Even where immigrants are eligible to participate in language training, participation, let alone successful learning, is not guaranteed. Learning a new language at adult age requires time and commitment – both of which migrants are unlikely to invest unless they actually want or need to learn. Conversely, where expected learning outcomes are sufficiently relevant for an individual, they will find adequate and accessible ways to achieve them. The single most effective way to ensure successful participation in language training is thus to convince migrants of the benefits associated with host-country language proficiency and to help them overcome any doubts they may have about their ability to learn it. Positive, incentive‑based policies aimed at enhancing migrants’ intrinsic motivation to learn are one way of doing this.
Language Training for Adult Migrants
3. Create incentives rather than sanctions to enhance migrants’ motivation to learn the host-country language
WHAT and WHY?
WHO?
Policies aimed at increasing migrants’ motivation to participate in language training are particularly important for those migrants who may not independently take the necessary steps to learn the host-country language. Motivation may be different for migrants for whom migration was forced, rather than planned, and policy approaches need to reflect this potential for difference. Adult migrants in particular are instrumentally motivated, often primarily concerned with learning the language that is necessary for them to succeed in specific situations, especially in the labour force. Migrant women with young children or immigrants who settled long ago and have become increasingly distant from the labour market are important target groups in this regard.
HOW?
There are various ways to encourage migrants to learn the host-country language:
Take action to ensure that migrants understand the benefits of host-language proficiency
Implement tangible benefits or rewards systems for migrants who attend courses or reach a certain language level
Where sanctions for non-participation are imposed, consider unintended effects on participants’ motivation and ability to learn
Migrants, like all other learners, are more motivated to participate in language training when they are aware of the benefits that language proficiency brings for their daily lives and for the success of subsequent generations. Awareness campaigns illustrating the merits that language proficiency entails for migrants’ prospects on the job market and in society at large are an important tool to communicate this message (see Box 3.1). The Italian programme, Vivere e Lavorare in Italia, has experimented with clustering language classes with other complementary services to raise awareness and interest. For example, the “Conoscere per Integrarsi” campaign, run in several municipalities, provided modules in immigration legislation and basic computer science in addition to language. In the past, Germany has used nation-wide billboard advertisement highlighting individual success stories to promote German language learning among immigrants.
Box 3.1. Public campaigns to promote language training amongst immigrants in Estonia and Canada
The Estonian Integration Foundation maintains two different Facebook accounts and organises communication about language learning opportunities in Estonian, English, and Russian, using the various channels that immigrants are likely to use to obtain information, including through its website, news media, social media, and events. In addition to offering free counselling for language learning, the Foundation offers information about services of other agencies and their contacts. Other public services agencies dealing with immigrants are also encouraged to share information about the Foundation’s programmes and projects.
Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada maintains an active YouTube channel with information about the immigration and integration process. The “Language Training Options” video (https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/video/language‑training-options.html), is designed to promote awareness of the programme and the benefits of learning English or French. The ability to find a job, participate in the education of children, and to pursue Canadian citizenship are specifically highlighted. The video explains when migrants can access language training, identifies a wide variety of language training options, and directs them to www.canada.ca/new-comerservices. This video and others are available in both of Canada’s official languages. In the past, videos have been translated into Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, and Arabic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epNZbEuC3YMandfeature=youtu.be).
Another way to enhance migrants’ motivation to learn the host-country language is to link completion of language programmes clearly to tangible incentives or rewards, such as more rapid access to residence or citizenship, as is the case in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Switzerland. Korea offers additional points on the residency applications of migrants who complete the Korea Immigration & Integration Program (KIIP), which comprises five levels of language in addition to 50 hours of Understanding Korean Society. Some countries, such as Sweden and Denmark have experimented with performance‑based rewards in the form of bonus payments to successful learners and/or their municipalities.1 In Israel, seniority can be earned in public sector positions upon completion of Hebrew courses (Ministry of Aliyah and Integration, 2019). While the Danish scheme is fairly recent and has not been evaluated, an assessment of the Swedish bonus scheme suggested that the latter had only a limited effect on student performance outside of metropolitan areas (Aslund and Engdahl, 2012), and it was discontinued.
Once enrolled in training, incentives must be set to keep learners motivated. The Italian Conoscere per Integrarsi programme offered a certificate of completion if the migrant completed both the language and IT courses to make the course more attractive. Some countries offer reimbursement of course costs if a certain level is reached within a specified time. For example, Austria reimburses 50% of course costs for migrants able to certify A2‑level German within 18 months. As all students, migrants are more likely to succeed when language courses are designed to meet needs-related, transparent, and realistic objectives (compare Lesson 7) and to stimulate further learning through regular evaluations which make progress and remaining needs more apparent (including through self-checks and continuous feedback). Individual migrant integration plans, as developed in many OECD countries, can help meet this need. While individualisation can be a costly investment, there have been demonstrated pedagogical dividends, and costs can be reduced by individual classroom support through use of new technology (Lesson 10).
Box 3.2. Second Chance for Language Learners
Israel implemented a dedicated programme for longer-term residents who have not completed Hebrew studies in the framework of the regular programme for new arrivals. “Second Chance Ulpan” includes four modules of study (speech and verbal expression, listening comprehension, reading comprehension, and writing/written expression), of which participants can chose three, and classes are proposed at various levels with flexible hours.
Norway offers language classes within the context of its “Job Opportunities” programme, which targets migrants who lack a link to the labour market. There is a specific focus on reaching immigrant women who are not dependent on social welfare and, thus, may never have been offered any services. One specific offering within the programme is “job club” conversation groups to improve language proficiency. The programme is divided into three different schemes. Part A-scheme is for immigrant women. In 2019, 75% of participants who had completed the programme in Part A had moved into employment or further education.
The German Integration Course system was originally designed for newcomers, but shortly after its implementation, the course was found to be an efficient instrument for language learning for immigrants who had been living in Germany for a longer time.
While there are good reasons to incentivise migrants to learn the language, forcing them to attend language training by imposing penalties or sanctions may result in resentment or anxiety, and weaken migrants’ intrinsic motivation to learn. There is a balance to strike between designing policies that render participation attractive and acknowledging the importance of freedom of choice for motivation. Making access to financial or social benefits conditional upon regular attendance of language training may prove effective if the objectives of such training are based on individual needs and are perceived as transparent and manageable by migrants. However, such conditionality should take into account the individual or family situation of the migrant. For example, a recent investigation conducted for the Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration found municipalities and languages schools estimate between 50‑90% of refugee and family member non-attendance was for legitimate reasons, such as illness (Ankestyrelsen, 2020). Further, quality of education programmes in countries using these “negative” incentives should be carefully monitored to ensure they are adequately tailored to adult needs.
Countries that impose an obligation to reach a certain language level within a prescribed number of years must also carefully consider whether the target level is reasonable. While most OECD countries require a certain level of language proficiency to progress to permanent residency or full citizenship, Austria, Estonia, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland impose sanctions earlier (Table 3.2). Policies punishing the failure to pass a test with the loss of a residence permit, the refusal of authorisation to enter a country for the purpose of family reunification, or a fine may be perceived as posing insurmountable obstacles, cause stress, and crowd out migrants’ motivation and chances of success (Krumm and Plutzar, 2008). In recognition of the barriers some individuals may face to achieving these targets, Austria, Italy, and the Netherlands offer extensions or exemptions from sanction in certain situations.
“Second chance” integration courses, which exist in Norway and Israel, for example, are a viable alternative for migrants who were not able to acquire sufficient language skills during the normal time limitations, due to illness, family obligations, or lack of course availability. Late integration options provide a way for migrants who have not yet linked to the labour market to build skills and make new steps toward integration (see Box 3.2).
Table 3.1. Compulsory language schemes in OECD countries, 2020 or latest available year
|
|
Obligatory participation |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Yes/no |
If yes: Sanctions used to enforce participation |
|
|
Australia |
No (but may be required as a condition of receiving income support payments) |
Financial penalties are possible for failure to attend where mandatory |
|
Austria |
Yes |
Reduction or loss of social or unemployment benefits according to federal or provincial provisions that apply for insufficient willingness to enter workforce |
|
Belgium |
Yes |
Administrative fines, or for eligible refugees in Flanders, a loss of social welfare benefits |
|
Canada |
No |
/ |
|
Chile |
/ |
/ |
|
Colombia |
/ |
/ |
|
Czech Republic |
No |
/ |
|
Denmark |
|
Reduction in cash benefits |
|
Estonia |
Yes (for refugees and migrants with subsidiary protection status) |
Non-participation in language training is taken into account when deciding on the extension of an existing or granting of a new residence permit |
|
Finland |
Yes (if part of an integration plan) |
Restriction of unemployment benefits for a statutorily defined waiting period |
|
France |
Yes (for migrants assigned to language training in the framework of the integration contract CIR) |
No |
|
Germany |
Yes (for humanitarian migrants, newly arrived adult family migrants and newly arrived labour migrants with insufficient German language skills, in case of special integration needs or for long-term residents who receive social (welfare) benefits) |
Sanctions are possible:
|
|
Greece |
No |
/ |
|
Hungary |
No |
/ |
|
Iceland |
/ |
/ |
|
Ireland |
No |
/ |
|
Israel |
No |
/ |
|
Italy |
No |
/ |
|
Japan |
No |
/ |
|
Korea |
No |
/ |
|
Latvia |
No |
/ |
|
Lithuania |
Yes |
Loss of integration support |
|
Luxembourg |
Yes (for migrants seeking international protection) No (for other categories) |
/ |
|
Mexico |
No |
/ |
|
Netherlands |
No |
/ |
|
New Zealand |
Yes (most immigrants must show knowledge of English or prepay for classes to receive visa) |
/ |
|
Norway |
|
/ |
|
Poland |
No |
/ |
|
Portugal |
No |
/ |
|
Slovak Republic |
Yes (for humanitarian migrants who participate in the integration project) |
Reduction of financial support for humanitarian migrants who miss more than 25% of the classes |
|
Slovenia |
No |
/ |
|
Spain |
No |
Migrants who have signed the participation commitment can be excluded from the integration programme if they refuse to participate |
|
Sweden |
No, though participation may be associated with receipt of compensation or a social benefit |
Potential loss of social benefits |
|
Switzerland |
Depends on canton (potential requirement in the “integration contract” between the canton and the migrant) |
Yes, but rare, possible sanctions include reduction of social benefits and – under certain rare conditions – non-renewal of residence permit or “retrogradation” from a C permit to a B permit. |
|
Turkey |
No |
/ |
|
United Kingdom |
No (but humanitarian migrants are strongly encouraged to participate) |
/ |
|
United States |
No |
/ |
Note: n.a. = information not available; See Table 1.1.
Source: OECD questionnaire on language training for adult migrants 2017.
Table 3.2. Compulsory language schemes in OECD countries, 2020 or latest available year
|
|
Obligation to reach a certain minimum language level within a given time after arrival |
Level required for permanent residence/ citizenship |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Yes/no |
If yes … |
|||
|
Mandatory minimum level |
Sanctions for not reaching minimum level |
|||
|
Australia |
No |
/ |
/ |
Basic English required for citizenship (for applicants under age 60) |
|
Austria |
Yes |
Within 2 years:
|
Extension of the 2‑year time period or imposition of monetary fine |
B1 to obtain long-term residence and citizenship While there is no specified time frame, reaching a B1 level is considered obligatory for humanitarian migrants and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. |
|
Belgium |
No |
/ |
/ |
A2 in French, Dutch or German for citizenship |
|
Canada |
No |
/ |
/ |
For citizenship, English or French at CLB/NCLC 4 for migrants under the age of 54 |
|
Chile |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
|
Colombia |
/ |
/ |
/ |
/ |
|
Czech Republic |
No |
/ |
/ |
permanent residence (A1) and citizenship (B1) |
|
Denmark |
No |
/ |
/ |
permanent residence (A2) and citizenship (B1) |
|
Estonia |
Yes (for refugees and migrants with subsidiary protection status) |
|
|
Long-term residence and citizenship (B1) |
|
Finland |
No |
/ |
/ |
Equivalent of B1 in Finnish or Swedish for citizenship |
|
France |
Yes |
A1 for migrants assigned to language training in the framework of the integration contract CIR) |
Reaching the A1 is required for award of a multiannual residence permit after 1 year of residence |
Permanent residence (A2 after 5 years of residence) and citizenship (B1) |
|
Germany |
No |
/ |
/ |
B1 required for settlement permit in most cases, also for citizenship |
|
Greece |
No |
/ |
/ |
For long-term residency, level B2 or a special certificate (Level A2 plus Greek history and culture) is required. No specific level for citizenship, though knowledge of Greek must be demonstrated in the interview. |
|
Hungary |
No |
/ |
/ |
Basic civics exam in Hungarian for citizenship |
|
Iceland |
||||
|
Ireland |
No |
/ |
/ |
A test is under consideration for citizenship |
|
Israel |
No |
/ |
/ |
Some Hebrew is needed for a permanent resident to seek citizenship |
|
Italy |
|
A2 level within 2 years of arrival |
|
Long-term residence (A2) and citizenship (B1) |
|
Japan |
No |
/ |
/ |
/ |
|
Korea |
No |
/ |
/ |
Level 5 Basic Courses required for residency, and Level 5 advanced courses required for citizenship |
|
Latvia |
No |
/ |
/ |
Permanent residence (A2) and citizenship (B1) |
|
Lithuania |
Yes (refugees) |
A1 in refugee reception centre and A2 when integration continues in the municipality |
/ |
Permanent residence and citizenship (A2) |
|
Luxembourg |
Yes |
Refugees are obligated to take 120 hours of French (target A1); other migrants who sign the integration contract are expected to reach the A1 level in one of the 3 official languages within 2 years |
/ |
For citizenship, A2 spoken Luxembourgish, B1 listening |
|
Mexico |
No |
/ |
/ |
|
|
Netherlands |
|
A2i |
Administrative fine for migrants who do not pass the exam within 3 years and can (except humanitarian migrants) face withdrawal of a temporary residence permit (exemptions are made for medical reasons) |
Permanent residence (A2) |
|
New Zealand |
No |
/ |
/ |
|
|
Norway |
Noii |
/ |
/ |
For migrants age 18‑67, permanent residence (having completed language training or A2 + civics test) and citizenship (B1 oral + civics test in Norwegian) |
|
Poland |
No (though progress is expected within framework of integration programme) |
/ |
/ |
Permanent residence (B1) |
|
Portugal |
No |
/ |
/ |
Permanent residence (A2) |
|
Slovak Republic |
No (but planned for humanitarian migrants) |
/ |
/ |
|
|
Slovenia |
No |
/ |
/ |
A2‑B1 for citizenship |
|
Spain |
No |
/ |
/ |
|
|
Sweden |
No |
/ |
/ |
Requirement agreed but not yet implemented |
|
Switzerland |
Yes (a specific level can be defined in the “integration contract” between the canton and the refugee) |
Minimum level is fixed for family migrants |
Sanctions depend on overall integration efforts (not only language learning) and include non-issuance or non-renewal of residence permit (B permit) |
Settled migrant (C permit) requires A1 written and A2 oral in language of place of residence; citizenship requires B1 oral and A2 written |
|
Turkey |
No |
/ |
/ |
|
|
United Kingdom |
No |
/ |
/ |
Permanent residence (B1) |
|
United States |
No |
/ |
/ |
English proficiency required for citizenship (with age + length of residency exceptions) |
Notes: n.a. = information not available; See Table 1.1.
i. The target level in the Netherlands will change from A2 to B1 effective July 2021, with an exception for those who are unlikely to be able to meet it.
ii. Norway’s new Integration Act, implemented 1 January 2021, creates a benchmark for language courses dependent upon educational background. Implementation of the noted requirement of a B1 level for citizenship is planned for 2021.
Source: OECD questionnaire on language training for adult migrants 2017.
Note
← 1. A tax-free “Danish language bonus” of DKK 6 242 (in 2019) is available to refugees and family reunited with refugees who do not receive social benefits and have passed a Danish language course level 2 or higher. Municipalities receive subsidies when a refugee or family member obtains employment, starts education, or passes a final test in Danish. For each eligible migrant to pass a final test in the Danish language, the municipality receives a subsidy of DKK 33 959 (in 2019).