Language Training for Adult Migrants

5. Make language training flexible and compatible with job-search, work, education and daily life constraints

WHAT and WHY?

Challenges related to access, motivation, and affordability of language training are compounded by the fact that many adult migrants face personal and/or work-related constraints to attend courses regularly at a fixed time of the day, in a particular location, or during a given period of the year. Indeed, according to a survey from 2012,1 lack of time is self-identified as the main obstacle preventing immigrants from learning the host-country language. Conversely, immigrants who are enrolled in full-time language programmes have often no time to work or look for a job. As a consequence, labour market integration is delayed and lock-in effects are likely, as employers tend to penalise candidates with long absences from the labour market. To overcome these challenges and facilitate migrants’ ability to fit language learning into their daily lives, it is crucial to allow for flexibility in course schedules, locations, and learning formats.

WHO?

Some migrant groups are particularly affected by rigid training schedules and inaccessible settings. Migrants with low income and recent arrivals, for example, may find it particularly difficult to participate in language programmes that prevent them from pursuing a regular job, as they often require a fixed income to support their family, secure residence rights, and obtain permission for family reunification. Another group that is likely to suffer from scheduling conflicts are migrant parents, and particularly immigrant mothers with small children, who may have fewer childcare or babysitting options, due to financial constraints and limited social and extended family networks in the country.

HOW?

Policy attempts to address this issue take several forms (see Table 5.1):

• Provide courses in easily accessible locations and environments

• Anticipate the needs of migrant women with small children

• Consider flexibility of course timing to account for work or other obligations

In order to be effective, programme designers must anticipate, monitor, and respond to a wide range of potential obstacles. First, the setting of courses needs to be chosen carefully. Preferably the location is well known by learners, easily accessible, and well equipped for language learning. Options include community centres, libraries, immigrant associations, or the school of learners’ children. While vocational and higher education institutions may be attractive locations for students and labour migrants, they may not necessarily be the most accessible and inviting locations for some family migrants and low-income learners. In this case, informal learning options should be available, allowing language acquisition at places where the target group already interacts and feels comfortable. An example of such a programme is “Bazaar: Learn and Exchange at the Market Place,” which ran from 2013‑2018. The project, which was funded by the European Commission, organised language training for adult migrants in Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and the United Kingdom in informal, every-day settings, such as the marketplace, local supermarkets, gymnasiums, or children’s schools.

Many countries are specifically concerned with increasing participation of immigrant women, particularly those with childcare responsibilities.2 In response, several countries now provide courses targeted toward women or mothers. The benefit of gender homogenous courses is subject to debate, particularly when considering social integration. A number of countries avoid such courses out of concern that they send a negative signal regarding gender equality. Other countries have taken the opposite stance based on the view, for which there is some evidence, that this approach increases female participation in language courses.3 In practice, where they exist, courses specifically for women are still the exception rather than the rule. In Germany, 6 313 migrants participated in language courses for Parents and Women in the first half of 2019, 90% of whom were women. At the same time, an overwhelming majority of women participated in the general Integration Course (75 166 women, or 57% of enrolment in the general course). Germany takes the additional step of advertising that its courses for women are also taught exclusively by women. The City of Vienna, Austria reported that over 8 000 women participated in its “Mom Learns German” programme between 2006 and 2017.

One promising alternative to gender-specific courses are courses that address gender-specific barriers. Courses such as Germany’s courses for parents, designed to accommodate for childcare obligations and inform about child-specific issues, are one such example. While most participants are women and gender-specific needs may be addressed, they are not framed as gender-separated courses. Some countries have innovated by organising language training at childcare facilities, for example by allowing mothers and children to learn together, also solves the issue of free and accessible childcare during the course. Flanders (Belgium) launched a pilot programme for women with children in 2016, with several language modules centred on communication relevant to parents and accredited childcare provided onsite. Alternatively, some countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom, have introduced place‑based learning (i.e. learning can be organised at home if migrants feel more comfortable). The French Ministry of Interior and Ministry of National Education have partnered to develop the programme “Open the School to Parents for the Success of Children (OEPRE), which offers French courses at the school where the migrant’s child is enrolled, including a module on understanding the school’s needs and expectations for its students and parents. In its first year (school year 2017‑2018), the 460 workshops were offered for around 17 parents each. 84% of participating parents were women.

While migrants pursuing educational opportunities may benefit most from part-time, evening, or weekend language courses, ‘on-the‑job’ training is usually the most attractive option for working migrants (see Lesson 6). Wherever ‘on-the‑job’ training is not available, language programmes should be sufficiently flexible to allow immigrants to work on the side. If full-time formats are the only available option, courses should not surpass a critical number of hours beyond which there is no additional impact on the employment prospects of immigrants (OECD, 2007). There is a further option for learners with Information and Communication Technology (ICT) literacy.

ICT-based learning programmes (see Lesson 10) typically target young people, technology affine migrants, and the tertiary educated and are most effective when focused on simple‑to‑use and frequently used ICT tools, such as mobile phones, MP3 players, TV, and well-known internet media.

To facilitate migrants’ ability to reconcile language training with daily life constraints, countries ideally offer a multitude of different learning formats. This is for instance the case in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, where learners can choose from a broad variety of learning options, ranging from self-study materials to fully teacher-led courses (see Box 5.1).

Box 5.1. Flexible language courses in OECD settlement countries

Australia, Canada and New Zealand offer a flexible set of language training options, usually including part-time, evening, and weekend courses, as well as distance and ICT-based learning, one‑on-one tutoring, free child-care, transportation subsidies, and continuous intake to avoid long waiting lists. Migrants who cannot attend classroom-based formats (e.g. because of shift work, illness or lack of local courses, transportation, or child-care) are offered free one‑on-one lessons for a few hours per week with a trained instructor or community volunteer. These programmes are called Volunteer Home Tutor Schemes in Australia and English Language Partners in New Zealand. Learners may also follow an online or correspondence course such as Canada’s Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Home Study/Cours de langue pour les immigrants au Canada (CLIC) en ligne, available in several Canadian provinces. The latter cost much less than classroom-based learning formats, but learners progress more slowly due to limited training hours and availability of volunteers.

Table 5.1. Flexible options for language training in OECD countries, 2020 or latest available year

	Government co-funded website providing e‑language training	Evening facilities for language training	Childcare options
Australia	Yes	Yes	Yes
Austria	Yes	Yes	Yes
Belgium	Yes (Wallonia – not specifically targeted to migrants) No (Brussels-Capital Region)	No (Wallonia) Yes (Brussels-Capital Region)	No
Canada	Yes	Yes	Yes
Chile	No	No	No
Colombia	/	/	/
Czech Republic	Yes	Yes	Yes
Denmark	No (may be offered by provider)	Yes	n.a. (but in general all children in Denmark benefit from guaranteed day-care availability in their municipality)
Estonia	Yes	Yes	No
Finland	Yes	No (but training providers can provide classes to targeted groups at a time suitable for them)	Yes (organised by municipalities, except for groups for stay-at-home parents, where the service provider is responsible for provision of babysitting)
France	Yes	No	No
Germany	Yes	Yes	Yes
Greece	No	Yes	No (not systematic but in some cases)
Hungary	No	No	No
Iceland	/	/	/
Ireland	No	Yes	Yes
Israel	Yes	Yes (for migrants who start to work after being granted their status)	No
Italy	Yes	No (not systematic but in some locations)	No (not systematic but in some locations)
Japan	No	Yes	No
Korea	Yes	Yes	No
Latvia	Yes	No (not systematic, but depends on the service provider)	No
Lithuania	No	Yes	Yes
Luxembourg	Yes (for Luxembourgish)	Yes	No
Mexico	Yes	Yes	No
Netherlands	No	Yes	Yes (depends on the service provider)
New Zealand	No	No (depends on the service provider)	No (but some providers have childcare facilities on site and subsidised childcare is available for children from age 3 onwards)
Norway	Yes	Yes	No (but migrants benefit from national scheme of free core child care hours)
Poland	No	Yes	Yes
Portugal	Yes	Yes	Yes
Slovak Republic	Yes (supported by European Commission)	No	No
Slovenia	Yes	Yes	No
Spain	Yes	Yes	No
Sweden	Yes (depends on the service provider)	Yes	No (but all children have the right to pre‑school)
Switzerland	No	Yes	Yes
Turkey	No	Yes	No
United Kingdom	No (depends on the service provider)	No (depends on the service provider)	No (depends on the service provider)
United States	Yes	Yes	No (not systematic but in some states)

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

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

Table 5.2. Timing and duration of language training in OECD countries, 2020 or latest available year

	Number of hours available to average participants (may be fee‑based)	Number of publicly funded hours available for humanitarian migrants	Number of hours available to learners with special needs (e.g. illiterate, traumatised, etc.)
Australia	No limit (as of April 2021)	No limit (as of April 2021)	No limit (as of April 2021)
Austria	300	600	/
Belgium	240 (Flanders) 400 (Wallonia) 150 – 1 350 (Brussels-Capital Region) Min. 360 (German-speaking community)	600 (Flanders and Brussels-Capital Region)	480 (Slower learners – Flanders) 250 – 1 350 (Slower learners – Brussels-Capital Region)
Canada	No limit	No limit
Chile	/	/	/
Colombia	/	/	/
Czech Republic	210	400	/
Denmark	No predetermined number of hours (within 42 months)	Average 15 hr/week over 5 years	/
Estonia	80	300	/
Finland	2100 (60 credit units)	2100	40 additional credit units (nonliterate)
France	400	400	600 (nonliterate)
Germany	600 (plus 100-hour orientation course); 400 for intensive programme (plus 30-hour orientation course)	n.a.	900 hours (migrants with special needs or nonliterate) (plus 100‑hour orientation course) An additional 300 hours are available for any migrant unable to reach the language goal (B1) in the allocated number of hours
Greece	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
Hungary	n.a.
Iceland
Ireland
Israel	500
Italy	100
Japan	/	/	/
Korea	485
Latvia	120‑150	120
Lithuania
Luxembourg	60 (3 courses)	120 hours
Mexico	126
Netherlands	240	No limit
New Zealand		No limit
Norway	Based on individual needsi	Based on individual needs	Based on individual needs
Poland		No limit
Portugal	300	No limit
Slovak Republic
Slovenia	180	300‑400
Spain	280‑420
Sweden	No limit	No limit
Switzerland	300‑600	Depends on canton
Turkey	120‑180
United Kingdom	6‑12 weeks	12 months (8 hr/week minimum)
United States	/	/	/

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

a. The new Integration Act in Norway, implemented 1 January 2021, removes the requirement to complete a number of hours of language training. Instead, each individual shall be asked to achieve a minimum level in Norwegian. This level is the participant’s Norwegian Goal. The indicative minimum level is B1 in all language skills (oral, listening, writing and reading), but it will be differentiated based on the individual’s prior formal education. There may also be differentiation in the goal across the different language skills.

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

Notes

← 1.  The Immigrant Citizens Survey asked immigrants to assess their needs for integration and evaluated how effective policies were in meeting these needs. A pilot took place over 2011 and 2012 in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. See http://www.immigrantsurvey.org/about.html.

← 2.  Language acquisition is critical for refugee women in particular. Research shows that refugee women who become proficient in their host country’s language are 40 percentage points more likely to be employed (Liebig and Tronstad, 2018).

← 3.  Integration agencies in several countries have noted that women may not be able to participate in regular courses for “family or cultural reasons,” but they may be more likely to access programming if classes are homogenous or if they are clearly informed of their rights along with their husbands (OECD, 2017b). For more information, see Monica Li (2018), “Integration of Migrant Women,” European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/feature/integration-of-migrant-women or Nino Simic et al. (2018), “New in the Nordic Countries: Labour Market Inclusion of Migrants,” Nordic Council of Ministers, https://issuu.com/nordicwelfare/docs/new-in-the‑nordic-countries-en-web. Moreover, research into academic performance of women and girls suggests that outcomes and attitudes may be slightly improved in gender-homogenous learning environments (Dustmann, Ku, and Kwak, 2017; Riggers-Piehl, Lim and King, 2018).