What does integration mean?
Without a common understanding of this, is it possible to devise a valid and meaningful test?
In this panel debate we heard examples of completely inappropriate test items requiring respondents to describe in the target language how things are done “in your own country” even though they have been living in the target country since childhood. So clearly, integration tests need to be even more carefully constructed than they are at present.
And what is the purpose of integration and language tests for migrants?
On the one hand they can be used to keep people out. The main example used in this IATEFL panel was that of medical doctors who now require IELTS score of 7.5 in order to practice in the UK, but which some question, both on the grounds of whether such a high score is needed and whether attaining 7.5 actually helps you to deal with a typical Saturday night in A & E. So is a test that was not developed specifically for medical staff a good indicator of likely language competence in the job?
On the issue of refugees, it is clear that governments struggle with the issue of whether to ensure a certain basic language level before requiring them to apply for jobs, or whether starting a job would be the best way of learning the language. Language professionals would probably argue that although you can learn a great deal on the job, you need a professionally designed framework to ensure a higher level of language learning. This has been the experience in Germany with the great influx of refugees where volunteers have been inviting migrants to their homes for language learning but where the effect has not been very good and migrants have recognised this and stop attending.
It turns out that binary options are not sufficient to address the issues.
For example, you could make a case for ensuring that language classes do not just take place in the classroom but also include a level of contact with the local community both to embed real language use and to jump start the integration process and avoid the development of ghettos and parallel societies. This sounds like a really good idea especially in the context of research results mentioned by Piet Van Avermaet from Belgium, where they had asked migrants who had taken the Belgian integration test whether it had had a social impact. The answer was a resounding no, because the migrants had been tested on knowledge but lacked the contact with the local community to make sense of what they had learned.
Integration tests have also been used aggressively to keep people out of a country, for example where they are used to test whether a spouse should be allowed to join their husband or wife. So in this case the integration test is not a badge of accomplishment but rather a barrier to be breached with no further use for integration, however that is defined.
Horatio Clare, the author, gave some great examples of integration that he had experienced during his travels, which included fitting in without knowing the local language! So this puts into question the idea that a language test can also be an integration test at the same time.
In Denmark, the politicians are discussing dropping the initial language classes and requiring refugees to enter the labour market straightaway. Having met quite a number of refugees over the last six months now, I see problems with this as many of them not only have no Danish skills whatsoever at the beginning, of course, but do not even have a mutually understandable third language such as English or German, so I am doubtful that there are many jobs that they could tackle in this extremely automated and digital economy.
Watch the whole debate below.