Integration policy concerning language training for immigrants in Norway

01/2007 99 Integration policy concerning language training for immigrants in Norway 1970 2006 Commentary by Perly Folstad Norberg & Sigvart Tøsse In this commentary we give an overview of language training for adult immigrants as a key element in Norwegian integration policies between 1970 and 2006. Our data is based on a study of Norwegian policy documents and research on immigration. Over the years the supply of language training has gradually been expanded, and participation in the courses has gradually shifted from being voluntary to being compulsory. However, the results of mandatory training are poor. We argue that the field of language training needs a new platform of knowledge and communication between the immigrant, the authorities and the field of language pedagogy. According to public statistics, at the beginning of 2006, the immigrant population, i.e. people with two foreign born parents, accounted for 8,3 per cent of the total population in Norway, according to ssb.no. They represent more than 200 countries. The fifteen largest immigrant groups come from Pakistan, Sweden, Iraq, Denmark, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Iran, Turkey, Serbia and Montenegro, Germany, Sri Lanka, Poland, United Kingdom and Russia. The reasons for permanent settlement are family links to persons residing in Norway, employment or flight. A main element in the central authorities integration activities is language training. Since 1970 the language training programmes have gradually been expanded, and the courses have gradually moved from voluntary to compulsory. In this commentary we give a brief overview of integration policy in language training for immigrants after 1970. The purpose is to give a short analytical description of the integration policy through language training which consequently might provide a knowledge background for further discussion of what is needed in order to produce a better result. We base our study mainly on Norwegian policy documents and research on immigration. Immigration has an external and an internal aspect. The external aspect is admission to the country, what we call proper immigration policy. The internal aspect of immigration is integration, which is promoted through the integration policy. By policy we broadly mean the aims, intentions and political discourse as well as the strategies, decisions and implementation of activities in the integration field. Immigration policy and the official basis for initiatives in Norway and our neighbouring countries have gone through a number of phases (cf. SOU, 2003:118). An early emphasis on assimilation was followed in the 1970s, by a pronounced endorsement of integration as both a process and a goal. The central authorities described assimilation as full incorporation into Norwegian society and the workforce, while integration was a weaker form of this. Immigrants were invited to be functional members of the society without breaking away from their national identity, language and culture (St.meld. nr. 39, 1973 74). Moreover, they were allowed to choose the degree of incorporation and belonging (St.meld. nr. 74, 1979 80). In the 1980s this concept of freedom to choose was supplemented with a notion of respect for immigrants language and culture. The new integration

100 NORSK TIDSSKRIFT FOR MIGRASJONSFORSKNING policy then went into the multicultural phase, emphasising a reciprocal adjustment of the immigrants and the native inhabitants cultural, linguistic, religious and ethnic backgrounds and traditions. As a consequence of this new multicultural thinking the Government admitted that in order for this approach to work, some additional measures might be necessary. Subsequently, the Government urged the local authorities to provide mother-tongue classes for immigrant children, and they supported the founding of immigrant associations (St.meld. nr. 74, 1979 80). In 1989 Norwegian public schools offered language classes in 70 different languages to children with an immigrant background (Norberg, 1990). However, the principle of multiculturalism introduced a number of dilemmas and conflicts concerning the degrees and ways of providing public support to a number of immigrant cultures. In general, immigration has proved to be one of the greatest challenges to our welfare society and the liberal ideology of equality. Many feel that the integration policy in Norway, as well as in the other Nordic countries, has not been very successful. Critics claim that it has failed in terms of the general goal of equality, both in terms of equal opportunity in the labour market and the provision of language education necessary for obtaining citizenship (Bron, 2003). It is documented that the drop-out rate in the language courses is high, and only a low proportion passes the compulsory language test (Norberg, 1998; Steen-Olsen, 2001). A basic problem for many immigrants is entry to the labour market, and a large number is dependent on the social security system. Despite the Government s integration efforts, too many immigrants are socially and economically disadvantaged and marginalized: «In general, the immigrant population in Norway is characterised by higher unemployment, lower income levels, greater dependency on social assistance, a significantly higher drop-out rate in advanced training, higher crime rates, lower turnout during elections, and lower civic participation than what prevails in the general population»* (KRD, 2004). A public report concluded that «Norwegian society is increasingly class divided based on ethnicity.»* (NOU, 2003:19). In the 1990s another version of integration was presented, this time in terms of participation and a moral claim to respect liberal (= universal) values and attitudes. The immigration policy reached the anti-racial phase, where the government declared something different from multiculturalism, and something even more than integration policy (St.meld. nr. 49, 2003 2004). This turned out to be a new policy on diversity. The act relating to foreign nationals admission to the country (fremmedloven) from 1927 was restrictive. After 1945 a demand of manpower arose. A new act in 1956 opened the borders to labour immigration. Male job-seekers from the south of Europe, Pakistan and Turkey arrived and applied for work permits. Few applications were refused, and in practice there was free immigration to Norway (Kjeldstadli, 2003). However, before 1967 immigration to Norway was negligible (Carling, 1999). To begin with, no one appeared to think that the so-called foreign workers or guest workers wanted to stay and learn the Norwegian language. During the 1960s, however, Norway joined several international agreements which implied an obligation to offer language courses to «make it easier for foreign workers to adjust themselves to Norwegian society»* (St.meld. nr. 45, 1968 69). This made it possible from 1970 to obtain a reimbursement for up to 150 lessons in Norwegian language training for immigrant workers. The first tuition, organized as evening courses, was offered by voluntary associations (notably The People s University and the Workers Educational Association). However, the foreign workers themselves and the immigrant workers union criticised these introductory and elementary courses for «not having anything to do with our situation as guest workers» (Nor-

01/2007 101 berg, 1994). Few participated, few completed the training, and problems of paying the course fee in advance also led to many drop-outs. The previously positive attitude towards labour migration changed during the 1970s. Immigration now also implied the introduction of problems into Norwegian society (Bø, 2004). The government imposed a ban on labour migration in 1975, in line with similar restrictions in other host countries. The central authorities would strongly regulate new immigration while at the same time improving the conditions and intensifying integration efforts towards the already established immigrants (NOU, 2004:20). The turn towards integration and multicultural policy implied that the motives for language training went beyond the needs of working life. Language training became part of a civic and general education: learning about a new culture and society. In this new scheme social studies became an integral part of the language tuition. Knowledge about Norwegian society could also be communicated in the immigrants own language, and the Ministry declared that «the participant s own language background must decide the choice of methodology, means of instruction and the general plan of the teaching» (Norberg, 1994). This policy was not, however, put into practice until 2005 with the obligation of the introductory programme for refugees to offer 50 lessons in social studies in a language the participants understand. A recent report indicates, however, that this is still a difficult condition to satisfy (UDI, 2006). In 1975 Norway copied the Swedish scheme of 240 teaching hours of free lessons in language and social studies, but not as practiced in Sweden, where participation was an individual right. The Norwegian integration scheme opened up for the immigration of migrants closely related family, including wives, children and in some cases parents. Adult family members were admitted to the language courses. Family members with poor educational background soon showed a need for literacy and basic level education. This became a challenge in the years to come. A training curriculum for literacy was introduced in 1988 (KUF, 1988). Four years later came the first primary school training curriculum for adult immigrants. Sufficient training for alphabetization (up to 3000 lessons) was not introduced before 1998 (KUF, 1998). In 1984 the Ministry stated that free language education should be made available to all immigrants and refugees with the legal right to residence in Norway (Norberg, 1994). Asylum seekers became a new category from the mid 1980s; from 1988 they were also allowed to participate in the ordinary adult education in Norwegian language and social studies (Norberg, 2002; Brochmann, 2003). However, due to the large numbers of new asylum seekers costs escalated out of control so that they became temporarily excluded from the language training programme. From 1996 until the end of 2002, asylum seekers were again admitted to language tuition (Norberg, 2002). From 2007 onwards the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion has taken full responsibility for language training for adult immigrants and suggests that asylum seekers once again be admitted to language training, starting inthe autumn of 2007 (St.prp. nr. 1, 2006 2007). We have very little knowledge about the quality and outcome of the language training programmes of the 1970s and 1980s. There were no curricula and no testing of the participants, who seldom fulfilled the quota of 240 lessons (Vikki, 1980; Norberg, 1994). There were no, nor are there any qualification requirements for teachers in the programme. The politicians have had to acknowledge that language education must be intensified in order to avoide the formation of an ethnic underclass. Starting in 1994 immigrants were offered 500 free les-

102 NORSK TIDSSKRIFT FOR MIGRASJONSFORSKNING sons of language training. In 1998 a module-based training curriculum was introduced and immigrants could have up to 850 or 3000 free lessons in Norwegian and social studies according to their previous level of education (KUF, 1998). Training was to continue until a sufficient level of language skills had been acquired, and the course of studies was to end with a language proficiency test. However, research (Norberg, 1998, 2000, 2002; Rismark, 2000; Skaalvik, 2001 & 2002; Steen-Olsen, 2000 & 2001) has pointed out that the language training is poorly integrated in the education system of the municipalities, the results of the training are unclear and drop-out rates are high. Many students expect that one year of language studies will be sufficient, and teachers have low expectations that they will succeed. Female participants often feel torn by contradictory demands from their school and their home, which may seriously hamper their possibilities for autonomuos learning. A language test became compulsory from 1996 onwards. Five years later only a low proportion of the participants passed the test. There seems to be a crucial lack of communication between the immigrant, the authorities and the field of education. During the 1990s several European countries introduced various types of introductory programmes for newly arrived immigrants. In 2004 the Norwegian Parliament approved the new law of introduction (Lov 2003 07 04 nr. 80) which made participation in a two-year fulltime introductory programme with language training an obligatory condition among newly arrived refugees for achieving settlement status. The municipalities can, however, choose to settle other immigrants. According to Djuve & Pettersen (1997), forcing an immigrant to participate in the programme has a limited impact if it is not combined with a thought-out and flexible integration programme and meaningful cooperation between public social welfare, education and labour market programmes. The basic idea of the two-year programme is to transfer immigrants from the social welfare system over to a basic qualification system to prepare them for participation in working life and/or further education. An important new approach is the creation of an individual, written qualification plan based on a mapping of skills, experience, goals and ambitions. Job training is introduced at an early stage and runs parallel with language training and other qualification activities. Every participant in the programme is supposed to have a «refugee guide», i.e. a personal contact who is paid by the public authorities to assist them with the introductory process. A recently published report indicates that most participants now also receive training on how to enter the labour market, in connection with the language tuition in their programmes. According to the report by the Directorate of Immigration (UDI, 2006), 53 per cent of the immigrants continue with education or paid work after finishing the program. This programme signals an immigration policy of diversity founded on two pillars: personalised arrangements for the newly arrived refugees and a general policy of equal treatment for already established immigrants (St. meld. nr. 49, 2003 2004). Diversity enriches society, according to the Government. However, when the population becomes more diverse in terms of lifestyles, beliefs and values, challenges also arise. A multicultural society needs a policy for handling the challenges arising from this diversity. A white paper on diversity policy therefore underlines support of some common values and goals for social development which are basic features of a viable democracy. It is necessary that everybody respect these (universal) values (St.meld. nr. 49, 2003 2004). Much emphasis is put upon rights, responsibilities and equality of opportunity. This means that the individual immigrant has a moral obligation to integrate and «is responsible for actively participating in society»* (Ot.prp. nr. 50, 2003 2004). Equality

01/2007 103 depends on opportunities to participate, not least in working life, which is necessary for becoming economically independent and taking responsibility for oneself and one s family. Improved language and job training are of utmost importance in this respect. A basic element in the introductory programme is the 300 hours of training in Norwegian and social studies. Those who need further training will have the opportunity to take additional classes up to 3000 hours depending on individual needs. Moreover, completion of the 300-hours of language training will be a condition for acquiring a settlement permit and Norwegian citizenship (Thorud et.al., 2005). Only one-out-of-ten new arrivals, however, is entitled to a two-year introductory programme and two-out-of-ten are entitled to the 300 hours of free language training (Djuve, 2006); labour migrants must pay their own courses. Up until now language training for adult immigrants has not been very successful, in spite of the authorities gradually expanding efforts to improve the programme. We find a discrepancy between the intentions and the results. The policy initiatives have been governed by the necessity to do something for newly arrived immigrants, and have not been fully informed by knowledge about language training as an integration activity. The recently introduced compulsory programmes lasting up to two years, or up to 3000 hours, are promising in that they acknowledge that language acquisition is a challening and longterm enterprise. We regard the dual elements of forced learning and individual responsibility to participate as a political compromise combining welfare state paternalism and neo-liberal policy. This compromise, however, does not address the structural hindrances to inclusion and participation. Many new arrivals with a duty to participate do not receive free language training. We may agree in the often voiced opinion that language provision must be able to meet the needs of the immigrant as well as the needs of society, but success will depend on a number of factors, for instance the quality both of the education and of the teacher training. Teachers of Norwegian as a second language usually have completed basic training to teach children and adolescents. Many are not trained in how to meet the needs of adults, and certainly not adult immigrants. Years of practice have made some teachers excellent integration workers, but far from all. Above all, success of the language acquisition aspect of integration is dependent on meaningful communication and cooperation between all partners involved. This field of language training needs a new platform of knowledge and communication between the immigrant, the authorities and the field of language pedagogy. * Authors translation References Brochmann, G. (2003). «Citizens of multicultural states: Power and legitimacy». In The Multicultural Challenge. Comparative Social Research, vol. 22. Edited by Brochmann, G. Oxford: Elsevier. Bron, A. (2003). «From an immigrant to a citizen: Language as a hindrance or a key to citizenship». In International Journal of Lifelong Education, vol. 22, no. 6. Bø, B. P. (2004). Søkelys på den norske innvandringspolitikken. Kristiansand: HøyskoleForlaget.

104 NORSK TIDSSKRIFT FOR MIGRASJONSFORSKNING Carling, J. (1999). Arbeidsinnvandring og familiegjenforening 1967 1980. En oversikt med hovedvekt på statistikk. Oslo: Norges forskningsråd. Djuve, A. B. (2006). «Med rett til å lære. Det offentlige kvalifiseringsregimet for innvandrere og flyktninger». In Djuve, A. B., Kavli, H. C., and Lund, M., Integreringskart 2006. På vei mot en kunnskapsstatus ved etableringen av Integrerings- og mangfoldsdirektoratet. IMDI rapport 1/2006. Oslo: Inkluderings- og mangfoldsdepartementet (IMDI). Djuve, A. B. and Pettersen, H. C. (1997). Virker tvang? Erfaringer med bruk av økonomiske sanksjoner i integreringsprogram for flyktninger. Oslo: Fafo. Kjeldstadli, K. (2003) (ed.). Norsk innvandringshistorie, vol. 3. Oslo: Pax Forlag. KRD (2004). Framtidig organisering av forvaltningsapparatet på innvandrings- og integreringsfeltet. Hovedrapport fra Rambøll Management, København, DK. KUD (1988). Alfabetisering. Tilleggshefte til Rammeplan for 500 timer norsk med samfunnskunnskap for fremmedspråklige voksne. Oslo: Kirke- og undervisningsdepartementet. KUF (1992). Læreplan for grunnskoleopplæring for fremmedspråklige voksne. Oslo: Kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet. KUF (1998). Opplæringsplan i norsk med samfunnskunnskap for voksne innvandrere. Oslo: Kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet. Norberg, P. F. (1990). 70 språk i Norge. Språk. Morsmålsundervisning og morsmålslærere for språklige minoriteter. Oslo: Friundervisningens forlag. Norberg, P. F. (1994). Kvalifisere for Norge. Norsk med samfunnskunnskap for fremmedspråklige voksne 1970 1993.Trondheim: NVI. Norberg. P. F. (1998). Bedre norskopplæring. Tilstandsrapport om norsk med samfunnskunnskap for voksne innvandrere. Trondheim: NVI. Norberg, P. F. (2000). Pedagogisk utviklingsarbeid innenfor norsk med samfunnskunnskap for voksne innvandrere. Trondheim: Vox. Norberg, P P. F. (2002). Sluttrapport fra prosjektet Norskopplæring for voksne innvandrere 1998 2001. Trondheim: Vox. NOU 2003:19 Makt og demokrati. NOU 2004:20. Ny utlendingslov. Ot.Prp. no. 50 (2003 2004). Om lov om endringer i introduksjonsloven m.v. Rismark, M. (2000). Klasseromsstudie fra B-løp innenfor norsk med samfunnskunnskap for voksne innvandrere. Trondheim: NVI. SOU 2003:108 Folkbildning och integration. Skaalvik, S. (2001). Norsk med samfunnskunnskap for voksne innvandrere. En analyse av lærernes oppfatninger og erfaringer. Trondheim: VOX. Skaalvik, S. (2002). Et liv i to verdener. Innvandrernes møte med det flerkulturelle Norge. Trondheim: VOX. Steen-Olsen (2000). Ressurser og vilkår innen norskopplæring for voksne innvandrere. Trondheim: NVI. Steen-Olsen, T. (2001). Verdien av å lære norsk. Deltakergjennomstrømning, deltakeraktivitet og deltakeropplevelser innen norskopplæring for voksne innvandrere. Trondheim: Vox. St.meld. nr. 45 (1968 69). Om arbeidsmarkedspolitikken. St.meld. nr. 39 (1973 74). Om innvandringspolitikken. St.meld. nr. 74 (1979 80). Om innvandrere i Norge. St.meld. nr. 49 (2003 2004). Mangfold gjennom inkludering og deltakelse Ansvar og frihet.

01/2007 105 St.prp. nr. 1 (2006 2007) for budsjettåret 2007. Oslo: Arbeids- og inkluderingsdepartementet. Thorud, E. (2005). Migration outlook 2004/2005. Prepared for the correspondent to SOPEMI, OECD s reporting system on migration. SOPEMI Report for Norway. Oslo: SSB and UDI. Thorud, E., Haagensen, E., and Fanbust, A. (2006). International Migration 2005/2006. Prepared for the correspondent to SOPEMI, OECD s reporting system on migration. SOPEMI Report for Norway. Oslo: SSB and UDI. UDI (2006). Introduksjonsordning i utvikling. Statusrapport fra kommuners arbeid med nyankomne innvandrere pr. 1. september 2005. www.imdi.no. Vikki, M. T. (1980). «240-timers-ordningen.» En undersøkelse av den statsfinansierte norskopplæringen for voksne innvandrere. Oslo: Voksenopplæringsrådet.