Language requirements and vulnerable users: the Italian context

Transcription

1 EALTA Conference - Symposium Language testing of low literate L2 learners: what role should it play? Sevre, 1 June 2017 Lorenzo Rocca Language requirements and vulnerable users: the Italian context

2 Around 5,5 million foreigners 8.3%: migrants in relation to the overall population of 59 million (EU average 6.9%) 1 million estimated as not-literate/ low literate adult migrants (ISTAT, UNAR, ISMU: 2016)

3 2013: 81% 2010: 75% 2007: 61% 2002: 29% Language requirements for migration purposes: % CoE countries involved The CEFR was never established as a mechanism for establishing whether or not a certain language level was indicative of a level of integration. It is only a measure of a linguistic ability. (Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 2034: 2014)

4 23: A2* 26: B1* 18 8: A1* CoE LIAM Survey: 2013 *CEFR level: average

5 : A2 compulsory for long term residence permit (DL 04/06/2010) : A2 + KoS compulsory for residence permit (DPR 179/2011) More in details - Law 2010 It is possible to ask for the long term residence permit for migrants who have lived in Italy at least 5 years. After the application, migrants have two months to attain the A2 (reading, listening and writing) Direct impact Indirect impact

6 25% (average) of candidates totally failed because of their lack of literacy: more than 200,000 persons! (UNAR: 2016) Literacy is a necessary prerequisite for any kind of written test. [ ] Policy makers need to provide training courses that strongly support the acquisition of literacy skills, instead of providing writing or reading tests (ALTE LAMI Booklet: 2016) The required standards sometimes exceed what is reasonably attainable, leading to the exclusion of many people. This raises human rights issues. [ ] It is particularly problematic when dealing with people who are illiterate or with low levels of education (CoE: 2014)

7 A not expressed demand strongly emerged Vulnerable users finally appeared Answers at different level were needed, in order to deal with the unfair direct impact of the law Policymakers, researchers and teachers focused more on the issue of non-literate/ low literate adult migrants 3 kinds of answers: 1. Political level 2. Academic level 3. Didactic level

8 Law 2010: partial review In case of non-literate /low literate candidate, the written part of the test is replaced by a speaking component (Ministry of Interior: Circolare 23/03/2012) Law 2012: A2 + KoS for residence permit are evaluated through a unique speaking exam (oral interview)

9

10 Pre-literates (group A) Not educated adults, whose mother tongue is not written or is not the medium of instruction in the country of origin Illiterates (group B) Adults who cannot read and write in their own mother tongue and have never been educated Semi-literates (group C) Adults who received a low level of education in their mother tongue (in general, less than 5 years of schooling) or partially lost the literacy skills because they do not read and write Instrumental illiteracy Functional Illiteracy (UNESCO: 2005) Literates (group D) (Rocca, Minuz, Borri: 2014)

11

12 Syllabus for courses aimed to group C learners (approved by Ministry of Education -MIUR/with courses funded by Ministry of Interior- AMIF), with 150 additional hours free of charge for semi literate profiles

13 Approval of the Syllabus Elaboration of a Syllabus for the group C Funding courses for group C Definition of groups (A, B, C, D) and related descriptors Are doing the courses, giving their feedback to the stakeholders involved in this process

14 Assessing: lack of training, monitoring and impact studies with regard to the compulsory tests Teaching: lack of teaching materials designed for literacy courses lack of tuition for the most vulnerable users (non-literate learners, groups A and B)

15 National level Need of improvement vs. the 3 lacks through a structured and structural action involving Ministry of Interior; Ministry of Education; CLIQ; Teachers European level CoE: Shared extension of the CEFR not taking for granted that the learner is a literate social agent ALTE and EALTA: Issues related to low literacy candidates (recommendations) How to pinpoint literacy profiles, according to a not formal assessment (guidelines)

16