Prioritising the highest-achieving pupils does not necessarily produce a better overall outcome.
Kjell G. Salvanes
School reform squeezed out lower-achieving pupils
When Bergen allowed grades to determine who gained entry to the most popular upper secondary schools twenty years ago, it opened the door wide for high-performing girls from more advantaged families.
`Those who were crowded out of the most sought-after schools lost out significantly. Those who gained entry benefited little. Prioritising the highest-achieving pupils does not necessarily produce a better overall outcome,´ says NHH professor Kjell Gunnar Salvanes, Department of Economics and Norwegian Centre of Excellence FAIR.
Sunday 1 March is the deadline for applying to upper secondary school. If you want to choose freely, strong grades are essential. They determine who secures a place at the most competitive schools.
It was not always so in Bergen. In the early 2000s, pupils were assigned to the upper secondary school closest to where they lived.
Fairer?
In autumn 2005, the system was overhauled. Grades from lower secondary school would now determine admission. Some believed this would make the system fairer. Others warned it could increase social sorting.
`It was built on a meritocratic principle — a reform intended to reward the highest achievers. ´
However, Salvanes stresses that the previous system of catchment areas and proximity rules favoured those who lived closest to the most prestigious schools — typically centrally located schools with the strongest teaching staff.
`Pupils who did not live within the catchment area of the top schools, even if they had strong academic records, did not gain access. Introducing grades as the admissions criterion was meant to correct that inequality, ´ he says.
The crowding-out effect
`The key question is whether so-called free school choice actually led to an improvement or gain for those who gained entry, compared with those who did not. ´
Reference
Pulled In and Crowded Out: Heterogeneous Outcomes of Merit-Based School Choice (2025). Antonio Dalla-Zuanna, Kai Liu, Kjell G. Salvanes. Published in American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. The study draws on detailed administrative register data and compares cohorts of students who entered upper secondary education (academic programmes) before and after the reform.
Because capacity at the most sought-after schools did not increase, improved access for some necessarily meant others were displaced. It is precisely this crowding-out effect that the researchers document.
In the study Pulled In and Crowded Out: Heterogeneous Outcomes of Merit-Based School Choice (see fact box), the authors analyse what happened to pupil cohorts before and after the change in Bergen’s admissions system.
The researchers examined how the reform affected pupils applying to academic upper secondary programmes.
In practice, the reform divided pupils into two groups — those who were pulled in and those who were pushed out.
Kjell G. Salvanes
High-performing girls gained
Overall, the new admissions system did not lead to more pupils completing upper secondary school or progressing to higher education. But behind the averages lie two very different stories.
`In practice, the reform divided pupils into two groups — those who were pulled in and those who were pushed out, ´ says Salvanes.
The first group consisted of pupils who were “pulled in”. They gained entry to the most popular upper secondary schools — schools that both parents and pupils recognised as having a strong academic reputation. Under the old system, they would not have been admitted, because residence determined school placement.
`These pupils typically had relatively strong grades from lower secondary school. Many were girls, and they more often came from families with higher levels of education and income. ´
Students from elite families lift others with them
In some families, it’s almost expected: You’re going to be a doctor, a lawyer, or an NHH economist. For these young people, top-tier studies are a given. And it rubs off.
They gained access to prestigious schools. But the benefits were limited. They performed roughly as well as comparable pupils had done before the reform.
Others were pushed out
The second group consisted of pupils who were “pushed out”. These were pupils who would have gained entry to a popular school before 2005 but lost their place once grades became decisive.
`These pupils generally had low to mid-range grades and were more likely to come from families with lower socio-economic backgrounds. ´
For them, the consequences were clear.
consequences
Pupils who were crowded out of the most sought-after schools were less likely to complete upper secondary education. They were also less likely to enrol in — and complete — higher education, according to the study.
What is most striking is that these were precisely the pupils who stood to gain the most from attending the more competitive schools.
Kjell G. Salvanes
`What is most striking is that these were precisely the pupils who stood to gain the most from attending the more competitive schools, ´ says Salvanes.
The reform was intended to reward effort and academic ability. But the findings suggest that prioritising the highest achievers can produce consequences opposite to those many expected.
Why Salvanes succeeds where almost everyone else is rejected
Over the past 20 years, NHH professor Kjell G. Salvanes has published research in the world’s most prestigious economics journals 24 times. That record has made him the highest-ranked economist in Norway.
New measures to encourage earlier childbearing
Guaranteed childcare from the age of one and extra child benefit for parents under 30 are among the measures proposed by the Birth Rate Committee.