This chapter focuses on developing skills for immigrants to effectively integrate into Icelandic society. It begins with a discussion of the language learning framework and the language proficiency of migrants in Iceland. A section on credential recognition and the validation of skills follows, against the backdrop of high levels of overqualification among migrants in Iceland.
Skills and Labour Market Integration of Immigrants and their Children in Iceland
Working Together for Integration
3. Developing and assessing skills for integration into Icelandic society
Abstract
Language training for adult immigrants
Mastery of the host-country language is arguably the most important skill for migrants to fully participate in a new society (OECD, 2021[1]). Knowledge of the host-country language allows immigrants to effectively communicate with the native‑born population and establish a social network outside of their diaspora. Migrants who speak the host-country language are also likely to enjoy better outcomes on the labour market in terms of wages, job opportunities and awareness of their rights (Chiswick, Lee and Miller, 2005[2]; Auer, 2017[3]; Syed and Murray, 2009[4]). In Iceland, a regression analysis of highly educated immigrants in employment that controls for duration of residence, gender, age, part-time employment and networks, reveals that having advanced language proficiency in Icelandic is associated with a reduction in the likelihood of being overqualified by more than 12 percentage points.
Although OECD-wide comparative data on immigrants’ proficiency in the host-country language is limited, survey data on self-reported proficiency show that 60% of immigrants in OECD countries claim advanced proficiency in the relevant language (Figure 3.1). In Iceland, the share is below 20%, the lowest among OECD countries.
Figure 3.1. Advanced language proficiency among immigrants in Iceland is low
Foreign-born with advanced host-country language proficiency in selected OECD countries, ages 15‑64, 2021
Note: For Iceland, respondents who considered their Icelandic to be either “fluent” or “advanced” (options 1 and 2 on a Likert scale) are included in the share. For the United States, respondents are asked whether they speak English at home rather than whether English is their mother tongue. For Australia, the share of native speakers is estimated by the share who speak English only. Korea calculates rates for the age group 15+.
Source: European Union Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS) module 2021. Iceland: Varða (2024[5]), Workers in Iceland 2024 survey. Australia: Census 2021. United States: American Community Survey (ACS) 2019. Korea: Immigrants’ Living Conditions and Labour Force (SILCLF) ad hoc module 2020.
Unlike most other OECD countries with significant immigrant populations, Iceland has not yet formulated a clear language training policy for adult immigrants. As a result, Iceland lags behind its peers when it comes to several interrelated aspects of language training, including funding, course access, teacher training, and standardisation.
There are clear labour market benefits associated with learning Icelandic
For migrants, learning the Icelandic language brings important benefits on the labour market. Survey data indicate that having at least advanced Icelandic proficiency reduces the likelihood being in low-skill employment by nearly 10 percentage points, controlling for age, migration category and labour market characteristics – a finding particularly relevant in light of the high overqualification rates among migrants in Iceland (see section below). There is also a strong association with being in public sector employment, not surprising given that many public sector jobs require advanced Icelandic proficiency. Those with advanced Icelandic proficiency are also less likely to be dependent on their social networks in finding employment – which in the case of migrants constitute mostly other migrants, limiting the extent to which they integrate – and perceived discrimination on the labour market. What is more, almost half (46%) of respondents in the Workers in Iceland Survey who mentioned difficulties in finding a job named a lack of Icelandic language proficiency as the main reason why.
Among characteristics relevant to high-skill employment among migrants, Icelandic language proficiency has a particularly strong positive relationship (Figure 3.2). After controlling for gender, age, level of education, migration category and various labour market characteristics, having advanced Icelandic language skills is associated with a higher probability of being in high-skilled employment of 9.2 percentage points. This is the second largest observed effect on high-skill employment in the model, behind having a high level of education. The association is nearly double that of the association between living in the capital area – where most high-skill jobs are to be found – and finding high-skill employment (5.1 percentage points).
Figure 3.2. There is a strong association between high-skill employment and Icelandic proficiency
Observed association (in percentage points) between various characteristics and high-skill employment among migrants
Note: Stars next to labels indicate statistical significance. Controls included in the model that are not visible on the figure include age and migration category. The sample is restricted to migrants only.
Source: Varða (2024[5]), Workers in Iceland 2024 survey microdata.
The public sector plays a limited role in funding for language training
Ensuring the funding of language courses has important implications for student outcomes and teachers’ job quality. The organisation and implementation of lifelong learning in Iceland are regulated by the 2010 Act on Adult Education, which includes language training for immigrants. The Act states that certain educational providers – including lifelong learning centres – upon recognition by the Minister of Social Affairs and the Labour Market, are allowed to conduct adult learning and training. These providers are private or mixed-ownership companies, and such recognition does not entail an obligation on behalf of the state to provide finance or assume responsibility of their actions.
The public sector plays a limited role in language training provision for adult immigrants, who do not have the right nor carry an obligation to participate in publicly funded language training. Iceland differs in this respect from other OECD countries who grant legally resident refugees the right to access public language training programmes (OECD, 2021[1]; Ramboll, 2021[6]). Municipalities receiving refugees via the co‑ordinated reception of refugees scheme are however obliged to co‑ordinate with the local Directorate of Labour branch to provide funded access to language training for refugees, alongside an individualised case management plan, although there are no regulations or provisions that stipulate the duration or specific conditions of such training. Jobseekers who have successfully applied for unemployment benefits are also entitled to two fully funded language courses per year via the Directorate of Labour. Yet, most immigrants’ language education is not funded by the state and public expenditure on language training programmes for adult immigrants remains far below that of the other Nordic countries (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3. Public expenditure on language training for migrants is very low compared to other Nordic countries
Annual public expenditure on language courses relative to the immigrant population in selected OECD countries, EUR per immigrant in constant 2023 prices
Note: Denmark (2018), Finland (2019), Norway (2021), Iceland (2022).
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on OECD (2021[1]), Language Training for Adult Migrants, Making Integration Work, https://doi.org/10.1787/02199d7f-en; Rannís (2023[7]), Úhlutun styrkja til íslenskukennslu fyrir útlendinga.
Current earmarked funding for language training for migrants in the coming years will not be enough to reach expenditure levels per capita that are similar to those elsewhere in the OECD. In late 2023, the Icelandic Government presented an Action Plan for the Icelandic language for the years 2023‑26. The plan includes 19 actions under the responsibility of four ministries, including several actions on language training. While cost estimates for each action are lacking, all 19 actions are expected to cost a total of ISK 1.4 billion (EUR 9 million). In addition, an annual ISK 160 million has already been earmarked towards developing Icelandic with AI for the years 2024‑26, leaving ISK 920 million for all other actions. Assuming all of that will be spent on language training for adult migrants – an unlikely assumption – per capita expenditure on language courses would still be less than half of that of Finland and Norway, and a fraction of Denmark’s expenditure.
Courses are costly and the refund system is not conducive to early participation
The limited public funding allotted to language training takes the form of grants provided to recognised providers, with some expenses covered by other grants such as the Education Fund. The Education Fund operates according to the Act on Adult Education and has since 2022 been funded by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour. The fund provides grants for defined innovation and development projects in the field of lifelong learning. In recent years, an increasing number of courses have been targeted towards immigrants and their integration, most of which concern language training. In 2022, integration courses accounted for a majority (ISK 16 million, EUR 104 000) or 53% of the Education Fund’s grants. In the five‑year period prior, allocations towards integration on average accounted for 17% of the Fund’s expenditure per year (Fræðslumiðstöð atvinnulífsins, 2023[8]).
Much of the expenses are however passed on to the consumer, with a typical language course of 40‑60 classroom hours costing around ISK 52 000 (EUR 350 in 2024 prices). The limited role played by public authorities as a provider of services may be seen as a barrier for the integration of immigrants into the labour market and society as a whole (Bagavos et al., 2021[9]). Further, denying certain groups the right to participate in publicly arranged and subsidised language programmes may signal to immigrants that learning the language is not necessary or expected (OECD, 2021[1]).
Immigrant groups other than refugees and active jobseekers are required to pay for language courses, although many immigrants apply for a refund of up to 90% from their trade union. However, the refunds are not provided before the course starts, presenting considerable upfront costs which may dissuade some from taking a course. Unions also require new members to pay into the union for several months before being able to apply for a refund, with durations generally ranging from between 6 to 30 months. An exception to this is Efling trade union – half of whose members are immigrants – which offers reimbursement after one month of payment into the union (Hoffmann et al., 2021[10]).
In a context where a fee is charged and a refund is not guaranteed or is provided at a late stage, it is important to monitor for signs of under-investment for reasons of unwillingness or inability to pay. An evaluation in Estonia revealed that only 5‑9% of migrants were willing or able to pay for more than 80% of language course costs (OECD, 2021[1]).
Eligibility for funded courses could be broadened in line with developments in neighbouring countries
Although the number of migrants taking up language courses has increased in recent years, the amount of funding provided by the state has not caught up with the rising immigrant population. In the years 2015‑20, there were on average 5 200 migrants taking language courses from recognised lifelong learning centres per year. Since 2021, the average has increased significantly, with 8 800 migrants pursuing language courses annually. This may partly be attributed to the increase in humanitarian migrant inflows – notably refugees from Ukraine and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection from Venezuela – as they are granted free language courses via the co‑ordinated reception of refugees scheme. Although the government has responded by increasing the absolute amount of funding on language courses for migrants, expenditure per student has decreased every year since 2020 and in 2022 sat at its lowest level since 2006 (Figure 3.4). Having been made an explicit priority as a government policy in 2007, language training saw severe cuts in the financial crisis and expenditure has not recovered since (Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour, 2007[11]). In the period since then, the foreign-born population has grown rapidly, more than doubling in relative terms and tripling in absolute terms (Statistics Iceland, 2022[12]).
Figure 3.4. Per student expenditure on language training fell sharply during the financial crisis and has not recovered since
Annual public expenditure on language courses for adults, per student, constant ISK 2023 prices
Note: Data from 2021 and 2022 include an additional allocation to language funding provided for the 2nd half of 2021 and 1st half of 2022.
Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on Rannís (2023[13]), Úthlutanir, 2019‑23, www.rannis.is/sjodir/menntun/islenskukennsla-fyrir-utlendinga/uthlutanir/; and data from the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation.
Some OECD countries have opted for different financing models, recognising language learning as a public good and providing language courses free of charge or through deposit systems. Examples of the former include Finland, Norway, and Sweden. While Finland and Sweden offer free of charge courses to all legally residing immigrant groups, in Norway, those who are not entitled – such as EEA citizens – receive a voucher (klippekort) worth up to EUR 1 000 for around 80 hours of language courses, whether in-person or online (OECD, 2021[1]). Self-supporting immigrants (international students, labour migrants and their family members) in Denmark are offered the opportunity to attend language courses for three and a half years in the form of a deposit scheme. The deposit of EUR 270 is fully refundable if the training is completed within the time period (OECD, 2022[14]).
Denmark offers refugees extensive, free of charge lessons for five years, a policy that has been shown to have significant positive effects on the integration outcomes of refugees in the long term. In 1999, Denmark implemented a major reform to improve language training for refugees. The reform significantly increased the resources, duration, and incentives for refugees to attend language training. The structure and quality of language training was also changed; centralised goals and national tests were introduced and resources to increase the qualifications of the teachers were provided. Several significant and persistently positive effects of the programme were found in a recent study. Effects on employment rates and earnings accrued gradually after completing the training, and after 18 years the treated refugees were 4 percentage points more likely to be employed (a 23% rise relative to the baseline) and earned USD 2 500 per year more (a 34% rise relative to the baseline). Additional schooling and a higher probability of working in communication-intensive jobs was also observed for participants. Although less pronounced, effects were also observed on the children of participants. Male children whose parents participated in the reform were more likely to complete upper secondary school and less likely to commit juvenile or young adult crime than their peers whose parents did not participate (Nielsen Arendt et al., 2021[15]).
A key issue in the Icelandic context is the question of language provision for the many EEA migrants, whose duration of stay is uncertain. As seen in Chapter 2, many humanitarian migrants wish to stay permanently in Iceland, followed by family migrants and students. Migrants from the EEA, the most populous migrant category in Iceland, exhibit varying intentions but even here, among those who are decided on their duration of stay, the majority plan to stay for good. After five years of stay in the country, over half remain, a share that is larger than for non-EEA migrants. Publicly funded language courses are however only available for unemployed immigrants and refugees.
Eligibility in the other Nordic countries is more extensive. Denmark offers all immigrants with a residence permit of up to five years to complete the equivalent of 1.2 years of full-time language training, Finland makes language training available for immigrants three years from the start of their integration plan, Norway offers all immigrants except EEA citizens up to three years of training, while no limit is placed on the length of language training for immigrants in Sweden, all of whom are eligible if they have a residence permit (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2023[16]).
Given the high number of labour migrants in Iceland – accounting for more than two‑thirds of the migrant population – it could prove beneficial to offer affordable lessons to those who wish to stay on a long-term basis and are willing to learn the language. Luxembourg provides an example of a country with a high number of EEA labour migrants which has taken an innovative approach to supplying this group with courses on a voluntary basis while limiting cost to the public purse (Box 3.1).
Box 3.1. Luxembourg’s language model
The Reception and Integration Contract (Contrat d’accueil et d’intégration) is a key component of Luxembourg’s integration policy, providing a flexible language course offer for those who wish to learn one of Luxembourg’s three official languages. It is open to EU and non-EU nationals, newcomers and longer-term residents (more than half of participants have resided in the country for more than two years).
The offer consists of reduced-rate vouchers for language courses, with the user paying only EUR 10 for each course cycle with a limit of three courses. The duration of each course ranges from 80‑120 hours of classroom learning. Participants are also offered civic training on the consensus and common values of Luxemburg and an “orientation day” to familiarise participants with administrative procedures in the country.
Luxembourg also has a “Linguistic Leave” programme, giving immigrants the right to take up to 200 hours of paid leave to study Luxembourgish, and their employer is reimbursed for 50% of the training costs.
Source: OECD (2018[17]), Vers un parcours d’intégration réussi. Le fonctionnement du système d’intégration et ses acteurs au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg.
There are no provisions on the length of language training services for refugees in Iceland, although fully funded training for unemployed immigrants is limited to two courses per year, amounting to around 80‑120 hours of training. Survey evidence show that only one‑in-five immigrants in Iceland have taken more than three language courses, suggesting that the vast majority of immigrants have obtained less than 200 hours of classroom language training (Varða, 2024[5]). By comparison, Germany’s introductory language course requires 600‑900 hours of training, Sweden offers 525 hours on average across migrant categories, and in Denmark refugees are entitled to 1 800 hours of instruction time (Nielsen Arendt et al., 2021[15]). On average across the OECD, humanitarian migrants are entitled to 1 100 hours of language training, whereas other migrants are offered just over 600 hours on average (Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5. The public language training offer in Iceland is minimal in international comparison
Hours of public language training available by migrant category
Note: For Iceland, while the Directorate of Labour offers refugees the chance to participate in language training, there are no regulations or provisions on how many hours each refugee is entitled to. The “other migrants” category for Iceland only refers to unemployed immigrants.
Source: OECD (2023[18]), Introduction Measures for Newly-Arrived Migrants, Making Integration Work, https://doi.org/10.1787/5aeddbfe-en.
New formats for language courses aim to address inaccessibility
Barriers to access are not only financial and can take different forms, both spatial and temporal. It is especially important to identify those barriers in rural areas, as public funding granted to providers is dependent on the number students attending each course. The government’s rules to grants allocations attempt to account for urban-rural disparities by granting exemptions to the eligibility rule of a minimum number of ten students per course, making the same amount of funding available to rural providers who have at least six students signed up. However, data suggest that geographical disparities prevail. In a representative survey from 2019‑20, 21% of respondents claimed to be unhappy with the course offer in their local area. Results diverged depending on the region, with 16% of immigrant residents in Reykjavík reporting dissatisfaction while the numbers were considerably higher in Western Iceland (31%), the Westfjords (29%), and Southern Iceland (29%) (Sölvason and Meckl, 2020[19]). While several educational providers operate in the aforementioned areas, they serve larger areas and individuals may have difficulties finding courses that fit their skill level. Other factors, such as a lack of public transportation, may also play a role (Hoffmann et al., 2021[10]).
Users of Icelandic languages courses have previously noted a lack of flexible teaching hours (Hoffmann et al., 2021[10]). Many courses are taught during working hours which makes attendance difficult as most migrants are employed and must acquire permission from their employers to attend courses. While there are examples of larger employers accommodating their foreign-born employees’ wishes to learn the language, smaller enterprises may be reluctant to invest the resources required due to staff turnover and the often temporary nature of immigrants’ employment contracts. Faced with a situation of having to choose between working or learning the language, the penalties associated with breaks in the employment history make the former an easy choice for most immigrants – at the cost of social integration. It is thus crucial to allow for flexibility in language courses (OECD, 2021[1]).
In recent years, there has been a shift towards more flexibility in terms of language course provision. More courses offered by the larger providers of lifelong learning are now available after working hours, both in Reykjavík and Akureyri. Online course options are popular, notably the University of Iceland’s Practical Diploma, which is also offered in-person (see Box 3.2). While the Practical Diploma is in high demand due to its quality of teaching, it is not available to those who lack completed upper secondary education or non-EEA migrants who have not had their qualifications recognised.
Box 3.2. Practical diploma in Icelandic as a second language at the university level
The practical diploma in Icelandic as a second language has become the most popular path of study at the University of Iceland. Provided in co‑operation with the University of Akureyri and the University Centre of the Westfjords, the diploma is a one‑year programme targeting those who have completed Icelandic A1.1 and want to either further their studies in Icelandic as a second language or improve their options on the Icelandic labour market.
Courses are offered both in-person and online. In-person classes are twice per week, either in the morning or early evening, and consist of lectures, seminar sessions and work in smaller groups. Online teaching is offered four times per week, either in the morning (8:20‑9:50) or early evening (16:40‑18:10).
While demand is high, entry requirements are more stringent than in other language courses. Students must have completed an equivalent of the Icelandic matriculation exam (stúdentspróf) – allowing entry into university – and provide proof of sufficient proficiency in English (TOEFL minimum score of 79; IELTS minimum score of 6.5).
Source: University of Iceland (2023[20]), Icelandic as a second language, https://english.hi.is/school_of_humanities_faculty_of_icelandic_and_comparative_cultural_studies/icelandic_as_a_seconde
Low-skill migrants do not have access to high quality language training
The issue of quality assurance is important in the context of language training, not least for publicly subsidised training offers. Among language training offers, evidence suggests that the quality of language learning, measured in terms of student self-reported outcomes, varies significantly between the type of provider of the course. Controlling for several factors, including level of education, length of stay and hours of classroom learning, students taking courses offered by universities (such as the Practical Diploma in Box 2) exhibit much better language outcomes than students taking courses at lifelong learning centres and courses provided through employers (Figure 3.6).
Figure 3.6. Students taking language courses at university exceed others in proficiency
Percentage point difference in advanced language proficiency, by type of language training course, 2024
Note: Point estimates refer to percentage point changes in advanced language proficiency, reflecting coefficients in an OLS regression with a constant of.22 (the constant represents an individual when all values in the model are set to 0, roughly described as a middle‑aged, native‑born male with an upper secondary degree who has taken a language course other than the ones listed on the graph). For example, taking language courses offered by a university adds 22 percentage points to the likelihood of having self-reported advanced proficiency in the Icelandic language relative to the constant. Controls included in the model are gender, relationship status, having children, age, education level, number of classroom hours (in order to account for the longer duration of university programmes), length of stay in the country, and working time. All explanatory variables are significant at the 95% confidence level, except for the variable on children.
Source: Varða (2024[5]), Workers in Iceland 2024 survey microdata.
The divergence in course quality between university courses and other courses poses several questions, one of which regards inequality. University courses are not available to lower-skilled migrants, and they are also more expensive as they are not eligible for refunds from unions, unlike the lifelong learning centre courses. Survey data also show that lower-educated migrants tend to have longer stay intentions than higher-educated migrants do – with three out of four of the former wanting to stay permanently, compared with two in three of the latter. Ensuring that this group of migrants has access to quality language training will be key going forward. As will be further addressed in Chapter 5, language proficiency is not only associated with better social integration and lower risk of overqualification of immigrants, children of immigrants who speak better Icelandic also have much better educational outcomes.
Vocational language courses are an underdeveloped measure
There is growing evidence that vocational language training is particularly effective for improving employment outcomes (OECD, 2021[1]). Several OECD countries have experimented with “on-the‑job” training, including Finland and Germany, where students are taught relevant vocabulary in workplace interactions – a format particularly beneficial for working migrants. While such programmes are costly, they might be more suited to the Icelandic context than elsewhere, with the highest employment rate among immigrants in the OECD, as many have less time during the day to attend more typical language courses.
Language learning formats with a vocational element in Iceland are currently underdeveloped. There are a few places for vocational language training for healthcare professions and in co‑operation with large employers in the fishing industry.
Employers could play a larger role in the integration of immigrants through vocational language education, not least since the brunt of costs for language learning is borne by the unions through refunds to learners. Moreover, lifelong learning centres, who are the main provider of language training in Iceland, also often possess valuable in-house knowledge as they also offer services of recognition of prior learning for select professions. The majority of OECD countries have implemented general workplace language courses and some have experimented with courses for more specific categories. A survey among employers in Germany revealed that the overwhelming majority of employers considered vocational language training as the most important measure for the labour market integration of asylum seekers (OECD, 2017[21]). Box 3.3 outlines initiatives in OECD countries in which employers and public agencies have come together to provide vocation-specific language training to migrant workers.
Box 3.3. Vocation-specific language training across the OECD
In Norway, the Norwegian Agency for Lifelong Learning (Skills Norway) offers several options for vocational learning, including language courses that address workplace situations and a job internship placement. Due to limited resources, the agency does not provide on-the‑job language training itself, but public or private entities seeking to provide training to their workers can apply for special funding called Kompetansepluss (Skills Plus) to organise their own course. Some language providers offer to help employers apply for funding and organise the courses.
In Finland, the public employment services offer language courses that include a “working life period”, during which migrants work at a Finnish worksite. Companies that employ migrants are also provided with support services, including pay subsidies to cover training costs, which cover 50‑70% of the costs while the remainder is paid by the employer.
In Germany, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) has partnered with large companies to provide sector-specific language courses for migrants. For instance, BAMF worked with Deutsche Telekom to set up a virtual classroom to reach refugees working at various corporate locations nationwide, where 100 refugees accessed both language and on-the‑job IT training in the year 2017.
Source: OECD (2021[1]), Language Training for Adult Migrants, Making Integration Work, https://doi.org/10.1787/02199d7f-en.
The Education and Training Service Centre could further target its audience with language or integration courses
In co‑operation with employers, unions, and lifelong learning centres, specific modules or courses on work-specific language could be developed. A framework for such co‑operation already exists with the Education and Training Service Centre (ETSC) – a provider of lifelong learning courses, recognition of prior learning (RPL) and job counselling – which has as its target group individuals that have not completed upper secondary education. In 2020, the group accounted for 24% of the working age population, 23% of which were immigrants (Fræðslumiðstöð atvinnulífsins, 2023[22]).
Given the current low mastery of the language by many immigrants and the benefit it conveys, take‑up of this kind of language learning would be expected to be high among immigrants. The evidence to date suggests however that take‑up is very low. Only 5% of graduated students from the ETSC course offer in 2022 took such integration courses, having decreased year-by-year since 2018 (Figure 3.7). This figure seems low given that immigrants account for a quarter of the ETSC target group, and they are likely to be underrepresented in the other courses as they are only offered in Icelandic. It is not clear whether the main driver behind these low numbers is an inadequate supply by the ETSC, low demand or lack of awareness of such courses among immigrants. However, information provision seems to play a role, as immigrants have reported difficulties in finding information on language training services (Ramboll, 2021[6]). A step in the right direction came in 2022 when the ETSC website became available in English. It is nonetheless imperative for stakeholders such as employers, unions, and counsellors at the Directorate of Labour to make sure to raise awareness of the existence of measures like the courses provided by the ETSC.
Figure 3.7. The Education and Training Service Centre can do more to facilitate integration courses
Number of students who completed courses at the Education and Training Service Centre, 2014‑22
Note: Integration courses include “Reading and writing in Icelandic” (since 2014) and “Icelandic culture and society” (since 2018).
Source: Fræðslumiðstöð atvinnulífsins (2023[22]), Tölfræði úr starfinu, .
A framework for language teacher training is lacking
Another shortcoming of Icelandic language training provision for immigrants regards the training of Icelandic language teachers. Higher qualifications of language teachers have been found to be positively correlated with improved learning outcomes and pass rates (Djuve et al., 2017[23]). While stringent requirements may come to the detriment of the supply of teachers, some form of quality assurance is important to ensure suitable competency. Unlike its Nordic neighbours, Iceland currently does not require its language teachers to hold some level of formal qualifications. In Denmark, the Danish teacher for adult foreigners (dk. Lærer i dansk for voksne udlændinge) is a regulated profession, requiring a diploma of more than four years at the post-secondary level (European Commission, 2023[24]). In Sweden, language teachers must complete teacher training at university level with a minimum of 30 ECTS in Swedish as a second language, whereas Norway’s Integration Act of 2021 stipulates that the same number of credits in teaching Norwegian as a second language is a sufficient condition (Ramboll, 2021[6]).
In the absence of qualification requirements for language teachers, student outcomes may vary greatly. A step in the direction towards improving teacher training came in 2016 when the Master’s in Second Language Teaching was established at the University of Iceland. However, registrations for the programme remain low – with a total of six graduates in the years 2020‑22 – and more supply-side measures may be needed to attract qualified individuals towards the profession, starting with funding. Teachers of Icelandic as a second language have varied educational backgrounds and experience, and for many it is not a full-time job. They are employed on a contractual basis and are often paid per course taught (Hoffmann et al., 2021[10]). Such economic precarity in the profession risks losing out on talented and experienced teachers, to the detriment of course quality for students. Indeed, these factors may partly explain the lower proficiency outcomes of lifelong learning centre students compared to those taking a university course (Figure 3.6).
Standards are needed to address gaps in language training across the country
Standardisation and assessment play a key role in ensuring the quality of language course education for immigrants. In the absence of standard-setting and quality control, overlap and under-coverage between different educational providers may emerge, posing a barrier to immigrants’ language progression. There has been some standard setting with the curriculum guides for Icelandic as a second language, established as a response to the introduction of a language test requirement for Icelandic citizenship in 2007. The two sets of guidelines are based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which comprises six levels. The first set of guidelines corresponds to CEFR levels A1‑A2 and accounts for a total of 240 hours of training. A proficiency level of A2 is required for Icelandic citizenship. The second set corresponds to CEFR levels B1‑B2, accounting for 300 hours. There are no guidelines for levels C1‑C2. Both guidelines have as their objective for students to be “as well-equipped as possible to actively participate in an Icelandic, democratic society” (Directorate of Education, 2008[25]; Directorate of Education, 2012[26]). The guidelines include a short study description of 60‑hour courses with suggested skill targets for students.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that in practice the guidelines are in many cases not followed and divergences between educational providers exist (Hoffmann et al., 2021[10]). The guidelines appear to be seen by teachers as mere guidelines that can be freely adapted according to their students’ needs. Moreover, some perceive them as outdated, partly because they do not account for participants’ different educational backgrounds – prompting some to develop their own independent educational materials (Ramboll, 2021[6]).
The curriculum guidelines may need revision and quality control to ensure their use
Several important developments pertaining to language learning have taken place since the basic curriculum guidelines were published in 2008. Language courses are increasingly taking place online, are composed of a more diverse group of students, and teachers often find themselves playing the role of mediators – not only in assisting migrants to communicate effectively but also in understanding concepts of relevance to the host society. Reflecting these factors in the guidelines would aid educators in better understanding what is expected of them in a modern-day classroom (Coste and Cavalli, 2015[27]). Moreover, developing guidelines for the C-levels in the CEFR framework is desirable as an Icelandic proficiency level of C1 is required to work in several regulated professions, such as a teacher at the kindergarten, primary and secondary levels in Iceland.
While the curriculum guidelines are merely recommendations and not in any way mandatory, quality control is important to ensure common standards across the country. Most OECD countries ensure quality control through public agencies or non-governmental agents entrusted by the government. Such control can take the form of unannounced inspections by specialists or interviews with randomly selected participants. However, the administrative burden of inspections is high, and their frequency should take due account of factors such as the anticipated likelihood of material change (OECD, 2021[1]). To reduce unnecessary inspections, complementary self-assessment forms – filled out by those working in the educational providers – should be considered. Such tools have the advantage of allowing lifelong learning centres to identify areas for improvement and either address them or request an advisory visit (Rossner, 2008[28]).
Assessment and evaluation can be strengthened
The current financing model for language courses is results-based, in which 40% of the grant is paid to providers prior to the course and the rest dependent on course attendance and completion. A similar system is used in Denmark, which has been found to encourage service providers to provide students with a more efficient and individualised tuition (Ramboll, 2007[29]).
Currently, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour entrusts the Icelandic Centre for Research (Rannís) with allocating grants to lifelong learning centres on the basis of two criteria: number of students and course length. No reference is made to benchmarks to encourage standardisation, such as the curriculum guidelines (Rannís, 2023[30]).
Teachers in the Icelandic as a second language field have raised concerns about the lack of assessment and evaluation. On the assessment side, ability grouping – meaning the placement of students in courses according to their ability level – needs to be ensured to the extent possible to allow students to progress at a pace that suits their ability. Currently, the placement of students into courses and schools is not streamlined. While providers attempt to sort students effectively into courses that suits their needs, fiscal and manpower limitations make this difficult (Innes, 2015[31]). Some providers, such as Símey in Akureyri, provide an online language test, consisting of self-assessment and a standard test (Eurotest, 2023[32]); while others take a more informal approach to course placement.
A pertinent difficulty for assessing language acquisition for a language like Icelandic is that very few migrants will have any past exposure to Icelandic or a similar language, making it more difficult to evaluate learners’ language acquisition skills. An example of a country that has faced similar issues is Finland, which has used innovative methods to assess migrants’ language ability. The largest assessment provider in Finland (Testipiste) has recognised that multiple cognitive factors are related to language acquisition which it has incorporated into its language tests. Public employment services redirect migrants to the nearest test site, where factors that are tested include logic, mathematics, dictation; in addition to more traditional factors such as speaking and reading comprehension (Testipiste, 2020[33]).
On the evaluation side, past studies have revealed students’ dissatisfaction with language tests in the schools. Some have noted their perplexity at the focus on the hours of attendance as opposed to measuring language progression (Hoffmann et al., 2021[10]) – a potential reflection of the criteria used in allocating grants to language schools. The heterogeneity between providers’ tests raises concerns of overlap and/or under-coverage between different providers.
In January 2024, the Icelandic Ministry for Education and Children announced plans to develop a standardised electronic test to assess Icelandic proficiency according to the CEFR framework. The assessment test will be developed by the University of Iceland with ISK 103 million (EUR 590 000) in funding over two years. It is intended for use by educational institutions, lifelong learning centres and employers. Basic support material will also be developed alongside the test and available to all on the official website (Ministry of Education and Children, 2024[34]). These are positive developments that will increase the comparability of migrants’ credentials and allow institutions and employers to better gauge their proficiency level and identify further needs.
Foreign credential recognition and skills validation
As mentioned, the gap in employment rates between the native‑ and foreign-born populations is minimal in Iceland, suggesting that migrants integrate quickly into the labour market. However, the quality of employment often leaves much to be desired. In particular, the overqualification gap between the native‑ and foreign-born is the widest among OECD countries (Figure 3.8).
Figure 3.8. The native/foreign-born overqualification gap in Iceland is the widest in the OECD
Overqualification rates, 15‑ to 64‑year‑olds, 2021‑22
Note: The overqualification rate is defined as the share of the highly educated, i.e. ISCED Levels 5‑8, who work in a job that is ISCO-classified as low- or medium-skilled, i.e. ISCO Levels 4‑9. In relative terms, the gap in Iceland is the highest. In terms of percentage points, Iceland ranks second behind Italy.
Source: European Union Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS) 2021‑22 pooled (2020 instead of 2021 for Iceland and Türkiye). Australia: Australian Survey of Education and Work (ASEW) 2020. The United Kingdom, Canada & New Zealand: Labour Force Survey (LFS) 2021. Israel: Labour Force Survey (LFS) 2020. United States: Current Population Survey (CPS) 2021. Japan: Census 2020. Korea: Immigrant’s Living Conditions and Labour Force (SILCLF) 2021 & Economically Active Population Survey (EAPS) 2021. Chile: Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (CASEN) 2020. Costa Rica: Encuesta Continua de Empleo (ECE) 2021. Mexico: Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo (ENOE) 2020. Peru: Encuesta Nacional de Hogares (ENAHO) 2021.
Running an effective recognition system that considers formal, informal, and non-formal qualifications can go a long way in reducing the overqualification gap. Earlier OECD work has shown that recognition reduces the overqualification rates of migrants by two‑thirds compared to those who did not apply (Damas de Matos and Liebig, 2014[35]). Reducing the gap not only benefits migrants themselves through higher employment and job quality, but also the host society through the alleviation of skills shortages. For example, data collected from European Network of Information Centres (ENIC-NARIC) across Europe suggest that many Ukrainian refugees hold qualifications in fields where there are skills shortages in Iceland, including healthcare and education (Norris, Duffy and Krasnoshchok, 2023[36]).
Table 3.1. Responsibility and requirement for educational assessment from abroad
Source: OECD Secretariat desk research based on data from official websites.
Awareness of recognition procedures and their value can be emphasised
One reason for Iceland’s high overqualification rates among the foreign-born may be the lack of awareness of recognition procedures. Comparing survey data across European OECD countries reveals that – among migrants whom have not had their qualifications recognised – Iceland’s share of respondents claiming they did not know about the possibility of recognition was by far the highest, at just over a quarter of the total, 9 percentage points above the second highest in Luxembourg (Figure 3.9). A relatively large share also stated that the process was too costly or complex, surpassed only by Germany and Spain. At the same time, those replying that recognition was not needed was the lowest among surveyed countries, a result in line with Iceland’s high overqualification among the foreign‑born.
Figure 3.9. Many migrants in Iceland are not aware of the possibility of applying for recognition
Foreign-born in the labour force responding to the question of why they have not applied to get their qualifications recognised, 2021, 2024 for Iceland
Source: For Iceland, data from the Varða (2024[5]), Workers in Iceland 2024 survey was used. For all other countries, the 2021 EU-LFS ad hoc module on the labour market situation of migrants and their immediate descendants was used.
Breakdown by gender reveals some notable differences. When asked why they did not apply to get their credentials recognised in Iceland, nearly half (46%) of surveyed foreign-born men responded that it was not necessary, while 38% of women responded in the same way, a reflection of migrant women’s higher overqualification rates compared to men. An even share of foreign-born men and women reported not knowing about the possibility of recognition, a much higher number than that for the native‑born, at 15%.
Several factors influence overqualification among migrants
Possessing certain characteristics can influence one’s chances of overqualification. Migration category is one such characteristic, and the obstacles faced by migrants vary by a large margin depending on their migration category. Humanitarian migrants, for instance, often have to overcome obstacles such as not having access to their qualifications, making partial remedies to overqualification, such as the recognition of qualifications, a difficult task. Other relevant factors include demographic characteristics and profession of choice.
Using survey data and regressing overqualification against several outcome variables, it is possible to estimate what factors influence the extent to which migrants are overqualified in Iceland (Figure 3.10).
Figure 3.10. The tourism and hospitality sectors place migrants at risk of overqualification
Changes in overqualification among migrants by population characteristics
Note: Point estimates refer to percentage point changes in overqualification, reflecting coefficients in an OLS regression with a constant of.55 (the constant represents an individual when all values in the model are set to 0, roughly described as a middle‑aged, foreign-born male with a university degree). For example, working in the public sector adds 30 percentage points to the likelihood of being overqualified, which together with the constant adds up to a 85% likelihood of being overqualified, other things being equal. Controls included in the model that aren’t visible in the graph include family and age controls, length of stay, language proficiency, and the recognition of qualifications.
Stars denote statistical significance. Observations were limited due restrictions associated with overqualification (only high-skilled migrants were included in the analysis) and the inclusion of the variable on recognition.
Source: Varða (2024[5]), Workers in Iceland 2024 survey microdata.
Overqualification varies by profession, with jobs in cleaning, food, catering and tourism significantly increasing the likelihood of migrant overqualification – all associated with a higher likelihood of overqualification by roughly 30 percentage points relative to the constant. Workers in the education sector are the only profession included in the model whose incidence of overqualification is significantly reduced relative to the constant, plausibly due to high entry requirements pertaining to factors such as language proficiency.
Humanitarian migrants have a much higher likelihood of being overqualified. A potential explanation is the composition of humanitarian migrants in Iceland, many of whom are formally highly educated but received their qualifications in a very different language, education system, and labour market setting.
The academic recognition system lacks resources to keep up with demand
Among the key actors in the Icelandic recognition system, the ENIC/NARIC office in Iceland plays a large role. ENIC/NARIC Iceland is 1 of 55 national information centres on academic recognition of qualifications in the network, co‑operating closely with its counterparts in Europe and North America. It is the main provider of formal and informal academic recognition of qualifications in Iceland (ENIC/NARIC, 2023[37]).
Digitisation efforts would improve processing times
Demand for formal academic recognition has increased steadily in the past decade, reflecting an increase in the immigrant population, notably from outside of Europe. Since 2012, the office’s caseload has doubled, from nearly 1 600 cases in 2012 to over 3 000 in 2022. The caseload increased by 50% in the period 2018‑22. Facing a rapid increase in demand, the ENIC/NARIC office does not possess the material resources required to perform at an effective level. The average waiting time for a decision on academic recognition is around two months, up from three weeks a few years prior. Following the COVID‑19 pandemic, the recognition process has increasingly moved online, but still lags developments elsewhere. As an example, Norway’s responsible agency to assess foreign credentials (NOKUT) has seen a significant improvement in the processing time of complete cases, from an average of 63 days per application in 2016 to 8 days per application in 2020, as a result of an improved digital case system and better routines and procedures for staff (OECD, 2022[14]).
Several alternatives to formal academic recognition exist
Services for individuals also include automatic recognition, a standardised downloadable statement that confirms the level of the foreign degree in the Icelandic education system. As it does not require an application, automatic recognition provides a quicker alternative to the formal recognition procedure and can be sufficient for a job application. On the statement, the relevant foreign degree is placed on a scale of 1‑7 along the Icelandic Qualification Framework (corresponding to the European Qualification Framework) according to its equivalent in Iceland. Currently, automatic recognition is available for eight countries: Denmark, Finland, France, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and Ukraine. As of 2022, immigrants coming from these countries account for 41% of the immigrant population. In comparison, Norway’s responsible agency to assess foreign credentials (NOKUT) offers automatic recognition statements from 32 countries representing 61% of the immigrant population, and Sweden’s responsible agency (UHR) has statements available for 77 countries.
In certain cases, namely for refugees, qualifications may not be readily accessible. The Lisbon Recognition Convention, of which Iceland is a signatory, stipulates that countries should take feasible and reasonable steps to recognise higher education qualifications of refugees, displaced persons, and people in a refugee‑like situation, even if they cannot be proven through documentary evidence (Council of Europe, 1997[38]). ENIC/NARIC offers these groups to apply for so-called background reports, where information is provided about how they would typically assess the qualifications the individual claims to have. Although the reports hold no legal status, they may be useful for educational institutions and employers to assess the skills profile of the relevant individual (ENIC/NARIC, 2023[39]). Norway has gone further and, in addition to an informal assessment of a similar type, operates a more formal Recognition Procedure for Persons without Verifiable Documentation. The procedure involves professional testing by two professional experts from Norwegian universities. They investigate which subjects the applicant has studied and consider whether it is probable that their education matches what is reported on the diploma. The resulting decision is legally binding (OECD, 2022[14]). A survey of applicants suggests that more than half of the refugees who had their skills recognised in 2013 either found a related job or entered further education (OECD, 2016[40]).
Bridging courses could account for the mismatch between the Icelandic and non-EEA education systems, which can prevent migrants from entering higher education
As a response to lack of equivalence between qualification systems, bridging programmes are a cost-effective solution. Bridging programmes are courses designed to fill skill gaps to attain an educational qualification or fulfil a job requirement. In Sweden, a 2012 evaluation of a bridging course for teachers was found to increase the probability of finding relevant employment by 18%, in addition to having a positive effect on income development (Niknami and Schröder, 2012[41]).
The offer of bridging programmes in Iceland is limited and they are rarely available to migrants. Keilir educational centre offers a popular programme of Preliminary University Studies in collaboration with the University of Iceland, preparing students for admittance to most Icelandic universities – it is however only offered in Icelandic. An exception is Bifröst University’s “University Gateway”, a two‑year programme (one year full-time) intended for those who lack general admission requirements for university studies (Bifröst University, 2023[42]). At ISK 260 000 (EUR 1 800) per student, the programme remains expensive. Some alternative sources of funding for students exist: up to 20 refugees can get a refund of 75% of course fees upon the programme’s completion, and most unions offer refunds of up to ISK 130 000 per year, covering half of course fees (Bifröst University, 2023[42]). While the programme was initially supported financially by the Directorate of Labour, that support ceased with the end of the COVID‑19 pandemic. The programme is not eligible to apply for the ETSC’s Education Fund – whose role is to support innovation and development in the field of lifelong learning – as the programme’s provider, the University of Bifröst, does not qualify as an accredited lifelong learning centre according to the Act on Adult Education. Avoiding similar legal pitfalls that prevent effective integration measures from being eligible for funding should be a priority in the revision of the Act on Adult Education, which is currently ongoing.
Applying to practice a regulated profession can be a strenuous process
In Iceland, as elsewhere, a professional license is required to work in regulated professions, which exceed 180 in number, issued by one of more than ten authorities depending on the profession (Réttur, 2019[43]). Those seeking employment in a regulated profession must locate the appropriate body for their inquiry and apply to have their qualifications recognised, which if done successfully, will allow them to work in a relevant trade. In addition to the above, non-EEA citizens also require a work permit from the Directorate of Labour in order to be able to practice a regulated profession.
Migrants may encounter hurdles in getting their credentials recognised, although access to information has improved
In 2024, a service portal for the recognition of qualifications and regulated professions was opened on Ísland.is, the central public information and service hub for government services in Iceland. All residents in Iceland with a personal identification number can sign in and acquire information about or use public services, available in both Icelandic and English. The service portal on recognition includes three pages: recognition of foreign higher education, recognition of foreign secondary education, and recognition of qualifications to be able to practice a regulated profession. The latter includes a dropdown list with each regulated profession listed and a dedicated webpage with information about each profession.
Several barriers remain however, notably regarding access to information in the case of an unsuccessful application. Those who receive a rejection do not always get assistance on what is lacking to attain a license (Réttur, 2019[43]; Cedefop, 2022[44]). Without advice on how to improve their application, such as on which educational qualifications are missing to practice the profession, immigrants are more likely to be stuck in jobs for which they are overqualified.
Moreover, in the case of a negative decision, immigrants may face difficulties in seeking recourse for their rights should they want to. According to the Act on the recognition of professional qualifications for the pursuit of an activity in Iceland, decisions on professional licenses made by public authorities “shall be final and are not subject to appeal to a higher authority”. Yet there are exceptions to this rule, notably for healthcare workers who are allowed to appeal decisions from the Directorate of Health, and the five professions covered under the European Professional Card Regulation (general care nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists, real estate agents and mountain guides) (European Commission, 2020[45]; Réttur, 2019[43]). The result is a fragmented rights coverage of regulated professions in Iceland, with some professions – such as teachers – enjoying less coverage than others.
Migrants from Europe and Asia tend to concentrate in certain vocational professions
Vocational professions are often regulated, and they are also often sought after by migrants. These include many jobs in the construction sector, constituting 7.2% of GDP, with immigrants accounting for a third of employment in the sector; and the food and catering industry, constituting 4.5% of GDP and where half of all employees are immigrants (OECD, 2023[46]).
In the period 2018‑22, over 90% of recognitions in construction and mechanical professions came from Europe, whereas two‑thirds of recognitions in the food and catering industry came from Asia (Figure 3.11).
Figure 3.11. Food and catering account for more than half of all recognised vocational qualifications
Number of qualifications recognised by region of origin, 2018‑22
Note: Electrician professions are not included.
Source: Data from Iðan Education Centre.
Bridging courses for select professions could strengthen migrants’ skills use
In Iceland, vocational qualifications are often only partially recognised, where certain skills are recognised while gaps prevent them from taking up other employment within the relevant professional field. Migrants with partially recognised qualifications are thus allowed to work in a limited field of a licensed trade, such as chefs at specific types of restaurants, for example. This can have lock-in effects that reduce job mobility for those with partial recognition and delay labour market integration for those whose credentials are not recognised. Effective bridging programmes and fast-track initiatives for select shortage professions offer a cost-effective solution to this conundrum. Sweden, for instance, has offered migrants three such initiatives at the national level to alleviate teacher shortages. Key elements of the success of Sweden’s fast-track initiative is the strong co‑operation between the tripartite partners, the emphasis on vocational language training, and its culmination in an award of a domestic qualification easily interpreted by employers (OECD, 2017[47]).
Iceland has also seen a shortage of teachers in recent years, with a rising increase in the share of unskilled teachers. In the period 2011‑21, the share of certified kindergarten teachers decreased from 35% to 24% of all kindergarten staff (Figure 3.12). In the same period, the share of unskilled teachers rose from 41% to 50%, a large part of whom are immigrants.
Figure 3.12. Unskilled workers now represent half of all kindergarten staff
Personnel full-time equivalents in pre‑primary institutions by occupation and education, 2012‑22
Source: Statistics Iceland (2024[48]), SKO01321: Stöðugildi í leikskólum eftir störfum og menntun 1994‑2022, https://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/pxweb/is/Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__1_leikskolastig__1_lsStarfsfolk/SKO01321.px.
Given the shortage of skilled kindergarten staff and the rising share of the foreign-born population working in education, and to ensure suitable proficiency of the language of instruction in kindergartens across the country, it is important to supply prospective and current immigrant teachers with relevant skills with the aim of allowing them to work as certified teachers. Miðstöð símenntunar á Suðurnesjum (MSS), a lifelong learning centre in the Suðurnes region, has since 2023 offered a bridging programme intended for immigrants interested in working in kindergartens, with a special focus on vocational language teaching – albeit at a small scale (Box 3.4). While it does not provide a professional license, it shortens the path to become a certified kindergarten teacher and some graduates have pursued further education upon completion of the programme. A similar programme for refugees is operated by the ETSC, intended for prospective kindergarten teachers with education in the fields of education, social science or psychology. The University of Iceland also offers Íslenskubrú, a one‑year language bridging programme intended for those working in education or recreation. Entry requirements are steeper, requiring the equivalent of an Icelandic matriculation exam (University of Iceland, 2023[49]).
Box 3.4. The Kindergarten Workshop programme in Reykjanesbær
Kindergarten workshop (Leikskólasmiðja) is a programme offered by the lifelong learning centre MSS in Reykjanesbær and co-funded by the Directorate of Labour. It is intended for those who have reached 18 years of age, have started to learn Icelandic, have a clean criminal record and some education and/or work experience working with children. The programme is split into two courses, starting with a course focusing on learning Icelandic and practical education. The second half is more pedagogical, taught in work-related Icelandic according to the Adult Education and Training Service Centre curriculum. A cross-cutting emphasis is placed on workshops and field work throughout the programme. Entry into the programme costs ISK 108 000 (EUR 715), although grants are available through the unions’ vocational training funds.
As part of the programme’s first cohort in 2023, 20 immigrants from 11 nationalities were registered. Seven people had tertiary teaching degrees and most had worked in schools at various levels. There were no dropouts, most found jobs upon completion and two proceeded to further education.
Note: MSS (2023[50]), Leikskólasmiðja og íslenskunám, www.mss.is/nam/namskeid-og-namsbrautir/22289.
Combining work and participation in bridging courses could allow humanitarian migrants to effectively use their skills
Many OECD countries have made assessing foreign qualifications an integral part of their migrant introduction programmes, including Canada, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, and more (OECD, 2017[47]). For instance, Germany operates a model programme called Early Intervention, in which asylum seekers with a high likelihood of being granted permission to stay are informed by the public employment services of the options available to them based on their skills (Box 3.5) (European Commission, 2018[51]). Key requirements of such programmes include integrated service delivery and the efficient flow of information between service providers. While the former is present in Iceland with the refugee reception centre and the co‑ordinated reception of refugees scheme, there is room for improvement regarding data collection and the sharing of information. Furthermore, the assessment and recognition of foreign qualifications is not included in the co‑ordinated reception of refugees scheme. Making those services part of the integrated service delivery for humanitarian migrants as part of the scheme would be a welcome step in raising awareness of recognition procedures.
Box 3.5. Germany’s Early Intervention programme for asylum seekers
In 2015/16, Germany saw a major increase in arrivals of asylum seekers, and a projected rise in unemployment. In the years prior, asylum seekers’ transition into the labour market had been very slow, and they had to wait a year until they could receive support from the public employment service (PES). As the various social services had different IT systems, data could not easily be transferred between institutions, and services could not be prioritised according to demand.
A pilot programme operated by the German PES and the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), aiming to provide rapid integration support that considers asylum seekers’ formal qualifications, highlighted the need for language courses, qualification measures and other structural requirements within the PES.
A key outcome of the project was the establishment of the “early intervention” principle in law, providing immediate support and early access to training and language courses. This required improved co‑operation between the German PES and the BAMF in the form of one‑stop-shops and a nationwide core data system.
Source: European Commission (2018[51]), Integrated labour market services for asylum seekers in arrival centres, https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=19255&langId=en.
Recognition of prior learning remains under-utilised by migrants
Measures for the recognition of prior learning (RPL) are an important complement to the recognition of formal qualifications. RPL assesses a person’s non-formal and informal learning that has been attained through prior work experience, short courses, leisure activities and volunteering. As such, it is particularly useful to ascertain the competence level of migrants with little to no education or in cases where their schooling documents are not available, not least for refugees and other humanitarian migrants (OECD, 2017[47]).
Iceland is one of many OECD countries that offers RPL services, co‑ordinated by the ETSC and administered by the various lifelong learning centres across the country since 2008. RPL is offered to validate both educational and professional competency, building upon national curricula and the Icelandic Qualifications Framework (ISQF). In addition to providing RPL for 29 recognised professions, the ETSC also provides RPL for transversal skills based on measurable criteria for 11 different skill factors. Transversal skills are markers of educational achievement, empowering individuals to apply for jobs or study paths they didn’t realise were for them (OECD, 2021[52]; Næsta skref, 2023[53]). RPL is available free of charge for adults above the age of 23 and with at least three years of experience on the labour market.
Use of RPL among migrants dropped in the COVID‑19 pandemic, highlighting structural obstacles
Since 2013 ETSC has operated the website Næsta skref (Next step), where clear and accessible information about paths of study at the secondary, tertiary and lifelong learning levels, jobs on the labour market, study and career counselling, and lastly, RPL services, are provided (Næsta skref, 2023[54]). A key component of the website’s RPL section and a first step in the process are so-called screening lists, where individuals are presented with statements about the basics of the relevant profession – from a list of 29 professions – and asked to assess their knowledge. The results are sent by email and can then be included in a conversation with a career counsellor. However, these lists are only available in Icelandic (Næsta skref, 2023[53]).
Immigrants have been consistently underrepresented among the users of RPL in Iceland. The use of RPL among immigrants remained negligible from 2008 to 2013, with immigrants representing less than 4% of RPL users in the period. From 2015 and onwards take‑up of RPL measures among migrants increased, reaching a high point in 2019, before dropping substantially in 2020 (Figure 3.13). There are several potential explanations as to why the use of RPL among migrants dropped after 2019. One explanation is COVID‑19. While the use of RPL among migrants dropped, use among the native‑born saw an increase of 15% in 2020 compared to 2019 and increased in the years that followed, suggesting that structural obstacles such as language barriers may have made it difficult for migrants as service provision – including that of public employment services – was delivered almost exclusively digitally or via telephone (Gátt, 2022[55]; OECD, 2022[56]). Moving towards digital service provision can benefit certain migrants such as those with caring responsibilities, while it negatively affects those with lower literacy levels such as humanitarian migrants (OECD, 2021[1]).
Figure 3.13. RPL use among immigrants dropped sharply in COVID‑19
Share of foreign citizens among those using recognition of prior learning measures, 2015‑22
Source: Fræðslumiðstöð atvinnulífsins (2023[22]), Tölfræði úr starfinu, https://frae.is/fraedslusjodur/tolfraedi-ur-starfinu/; Statistics Iceland (2023[57]), MAN04103: Population by country of citizenship, sex and age 1 January 1998‑2022, https://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Ibuar/Ibuar__mannfjoldi__3_bakgrunnur__Rikisfang/MAN04103.px.
As experiences from other OECD countries show, mapping competences early is important, not only for refugees’ early entry into the labour market but also to identify relevant municipalities for placing refugees according to local labour market demands (OECD/UNHCR, 2018[58]). An example of effective early mapping is the “My Competence Portfolio” (Min kompetencemappe) in Denmark, a digital tool enabling individuals to create a systematic overview of their prior learning free of charge. Available in Danish and English, immigrants may describe relevant job experience and attach pictures of products or other outputs of their work. The portfolio can be downloaded and used in job applications. The public employment services in Sweden have taken a more holistic approach, combining elements of RPL – including early mapping, translation of credentials and on-the‑job skills assessment and knowledge tests – with customised bridging courses that include vocational language training. Upon completion, participants are awarded an occupational certificate or credential (OECD, 2016[40]).
References
[3] Auer, D. (2017), “Language roulette – the effect of random placement on refugees’ labour market integration”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 44/3, pp. 341-362, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2017.1304208.
[9] Bagavos, C. et al. (2021), “Between Reception, Legal Stay and Integration in a Changing Migration Landscape in Greece”, in IMISCOE Research Series, Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers’ Integration in European Labour Markets, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67284-3_9.
[42] Bifröst University (2023), Háskólagátt fyrir nemendur sem ekki hafa íslensku sem móðurmál, https://www.bifrost.is/namid/haskolagatt/islenska-ekki-sem-modurmal (accessed on 8 August 2023).
[44] Cedefop (2022), Iceland: increase in the number of foreign applicants for qualification recognition, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/iceland-increase-number-foreign-applicants-qualification-recognition (accessed on 25 July 2023).
[2] Chiswick, B., Y. Lee and P. Miller (2005), “Immigrant Earnings: A Longitudinal Analysis”, Review of Income and Wealth, Vol. 51/4, pp. 485-503, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2005.00165.x.
[27] Coste, D. and M. Cavalli (2015), Education mobility, otherness. The mediation functions of schools, https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/-/education-mobility-otherness-the-mediation-functions-of-schools-2015- (accessed on 19 July 2023).
[38] Council of Europe (1997), Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region, https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=165 (accessed on 27 July 2023).
[35] Damas de Matos, A. and T. Liebig (2014), “The qualifications of immigrants and their value in the labour market: A comparison of Europe and the United States”, in Matching Economic Migration with Labour Market Needs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264216501-9-en.
[26] Directorate of Education (2012), “Íslenska fyrir útlendinga - framhaldsnámskrá”, https://www.stjornarradid.is/media/menntamalaraduneyti-media/media/mrn-pdf-namskrar/namskra_i_islensku_fyrir_utlendinga_framhald.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2023).
[25] Directorate of Education (2008), Námskrá: Íslenska fyrir útlendinga - grunnnám, https://mms.is/sites/mms.is/files/namskra_islenska_utlendinga.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2023).
[23] Djuve, A. et al. (2017), Introduksjonsprogram og norskopplæring, https://www.fafo.no/zoo-publikasjoner/fafo-rapporter/introduksjonsprogram-og-norskopplaering (accessed on 19 July 2023).
[39] ENIC/NARIC (2023), Refugees, https://english.enicnaric.is/refugees.html (accessed on 21 July 2023).
[37] ENIC/NARIC (2023), Um ENIC/NARIC, https://www.enicnaric.is/um_okkur.html (accessed on 25 July 2023).
[24] European Commission (2023), Regulated Professions Database, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regprof/professions/bycountry (accessed on 4 July 2023).
[45] European Commission (2020), European Professional Card, https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/services/free-movement-professionals/european-professional-card_en (accessed on 25 July 2023).
[51] European Commission (2018), Integrated labour market services for asylum seekers in arrival centres, https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=19255&langId=en.
[32] Eurotest (2023), About the test, https://www.eurotest.me/en/about-eurotest (accessed on 30 August 2023).
[8] Fræðslumiðstöð atvinnulífsins (2023), Nýsköpunar- og þróunarverkefni, https://frae.is/fraedslusjodur/nyskopunar-og-throunarverkefni/ (accessed on 26 July 2023).
[22] Fræðslumiðstöð atvinnulífsins (2023), Tölfræði úr starfinu, https://frae.is/fraedslusjodur/tolfraedi-ur-starfinu/ (accessed on 26 July 2023).
[55] Gátt (2022), Þróun raunfærnimats hjá Iðunni, https://gatt.frae.is/2022/throun-raunfaernimats-hja-idunni/ (accessed on 26 July 2023).
[10] Hoffmann, L. et al. (2021), “Adult Immigrants’ Perspectives on Courses in Icelandic as a Second Language: Structure, Content, and Inclusion in the Receiving Society”, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2021.1988855.
[31] Innes, P. (2015), “Icelandic language schools after the crash”, in Gambling debt: Iceland’s rise and fall in the global economy.
[34] Ministry of Education and Children (2024), Þróað verður stöðumat í íslensku fyrir innflytjendur, https://www.stjornarradid.is/efst-a-baugi/frettir/stok-frett/2024/01/19/Throad-verdur-stodumat-i-islensku-fyrir-innflytjendur/ (accessed on 8 February 2024).
[11] Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour (2007), Stefna ríkisstjórnarinnar um aðlögun innflytjenda, https://www.stjornarradid.is/media/velferdarraduneyti-media/media/acrobat-skjol/Stefna_um_adlogun_innflytjenda.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2023).
[50] MSS (2023), Leikskólasmiðja og íslenskunám,, http://www.mss.is/nam/namskeid-og-namsbrautir/22289.
[54] Næsta skref (2023), Næsta skref, https://naestaskref.is/en/ (accessed on 24 July 2023).
[53] Næsta skref (2023), Validation of Prior Learning, https://naestaskref.is/raunfaernimat/ (accessed on 27 July 2023).
[15] Nielsen Arendt, J. et al. (2021), “Language Training and Refugees’ Integration”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3794091.
[41] Niknami, S. and L. Schröder (2012), Using bridging courses to make better use of migrants skills, Swedish Institute of Social Research, https://www.oecd.org/els/mig/schroder.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2023).
[16] Nordic Council of Ministers (2023), Language Training Services for Adult Immigrants in the Nordic Countries, https://nordicwelfare.org/integration-norden/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/04/Language-Training-Services.pdf (accessed on 13 September 2023).
[36] Norris, P., J. Duffy and V. Krasnoshchok (2023), “How universities can help to integrate Ukrainian refugees”, University World News.
[17] OCDE (2018), Vers un parcours d’intégration réussi: Le fonctionnement du système d’intégration et ses acteurs au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Éditions OCDE, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea1c3b16-fr.
[18] OECD (2023), Introduction Measures for Newly-Arrived Migrants, Making Integration Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5aeddbfe-en.
[46] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Iceland 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b3880f1a-en.
[14] OECD (2022), Skills and Labour Market Integration of Immigrants and their Children in Norway, Working Together for Integration, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6109d927-en.
[56] OECD (2022), “What has been the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on immigrants? An update on recent evidence”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/65cfc31c-en.
[52] OECD (2021), AI and the Future of Skills, Volume 1: Capabilities and Assessments, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5ee71f34-en.
[1] OECD (2021), Language Training for Adult Migrants, Making Integration Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/02199d7f-en.
[21] OECD (2017), Labour Market Integration of Refugees in Germany: Finding their Way, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/14947519-en.
[47] OECD (2017), Making Integration Work: Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Qualifications, Making Integration Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264278271-en.
[40] OECD (2016), Making Integration Work: Refugees and others in need of protection, Making Integration Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251236-en.
[58] OECD/UNHCR (2018), Engaging With Employers in the Hiring of Refugees: A 10-Point Multi-Stakeholder Action Plan for Employers, Refugees, Governments and Civil Society, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d6e62c02-en.
[6] Ramboll (2021), Kartlegging av tilbud om språkopplæring og språktrening for voksne innvandrere i Norge og øvrige nordiske land, https://nordicwelfare.org/integration-norden/fakta/kartlegging-av-tilbud-om-sprakopplaering-og-spraktrening-for-voksne-innvandrere-i-norge-og-ovrige-nordiske-land/ (accessed on 5 July 2023).
[29] Ramboll (2007), Med Moduler Som Motor: Evaluering af implementeringen af danskuddannelsesloven.
[7] Rannis (2023), Úhlutun styrkja til íslenskukennslu fyrir útlendinga.
[13] Rannis (2023), Úthlutanir, https://www.rannis.is/sjodir/menntun/islenskukennsla-fyrir-utlendinga/uthlutanir/.
[30] Rannís (2023), Mats- og úthlutunarferlið, https://www.rannis.is/sjodir/menntun/islenskukennsla-fyrir-utlendinga/mats--og-uthlutunarferlid/ (accessed on 29 August 2023).
[43] Réttur (2019), Skýrsla um jafnrétti innflytjenda á atvinnumarkaði, https://rettur.is/skyrsla-um-jafnretti-innflytjenda-a-atvinnumarkadi/ (accessed on 21 July 2023).
[28] Rossner, R. (2008), Quality assurance in the provision of language education and training for adult migrants – Guidelines and options, Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1da.
[19] Sölvason, Ó. and M. Meckl (2020), “Viðhorf innflytjenda á Íslandi til símenntunar og íslenskunámskeiða”, Samfélag fjölbreytileikans: Samskipti heimamanna og innflytjenda á Íslandi, pp. 27-34.
[48] Statistics Iceland (2024), SKO01321: Stöðugildi í leikskólum eftir störfum og menntun 1994-2022, https://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/pxweb/is/Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__1_leikskolastig__1_lsStarfsfolk/SKO01321.px.
[57] Statistics Iceland (2023), MAN04103: Population by country of citizenship, sex and age 1 January 1998-2022, https://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Ibuar/Ibuar__mannfjoldi__3_bakgrunnur__Rikisfang/MAN04103.px.
[12] Statistics Iceland (2022), MAN43000: Population by origin, sex and age 1996-2022, https://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Ibuar/Ibuar__mannfjoldi__3_bakgrunnur__Uppruni/MAN43000.px (accessed on 28 March 2023).
[4] Syed, J. and P. Murray (2009), “Combating the English language deficit: the labour market experiences of migrant women in Australia”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19/4, pp. 413-432, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00106.x.
[33] Testipiste (2020), Are you coming to a Finnish test? Initial language assessment for the clients of the Employment services, https://www.testipiste.eu/EN/inenglish (accessed on 18 July 2023).
[20] University of Iceland (2023), Icelandic as a second language, https://english.hi.is/school_of_humanities_faculty_of_icelandic_and_comparative_cultural_studies/icelandic_as_a_seconde.
[49] University of Iceland (2023), Íslenskubrú yfir í kennslu- og uppeldisstörf.
[5] Varða (2024), Workers in Iceland 2024 survey.