Language Training for Adult Migrants

9. Ensure efficient co‑ordination between stakeholders to avoid overlap and under-coverage and guarantee common standards across the country

WHAT and WHY?

While many stakeholders are involved in language training, there is often little to no co‑ordination between them, which may lead to overlap in certain areas and under-coverage in others. Often, different integration and employment actors fund, independently advertise, and develop their own criteria for their own courses. The result is such that – even where appropriate courses exist – potential learners may not be informed or eligible. Wide variation also exists regarding the degree of centralised control over curricula, teacher qualifications, course‑provider accreditation, testing mechanisms, and the extent to which government funding is conditional upon certain measures of quality assurance. Indeed, most programmes are at least partially funded at the national level, but implemented – and sometimes even designed – at the regional or local level. To avoid overlap and gaps in language training, and to ensure common standards across the country, transparent and regular co‑ordination will be required between the national and local level and between different local stakeholders.

WHO?

Whereas regular language training is often funded by municipalities or agencies under the auspices of the Ministry of Interior, training that is geared to the labour market is commonly financed by the public employment service (Table 9.1). Vocational training is frequently offered by a diffuse set of actors and funded by stakeholders with different objectives. These providers may lack accredited language teachers and use curricula that are detached from those of standard language courses. Language training providers, in turn, regularly lack expertise in relevant job sectors (Pöyhönen, and Tarnanen, 2015).

HOW?

Management of this multi-level and multi-stakeholder process can take several forms:

• When local authorities play a stronger role in the development and provision of services, some co‑ordination mechanism may be required

• A centralised agency or ministry can take responsibility for co‑ordination of actors

• The central government can take responsibility for standard-setting

An increasing number of OECD countries have decentralised integration, including language training, giving local governments and civil society increased responsibility. This may be one way to improve local migrant integration, as decisions are made in the communities where the migrants live. Several OECD countries have increased the management role of municipalities in recent years. In some countries, such as Denmark and the United States, such an arrangement is longstanding. In Poland and Spain, civil society also plays an important role. In late 2019, the Polish Foundation “Okno na Wschód” created a Centre for Supporting Foreigners, which, in addition to organising Polish language courses, also provides broader integration advice. In some countries, notably Germany and Italy, centres for adult education are active in provision of language courses. The Italian Ministry of Education funds more than 500 Provincial Adult Education Centres that have long been host to basic literacy and Italian courses. Since integration legislation in 2009 imposed a language requirement, the Ministry of Interior, which organises the language tests, has also provided support to these centres. Whatever the division of responsibility, authorities, service‑providers, and experts should meet regularly to inform each other about existing course formats, discuss possible synergies, and pool together all available financial and human resources to develop a more diverse, adaptable and transparent offer.

The growing importance of local actors has placed emphasis on the growing need for co‑ordination to guarantee availability and consistent provision of language learning options across the country. Without such co‑ordination and communication, it is much more difficult for countries with decentralised programmes to assess whether demand is met, to collect data on outcomes, or to adapt to changing circumstances. For example, a report by the Norwegian Research Institute, Fafo, on adaptation of introduction activities – chief among which is language learning – during the novel coronavirus (COVID‑19) pandemic showed that one in two municipalities faced difficulties in adapting to the new situation (Fafo, 2020). A lack of co‑ordination may also delay the mainstreaming of innovations developed in specific municipalities – often large cities – resulting in unequal opportunities for more remote regions.

Ideally, one single actor handles the enrolment of learners and their orientation to available course‑providers. This ‘one‑stop-shop’ function allows for greater visibility of the programme, more common quality standards for enrolment, and more informed choices by learners in selection of course‑providers. Those overseeing the provision of training should then be responsible for setting common standards and ensuring that these standards are consistently applied by all providers throughout the national territory. Countries that have recently shifted responsibilities to improve efficient delivery of programmes include Australia (Commonwealth Co‑ordinator-General for Migrant Services) and Finland (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment).

In most OECD countries, standard-setting and quality control is performed by government agencies or non-governmental agents entrusted by the government at the national level (Rossner, 2014a and 2014b; see Box 9.1 for examples of experience of co‑ordinating stakeholders in language training). Quality control should be carried out by specialists for adult education and may take the form of unexpected checks of a sample of classes or interviews with randomly selected participants about specific aspects of their training. The frequency of such inspections should balance considerations of the need for quality oversight with administrative burden and the anticipated likelihood of material change. In some countries, quality control involves accreditation under a mandatory scheme, which usually includes a more formal periodic inspection. France, for example, has accredited language course providers since 2011 through the ‘French as Language of Integration’ (FLI) label, which entails an audit and an inter-ministerial commission opinion once every three years. The United Kingdom inspects and evaluates ESOL courses and tests through two independent agencies – the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) and the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (OFQUAL). Another way to ensure efficient allocation of public resources and to support the maintenance of high-quality training across regions and providers is to introduce results-based financing and benchmarking for language providers, as is currently practised in the Netherlands and Denmark (Gortz et al., 2006; Ramboll, 2007b; Significant, 2010). Greater co‑operation and a more efficient allocation of resources can also have a direct impact on language and employment outcomes, as was recently observed in Finland (Sarvimäki and Hämäläinen, 2012) and Italy (OECD, 2014). In recognition of this, some OECD countries, such as Ireland, Estonia, and Lithuania, have made greater co‑ordination and a “whole of government response” part of their recent action plans on migrant integration (see Box 9.1).

Box 9.1. Experience with co-ordination of stakeholders in charge of language training

The co‑ordination of language training in Germany was significantly enhanced by the implementation of the 2005 Immigration Law, which merged and standardised the various previously existing programmes into a more consistent offer of integration courses. Integration Courses are developed by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. The Goethe Institute – Germany’s worldwide cultural and language institute – created the essential basic course content, teacher qualification concept, and the ‘German Test for Immigrants’ (DTZ), which was developed in co‑operation with the test provider, telc gGmbH. For vocational language courses, telc gGmbH has created an extensive catalogue of learning objectives, the final exam, and the teacher qualification concept since 2016. Funding is federal but courses are implemented locally by a wide range of accredited institutions, which must employ qualified German teachers (trained pre‑or-in-service), follow a framework curriculum, and use a standardised final exam.

In Austria, several federal agencies are involved – in co‑ordination with the Bundesländer – in the integration of migrants. Additionally, civil society is often charged with implementation by regional authorities. The general responsibility for migrant integration lies with the Integration Agency under the Federal Chancellery (BKA), and other courses are run through the Public Employment Service (AMS). To avoid fragmentation and horizontal differentiation, the Austrian Government launched its National Action Plan for Integration in 2010 and followed up with 50 Action Points in 2016. The Strategy for Promotion of Language (Sprachförderstrategie) aims to create a common structure and didactic approach for various models of welcome classes, to delineate responsibilities for certain language levels and categories of migrants to specific stakeholders (BMI, BKA, AMS), and to create a common funding strategy on the part of large granters, both state and federal (Integration Report, 2016).

Each canton in Switzerland has authority to establish course eligibility and to set the number of hours and types of courses offered. However, cantons are guided by goals established under the Cantonal Integration Programmes, launched in 2014, and they receive some central government funding. Additionally, the national programme, “fide”, in conjunction with the State Secretariat for Migration, aims to homogenise the quality of language courses, teaching methods, and examinations. It provides a tool to assign migrants to different courses according to their needs and ability. If a course is evaluated and found not to meet these standards, the service provider loses the fide certification (www.fide‑info.ch).

Ireland launched a co‑ordinated “whole of government response” to integration for 2017‑20, an important pillar of which was the facilitation of English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). Among the priorities of the Migrant Integration Strategy were the certification of course participants’ achievements and establishment of a formal progression which could be benchmarked against the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. The Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality with responsibility for Equality, Immigration and Integration was tasked with creation of a Strategy Committee to oversee implementation (Migrant Integration Strategy, 2016).

Table 9.1. Actors involved in financing for publicly financed language programmes in OECD countries, 2020 or latest available year

	Actors involved in financing of language training in OECD countries
Australia	Department of Home Affairs; Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP)
Austria	Federal Chancellery, Ministry of Labour, Austrian Integration Fund; regional governments and PES
Belgium	Public Planning Service – Social Integration; Flemish Interior Ministry; Agency for Civil Integration (Flanders); Community Commission (Brussels); Ministre de l’Action sociale et le Service public de Wallonie Intérieur et Action (Wallonia); The German-Speaking Community
Canada	Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC); 10 provinces and 3 territories
Chile	/
Colombia	/
Czech Republic	Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs; Ministry of Interior; 18 Integration Centres; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
Denmarki	Ministry of Immigration and Integration; Ministry of Finance; municipalities
Estonia	Ministry of the Interior; Ministry of Education and Research; the Ministry of Culture; the Ministry of Social Affairs; the and the Ministry of Justice
Finland	Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (allocates funding to regional Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment); Ministry of Education and Culture
France	Ministry of the Interior, La Direction générale des étrangers en France (DGEF)
Germany	Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF); Ministry of Labour; Ministry of Interior
Greece	Ministry of Economy, Development, and Tourism; Ministry of Education; Ministry of Migration and Asylum
Hungary	Ministry of Interior
Iceland	/
Ireland	Office for the Promotion of Migrant Integration; Funds Administration Unit of the Department of Justice and Equality; Department of Education and Skills; Department of Social Protection
Israel	Ministry of Aliyah and Integration; Ministry of Education; Jewish Agency
Italy	Ministry of the Interior, Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration; Ministry of Education; provincial and municipal governments
Japan	Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (regarding “Training Course for Promoting Stable Employment of Foreign Residents”)
Korea	Ministry of Justice
Latvia	Ministry of the Interior; Ministry of Culture
Lithuania	European Social Fund Agency under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour
Luxembourg	Ministry of Education; National Language Institute (INL); National Reception Office
Mexico	Mexican Commission of Aid to Refugees; Sin Fronteras (non-profit organisation)
Netherlands	Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (Uitvoering van beleid SZW); municipal governments
New Zealand	Department of Education, Tertiary Education Commission, regional governments
Norway	Ministry of Education; Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training; Skills Norway; municipal governments
Poland	Ministry of the Interior, Department of European Funds; municipal governments
Portugal	High Commission for Migration; Ministry of Solidarity, Employment and Social Security; Ministry of Education and Science
Slovak Republic	Ministry of the Interior
Slovenia	Ministry of the Interior
Spain	Ministry of Education; Autonomous Communities; Ministry of Labour, Migration, and Social Security
Sweden	Ministry of Education; Ministry of Employment; municipalities
Switzerland	Central government, Cantons, and municipalities
Turkey	/
United Kingdom	Home Office; Department for Communities and Local Government
United States	Department of Education; Office of Refugee Resettlement (Department of Health and Human Services); state and local governments

Note: n.a. = information not available; / = not applicable; See Table 1.1.

a. Denmark is the only EU Member State that does not receive funds from the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), due to the opt-out on EU Justice and Home Affairs. The Hungarian AMIF programme was partially suspended in 2018.

Source: OECD questionnaire on language training for adult migrants 2017.