16, the upper secondary schools are primarily aimed
at 16-20 year olds and then there is higher education for those that have finished the required studies
at the upper secondary school level. This report is focused on the three first levels, the pre-primary,compulsory and upper secondary schools.
There are two levels of government but three administrative levels for education in Iceland. The firstis the state, the central government, which has the overall responsibility for education at all levels
and therefore for setting the educational policy. The state is furthermore responsible for the funding
and management of the upper secondary schools and tertiary education. A funding model developedby the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture guides the distribution of funds to the upper
secondary schools.
The second are the local communities, or a total of 74 municipalities, which have the funding andoperational responsibility for the pre-primary and compulsory schools. Each local community
determines the distribution resources for the schools it operates. The third and solely administrative
level are the individual schools, which have a fair amount of autonomy in the execution of policies
and day-to-day operations, including the management and use of the resources allocated.
An extensive legislative framework exists for the schools. The legislation is generally specific for aparticular school level but the legislation framework as a whole is built on a common foundation andthe same basic principles and policies. In addition there are national curricula for the pre-primary,compulsory and upper secondary schools.
The school system is highly decentralized, with the local communities having responsibility for the
pre-primary and compulsory schools and schools at all levels having a fair amount of autonomy. Oneof the effects of the decentralization is a lack of an overview on the status of the effectiveness andefficiency of resource use.
This has been highlighted by the Icelandic National Audit Office, which pointed out in a 2008 report(Ríkisendurskoðun, 2008) the differences in the operational costs of the individual compulsory
schools. The Office’s report furthermore stated that the gathering of information on the cost of thelocal communities for the compulsory schools was limited, the definition of expenditure different
between the different communities and therefore comparisons were very difficult. Thus it claimed
that it was very difficult to assess the professional and financial aspects of school operations. Finally,
most of the necessary premises needed to know whether sufficient resources are provided for theoperation of the school system were said missing, that is measurable objectives and direct quality
monitoring.	
  Drastic improvements in data collection have been made since the report was published, but the
information and statistics collected and made available are not correlated to data on the quality ofeducation or student performance and thus the effective use of resources. In formal evaluations andmonitoring of schools and the education system, the focus has not been on assessing theeffectiveness and efficiency of resources use either.
Although the report in 2008 centred on the compulsory schools, experiences indicate that the before
mentioned also applies to the pre-primary and upper secondary schools.

Iceland Country Background Report10

The potential causes and challenges of ineffectiveness and inefficiencies of resource use in theschool system can therefore only be guessed at, based on the available knowledge of the school
system itself and the experiences of those that work within it. As such, in public debate on the school
system it is common to point out that the cost of the education system in Iceland is above the cost of
the neighbourhood countries, while the results of student assessments in the PISA are below theirresults – thus indicating ineffectiveness in resource use.
Some of the issues brought up in the debates as potential causes and challenges are the decline instudent assessment results, the difficulties in implementing the policy on inclusive schools, the highdrop-out rate in the upper secondary schools, the number of school years students need to finish
upper secondary school, restrictive collective labour agreements and low teacher salaries. A
reduction in funding to schools since an economic recession started in 2008 is also stated to be achallenge, as it has led to a reduction in the number of school employees, out-dated ICT equipment,
limited facility maintenance, less staff development initiatives and fewer development projects.
Given all of this, many schools are challenged in fulfilling legal requirements, making the effective
use of resources therefore very important.
Due to the described situation several policies and reform initiatives have been launched in recent
years. Among those already implemented is the legal recognition of the status of pre-primary school
educators as teachers, two years have been added to the minimum teacher education requirements
and a change is being made to the collective labour agreements with more flexibility in the working
arrangements and salary structure of teachers. The development of a new legislative base, national
curricula and a national qualifications framework has been on going for the last few years.
Another on-going reform initiative is a recent publication of a White Paper by the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2014). In the White Paper
the immediate policy priorities and targets for the education system for 2014 - 2018 are stated to be:
1. That 90% of all students reach basic PISA standards in reading, but the ratio is now 79%.
To achieve this it is for example proposed that education in native languages will bestrengthened and increased at the compulsory school level. A criteria is set for reading skills
that students should access at each stage of the compulsory school and reading and literacy
will be measured regularly from pre-primary school to the end of compulsory school.
Immigrant students will receive additional support in order for them to be able to reach thesame proficiency in reading comprehension as other students. Teachers will receive
sufficient in-service training and support. All pre-primary and compulsory schools shalladopt literacy policy in line with the national curricula guides from 2013 and the school
policy of each local community. Students will be encouraged to read for pleasure outside ofschool and parents will be activated to arouse interest in reading and to support theirchildren.
2. That the percentage of students who graduate from upper secondary school on time will risefrom 44% to 60%.
To achieve this it is proposed to reorganize and shorten the time needed to graduate withupper secondary education, reduce dropout and change the organization of vocational
training. It is proposed that the matriculation line of study will be based on a three-year study
period, and at the same time it is planned to shorten vocational studies. In all upper
secondary schools a screening for risk factors for dropout among students is planned.

Iceland Country Background Report11

In line with the experience of other countries the White paper thus focuses on a few and ambitious
goals for education reforms, with the intend to get a broad long term consensus on them. Concurrent
schools at all levels are encouraged to work on school development and make efforts to strengthen
the professional awareness of teachers, increased emphasis is on collecting data and analyze theresults, evaluating them and drawing the relevant conclusions.
At all school levels there is foremost the demand of the population that the schools increasingly meetthe needs of the students as individuals. Regarding disabled students this has meant the need forreform in the services provided, in regard to diagnosis and educational support and advice forteachers, parents and students. Another example of a key demand for different services at thecompulsory school level has been the call for the child’s daily activities to be continuous and takeplace during the daytime. That is, for sport, music and leisure time activities for the children to be
integrated with and into the traditional school operations so that both parents and children are donewith their “work day” around the same time. This has impacted school timetables and provided
opportunities for traditional class activities to be segmented with physical movement, for example.
They key priorities and challenges that stand out and/or are an issue of contention among education
stakeholders relate to many of the mentioned circumstances and reforms. This includes, in noparticular order:¡The decrease in funding to schools over the last few years, and the impact this has had on
staff numbers, maintenance of building and equipment, staff and school development and soon.

¡

The policy on inclusive schools where, while there is general agreement that the policy itself
is justified, school administrators and staff feel that the implementation is not sufficiently
managed or funded.

¡The vision and expressed intend of Ministers of Education, Science and Culture, which has
surfaced on a regular for the past 15 years, on reducing the number of years required tofinish academic studies at upper secondary school from four to three - referring toneighbourhood countries with fewer school years and equal or better student assessment
results.

¡

The reasons for and solutions to the high upper secondary schools dropout rate.

¡The proportion of students that attend academic studies vs. vocational training at the upper
secondary level is considered by most stakeholders to be uneconomical for the country, as
more people are needed with vocational skills.

¡

The changes in student assessments introduced in the new national curriculum for thecompulsory schools.

¡Regular disputes on whether the local authorities or the state, or the Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture or the Welfare Ministry, have the responsibility for particular health andwelfare related services for students with special needs.

¡

The five-year education requirement for teachers, as the increased educational requirement
was not followed through with a sufficient increase in the teachers’ salaries.

Iceland Country Background Report12¡Lack of sufficient consultation with stakeholders, by the state, in setting policies ordetermining reforms.

¡

The re-examination of the allocation criteria of The Local Governments’ Equalization Fund
without the necessary consultation with all stakeholders, and then particularly the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture.

¡

The allocation model used to calculate the funding needs of the upper secondary schools is
controversial, with the claim that the model is not being used properly to calculate actual
funding needs.

¡Access to and operation of specialized services to schools, as there is no central criteria on
how the services are provided, to ensure quality and equal access regardless of the schoollevel and the geographic location.

Iceland Country Background Report

13

Chapter 1. The national context
The purpose of this chapter is to briefly outline the broad economic, social, demographic, political,
and cultural developments that shape the challenges facing the school system. It is intended toprovide the context for the more detailed discussion in later chapters.

1.1 The economic and social context
The economic context
The economy of Iceland is based on three main pillars - fisheries and the related industry, tourism
and manufacturing industry, with three large aluminium production smelters in the country. The
economy is small, the country is natural resource independent and subject to high volatility as can beseen clearly in a financial crisis that struck in 2008.
In 2013, gross domestic product (GDP) was US$14.6bn, up 3,3% from the year before. By
comparison the country‘s GDP was US$16.8bn in 2008 but fell sharply by 6,6% in 2009 because of
the enormity of the crisis that hit Iceland‘s economy – due to the volatility of it‘s large banking
system and the IKR, Iceland‘s currency, which was the smallest floating currency in the world at thetime. With a population of 330,000, this is a GDP of US$42,000 per capita. Iceland has a mixed
economy with high levels of free trade and government intervention. (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014j).
Geothermal power is the primary source of home and industrial energy in Iceland, the use of fossil
fuels is quite rare and hydro power plants supply three aluminium smelters with a green and rather
cheap energy.
In the 1990’s Iceland undertook extensive free market reforms, which initially produced strong
economic growth. As a result, Iceland was rated as having one of the world's highest levels of
economic freedom as well as civil freedoms. In 2007 Iceland topped the list of nations ranked by the
Human Development Index and was one of the most egalitarian, according to calculations provided
by the Gini coefficient.
In the years 2003–2007, following the privatization of the banking sector, Iceland moved towardhaving an economy based on financial services and investment banking. It was quickly becoming
one of the most prosperous countries in the world but from 2006 onwards the economy faced
problems of growing inflation and current account deficits. Partly in response and partly as a resultof earlier reforms, the financial system expanded rapidly before collapsing entirely in a sweeping
financial crisis in 2008. Iceland had to obtain emergency funding from the International Monetary
Fund and a range of European countries in November 2008.
In 2008 the nation’s entire banking system systemically failed, affected by the worldwide crisis andthe massive size of the industry in the country’s economy, which amounted to 11% of the GDP. This
resulted in a substantial political unrest. In the wake of the crisis, Iceland instituted "capital controls"that made it impossible for many international investors to get their money out of the country.
Though designed to be temporary, the controls remain and are among the biggest hurdles for
attracting international investment in the Icelandic economy. Iceland ranks high in economic andpolitical stability, though it is still in the process of recovering from the crisis.
The greatest single challenge facing the economy has thus to do with the currency and one of themain economic tasks for the coming years will be to find a way to remove the capital controlsIceland Country Background Report

14

without significant depreciation taking place, subsequently to an inflation and further deterioration oflife.
Iceland’s economy stabilised under the sitting governments from 2009 to 2013 and grew by 3,3% in2013 from the previous year (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014). Similarly, unemployment was at 4% inAugust 2014 while reaching 9,1% at it’s highest in 2009 (Vinnumálastofnun, 2014). With booming
tourism and one of the highest labour participation in the world the economical forecast is reasonable
good. Many Icelanders, however, remain unhappy with the state of the economy and thegovernment’s austerity policies.
The centre-right Independence Party came to power in coalition with the Progressive Party in the2013 elections, after four years by a left of centre government led by The Social Democratic Alliancewith smaller partner Left Green movement in a coalition government.
Related to the economic status, one of the greatest political issues is whether to complete
negotiations for accession to the European Union or not. The parliament decided to apply formembership in July 2009 but with a change in parliamentary majority in 2013 there has been achange in view towards European Union membership. The current government wants to end thenegotiations but the opposition wants to complete them and hold a referendum on the result.
Many see EU membership as a hope for a stability in the standard of living and currency options anda way out of the restrictions, while others view EU membership as a threat to the sovereignty andresource management of the country. This is one of the biggest unsolved disputes in Icelandic
politics in the years following the economic crisis.
The social context
Until the middle of the last century most of the workforce only had compulsory education. This haschanged and now over two thirds of those over 25 years of age in the work force have more thancompulsory education.
The demand for people with vocational training, higher education in general and technical andengineering education in particular is high and growing. Admission to universities has increased
significantly and the availability of educational courses is diverse, also for adults who want tograduate from upper secondary school or equivalent and start university. A large supply of various
distance learning is available.
However, the number of those who do not finish upper secondary education before the age of 25 hasremained stable and there is a shortage of skilled workers in some sectors, such as plumbing andcarpentry. Upper secondary schools have systematically tried to meet student dropout withcounselling and an increase in the variety of trade and vocational studies on offer. This is inaccordance to the main aim of a newly published White book from the Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture, which is to increase the number of those who finish upper secondary schoolfrom 44%-60% in the next few years. (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2014).

1.2 Demographic developments
Fertility, population size, gender and age
When the first general census was taken in 1703 the population numbered 50,358 but was from thenand until 1825 mostly under 50.000 people, in one year declining to 36.000 people. In 1825 howeverIceland Country Background Report15

the population starts growing consistently, reaching 70.000 in 1871, 100.000 in 1926, 150.000 in
1954, 200.000 in 1968, 250.000 in 1989 and 300.000 in 2007. (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014o).
At the end of the second quarter of 2014 the population of Iceland was 327.050 (Hagstofa Íslands,
2014t) with a population density of approximately 3 inhabitants per km². Live births in Iceland were1.050 in the second quarter, 540 boys and 510 girls. Although the population is in general growing by an annual average growth rate of 1,2% in the past five years, a population growth of 0,4% was
historically low between 2012 and 2013. This is due to negative net migration in 2011, just barely
outweighed by the natural population growth.
There is great variation in population density; the largest local community, the capital Reykjavík,
had 121,230 inhabitants as of 1 January 2014, while some of the smaller rural districts had
populations of fewer than 100 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014q).
The proportion of men and women has been similar for the last 80 years, with 30.029 women in1841 to 27.104 men, and 162.353 women in 2014 to 163.318 men. (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014p). The
number of nuclear families - couples, married or co-habituating, with or without children andindividuals with children under the age of 18 - was 78.780 on 1 January 2014, compared with 78.168
in 2011 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014i).
Age distribution has been subject to frequent fluctuations, partly because famines and epidemics ofearlier centuries often had a disproportionate impact on some particular age group, while the birthrate also varied according to general conditions in the country. In 2014 about 24,5% of the total
population was aged 0-17 years, 64% of the population was aged 18-67 years and about 9,5% of the
population was aged 68 and over (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014p).
The overall fertility rate (living born children) dropped from 4.1 births per woman in 1956 to 1,9 in2013 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014g). In 2011 life expectancy was 80,1 years for men and 83,8 years for
women (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014u). The infant mortality rate in Iceland was 0.9 per 1,000 live births
in 2013 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014w).
Working hours, labour force, migration
The average actual working hours per week in 2013 were 39,8 hours for 16-74 year olds, compared
to 41,9 in 2007. In the years 2003 to 2013 the average working hours of males decreased from 47
hours to 44. During the same period the average working hours of females went from 36 to 35,1.
(Hagstofa Íslands, 2014b).
The number of persons in the labour force in July 2014 was 195.500, with 189.200 employed and6.400 unemployed. The age distribution of the labour force was as follows:
Table 1 The age distribution of the labour force, 2000 to 2014 – number of individuals by age
groups 16-24, 25-54 and 55-75(Hagstofa Íslands, 2014x)
Employed as a portion of the total population were 79,3% in June 2014 and unemployed as aproportion of those in the labour force were 6,8%. The number of unemployed has decreased by

Iceland Country Background Report16

1.100 since 2010. Those long-term unemployed (12 months or longer) were 1.700 in the first quarterof 2014 compared with 2,500 in the first quarter of 2010 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014c). In June 2014 theunemployment rate was 4,6 %.
Table 2 The number of unemployed individuals and rate of unemployment, 2005 - 2014

(Hagstofa Íslands, 2014x).
Looking at the percentage of the population aged 16-29 in upper secondary and tertiary education,
the following can be seen:
Table 3 Proportion of the population aged 16-29 in upper secondary and tertiary education,
2004 to 2012 – by age(Hagstofa Íslands, 2013q)
Foreign citizens were 6,7% of the population 1 January 2013 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013e). The numberof foreign citizens was 19.262, but 3.775 for comparison in 1996 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013j). In
January 2013 citizens of Poland were the most numerous or 9.404, followed by 3.147 from
Denmark, 1.967 from the United States of America, 1.869 from Sweden, 1.512 from Germany, 1.487
from the Philippines, 1.408 from Lithuania, 1.200 from the United Kingdom and 1.132 fromThailand (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013k).
Table 4 Proportion of foreign nationals in the local population, 2005 to 2013

(Hagstofa Íslands, 2013e)
In 2013, a total of 3.175 Icelandic citizens migrated from Iceland, with most moving to Norway,
Denmark and Sweden, or 2.247 in total. Most migrated to Norway or 996. (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014c).

Iceland Country Background Report

17

Religion
There is a constitutional freedom of religion in Iceland. The national church of Iceland, according to
the constitution, is Evangelical Lutheran. The ministers of the church are civil servants and receive
their salaries from the state. The head of the church is the Bishop of Iceland, who is the supreme
authority in internal church matters. The state and the national church of Iceland are not legally
separated but the church has no authority in state matters. External matters relating to the church are
under the jurisdiction of the central government, under the aegis of the Ministry of the Interior.
As of 1st of January 2014, 75,1% of the population were members of the National Lutheran Church,while 5,3% did not belong to any religious community (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014s). In a nationalreferendum in 2012 a majority of voters accepted that there should be a national religion in Iceland,
based on the constitution.
Language
Icelandic is the native language of Iceland and the official and teaching languages are Icelandic aswell as the Icelandic sign language. Icelandic belongs, along with Norwegian and Faeroese, to theWest Scandinavian branch of the North Germanic family of languages. Morphologically it hasremained the most conservative of the Nordic languages, retaining, for example, three genders and afull system of case endings for nouns and adjectives.
During a long period of Danish rule the Icelandic language borrowed many foreign words, but a
independence movement in the 19th century was accompanied by a drive towards linguistic purity.
Thus to this day new Icelandic terms were (and continue to be) formed on the basis of the original
vocabulary, rather than through the borrowing of international terms.
There is widespread awareness in the country of the difficulties facing a language spoken by a small
population. The language policy in modern Iceland is characterised by two central elements: on the
one hand it supports the preservation of the language, it’s form and it’s central vocabulary, and on
the other hand it encourages further development of the modern Icelandic language, not least throughthe coining of new words in order to adapt the language to modern times. Icelanders are howeveralso aware of the dangers of linguistic isolation and foreign-language teaching is an important part ofthe education.
The Icelandic parliament accepted an official language policy for the first time in 2009. The policy is
focused on strengthening the foundations of the language in society. The primary objective of thepolicy is to ensure that Icelandic will continue to be used in all areas of the society. In 2011 theParliament adopted legislation on the status of the Icelandic language and Icelandic sign language(Alþingi Íslands, 2011). At that time the Icelandic sign language was for the first time recognized as
the first language of those who have to rely on it for expression and communication, and for theirchildren.
As a part of compulsory education students learn English and Danish (or Norwegian or Swedish incertain cases instead of Danish), and most of those who continue into upper secondary school add atleast a third foreign language, usually German, French or Spanish. There are no minority languages
in Iceland.

1.3 Political context
Iceland is a representative democracy and a parliamentary republic. The modern parliament, called"Althing" or "Alþingi", was founded in 1845 as an advisory body to the Danish king. It was widely
seen as a re-establishment of the assembly founded in 930 in the Commonwealth period andIceland Country Background Report18

suspended in 1799. Consequently, "it is arguably the world's oldest parliamentary democracy”(Giudice, 2008, pg. 85). The parliament is elected for a maximum period of four years. The president
is elected by popular vote for a term of four years, with no term limit. The elections for president, theAlthing and local community councils are all held separately every four years.
The Althing is composed of 63 members, elected every 4 years unless it is dissolved sooner.
Suffrage for presidential and parliamentary elections is 18 years of age and is universal. Members of
Althing are elected on the basis of proportional representation from six constituencies. Until 1991,
membership of the Althing was divided between a lower and upper house but this was changed to a
fully unicameral system. (Ragnarsson, 2006).
The president of Iceland is largely a ceremonial head of state and serves as a diplomat, but can vetolaws voted by the parliament and put them to a national referendum. Legal scholars in Iceland
dispute the extent of the political power possessed by the office of the president; several provisionsof the constitution appear to give the president some important powers, but other provisions andtraditions suggest differently.
The president appoints the cabinet after a general election to the Althing; however, the appointment
is usually negotiated by the leaders of the political parties, who decide among themselves which
parties can form the cabinet and how it’s seats are to be distributed, under the condition that it has amajority support in the Althing. In practice, only when the party leaders are unable to reach aconclusion by themselves within a reasonable time span does the president exercise this power andappoint the cabinet personally.
The current president is Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson. The head of government is the prime minister currently Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson - who, together with the cabinet, is responsible for the
executive government.
Throughout the republican period the governments of Iceland have always been coalition
governments, with two or more parties involved, as no single political party has ever received amajority of seats in the Althing.
Iceland was the first country in the world to have a political party formed and led entirely by women.
Known as the Women's List or Women's Alliance (Kvennalistinn), it was founded in 1983 toadvance the political, economic, and social needs of women. In the term of office from 1979 to 1983
5% of the parliamentarians were female, but 15% in the following term. Although the party
disbanded in 1999, merging with the Social Democratic Alliance, it left a lasting influence on
Iceland's politics: every major party has a 40% quota for women, and in 2014 41,3% of the membersof parliament were female. (Alþingi Íslands, 2014).
Gender equality is highly valued in Iceland. In the Global Gender Gap Report 2012 (Hausmann,
Tyson, & Zahidi, 2012), Iceland holds the top spot for the least gap, closely followed by Finland,
Norway and Sweden.
The country has a high level of civic participation, with 81,5% voter turnout during theparliamentary elections in April 2013 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013b). Voter turnout during the local
elections in 2014 was 66,5%, but there the turnout is getting less each election, from a turnout of
87,8% in 1974 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014y).
In a special election in 2010 a constitutional assembly, Stjórnlagaráð, was elected to draft a new
constitution. The Supreme Court invalidated the election shortly thereafter and the same assemblyIceland Country Background Report19

was subsequently appointed by the Parliament to draft a new constitution. Stjórnlagaráð produced acomprehensive review of the constitution but their recommendation has not been implemented.

1.4 Public sector management
The structure of public administration
Public administration is divided into three, the legislative, judicial and executive. Then there are twolevels of government: a central government and local governments.
Iceland is furthermore divided into regions, constituencies and communities. Examples are regions
used to determine areas for law enforcement services and welfare services for people withdisabilities. There are also eight regions that are primarily used for statistical purposes; the district
court jurisdictions also use an older version of this division.
Until 2003, the constituencies for the parliamentary elections were the same as the regions, but by anamendment to the constitution, they were changed to the current six constituencies:¡

Reykjavík North and Reykjavík South (city regions);¡Southwest (four non-contiguous suburban areas around Reykjavík);¡Northwest and Northeast (northern half of Iceland, split); and,¡South (southern half of Iceland, excluding Reykjavík and suburbs).

The change to the constituencies was made in order to balance the weight of the different districts inthe country, since previously a vote cast in the sparsely populated areas around the country would
count much more than a vote cast in the Reykjavík city area. The imbalance between districts has
been reduced by the new system, but still exists.
There are 74 communities in Iceland that govern local matters like the pre-primary, compulsory andmusic schools, as well as local transport, zoning and welfare services. These are the actual secondlevel public administration subdivisions of Iceland, as the constituencies have no relevance except inelections and for statistical purposes. The capital city of Reykjavík is by far the most populous
community, about four times more populous than Kópavogur, the second biggest one.
The organization of public employeesWith only two levels of government the government structure is fairly simple and subsequently the
structure of civil service also. The President of Iceland gives a parliamentary leader of a politicalparty the authority to form a cabinet, usually beginning with the leader of the largest party. The
Ministers of that cabinet – of whom there are 9 in 8 Ministries in the current government – aretypically elected to the parliament and have authority over the civil servants of their individual
Ministries and relevant institutions. (Alþingi Íslands, 2011b). A Permanent Secretary directs each
Ministry under the Ministers ultimate authority. Within each Ministry are a few Departments orOffices directed by a Director, subdivided into Divisions lead by Heads of Divisions. Within eachdivision operate specialists and other staff. The Directors are appointed with a letter of official duty
regulations but the Head of Divisions and specialists work according to terms of reference. (Menntaog menningarmálaráðuneytið, n.d.).

Iceland Country Background Report

20

The local governments are responsible for the structure of public employment in their community. In
each community a local council is elected by general suffrage and that council has the power todecide how the community sources of income are used, to determine the local structure and todischarge of local functions. The functions of the local government are provided for in the various
legislative acts, such as relates to the key areas of social welfare, education at the pre-primary andcompulsory school level, culture and recreational activities, zoning, local transport and infrastructuresuch as sewage, water supply, electrical power and heating.
The actions, accountability and working environment of all public employees are governed by thelegislation applicable to the field in which they work, but also by a Government Employees Act no.
70/1996, Public Administration Act no. 37/1993, the Local Community Act no. 138/2011 andcollective labour agreements.
By law, all public employment positions are filled through public advertisement and a legal
framework guides the hiring process. An exception allows though for movement of existing
employees within the public system when certain conditions are met.
The Government Employees Act divides government staff into two groups, civil servants and other
employees, whereby the term civil servant applies to higher-echelon employees that are appointed
for a fixed period, not exceeding five years but renewable. All other employees are appointed either
temporarily or indefinitely with a determined notice period that is typically three months. Headteachers of the schools thus count as civil servants but all other school staff as employees.
Some larger local communities operate a system for civil servants at the local level, whereby aspecial Salary Arbitrary Committee determines the salaries.

Iceland Country Background Report

21

Chapter 2. The school system
The purpose of this chapter is to describe some of the main features of the school system in terms oforganization and governance as well as performance. This chapter will provide much of the detailthat is needed to understand the process of decision-making and the allocation and use of resourcesin the school system. The issues covered in this chapter will be referred to in subsequent sections of
this report.

2.1 Organization of the school system
The structure and operational responsibilities of the school system
The Minister of Education, Science and Culture governs the affairs covered by the School Acts,
issues the national curricula for all school levels, provides compulsory schools with study material,
monitors the quality of school activities, gathers, analyses and distributes information, supports
development work and administers conflict resolution according to provisions of the acts of the preprimary, compulsory and upper secondary schools. The Ministry furthermore ensures that the local
communities fulfil the duties stipulated in the School Acts, regulations and rules issued thereof andin the national curricula.
The educational system is organized in four levels:¡Pre-primary schools for up to 6 years of age. Governed by the Pre-Primary School Act, no.
90/2008 (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c);¡Compulsory schools (primary and lower secondary in a single structure) for 6 – 16 year olds.
Governed by the Compulsory School Act, no. 91/2008 (Alþingi Íslands, 2008b);¡

Upper-secondary schools which are meant for 16 – 20 years of age. Governed by the Upper
Secondary School Act, no.92/2008 (Alþingi Íslands, 2008);¡Higher education from 20 years of age. Governed by the Universities Act, no. 63/2006(Alþingi Íslands, 2006) and the Act on Adult Education no. 47/1992 (Alþingi Íslands, 1992).

The local communities are responsible for the establishment and operation of pre-primary andcompulsory schools, including the provision of special education. They thus pay for instruction,
general teaching, substitute teaching, administration and specialists’ services. Local specialist
education offices provide pre-primary and compulsory schools with various specialist services, suchas general pedagogical counselling, counselling in respect to particular subjects, educationalcounselling for students and psychologist services. Where the local communities themselves do notoffer such services, the local authority in question is under an obligation to ensure that othercommunities or institutions, such as teacher training institutions or other parties, provide the needed
services.
The state is responsible for the operation of upper secondary schools and higher education
institutions while public authorities, private institutions, companies and organizations provide
continuing and adult education.

Iceland Country Background Report

22

The principles of the education system
A fundamental principle of the Icelandic educational system is that everyone should have an equal
opportunity to acquire an education, irrespective of gender, economic status, residential location,
religion, disability and cultural or social background.
All schools in Iceland have both female and male students and all are formally inclusive except
three. Those three schools are for students with disabilities or severe behaviour issues.
Education in Iceland has traditionally been organized within the public sector and there are relatively
few private institutions in the school system. Almost all the private schools that do exist receive
public funding.
The student bodyIn 2012 the number of students in pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary education was:Table 5 The number of students in pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools,
2012(Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b) (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013p)
The composition of the student group was such that 5,8% of pre-primary school students had aforeign nationality, 3,5% of compulsory school students and 2,6% of upper secondary school
students. In the pre-primary schools 10,5% of the students had a native language other than
Icelandic, as well as 6,2% of the compulsory school students – with no data available for the upper
secondary schools. 5,7% of pre-primary school students received special assistance or training under
the guidance of specialists, 15,7% of the compulsory school students had a formal diagnosis thatcalled for special assistance or placement in a special education class, with 27% of the total body atboth school levels requiring extra support of some kind. Finally, 19% of the pre-primary school
students attended privately operated schools, 2% of the compulsory school students and 20% of theupper secondary school students. (The Association of Local Authorities; Statistics Iceland).
The pre-primary school
The pre-primary school, or “leikskóli” in Icelandic, is non-compulsory education for children
younger than six years of age, and is the first formal part of the education system. In 2012 a total of
263 pre-primary schools operated in Iceland, with 41 of them being privately operated, - and theschool level is the operational responsibility of the local communities. The pre-primary schools
operate five days a week, year round, typically with a four-week break during the summer. The PrePrimary School Act of 2008 governs the pre-primary schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c).
By law, pre-primary schools are for children who have not reached the age at which compulsory
school begins, i. e. in the autumn of the year in which the child turns six. The local communities are
not required by law to operate pre-primary schools, but do have the responsibility to establish andoperate such schools where they exist according to the Act on Social Services no. 40/1991 (Alþingi
Íslands, 1991) and Act on Pre-Primary School no. 90/2008 ( (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c). There is nolegal lower age limit for pre-primary school children but in reality not all pre-primary schools accept
children younger than one year old and the youngest children are sometimes two years of age. The
statistics show though that from 1998 to 2012 the proportion of one year olds in pre-primary schools
went from 12% to 32%, and two year olds from 65% to 95% (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga,
2013b). This may change further in the coming years, as currently there is on-going a working groupIceland Country Background Report23with representatives from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Icelandic Association of
Local Authorities and The Association of HeadTeachers in Preschools on the educational andoperational aspects of the local communities being required to accept children into pre-primaryschool immediately following the 9 month maternity/paternity leave. In local communities where
there is not the availability to accommodate all applicants, the children of single parents and students
are often given priority.
At pre-primary schools students receive education and support for their all-round development, thus
preparing them for compulsory school and life itself. At the pre-primary school level the nucleus of
the educational work is play.
The compulsory school
The compulsory school, or “grunnskóli” in Icelandic, comprises primary and lower secondary
education, which most often is organised in a single structure system. That is, primary and lower
secondary education form part of the same school level and usually take place in the same school.
There are no entrance requirements at this school level and the children generally begin compulsory
school at the age of six.
Compulsory education is generally ten years in duration but can be shorter as per article 32 in thelegislation for compulsory schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008b). Compulsory school education is in
general mandatory for children between the ages of 6 and 16, although they can start later or
graduate earlier according to the pre-primary and compulsory school laws. The Compulsory School
Act of 2008 governs the compulsory schools. The law determines the length of the academic year
and the minimum number of lessons to be given each week and defines which subjects are
obligatory. (Alþingi Íslands, 2008b). The school year thus lasts at least nine month, with theminimum number of school days being 180. Lessons take place five days a week. Parents have thelegal responsibility for the education of their children.
In 2012 a total of 167 compulsory schools operated in Iceland, with 10 being privately operated.
From the year 1995 the compulsory schools have been the operational responsibility of the local
communities. Basically, three types of compulsory schools exists, with most having all ten grades
but a few operating grades one to seven or grades eight to ten or some versions thereof. Schools thathave grades eight to ten are often merger schools, i.e. they take in students from two or more schools
in the catchment area that have grades one to seven. Most communities provide out-of-hours
provision for the children.
The size of schools varies tremendously. The largest schools are typically in the capital area, thelargest having around 800 students. In other areas there are smaller schools, a few with fewer than 10
students. In 2013 113 compulsory schools had more than 100 students and 54 schools, or a third of
all the schools, fewer than 100 students. (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b).
The main objective of compulsory schooling is to support the all-round development of all students
and their participation in a democratic society that is continuously changing. Tolerance and caring,
the Christian heritage of the Icelandic culture, equality, democratic co-operation, responsibility,
conciliation and respect for human values shall guide the organization of the school as well as its
work. Furthermore, the law concerning schools at the compulsory level stipulates that all students are
to receive suitable instruction, taking into account the nature of the student and his or her needs andpromoting the development, health and education of each individual. Students have the right toattend school in the area where they live. Also, the school is to systematically integrate students withspecial needs into mainstream education. (Alþingi Íslands, 2008b).

Iceland Country Background Report24

The upper secondary school
Upper secondary school – “framhaldsskóli” in Icelandic and also known as gymnasium in English follows the compulsory school. A total of 48 upper secondary level schools operated in 2012 –thereof 19 were privately operated but approved by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
The minimum number of school days a year for what constitutes a full study is 175. The school levelis the operational responsibility of the state, the central government. The Upper Secondary School
Act of 2008 governs this stage of education (Alþingi Íslands, 2008).
At the upper secondary level anyone who has completed compulsory education or has turned sixteen
has the right to enter a course of studies - with 27% of those who enter not having achieved
satisfactory results upon leaving the compulsory school (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið,2014). An effort must be made to give students a choice of subjects and forms of instruction inaccordance with their needs and wishes. The primary function of upper secondary education is toprepare students for life and work in a democratic society by offering them suitable opportunities tolearn and develop individually, and to prepare them for employment through specialised studies
leading to professional qualifications or further study. Students in the upper secondary school canchoose between general academic studies and vocational studies, with currently around 100 different
studies on offer and thereof 87 vocationally related. The work in upper secondary school is assessedin standardised secondary school credits, with a full time study equalling 60 credits per school year.
Traditionally many upper secondary school students work at the same time as they undertake their
upper secondary school education, and many go back to upper secondary school later in their life. A
valuable aspect of the Icelandic educational system is that it is easy to access education at any time.
As described in the general section of the national curriculum for the upper secondary schools(Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, n.d.), the general academic education aims at preparing
students for university education in Iceland or abroad. It is at the minimum organised as 200
secondary school credits leading to a matriculation examination. Subjects to be studied are divided
into three groups: general subjects that all students are required to take, specialised subjects
according to the aims of a particular programme of study and electives. The central issue of thestudies can be academic, artistic or vocational.
Vocational education at upper secondary school level can be 90- 240 secondary school credits.
Within vocational education, students can choose between training for a skilled trade or vocational
education in other areas -for example, in the field of fisheries, the travel industry or health andcommerce. The skilled trade studies often give the students legal certification or professional rights
in regulated professions or the right to take journeyman’s examination in trades such as carpentry,
electricity, plumbing and hairdressing.
Students in vocational programmes have the possibility of completing the matriculation examinationin preparation for entering higher education by doing additional studies.
Although the upper secondary school is aimed at 16-20 year olds, there is a high ratio of older
students. Thus upper secondary school students aged 21 and older were 8.180 in December 2012.
That is, out of all the population born in a specific year, 23,2% of 21 year olds were students at upper
secondary schools, 18,3% of 22 year olds, 13,6% of 23 year olds, 12,6% of 23 year olds, 7,6% of
those aged 25-29, 3,8% of those aged 30-39 and 1,1% of those 40 years and older. (Hagstofa Íslands,
2013p). In an introduction of the Budget Bill for 2015 the Minister of Education, Science andCulture introduced the aim to prioritize 16-25 year olds in the upper secondary schools, with thoseolder being directed to alternative resources.

Iceland Country Background Report

25

An OECD study shows that 64% of Icelanders aged 25–64 have earned the equivalence of a highschool degree, which is lower than the OECD average of 73%. Among 25–34 year-olds, only 69%
have earned the equivalent of a high-school degree, significantly lower than the OECD average of
80%. (OECD, 2013).
The higher institutions
There are 7 higher education institutions - háskóli in Icelandic - in Iceland. The largest is the
University of Iceland, but other institutions offering university-level education are Háskólinn á
Akureyri, Háskólinn á Bifröst, Háskólinn í Reykjavík, Hólaskóli - Háskólinn á Hólum,Landbúnaðarháskóli Íslands and Listaháskóli Íslands. The universities are entrusted with the task ofcarrying out research and offering higher education programs in different subjects, as stipulated by
the legislation governing each institution.
All higher education institutions are subject to the provisions of the Higher Education Institutions
Act of 2006 (Alþingi Íslands, 2006). In the Act the Icelandic term “háskóli” is used to refer both to
those higher education institutions which have a number of faculties, permanent research facilities
and undergraduate and graduate programmes, and institutions that do not have research
responsibilities. Consequently, there is no formal distinction between non-university and university
institutions in Icelandic; but by law, the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture determines thetitle of each institution in foreign languages, i.e. whether it is to be called a university or college.
Iceland spent around 2.4% of its GDP in 2011 on scientific research and development according toEurostat. (Eurostat, n.d.).
Structural changes in the school system
The main structural changes in the school system in recent years have been the legal recognition of
the status of pre-primary school educators as teachers, two years have been added to the minimum
teacher education requirements and a trend can be seen in the local communities merging preprimary, compulsory and music schools under one administrative leadership. Furthermore someissues are under regular debate, such as reducing the number of years at school (currently 14 years incompulsory and upper secondary school) before the matriculation examination is achieved.
Another on-going structural debate focuses on the collective labour agreements between thestate/local communities and the teachers, which stipulate how the working hours of the teachers shallbe spent. The debate is then both on the number of teaching hours of the teachers and where thework takes place – that is whether the teacher is bound to spend all the working hours at the school
itself or can do certain aspects of the work from home.
Finally and as mentioned earlier, a working group has recently been established with representatives
from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and The Association of Local Authorities onwhether the local communities will be required to accept children into the pre-primary schools
immediately following the end of the maternity/paternity leave.

2.2 Education environment
Society places great importance on education, an importance that is increasing by the years.
Public vs. privately operated schools
Most schools at pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary level are funded and operated by the
public authorities. A few private schools exist – see the following chart and the underlying figures inAnnex 1. Most, if not all privately operated schools receive public funding and therefore parents

Iceland Country Background Report26

have a minimum investment in their children’s education other than through their taxes. Prevalenceof private tutoring is very limited.
Chart 1 The number of public and private pre-primary and compulsory schools, 1998 to 2012(Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b)
Out of the pre-primary schools 15% were privately operated in 2012, 6% of the compulsory schools
and 40% of the upper secondary schools. Of the students 19% attended privately operated preprimary schools, 2% compulsory schools and 20% upper secondary schools.
The local communities are responsible for and fund the construction and operation of the preprimary and compulsory schools. They can grant authority (pre-primary schools) or approve(compulsory schools) that private parties operate individual schools – compulsory schools need theapproval of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science as well. The privately operated schools
need to fulfil the same laws, regulations and national curricula as the publicly operated schools, buthave more allowance regarding financial contributions from parents.
The Minister of Education, Science and Culture can approve upper secondary schools operated byprivate parties. The schools such approved need to go by the Upper Secondary School Act andrelevant regulations. They do not have automatic right to public funding, but in practice most receive
their primary funding from the state.
Schools operated by private parties have the autonomy to operate as they wish, as long as they fulfil
the basic requirements set forth in the related legislative framework.
The funding of schools
Like publicly operated schools, privately operated pre-primary schools normally receive funding
from the local community in accordance to an agreement between the two parties. An approved
privately operated compulsory school has by law the right to a funding from the local communitythat is at the minimum 75% of the weighted average cost of the total operational cost of thecommunity operated schools in the country, per student. This applies to the first 200 students in theschool, after which the amount is lowered to 70% for each additional student. Privately operated
schools at both school levels can charge the parents a fee, but the price list for a compulsory schoolneeds to be a part of the agreement between the local community and the school.
Most parents pay a fee for their children to attend pre-primary school, whether publicly or privately
operated – with a few known cases where there is no fee. Each local community determines what

Iceland Country Background Report27

that fee should be. In 2012 the parental contributions covered as a weighted average 18% of theoperating cost of publicly operated pre-primary schools. The cost of operating the schools was from
3% and up to 29% of the tax income of the individual local communities. The cost as a weighted
average of the total tax income of the local communities was 14%. (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga,
2013b).
Compulsory school education, including educational material and school transportation, is fully
funded by the local communities. Textbooks are funded by the state. The cost of operating theschools was from 25% and up to 66% of the tax income of the individual local communities. The
cost as a weighted average of the total tax income of the local communities was 32%. (Sambandíslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b).
The operating costs of upper secondary education are funded by the state. Construction costs andinitial capital investment for equipment are divided between the state and the relevant local
communities, which pay 60% and 40% respectively. Education at the upper-secondary level is free,but students pay a low enrolment fee and the cost of their textbooks. Students in vocational education
pay a materials fee. Some upper secondary school students – particularly those in selected vocational
studies – have access to student loans from the Icelandic Student Loan Fund (www.lin.is) in order tocover their living expenses.
Tertiary educational institutions receive an annual budget allocation from the state, which they
themselves administer. Instruction in state institutions at the higher education level is considered tobe free for students, although they are charged a registration fee and pay the cost of textbooks andother study material. Privately operated institutions charge an additional tuition fee. Most university
students have access to student loans from the Icelandic Student Loan Fund.
Key traditions, culture and values of the educational system
Among the key traditions and the base for the culture and values of the Icelandic educational system
is equal access for all to education as well as inclusive schools. Thus a fundamental principle of the
Icelandic educational system is that everyone shall have equal access to education irrespective ofsex, economic status, geographic location, religion and cultural or social background. This principle
is stated in the Constitution of the Icelandic Republic as well as in the various acts pertaining to thedifferent educational levels. Education is compulsory (primary and lower secondary education in asingle structure) from age six through age sixteen, i.e. for ten years. Emphasis is placed on providing
the opportunity for upper secondary education for all and everyone has the legal right to enter schoolat that school level, irrespective of their results at the end of compulsory schooling. All the threeschool levels, pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary, are built on the same values as stated in
the national curriculum for each level - values such as respect, caring, tolerance and responsibility.
One of the important characteristics of the Icelandic educational system is furthermore thedecentralization within the system, with the independence of the local communities and individual
schools strengthened with the School Acts of 2008. Correspondingly monitoring and evaluations
were in general increased in order to ensure the quality of education, at the level of the schools, thelocal communities and the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
Educational administrators and teachers that work in the schools operated by the public authorities –which most are - are part of the civil service.
The national educational authorities are responsible for all regulatory setting, as well as standards set
through the national curricula. The local communities and/or individual schools are responsible forthe implementation of those regulatory settings and national standards.

Iceland Country Background Report

28

The educational community
An extensive study of the compulsory schools, performed during the winter 2009 – 2010, showedthat 99% of parents and school employees believed that parental support was an important factor in
the educational accomplishment of students. The same research showed that 95% of school
employees believed that co-operation with the parents was an important contributing factor to thegood behaviour of students. 40% of parents agreed, while 32% disagreed, that teachers should be theonly ones organizing the students studies, given the teachers expert knowledge. However, while 64%of parents felt that it is very easy to communicate with the student’s supervisory teacher, only 15%
of supervisory teachers thought that communication with the parents was very easy. (Óskarsdóttir,
Starfshættir í grunnskólum við upphaf 21. aldar, 2014)
The role of the media in forming the public’s attitudes and perception towards education is considerable
and growing, and then both the traditional media and the social media. The intensity and impact ofthe media’s role on the public opinion on schooling has not been specifically studied but experiencehas shown that in cases of concerns of the treatment of individual students the media attention is highand shapes public opinion. As schools and teachers are bound by a confidentiality clause, they are
not able to defend themselves when the media takes an interest in cases of individual students. The
media attention is also focused on school performance in student assessments each year, graduationand dropout rates, etc.
The debate about the teachers’ salaries furthermore gets a lot of media attention, with teacher salaries
and union struggles getting pretty extensive coverage in the educational debate every now and then.
Generally the population has sympathy with the teaching profession.

2.3 Objectives of the educational system and student learning objectives
The principles, goals and purpose of the educational system
A fundamental principle and main goal of the Icelandic educational system is that everyone shouldhave equal opportunities to acquire an education, irrespective of sex, economic status, residential
location, religion, disability and cultural or social background.
The purpose and policies of the educational system are set forth in the legislative acts for therespective schools levels and subsequent regulation. Furthermore, the Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture issues national curriculum guidelines for each of the three school levels, that specify theaims that schools are to follow and describe the basic goals and purposes that apply in the educationof children and young people. The national curricula guidelines are intended both to provide thedetailed objectives necessary to implement the respective laws and offer direction as to how theyshould be carried out in practice.
The curricula guidelines are based on six fundamental pillars: literacy, sustainability, health andwelfare, democracy, equality and creativity. Each of the fundamental pillars derives from the laws
for the pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools but other legislation are also used as afoundation, such as the Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men, no. 10/2008.
In addition, government policy on various issues is taken into account, for example in regard tosustainability. International conventions to which Iceland is a party are taken into consideration also
- the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities and the UNESCO Policy on General Education and Sustainable
Development are apt examples and also the Council of Europe Policy on Democracy and Human
Rights.

Iceland Country Background Report29

In formulating the policy that appears in the fundamental pillars, the idea of teacher professionalism
is also taken into account as well as the developmental work that has been carried out in Icelandic
schools.
The fundamental pillars refer to social, cultural, environmental and ecological literacy so thatchildren and youth may develop mentally and physically, thrive in society and cooperate with others.
The fundamental pillars also refer to a vision of the future, the ability and will to influence and be
active in maintaining society, change it and develop. The pillars are based on the view appearing inschool legislations that both social objectives and the educational objectives of the individual are to
be achieved.
The pillars are socially oriented as they aim to promote increased equality and democracy and toensure well-educated and healthy citizens, for participating in and for changing and improving
society and also for contemporary employment. The fundamental pillars are meant to accentuate theprinciple of general education and encourage increased continuity in school activities as a whole.
The fundamental pillars are an intrinsic part of the curricula guidelines for all school levels andstipulation for all school activities:¡

Choice of material and content of study, teaching and play should reflect the fundamental
pillars.

¡

Working methods and techniques that children and youth learn are influenced by ideas thatappear in discussions of the fundamental pillars.

¡Procedures of teachers and other school personnel are to be based on the fundamental pillars
and thus encourage independence, initiative and development of school activities.

In school activities it is important to approach tasks in an integral manner, applying professional
broadmindedness and when appropriate interdisciplinary methods. This can necessitate
unconventional teaching methods and an unusual approach to school activities.
In evaluating school activities, the influence of the fundamental pillars on teaching, play and studies
have to be taken into consideration. The fundamental pillars are an intrinsic part of school activities.
The concepts that the fundamental pillars are based on are to be reflected in the working methods,
communication and atmosphere of schools. They should be evident in all educational activities andin the content of school subjects and fields of study.
Policy priorities and targets
The immediate policy priorities and targets for the education system for 2014 - 2018 are set forward
in a White book published by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture in the spring of 2014
(Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2014):
1. That 90% of all students reach basic Pisa standards in reading, but the ratio is now 79%. Oneof the possible actions in order to reach this goal is to stipulate increased native language
teaching in the national curriculum. It is also mentioned that criteria can be formulated forthe reading skills that students should possess at each stage of compulsory school, and thatreading could be measured regularly from pre-primary school to the end of compulsory
school.
2. That the percentage of students who graduate from upper secondary school on time will risefrom 44% to 60%. The possible actions to accomplish this goal are among others to organize

Iceland Country Background Report30

the matriculation studies at the upper secondary school so that students generally finish inthree years instead of the current four, to restructure the vocational training courses
accordingly and to increase the number of exit paths from the upper secondary schools.
Standards and learning progression
Key competences are set forward in the national curricula guides. They are articulated in competencegroups such as communication, creativity and critical thinking, independence and co-operation. A
description is given for each competence group and then stated what the student should know or beable to do at the end of a particular school grade. Examples of such competence requirement is: “At
the end of grade four I should be able to communicate my thoughts and opinions and express them in
an appropriate manner”, and “At the end of grade 10 I can take initiative in my studies and be
independent and responsible in how I work”.
When it comes to standards and learning progression the National Testing Institute (will be merged
into a new institute in 2015, responsible for both testing and educational materials) is an independent
governmental institution funded by the state through the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
The institution is responsible for organising, setting and grading the nationally co-ordinatedexaminations and for undertaking comparative analysis of the educational system throughparticipation in international surveys.

2.4 Distribution of responsibilities within the school system
Responsibilities for the operation of the school system
The Icelandic parliament is legally and politically responsible for the educational system,
determining its basic objectives and administrative framework. All education comes under thejurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, with the exception of the Police
Academy.
The educational system has, to a large extent, been decentralised both with regard to responsibilities
and decision-making. This reflects a general trend in Icelandic society. Local communities areaccordingly responsible for the operation of pre-primary and compulsory schools and the state forthe upper secondary schools and higher education.
The local communities are thus responsible for opening and closing pre-primary and compulsory
schools, approving their school curriculum, annual work plans and deciding strategies for support tostudents with learning difficulties. They are also responsible for organizing school leadership andallocating financial and physical resources. Both the local communities and the Ministry - or the
National Testing Institute on the ministry’s behalf, are responsible for monitoring and evaluation of
the schools work.
The Ministry is responsible for opening and closing upper secondary schools, approving their course
offer, school curriculum and annual work plans, organizing school leadership, monitoring andevaluating the schoolwork, and allocating financial and physical resources.
Individuals schools, at all levels, are responsible for formulating the school calendar and instruction
time – in accordance to legal stipulations as well as those in the teachers collective labour
agreements, developing the school curriculum, implementing student assessment as well as schoolassessments, deciding class size and grouping of students, managing the use of financial and physicalresources and selecting, evaluating and dismissing the human resources. All schools are furthermore
responsible for strategies to support students with learning difficulties. In general the head teachers

Iceland Country Background Report31

of pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools are legally granted extensive independence
and responsibility for school operations in the respective School Acts.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture furthermore issues national curricula guidelines for
all pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary education, whether publicly or privately operated.
These national curricula guidelines are intended to provide the detailed objectives necessary to
implement the legal framework and to offer direction as to how it should be carried out in practice.
The distribution of responsibilities within the school system has not changed in any great way since
1995, when the responsibility for the compulsory schools transferred from the state to the local
communities. Since then all changes have been minor, for example determining what responsibilities
the state and the local communities have in specific support services for students with disabilities.
Furthermore, no major initiatives or changes have been decided, but the local communities haveexpressed an interest to take over the operation of the upper secondary schools and underconsideration is to move the responsibility for child day-care from the Ministry of Welfare to the
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
National education institutions
The National Centre for Educational Materials (under the auspices of the Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture) develops and publishes educational materials for compulsory schools anddistributes them to schools free of charge.
The National Testing Institute is an independent institution funded by the state through the Ministryof Education, Science and Culture. The institution is responsible for organising, setting and grading
the nationally co-ordinated examinations and for undertaking comparative analysis of the educational
system through participation in international surveys.
The National Centre for Educational Materials and the National Testing Institute are to merge into
one institution in July 2015.
Local education bodies
The individual pre-primary and compulsory school operates under the authority of the local
community and is responsible for acting in accordance to laws and regulations and local statutes that
may apply. School Boards have a crucial statutory responsibility regarding the operation of preprimary schools and compulsory schools in each local community. The Boards roles include both theprofessional and the operational aspects of schooling. (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c) (Alþingi Íslands,
2008b).
The main functions of the School Boards for the pre-primary and compulsory schools are to:¡Ensure that all entitled children enjoy statutory education.

¡Approve the work program and the school curriculum of individual schools each year.

¡

Monitor the implementation of teaching and learning and make recommendations to thehead-teacher and/or school authority for reforms in education.

¡

Monitor and promote the students and schools access to specialist support services.

¡

Ensure that suitable accommodation for teaching and other facilities is in place, including an
outdoor playground.

Iceland Country Background Report32¡

Ensure that laws and regulations are complied with and make recommendations for
improvements to the local authority.

¡Promote communication and cooperation between the pre-primary school and compulsory
school on the one hand, and compulsory and upper secondary schools on the other.

The Local Council, which consists of elected representatives and governs the local community,
appoints the School Board at the beginning of each political four-year term. Head teachers, teachersand parents in each local community appoint representatives to attend meetings of the School
Boards, as non-voting observers. It is up to each Local Council to decide whether there is one School
Board for both pre-primary and compulsory education, or whether there are two separate ones.
In addition each compulsory school shall have a School Council, with a total of nine members, i.e.
the head teacher, two representatives of the teachers and one for other school employees, two
representatives of the students and parents and one community stakeholder. The role of the School
Council is to participate in the development of the school’s strategy and discuss the school
curriculum, annual operational plan and other school related plans. The Council furthermore
comments on any major changes planned and monitors safety, facilities and generally the student
body welfare. However, as less populated local communities pointed out their difficulty inimplementing the School Councils an amendment has been made to the Compulsory School Act in2011 where a local community can apply to the Ministry for Education, Science and Culture for an
exception to have a School Council.
Instead of a School Council, the pre-primary schools have a Parents Councils, with a minimum of
three representatives appointed by the group of parents. The role of the Parents Council is tocomment on and monitor the implementation of the school’s curriculum and other plans.
Being responsible for upper secondary education, the Minister of Education, Science and Culture
appoints a School Board for each upper-secondary school. Three representatives out of five on the
School Board represent the ministry, the other two come from the local community or communities
concerned. Representatives of teachers and students are non-voting observers on the School Board.
The head teacher attends meetings of the School Board as a non-voting member, serving the board inan executive function. The School Board determines the emphases in school activities and is, among
other things, responsible for the annual operating and financial plan of the school. (Alþingi Íslands,
2008).
School Boards of upper-secondary schools are permitted to establish one or more advisorycommittees in order to promote the best possible co-operation between the school in question andlocal industries.
Vocational committee and occupational councils
According to the Upper Secondary School Act, an eighteen-member co-operation committee on
vocational education at the upper secondary level is the national forum for comprehensive policymaking in the affairs of vocational education. It’s function is also to give advice in the setting ofcommon rules on matters related to vocational education. The Minister of education, Science andCulture appoint the committee and also occupational councils for the individual vocational trades.
The role of the occupational councils is to define the needs of the vocation in question in respect tothe knowledge and ability required for the trade, and to define the aims of that particular vocationalcourse of study. Occupational councils also suggest the structure of the education and curriculum
guidelines that pertain to their specific vocation.

Iceland Country Background Report

33

Privately operated schools
Publicly funded but privately managed schools are present in the education system but they are
relatively few as shown earlier. The responsibility for privately managed pre-primary andcompulsory schools lies with the local communities, which has to authorise their operation and theschools have to fulfil all legal requirements made to the publicly managed schools, with the
exception of decisions on fee taking. In addition to legal requirements, each local municipality
determines the requirements it otherwise makes to the rights and responsibility of the privately
managed schools. The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture is furthermore authorized toapprove privately managed compulsory schools already approved by a local community. As acondition for the Ministry’s approval, the operations and facilities of the school need to comply withexisting laws and regulations, as well as the education and hiring practices of teachers and theschools leadership, the rights and duties of the students need to be respected and the requirements forinternal and external evaluations and public information. (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið,2009e). Thus approved compulsory schools have the right to a funding contribution from the local
community. (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c) (Alþingi Íslands, 2008b).
Privately managed upper secondary schools may also receive the approval of the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture. They need to fulfil the legal requirements that apply to publicly
managed upper secondary schools. To be approved the school needs to submit information on therole and objectives of the school, it’s organization and leadership structure, school curriculum andstudy description, the study and teaching arrangements, employee competency requirements, thestudent admission requirements, the rights and obligations of the students, employee and student
facilities and service, internal quality control system, finances and assurances. (Alþingi Íslands,
2008).

2.5 Market mechanisms in the school system
Each local community can set it’s own policy for admission and the rights of parents to select aschool at the pre-primary and compulsory school level, according to the legislation for the respective
school levels (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c) (Alþingi Íslands, 2008b). In general the criteria should take
into account both the situation of the children and their parents, but also of the schools themselves.
By law parents have the right to choose which school within the local community their child attends.
In practice some local communities allow parents the choice of school, while others do not and thecriteria differs also when demands exceeds supply. Also, in practice most children attend the school
closest to their home. Whether a child goes to a public or private school is entirely the choice of theparents. The same applies for the few special needs schools that exist in the system. Parents canapply for a place at a special needs school, some of which have a specific criterion for entry, andthen a decision is taken on a case-by-case basis.
As a rule a child attends a school in the local community where it has a registered legal residence. A
child may attend a pre-primary or compulsory school in another local community if an agreement tothat extend is made between the two communities.
At the upper secondary level each school is responsible for its own admission criteria and procedure,in accordance to terms agreed between the school and the Ministry of Education, Science andCulture. The National Testing Institute supervises upper secondary school applications for theacademic and vocational tracks, and from the beginning of 2015 will take over the supervision of
applications to the special need tracks as well. In practice all applications are made electronically tothe institute, with each applicant naming a first and second choice school. In the spring of 2013
85,17% applicants were accepted to the first school of choice, 12,36% into their second choice andaround 100 students were not accepted into either of the schools they chose (Námsmatsstofnun, n.d.).

Iceland Country Background Report

34

However, legally all those who have finished compulsory school or reached 16 years of age have theright to start studies at the upper secondary school level. The Ministry of Education, Science andCulture therefore takes over the procedure for those applicants that were not accepted into the twochosen schools and finds them school placements.
Most privately managed schools – pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary - receive publicfunding but are not operated for profit. To that extend an article is to be found in the regulation on
the approval of compulsory schools operated by other than the local communities, which stipulates
that any operating surplus derived from public funding be used to strengthen the operation of theschool (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2009e).
The only policy available that can be said to encourage competition between schools is in a vision
for the compulsory schools to the year 2020, formulated and adopted by the local communities andunions of teachers and head teachers in 2007. One of the objectives there states that parents shouldbe able to choose a school based on the school’s policies and emphasis, where possible. (Pétursdóttir,2007). The implementation of this policy is left to the individual local communities.
Information about the results of the general student body in standardized tests, which only applies tothe compulsory schools, is published every year. Some local communities have chosen not to publish
the information for individual schools, but in a recent verdict it was determined that information for
individual schools should be made available to those who request them (Forsætisráðuneytið, 2014).
At the same time the National Testing Institute has from the beginning published the results down to
the individual schools in it’s reports.
No publication of information on examination results in upper secondary education exists. There are
no standardized tests at that school level, nor are examination results gathered centrally.

2.6 Performance of the school system
Admission criteria
At the pre-primary school level, by law, each local community formulates it’s own policy andadmission criteria. By practice local communities try to ensure all children over a specific age (often
the age of two, in the fall of the year they start pre-primary school) access to pre-primary school –with no discrimination being made to the social, financial or other status of the family. A priority isthough sometimes given to the children of single parents. Furthermore, if there are not a sufficientnumber of places available during the fall admissions, many communities prioritise the older
children when places become available.
The compulsory school act stipulates that attending school is a mandatory for all children aged 6-16.
The local communities are responsible for ensuring places for the children that have a legal residence
in the community and for ensuring that they attend school. (Alþingi Íslands, 2008b).
The upper secondary school law stipulates that all those who have finished compulsory school orequivalence or have reached 16 years of age have the right to attend upper secondary school. Thosewith the right to enter the school furthermore have the right to stay in school until age 18. (Alþingi
Íslands, 2008).
Student fees
At the pre-primary school level each local community can determine the fees it charges the parents,
but the pre-primary school act stipulates though that the fee for each child cannot be higher than theIceland Country Background Report

35

average actual cost of a child in the community’s schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c). In practice each
local community often develops a discount system in their admission criteria in regards to the fee
charged – for example a half fee may be charged for a second child in a family attending pre-primaryschool.
According to the respective laws, compulsory (Alþingi Íslands, 2008b) and upper secondary schools(Alþingi Íslands, 2008) are free of charge to all students. In the compulsory schools parents may becharged the cost of specific educational materials under strict conditions and for meal cost in school
canteens. In the upper secondary schools students pay an enrolment fee approved by the Minister of
Education, Science and Culture and cover the cost of their educational books and some materials andoptional activities such as field trips.
No stipulation is found in the School Acts in regard to school completion, but the national curricula
guidelines for the compulsory and upper secondary schools do state a required knowledge orcompetence to be the pre-requisite for graduation.
Student statistics
Every year Statistics Iceland (www.hagstofa.is) collects various data for all the schools in Iceland.
The student enrolment data shows that a total of 107.353 people were attending school in the fall of
2012, with similar numbers for the preceding years. The data shows a fair gender balance at thelower education levels - pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary. However, more males attend
additional schooling at the upper secondary school level (such as master classes for the specialized
trades) and substantially more females attend tertiary education than males. At the timing of writing
this report this data was only available for two school levels for the fall of 2013 and for none after
that. Therefore the fall of 2012 is the newest data used.
Table 6 The number of students at all education levels by gender, 2004 to 2012

(Hagstofa Íslands, 2014e)
A total of 83% of children aged 1-5 attended pre-primary school (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga,
2013b) and 98,7% of children aged 6-16 attended compulsory school. (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014p). The
1,3% of children aged 6-16 years of age - around 550 children - that are not in compulsory school
according to the calculation, which is based on information from Statistics Iceland, is unexplained asdata from the local communities indicate that 100% of the children in that age group are in school.
The discrepancy may be due to a calculation error somewhere in the process, children that startcompulsory school late, finished compulsory school early and/or started upper secondary school
early.
Education level and drop-out rates
The education level of the population aged 25 to 64 is presented in the following table. The datashows the proportion based on the total population during three comparative years. Looking at theIceland Country Background Report36

total population – i.e. both males and females – a larger percentage of the population has tertiary
education in the more recent years, and fewer have basic and vocational and upper secondary
education only. Comparing males and females a substantially higher number of females have tertiary
education than men, which corresponds to the data in the enrolment table at the beginning of thechapter.
Table 7 The education level of the population aged 25-64, 2004 to 2012 - proportions and bygender(Hagstofa Íslands, 2013m)
Statistics Iceland has also collected national information on dropout rates at the upper secondary
school level for students who started their studies in the years 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The
information was collated to show the status of these students four, six and seven years after
enrolment. The data for those students that entered upper secondary school in 2004 shows thefollowing:
Table 8 The dropout rate of those students who enrolled in upper secondary school in 2004 four, six and seven years after enrolment, by gender and type of studies(Hagstofa Íslands, 2014z)
The data in the table shows that over 27% of those who enrolled in upper secondary school had not
graduated 7 years later, with men having a higher dropout rate than women and those attending
vocational and trade studies having a higher dropout rate than those in academic studies. The dataalso seems to indicate that around 2% of the students drop out after four years but return back toschool, given that the dropout rate spikes at 6 years after enrolment and then lowers again.

Iceland Country Background Report

37

A study was furthermore done in 2013 on those who left upper secondary school without finishing
their exams at the end of the fall semester (MMR, 2014). The study showed that 21% of those who
left were dismissed from the school due to breaking school rules (mostly attendance), 16%transferred to another school, 13% went into the labour market and 10% were due to mental
illnesses. 58% of those who left were aged 16-20 years and 42% were then older than 20. Those in
the younger age group were more likely to drop out of school due to breaking the school rules andtransferring to another school.
Addressing dropout has been high on the agenda of the Icelandic government for several years, andits importance has increased in the context of the economy crisis that started in 2008. To tackle thehigh dropout rate and its consequences, the Icelandic government has taken measures with recent
reforms throughout the education system. These include lengthening teacher education and thedevelopment of a new national curricula and a national qualifications framework. Iceland has
worked on the implementation of these reforms and is continuously strengthening upper secondary
education and at the same time focusing on improving and investing in pre-primary and compulsory
education.
Student performanceStudent performance is annually assessed nationally in 4th, 7th and 10th grade in compulsory schools
and the results published for individual schools and regions. In grades 4 and 7 competence in
Icelandic and math are tested and in grade 10 English is added. According to a report on the 2013
results, between 70% and 100% of the students in the different regions take the tests, the remaining
students being absent or excepted for some reason.
The average normal distribution of grades in 2013, broken down by regions, was as follows:
Table 9 Average normal distribution of grades in Icelandic, math and English in 4th, 7th. and10th grade in compulsory schools, 2013 – by regions(Skúlason, 2013)
More detailed information is available in the report, including further presentation of the test results,
as well as data broken down by gender, individual local communities and individual schools.
Performance data is not available specifically on the performance of students from cultural
minorities, except in relation to PISA. There it is clear that there is a decline in reading
comprehension between the years 2000 and 2012, both for native Icelandic and immigrant students.
However, the decline in performance is on the average by 47 points for immigrant student – or theequivalence of a whole school year as by OECD definition, but by 20 points for Icelandic students.

Iceland Country Background Report38

The immigrant students had a lower performance score to begin with – started at 442 points and went
to 395 points, while the Icelandic students started at 508 points and ended with 488 points.
(Halldórsson, Ólafsson, & Björnsson, 2012).
Analyzing student performance in PISA by social status, only 8,8% of the variance in student
performance can be explained by habitation in areas with low vs. high social status in the capitalarea. Outside the capital area, in towns with more than 1.000 habitants, the explained variance isonly 4% and almost non-existent in rural areas with fewer inhabitants or only 2.7%. Social status inthis case is related to the respect the parents’ jobs hold, the educational background of the parents
and their economic situation.
A decline in math literacy is noticeable in all regions of Iceland in the PISA results for 2012
compared to 2003, but to different degrees. Thus the decline is smallest in the Reykjavík capital area,
the rural West and South of Iceland, more in the North East region, and most in the Southern
Peninsula, the West fjords, North West and East Iceland – where performance has declined by theequivalence of a full school year. This variance in trend across regions does not seem to be related togeographic location or population size, to rural vs. urban areas or how advanced or developed theareas are. There is no clear denominator for trends by region. The same can be said of the results ofreading comprehension.
No performance data has been tabulated specifically for students with special needs, or for public vs.
private schools. Tabulation on the latter could probably be done though, as the data is available forindividual schools. The latest data available on Iceland from TIMMS is since 1999 or from PIRSL
since 2006.
Data on transition rates and incidence of year repetition is not applicable to the compulsory schools,
as students automatically go up from one grade to the next according to age. At the upper secondary
level there are a few schools which operate a class system which requires a full year to be repeated if
a student fails a particular course, but most schools operate on a course system whereby a single
course can be repeated if a student fails it. Year repetition has not been recorded for the upper
secondary schools.

2.7 Policy approaches to equity in education
The welfare of children
In the legislation on pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools from 2008 the welfare ofchildren and adolescents is defined as a basic principle of all school activity. Schools are toemphasise the mental, physical and social wellbeing of their students. Schools are to be sanctuaries
for students, where they feel safe, have opportunities to develop and apply their talents and enjoy
their childhood. In the objective articles of the laws on all the three school levels the role of theschools is defined as to encourage students general development and prepare them for active
participation in a democratic society. The school is the students’ workplace and in the policy
students’ welfare is defined as an essential part of school activities. Children’s rights andparticipation are also fundamental in the new legislation. Parents’ involvement and participation is
also made clearer than before.
Linked to this, the main strength of the Icelandic educational system in comparison to the otherOECD countries is that academic achievement is rather equal between schools, students dothemselves generally feel well and the school system is both flexible and not greatly centralized.
(Halldórsson, Ólafsson, & Björnsson, 2012)

Iceland Country Background Report

39

Students with special needs
As for students with special needs, the Pre-primary School Act (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c) and theCompulsory School Act (Alþingi Íslands, 2008b) from 2008 require the local communities to ensurethat specialist support services are provided in pre-primary and compulsory schools and to determine
the organization of such services. Specialist services include support for students and their families
as well as support for pre-primary and compulsory school activities and it’s personnel.
In the same way, the Upper Secondary School Act from 2008 (Alþingi Íslands, 2008) stipulates thatstudents with special needs shall be provided with instruction and special study support. Specialised
assistance and appropriate facilities shall also be provided. Students with special needs are to studyside by side with other students, but in addition many schools offer a special four-year track of study
where students with special needs are provided with education according to individual educational
plans. All individuals with special needs, who have reached the age of 16, have the right to attend
upper secondary school.
A regulation from 2010 (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2010c) on specialist services forstudents with special needs in pre-primary and compulsory schools and a regulation from 2012 forstudents with special needs in upper secondary schools (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneyti, 2012)
stipulate that all students are entitled to education and support programmes in accordance with theirassessed needs, in inclusive educational settings. Students who have difficulty learning because of
specific learning disabilities have the right to special study support, according to an evaluation of
their specific needs. Those specific learning disabilities can be emotional or social difficulties and/or
disabilities according to the act on the Affairs of People with Disabilities, students with dyslexia,
students suffering from long-term illnesses and students with health related special needs.
A policy regarding assistance for deaf, hearing-impaired and deaf blind students is being formulated
when this report is written and is expected to lead to improvements. The work involves co-operation
between representatives from various ministries and stakeholders. It is expected that similar policies
will be developed for other groups of students with special needs, with the next group being students
with language disorders and those who need speech therapy of any kind.
Furthermore, on the 11th of June 2012 the Parliament approved a Parliamentary Resolution on a Planof Action on Disabled Persons’ Affairs until 2014 (Alþingi Íslands, 2012). The plan of action takes
account of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and other international
human rights agreements to which Iceland is a party. Emphasis is placed on human rights and theprohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability.
Children in foster care
A regulation was released in 2012 on compulsory schooling of children in foster care, with the main
goal to secure appropriate education for those children that live temporarily in foster homes in othercommunities, with often disrupted schooling while in foster care (Mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2012b). Prior, the rights of foster children to attend school in the foster
community were not clear. This new regulation has proved to be a great improvement, as can be seenin the reduction of complaints received by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
Students with a native language other than Icelandic
The school system, i.e. the pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools, has a great
responsibility regarding the education and adaptation of immigrants. The aim is that the students will
be bilingual; that they can be educated in general schools and can participate actively in the Icelandic
society.

Iceland Country Background Report

40

The principal task of the school system in this respect is first and foremost to give support to civic
education, provide opportunities for learning Icelandic, enable immigrants to pursue studies in othersubjects, provide them with the appropriate study materials, work to promote their assimilation,
eliminate prejudice and antagonism towards them, and to educate teachers to meet the more varied
needs of their students.
According to the Pre-Primary School Act, all students are supposed to be provided with systematic
linguistic stimulation in order for them to gain common skills in the Icelandic language. Students
whose native language is not Icelandic are then entitled to learn Icelandic as a second language incompulsory and upper secondary schools.
Students from low-income families
There is not a special provision for support for students from low-income families through theeducational system. However the welfare system has a role here, working in close partnership oftenwith the school system.
Reforms
The greatest challenge in Iceland is to ensure quality education in compulsory and upper secondary
schools that is comparable to the countries that Iceland normally benchmarks against, ensuring thatyoung people of Iceland will have the same opportunities to live and work in a rapidly changing
world as the youth of other comparative countries. The Icelandic educational system is according to
PISA results faced with declining literacy and reading skills of students at the end of compulsory
education and the academic progress in upper secondary schools is poor. Thus, the performance of
Icelandic students in reading comprehension and literacy in math and science has deteriorated overthe past decade and is now lower than the OECD average. Furthermore, too few Icelandic upper
secondary students complete their studies on time, with high dropout rates. Then relatively few
students are enrolled in vocational education and they are less likely to graduate on time thanstudents enrolled in academic education.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture has recently published a White Paper on educational
reforms that can be seen as a reaction to the PISA results that were published in 2013 (Mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2014). Iceland did not participate in the PIAAC survey, but in general acorrelation can be found between good performance in the PISA survey of 15 year olds and theability to solve issues in a technical environment in adulthood. There is also a correlation between
the competence of people and what level of education they have completed. (OECD, 2013b). It canbe concluded that the same may apply to Iceland.
In the Ministry’s White Paper there are two main objectives for the educational reform in Iceland tobe achieved by the year 2018: 90% of all students shall reach minimum requirements in reading and
60% of students shall complete their studies in upper secondary education on time.
To achieve the first objective it is for example planned that education in native languages will bestrengthened and increased at the compulsory school level. A criteria is set for reading skills thatstudents should access at each stage of compulsory school, and reading and literacy will be measured
regularly from pre-primary school to the end of compulsory school. Immigrant students will receive
additional support in order for them to be able to reach the same proficiency in reading
comprehension as other students. Teachers will receive sufficient in-service training and support. All
pre-primary schools and compulsory schools should adopt literacy policy in line with the National
Curricula Guides from 2013 and the school policy of each local community. Students will be
encouraged to read for pleasure outside of school and parents will be activated to arouse interest inreading and to support their children.

Iceland Country Background Report

41

As for the second objective, the White Paper states the intent to reorganize and shorten the time forstudy to graduate from upper secondary education, reduce dropout and change the organization of
vocational training. It is proposed that the matriculation line of study will be based on a three-year
study period, and at the same time it is planned to shorten the vocational studies. In all upper
secondary schools a screening is planned for risk factors for dropout among students.
In line with the experience of other countries it is belived effective to implement few and ambitious
goals for education reforms and attempt to get a broad long term consensus on them. With the White
Paper concurrent schools at all levels are encouraged to work on school development and to makeefforts to strengthen the professional awareness of teachers, increased emphasis is on collecting data
and analyze the results, evaluate them and draw relevant conclusions from.
In order to implement the White Paper, project managers were recruited in the autumn of 2014 andworking groups of representatives from various stakeholders established. The White Paper will bepresented throughout the country to establish a consensus on the goals. The intention is also tostrengthen the support services for education with the merger of two state institutions, the National
Testing Institution and The National Centre for Educational Materials. It is expected that the new
institution will play an important role in consolidating quality and evaluation, providing data on the
educational system. It is expected that the institution will also work on developing the curriculum
and teaching materials, as well as administration in relation to vocational training. A bill of law isready at the time of the writing this report, and it is assumed that the institution can formally start tooperate in mid 2015.
The biggest challenge concerning immigrant students and students with disabilities is to implement
fully inclusive education at all school levels with sufficient support to schools and individual
teachers and students. The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture is carrying out an extensive
analysis on the status, aiming to tackle this challenge in broad co-operation with stakeholders. The
objective is to investigate the implementation of the policy of inclusive education and its
implications on schools activities and stakeholders within the school community, for example on thestudents and the teachers. Results are expected to be available in 2015.
In addition work is on-going, under the leadership of the Minister of Welfare, on developing aparliamentary resolution to improve the situations of immigrants and people with disabilities basedon executive plans that already exist.
Extending the teachers education by two years was expected to cost 280m IKR on an annual basis,
according to the calculations that are to be found in the bill to the parliament in 2007. The increase incost was linked to the salaries of teachers as the expectation was that more of them would have
graduate level degrees, and to the increase in cost of teachers studies. (Alþingi Íslands, 2007).
The expected financial implications of other recent and planned reforms are not known or available
for the report.

2.8 Main challenges
The following main challenges are facing the school system, in regard to decision-making,coordination among the different decision-making levels and disagreements on current school policy:¡The local communities have expressed an interest in taking over the operational
responsibility for the upper secondary schools. However, no formal discussions to that

Iceland Country Background Report

42

extend have started between the state and the local communities at the time of the writing of
this report.
¡

Occasionally a dispute comes up as to which ministry has the responsibility for particular
health and welfare related services for students with special needs. The Ministry of Welfare
takes the position that such services are the responsibility of the education sector even when
the services are delivered by institutions that report to the Ministry of Welfare, while the
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture claims that what matters is the service that thewelfare system is required to give to all citizens, not that the individual in question happens
to be attending school.

¡

Ministers of Education, Science and Culture have, on a regular basis for the past 20 years,
had the vision and intend to reduce the number of years required to finish academic studies
at upper secondary school from four to three - referring to neighbourhood countries withfewer school years and equal or better student performance. This is a controversial policythat has especially been opposed by the Association of Teachers in Upper Secondary
Schools. The Association agrees that students should finish their studies in the expected
number of years instead of taking longer to finish their studies, but state that the content of
the studies may not be degraded and that all students need to have equal opportunities tofinish their studies regardless of their situation. The Association also argues that the timeneeded to finish Upper Secondary School is already flexible, as decreed in the relevant
legislation and expressed in the operation of the schools – with many upper secondary school
students already finishing their studies in three years instead of four.

¡The policy on inclusive schools is debated. While there is general agreement that the policy
itself is justified, school administrators and staff feel that the implementation of the policy is
not sufficiently managed. The local authorities claim that funding from the state has notfollowed the policy development and subsequent increased demands on the compulsory
schools. The state takes the position that although the policy was formally legalized in 2008
it has a history since prior to the transference of the compulsory schools from the state to the
local communities in 1996 and that therefore the cost of the implementation at that timepoint was included in original calculations of funding. In any case, there are increased
demands on the school system because of the policy on inclusive schools, as expressed in theincreased need for co-operation between the education and welfare systems and that
inclusive schools have become a human rights issue, for example.

¡

The five-year education policy for schoolteachers is debated; teachers feel the higher
educational requirement was not followed through with a sufficient raise in the teachers’salaries while the public authorities responsible for the schools operations point out that a
graduate degree is always better paid than an undergraduate degree. In any case, thecollective labour agreements signed in the spring of 2014 did raise the salaries, with theimpact for the teachers to be seen.

¡The high upper secondary schools dropout rate is a key challenge of the Icelandic education
system, where too many start academic programmes in the upper secondary schools but do
not complete. The consequence is a waste of resources and a high number of people whohave no formal education other than the compulsory one. Furthermore, the limited
availability of and relatively few applications for vocational training is a major concern. Thisis addressed in the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture White Book, which was
published in spring 2014 (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2014). Increased

Iceland Country Background Report

43

availability of on-the job placements and shorter vocational programs is also by many
considered to be likely to significantly reduce the dropout rate.
¡

Stakeholders often feel that the state does not have sufficient consultation with stakeholders
in setting policies or determining reforms. An example is the Icelandic Association of Local
Authorities which requested involvement in the formulation of the before mentioned White
Book, which was not granted. The Association will however be consulted on theimplementation and funding of the objectives and actions presented in the White Book, as
presented by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. The emphasis of the
Association is that as the representative of one of two levels of public administration andwith the responsibility for the operation and funding of two education levels, the Association
cannot be placed on par with stakeholders such as labour unions or parents.

Iceland Country Background Report

44

Chapter 3. Governance of resource use in schools
This chapter is concerned with how resources are governed within the school system. It addresses thelevel of resources for education, sources of revenue for education, the planning of resource use andthe implementation of policies to improve effectiveness of resource use.

3.1 Level of resources and policy concerns
Government expenditure on education
The government expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP was 8,2% in 2004, 8,35% in 2008
and 7,66% in 2013 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014æ). The financial resources allocated to the different
levels of the education system can be seen in the following table. Adult education is excluded, as theinformation is not available. These are resources from both the state and the local communities, inmillion IKR and at present value for the year 2013.
Table 10 Distribution of financial resources across the different levels of the education system,2004 to 2013 – in million IKR and as a proportion of funding(Hagstofa Íslands, 2014x) (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b)
As the table shows the compulsory school system receives the biggest proportion of the educational
budget or 41 to 45% depending on the year, while pre-primary receives 13 to 20%, upper secondary
14 to 17% and tertiary 19% to 22%. The funding has increased by around 55% for the pre-primaryschools between the years of 2004 and 2013, by 5% for the compulsory schools, by 17% for tertiary
education and 9% for other costs. The proportional funding has however decreased for the upper
secondary level by 4%.
Information is not available on the resources allocated to adult education, which is operated only
partially by public parties such as schools at upper secondary and tertiary level. Other parties
responsible for adult education include the labour unions and private companies.
Unit cost of spending per student
The unit cost of spending per student across the different educational levels is as follows, in present
value for 2013:

Iceland Country Background Report

45

Table 11 The average cost of spending per students at pre-primary, compulsory and upper
secondary schools, 2004 to 2012 in million IKR(Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b) (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014e) (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014x)
For the pre-primary school the student numbers are the equivalence of full time students, while
actual hours at school vary for each child. The cost is the total cost of the state and/or local
communities including funding to privately operated pre-primary and compulsory schools, but
private operators other funding excluded. Income from other sources, such as parents and students,
has not been deducted to lower the figures. The data in the table shows that the spending has
increased by 17% for each pre-primary school student and by 9% for compulsory school students
between the years of 2004 and 2012. It has however gone down by 15% for upper secondary school
students during the same time period. The spending per student has decreased at all school levels
between the years of 2008 and 2012, or from the beginning of the economic recession. The decreasesince 2008 is 14% for the pre-primary students and 11% for the compulsory schools and the upper
secondary students.
The data is not available for students in academic and vocational studies at upper secondary school,
nor for different regions or school contexts at the pre-primary and compulsory school level.
Challenges facing the school system
Following the economic crisis that started in 2008 the state and most local communities cut down
financial and other resources to the school system, which has been a challenge to the system.
Operational budgets were lowered or not raised in keeping with increased cost, as well as budgets forthe maintenance and development of facilities. According to a study done in two local communities
this situation impacted overtime allowance, led to larger classes, school leadership taking onteaching in absence of teachers, both leadership and teaching positions being cut down, less funding
being available for special education and co-operation within the schools, people without teachingcredentials being hired for part time positions, recreational activities being cut down and so on(Davíðsdóttir, et al., 2012). Furthermore, some communities merged schools at the same or different
levels, such as pre-primary, compulsory and/or music schools.
Each local community decided whether and then how to reduce the funding to the pre-primary andcompulsory schools. In general though, while the local communities undertook severe budget cuts in2008 they protected the basic services such as education but cut down on investments and anythingthat could count as extra services. In 2014 the local communities are still careful in their budget
decisions but there are signs indicating that the financial situation is getting better. Thus thecompulsory school cost of the local communities increased by 2% at real value between the years of2012 and 2013.

Iceland Country Background Report

46

At the upper secondary school level however, the schools have had their funding decrease each year,
last by further 1,2% in the Budget Bill for 2015. Of interest is that as unemployment increased withthe economic recession a special campaign was launched to give people with little formal education
an opportunity to enlist in upper secondary school and thus improve their employment prospects inthe future, at the same time as the budgets for education were reduced (Mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2014). However, in the instructions with the budget cuts for the upper
secondary schools for 2015 students under the age of 25 are prioritized. This impacts vocational
students more than academic ones as vocational students are typically older, and adults going back toschool. To counterbalance this, funding to vocational education was not cut for 2015.
Most schools have a fair amount of discretion on how to level the lowered financial resources. In any
case, most of the funding goes towards salaries and other fixed cost items, and thus housing
maintenance, replacement of computers, purchase of teaching materials and continuous education forteachers has often taken the brunt of the situation.
Judging by articles written by and discussions in the school community the funding available tooperate the upper secondary schools, as well as the pre-primary and compulsory schools of many
local communities, is below what is needed to fulfil legal requirements. Improving the effective useof resources in education is therefore of great importance.
A second important challenge is the salaries of the teachers, which have often been considered low incomparison to other similarly educated professions in the public sector in Iceland. It is however
expected that the latest collective agreements, signed in the spring and summer of 2014, will rectify
this – although the teaching profession is concerned that their salaries will still be lower than those
professions they compare themselves to. In the past young people have not been highly motivated toenter teaching as can be seen in the high average age of teachers, with turnover and succession issues
a concern to all stakeholders.

3.2 Sources of revenue
As mentioned earlier, schools at all levels are for the most part publicly funded - the pre-primary andcompulsory schools by the local communities and the upper secondary schools by the state. The few
privately managed schools in the country largely operate through public funding also, with parental
contributions being the other main source of funding. Information on the relative proportion of
public and private funding for the privately managed schools is explained in chapter 2.2.
The local communities finance schools through the local income tax collected centrally by the state
as well as taxes collected locally, such as the property tax. The communities can choose to use theirtax income for schooling to any extend they wish. Parents pay a certain pre-primary school fee
according to fee criteria that each local community determines. That fee only covers part of the cost.
Compulsory schools are legally free for the user, but parents pay meal costs if they so choose andlimited material cost.
The state finances the upper secondary school through state taxes, with the budget being determinedeach financial year. Upper secondary school students pay a registration fee, as approved by the
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. They also pay the cost of textbooks and othereducational material. Privately managed schools typically also charge tuition fees as stipulated in acontract with the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
Contributions from others than the local community/state, and to some extent the parents, for
operating the schools are rare and do not occur to any significant extent. Culturally it is even

Iceland Country Background Report47

considered negative for the business sector to contribute financially or otherwise to a school, withsome local communities and schools having clear policies on the contributions. Philanthropy
associations sometimes contribute a piece of needed equipment or facility, but it is not something theschools expect or depend on.

3.3 Planning of resource use
Attendance at pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools has been fairly constant for thelast ten years as can be seen in the following chart, with the development mostly linked to changes in
the population size.
Chart 2 Number of students in pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools, 2004 to2013(Hagstofa Íslands, 2014e)
Population demand for changes
At all school levels there is foremost the demand of the population that the schools increasingly meetthe needs of the students as individuals. For students with special needs this has called for reform inthe services provided, in regard to diagnosis, educational support and consultancy for teachers,
parents and students. This reform is still on going, but an example of what has been accomplished isthat in 2008 one seriously visually impaired student attended university but ten do in 2014.
A key trend in population demand for different services at the compulsory school level in the lastyears has been the call for the childrens daily activities to be continuous and take place during thedaytime. That is, for sport, music and recreational activities for the children to be integrated with andinto the traditional school operations so that both parents and children are done with their “workday” around the same time. This demand has impacted school timetables and provided opportunities
for traditional class activities to be segmented with physical movement, for example.
At the upper secondary school the demand has been for more various vocational training studies andthen specifically those of 1-2 year duration. Furthermore, at the upper secondary level the population
is increasingly calling for schools to be located in physical proximity to the local communities, sothat students do not need to travel long distances or move away from home at the age of 16 in order
to continue their education.

Iceland Country Background Report

48

Following the economic crash in 2008, there was furthermore an increased demand for adultattendance at the upper secondary school level as those unemployed wanted to improve theiremployment prospects. At the same time the public authorities wanted more ways to help people tostay active while unemployed. A special initiative was therefore set up in 2011, Nám er vinnandi
vegur, with the aim to aid those unemployed. The state, universities and upper secondary schools
joined forces to ensure on the one hand that everybody under the age of 25 that so wished was able
to enrol in an upper secondary school and on the other to create new study opportunities in upper
secondary schools, universities and continued education for those seeking employment. A total of
1.141 people under the age of 25 enrolled in upper secondary school as a part of the initiative and1.042 employment seekers enrolled at the different school levels. (Mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuneytið, n.d.(c)).
The claim of the school community is that funding has not been increased to the schools to meet thedemands made in the recent years. Furthermore, it is also the opinion of many school employees thatsalaries and working conditions do not correlate to the changes in the schools operations.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture determines the distribution of resources to the upper
secondary schools and state institutions in a support function, as well as the channelling of resources
linked to state set policy priorities. The local communities determine the distribution of resources tothe pre-primary and compulsory schools, the support services operated at the local level and thoselinked to locally set policy priorities. Head teachers and heads of support institutions and agencies at
all levels have then the responsibility for the day-to-day resource distribution and use. See chapter 2
for further information.
The head teachers distribute resources within each school and organize the school leadership. The
school leadership manages the teaching workforce but have limited authority to financially reward
good performance and to let teachers go for bad performance. The school leadership also manages
infrastructure and communication with the School Board and the School or Parents Council. Setting
and maintaining budgeting and accounting systems are in most cases the responsibility of the state or
local community depending on the school level. The state/local communities also typically set up therelationship with contractors and vendors through framework agreements or bids, but the follow up
relationship on the day-to-day purchases and work is then the responsibility of the individual schoolor institution.
Effectiveness and efficiency of resource use
The legislations for the different school levels require internal and external evaluation andmonitoring of school operations. The focus is on supplying the school community with information
on school operations, performance and development, ensuring that the operations fulfil legal
requirements, increasing the quality of the education and encouraging reform, and ensuring that therights of the students are respected and that they receive the services they are entitled to according to
the law. In the formal evaluations and monitoring the focus is not very much on assessing theeffectiveness and efficiency of resource use.
In public debate on the school system it is common to point out that the cost of the educational
system in Iceland is above what the neighbourhood countries pay, while the results of student
assessments in the PISA is below their results. Thus there is a debate on the effectiveness of resourceuse. However, little research exists on the subject and data is not easily found.
The Icelandic National Audit Office published an audit report on The Local Governments’
Equalizations Fund (see chapter 4.1 for information on the Fund) and the compulsory schools in2008 (Ríkisendurskoðun, 2008). The report states that in 2004 there was a great difference in theIceland Country Background Report

49

operational cost of the compulsory schools, with the local communities spending from 528.000 IKR
to 3,4m IKR per student, or from 73.000 IKR to 305.000 IKR per each local resident. The difference
is mostly explained by the variance in school sizes and the variance in the student/staff ratio. Thus
the ratio was from 1,5 to 10 depending on the school. Other factors include the ratio of students tothe total population and population density. In the audit these statistics are not correlated to thequality of education or student performance and thus the effective use of resources.
The audit report furthermore states that there is limited quality monitoring of the educational system,with the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture assessing the internal assessment systems of theschools on a regular basis, but little else. The gathering of information on the cost of the local
communities for the compulsory schools is also said limited, the definition of expenditure different
between the different communities and therefore comparisons are very difficult. Thus the reportstates that due to limited monitoring and insufficient data it is very difficult to assess the professionaland financial aspects of school operations. Finally it states that most of the necessary premises
needed to know whether sufficient resources are provided for the operation of the school system are
missing - or measurable objectives and direct quality monitoring.	
  The Audit report was published in 2008 as stated before. Some of the concerns it raises have beenaddressed since. Thus in 2007 The Association of Local Authorities, in partnership with selectedschools, set up a pilot project that became permanent in 2011. The project, Skólavog(www.skolapulsinn.is), collects three types of information; one of them is operational cost per
student. Also collected is various operational information for the compulsory schools, information on
the educational background of the teachers, student performance results in the nationallystandardized tests and the results of attitude surveys for students, parents and school employees.
Participation is elective to the local communities, with compulsory schools primarily participating.
Each local community receives the results for it´s schools, along with information on how theschools compare to the other participating schools as a whole. It is up to each community to decide
how the information is shared.
Furthermore, in 2012 the Upplýsingaveita sveitarfélaga was established. It is an information centre
that gathers centrally financial information from the local communities, allowing for easier and much
more detailed analysis of cost than before. The information is used for calculating the various costelements, that are then published in annual reports such as the School Report or Skólaskýrsla
(Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b) and on the website of the Icelandic Association of Local
Authorities (www.samband.is).
No information is available centrally on what type of evidence is used for the planning of resourceuse. As a rule each local community develops their own financial budgets with the participation ofschool leaders. No known research about the effects of resource use exists.
Research on the effective use of resources does not impact the planning of resource use at the upper
secondary school level, as such research is mostly lacking. Instead there is a comprehensive funding
model that determines the type of evidence that is used for the planning of funding to each school.
The models role and operation is specified in regulation no. 335/1999 (Mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuneyti, 1999). The regulation stipulates that the funding model take into accountgeneral criteria that applies to all schools, as well as specific criteria taking into account the specificcircumstances of each school. The model is explained in chapter 4.4.
No specific central or regular mechanism is in place that allows schools to share information andexperiences on how to effectively manage their resources. No central or regular methods are either

Iceland Country Background Report

50

available for benchmarking or the adoption of best practices in resource use between different
schools.

3.4 Implementation of policies to improve the effectiveness of resource use
A formal cooperation in developing public education policy does not exist, instead a decision onwhether and then who should be consulted or involved is taken in each individual case. Thus a
consultative process was established in formulating the legislation on the pre-primary, compulsory
and upper secondary schools in 2008 and the subsequent regulations, although the final legislation isset by the parliament. Involved in the process were The Association of Local Authorities and therelevant teachers and head teachers unions.
An extensive co-operation was similarly in place while the national curriculum guidelines weredrafted, both in the preparation of the curriculum and also in the formal review process.
Furthermore, there is also an active partnership on various issues related to the education policy,
such as a working group with the task to assess the implementation of the policy on inclusive
schools, which includes representative of the ministries of education and welfare, local authorities,
teachers unions and head teachers unions.
On the other hand, it has been criticised that a recently published White Book establishingeducational priorities for the next few years was developed in the Ministry of Education, Science andCulture without consultation or involvement of the local authorities.
The consultation and co-operation practices are thus not set in a particular process or method.
To a certain extent school policy is negotiated in the collective labour agreements for the teachers,
such as teaching obligations within school time. A part from that high tensions do not exist regarding
setting school policy, although there are different views of course on various issues, for example
whether and how to reduce the number of study years in upper secondary schools.
It is not common for the state or local communities to run pilots or other policy experimentation
before the implementation of a school policy. An exception though is the development of an external
evaluation for schools, which was a pilot project between the state and local communities in 2012
and is a development project in 2013 to 2015. Furthermore, examples exist of individual schools, ora group of schools, who have developed pilot projects in order to test the implementation of a policy.
The results of the monitoring of resources are not generally shared with stakeholders.

3.5 Main challenges
The following aspects of governance of resources are being challenged or are subject to reexamination:¡

The labour unions of teachers and managers at the upper secondary school level havepointed out that the constant decrease in funding to the upper secondary schools has reacheda serious point. In an article written on 17 September 2014 (Arnardóttir & Sigurjónsson,2014) it is pointed out that the constant decrease in funding from 2009 have called for
reduction in staff, fewer study programmes on offer, larger student groups in each course andless student support. With a proposed further funding decrease for the 2015 financial year,
the upper secondary schools are supposed to reduce the student numbers by 4,7% and give
those student under the age of 25 priority access. The article points out the conflict toIceland Country Background Report

51

existing policy, which aims to strengthen vocational training where the average age of thestudents is 25,2. Finally, the article points out that in the comments for the proposed 2015
budget it is stated that the expected reduction of the time needed to finish matriculation
studies will streamline costs at the upper secondary school level, and that a political decision
has been taken without the upper secondary schools having been consulted.
¡

The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture introduced changes in student assessmentsin the new national curriculum for the compulsory schools. The change refers to the level ofcompetence that is required for students at the end of the compulsory school. Those changes
are liked by some schools and not by others. Those who criticise the initiative are morecritical toward the implementation of the change rather than the change itself though. In
response the Ministry has consulted stakeholders on the matter and agreed to a delay in when
the change takes effect.

¡

Following a parliamentary resolution adopted in 2013 (Alþingi Íslands, 2013) the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture is working on a proposal on how the local communities canaccept children into the pre-primary schools immediately following the end of thematernity/paternity leave, which is 9 months. The work is being done in partnership withrepresentatives from the local communities, experts, stakeholders and political parties.

Iceland Country Background Report

52

Chapter 4. Resource distribution
This chapter is concerned with how resources are distributed within the school system. It deals not
only with resources levied at the central level but also with those levied at the more local level(e.g. regions, communities). It addresses the distribution of resources between the different levels of
the administration (e.g. central, state, regional and local), across resource types (e.g. humanresources, physical resources, targeted programmes), between levels of the school system (e.g. preprimary, compulsory, upper secondary), between different sectors (e.g. general programmes,
vocational programmes) and between individual schools. In addition, it concerns the distribution ofschool facilities (e.g. organization of the school network), the organization of teacher resources (e.g.
number of teachers; teacher preparation), the organization of school leadership resources (e.g.
number and profile of school leaders) and resources targeted at specific student groups (e.g. special
needs; compensatory programmes for disadvantaged students).

4.1 Distribution of resources between levels of the education administration
Centralized and decentralized public spending
The total public spending in the year 2012 for the pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary
level is 117.612 billion IKR. Out of that amount 19% was centralized – i.e. funded and managed by
the state, and 81% was decentralized or funded by the local communities. What is centralized anddecentralized varies greatly between the different school levels as the funding for the pre-primaryschools is 100% decentralized and 99% for the compulsory schools, but only 9% for the upper
secondary schools. (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013h) (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013i) (Samband íslenskra
sveitarfélaga, 2013b).
The 1% that is centralized for the compulsory schools is used to finance the National Centre for
Educational Materials, The National Testing Institute, various development funds, copyright fees foreducational materials, and so on.
The funding is fully or mostly decentralized for the pre-primary and compulsory schools since they
are the responsibility of and operated by the local communities. While the local communities havealways operated the pre-primary schools, responsibility for the compulsory schools moved from thestate to the local communities with changes in it´s legislation in 1995. At that time the cost of thecompulsory schools was determined to be 2,84% of the total income tax received by the state.
That percentage was decided by using the capital city, Reykjavík, as a zero point – calculating by
how many percentage points the local income tax would have to go up for the city to cover the costof operating the compulsory schools, which came to 2.07% of the states total income tax. In 1995
2,07% of the states annual income tax was therefore permanently transferred to the local income tax,that the state collects centrally and transfers to the local communities in order to even out salary costsin the compulsory schools and to cover other costs due to transference of the schools from the state
to the local communities. (Innanríkisráðuneytið, 2010). The funding is not earmarked for spendingon specific budget items. However, that percentile is still used to calculate the funding for thecompulsory schools although the schools have changed drastically - with full school days instead ofhalf days, longer teaching hours, higher salary cost that are mostly due to an increased number of
employees and variety in professions working within the schools, and a policy on inclusive schools.
The cost for the local communities has therefore surpassed the initial cost estimates, with themmaking up the cost difference through other income sources.

Iceland Country Background Report

53

Following the calculations for the City of Reykjavík, the total cost of operating all the compulsory
schools in the country was then determined, which came to a total of 2.84% of the states income tax.
The difference between the 2.84% and 2.07% - or 0,77% - was then allocated by the state to The
Local Governments’ Equalizations Fund, which operates on the basis of legislation no. 4/1995 on theincome base of local communities (Alþingi Íslands, 1995). The role of the fund is to even out thedifference in expenditure and income of those local communities with a specific or a greater need,through allocations from the fund, based on the relevant legislation, regulation and internal
procedures established for the operation of the fund (Innanríkisráðuneytið, 2010).
A part of the 0,77% is earmarked to cover proportionally the operational cost of the fund itself but
the main part, or 8.145 billion IKR according to the draft budget for the fund for 2014, is reallocatedto the local communities. 71% of that amount goes towards general support but the rest is earmarked
as follows: 129 million IKR to the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities, 1.890 billion IKR tosupport disabled students with special needs, 4.5 million IKR for the assistance of experts andteaching consultants and 193 million IKR for educational programmes for new arrivals in the
country. The remaining amount is allocated towards various small and specific projects such as aschool camp and lessons for students with long-term illnesses (Jöfnunarsjóður sveitarfélaga, 2013).
However, there is no direct link between the allocation of funding from the Fund and the executionof the school operations or monitoring of the quality of education.
In addition to the 0,77% the fund provides a special allocation to cover the cost of transporting
students to school in rural areas. The criteria for allocation are based on the number of transporting
students and the distances between homes and schools.
The allocation criteria of the fund are currently under review, with a new criteria expected to be put
into effect in 2015. According to a comment by the director of the Fund, at a meeting in the Ministryof Education, Science and Culture in the spring of 2014, the new criteria will be more general than
before.
Criteria for funding
83% of 1-5 year olds attended pre-primary school in 2012 and 100% of 6-15 year olds attended orwere already finished with compulsory school (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b). All but
three of the compulsory schools are inclusive to all students and the criteria for funding has therefore
limited effect on the characteristics of the student population in each school. However a handful of
pre-primary and compulsory schools have been designated and receive the funding to support a small
group of students with special needs, such as those who speak sign language, are autistic or havesevere physical and mental disabilities. The schools that have thus been designated do have anadvisory function in their area of expertise for all the other schools nationwide.
The educational budget for the upper secondary schools is fully centralized, as they are theresponsibility of and operated by the state. The local communities have though expressed an interestin taking over the responsibility for the upper secondary schools, as agreed in a meeting of thegeneral assembly of the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities in 2007 and reiterated in theschool policy agreed on in 2008 (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2008). However, no agreements
to that end have been made at the time of the writing of this report.
Being responsible for the operation of the upper secondary schools the Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture has developed a comprehensive funding model, which is explained further inchapter 4.4. The actual allocation to each school is then determined in the states Budget Bill for eachyear, and agreed to by the parliament. The assumptions behind each criteria is adjusted rather thanthe criteria itself changed, to meet the funding available, in order to ensure a just and transparent

Iceland Country Background Report

54

contribution of funding to the individual schools. (Sigurðsson, 2008). Out of the allocation nothing is
specifically earmarked for a particular spending.
The criteria for funding to each upper secondary school takes into account the differences in costs forvocational and academic study programmes, where lies the biggest difference in the characteristicsof the student population in each school. That is, some upper secondary schools only offer academic
programmes, a few only vocational programmes and some both. The student population in theacademic study programmes consists of 45% males and 55% females, with the reverse numbers
applicable to those doing vocational studies (Hagstofa Íslands, 2012b). Comparing student age, 88%of those who receive their journeyman’s licence from the vocational study programmes are 22 orolder, but only 16% of those who graduate with their matriculate exam from the academic study
programmes (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013d).
Furthermore several upper secondary schools offer a special study programme for students with aformal diagnosis that indicate the need for a special learning assistance.

4.2 Distribution of financial resources across resource types
The financial resources for the pre-primary and compulsory schools have been spent on different
budget items as shown in the following tables. They include the total public cost for each schoollevel, including schools operated by private parties and the local communities, as well as schools forstudents with special needs. For comparative purposes the amounts are stated in million IKR usingpresent value for the year 2012.
Table 12 Capital and current spending for the pre-primary schools, 2004 to 2012 – divided into
physical resources, employee cost and other resources(Samband íslenskra sveitarfélag, 2014).

Iceland Country Background Report

55

Table 13 Capital and current spending for the compulsory schools, 2004 to 2012 – divided into
physical resources, employee cost and other resources(Samband íslenskra sveitarfélag, 2014).
Detailed information on the financial statements of the different local communities has only been
centrally available from 2012. This includes “internal” rent, but as a principle property owned by the
local communities is entered in an independent operational unit called the Property Fund, which is
responsible for the purchase, sale, construction and operation of the property of the local community(Fjármálaráðuneytið, 2013). The Fund then rents the property to the schools and other operational
units of the local community, thereby collecting “internal” rent. This cost would be the only one
covered by capital spending. Nationwide such internal rent was on average around 11% of the total
cost for the pre-primary schools and 22% for the compulsory schools in 2012 (Samband íslenskra
sveitarfélaga, 2013b).
As for current cost it is only possible to account for labour cost and other cost for the pre-primaryand compulsory schools. Labour cost is not available separated for the different types of school
employees – i.e. teachers, management, administration etc. Included in other costs are items such as
rent (internal rent also until 2012) and the purchase of commodities and service.
Labour cost for the pre-primary schools goes from 73% of total current cost in 2004 to 67% in 2012,
and for the compulsory schools from 66% in 2004 to 61% in 2012. The total operational cost of the
pre-primary school is from 4% to 17% of the tax income of the different local communities in 2012,and of the compulsory schools from 25% to 66%. (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b).
The following table shows how expenditure for the upper secondary schools has been spent on the
different budget items. It includes the total cost for the upper secondary school level. For
comparative purposes the amounts are stated using present value for the year 2011.

Iceland Country Background Report

56

Table 14 Capital and current cost for the upper secondary schools, 2004 to 2011 – divided into
physical resources, employee cost and other resources(Hagstofa Íslands, 2013f)
The information is only available to the year 2011 for employee cost and other resources and forinvestments on the capital side. Employee cost cannot be separated for the resource types, i.e.
teachers, school leaders and non-teaching staff.
The table shows that employee cost has changed proportionally through the time period, was 64% of
the total current cost in 2004, went down to 56% in 2009, up to 70% in 2010 and back to 65% in2011.

4.3 Distribution of resources between levels and sectors of the school system
For information on how financial resources are distributed across the different levels of the education
system, see chapter 3.1.
No formal and separate vocational studies take place in the pre-primary and compulsory schools.
Information on the distribution of resources across sectors in the upper secondary schools is notavailable.

4.4. Distribution of resources across individual schools
Distribution of resources to pre-primary and compulsory schools
According to legislation no. 90/2008 on pre-primary schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c) and no.
91/2008 on compulsory schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008b), the local communities have operationaland financial responsibility for those two school levels.
In general, the individual local community determines the funding that is allocated to each preprimary and compulsory school, either through specific funding models that the local communities
design for themselves or general budget frameworks that they determine themselves also. The
criteria for funding are primarily based on the number of students, legal requirements and collective
labour agreements. Most, if not all, local communities use as a basis for their estimation of financial
resources the number of generic class hours on the one hand and the number of class hours required
for supported teaching or teaching of students with special needs on the other. Otherwise each local
community determines the financial requirements based on local needs, which are usually not veryvaried between schools when it comes to aspects such as the socio-economic background of theIceland Country Background Report57

students or the students special needs. For more information see a detailed description of The Local
Communities Equalization Fund in chapter 4.1.
As each local community is an independent financial authority, it determines also the discretion of
the individual head of school in deciding the use of the funding received, within the requirements oflaws and regulation. Thus some heads of school can use the funding as they see fit as long as theyremain within the total budget provided, while others cannot transfer funding between different costareas without approval from the local community. In the same way, in some local communities
surplus or loss is transferred to the next financial year and in others not.
The local communities approve schools operated by private parties. Those need to fulfil the samelegal requirements as schools operated by the local communities themselves, with the exception offees charged to students and/or their legal guardians. The law does not require the local communities
to provide funding for the pre-primary schools operated by private parties. However, a stipulation ismade that compulsory schools operated by private parties have the right to a financial contribution
from the local community, which is calculated to be 70-75% of the effective average total
operational cost of the students in all the compulsory schools operated by the local communities, perstudent. This funding is for general use. Any additional funding is acquired from parental
contributions and/or other sources of funding as the individual schools decide themselves.
Distribution of resources to upper secondary schools
According to legislation no. 92/2008 on upper secondary schools the parliament provides state
operated schools with operational funding through each years Budget Bill. Privately operated upper
secondary schools require an approval from the Minister of Education, Science and Culture in orderto operate, but that approval does not guaranteed state funding. However, the Minister of Education,
Science and Culture has the authority to sign funding contracts with such privately operated schools.
(Alþingi Íslands, 2008). Traditionally such funding contracts exist for those upper secondary schoolsthat are privately operated.
According to the legislation the Minister proposes the funding for each school individually, forteaching and other costs as required. The proposed funding is based on a comprehensive funding
model whose role and operation is specified in regulation no. 335/1999 (Mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuneyti, 1999). The regulation stipulates that the funding model take into accountgeneral criteria that applies to all schools, as well as specific criteria taking into account the specificcircumstances of each school.
According to the regulation the general criteria used in the model includes the:¡

number of teaching hours pr. student pr. week,¡

average class and group sizes,¡average number of students pr. class or group,¡salary cost,¡

proportion between teaching jobs to teaching cost,¡

proportional division of teaching hours into daytime and overtime work.

¡The specific criteria includes:¡the number of registered students of the past calendar year,

Iceland Country Background Report58¡the estimated number of students, average for two semesters of the coming financial year,¡the estimated number of students attending evening school, average for two semesters of thecoming financial year,¡proportion of teaching hours for students attending preliminary and remedial education tototal student teaching hours,¡square meters of housing split into usage for academic studies, management andadministration, vocational studies, dormitories and cafeteria,¡rental cost of facilities used for teaching, the price for a cubic meter of hot water and kwh ofelectricity,¡the distance from Reykjavík,¡average annual income of teachers,¡annual income and paid overtime of the head of the school.

Each of these criteria is not weighted against each other, but is instead based on actual, average or
estimated cost. Thus each student has a cost figure attached depending on the type of study,
maintenance cost is a proportional cost of the book value of the facilities used for the students,
funding for the purchase of equipment and its maintenance is a proportional amount of the value ofthe equipment in use and so on. Compensation is then made for schools away from the capital Cityof Reykjavík, those with fewer students and those with student dormitories. The assumptions behindeach criteria is adjusted, rather than the criteria itself changed, to meet the funding available, in orderto ensure a just and transparent contribution of funding to the individual schools. Thus if there is aneed to cut funding, the assumption of students per class can be changed, etc. (Sigurðsson, 2008).
According to an appendix to the collective labour agreement (Fjármálaráðuneytið and
Kennarasamband Íslands, 2014) between the Ministry of Finance and the Association of Teachers inUpper Secondary Schools, signed in April 2014, the funding model is to be updated in accordance tothe agreement, so that the criteria in the model reflects the salary structure and salary costs. Thisupdate is to be finished in the first half of the year 2015.
The Minister of Education, Science and Culture signs contracts with each school, applicable for 3-5
years, covering the main priorities of the school, the school curriculum, study programmes offered,teaching arrangements, assessment and supervision etc. In addition, the contracts for the privately
operated upper secondary schools need to include clauses on the students legal status, the estimatednumber of students, fees paid by students and payment for other services provided according to thecontract. These contracts are taken into account in the funding model. (Alþingi Íslands, 2008).
Art. 37 in legislation no. 88/1997 on the state finances stipulates that with the consent of a relevant
Minister, institutions of the state are authorized to keep funding unused at the end of the financial
year. In the same way it is authorized to subtract debts from a previous year from the funding for a
new year. (Alþingi Íslands, 1997). Based on the procedures that the state has established thistransference of unused funding and debt is generally allowed (Fjármálaráðuneytið, n.d.).

Iceland Country Background Report59

4.5 Distribution of school facilities and materials
There are no policies or rules, at central or local administrative level, regarding the size of schools,
their location or distribution around the country.
Each community determines the number, size and location of its pre-primary and compulsory
schools, as well as whether it wants to operate its own schools or join in partnership withneighbourhood communities. In its planning the community is required by law to consult withstakeholders in order to ensure that the facility and the equipment meets the needs of the schoolcommunity and planned teaching environment.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and the local community, or communities, in thearea where the school will be located, decide jointly on new upper secondary schools, according toart. 47 in legislation no. 92/2008 on upper secondary schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008). The start-up
costs are divided between the state and local communities in a 40/60% split, with the majority of thecost falling on the parties according to the nature of the partnership. For the last several decades newupper secondary schools have always been built at the initiative of the relevant local community orcommunities in a specific area, which deem it a necessity and benefit to the community to have an
upper secondary school there.
The average number of students per school
The average number of students per school can be seen in the following table:
Table 15 The number of schools and students and average number of students by school level,
2004 to 2013

(Hagstofa Íslands, 2014e) (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b)
The student numbers are from Statistics Iceland and the school data for the pre-primary andcompulsory schools is based on information in the Annual School Report of the Icelandic
Association of Local Authorities. The data shows that the average number of students per preprimary school has gone up by 17% between the years of 2004 and 2013 and by 6% for thecompulsory and upper secondary schools.
The size of pre-primary and compulsory schools
Looking at the network of pre-primary and compulsory schools, the student distribution and size ofschools was as follows in the year 2012:
Chart 3 The size and number of pre-primary schools based on the number of students, 2012

Iceland Country Background Report

60(Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, n.d.(a))
Thus 42 or 19% of pre-primary schools had fewer than 31 student, 31 to 60 students and 91-120
students, 62 or 28% schools had 61-90 students, and 32 or 15% schools had more than 120 students.
In total, 66% pre-primary schools have fewer than 90 students and 34% have more.
Chart 4 The size and number of compulsory schools based on the number of students, 2012(Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, n.d.(b))
Of the compulsory schools 11 or 7% have twenty students or fewer, 48 or 31% have fewer than 100
students, 133 or 87% have fewer than 500 students and 20 or 13% more than 500.
Closing down pre-primary and compulsory schools
Generally, local communities with a smaller population operate the smaller pre-primary andcompulsory schools, but there is not a clear correlation between the population size of the local
communities and the larger schools. Smaller community schools are not a pressing issue in nationalor regional policies. However, local communities with the smallest and/or most scattered populationand easy transportation access to other local communities or urban cores have increasingly
considered partnerships in operating the schools. The key reasons for such considerations are toensure viably sized schools in regard to operational cost and the quality of the education. The
conclusions have then mostly been two or more schools merging in order to create a bigger one,
and/or splitting the student population of two or more schools into different age groups and thus
enlarging the age section in a school.
It is extremely rare, however, that pre-primary and compulsory schools are completely closed down.
A more common approach is to merge schools where the school buildings in different location thenIceland Country Background Report61

fall under the same administrative unit for financial streamlining purposes, or to operate pre-primary,compulsory and sometimes music schools under the same leadership. On the rare occasion a school
is closed down it is believed that the cost of redirecting the students to other schools is limited,
however no data is available to substantiate that believe.
The size of upper secondary schools
As for the network of upper secondary schools, the student distribution and size of schools was asfollows in the year 2011:
Chart 5 The size and number of upper secondary schools based on the number of students,
2011(Hagstofa Íslands, 2012b)
The chart shows that 15 or 42% of upper secondary schools have fewer than 300 students, 26 or 72%
fewer than 1000 students and 10 or 28% more than 1000 students. The same as with the other schoollevels, upper secondary schools are rarely shut down. Furthermore, it is also very rare to merge oradministratively change upper secondary schools. The cost of redirecting students when schools
close down is unknown, but estimated to be very limited.
Innovative use of ICTWhen it comes to innovative uses of ICT with the purpose of extending the benefits of large schools
to small community schools, the local communities have established no common policy or direction
but individual communities may have.
According to a survey done in compulsory schools in 2013 (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga ísamstarfi við Samtök áhugafólks um skólaþróun, 2013) there are on the average 4,6 students to eachcomputer station and laptop and 33,2 students to each smart tablet.
When asked about the top three priorities in regard to ICT development, 26 schools of the 104 that
responded stated that purchase of smart tablets for student use was number one on the list, followedby 21 who have no plans for ICT development and then 12 whose priority is to develop wirelessnetworks. No clear correlation was regarding the size and location of the school and it’s ICT status
and plans.
Since the 1990’s the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture has emphasized the development of
ICT use in schools, including establishing a project plan for distributed learning for rural areas. The
plan included development projects in small compulsory schools in rural areas in the west of Iceland
as well as the set-up of a new small upper secondary school in 2004 built on the concept of
distributed learning. This was followed in 2010 by another new upper secondary school in the northof Iceland built on the same principles. The Ministry furthermore organized ICT conferences forIceland Country Background Report

62

teachers and other school employees annually from 1999 to 2005, where participants wereencouraged to share their experiences. There was no special focus on small community schools
during those conferences, although the theme in 2002 was on distributed learning.
Over the last two decades the Ministry has regularly developed policies in the use of ICT in schools.
In 2013 the development of a new policy and action plan started, for the time period of 2013 to 2024.
That policy has not been published at the time of the writing of this report. In addition the Ministry
advertises regularly grants to support the development of ICT in schools. The focus isn’t especiallyon small community schools but according to a response to a parliamentary query (Alþingi Íslands,
2009), the development of distance learning originally started in order to ease the access of people toeducation, irrespective of where they live or their financial and personal circumstances.
The infrastructure of schools
Each local community determines the infrastructure of the pre-primary and compulsory schools but
information on what has been done to develop the infrastructure is not available centrally.
Investments for the upper secondary schools are a joint decision by the state and relevant local
community as stated before. The best available information on the total investment can be seen inchapter 4.2, under capital cost.
Regulation no. 655/2009 (Menntamálaráðuneyti, 2009g) on the working environment of pre-primaryschools provides guidelines on the adequacy of facilities, equipment and safety of pre-primaryschools. The regulation requires school facilities to adhere to the requirements stated in legislation
no. 90/2008 on pre-primary schools, the school curriculum and legislation no. 46/1980 on thefacilities, health and safety of workplaces. Art. 5 of the regulation provides a list of minimum
requirements to the school facilities, including study spaces for the students, multi-use space for art
project, physical movement and so on, facilities for specialist working with students with special
needs, dining facilities, staff work and rest facilities, etc.
Regulation no. 657/2009 (Menntamálaráðuneyti, 2009f) provides guidelines on the adequacy offacilities, equipment and safety of compulsory schools. The regulation states that consultation withthe key stakeholders, such as school employees, students, parents, representatives of local sport andyouth groups as well as the employment sector, should be a part of designing, constructing andmaintaining the school facilities. It also requires school facilities to adhere to the requirements statedin legislation no. 91/2008 on compulsory schools, the school curriculum and legislation no. 46/1980
on the facilities, health and safety of workplaces. Minimum space requirements based on the numberof students is provided in art. 4 of the regulation, for example that 22-28 student classes or groups
require 60m2 study space. Art. 5 then provides a list of minimum requirements to the school
facilities, including study spaces for the students, working spaces for the staff, facilities for student
leisure time activities, dining facilities, facilities to meet the learning needs of students with special
needs, health care facilities etc.
No such regulation or legal framework exists for the facilities of upper secondary schools. Eachschool negotiates investments in school infrastructures as needed with the Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture and the relevant local community if the cost is shared.
Learning materials
Legislation no. 71/2007 on learning materials (Alþingi Íslands, 2007c) covers the responsibility andsupport that the state has in the development, production and distribution of learning materials forpre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools. That responsibility is:Iceland Country Background Report63¡The operation of The National Centre for Educational Materials, which is responsible forproviding compulsory schools with the learning materials they need.

¡To provide a financial contribution to the Learning Material Fund, which contributes funding
to compulsory schools to purchase learning material. The fund, by agreement from October
2011 (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, n.d.(d)) between the Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture and the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities, is operated andfunded by the local communities.

¡

To provide a financial contribution to the Learning Material Development Fund, which
supports innovation, development, production and publication of learning materials for preprimary, compulsory and upper secondary schools.

Students in pre-primary schools are not required to use any learning material other than those
provided by the school. Art. 31 in legislation no. 91/2008 on compulsory schools (Alþingi Íslands,
2008b) stipulates that students cannot be charged for the cost of textbooks and other learningmaterials, although personal provisions such as pen and paper are excluded. Art. 45 in legislation no.
92/2008 on upper secondary schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008) states that the cost of material provided
to students after a unilateral decision by the school cannot be charged to the students. However, theschool is allowed to charge students for the cost of material provided the student benefits from its useor has personal use of the material. No stipulation is found in the law stating that the schools shallprovide textbooks and other learning materials free of charge, and the reality is that students
purchase most of the material from bookstores and similar third parties.

4.6 Distribution of teacher resources
Number of employee positions in schools
The total number of employee positions in the pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools
for the years 2004 to 2011/2012 can be seen in the following table. The data for the pre-primary andcompulsory schools is from the School Report 2013 of the Icelandic Association of Local
Authorities while the data for the upper secondary schools is from Statistics Iceland.
Table 16 The total number of staff in pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools,
2004 to 2012(Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b) (Hagstofa Íslands, 2012c)
When this report is written the information is not available for the year 2013, or for the year 2012 forthe upper secondary schools. The total number of employee positions for these three school levels
has gone up by 8,5% between the years of 2004 and 2011. The increase in positions in the preprimary schools is around 22% between the years of 2004 and 2012 while the difference for thecompulsory schools is almost none. For the compulsory schools it is worth noticing however, that the
number of positions increased every year until 2008, when the number started decreasing again.
Thus between 2008 and 2012 the number of positions decreased by 9%. The same trend cannot beIceland Country Background Report64

seen for the pre-primary or upper secondary schools. For the upper secondary schools there is anincrease in employee positions of around 6% between the years of 2004 and 2011.
The composition of the school employee group
The composition of the employee body in the pre-primary schools is in the following table, with thedata being compiled from the School Report 2013 as before.
Table 17 The composition of the employee body of all pre-primary schools, 2004 to 2012 –grouped into school teachers, others with pedagogical education, unskilled employees witheducation responsibilities and other / unspecified(Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b)
The figures in the table include the employee positions of all pre-primary schools in the country,
both operated by the local communities and private parties. Teachers, other with pedagogicaleducation and unskilled employees with education responsibilities comprise the teaching body.
Management is included in the numbers of the teachers.
The most noticeable change during the time-period of 2004 – 2012 is the 22% increase in employee
position, and then particularly positions with an educational background in pre-primary teaching andother pedagogical education.
The composition of the employee body in the compulsory schools is in the following table, with thedata also being compiled from the School Report 2013:
Table 18 The composition of the employee body of all compulsory schools, 2004 to 2012 –grouped into principals, assistant principals, department managers, teachers, special teachers,
support assistants and others/unspecified(Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b)

Iceland Country Background Report

65

These figures include the number of employee positions of all compulsory schools in the country,
both operated by the local communities and private parties. Included in the numbers for teachers arethose with and without formal teaching qualifications. Those employee positions counted under“others” include librarians, social workers, psychologists, guidance counsellors, school nurses, social
pedagogues, support assistants, secretaries, computer technicians, recreation assistant dining room
employees, janitors, school assistants, hall monitors etc.
The decrease in the number of principals and assistant principals show the emphasis that has beenplaced on merging schools or placing more than one school under the same management team.
Otherwise the biggest change is in the increase in special teachers and support assistants, but
together the number of positions in these categories has gone up by 28% in the time period of 2004
to 2012. At the same time the number of employee positions that fall under the other and unspecified
category has decreased by a similar number of positions.
The composition of the employee body in the upper secondary schools is in the following table, withthe data having been compiled from Statistics Iceland.
Table 19 The composition of the employee body in all upper secondary schools, 2004 to 2011 –grouped into principals, assistant principals, department managers, teachers,
experts/specialized and others(Hagstofa Íslands, 2012c)
These figures include the number of employee positions of all upper secondary schools in the
country, both operated by the state and private parties. Included in the numbers for the teachers are
all those who were in teaching positions, whatever their education is. Included in the “other”
category are consultants, librarians, office workers, computer technicians, janitors, etc.
There is a discrepancy in the number of principal positions in the upper secondary schools, as one of
the schools, the Technical College, counts 11 individuals as principals from the year 2010 onward,
but not before. It is furthermore not known what numbers of positions are behind those 11
individuals. Those 11 individuals would be counted as department heads in other schools. According
to a communication with Statistics Iceland those numbers will be corrected in the next update of thedata. Department managers were 16% of the employee body in 2004 but were down to 9% in 2011,
with a decrease in the actual number of positions by 37% between 2004 and 2011. While experts andspecialized employees only went from 1-2% of the employee body, the actual number of positions
doubled.
Overall there is not a shortage of teachers in the compulsory and upper secondary schools, but theconcern is that there will be a shortage in the not so distant future, given the high age and low
turnover in the teaching group. In addition it is hard to get teachers for certain subjects, for example

Iceland Country Background Report66

the sciences in the compulsory schools. There is however a big shortage of qualified teachers in the
pre-primary schools, where around 34% of the employees nationwide have teaching qualifications.
The educational requirements and offers for teachers
Legislation no. 87/2008 on the education and recruitment of teachers and administrators of preprimary, compulsory and upper secondary schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008d) stipulates the educational
requirements for those who teach in pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools. The
basic prerequisite to entering the teaching profession is passing a five-year university programme, ora graduate degree, as a minimum, and then accreditation by the Ministry of Education, Science andCulture. For upper secondary school teachers for vocational training courses the requisite is amaster level certificate in the relevant trade and in addition a 60-credit programme in teaching.
The content of the education for teachers in pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary schools isdefined in regulation no. 872/2009 (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2009b). The regulation
does not state what subjects are to be taught, but focuses instead on the minimum credit
requirements.
Three universities in Iceland offer teacher education programmes that fulfil the Ministry´s of
Education, Science and Culture requirements for accreditation.
The
first
of
the
three
universities,
theUniversityofIceland,(http://www.hi.is/kennaradeild/kennaradeild) offers four five-year programmes that end with a threeyear B.Ed. degree and a two-year graduate degree. The four programmes are:¡

Pre-primary schoolteachers, which also gives accreditation to work with the younger age
groups in compulsory school.

¡Compulsory schoolteachers with a special emphasis on the younger age sections, which also
give accreditation to work with the older students in pre-primary schools.

¡Compulsory schoolteachers, which favours general education and a specialization in two
subjects.

¡Compulsory schoolteachers specializing in one subject, which also gives accreditation toteach the beginners courses in the subject in upper secondary schools.

¡

The University of Iceland also offers a graduate programme for working teachers, as well as
a diploma for teachers of vocational training courses. In addition a graduate degree isavailable for those with a BA or BS degree who seek accreditation for teaching in the preprimary, compulsory or upper secondary schools. The programmes available for those withBA or BS degrees are:¡

Diploma for pre-primary school teaching, a prerequisite is a BA, BS or B.Ed. degree in a
subject related to child rearing or the learning areas of the pre-primary schools, andadditionally work experience in a pre-primary school.

¡

M.Ed. degree in pedagogy for compulsory school teaching, a prerequisite is a BA or BS
degree in a learning area of the compulsory schools.

¡

M.Ed. degree in pedagogy for upper secondary school teaching, prerequisite is a BA or BS
degree in a learning area of the upper secondary schools.

Iceland Country Background Report¡

67

Diploma in pedagogy for upper secondary school teaching, a 60-credit diploma for those
who obtain a graduate degree in their own field of study.

The prerequisites for entering the initial programmes at the University of Iceland are to have finishedmatriculation examination (academic programmes at the upper secondary school level). Exceptions
to these prerequisites can be made for those who have finished 170 upper secondary school credits
and have a minimum of a five years job experience. Those who apply to the graduate programmes
need to have obtained an undergraduate degree.
A third of the courses are the same for the initial educational programmes for the teachers in preprimary and compulsory schools, but close to half the courses are aimed at specialization or towards
a specific school level. Field study, in a pre-primary or compulsory school are also importantelements in the initial programmes.
The
seconduniversity,
theUniversityofAkureyri(http://www.unak.is/hugogfelagsvisindasvid/kennaradeild), offers the following teachers education
programmes:¡A five-year programme in pedagogy and educational sciences, which concludes with a threeyear B.Ed. degree and a two year M.Ed. degree. The five-year programme is offered for
future teachers in pre-primary schools and compulsory schools.

¡

A two-year diploma programme at undergraduate level in pre-primary school teaching.

¡

A M.Ed. degree programme for those with a BA or BS degree in fields other thaneducational sciences.

¡

A MA degree programme in educational sciences, for those who wish to specialize in certain
fields within the educational sector and/or do research and academic work.

¡Instead of the full M.Ed. and MA degree a 60-credit study at graduate level is an alternative.

The prerequisites for entering the initial programmes at the University of Akureyri are to havefinished matriculation examination (academic programmes at the upper secondary school level).
Those who apply to the graduate programmes need to have obtained an undergraduate degree.
The third university, the Icelandic Academy of the Arts (www.lhi.is/namid/listkennsla), offers twoteachers accreditation courses.
¡

A 60-credit diploma course for those who wish to teach art at the upper secondary schoollevel – a prerequisite is a master’s exam in an art field.

¡

A two-year MA or M.Art. Ed degree programme for art teachers – a prerequisite is anundergraduate degree in design, architecture, theatre, dancing, music or visual arts.

Inaddition
to
the
three
universities
theTechnical
Collegein
Iceland(http://www.tskoli.is/skolar/meistaraskolinn/), which is an upper secondary school operated by theprivate sector, operates a master´s school for those who have obtained a journeyman’s licence in a
specific vocational trade. Those who finish the master´s school receive accreditation from thesheriff’s office, which among other things authorizes them to take on and teach apprentices in a

Iceland Country Background Report

68

work-study programme. Other upper secondary schools around the country that are strong in
vocational training programmes, may also offer such master´s schools.
Hiring practices of teachers
No programmes or initiatives are targeted at attracting high quality upper secondary school graduates
into initial teacher education. An effort is on going though to attract more people to pre-primaryschool teacher education, as can be seen on www.framtidarstarfid.is, which promotes the job and theeducation.
Each local community and upper secondary school has discretion in hiring teachers. Their hiring
practices need to fulfil all legal requirements, such as advertising available positions, hiring the mostqualified individual, giving accredited teachers priority over other applicants, etc. In local
communities with multiple pre-primary and compulsory schools, teachers can be offeredassignments in a different school if the one that employed them no longer requires their services.
No centralized schemes or policies have been implemented in order to attract qualified teachers to
disadvantage or remote schools. Some local communities have encouraged and supported thoseworking in the pre-primary and compulsory schools to get teaching qualifications, which has forexample lead to a higher percentage of qualified teachers in the pre-primary schools. Some smaller
and more remote local communities have in the past chosen to offer incentives in order to hire
teachers for their pre-primary and compulsory schools, often in the form of housing subsidies andsimilar amenities. Such practices have though mostly ceased following the economic crash of 2008.
Furthermore, statistics show that attracting qualified teachers is not necessarily linked to the locationof the school, as the capital City of Reykjavík has proportionally the fewest qualified pre-primaryschool teachers, or 30% of the employee group while the more rural regions of the country have 3354%. The numbers for qualified compulsory school teachers are from 60-93%, with the more ruraland remote areas having the lower numbers. (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b).

4.7 Distribution of school leadership resources
The size and composition of the leadership group for schools
The size and composition of the personnel in charge of pre-primary, compulsory and upper
secondary schools can be seen in the following table, by profession and gender on the one hand andprofession and age on the other.
Table 20 School leadership by school level, profession, age and gender, 2014

(Kennarasamband Íslands, 2014) (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture)Iceland Country Background Report

69

The data on the profession, gender and age of those in charge of the schools is from the members’
register of The Icelandic Teachers’ Union where all school leaders are members except the headteachers of the upper secondary school. Their data is from the Ministry of Education, Science andCulture and refers only to the 28 state operated schools. The data is for the year 2014 and thenumbers indicate individuals but not positions. The number of assistant head teachers includes 11
individuals for one upper secondary school (www.tskoli.is), which is set up similar to many
universities, with “schools” for each of the trades and technical fields taught there. The educational
managers for the upper secondary schools include study directors.
Chart 6 School leadership by gender, proportions(Kennarasamband Íslands, 2014) (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture)
As can be seen in the chart the gender proportions are different for each school level, with the preprimary schools being dominated by female leadership while the majority of head teachers in theupper secondary schools are men.
Chart 7 School leadership by age, proportions(Kennarasamband Íslands, 2014) (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture)Iceland Country Background Report

70

There is not a shortage of candidates for leadership positions in the schools. When looking at theleadership by age, it is clear that proportionally the biggest part of the leadership is in the age groups
41 and over, or around 86-87% at the pre-primary and compulsory level and 97% for the upper
secondary. At the same time 51% of the school leadership of pre-primary and compulsory schools is
51 and older, and 65% in the upper secondary schools.
Hiring practices for leadership positions in schools
Legislation on the education and hiring of teachers and leadership for the pre-primary, compulsory
and upper secondary schools no. 87/2008 (Alþingi Íslands, 2008d) stipulates that the prerequisites
for those hired as head teachers and assistant head teachers at the three school levels shall beaccredited teachers for the relevant school level and have an additional education in management ora teaching experience at that particular school level.
The recruitment of head teachers at the pre-primary and compulsory school level is the responsibilityof the local council according to the legislation for the local communities no. 137/2011 (Alþingi
Íslands, 2011c). Legislation no. 87/2008 furthermore states that the hiring practices need comply
with the legislation for the pre-primary school (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c). Traditionally the positions ofhead teachers are advertised for application. The head teachers also traditionally hire other school
employees.
In legislation no. 87/2008 on the practices of hiring school leadership the head teachers of the upper
secondary schools are given the authority to hire other school employees in compliance with thelegislation on upper secondary schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008) and legislation on the rights andresponsibilities of state employees (Alþingi Íslands, 1996). The legislation also states that allleadership positions in the upper secondary schools shall be advertised in accordance with rules
determined by the Minister of Finance, which is responsible for state personnel matters. The
legislation on upper secondary schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008) then states that the Minister of
Education, Science and Culture appoints head teachers of upper secondary schools. Traditionally
positions of head teachers of upper secondary schools are advertised for application.
No policies or incentive schemes have been implemented to attract qualified school leaders to
disadvantaged schools.
Educational offers for education managers
Two universities in Iceland offer graduate degrees that place emphasis on management in the
educational sector (www.hi.is, www.unak.is), and four universities offer general degrees inmanagement (www.hi.is, www.unak.is, www.bifrost.is, www.hr.is) that prospective school leaders
can use to prepare themselves for their functions. In addition the Continuing Education Institute of
the University of Iceland (www.endurmenntun.is) has offered management courses for schoolleaders, as well as some of the larger local communities and the district chapters of the Associationof Headteachers. The associations of head teachers for the different school levels have furthermore
joined in partnerships with the various universities to offer management courses that the associations
promote to their membership. Interest and demand at the time influences what is on offer and when.

4.8 Distribution across specific student groups
At the pre-primary level the local communities traditionally meet those families in especially direfinancial situations by subsidising the pre-primary school fees. This is only done in exceptional
circumstances, based on the financial assistance criteria of the local communities and often related tochild protection cases. No fees or cost is applicable to the parents or students at the compulsory level,
as that level is fully funded by the local communities. Parents normally pay meal costs though if aIceland Country Background Report71

child uses the school canteen for meals, but the financial assistance criteria of the local communities
does also allow for subsidising those meal costs in exceptional circumstances.
At the upper secondary school level there is a grant distributed directly to students, through anapplication to the Icelandic Student Loan Fund (www.lin.is). The grant compensates students who
attend a school far away from their homes and families. The grant is split into two sections, one
supports travelling between home and school for those students who live at home and the othersupports the cost of accommodation for those who attend a school that is at least 30 km away fromtheir home. In order to qualify for this grant students need to be registered at their home, be
undertaking at study that is at least a year long at a recognized upper secondary school in Iceland andattending a school a certain distance away from their home. The grant can be received for four years
or a total of eight semesters in total.
The Icelandic Student Loan Fund also provides student loans to those upper secondary school
students attending certified trade and vocational studies. The loan is meant to cover the basic cost ofliving. The amount varies depending on whether the student is living rent free or not (with parents
for example), whether he has children and is then legally co-habituating with a spouse, any otherincome the student has and the number of school credits taken during the school year. In order toapply for the grant students need to be attending accredited studies and taking a minimum number ofcredited courses. The students also need to be legally emancipated (over the age of 18). It is notpossible to obtain a student loan for the first 1- 2 semesters for students who start trade or vocational
studies directly after finishing compulsory school.
Students with special needs are as a policy integrated into regular schools, with 5,7% of pre-primaryschool students (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013c), and 27% of compulsory school students (HagstofaÍslands, 2013n) receiving any kind of special support. A total of 470 students received special
support at the upper secondary school level in 2013, according to the Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture.
Three special needs schools at compulsory level operate in the country. One (www.bruarskoli.is) isfor students in grades 5 to 10, with severe mental and emotional disabilities, with social andbehaviour disorders or who are in difficulties due to drug abuse or criminal behaviour. As a rule
there are between 50 and 60 students who attend the school. The second school (www.klettaskoli.is)is for students with average, serious and deep intellectual developmental disabilities or a mild
developmental disability and a diagnosed disability such as autism, blindness, deafness and serious
motor disability. In the school year 2013-2014 109 students attended the school. The third(www.hlidarskoli.akureyri.is) is for students in grades 1-10 with social and behaviour difficulties.
During the school year 2013 – 2014 20 students attended the school. The proportion of students
attending special needs schools is therefore extremely low.
In addition to the three special needs school, some regular schools operate special needs classes.
Also there the students are few.
As for special provisions and resources for students with special needs, the local communities
operate special expert school services that support and provide support to the pre-primary andcompulsory schools. Special teachers and support assistants are also a part of each schools employee
group. The state furthermore operates specialized service centres responsible for formal diagnosis(www.greining.is), services to those with visual disabilities (www.midstod.is), with hearing
difficulties (www.hti.is) and those who are deaf (www.shh.is).
For funding for students with special needs at pre-primary and primary school level, see chapter 4.1

Iceland Country Background Report72

4.9 Main challenges
The following issues regarding the distribution of resources are currently being challenged or subject
to re-examination.
¡

The allocation criterion of The Local Governments’ Equalization Fund is being re-examined,with a new criteria expected to be in place by 2015. The main criticism regarding the current
criteria has been that the formula and method of calculating the contributions to each local
community are too complex and not transparent enough – although it is recognized that it is
not easy to set up a simple system that reflects a complex reality. The local communities
furthermore criticize that information on the allocations is late to arrive.

¡

Informal discussions are taking place within the Ministry of Education, Science and Cultureon the need for the Ministry to be formally involved in The Local Governments’
Equalization Fund, which it is not today. The Icelandic National Audit Office has also
criticized that the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture is not involved in the Fund.

¡

The local communities criticize that more funding is needed to carry out the government’s
policy on inclusive schools. A special working group was set up in the fall of 2013 with thetask of evaluating how the implementation of the policy is going and what needs to be done
to further improve the implementation. The working group includes representatives from theministries of education and welfare, local communities, teachers union and head teachers
union.

¡

There has been an on-going debate on the terms of the collective labour agreements between
the local communities / state and the labour unions of the teachers. Following the agreements
signed in the spring and summer of 2014 a joint initiative is under way, where the parties
aim and hope to seek a solution. Among the disputes are:o

The framework on how to use the agreed working hours, which the local
communities claim are too strict and limiting while the teachers claim they need tobe reconsidered taking into account the different responsibilities and tasks that havebeen added to their work schedule.

o

How teachers use time for in service training and their professional development.

¡The employees of the pre-primary and compulsory schools consider the allocation of funding
to maintenance and renewal of buildings and equipment too low.

¡

The allocation of operational funding to the upper secondary schools is considered too low,
given the current funding and priorities set for the schools, as pointed out by The Icelandic
National Audit Office. The funding to the schools has been decreased due to the economic
crises that started in 2008. However, the schools have not been able to reduce theiroperations as needed both as legal requirements have stayed the same and due to politicalpolicy priorities in dealing with the recession. As a result 16 of the 28 upper secondary
schools operated by the state had a deficit in the year 2013, a deficit of a 100m IKR in total
and an expected deficit of 400m IKR for the year 2014. This situation was given a priority inthe collective labour agreement signed in April 2014, where the cabinet of state agreed to
add a 400m IKR contribution to the schools from the year 2014 onwards.
(Fjármálaráðuneytið and Kennarasamband Íslands, 2014).

Iceland Country Background Report¡73

The allocation model used to calculate the funding needs of the upper secondary schools is
controversial, as it is difficult to assess the exact actual needs of each school due to theirdifferences and diversity. Among the controversies are (Sigurðsson, 2008):
oThere are different opinions on the role of the model, on the one hand that it ismeant to show the actual costs of the schools and therefore be the base for funding
and on the other to determine how the funding available is to be shared between theschools.

o

How individual criteria is financed and/ or calculated, with examples being that thefigures behind salary cost and maintenance cost are too low and that the figure forthe number of students are those that attend final examination in a course, but not
those that registered and started school – but those that registered are the ones that
determined for example staffing needs.

o

The use of the funding model for performance management purposes is criticised by
the schools– that is, counting only students who attend final examination – and that
if performance management is it’s true purpose then more indicators should be
devised. The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture defends this purpose as
being a political decision but accepts the need for a further discussion on the issue.

o

The Ministry of Finance feels that more individuals are registered in the schools than
the schools have the legal requirement to cater to, taking funding away from actual
students.

o

The school leadership feels that not all cost is considered in the model and thus thatthe conclusions do not reflect the actual cost of the schools.

oHead Teachers for the upper secondary schools claim that the transparency of themodel has decreased over the years and point out that additions and changes havebeen made to it without consultation with the schools – changes they particularly
relate to political interference with the intend to further specific interests.

¡

On occasion there is a dispute regarding funding responsibilities of the ministries of
education and welfare in regard to specialized services to students with special needs. The
Ministry of Welfare takes the position that such services are to be paid by the education
sector even when the services are delivered by welfare agencies, while the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture claims that it does not matter that the individuals in question
are in school.

¡Funding for staff development and in-service training at all school levels. There is no central
policy on how staff development and in-service training is financed or who decides on thepriorities. It is difficult for the state and the local communities to implement national or local
policy in this matter, for example in relation to on-going reforms, because the funding isdecentralised and to a great extent connected with negotiations of the collective labour
agreements. A working group has been established where this is being discussed.

¡The local communities shall by law provide specialized services for pre-primary andcompulsory schools. Each local community determines how these services are organized.
This situation has been questioned and suggested that the state set more central criteria on
how the services are provided, to ensure quality and equal access regardless of the school

Iceland Country Background Report74

level and the geographic location. Also there are no such organised specialized services forupper secondary schools, except as decided by the individual schools themselves.
¡

Since the start of the economic recession, in 2008, funding to renew school facilities andequipment has been minimized. Parents, students and school employees have pointed out theserious situation arising because of this, with the teachers unions making this a negotiation
point in the collective labour agreements in 2014.

Iceland Country Background Report

75

Chapter 5. Resource utilisation
This chapter is concerned with how resources are utilised through specific policies and practices, todifferent priorities and programmes once they have reached different levels of the school system. It
addresses the matching of resources to individual student learning needs, the organization of student
learning time, the allocation of teacher resources to students, the organization of school leadership,
the teaching and learning environment within school, the use of school facilities and materials andthe organization of education governance.

5.1 Matching resources to individual student learning needs
Organization of student groups
Typically pre-primary school students are organized into learning groups according to age. In
compulsory schools students are also typically grouped by age, although there are examples of mixed
age groups (Óskarsdóttir, Starfshættir í grunnskólum við upphaf 21. aldar, 2014). In a few cases theolder age sections in compulsory schools are grouped in accordance to abilities. In the upper
secondary schools students are either grouped by the year in school and the field of study (classsystem) or, as is the case in most schools, by individual courses (course system). The evidence of
these different types of organization has not been researched.
Special education
Most compulsory schools address special education in the school curriculum, policies or guidelines,
according to a survey the City of Reykjavík did in 2011 among its own schools (Reykjavíkurborg,2011). Addressing the learning difficulties of individual students is typically the responsibility of adepartment manager for special education or alternatively the class teacher receives advice andassistance from a special education teacher. If no special education teacher is available in the school
the head teacher or somebody so appointed takes on the supervisory function.
According to regulation no. 584/2010 on the expert services of the local communities for preprimary and compulsory schools (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2010c) the local
communities are required to provide expert services in support of students and their parents, as wellas the schools and their employees. Included is to provide diagnosis on the condition of students, tosuggest the appropriate means of follow-up and to provide direct support to the student and/or
parents and teachers in regard to advise, consultation and education. Following diagnosis, treatment
and therapy is the responsibility of the state. In the same regulation the head teachers of the schools
are given the responsibility to co-ordinate the services that the students require.
In actuality, according to a survey done in 2013, 32% of the responding local communities statedthat they did not have educational or school policies and 36% that the policies did not define how theobjectives in the regulation are to be met. Some of those that did not define how to meet theobjectives of the regulation said however that the information was to be found in documents for an
expert service operated jointly by several communities, or in the policies of the individual schools.
Others stated that their policies pre-dated the regulation and/or that new policies were in the making.
(Capacent Gallup, 2013).
Art. 34 in the legislation on upper secondary schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008) stipulates that students
with disabilities, as defined in legislation no. 59/2009 on the subject of people with disabilities(Alþingi Íslands, 1992b), or experiencing emotional or social difficulties shall be taught and receive
special support as needed. Regulation no. 372/1998 on the education of disabled upper secondary

Iceland Country Background Report

76

school students (Menntamálaráðuneytið, 1998), states that the support can be in the form ofspecialized employees, student assistants and/or equipment. The regulation goes on to state, among
other things, that disabled students shall receive their education alongside other students if possible,
and their educational plan should be either part of a student group´s or an individual one. Anotherregulation, on upper secondary school students with special needs no. 230/2012 (Mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuneyti, 2012), then goes into the rights of students, the rights and responsibilitiesof the parents to information, the arrangements for the education, support for the students and so on.
In these two regulations the head teacher of an upper secondary school is given the responsibility forassessing the support a disabled student requires and to organize that support in partnership with theemployees of the school. Requests for funding the support are applied for at the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture at around the middle of each semester for the on-going semester(Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneyti, n.d.).
Repetition of studies
In the compulsory schools it is extremely rare for students to repeat a year or to start school later thanat 6 years of age. The only general action taken to prevent dropout is that teachers notify the parents
if students are absent without authorisation. Compulsory school is mandatory by law, with theparents or legal guardians being responsible for the child attending school. If a child does not attend,
the school authorities are responsible for notifying the welfare authorities of the situation. (Alþingi
Íslands, 2008b). If a solution is not found in partnership with the parents, a legal action can be taken
against the parents – something that is almost unheard of in practice. In some local communities theschool authorities furthermore partner with the local welfare authorities in ensuring that students in
disadvantaged family circumstances get to school – with an employee going into the home, waking
the student, ensuring he is fed and clothed and going to school.
It is not required by law to attend upper secondary school, but all those who have finishedcompulsory school or have reached 16 years of age have the right to start their education at the upper
secondary school level and stay there until they are 18 years old. Students are responsible for theirown studies and attendance at school. (Alþingi Íslands, 2008). Upper secondary schools areencouraged to take the actions they choose to minimize year repetition and early dropout as theyreceive their funding based on the number of students that finish their courses. Information on course
and year repetition in the upper secondary schools is however not collected centrally and the status istherefore not known.
Vocational education and training
No formal vocational tracks are offered for the older age groups in the compulsory schools, but
individual vocational courses may be available. Also, older compulsory school students can attend
selected courses at the upper secondary school level if the student has acquired the necessarycompetence and if approved by the student’s head teacher (Alþingi Íslands 2008). Upper secondary
schools have not received special funding in order to meet the legal rights and interests ofcompulsory school students, but are allowed to offer these students courses if their budget allows it.
It is not currently known to what extend compulsory school students attend courses at the upper
secondary school, but the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture is presently running a study on
the issue.
At the upper secondary school level over 100 educational programmes are on offer, with around 87
of those programmes being vocational tracks (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, n.d.(b)).

Iceland Country Background Report

77

Student admittance
Each upper secondary school is responsible for the acceptance of students to the school, with theconditions for the acceptance agreed on in the school´s contract with the Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture. Each school can thus determine the requirements for preparation and academic
achievements for the individual educational programmes. (Alþingi Íslands, 2008). The educational
offer in each school is introduced in the school curriculum, along with the conditions for acceptanceto the school and each educational programme (Menntamálaráðuneytið, 2008). Students select theirchosen educational programme when applying to an upper secondary school.

5.2 Organization of student learning time
Organization of the school year
Each pre-primary school is required to publish annually an operation plan that details the school’s
activities and calendar (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c). The plan is developed in partnership with theemployees of the school, the students and their parents and approved by the members of the School
Board of the local community. Attendance at a pre-primary school is not compulsory, with parents
choosing whether their child goes to pre-primary school, which days of the week and how many
hours a day or week. The number of instruction days or the duration of school holidays are therefore
not regulated, nor the average number of hours of instruction per week and year. As a rule of thumbthough, pre-schools operate weekdays, excluding national holidays. According to regulation no.
655/2009 (Menntamálaráðuneyti, 2009g), the operations of the pre-primary schools shall take into
account the age, needs and interests of the students when organizing their daily hours, with expectedstay at the school not exceeding 9 hours a day. Also pre-primary school students should have fourweeks off a year, with many schools closing down for four weeks during the summer. According to
Statistics Iceland out of 262 pre-primary schools, 19 were open year round in 2012, 10 were open
50-51 weeks, 162 were open 48-49 weeks, 63 were open 46-47 weeks, 7 were open 30-45 weeks andthe data for 1 is missing (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013s).
The legislation on compulsory schools no. 91/2008 (Alþingi Íslands, 2008b) stipulates that theschool year for students shall at the minimum be 9 months or 180 days. How those days are divided
into educational instruction time vs. other activities is at the discretion of the head of the school,subject to the approval of the School Board of the local community. Students in grades 1 to 4 shallhave a minimum of 1.200 instruction minutes a week, in grades 5 to 7 a minimum of 1.400 minutes
and in grades 8 to 10 a minimum of 1.480 minutes. The head teachers of the schools can decide
further on the weekly plans. The local authorities can co-ordinate holidays within the school year for
all the schools in the community, following a consultation with the stakeholders. According to thenational curriculum guideline for compulsory schools (The Ministry of Education, Science andCulture, 2014), each school is obliged to publish an annual operation plan with information on theschool´s calendar. As a rule of thumb the compulsory schools start their operation mid August with afew preparatory days for the teachers before classes start, and finish late May or early June. Most
will schedule a couple of days break in fall and again in spring. According to Statistics Iceland theaverage number of school days in the school year 2011 to 2012 was 179,4. The number of teachingdays was 171,1, academic assessment days were 1,4, and days used for other things were on the
average 6,9. (Hagstofa Íslands, 2013o).
The working days for upper secondary school students are at a minimum 175 during the school year,
according to the legislation on upper secondary schools no. 92/2008 (Alþingi Íslands, 2008). Eachcourse counts as a specific number of standardized educational credits and the students need to finish
in a satisfactory manner a predetermined number of credits in order to graduate. The number ofcredits depends on the educational programme the student is attending, but a full time study equals

Iceland Country Background Report

78

60 credits a year or 30 credits a term. One secondary school credit equals 18 to 24 hours of work for
an average student (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, n.d.). The students can to a certain
extend choose how many credits they sign up for in a given semester, with some schools requiring aminimum number for the students to stay in school.
In an appendix to the collective labour agreement signed in April 2014 (Fjármálaráðuneytið and
Kennarasamband Íslands, 2014) it is further stipulated that the school year shall be within the time
period of 22 August and 31 May during the school year 2014-1015, and within the time period of 18
August and 31 May from the school year 2015-2016, and that student working days shall be 180 ayear from that time on. According to Statistics Iceland the number of days where students received
organized instruction was on the average 149,4 for the school year 2011-2012, and days used foracademic assessments and repeated tests were 25,4 (Hagstofa Íslands, 2012e).
It is currently under discussion to decrease the number of years it takes to graduate from theacademic programmes at the upper secondary schools – which requires today 10 years in compulsory
school and typically four years in the upper secondary school. This discussion has been on and off
the table for the last 20 years, with the current Minister of Education, Science and Culture defining
the decrease in years as an action in the White Book on Education Reform published in 2014
(Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2014). The Upper Secondary School Teachers Union have
opposed this idea, stating that students can already finish their studies in three years if they sochoose, given the existing flexibility of the system. The Minister of Education, Science and Culture
however stated in the run up to the negotiations for the collective labour agreements that took placein the spring of 2014, that the funding released through a decrease in the required number of years
could be used to raise the teachers salaries. In the collective labour agreement for the upper
secondary school teachers a clause can now be found stating that if there will be fundamental
changes in the organization of the education, such as a change to the length of study to graduation, it
will call for a reassessment of the associated workload for the teachers.
Homework and extra curricular activities
The extend of homework and extra curricular activities are the decision of each compulsory andupper secondary school, with data on the actual extend not collected centrally and little researchdone on the issue. However, a survey among teachers in compulsory schools showed that 86% ofteachers of grades 1 to 4 consider homework to be important, 71% of teachers in grades 5 to 7 and
75% of teachers in grades 8 to 10. Most of the respondents wanted the homework to be inmoderation. According to the survey the priority in giving homework was on training reading skills,
with math exercises coming second. (Óskarsdóttir, Starfshættir í grunnskólum við upphaf 21. aldar,
2014).

5.3 Allocation of teacher resources to students
Chapter 5.1 explains how students are typically organized into groups.
Student / teacher ratios
The actual ratio of students to teachers for the pre-primary schools is presented in the Annual School
Reports of the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities. There is very little change between theyears 2004 and 2012:

Iceland Country Background Report

79

Chart 8 Average student/teacher ratio for the pre-primary schools, 2005 to 2012(Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b)
The numbers refer to all students in all schools and the proportion of students to all employees thathave an educational and up-bringing role. Included in the employee number are therefore teachers,
educational support staff, department managers, head teachers and so on.
The actual average number of students to teachers in the compulsory schools according to Statistics
Iceland can be seen in the following chart:
Chart 9 Average student/teacher ratio for the compulsory schools, 2004 to 2013

(Hagstofa Íslands, 2014d)
As can be seen in the chart the average student / teacher ratio for the compulsory schools has not
drastically changed between the years 2004 and 2013, or lowered by around 6% or from 10,1 in 2004
to 9,5 in 2013.
Similar statistics for the upper secondary schools show the following, based on headcount:Iceland Country Background Report

80

Chart 10 Average teacher/student ratio for upper secondary schools, 2004 - 2011

(UNESCO Institute of Statistics, n.d.)
For the upper secondary schools, there has not been a drastic change between the years of 2004 and2011 either.
Similar statistics are not available for students with greater needs.
Organization of the teachers’ working time
The organization of the teachers’ work is determined in the collective labour agreements that apply
to all teachers employed by the state and local authorities.
On June 16 2014 an agreement was signed to renew the existing collective agreement for the preprimary schools, with changes to the salary scales (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga og Félag
leikskólakennara, 2014c). The existing collective agreement (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga og
Kennarasamband Íslands vegna Félags leikskólakennara, 2011) states that the working week of fulltime pre-primary schoolteachers shall be 40 hours. Of those 40 hours teachers shall use a minimumof 4 hours and department managers and special needs teachers 5 hours for preparation. Included in
the preparation is the planning of teaching, parent/teacher meetings and other communication withparents, diagnosis of the student’s behaviour, and school trips.
The collective labour agreements for the pre-primary school teachers do not specify a number ofdays dedicated to professional development each year or how the cost of such development iscovered. The employer pays though 1.72% on top of the regular salary of the teachers into a special
fund set up by the labour unions of teachers and school managers, which is meant to cover the costof continued education. The agreement furthermore specifies that a plan for continued education be
developed in each school each year and that teachers get an extra pay grade for participating in suchcontinued education. Also, teachers keep their regular salaries while participating in continued
education. In addition, teachers can apply for a paid study leave for up to three months after eachfive years of teaching, six months after each ten years and nine months after each 12 years.
Alternatively the teacher can apply for a paid study leave more frequently, but then no more than one
month for each 20 months at work.
The collective labour agreement for the compulsory schoolteachers signed in May 2014 (Sambandíslenskra sveitarfélaga og Kennarasamband Íslands vegna Félags grunnskólakennara, 2014b), divides
working hours into three parts, A, B and C. The A part covers teaching, preparation of teaching andthe necessary follow-up to teaching – all priority aspects of the teachers working day. Part B covers
any other assignments and work that teachers undertake and do not fall under parts A and C,

Iceland Country Background Report81

continued education, coffee breaks and classroom breaks are included here. Also included aremeetings at the school and outside the school, parent meetings, record keeping, information
dissemination, teacher co-operation, professional development, school development, curriculum
development, participation in school assessments and research, supervision of class facilities andequipment, substitution in case of short term absences, student meetings and supporting students forexample in the library and on field trips, etc. Part C covers special assignments and projects that ahead teacher assigns a teacher, with the agreement of the teacher. This includes such things as
project management, team management and management of special inittives such as beginners
literacy. As agreed between the head teacher and the teachers, the weight of parts A to C can vary,
but if one part takes more time another is supposed to take less time.
As a base the collective agreement for the compulsory school teachers states that the A part of theteachers working hours be 1.036 hours a year for a teacher in a full time position, or 641 hours forteaching and 395 hours for preparation and follow up. The expectation is that the group of teachers
in a school spend on the average 26 teaching hours teaching a week (or 17,33 clock hours as eachteaching hour is 40 minutes), however actual teaching hours for the individual teacher can be 19(12,66 hours) to 28 (18,66 hours). Part B is determined for each teacher in a special assessment of hiswork, but is 764 hours a year as a base. Part C is fully determined in each teachers assessment ofwork, and the hours needed for this part are subtracted from parts A or B or the teacher isalternatively paid overtime.
Table 21 The expected number of working hours of compulsory school teachers, and how they
are split between tasks*As a baseline those who are 55 to 59 years old, in a full time position and have taught for a minimum of 10
years, teach 24 teaching hours a week, and those who have reached the age of 60 19 teaching hours a week.
Those who are entitled to such a teaching “discount” taka on other non-teaching related work for the school
instead for a total of 2 to 5 hours a week, depending on the teaching discount they receive. Or, alternatively,
those with the right to such a “discount” can waive the discount, teach full hours and receive a higher salaryinstead.

The collective agreement specifies that 102 to 150 hours a year, depending on the age of the teacher,shall be used for professional development and preparation. The employer pays 1,72% on top of theregular salary of the teachers into a special fund that the teachers use at their discretion to cover theIceland Country Background Report82

cost of continued education. The employer pays an additional 1,3% into another fund which covers
the cost of paid study leaves, the local communities operate another small fund that is a left overfrom the transfer of the compulsory school from the state to the local communities, and finally thestate operates a fund for development projects that include certain aspects of the teachers´
professional development.
The agreement furthermore specifies that a plan for continued education be developed in each school
each year, and that the education take place as much as possible within the regular hours of theworking day. Also, teachers keep their regular salaries while participating in such continued
education. In addition, teachers can apply for a non-paid leave for an appropriate length of time if astudy or project opportunity arises in connection to their jobs.
As a part of the new collective labour agreement for the compulsory school teachers an individual
assessment determines the final number of hours that a teacher uses for the different parts of theworking day. That assessment is based on the scope of teaching, student assessment, time needed toreview student assignments and prepare lessons, supervision of the facilities and equipment, theamount of teacher co-operation required, the number of students in a supervisory class, thecombination in the student group, use of new teaching methods, the development of study material,
communication with parents, and record keeping in excess of what is “typically” required.
At the time of the writing of this report the development of a system of assessing individual teachers
based on the agreed on work criteria was being developed. A first draft was introduced in November
2014, with a final version to be approved by teachers vote no later than 20 February 2015. If theteachers do not approve the assessment system the teaching hours and workday arrangement
explained will not be implemented nor an attached 11,5% salary increase but instead a basic 12-20%
increase will keep along with the working day arrangement in the previous collective labour
agreement.
The collective labour agreement for the upper secondary school teachers signed in April 2014
(Fjármálaráðuneytið and Kennarasamband Íslands, 2014), divides working hours into three parts, A,
B and C. The A part is time for teaching which is ultimately determined by the subject taught, thesize of the student group, the needed preparation, the scope of the assessment of achievements, thestudents credit and other factors which impact the total amount of work required, such as
maintenance of equipment and facilities. Personal factors such as the number of subjects that ateacher teaches also counts here. The B part involves those aspects of the work that all teachers needto spend time on but are not a part of actual teaching. This includes items such as staff meetings,
parent meetings, information dissemination, student supervision, teacher co-operation, work on the
curriculum, involvement in school assessments and professional development. The C part includes
special projects or additional work that teachers take on as agreed to with the head teacher. This can
include student supervision in addition to that which falls under the B part, subject management, a
special equipment or facility supervision, project management, development of study material etc.
As a base the collective agreement states that the A part of the teachers working hours be 1.440
hours a year and part B a minimum of 360 hours - a total of 1.800 hours. Each school can determine
if more hours are needed for the B part, and if so the hours in the A part are reduced to compensate.
If a teacher spends working hours on work covered by the C part, the hours for the A part are also
reduced to compensate.
Teachers aged 55-59 receive a discount of 4,17% spent on part A and those aged 60 years and older
get a discount of 20,83%. In addition teachers 30-37 years of age have a total of 24 hours of extra

Iceland Country Background Report83

holiday a year and 38 year olds and older of 48 hours a year. Taking these reductions into account,
and using the baseline criteria for parts A to C, the total hours worked are as follows:
Table 22 The expected number of working hours of upper secondary school teachers

In the B part, 105 hours go towards coffee breaks and 80 hours towards professional development.
Furthermore it is estimated that approximately 32 hours go towards the work needed to finish andprepare a school year, 36 hours towards general teacher meetings, 36 hours towards teacher cooperation, 36 hours towards parent meetings, 18 hours towards information dissemination and 18
hours towards student supervision.
A total of 80 hours, based on 180 school days a year, are earmarked each year for the professional
development of the teacher, to be used as he sees fit. In addition, teachers can apply for a non-paidleave for an appropriate time if a study or project opportunity arises in connection to their jobs.
Teachers can apply to the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture for financial support related tocontinued education. The Ministry furthermore pays the equivalence of 0,22% of the regular salaries
of teachers into a special educational fund and another 1,5% into another fund for development
projects that include certain aspects of teachers professional development.
At the time of the writing of this report the development of a system of assessing individual teachers
into the agreed on work criteria is being developed. According to the collective agreement ateacher’s vote on the assessment system is to take place before the end of February 2015.
The career structure of teachers
The career structure of teachers is not organized in a specific path. Teachers can however apply for,ask for or be asked to take on different roles and responsibilities in the schools in addition to theirteaching duties, but there is no formal structure or paths for such arrangements. Those roles andresponsibilities can be, for example, those of a department head or a project manager or relate tocurriculum development, mentoring student teachers and new teachers, developing student andteacher timetables and a multitude of other tasks required to be undertaken in schools. Each of thesedifferent roles have their specific pay grade assigned, which the teacher receives.
The salaries of teachers
The teachers’ salaries are determined in collective labour agreements between the state or the
Icelandic Association of Local Authorities and the labour organizations of the teachers of theindividual school levels. Salaries are as a rule paid in accordance to those labour agreements,
whereby people are paid for the work they do and the hours worked, as described earlier. Since thebeginning of the recession in the fall of 2008 overtime pay has been limited.
How the regular salaries of teachers compare to other occupations can be seen in the following table,with the underlying figures to be found in Annex 2:

Iceland Country Background Report

84

Chart 11 Comparison of teachers’ regular salaries to other occupations, 2013 – for preprimary, compulsory and secondary school teachers, all state employees, all employees of thelocal communities, all working in the duration sector and specialist in the private sector(Hagstofa Íslands, 2014n) (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014k) (Hagstofa Íslands, 2014m) (Icelandic
Teachers’s Union)
The data is compiled from the members’ register of the Icelandic Teachers’ Union as well as fromdifferent statistics from Statistics Iceland. It is for the year 2013. The figures are in IKR and show
the average for all employees in the different categories compared. Compared is baseline salary forthe teachers and regular salary for the other sectors. Regular salary means the average salary paid
monthly for the agreed on working hours, whether daytime or on shift. Included are all payments,
such as fixed overtime and incentive pay that is payable each month. No account is given to theeducational background of each group. The information is therefore not fully comparable, but it is
the best available at the time of the writing of the report and believed to give a fairly accurate
picture. The data is furthermore from 2013, or prior to the latest collective agreements, which shouldhave improved the status of teachers.
The figures show that the average baseline salaries of teachers at the three school levels weredifferent, with compulsory school teachers receiving the lowest salary and upper secondary school
teachers the highest, with the difference being 13%. Thus compulsory schools teachers earned a basesalary that was 3% lower than the average regular salary earned by all employees of the local
community, while the pre-primary schoolteachers earned a base salary that was 9% higher. The
upper secondary school teachers’ average base salary was 5% under the average regular salary for allstate employees.
Comparing total salaries of teachers to other professions with a graduate degree the following can beseen:Iceland Country Background Report

85

Chart 12 Comparison of teachers’ total salaries to other occupations with a graduate degree,
2013 - by pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary school teachers, all, state employees,
employees of the City of Reykjavík, other local communities, non-governmental, foundations,private companies and self-employed owners(Icelandic Teachers’ Union) (Bandalag háskólamanna, n.d.)
The data on total salaries is compiled from the members’ register of the Icelandic Teachers’ Union as
well as a 2013 salary survey done by the Association of Academics, which is an organization of 26
trade unions for university educated professions and did all the unions participate in the survey. The
figures are in IKR and show the average for all employees, in the different categories compared, witha graduate degree that is the educational requirements for teachers in Iceland. Compared is totalsalary for all the professions. Total salary covers the regular salary and in addition any and all
irregular payments made, such as holiday and Christmas bonuses, one off payments and incentive
bonuses earned. Benefits such as the use of a phone and transportation subsidies are not included.
Again, the data is from prior to the latest collective agreements and not fully comparable but
believed to give a fairly accurate account of the situation at the time.
Same as with the regular salary, the total salaries of teachers at the three school levels are different,with compulsory schoolteachers receiving the lowest salary and the upper secondary school teachers
the highest, with the difference being 27%. Compulsory schoolteachers receive 67% of the totalsalaries received on the average by the comparison groups, pre-primary schoolteachers 74% andupper secondary schoolteachers 91%. Pre- primary school teachers receive 68% of the total salary of
those working in the private sector, compulsory schoolteachers 61% and upper secondary
schoolteachers 84%.
A new collective labour agreement for upper secondary school teachers was signed in April 2014,
for the compulsory schoolteachers in May 2014 and for the pre-primary schoolteachers in June 2014.
The one´s for the compulsory and upper secondary school teachers are in two sections. The firstsection is on general pay increases and was fully agreed on when the agreements were signed. The
second section was an agreement to redefine the work and working hours of the teachers. The resultsof that redefinition will be voted on in February 2015 and if agreed will lead to further salary
increases for the teachers.
All the agreements however aim at restructuring the number of hours to be spent on the various roles
and responsibilities of the teachers, recognizing the various tasks that have been added to theworking day of the teachers in the recent past. The reasons for the change in how teachers use theirIceland Country Background Report

86

working days include the implementation of the policy on inclusive schools, the increased
involvement of parents, increased emphasis on co-operation between teachers and the benefits andrequirements that follow the development of technologies.
Statistics based on these new agreements are not available at the time of the writing of this report.
However, work is currently underway to analyse the financial status of the different professionalgroups based on these and other collective labour agreements signed in 2014. The analysis is being
done in a partnership between all the major labour unions and employers associations in the country.
It is expected that a comprehensive report will be published in the first quarter of 2015, which should
show better the status of teachers compared to other professional groups.
The support staff in schools
Among the support staff for teachers are school assistants at the pre-primary and compulsory schoollevels and support assistants in compulsory and upper secondary schools. An educational programme
based on a national curriculum exists for those employee categories, the programmes are taught inthe upper secondary schools and are from 36 to 62 credits. School assistants at the pre-primary level
care for the students and work on their upbringing and education, guiding the students during play
and work. The school assistants are also involved in the day-to-day work of the pre-primary schools,
having various responsibilities such as the daily care for play and work areas and equipment. School
assistants at the compulsory school level supervise, among other things, the students during study
breaks and at meal times as well as supervising the school facilities. Support assistants at thecompulsory and upper secondary school levels assist students with special needs, enabling thestudents to focus on their studies and attend school. (Mennamálaráðuneytið, 2009).
In addition there are likely to be specialized professionals in each school, according to the size andcircumstances of each one. Those professionals may include special teachers, social pedagogues,sign language interpreters, librarians and educational and vocational counsellors. They support theteachers with advice, and are as weææ responsible for supporting and educating the students whereappropriate. Finally, each school has its own policy but other staff may include ICT technicians andoffice administrators that support the teachers in their relevant fields. The larger a school, the more
numerous and various the support group is likely to be.
Excluding the teachers and those in management functions in the schools, the number of all otherstaff is as follows, with the underlying figures available in Annexes 4 to 6:
Chart 13 The number of pre-primary school staff, other than teaching and management, 2004
to 2012 – by teaching and other support functions, kitchen, cleaning, and other/undefined(Hagstofa Íslands, 2013r)

Iceland Country Background Report

87

The chart shows all pre-primary school employees, other than teachers and managers. Most
numerous are those who work in the school kitchens and canteens, followed by those in support
teaching functions, then cleaning and finally other support positions. The number of kitchen
employees has stayed fairly stable, a drastic increase has been in the number of employees in support
teaching functions while the number of employees in cleaning and other positions has declined.
Chart 14 The number of compulsory school staff, other than teaching and management, 2004
to 2013 – by librarians / library staff, school psychologist and educational counsellors, school
nurses, social pedagogues, school assistants, secretaries and computer administrators, sportand recreational assistants, dining room, janitors, hall monitors / shower monitors / cleaning
assistants / student assistants and other(Hagstofa íslands, 2014y)
The chart shows all employees in the compulsory schools other than teachers and managers. The
most numerous are social monitor, shower monitors, cleaning staff and student assistants, followedby school assistants, dining room employees, secretaries and computer assistants and so on. The
positions of school assistants and social pedagogues have increased the most while the total numberof employees in other groups have stayed more stable.

Iceland Country Background Report

88

Chart 15 The number of upper secondary school staff, other than teaching and management,
2004 to 2012 – by experts and specialists, consultants and library, office and computer, facility
administrators and others(Hagstofa Íslands, 2012c)
The chart shows all employees in the upper secondary schools except teachers and managers. The
most numerous are those in facility administration, followed by those who work in office andcomputer administration and as consultants and in libraries. The number of employees in all groups
have stayed fairly stable during the time-period 2004 to 2012.
The only mechanism in place to target support staff to specific students is to those with disabilities.
That includes the special teachers and support assistants.

5.4 Organization of school leadershipAppointment and responsibilities of head teachers
The legislation for the three school levels, pre-primary (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c), compulsory(Alþingi Íslands, 2008b) and upper secondary (Alþingi Íslands, 2008), stipulates that a head teacher
shall be appointed and for the compulsory and upper secondary schools that the head teacher shallhave a deputy that takes over the leadership in his or her absence. Otherwise the leadership roles andthe division of tasks is the decision of each head teacher. The legislation for the compulsory schools
states though that the Local Council shall approve the leadership arrangement in each school.
The responsibilities of head teachers are described in a M.Ed. thesis from 2010 (Frímannsson, 2010,
pg. ii), which focuses on compulsory school head teachers: “…submits to all obligations and laws
subject to primary school practice, he holds the power of decision over all fields of responsibility inthe school and has to answer for all school practices. According to primary school laws, theprincipal’s accountability only includes seeing to the implementation of statutory aspects of school
practices, heeding to the rights and interests of all parties and managing practices in a professionalmanner. The school principal is responsible for school practices concerning the municipality, hemanages the school and is its director...”.
As to how head teachers spend their working day, one recent source was found that showed the
proportion of time that compulsory school head teachers dedicated to the various activities that theirIceland Country Background Report

89

work consisted of. That source was a MPA thesis published in early 2013, which is based on a
weeklong record keeping of five head teachers. Accordingly, the average proportion of time wasused as follows on professional, operational and human resource related tasks:
Chart 16 The proportional time compulsory school head teachers spend on different tasks,
2013(Ögmundsdóttir, 2013)
According to the individual records kept for the thesis the time spent can vary greatly between
individuals, with one, for example, using less than 10% of his time on operational tasks and anotherover 50%. If a larger number of head teachers had participated in the project, the results might
therefore have been different. No similar data was found for the head teachers of pre-primary andupper secondary schools.
The legislation for the pre-primary schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c) gives its head teachers similarfunction as the compulsory school head teachers, naming specifically the responsibility to manage
the day to day operation of the school and ensuring that the operation is in accordance to the laws,
regulations, national curriculum, school curriculum and other guidelines published. The legislation
furthermore mentions the responsibility to ensure co-operation between parents, school employees
and other specialists, on the basis of the child’s welfare. For the upper secondary schools thelegislation (Alþingi Íslands, 2008) also talks about the responsibility for day-to-day operations inaccordance to the legislative framework, etc. However, for this school level a specific mention ismade to the fiscal responsibility and the initiative to ensure the development of a school curriculum
and reform plans for the school.
The school leadership teamThe school leadership teams in pre-primary and compulsory schools typically consist of a headteacher, an assistant head teacher if the school is large enough and department managers. In upper
secondary schools the leadership at the minimum typically consists of a head teacher, an assistanthead teacher and a finance and administration manager. In smaller schools those in leadershipfunctions may use part of their working hours teaching the students. In the larger schools department
and/or subject managers, along with heads of libraries and IT or computer system managers are often
a part of the leadership team.
Professional support and development systems for school leaders
No common external support systems are in place to assist school leaders in their tasks, but mostindividual local communities provide financial or human resource assistance to pre-primary andcompulsory school leaders. Furthermore, the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities and theIceland Country Background Report

90

labour unions and professional associations of the head teachers at the different school levels, in cooperation with the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, organize courses and seminars
specifically around the leadership roles in schools. In addition compulsory school leaders can apply
for a paid study leave after 10 years working as teachers or leaders in schools (Samband íslenskra
sveitarfélaga, n.d.). The applicant is expected to finish a university study that is 60-credits orequivalent to fulfil the requirements of a full leave, and the study undertaken needs to be useful forthe individual’s job.
Many local communities have a similar paid study leave option for their employees, according tocriteria that they set individually, as does the state as negotiated in the collective labour agreements
for the various professions. State employees (upper secondary schools) apply directly to the headteachers for a leave. No collective data exists on the application or use of such leave.
No formal relevance is attributed to the professional development of school leaders.
The salaries and career structures of school leaders
The salaries of school leaders are determined in collective labour agreements. No information isavailable on how their salaries compare to occupations requiring similar qualifications.
No mechanisms are in place for school leaders that reward performance. In chapter 5.3 the salarystructure of other school personnel is explained, and would participation in leadership activities be
included in the “other” part of the salary structure.
The career structure of school leaders is not organized in a formal way. Typically though anindividual would move from a teacher position to a department manager or assistant head teacher,and then to the role of head teacher. Many exceptions are to this path though. Few changes havebeen made recently to the school leaders career structure or working conditions.

5.5 Teaching and learning environment within schools
National and school curricula
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture develops and publishes national curricula guidelines
for the pre-primary, compulsory and secondary schools. The national curricula set forward theeducational objectives and the general arrangements of the schools´ function, instruction guidelines
and a reference for expected study requirements and progress. (Mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuneytið, n.d.(e)).
Individual schools are required to develop and publish a school curriculum, according to thelegislation for each school level. At the pre-primary level the school curriculum should include theschool´s educational policy and operational plan, the objectives decided and how those objectives
shall be achieved. The curriculum also states the educational policy of the local community and theschool´s focus or speciality. The local School Board, following a review from the parents, approves
the school´s curriculum and operational plan. (Alþingi Íslands, 2008c).
At the compulsory school level the school curriculum, based on the national curriculum, develops
further the educational objectives, the study content, student assessment, work practices and theassessment on the school´s achievements and quality. Each school furthermore develops anoperational plan where information on the organization of the school operation, the school calendar,
student schedules, different policies and plans, etc. are to be found. (Alþingi Íslands, 2008b).

Iceland Country Background Report

91

As for the upper secondary schools, the school curriculum should be in two parts – a general part andthen descriptions for each study programme that the school offers. The general part shall at theminimum describe the school functions, main emphasis and policies, the organization of theleadership, programmes offered and the organization of the studies, teaching methods, assessment
methods, the available support, counselling and service for the students, the students’ rights andduties, the co-operation with the parents and external stakeholders, methods of self-evaluation andquality control. The descriptions for each study programme shall include the content andproportional weight of each course, an overview of the total study programme and the final
objectives of the programme. Furthermore, the required minimum number of courses and course
credits in the individual subjects are to be stated. The School Board approves the school curriculum.
(Alþingi Íslands, 2008).
Student assessment criteria
The schools are fully responsible for setting the student assessment criteria, within the framework
given in the national and school curricula. A national standardized test is given in Icelandic and mathin all 4th and 7th grades in the compulsory schools. In the beginning of 10th grade the students takestandardized tests in Icelandic, math and English. The test is submitted by a national assessment
agency (www.namsmat.is) that is an institute of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.
Evaluation and monitoring
According to the legislation on the three school levels and subsequent regulations on evaluation andmonitoring (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2009c) (Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið,2010b), each school should do an internal self-evaluation and each local community should do an
external evaluation of the pre-primary and compulsory schools. This is applicable to all schools, bothpublicly and privately operated. It is the responsibility of the local community to ensure follow-up
reform actions for it´s schools and to inform the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of theevaluation and results upon request.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture is then responsible for monitoring schools at all
three levels - only those upper secondary schools that receive state funding though - through thegathering, analysing and dissemination of information, external evaluations, surveys and research.
The responsibility for the actual monitoring work has been delegated to The National Assessment
Institute (www.namsmat.is).
According to the regulations the schools should publish information on the inner evaluations, theresults and reform plans on their websites or other public media. The Ministry should also publish
the school evaluations that it initiates on it´s website. Publishing the information is an establishedpractice. The evaluations do not monitor resource use by the schools to any extent.
All schools are supposed to have well-established self-evaluation practices, but audits by the
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture indicate that the practices are less than well establishedin reality. Teachers are thus supposed to participate in internal and external evaluations for eachschool, but it is not typical for schools to have an internal teacher evaluation systems. As a part of thehuman resources policies of some local communities and upper secondary schools there is a traditionof an annual employee interview or evaluation.
Requirements for the learning environment
No legal framework exists for the upper secondary schools stipulating what constitutes an adequate
learning environment, beyond the classroom. Regulations however stipulate the minimum
requirements made to the school buildings, playgrounds and facilities of pre-primary(Menntamálaráðuneyti, 2009g) and compulsory schools (Menntamálaráðuneyti, 2009f). Both

Iceland Country Background Report92

regulations include the requirements made in regard to the health and safety of students and staff,
including the use and size of the facilities, acoustics and lighting, design requirements for playgrounds etc. The one for the pre-primary schools also covers the number of staff, the length of theschool day, summer holidays and so on. One of the requirements of both regulations is furthermorethat the local communities develop a safety manual for use in schools, which was done jointly in2014 by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture and the Icelandic Association of Local
Authorities. Furthermore, as a part of developing the legally required school curriculum each schools
addresses policies on issues such as bullying and discipline. Most schools additionally develop
mottos around the well being of the students, which are meant to guide their day-to-day activities.
Links between schools and their local communities
In 2007 the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities, The Association of Teachers in Primary andLower Secondary Schools and The Association of Head teachers developed and adopted a common
vision for the compulsory schools for 2007 - 2020 (Pétursdóttir, 2007). The strategy developed has
as a policy issue the active link between schools and their local communities. The objectives agreed
on for this policy issue are:¡

The mutual sharing of information between the school and the local community.

¡

To use nature and the community as active learning environments.

¡To use the school facilities for services and operations outside of the school functions.

Each local community and each compulsory school is responsible for taking this policy andobjectives, developing them further and setting guidelines for the implementation.
Some communities have an existing history though on the links between schools and theircommunities. An example is the City of Reykjavík who has had a policy on the issue since 1999. In a
survey done on the compulsory schools in Reykjavík in 2011, 38% of teachers said they do lessons
outside and during field trips and 62% of the teachers wanted to do more. Around 50% of teachers
for grades 1 to 7 stated that they have visitors from the community at least once during the school
year and 75% of the teachers for grades 8 to 10. (Óskarsdóttir, 2011).
The legislation on the upper secondary schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008) specifies that an upper
secondary school may be a partner in setting up and operating an adult education centre and can,with the approval of the Minister of Education, Science and Culture, offer courses and education for
adults in partnership with labour unions, employers and other stakeholders. There are no otherreferences to common policies on the link between individual upper secondary schools and theircommunities, with each school setting their own policy.
There are cases however, where businesses have supported upper secondary schools with equipment
and facilities for vocational training and education. Other joint initiatives do also exist, such as “Theprogrammers of the future” (www.forritarar.is) whereby businesses set up a special fund that has therole to strengthen education in computer programming and technical sciences in compulsory andupper secondary schools. The initiative was a response to a shortage in the employment sector of
people with those backgrounds. Another example is an action plan established jointly by The
Federation of Icelandic Industries, the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities and the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture, on increasing the interests of 10 to 15 year old students in sciences
and technology (Samtök iðnaðarins, Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið og Samband íslenskra
sveitarfélaga, 2012). Each case is individual though, with no specific measures in place to increase
employer engagement as a rule.

Iceland Country Background Report

93

Co-operation and development of professional learning communities
Policy schemes and incentive schemes that attempt to encourage cooperation among teachers andfacilitate the development of professional learning communities in schools do not formally exist.
None the less, teacher co-operation is often the focus of the design of new compulsory schoolbuildings, with a recent research indicating that a team of teachers having a joint responsibility for agroup of students is practiced in 30% of classes in the compulsory schools (Óskarsdóttir, Starfshættir
í grunnskólum við upphaf 21. aldar, 2014). However, one of the criticism that teachers at all threeschool levels, pre-primary, compulsory and upper secondary, have had is that too little allowance ismade during the working day for co-operation among teachers. This issue is being addressed in thecollective labour agreements recently signed as described in chapter 5.3.

5.6 Use of school facilities and materials
Use of school facilities
Each local community and upper secondary school is responsible for developing its own guidelines
or policies on whether school buildings and facilities are used beyond regular school hours. Somehave developed such guidelines while others act based on tradition. The facilities of pre-primaryschools are though typically not used for other functions than the schools, but the playgrounds areaccessible and can therefore be used by the public outside of school hours.
Overall the local communities emphasise other parties using compulsory and upper secondary schoolbuildings and facilities, as can be seen in their policies and planning phases for school buildings(Óskarsdóttir, Starfshættir í grunnskólum við upphaf 21. aldar, 2014). Thus many compulsory schoolbuildings house after school clubs for children and young people, and in some cases recreational
activities for adults and the elderly – both operated by the local community itself but also by nongovernmental organizations such as the scouts, chess-clubs and local choirs. Some compulsory andupper secondary school buildings in the rural areas function as tourist accommodation during thesummer season, and the school and local library are often one and the same. In addition many
schools hire out their sport facilities to local sport groups and some - especially the upper secondary
school buildings – are used for adult evening classes. 	
  
ICT useQuite a focus has been on the use if ICT in schools for the last 15 years or so. The impact of that
focus can be seen in a study on the use of ICT in compulsory schools done in 2013 (Sambandíslenskra sveitarfélaga í samstarfi við Samtök áhugafólks um skólaþróun, 2013), which showed that:¡

92% of schools had stationary computers for the use of the students, while the remaining 8%
had invested in laptops or smart tablets. 32% of the schools had between 1 and 15 stationary
computers for student use, 39% 16 to 30 computers and 14% 31 to 45 computers. A certain
correlation could be seen between the number of students and the number of computers, as
more than half of the schools that owned 1 to 15 computers had between 1 and 50 students.

¡

67% of schools had laptops for student use. 27% had 1 to 10 laptops and 18% had 11 to 20
laptops. There was not a clear correlation between the number of students and the number of
laptops available.

¡

48% of schools owned smart tablets, 23% owned 1-5 pieces and 11% owned 6-10 pieces.
There was not a clear correlation between the number of students and the number of smart
tables available.

Iceland Country Background Report94¡The average number of students per stationary computer / laptop was 4,6 and for the smart
tablets 33,2%¡

61% of the responding schools did not have smart boards in their facilities and a further 24%
only had 1-2 boards.

¡

96% of the schools had projectors, and thereof 40% had between 1-5 projectors.

¡Of the younger half of the schools computer equipment 43% was 1- 2 years old, 31% was 3
to 4 years old and the remainder older. In total the average age of the computer equipment
was 3 to 4 years.

¡Of the older half of the schools computer equipment 30% was 7 to 8 years old, 46% was 5 to
6 years old and 12% was 3 to 4 years old. The remainder was older than 7 years. In total theaverage age of the computer equipment was 6 to 7 years.

¡

66% of schools had a budget for ITC equipment purchase for the year 2013. A third of theschools planned to prioritize the purchase of smart tables for the students, followed by thosewith no specific plans in place as to what the budget would be used for, with the setup of awireless network being in third place.

¡Out of the 107 schools that responded to the survey 63 stated that peer education was theteachers support, in 48 schools teachers attended courses of their own choice and initiativeand in 35 schools teachers attended courses organized by the school or the community.

No data was found on the status of ICT equipment that is available for the pre-primary and upper
secondary schools. However, in upper secondary schools it is quite common for students to have anduse their personal laptops for studying.
The most extensive source available is a chapter on the use of ICT in compulsory schools in a
research published 2014, (Óskarsdóttir, Starfshættir í grunnskólum við upphaf 21. aldar, 2014).
There it is stated that access to ICT related equipment varied greatly between schools, with many
having limited and old equipment and little expectation of great improvements in the immediate
future. Most teachers, however, used the Internet extensively while preparing lessons – although athird of respondents stated that they only use the Internet 2-3 times a month or less. In 5-34% cases
the research observers noticed computers being used during lessons, with the highest number ofincidents being in the older student groups. Computers were present in 78% of the classrooms but
only used in 30% of cases observed, projectors were in less than half the class rooms, and smart
boards were present in only 2% of classrooms. In 36% of cases where the observers had marked
computer use, the description of the lesson did not indicate any actual use – with the possible
explanation that the computer use was limited enough that it did not really impact the lesson. The
computer was furthermore often used to support studies in 55-60% of incidents and in 5-10% ofcases to widen the lessons.
The research also asked teachers about the use of teaching software and student use of computers –the responses showed very limited use, with 18% of teachers stating they never use such equipment,
26% less than once a month, around 20% one to three times a month and around 25% once to twice aweek. Further details on the use of smart boards, projectors, the Internet, and so on can be found in
the report from the research.

Iceland Country Background Report95

Some further sources are available that show the extent of use of ICT in schools and theimprovements ICT has brought to the daily teaching and learning activities. If a study done by the
town of Kópavogur in 2012, as a part of formulating their strategy in ICT use in the pre-primaryschools, is applicable across the country, then there is a lack of hardware in the schools, there is alack of knowledge of how to use ICT and there is a lack of educational material in Icelandic.
(Þorvaldsdóttir, Friðriksson, & Bjarnadóttir, 2012). According to an article published in 2013
(Reynisdóttir & Jóhannesson, 2013), interviews with 12 teachers in four upper secondary schools
indicate that the student use of ICT has lead to more various teaching methods, with fewer lectures,
more group work, more independent student work and easier access to various information sources.
The teachers also stated that ICT allows for more visual representation of the teaching material. At
the same time the teachers felt that students took more liberty in their use of sources and were undera constant distracting stimuli.

5.7 Organization of education governance
There are three administrative levels for education in Iceland, the state, the local communities andindividual schools.
The organization at state level
At the state level an education and science office exists at Ministry of Education, Science andCulture. The office is responsible for issues related to the pre-primary schools, compulsory schools
and upper secondary schools, the development of the national curricula and adult education. The
office covers also issues related to tertiary education and general public administration regarding
science, research and development. The office prepares policies in the field of tertiary education andsupervises their enforcement. The office is also responsible for developing a high level policy in it´sfields of responsibility, supervising the execution of that policy and handling related public
administration. The office furthermore takes initiatives in school development, for instance in areasof information technology, distance learning and study material. The office finally prepares andadvises in regard to policy making which is the responsibility of the Science and Technology
Council, oversees the work of the Science and Technology Council and ensures the integration ofscience, research and innovation in the making and execution of educational policy.
The education and science office is managed by one head of office and divided into four
departments: a department for pre-primary and compulsory schools which employs three people, adepartment for upper secondary schools with six people, a department of policy and developmentwith three people, a department for further education and vocational training employing three people
and a department for tertiary education and science employing four people. In addition two people
work at the office itself, making the total number of staff 21.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture furthermore has an office for assessment andanalysis, which is responsible for monitoring and evaluation for all the school levels. In addition theoffice works in partnership with other offices of the ministry in gathering and processing data thatallows an overview in the different policy fields of the ministry. The office employs three people.
There are three service institutions in the field of education that fall under the Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture: the Icelandic Student Loan Fund (www.lin.is) and two institution’s on
publication of educational materials on one hand and a national assessment centre on the other, thatwill merge into one in July 2015 – with the working name of Stjórnsýslustofnun á sviði menntamála- Menntamálastofnun.

Iceland Country Background Report96

The organization at local level
At the local level each community organizes the education administration as suits their needs andcircumstances, while fulfilling legal requirements. In small communities the local mayor may forexample function as the direct supervisor of the head teacher. Alternatively, and typically practiced
in the larger communities, there is a special administrator responsible for the educational operationsof the community and that administrator may have a staffed office to work with or not, according to
the size and financial standing of the community. In addition each community has the responsibility
for operating expert support services for the pre-primary and compulsory schools, which service theschools when it comes to assessments, inspections, diagnosis and consultation for students withspecial needs, consultation to parents and school employees, etc. How the local communities
organize those service functions is left to them, so that some include the service function in theoperations of the schools themselves, others set up special service units and yet others partner andoperate a joint service unit.
Responsibilities
National curriculum development is the responsibility of the state but school curriculum of theindividual schools and the local communities. Assessment and inspection, as well as statistics andanalysis are the responsibility of both the state and the local communities.
Education administrators
No data exists that shows the typical background of staff in the education administration at state or
local level. However, experience indicates that they are typically university educated, in therespective field in which they work – whether education, psychology or statistics. Those working in
the education administration are typically employees of the state or local community, depending on
the administrative level where they work.
As for initiatives undertaken to develop capacities of education administrators, then the local
administrators have a joint national platform whereby they meet twice a year to discuss common
issues. Administrators at both the local and state level would in most cases have the opportunity for ayear paid study leave according to their respective collective labour agreements or human resources
policies. Other initiatives are the responsibility of the individual administrative units.
School and student evaluations
Schools and students are evaluated as described in chapter 5.5. In addition, the City of Reykjavík has
conducted a 360-degree assessment of it´s schools since 2007. Furthermore, following the adoptionof a new legislation for the pre-primary and compulsory schools in 2008 the Ministry of Education,
Science and Culture, The Local Governments’ Equalization Fund and the Icelandic Association of
Local Authorities have jointly developed recommendations for a regular and systematic evaluationof school management, internal assessments and educational methods. (Faghópur um ytra mat á
grunnskólum, 2011). The intent of any such assessments is to encourage improvements and thecontinued development of the educational system and its subsystems, not to sanction the individual
educational institutions.
There is not, however, a tradition for the evaluation of individual school leaders and teachers in anational context and no result oriented reward or sanction is available according to the collective
labour agreements. Capacity building and technical leadership is not an important function of theeducation administration, e.g. limited national frameworks exist as well as guidance materials andtools for the use of school agents.

Iceland Country Background Report

97

The basic approach to monitoring the national and sub-national school system at the compulsory
school level are the before mentioned assessments and evaluations, including the national student
assessment tests in the compulsory schools.

5.8 Main challenges
There are several issues related to the utilisation of resources that are currently being challenged
and/or are in disagreement between education stakeholders. Those include:¡Parents, teachers and researchers have pointed out that there is a certain repetition of study
content between the older age sections of the compulsory schools and the upper secondary
schools, resulting in an unnecessary cost as well as student time not being used to the
maximum.

¡

Ministers of Education, Science and Culture have, on a regular basis for the past 20 years,
had the vision and intend to decrease the number of years needed to finish the upper
secondary school, referring to neighbourhood countries with fewer school years and equal or
better student assessment results. This is a controversial policy that has especially been
opposed by the Association of Teachers in Upper Secondary Schools, which claim that
individual students have different needs and that there is sufficient flexibility within thesystem already for students to finish at their own pace.

¡The policy on inclusive schools is debated. While there is a general agreement that the policy
itself is justified, school administrators and staff feel that the implementation of the policy is
not sufficiently managed. The local authorities claim that funding has not followed from thestate to cover the cost of implementation at the compulsory school level, in keeping with thepolicy development and therefore increased demands on the local communities. The state has
the position that although the policy was formally legalized in 2008 it has a history sinceprior to the transference of the compulsory schools from the state to the local communities in1996 and that therefore the cost of the implementation at that time-point was included in theoriginal calculations of funding. In any case, there are increased demands on the school
system because of the policy on inclusive schools, shown in the increased need for cooperation between the education and welfare systems and that inclusive schools havebecome a human rights issue, for example.

¡The proportion of students that attend academic vs. vocational studies at the upper secondary
level is considered by most stakeholders to be uneconomical for the country, as more people
are needed with vocational skills.

¡

Early leave or dropout from the upper secondary school is considered by all stakeholders to
be a real concern and a waste to the school system as well as the country.

¡

Following the adoption of the new school legislations in 2008 the following issues have been
debated:o

The implementation of the article stating that older compulsory school students cantake courses in the upper secondary schools. The local communities are thus
required by law to ensure that compulsory school students are able to take courses inupper secondary schools. At the same time the state is responsible for upper
secondary school education and therefore the funding to cover the teaching cost ofcompulsory school students taking upper secondary school courses. However, sinceIceland Country Background Report98

the economic crises of 2008 funding to the upper secondary schools has been cut,with the result that they do not deem it possible to fund the compulsory school
students. The local communities, who then either have to fund the students
themselves or not fulfill their legal obligation, criticize this situation.

¡o

The requirement that all compulsory schools offer students the opportunity toparticipate in a social and recreational pastimes.

o

The five-year education requirement for schoolteachers, where some teachers andinterested students feel that the higher educational requirement was not followed
through with a sufficient raise in the teachers salaries. This situation is believed bysome to have been instrumental in decreasing the interest for teachers’ studies at theuniversities. An increase in applications for teacher degree courses for the fall of
2014, following new collective labour agreements signed in spring 2014 whichraised the salaries, may support that believe or not. The local communities and the
Icelandic Association of Local Authorities in particular criticized the lengthening of
the studies of the pre-primary school teachers, expressing the believe that the longer
studies would negatively impact recruitment to the profession. They have also
pointed out that a longer study is not the same as a better study.

The ideology and designs of newer school facilities are often centered on changed teaching
methods, related to meeting individual student needs, using ICT and encouraging teachingacross subjects. The designs are thus focused on flexibility, flow, openness, communicationand teamwork – with clusters of school rooms, open spaces, transparent and movableboundaries and public spaces for multiple use having replaced the hallway with traditionalclassrooms along the sides (Hjartarson & Sigurðardóttir, 2011). These design decisions havebeen taken by the education administrations, sometimes in opposition to teachers who view
these changes as putting demands on them without the needed support or working hours
being provided.

Iceland Country Background Report

99

Chapter 6. Resource management
This chapter is concerned with how resources are managed at all levels of the school system. It
addresses capacity building for resource management; the monitoring of resource use; transparency
and reporting; and incentives for the effective use of resources.

6.1 Capacity building for resource management
Guaranteeing expertise in the management of resources
There exist no formal programmes or processes that guarantee expertise in the management of
resources in the school system. A specific policy that attempts to ensure capacity to effectively
manage resources does not exist either. However, the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities
gathers annually data and statistics on the pre-primary and compulsory schools, their operation andbasic resource use (Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, 2013b). The local communities and theindividual schools are encouraged to use that information to compare their status to that of others,with the aim to improve both operations and efficiency.
In legislation no. 87/2008 on the education and hiring of teachers and school leadership for the preprimary, compulsory and upper secondary schools (Alþingi Íslands, 2008d) it is stipulated that inorder to be hired as a head teacher or assistant head teacher the applicant needs to have formal
qualifications as a teacher for the school level in question and additional education in management orexperience working as a teacher at the school level. How this is carried out in hiring practices is up
to the individual local community for the pre-primary and compulsory schools. No information isavailable centrally regarding the actual background of the upper secondary school leadership.
Once those in school leadership positions, and other actors in the educational system, have been
hired it is up to them to develop further competencies to ensure the effective management of
resources. In the legislation for the different school levels, each school is targeted with annually
making plans for the further education of all the employees of the school. The collective agreements
state furthermore that time should be allowed within the working year for further education. How
this is implemented varies between the local communities for the pre-primary and compulsory
schools, in regard to both the funding provided in order to carry out further education for theemployees and the monitoring of the actual implementation. The financial status of the state also
varies the amount of funding that the upper secondary schools receive for this purpose, and the state
does not monitor the implementation.
Support in the task of managing resources
Limited support is given to schools and their leadership in the task of managing resources, when it
comes to advice, sharing of resources and expertise within the school networks. Where possible theschool departments at the administrative level of the local communities may provide some support
and the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities provides general advised when requested. No
regional or national agencies provide such support to the upper secondary schools, but they can seek
support from the ministries of finance and education.
Limited initiatives exist at the system and sub-system levels to build up a knowledge base. Thus notools exist for planning resource use or guidelines for school leaders and education administrators toreport on resource use, and all schools have total discretion in their choice of education materials.
The following does exist though:Iceland Country Background Report

100

¡

All schools have access to IT systems for budgeting and accounting practices, at theinitiative of the state and the respective local communities.

¡

Instructions for purchasing education materials and establishing contracts are to be found inlegislation no. 84/2007 on public procurement (Alþingi Íslands, 2007b). The State Trading
Centre (www.rikiskaup.is) furthermore published a Procurement Policy on November 15
2002 (Fjármálaráðuneytið, 2002) as a guideline for all state operated institutions, and somelocal communities have publish additional instructions for their institutions as well.

6.2 Monitoring of resource use
Local level
The pre-primary and compulsory schools are responsible for their finances to the respective local
community. A specific chapter on finance is in the legislation for the local communities no.
138/2011 (Alþingi Íslands, 2011c) requiring annual finance plans and annual finance reports for the
institutions of the communities, as well as an audit by an independent accounting professional. How
the local communities work within the law is up them. Each local community is thus responsible for
its finance, but in addition there is a monitoring board established by the state that monitors that the
local communities handle their finance in accordance to laws and regulations (Innanríkisráðuneytið,2012).
There is not a great deal of importance placed on monitoring the equity of resource use acrossstudent groups and regions of the country. The Local Governments’ Equalizations Fund does forexample not specifically monitor the actual use of the funds distributed, nor does the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture. A few of the larger local communities do some monitoring though,as individually determined by each of them.
State level
The upper secondary schools are responsible for their finances to the Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture. The Ministry signs a contract with each school stating how the school will fulfil its legal
obligations, the main objectives, school curriculum, study programmes on offer, etc. The
implementation of those contracts is monitored by the Ministry, which also does external audits
regularly.
In addition the Icelandic National Audit Office (www.rikisendurskodun.is), which is an independent
body operating under the auspices of the Icelandic Parliament, is responsible for auditing thefinancial statements of individual upper secondary schools, as well as monitoring and promoting
improvements in the financial management of the state and in the use of public funds. The Office
functions in accordance to the National Audit Act no. 86/1997 (Ríkisendurskoðun, 1997).
The Office performs public administration audits that are focused on the use of public funds and how
improvements can be made. The process of the audit is as follows (Ríkisendurskoðun, n.d.):
1. A decision is taken to do a preliminary benefits survey, along with the auditors.
2. The benefits of an audit are explored.
3. If it is agreed that a audit will be beneficial, the audit is formally started, an audit plan
approved and the relevant ministry/institution informed of the pending audit.
4. For the duration of the audit the progress is regularly reported within the Audit office andsubsequently the audit plan can change or a decision be made to cancel the audit.
5. Audit data is gathered and processed.

Iceland Country Background Report

101

6.
7.
8.
9.

A draft report is written.
A review group goes through the draft report.
The draft report is made ready for commenting.
The draft report is sent to the relevant institution, ministry and other stakeholders with arequest for written comments.
10. The comments received are processed and the report is made ready for publishing.
11. The report is approved for publishing.
12. The report is publishes on the website of the Audit Office and the relevant
ministry/institution are notified.
13. The audit is reviewed by the Audit Office for improvement purposes.
14. Three years after the publishing of the report, a follow up is done to identify how
recommended improvements have been followed up.
15. A report on the follow-up is sent for commenting and then published.
The Office furthermore audits individual institutions to ensure compliance with the Budget Act, and
it is responsible for all annual accounting audits. The Office has the authority to audit where andwhat it wishes but a parliamentary committee can also request an audit at its own initiative or therequest of parliamentarians, as long as the subject is within the legal framework of the Office. As
such the Office has done an audit on the financial situation of the upper secondary schools and themodel used to calculate their funding, the use of specific funds, the approach of the Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture towards projects and contracted operations of third party institutions
such as on continued education.
The department of assessment and analysis at the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture is
responsible for assessing and monitoring quality within the school system as a whole. The
department thus is responsible for PISA, standardized national exams, TALIS and plans for external
audits done by the ministry. With the exception of student performance audits at the compulsory
school level, there is not a tradition for regular student performance audits by the national system.
The department of assessment and analysis at the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture does
also perform occasional programme and policy evaluations. Some of the latest include an audit on
the arrangement and execution of the school support services of the local communities, the reasonsfor drop-out from the upper secondary schools and the implementation of regulation no. 140/2011 on
the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in the compulsory schools. Furthermore, as this report iswritten a working group is on going tasked with evaluating the implementation of inclusive schools.
The members of that working group are from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, theMinistry of Welfare, The Association of Teachers in Primary and Lower Secondary Schools and The
Association of Headteachers.
Evaluations of individual resource managers, and/or finance and resource management as an area,
are not a part of the performance evaluations of individuals who perform duties as resource managers
in or related to the schools.
Assessing the effectiveness of different school policies and targeted programmes is not done as a partof a predesigned process, or as a rule.

6.3 Transparency and reporting
Schools, and the education administration, are not required to publicly communicate information on
how resources are used or to provide evidence of their impact on learning. According to the Acts forthe different school levels, the type of information publicly published includes the schools curricula,Iceland Country Background Report

102

reports on self-assessments, external assessment reports and annual working plans. Most schools
comply with the legal requirements. Regulation no. 658/2009 on the assessment and monitoring incompulsory schools and the information local communities are required to provide (Mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuneytið, 2009c) does not mention resource use. Thus the education administrationfor each local community determines what information on resource use schools are required toprovide.
The education administration at the state level does not require the local communities, pre-primary or
compulsory schools, to provide information on a regular basis related to the use of resources.
However, in different surveys - such as on the expert support services provided to the pre-primaryand compulsory schools or on the application of regulation no. 1040/2011 on the responsibilities andduties of education stakeholders in compulsory schools (Mennta-og menningarmálaráðuneytið,2011) – information on the implementation of school operations and therefore indirectly on resource
use is sought.

6.4 Incentives for the effective use of resources
For the pre-primary and compulsory schools there are no formal links between future resources ofindividual schools or local authorities and past educational performance. The funding to upper
secondary schools is however tied to the number of students that go through the final exams, as apart of the comprehensive funding model that the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture uses todetermine the funding needs of each upper secondary school. No evidence on the effect of thispractice on the use of resources at the school level is available.
It depends on the individual local community whether the schools at pre-primary and compulsory
level, in part or full, retain benefits of any improved efficiency. Each local community is anindependent financial authority and so determines the discretion of the individual head of school in
deciding the use of the funding received, within the requirements of laws and regulation. Thus someheads of school can use the funding as they see fit as long as they remain within the total budget
provided, while others cannot transfer funding between different cost areas without approval fromthe local community. In the same way, in some local communities surplus or loss is transferred to thenext financial year and in others not.
In a survey done in 2006 (Hansen, Jóhannsson, Lárusdóttir, & Helga, 2010), 58% of the responding
compulsory schools head teachers felt that they had some operational independence, while 20%
stated that they had a lot of independence. However, 75% of respondents felt that it was important toincrease the operational independence of the schools. Looking at the background of the respondents
the head teachers of schools in the more rural areas felt they had more independence than those in
the capital area.
As for the upper secondary schools, which are under the financial authority of the state, Art. 37 inlegislation no. 88/1997 on the state finances stipulates that with the consent of a minister of state
institutions are authorized to carry unused funding and debt from one financial year to the next(Alþingi Íslands, 1997). Based on the procedures that the state has established this transference ofunused funding and debt is generally allowed (Fjármálaráðuneytið, n.d.).
No evidence is available on the impact of these approaches.
Schools at any level are not generally sanctioned for decreased resource use efficiencies. However,since the national financial crisis that started in 2008 the budgets to most schools have been cut, insome cases quite considerably.

Iceland Country Background Report

103

6.5 Main challenges
At the local level, for the pre-primary and compulsory schools, there may be issues related toresource management that are being challenged within each local community. The following issues
related to the resource management are currently being challenged nationwide, and/or are in
disagreement between education stakeholders:¡

According to a master’s thesis published in 2008 (Sigurðsson, 2008), school leaders are in
general of the opinion that the funding model for the upper secondary schools is an asset.
However, they also criticize that:o

The transparency of the model has become less over time – particularly as changes
have been made to the model without consultation with school leaders but also as
politicians have changed the assumptions of the model when they want to change thefunding to the schools.

oSalaries are entered into the model based on general principles but not actual salarycosts of each school and thus schools with experienced and well-educated staff are
not being recognized.

o

The model rewards schools that have less physical space but punishes schools withmore space, something the school leaders have no control over.

o

The cost figures that are used for certain calculations in the model are not matchingactual cost. This applies to building cost, salary cost, etc. Thus the model does not
represent the actual cost of the schools, but is rather the means to divide limited andoften too low funding between the schools.

oThe model is being used to drive performance, as the assumptions only account for
students that attend final exams while there is considerable cost for students that do
not finish courses.

¡

The organization of the teachers work time is fixed in the collective labour agreements,
which is perceived as a necessity by the teachers but viewed as a hindrance to the flexibilityof the schoolwork by the head teachers and those responsible for operating the schools. Thishas been an on-going disagreement for over two decades, with little progress being madetowards a model both parties would approve of.

¡

There is a certain amount of tension due to the insistance of many of the local communities
to allocate funding for special education support only to those students that have a formal
diagnosis. This practice creates a demand for formal diagnosis, with the impact that students
often have to wait for a long time until they can get the needed support. In addition, thelimited funding available is then going into the diagnostic work at the cost of the actual
support actions.

Iceland Country Background Report

104

BibliographyAlþingi Íslands. (2009, November 3). 138 löggjafaring 2009-2010, þskj 152 139. mál. Retrieved July
14, 2014 from Alþingi Íslands: www.althingi.isAlþingi Íslands. (2007). Frumvarp til laga um menntun og ráðningu kennara og skólastjórnenda við
leikskóla, grunnskóla og framhaldsskóla, þskj. 322 - 288 mál. Retrieved December 14, 2014 fromAlþingi Íslands: www.althingi.isAlþingi Íslands. (2014). Konur á alþingi. Retrieved September 22, 2014 from Alþingi Íslands:
www.althingi.isAlþingi Íslands. (1992, June 1). Lög um almenna fullorðinsfræðslu, nr. 47/1992. Retrieved
December 3, 2014 from Alþingi Íslands: www.althingi.isAlþingi Íslands. (1991, March 27). Lög um félagsþjónustu sveitarfélaga nr. 40/1991. Retrieved
December 3, 2014 from Alþingi Íslands: www.althingi.isAlþingi Íslands. (1997, May 27). Lög um fjárreiður ríkisins nr. 88/1997. Reykjavík. Retrieved April
3, 2014Alþingi Íslands. (2008, June 12). Lög um framhaldsskóla nr. 92/2008. Reykjavík.
Alþingi Íslands. (2008b, June 12). Lög um grunnskóla nr. 91/2008. Reykjavík.
Alþingi Íslands. (2006, June 13). Lög um háskóla nr. 63/2006. Retrieved September 22, 2014 fromAlþingi Íslands: www.althingi.isAlþingi Íslands. (2008c, June 12). Lög um leikskóla nr. 90 /2008. Reykjavík.
Alþingi Íslands. (1992b, June 2). Lög um málefni fatlaðs fólks nr. 59/1992. Retrieved May 8, 2014
from Alþingi Íslands: www.althingi.isAlþingi Íslands. (2008d, June 12). Lög um menntun og ráðningu kennara og skólastjórnenda við
leikskóla, grunnskóla og framhaldsskóla nr. 87/2008. Retrieved May 2, 2014 from Alþingi Íslands:
www.althingi.isAlþingi Íslands. (2007c, March 28). Lög um námsgögn nr. 71/2008. Retrieved May 1, 2014 fromAlþingi Íslands: www.althingi.isAlþingi Íslands. (2007b, March 30). Lög um opinber innkaup nr. 84/2007. Retrieved July 31, 2014
from Alþingi Íslands: www.althingi.isAlþingi Íslands. (1996, June 11). Lög um réttindi og skyldur starfsmanna ríkisins nr. 70/1996.
Reykjavík.
Alþingi Íslands. (2011, June 7). Lög um stöðu íslenskrar tungu og íslensks táknmáls nr. 61/2011.
Reykjavík.

Iceland Country Background Report105Alþingi Íslands. (2011b, September 23). Lög um Stjórnarráð Íslands nr. 115/2011. Retrieved
December 10, 2014 from Alþingi Íslands: www.althingi.isAlþingi Íslands. (1995, January 30). Lög um tekjustofna sveitarfélaga 4/1995. Reykjavík. Retrieved
March 27, 2014 from Alþingi Íslands: http://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1995004.html
Alþingi Íslands. (2012, June 11). Parliamentary Resolution on a Plan of Action on Disabled
Persons´ Affairs until 2014. Retrieved September 1, 2014 from Velferðarráðuneyti:
www.velferdarraduneyti.isAlþingi Íslands. (2011c, September 28). Sveitarstjórnarlög 138/2011. Reykjavík. Retrieved March
31, 2014 from Alþingi Íslands: www.althingi.isAlþingi Íslands. (2009b). www.alþingi.is.
Alþingi Íslands. (2013, October 3). Þingsályktunartillaga nr. 5/143 um leikskóla að loknufæðingarorlofi. Retrieved December 6, 2014 from Alþingi Íslands: www.althingi.is
Arnardóttir, G., & Sigurjónsson, Ó. (2014, September 17). Sýn stjórnvalda í menntamálum, aftur til
fortíðar. Fréttablaðið .
Bandalag háskólamanna. (n.d.). Kjarakönnun 2013. Retrieved May 30, 2014 from Bandalag
háskólamanna: www.bhm.is
BSRB; BHM; Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga; SNR; ASÍ; KI,;SA. (2013). Í aðdraganda
kjarasamninga - Efnahagsumhverfi og launaþróun. Reykjavík: Samstarfsnefnd um launaupplýingar
og efnahagsforsendur kjarasamninga og .
Capacent Gallup. (2013). Könnun meðal sveitarstjóra á fyrirkomulagi og framkvæmd
sérfræðiþjónustu í leik- og grunnskólum . Reykjavík: Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið.
Davíðsdóttir, S., Guðbjörnsdóttir, G., Siguðardóttir, A. K., Jónsdóttir, A. H., Hansen, B., Jóhannsson,
Ó. H., et al. (2012, December 21). Efnahagshrunið og skólastarf í tveimur íslenskum sveitarfélögum- Skólakreppa? Ráðstefnurit Netlu - Menntakvika 2012 .
Eurostat. (n.d.). File: Gross domestic expenditure on R&D, 2002-2012 (% of GDP) YB14.png.
Retrieved
September
22,
2014
from
EureopanCommission
Eurostat:www.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
Faghópur um ytra mat á grunnskólum. (2011). Ytra mat á grunnskólum: Tillögur til mennta- og
menningarmálaráðherra og skólamálafnendar Sambands íslenskra sveitarfélaga um tilhöfun á ytra
mati í grunnskólum. Reykjavík: Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga, mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuenyti og Jöfnunarstjóður sveitarfélaga.
Fjármálaráðuneytið and Kennarasamband Íslands. (2014, April 4). Samkomulag um breytingar og
framlengingu á kjarasamningi aðila. Retrieved May 23, 2014 from Kennarasamband Íslands:
www.ki.is
Fjármálaráðuneytið. (2013, June 19). Auglýsing um reikningsskil sveitarfélaga nr. 790/2001.
Retrieved
April
3,
2014
from
brunnur.stjr.is/IRR/Netbok_RoU.nsf/0/863E94F1B05A429100257A0800350459

Iceland Country Background Report

106

Fjármálaráðuneytið. (2002). Innkaupastefna ríkisins - Hagkvæmni, samkeppni, ábyrgð og gagnsæi.
Reykjavík: Fjármálaráðuneytið.
Fjármálaráðuneytið. (n.d.). Kynningarrit um rammafjárlagagerð. Retrieved April 3, 2014 from
Fjárlagavefurinn: hamar.stjr.is/Fjarlagaverur-Hluti-II/Greinargerdirog Raedur/RitogSkyrslur/KRitRammafjarlagagerd/Hluti-I.htm
Forsætisráðuneytið. (2014, June 24). A-539/2014. Úrskurður frá 24. júní 2014. Retrieved August 26,
2014 from Forsætisráðuneyfið: www.ursk.forsaetisraduneyti.is
Frímannsson, K. (2010). Ábyrgð skólastjóra grunnskóla. Akureyri: Háskólinn á Akureyri.
Giudice, M. D. (2008). Power Struggle. National Geographic .
Hagstofa íslands. (2014y, April 15). Starfsfólk í grunnskólum eftir starfssviðum og kyni 1998-2013.
Retrieved May 30, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014æ, September 23). Útgjöld hins opinbera eftir hagrænni flokkun og
málaflokkum 1998-2013. Retrieved December 9, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014, March 7). 3,3% hagvöxtur árið 2013, frétt nr. 40/2014. Retrieved
September 22, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013b, September 26). Alþingis- og forsetakosningar 1874-2013. Retrieved
September 22, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014b, August 13). Atvinnuþátttaka, atvinnuleysi, vinnutími og fjöldi starfandi
eftir ársfjórðungum 2003-2014. Retrieved September 22, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands:
www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014c, May 8). Atvinnulausir eftir lengd atvinnuleitar 2003 - 2014. Retrieved
August 9, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013c, May 16). Börn í leikskólum sem nutu sérstaks stuðnings 1998-2012.
Retrieved May 5, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014c, February 3). Búferlaflutningar milli landa eftir kyni, löndum og ríkisfangi
1986-2013. Retrieved September 22, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013d, May 27). Brautskráningar á framhaldsskólastigi eftir próftegund,aldursflokki og kyni 1995 - 2011. Retrieved April 3, 2014 from Hagstofa íslands:
hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Skolamal/Framhaldsskolar
Hagstofa Íslands. (2012, April 2). Brautskráningarhlutfall og brottfall af framhaldsskólastigi.
Retrieved September 1, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014z, September 5). Brautskráningarhlutfall og brottfall af
framhaldsskólastiginu 1995-2011. Retrieved December 11, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands:
www.hagstofa.is

Iceland Country Background Report

107

Hagstofa Íslands. (2013e, March 19). Erlendir ríkisborgarar 1950-2013. Retrieved September 22,
2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014d, April 15). Fjöldi nemenda á hvern kennara 1998 - 2013. Retrieved May
21, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014e, August 20). Fjöldi nemenda að hausti eftir skólastigi 1997-2013.
Retrieved September 1, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014g, July 10). Frjósemi og fólksfjölgunarhlutfall 1853 - 2013. Retrieved
September 22, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013f, October 09). Hagræn flokkun fræðsluútgjalda hins opinbera 1998 - 2011
eftir skólastigum, á föstu verði 2011. Retrieved April 16, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands:
www.hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Thjodhasreikningar/Fjarmal-hins-opinbera
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014x, September 23). Heildarútgjöld hins opinbera eftir málaflokkum í mestri
sundurliðun 1998 - 2012. Retrieved September 23, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands:
hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Thjodhagsreikningar/Fjarmal-hins-opinbera
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013h, October 09). Heildarútgjöld ríkissjóðs eftir málaflokkum í mestri
sundurliðun
1998-2012.
Retrieved
April
10,
2014
from
HagstofaÍslands:
hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/thjodhagsreikningar/Fjarmal-hins-opinbera
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013i, October 09). Heildarútgjöld sveitarfélaga eftir málaflokkum í mestri
sundurlilðun 1998-2012. Retrieved April 10, 2104 from Hagstofa Íslands: hagstofa.is/
Hagtolur/Thjodhagsreikningar/Fjarmal-hins-opinbera
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014i, March 4). Kjarnafjölskyldur eftir sveitarfélögum og fjölskyldugerð 1998 2014. Retrieved September 22, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014y, September 26). Kosningaþáttaka eftir kyni, aldri og stærð sveitarfélags
2014. From Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014j, April 12). Landsframleiðsla og opinber búskapur. Retrieved May 8, 2014
from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014k, May 8). Laun á almennum vinnumarkaði eftir starfsstétt og kyni 19982013. Retrieved May 23, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014m, May 8). Laun eftir atvinnugrein (ÍSAT08) og kyni 2008 - 2013. Retrieved
May 23, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014n, May 8). Laun eftir launþegahópi og kyni 2008-2013. Retrieved May 23,
2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014o, March). Lykiltölur mannfjöldans 1703 - 2014. Retrieved September 22,
2014 from Hagstofa íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013j, March 19). Mannfjöldi eftir bakgrunni, kyni, aldri og ríkisfangi 1996-2013.
Retrieved September 22, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is

Iceland Country Background Report

108

Hagstofa Íslands. (2013k, March 19). Mannfjöldi eftir fæðingarlandi, kyni og aldri 1998 - 2013.
Retrieved September 22, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014p, March 4). Mannfjöldi eftir kyni og aldri 1841 - 2014. Retrieved September
22, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014q, March 4). Mannfjöldi eftir kyni, aldri og sveitarfélögum 1998-2014 Sveitarfélagaskipan 1. janúar 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2014 from Hgstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013m, October 1). Mannfjöldi eftir menntunarstöðu 2003 - 2012, hlutfallsleg
skipting. Retrieved September 1, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014s, March 4). Mannfjöldi eftir trúfélögum og lífsskoðunarfélögum 1998-2014.
Retrieved August 8, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014t, July 24). Mannfjöldinn á 2. ársfjórðungi 2014, frétt nr. 137/2014.
Retrieved July 26, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: http://www.hagstofa.is/
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014u, July 16). Meðalævilengd og eftirlifendatala 1971-2013. Retrieved
September 22, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013n, October 17). Nemendur sem njóta sérkennslu eða stuðnings 2004-2013.
Retrieved May 5, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2012b, January 27). Skráðir nemendur í framhalds- og háskólum eftir námsbrautog kyni 2007 - 2011.
Retrieved
April
3,
2014
from
HagstofaÍslands:
hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Skolamal/yfirlit
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013o, October 17). Skóladagar 1999-2013. Retrieved May 21, 2014 from
Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013p, December 4). Skólasókn á framhaldsskólastigi eftir kyni, aldri og
landsvæðum
1999-2012.
Retrieved
April
23,
2014
from
HagstofaÍslands:
http://hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Skolamal/Yfirlit
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013q, December 4). Skólasókn eftir kyni, aldri og landsvæðum 19991-2012.
Retrieved September 1, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2012c, December 17). Starfsfólk eftir kyni, starfsheiti, tegund og aðsetri skóla
1999-2012. Retrieved May 30, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013r, May 16). Starfsfólk í leikskólum eftir kyni, starfssviðum og rekstaraðilum
1998- 2012. Retrieved May 30, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2012e, September 6). Starfstími framhaldsskóla 2001- 2012. Retrieved April 23,
2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: http://www.hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Skolamal/Framhaldsskolar
Hagstofa Íslands. (2013s, May 16). Starfstími leikskóla eftir landsvæðum 1998-2012. Retrieved May
21, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is

Iceland Country Background Report

109

Hagstofa Íslands. (2014w, July 16). Ungbarnadauði og andvana fædd börn 1951-2013. Retrieved
September 22, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Hagstofa Íslands. (2014x, July 24). Vinnuafl, starfandi, atvinnulausir og vinnustundir - Mæling Mánðarlegar tölur 2003 - 2014. Retrieved August 8, 2014 from Hagstofa Íslands: www.hagstofa.is
Halldórsson, A. M., Ólafsson, R. F., & Björnsson, J. K. (2012). Helstu niðurstöður PISA 2012 - Læsinemenda á stærðfræði og náttúrufræði og lesskilningur. Reykjavík: Námsmatsstofnun.
Hansen, B., Jóhannsson, Ó. H., Lárusdóttir, & Helga, S. (2010). Faglegt sjálfstæði grunnskóla viðhorf skólastjóra. Iceandic Journal of Education , 1-2 (19), 51-70.
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2012). The Global Gender Gap Report 2012. Geneva:
World Economic Forum.
Hjartarson, T., & Sigurðardóttir, A. K. (2011). Hönnun skólabygginga í deiglu nýrra kennsluhátta Íslenskar grunnskólabyggingar við upphaf 21. aldar. Journal of Education Research (Iceland) , 6079.
Innanríkisráðuneytið. (2012, June 11). Reglugerð um fjárhagsleg viðmið og eftirlit með fjármálum
sveitarfélaga nr. 502/2012. Retrieved August 4, 2014 from Reglugerðasafn: www.reglugerd.is
Innanríkisráðuneytið. (2010, December 08). Reglugerð um Jöfnunarsjóð sveitarfélaga nr. 960/2010.
Retrieved March 28, 2014 from Stjórnarráðið: www.reglugerd.isJöfnunarsjóður sveitarfélaga. (2013, October 26). Drög að greiðslu- og rekstraráætlun 2014.
Reykjavík: Jöfnunarsjóður sveitarfélaga.
Kennarasamband Íslands. (2014, May 6). Aldur og kyn skólastjórnenda í leik-, grunn- og frsk. maí
2014. Reykjavík: Unpublished.
Mennamálaráðuneytið. (2009). Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla - Námsbrautir fyrir aðstoðarfólk í leikog grunnskólum: leikskólaliða, skólaliða og stuðningsfulltrúa í grunnskólum. Reykjavík:
Menntamálaráðuneytið.
Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneyti. (2012, February 14). Reglugerð um nemendur með sérþarfir íframhaldsskólum nr. 230/2012. Retrieved May 8, 2014 from Reglugerðasafn: www.reglugerd.isMennta- og menningarmálaráðuneyti. (2010, June 28). Reglugerð um nemendur með sérþarfir ígrunnskóla. Retrieved May 8, 2014 from Reglugerðasafn: www.reglugerd.isMennta- og menningarmálaráðuneyti. (1999, May 7). Reglugerð um reiknilíkan til að reikna útkennslukostnað framhaldsskóla nr. 335/1999. Retrieved April 15, 2014 from Reglugerðasafn:
www.reglugerd.isMennta- og menningarmálaráðuneyti. (n.d.). Sérkennsla í framhaldsskólum. Retrieved May 8, 2014
from Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneyti: www.menntamalaraduneyti.is
Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2001, January 8). Auglýsing nr. 4/2001 um almennt hlutfall
námseininga og kennslustunda, hópstærðir og breytileg viðmið kennslustunda í framhaldsskólum.
Retrieved May 7, 2014 from Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið: www.menntamalaraduneyti.isIceland Country Background Report

110

Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (n.d.(b)). Framhaldsskólastig. Retrieved May 21, 2014 fromMennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið: www.menntamalaraduneyti.is
Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2014). Hvítbók um umbætur í menntun. Reykjavík: Menntaog menningarmálaráðuneytið.
Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (n.d.(c)). Nám er vinnandi vegur. Retrieved September 4,2014 from Menntamálráðuneyti: www.menntamalaraduneyti
Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (n.d.(d)). Námsgagnasjóður. Retrieved May 1, 2014 fromMennta - og menningarmálaráðuneytið: www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/afgreidsla/sjodir-ogeydublöd/menntamal/nr/4558
Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (n.d.(e)). Námskrár. Retrieved June 5, 2014 from Mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuneytið: www.menntamalaraduneyti.is
Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2009b, October 23). Reglugerð um inntak menntunar leik-,grunn- og framhaldsskólakennara nr. 872/2009. Retrieved May 2, 2014 from Reglugerðarsafn:
www.reglugerd.isMennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2010b, August 24). Reglugerð um mat og eftirlit í
framhaldsskólum nr. 700/2010. Retrieved June 5, 2014 from Reglugerðasafn: www.reglugerd.isMennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2009c, July 1). Reglugerð um mat og eftirlit í grunnskólum
og upplýsingaskyldu sveitarstjórna um skólahald nr. 658/2009. Retrieved June 5, 2014 from
Reglugerðasafn: www.reglugerd.isMennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2009d, October 22). Reglugerð um mat og eftirlit í
leikskólum og upplýsingaskyldu sveitarstjórna um skólahald nr. 893/2009. Retrieved June 5, 2014
from Reglugerðasafn: www.reglugerd.isMennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2010c, June 25). Reglugerð um sérfræðiþjónustu
sveitarfélaga við leik- og grunnskóla og nemendaverndarráð í grunnskólum nr 584/2010. Retrieved
September 1, 2014 from Reglugerðarsafn: www.reglugerd.isMennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2012b, June 5). Reglugerð um skólagöngu fósturbarna ígrunnskólum nr. 547/2012. Retrieved September 1, 2014 from Reglugerðarsafn: www.reglugerd.isMennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2009e, December 1). Reglugerð um viðurkenningu
grunnskóla sem reknir eru af öðrum en sveitarfélögum nr. 980/2009. Retrieved August 26, 2014
from Reglugerðasafn: www.reglugerd.isMennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (n.d.). The structure of the Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture. Retrieved December 10, 2014 from Ministry of Education, Science and Culture:
www.eng.menntamalaraduneyti.is
Menntamálaráðuneyti. (2009f, July 3). Reglugerð um gerð og búnað grunnskólahúsnæðis og
skólalóða nr. 657/2009. Retrieved April 28, 2014 from Reglugerðasafn: www.reglugerd.isMenntamálaráðuneyti. (2009g, July 3). Reglugerð um starfsumhverfi leikskóla nr. 655/2009.
Retrieved April 28, 2014 from Reglugerðir: www.reglugerd.isIceland Country Background Report

111

Menntamálaráðuneytið. (2008, December 19). Reglugerð um innritun nemenda í framhaldsskóla.
Retrieved May 21, 2014 from Reglugerðasafn: www.reglugerd.isMenntamálaráðuneytið. (1998, June 9). Reglugerð um kennslu fatlaðra nemenda í framhaldsskólum
nr. 372/1998. Retrieved May 8, 2014 from Reglugerðasafn: www.reglugerd.isMennta-og menningarmálaráðuneytið. (2011, October 21). Reglugerð um ábyrgð og skyldur aðila
skólasamfélagsins í grunnskólum nr. 1040/2011. Retrieved December 30, 2014 from
Reglugerðasafn: www.reglugerd.is
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (n.d.). The Icelandic Natinoal Curriculum Guide forUpper Secondary Schools - General Section. Retrieved May 21, 2014 from Menntamálaráðuneytið:www.menntamalaraduneyti.is
MMR. (2014). Brotthvarf
menningarmálaráðuneytið.

úr

framhaldsskólum:

Haust

2013.

Reykjavík:

Mennta-og

Námsmatsstofnun. (n.d.). Innritun í framhaldsskóla, kynning fyrir foreldra. Retrieved August 26,
2014 from Námsmatsstofnun: www.namsmat.is
OECD. (2013). Educaton at a glance. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2013a). OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools(School Resources Review): Guidelines for Country Background Reports. Retrieved January 5, 2014
from OECD: http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/School-Resources_Review-CBR-Guidelines.pdf
OECD. (2013b). OECD Skills Outlook 2013 - First results from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris:OECD.
Óskarsdóttir, G. G. (Ed.). (2014). Starfshættir í grunnskólum við upphaf 21. aldar. Reykjavík:
Háskólaútgáfan.
Óskarsdóttir, G. G. (2011). Tengsl skóla og grenndarsamfélags. Ráðstefna Samtaka áhugafólks um
skólaþróun og Rannsóknastofu um þróun skólastarfs. Reykjavík: Háskóli Íslands.
Pétursdóttir, H. (2007). Sameiginleg framtíðarsýn fyrir grunnskólastarfið 2007 - 2020. Reykjavík:
Félag grunnskólakennara, Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga and Skólastjórafélag Íslands.
Ragnarsson, G. K. (2006). Nýir tímar - Saga Íslands. Reykjavík: Forlagið.
Reykjavíkurborg.
Reykjavíkurborg.

(2011).

Framkvæmd

sérkennslu

íalmennum

grunnskólum.

Reykjavík:

Reynisdóttir, Á. H., & Jóhannesson, I. Á. (2013, October 3). Fleiri vindar blása, viðhorf reyndra
framhaldsskólakennara til breytinga í skólastarfsi 1986-2012. Netla - Veftímarit um uppeldi og
menntun .
Ríkisendurskoðun. (2008). Jöfnunarsjóður sveitarfélaga og grunnskólinn - Stjórnsýsluúttekt.
Reykjavík: Ríkisendurskoðun.

Iceland Country Background Report

Ríkisendurskoðun. (n.d.). Stjórnsýsluendurskoðun.
Ríkisendurskoðun: www.rikisendurskodun.is112

Retrieved

December

17,

2014

from

Ríkisendurskoðun. (1997, May 27). The National Audit Act nr 86, 27 May 1997. Retrieved July 31,
2014 from Ríkisendurskoðun: www.rikisendurskodun.is/index.php?id=183
Samband íslenskra sveitarfélag. (2014, April 8). Útgjöld leik og grunn 2004-2012 frá sambandinu,
unpublished. Útgjöld leik og grunn 2004 - 2012 frá sambandinu, unpublished . Reykjavík: Sambandíslenskra sveitarfélaga.
Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga í samstarfi við Samtök áhugafólks um skólaþróun. (2013). Microsoft
Upplýsingatækni í grunnskólum. Reykjavík: Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga.
Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga. (n.d.). Námsleyfasjóður kennara og stjórnenda grunnskóla.
Retrieved June 4, 2014 from Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga: www.samband.is
Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga og Félag leikskólakennara. (2014c, June 16). Framlenging ásamningi FL og SIS. Gildir 1. júní 2014 til 31. maí. Retrieved July 29, 2014 from KennarasambandÍslands: www.ki.is
Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga og Kennarasamband Íslands vegna Félags grunnskólakennara.
(2014b, May 20). Félag grunnskólakennara. Retrieved July 29, 2014 from Kennarasamband Íslands:
www.ki.is
Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga og Kennarasamband Íslands vegna Félags leikskólakennara. (2011,
August 20). Kjarasamningur KÍ vegna Félags leikskólakennara, með breytingum frá 23. ágúst 2012.
Retrieved July 29, 2014 from Kennarasamband Íslands: www.ki.is
Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga. (n.d.(a)). Rekstrarkostnaður leikskóla 2012, eftir stærð skóla.
Retrieved April 24, 2014 from www.samband.is/verkefnin/rekstur-sveitarfelaga/talnaefni/
Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga. (n.d.(b)). Rekstur-per-nem-2012. Retrieved April 23, 2014 from
Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga: www.samband.is/verkefnin/rekstur-sveitarfelaga/talnaefni/
Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga. (2008, February 22). Skólamálastefna Sambands íslenskra
sveitarfélaga. Skólamálastefna Sambands íslenskra sveitarfélaga . Reykjavík: Samband íslenskra
sveitarfélaga.
Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga. (2013b). Skólaskýrsla 2013. Reykjavík: Samband íslenskra
sveitarfélaga.
Samtök iðnaðarins, Mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið og Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga.
(2012). Grunnmenntun efld í raunvísindum og tækni. Reykjavík: Samtök iðnaðarins, Mennta- og
menningarmálaráðuneytið og Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga.
Sigurðsson, Ó. (2008). Reiknilíkan framhaldsskólanna. Reykjavík: Háskóli Íslands.
Skúlason, F. A. (2013). Rit 1 2013 - Niðurstöður samræmdra könnunarprófa í grunnskólum 2013.
Retrieved September 1, 2014 from Námsmatsstofnun: www.namsmat.isIceland Country Background Report

113

The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2014, March). The Icelandic national curriculum
guide for compulsory schools - with Subject Areas. Retrieved May 21, 2014 fromMenntamálaráðuneytið: www.menntamalaraduneyti
Umhverfisráðuneytið. (2010, October 12). Reglugerð um hollustuhætti á sund- og baðstöðum nr.
814/2010. Retrieved May 6, 2012 from Reglugerðasafn: www.reglugerd.is
UNESCO Institute of Statistics. (n.d.). Pupil-teacher ratio in upper secondary education (headcountbasis). Retrieved October 21, 2014 from UNESCO Institute of Statistics: www.data.uis.unesco/org
Vinnumálastofnun. (2014, August). Atvinnuleysi frá 1980 mánaðarlegt. Retrieved September 23,
2014 from Vinnumálastofnun: www.vinnumalastofnunÞorvaldsdóttir, F., Friðriksson, I. Þ., & Bjarnadóttir, S. (2012). Stefnumótun í upplýsingatækni íleikskólum Kópavogs - Skýrsla starfshóps, fylgiskjal 2. Kópavogur: Kópavogur.
Ögmundsdóttir, R. H. (2013). Skólastjórinn - hlutverk hans og dagleg störf. Reykjavík: HáskóliÍslands.

Iceland Country Background Report

114

Annex 1 Trends in the number of public and private schools,
1998 to 2012
Pre-primary schools

Compulsory schools

Year

PublicPrivatePublicPrivate

1998

223

26

191

5

1999

230

22

186

6

2000

231

22

184

6

2001

237

24

187

6

2002

237

25

186

6

2002

237

30

179

8

2004

234

28

171

7

2005

234

28

170

7

2006

236

31

166

7

2007

234

36

165

9

2008

238

37

165

9

2009

244

37

165

10

2010

238

39

162

10

2011

228

27

161

10

2012

222

41

157

10

Iceland Country Background Report

115

Annex 2 Comparison of teachers’ regular salaries to otheroccupations, 2013Group

Regular salary, IKR

Pre-primary school teachers361.369

Compulsory school teachers

342.520

Upper secondary school teachers392.556

All employees, state414.000

All employees, local communities

331.000

All employees, private sector

429.000

Education sector, all341.000

Specialists, private sector

651.000

Iceland Country Background Report

116

Annex 3 Comparison of teachers’ total salaries to otheroccupations with a graduate degree, 2013
Group

Total salary, IKR

Pre-primary school teachers410.095

Compulsory school teachers

368.970

Upper secondary school teachers503.108All

552.000State

543.000

City of Reykjavík

519.000

Ohter local communities

573.000

Non-governmental organizations

553.000

Foundations

534.000

Private companies

601.000

Self-employed, owners

670.000

Iceland Country Background Report

117

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Annex 4 Pre-primary school staff, other than teaching andmanagement, 2004 to 2012

Teaching and other support
functions
Kitchen

228

263

298

268

305

358

364

361

374

370

363

373

391

402

409

408

401

390

Cleaning

224

187

148

145

139

126

101

108

98

Other and undefined

24

30

32

28

0

0

0

0

0

Total

846

843

851

832

846

893

873

870

862

Iceland Country Background Report

118

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Annex 5 Compulsory school staff, other than teaching andmanagement, 2004 to 2013

Librarians and library staff

70

73

62

48

56

56

68

53

63

60

School psychologist andeducational counsellors
School nurses

85

80

89

86

102

114

110

101

99

100

36

27

31

27

32

4

32

11

33

28

Social pedagogues

90

91

93

113

125

124

132

142

144

140

School assistants

536

529

596

594

643

655

626

678

675

779

Secretaries and computer
administration
Sport
and
recreational
assistants
Dining room

186

184

178

183

174

175

176

168

164

166

4

8

5

8

9

6

5

2

5

10

254

229

253

230

257

273

268

251

211

234

Janitors

141

136

128

121

135

145

134

125

117

119

1205

1200

1158

1217

1250

1233

1152

1063

980

1062

47

26

11

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

2654

2583

2604

2627

2783

2785

2703

2594

2495

2698

Hall monitors, shower
monitors, cleaning andstudent assistants
Other
Total

Iceland Country Background Report

119

Annex 6 Upper secondary school staff, other than teaching
and management, 2004 – 2012
2004
2005

2005
2006

2006
2007

2007
2008

2008
2009

2009
2010

2010
2011

2011
2012

Experts and specialised

25

23

27

21

26

45

36

44

Consultants and library employees

158

160

142

145

167

154

154

157

Office and computer

148

149

137

153

158

150

168

164

Facility administration

280

257

263

272

269

282

263

269

Other

6

3

3

6

2

4

3

11

Total

617

592

572

597

622

635

624

645