IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Students with a foreign background in Italian Initial Vocational Education
and Training (IVET) and the access to Italian as Second Language

Luisa Daniele
ANPAL - Italian Agency for Active Labour Market Policy

27

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Abstract
This paper is based on the results of a 2014–2015 quantitative survey on a sample of 1,840
foreign students and 1,835 Italian students, of which, 41% of the Italians and 35% of those offoreign origins interviewed were female. The overall age was between 14 and 24, and thesestudents attended courses in the Initial Vocational Education and Training (IVET) system in
six Italian Regions: Emilia-Romagna, Lazio, Lombardy, Sicily, Tuscany, and Veneto.
Language is the central issue in the survey, both in relation to the construction ofmulticultural and transcultural identity, and as a bridge to combine localisms with the global
dynamics of migration, in its "dialect" edition. Some conclusive reflections on theenhancement of multilingualism in the Initial Vocational Education and Training (IVET)
system are proposed for the development of national strategies in order to strengthenintercultural teaching and curricula.
Keywords: young people of foreign origins in Italy; initial vocational education and training;
Italian as second language.

28

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Introduction
The main critical issue for Italy is the extreme heterogeneity of the drop-out rates in different
regions, with a steep increase in the regions of South Italy: 37.1% of 18–24 years-old dropout in upper secondary school reside in the South (in 2010–2011). The ISFOL1 research on
the outcomes of Initial Vocational Education and Training (IVET) in 2015 (“Occupati dalla
formazione. Seconda indagine sugli esiti occupazionali dei qualificati nei percorsi di IeFP –Employment and Vocational Training: second survey on occupational outcomes of qualified
young people” in IVET, ISFOL, 2014) reveals that the drop-out rates grow especially in thetransition from the first to the second year of upper secondary school. In the ISFOL (2014)
survey it is demonstrated that many of the young people who leave high schools are then"rescued" within the Vocational Training agencies, which provide curricula aiming atdelivering qualifications in the IVET system (from 2010–11 the IVET offer delivered in the
VET agencies concur to compulsory education). The IVET curricula delivered in the training
agencies are particularly appealing for this peculiar audience, the drop out component,
attracted by didactic styles connected with a “learning by doing” approach, and in need ofsupport and accompanying strategies, is witnessed by those who have attended a IVET
education path in the training agency (ISFOL, 2014) in terms of satisfaction and success.
Moreover, three years after qualification, 50% of the qualified students in IVET delivered by
the training agencies have already found their first job, thus performing better than thestudents that qualified from the education path delivered in schools: in this latter case the rate
diminishes at 38%.
Context Data
As for the contextual data, we see that the IVET in the 2014–15 educational year has had apositive trend, with more than 316,000 students enrolled in the triennial courses, that amounts
to the 11.3% of the total of the secondary cycle population (ISFOL, 2015).
The inclusive nature of the IVET – Initial Vocational Education and Training is evident,
incomparable with the parallel segments of our education system: in the year 2013–2014,
those students with foreign origins enrolled in IVET totaled 46,375, accounting for 16.9% of
total enrolments in IVET (except Islands, where data are not available) (ISFOL, 2015). If wecompare this data with that related to other educational pathways, we see that students withforeign origins in upper secondary school (general education) are only 6.6%, while in thetechnical and professional schools are 15.2% of total enrolments (ISFOL, 2015) (see Table 1).
Table 1: Students with foreign background in IVET pathways (I, II, III year), training year
2013–14 (v.a.; %).
Student
s withforeignoriginsintraining
agencies I-IIIyear(v.a.)
1

Total
enrolments inthetraining
agencies
I-III
year(v.a.)

Percentag
e ofstudents
withforeignorigins
enrolled
in thetraining
agencies

Student
s withforeignoriginsin theschools
I-III
year(v.a.)

Total
enrolmentsin theschool(general;technical;
professionalpathways)
I-III year

Percentage
of students
withforeignorigins
enrolled in
the school(general;technical;
profession

Total
pupils withforeignorigins
enrolled inthetraining
agencies +school(general;Total
students
withforeignorigins+
Italians inthetraining
agenciesand school

ISFOL is a public institute of research on VET and Labor Market, supervised by the Italian Ministry of Labor.

29

Percentage
of students
withforeignorigins
enrolled inthetraining
agenciesand in theIAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

I-III
(%)

Total

22,836 119,445(v.a.)

19.1

23,539155,321alpathways)
I-III year(%)

technical;
professionalpathways)
I-III year
(v.a.)

15.2

46,375(general;technical;
professionalpathways)
I-III year
(v.a.)

school(general;technical;
professionalpathways)
I-III year(%)
274,766
16.9

Source: data elaborated by ISFOL (2015).
Turning our attention to the presence of non-Italian pupils in the school system, theavailability of data collected annually from the 2001/2002 school year allows making someobservations on the flows recorded in the last decade. The National Report 2013/2014(Ministry of Education – MIUR ISMU, 2015) confirms a large increase of foreign students
in the school population in the period 2001/02 – 2013/14 from 196,414 in the 2001/2002
school year (2.2% of the total school population) to 802,844 pupils with foreign origins in the2013/2014 school year (9% of the total), although with a progressive deceleration from2008/09 to date, in relation to the effects of the economic crisis in Italy (Ministry of
Education – MIUR ISMU, 2015).
Generally, it is remarkable that foreign students enrolled between 2009/10 and 2013/14 grewby 19.2% compared with a decrease of -2.0% of Italian students and a decrease of -0.4% of
the total school population (ISFOL, 2015) (see Table 2 below).
Table 2: School population by citizenship, school-year 2009/10, 2011/12 and 2013/14(v.a.; %).
School year Non Italian citizenship Non Italian citizenship % Italians
Total
2009/10
673,592
7.5 8,283,493 8,957,085
2011/12755,939

8.4 8,204,227 8,960,166

2013/14802,785

9.0 8,117,329 8,920,114

Source: data elaborated by ISFOL (2015).
Pupils with Romanian citizenship (154,621), Albanian (107,847) and Moroccan (101,176) areamongst the largest groups attending the Italian school in the school year 2013/14, then thegroup of Chinese origin students (39,211) follows, together with the Filipino group (24,839)(MIUR, 2015). Female pupils with a foreign background are 385,365, or 48% of all foreign
students, a similar percentage is observed among native students (48.3%; MIUR, 2015).
Although in the Italian context some excellent practices in terms of the integration of pupils
with foreign origins can be observed, nevertheless, international indicators are notsatisfactory. An overview of the performance of foreign-born students is presented in thenational report OECD PISA (2012) elaborated in Italy by INVALSI (an Institute of Researchof the Italian Ministry of Education). From this data (representing 7.3% of immigrants, firstand second-generation students) it is evident that the performance of immigrant students (firstand second generation) are in all the observed disciplines – math, reading, science – lower
than those of the natives, with marked geographical disparities between the South and North:with regard to the different levels of skills in mathematics, native students tend to have30

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

significantly higher skills than those of students immigrants, with an average score of 490
against 442 seconds. Data confirms the orientation of the pupils with foreign origins to thetechnical and vocational training school, while only 20% of students with foreign origins
choose high schools with liberal arts curriculum (licei) (MIUR, 2015).
Italians follow a radically different model of choice with an extreme polarization of the
choices on liberal arts high school. Thus, 43.9% of Italian families choose high schools
focused on humanities or science education; 33.4% technical schools; and only 18.9%
vocational education. This data justifies concern of a kind of “segregation” of the school
population with foreign origins in technical and professional schools, but it is also plausible
to resize the data by reading it in relation to the aforementioned "polarization" of the choices,that is an extreme overrepresentation of liberal arts high schools among the Italian families, apeculiar phenomenon, if we compare the data representing school choices in higher
secondary level with the other major European economies.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the students with foreign origins born in Italy (socalled G2 – Second Generation) have chosen liberal arts high schools (licei) in percentage
superior to other generations of students with foreign origins: 33.8% choose high school,
while the choice of vocational schools falls to 29.8% against 39.8% for other generations offoreigners (MIUR, 2015), a sign of rebalancing in the distribution of educational choices
among Italian students and foreign students.
Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
The migration phenomenon has changed over the past years not only in the origin but also in
the type of flows. In fact, from temporary and non-resident, migration has become
increasingly more permanent. Immigration for the purpose of work, once the bulk of
immigration fluxes, now coexists with immigration for the purpose of family reunification
giving to the phenomenon of immigration a more permanent character (Ambrosini, 2004). In
this transition from one phenomenon to another, the issue of social assimilation and school
integration of children born in Italy or those newly arrived has become relevant.
Therefore, since the 1990s, it has been necessary to find a new framework with different
categories and paradigms for the studies on immigration in Italy and in Europe. Immigration
studies moved from the conceptual framework on the assimilation processes drafted by the
Chicago School from the beginning of the Twentieth century, and then evolved into threemodels focusing on the family, cultural and social relationships. In the Chicago School’s
conceptual framework, an ascendant linear process is identified with the abandonment of
ethnic identity in favor of the acceptance of the host middle class values and style of life, withthe acquisition of good education, a good vocational integration and a full acculturation;
secondly, a selective process is described, when the migrant retains the original ethnic
identity and it is also thanks to the strong ethnic and family ties that the young immigrant
improves his social position; finally, a descendant process (the downward assimilation in
Portes & Zhou, 1993), where the entry in the host society occurs only through access tomarginal and deviant groups, where ethnicity becomes a stigma of discrimination, with this,early school leaving and an attitude of rejection towards the host culture is widespread.
The European debate started from the categories developed in North American theories, but it
drifted in the direction of a deeper analysis not only of the integration dynamics, but also of
the assimilation processes. The European debate has also focused on the relationships among31

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

policies for active citizenship, education, training, work and the policies for migration. Theseissues have been rather neglected in American studies that tend to take for granted theinstitutional scenario of reference. European scholars have preferred to develop the debate on
integration rather than assimilation, basing their analysis on a comparison of the integration
contexts (Crul & Schneider, 2010) and then defining the integration process as an inclusive
path in the main host country institutions and focusing on the ways these relationships withthe economic, legal, cultural system are developed and their characteristics.
In Italy, moving from the scientific debate derived from the North American studies, aninterpretative model of the integration in the host society was proposed, from the combinationof two key variables: the economic integration and the cultural assimilation in the second
generation (Ambrosini, 2004) (see Table 3 below).
Table 3: The economic integration and the cultural assimilation in the second generation.
Cultural assimilation
Low

High

Economic integration
Low
Marginal assimilation: young
immigrants set inmarginalized anddiscriminated communities,
who develop oppositional
feelings toward the hostsociety and its rules
Anomicdeceptive
assimilation: acquisition ofwestern lifestyles, but in theabsence
of
tools
and
opportunities to obtain thenecessary means to haveaccess to the corresponding
consumption standards

High
Selective
assimilation:
academic
success
andeconomic progress favoured
by maintaining community
ties and different cultural
codes
Classical linear assimilation:
cultural assimilation, withthe abandonment of ancestral
identity, which goes hand inhand with the economic andsocial advancement

Source: Ambrosini & Molina (eds.), (2004).
The table above shows that the new category introduced by Ambrosini & Molina (2004), incompairison with those adopted by Portes & Zhou (1993), is the anomic or deceptive
assimilation, with an emphasis on consumptive and consumerist life style and not only on
only on cultural and social opportunities.
In particular, in the field of sociology of education, the question of the inclusion of young
immigrants in education and training courses is linked to the issues of identity and belonging:the definition of "second generation" given to the children of immigrants indicates that theimmigrant status is inherited even if it is not lived in the first place, that is, it refers to thestatus of newcomer and therefore liable to discrimination, to have difficulties in the
integration process, to be viewed with suspicion due to their ethnicity: all conditions thatchildren would share with their fathers (Ambrosini, 2004). On the contrary, other authors
insist on the fact that the young represent a new world in comparison with that of the fathers,
as they hold values, attitudes, opinions similar to those experienced by young natives in thesame age group, crossing over the identity of the native families and the values of the hostcommunities. In this perspective, the contribution of Besozzi (2009) is particularly interesting,as she identifies the transnational identity as a characteristic trait of the “second generation”:

32

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

children of migrants born in Italy or who have reached Italy in the school age. The so-called“second generation of migrants” share an identity with their peers in the native community
which is suspended between the global and local dimensions, despite their different origins.
The concept of transnationalism had already been mentioned in Anglo-Saxon studies (Glick
Schiller, Bach, & Szanton Blanc, 1992; Portes, 2003), and it indicates a new theoreticalparadigm where migrants and their children are not represented as passive subjects within the
inclusion/exclusion dynamics of the host communities, but as active subjects able to takeinitiatives according to their ambitions, the family values, the supranational relational
networks, thus determining the social and relational success for themselves and for theirchildren. This ability to bind the native and destination contexts, the original and the adoptive
cultures, indicate a chance for the second generation to take advantage from both the local
and global belonging for their aim of social, economic, relational improvement.
The Eurydice Report (2004) on school integration of immigrant children in Europe states that
two models are adopted in European countries: an integration model (with support provided
within the morning hours or in dedicated afternoon hours) and the separation model(immigrant children are organized in separated classes for a short or a long term).
Italy has chosen an intercultural paradigm where immigrant children are integrated inordinary classes, thus respecting the national post-unification tradition (post-1861) whendifferent children from different regions of Italy, with different origins, experiences, dialects(Vertecchi, 2001) were integrated in the same class, with the aim of educating the “newItalian citizen”.
So today, children with foreign backgrounds are integrated in the same mainstream classes.
Special measures are adopted depending on the strategies adopted by the Regional
educational policies, for example, the number of children in the class is limited, educational
activities to support the learning of Italian as a second language are added, or even artistic
activities, for all children, native and foreign are foreseen, to support intercultural awareness.
In this political framework, an Italian scholar has defined intercultural education as: "thetransformation of the educational context, through the implementation of communication
processes between people with different cultural orientations, attitudes and lifestyles"(Besozzi, (ed.), 2005, p. 48).
Methodology of Research
Moving from the conceptual framework and the context above outlined, the field of survey
has been defined as the analysis of the characteristics of the students with foreign origins
participating in the system of initial vocational training.
The first version of the questionnaire was built on the basis of these research issues. The
questionnaire then was subjected to a try-out test in order to verify the clarity of the questions,and the internal and external consistency.
The population of reference (pupils of foreign origin) in the training agencies was not known,
as not all Italian Regions (responsible for the planning of the training activities, according to
the Italian Constitution) keep the “foreign origins” variable when collecting data on thestudents attending initial vocational training courses. Thus, it was necessary to proceed to a33

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

two-stage sampling strategy, with the training agency considered as unit of reference. Theintersection and systematization of data has produced an initial 1968 database of certified
training agencies, from which the first-stage sample was selected. Moreover, a reserve list has
been extracted from the same database, in case the agencies from the main sample refuse toparticipate in the survey. The next step to a second-stage sampling has allowed theidentification of the students to be interviewed, but since the target population was only
partially known, it was not possible to build a pure probabilistic sample.
The research was carried out by ISFOL in 2014–2015 (Daniele, 2014; 2015a; 2015b); on
students with foreign background in IVET: 124 vocational training institutions in Lombardy,
Veneto, Emilia Romagna, Tuscany, Latium and Sicily were reached. 3675 questionnaires
were retained for the analysis, of which 1840 were filled in by students with foreign
backgrounds. Of this latter sub-sample, 149 pupils had a foreign parent and one parent bornin Italy (8.1%); 488 were students born in Italy, from foreign parents – G2 (26.5%); 212 were
pupils arrived in Italy when they were less than 6 years – G1.75 (11.5%); 541 were students
that arrived in Italy when they were between 6 and 12 years – G1.5 (29.4%); 434 werestudents arrived in Italy when they were between 13 and 17 years – G1.25. Only 16 (0.9%)
questionnaires were compiled by pupils arrived in Italy at the age of 18 or more – G1, (for thedefinition of G2; 1.5; G1.75; G2, see Rumbaut, 1997) this quota, being statistically notsignificant, it has not been considered in the detailed analysis (see Table 4).
Table 4: Students with a foreign background interviewed, according to the migratory
generation.
Students with a foreign parent and one parent born in Italy
Italian foreign students born in Italy G2.0
Students arrived in Italy when they were less than 6 years G1.75
Students arrived in Italy when they were between 6 and 12 years G1.5
Students arrived in Italy when they were between 13 and 17 years G1.25
Students arrived in Italy at the age of 18 or more – G1*
Total

Sample size
149
488
212
541
434
16
1840

%
8.1
26.5
11.5
29.4
23.6
0.9
100

*This quota, being statistically not significant, it has not been considered in the detailed
analysis.
Source: data elaborated by ISFOL (2015).
The core topics were: family situation and the migratory pathway; studies and training;satisfaction with the choice of VET and integration within the training centers; prospects andexpectations regarding employment; linguistic and social integration outside the training
context. The questionnaires were administered by ISFOL during the months of April-June
2013. The survey was financed by the Italian Ministry of Labor.
Results and Discussion
As stated above, the issue of the presence of foreign-born students, linked to the theme of thequality of the general education, has been present in the Italian scientific literature since theearly 1990s. Less attention has been paid to the presence of foreign students in vocational
training and education, not only in relation to the performance of pupils with foreign
backgrounds, but also with regard to the integration, identity and belonging to the peer groupin the training centres.

34

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

The term integration, therefore, refers also to the possibility of participation in a community,
thereby “recognizing a full existence active and conscious – not without conflict – of thesubjects to integrate” (Besozzi, Colombo, (eds.), 2012, p. 9). Thus, the question of integration,affiliation, personal identity formation, social and cultural development of the new citizens isrelevant from the dual point of view of the relations between individuals and between themand the larger society.
Against this background, the general hypothesis that motivates this article is that the identity
and cultural belonging is dynamically determined through the relationship with those whohave a similar linguistic and cultural origin, but also with the new groups met in the countryof destination. The relational dimension brings up a new paradigm concerning cultural
identity, linked to the exchange with the various human, spatial and temporal contexts.
The wide diffusion of Italian as a “lingua franca” for those who has arrived in Italy fromschool age, but also for newcomers, has been growing since the early Nineties. In fact, theterm of "Italian as second language" does not represent anymore the extensive andwidespread use of this language made by the young people with foreign origin in theexchanges with the natives, but also in inter-ethnic relationships.
Italian has become actually a "second mother tongue", visited and practiced, next to thematernal language of origin. Italian, in fact assumes an important place in the construction of
the identity for adults and young people, in the exchanges and in the narration of the personalor family migration. The Italian language then looks like:••••“The language of “survival” for the adults newly arrived in Italy;
the language of work and exchanges for those who reside here since longer;
the language “to certify" for those who demand the release of the residence permit;
the language “of the children” for foreign families, whose children every day bringat home new terms, new meanings and stories.”2

The context has therefore become very complex and diversified: the needs related toacquisition of Italian on behalf of the newly arrived adults and children, coexist with theneeds to refine the language, to better the mastery and quality of expression in the workplaceand in everyday situations, improving vocabulary, syntax, oral expression and writing. These
needs are linked to the expression of the self and the strengthening of the social roles of theadult or young adult (student, citizen, user, patient, etc.).
Table 5 shows that the percentage of students with foreign background attending Italiancourses as second language tends to increase with the age at arrival (from 14.4% to 70.6%).
Worryingly, 21.9% of young people arrived in Italy between 13 and 17 years old report nothaving attended any Italian course. An alarm bell is ringing for this generation of students
near to becoming full citizens at the age of 18 (see Table 5).

2

National Observatory of the integration of foreign students – Osservatorio nazionale per l’integrazione degli alunni stranieri e perl’intercultura, p. 3.

35

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

Table 5: Students who have attended Italian as second language courses (%).
Migratory generation

Yes, organized by
the school that I
attended before the
CFP
Yes, organized by
the CFP that I
attend now
Yes, organized byassociations orother bodies
No, I have notattended any
courses
No answer
Total

Italianforeignstudents bornin Italy G2.0

Students arrived in
Italy when they
were less than 6
years G1.75

21.2

10.8

33.9

49.0

3.6

1.8

2.0

10.4

6.1

1.8

4.7

11.2

56.2

79.6

54.9

21.9

12.9

6.0
100

4.5
100

7.5
100

100

Students arrived in Students arrived in
Italy when they
Italy when they
were between 6 and were between 13
12 years G1.5
and 17 years G1.25

Source: data elaborated by ISFOL (2015).
The questionnaire contained a question about the knowledge of Italian (speaking, reading andwriting competence), a self-assessed measure which can give the representation of theperceived easiness in the everyday use of Italian. In the comparison between pupils withforeign background and Italians, as far as speaking and reading is concerned, there is no great
difference: in both cases more than 90% of Italians and students with foreign origins declare
to be good or very good, it is so evident that the students with foreign origins have reachedthe level of native children. More distance is recorded for writing: 8.2% of the students with aforeign background say they are poor or very poor in writing, compared with 3.1% of the
Italian sample. If we consider into details this data, it is remarkable that 15.8% of the 1.25
Generation arrived aged between 13 and 17 years old (6.9% of G1.5; 3.9% of G1.75; 5.6 ofG2.0) affirms to be poor or very poor: the question should be posed whether this generation
will be able to bridge this important gap after the age of 18 without focused initiatives toavoid their permanent exclusion from an active and full citizenship.
Multilingualism is also a relevant issue. Italian educators are giving growing attention to thismatter, considering that multilingualism could, on one side, enrich the curriculum of themonolingual students giving them more instruments in an intercultural world, on the other,valorize the migratory history of the foreign students, who are otherwise made invisible intheir specificity. The foreign students, compared to Italian students, claim more frequently toknow at least one other language besides Italian and in 31.5% of cases, even three languages.
For Italians the second language indicated is predominantly English, while for students withforeign background, it is their mother tongue (Figure 1).

36

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

80

70.7
64.7

70
54.8

60

49.2

50
40
30
20

39.5

35.2
24

29.2
21.9

TWO languages
THREE languages

11.4

10
0
Italians

Italian foreign Students
Students
Students
students born arrived in Italy arrived in Italy arrived in Italyin Italy G2.0 when they
when they
when they
were less thanwere between were between
6 years G1.75 6 and 12 years 13 and 17
G1.5
years G1.25

Figure 1: Multilingualism: comparison among Italians and foreign students*; migratory
generations (Rumbaut, 1997); in %.
* Only valid responses "very good" and "fair" (in a scale of four values) to the question: canyou speak, read or write a foreign language (Italian included in "two" or "three" languages).
Source: data elaborated by ISFOL (2015).
The analysis of the use of the language in everyday situations gives counter-intuitive results:
Italian is the first language used by foreigners in relationships between peers, and this also
applies to the most recent generations that arrived in Italy, but it is even more relevant thatseveral generations of foreign boys and girls use Italian more frequently than the Italians,
who (for 20.5% of the Italian sample), in many regions, prefer to use a dialect instead of
Italian in their relationships with peers and within the family. Thus, in some regions the
Italian language has become a vehicular language for the relationships within institutions,even schools and training centers. It is then possible to observe the presence of bothintercultural and globalization dynamics and forces related to localism, which are still verystrong and rooted in all Italian regions (Table 6).
Table 6: Italian (and dialect) in everyday life (1^ choice; %).
Italians G 2.0 G1.75 G1.5 G1.25
79.5 82.3 87.4 78.3 67.2
Italian
1.4 15.0 10.1 19.4 31.8
Foreign language
19.1
2.7
2.5 2.3
1.0
Italian dialect
100
100
100
100
100
Total
1835 488
212 541434
v.a.
Source: data elaborated by ISFOL (2015)

37

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

The scene is completely different considering the language used in the relationships withfamily members: for the students with foreign backgrounds, their mother tongue becomes thefirst language spoken, even for the generations born in Italy (G 2.0) who still keep the mothertongue as the language which underlines their belonging to the native community. Similarly,
in a symmetrical perspective, for the Italian students, in one case out of five, it is the dialect –the language of identity – that is dominant in domestic relationships within the family (Table
7).
Table 7: First Language spoken in family relationships (1^ choice; %).
Italians G 2.0 G1.75 G1.5 G1.25
78.5 39.2 42.5 30.3 19.0
Italian
0.6 59.9 57.5 69.3 80.8
Foreign language
20.9
0.9
- 0.4
0.2
Italian dialect
100 100
100 100
100
Total
1835 488
212 541434
v.a.

Source: data elaborated by ISFOL (2015)
Conclusion
The above considerations, drawn from the results of research conducted by ISFOL, including
the context analysis carried out through the interviews with directors, teachers and tutors of
the training centers, lead us to present some concluding remarks in the field of strengtheningof Italian as second language and the enhancement of a multilingual presence in theclassroom as a cultural enrichment factor:a) First, it seems necessary to move from spontaneous and scattered interventions to asystematic and formal plan to develop the provision of Italian as second language at regionaland national level in primary education and for adults in the workplace. This plan should take
into account regional specificities and promote collaboration between institutions that alreadyhave accumulated significant experience in the field, like in the case of the Adult Learning
Centers, or the courses financed by the European Fund for the Integration-EFI, and theinitiatives promoted by the non-governmental organizations with quality standards at
European levels.
b) Secondly, it seems necessary not only to develop a training offer for the achievement of
the A2 level (corresponding to the beginner’s level in the Common European Framework ofReference for Languages – CEFR) in Italian as second language (this certificate is necessary
to get the residence permit for long-term residents), but also to develop devices and teaching
methods to reach the most vulnerable users, those who are illiterate or with low literacy. It isnecessary to develop learning content related to everyday situations. Also, it should no longer
be delayed in the development of content that meet even the highest levels of Italian language
command (B1, B2, C1, C2, in the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages – CEFR) for those who already received a tertiary education in their own country.
c) An alarm bell sounds for the foreign students that arrived in Italy that are aged 13 to 17
years: in 15.8% of cases they claim to have little or no expertise in writing in Italian. This38

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

circumstance can seriously impair their ability as citizens and workers in the absence ofspecific interventions for this group. Similarly, the argument can be extended to newly
arrived pupils, whatever their age on arrival. In fact, comparative research, analyzing PIAAC
data (Alieva Aigul, 2014), has demonstrated the limited usefulness of the model of“segregation” through the transit of newly arrived pupils in “special” classes before theirintroduction in general classes. Instead, the model of immediate “integration” in generalclasses, as it is in Italy, seems to give better results in terms of performance of the second
generation. Nevertheless, it is also true that today this practice is based mostly on theinformal capacity of learning and the adaptation of pupils of foreign origins, and it is
supported by competences, as well informal, in terms of multicultural pedagogy and teaching
methods, acquired by the teachers on the field. The provision of Italian as a second language
should be, on the contrary, individualized, and organized in 6–8 hours of teaching per weekwith teachers with specific preparation (Aluffi Pentini, 1995). Moreover, for foreign-bornstudents compensatory measures also should be considered: for example, the recognition of
the level of command in the mother-tongue and the recognition of "credits" for incoming
students from foreign school systems.
d) “The right to education can only be fully exercised if the learners master the specificlinguistic rules that are applied in schools and are necessary for access to knowledge. (. . .) In
this context, particular attention should be paid, right from the outset of schooling, to theacquisition of the language of schooling, which, as both a specific school subject and a
medium of instruction in the other subjects, plays a crucial role in providing access toknowledge and cognitive development” (Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers tomember States on the importance of competences in the language(s) of schooling for equity
and quality in education and for educational success (CM/Rec(2014)5), pg. 4). It is really
relevant to make students acquire a good understanding of the "micro-languages", thespecialized languages related to each discipline: “every school subject (history, art,
mathematics, etc., including the language of schooling as a specific subject) uses its own
specific forms of oral and written expression: students should master these forms in order tosuccessfully participate in school activities” (ibidem, p. 4). It is therefore important thatteachers are aware of their role as facilitators of learning, and that they are supported in thisrole. In the 2014 Recommendation of the Council of Europe on the importance ofcompetences in the language(s) of schooling, some operational runways are suggested for
those responsible for educational contents and programs to promote effective consideration of
the linguistic dimensions in the various school subjects by:
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

“Making explicit the specific linguistic norms and competences which learners must beable to master in individual school subjects;
making explicit in the programmes and curricula the learning modalities that should
allow all learners, and in particular the most vulnerable among them, to be exposed todiversified language-learning situations in order to develop their cognitive andlinguistic capacities;
highlighting, in the programmes, convergences in the linguistic dimensions of thevarious subjects, in such a way as to reinforce the effectiveness of the educational
project;
recalling, in the programmes for the language of schooling as a specific school subject,
the special place which this language holds because of its cross-cutting effect on all thelearning processes conducted in that language;
encouraging authors of educational materials to ensure that such materials explicitly
take account of the linguistic dimensions of the different subjects;

39

IAFOR Journal of Education

6.

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

continuing and extending research in this field.” (ibidem, p. 7).

40

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

References
Aileva A. (2014). Accumulation of socio-economic inequalities among native and non-native
students in comprehensive and stratified school systems, Paper, Metropolis Conference,
Milan, November 2014.
Aluffi Pentini A. (1995). Per una pedagogia antirazzista. Teorie e strumenti in prospettiva
europea, Junior.
Ambrosini, M., & Molina, S. (eds.) (2004). Seconde generazioni. Un’introduzione a futurodell’immigrazione in Italia. Torino: Fondazione Agnelli.
Besozzi, E. (ed.) (2005). I progetti di educazione interculturale in Lombardia. Dalmonitoraggio alle buone pratiche, Milano, Fondazione ISMU, Regione Lombardia,
Osservatorio regionale per l’integrazione e la multietnicità.
Besozzi, E. (ed.) (2009). Giovani stranieri, nuovi cittadini. Le strategie di una generazione
ponte, Milano, Franco Angeli.
Besozzi E., & Colombo M. (eds.) (2012). Relazioni interetniche e livelli di integrazione nelle
realtà scolastico formative della Lombardia, Milano, Fondazione Ismu, Regione
Lombardia, Osservatorio regionale per l’integrazione e la multietnicità.
Council of Europe, (2014) Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member Stateson the importance of competences in the language(s) of schooling for equity and quality
in education and for educational success, CM/Rec(2014)5.
Crul, M., & Schneider, J. (2010). Comparative integration context theory: Participation andbelonging in new diverse European cities, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(7), 1249–1268.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419871003624068
Daniele, L. (2014) Giovani immigrati di seconda generazione, formazione professionale,
occupabilità e cittadinanza attiva [Young second generation immigrants, vocational
training, employability and active citizens] Rome: ISFOL (ISFOL Research Paper,
2014/12).
Daniele, L. (2015 a). Gli allievi di origine straniera nella IeFP: percorsi, inclusione e
occupabilità [Students with foreign background in Initial VET: pathways, inclusion andemployability] Rome: ISFOL (ISFOL Research Paper, 2015/23).
Daniele, L. (2015 b). Gli allievi di origine straniera in percorsi di IeFP e l’accesso alla
lingua [Pupils with foreign background in IVET and the access to Italian as second
language] Rome (ISFOL Research Paper, 2015/28).
EURYDICE (2004). L’integrazione scolastica dei bambini immigrati in Europa, Bruxelles:
Eurydice.
Glick Schiller, N., Bach, L., & Szanton Blanc, C. (1992). Towards a transnational
perspective on migration. Race, class, ethnicity and nationalism reconsidered. New
York: New York Academy Series.

41

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 5 – Issue 3 – Winter 2017

ISFOL (2015). Occupati dalla formazione. Seconda indagine nazionale sugli esiti
occupazionali dei qualificati nei percorsi di IeFP. Roma: ISFOL.
Miur, Fondazione Ismu (2015). Alunni con cittadinanza non italiana. Approfondimenti eanalisi. Tra difficoltà e successi. Rapporto nazionale A.s. 2013/2014, Quaderni ISMU.
Miur (2015). Direzione generale per gli studi, la statistica e per i sistemi informativi –Servizio statistico, Gli alunni stranieri nel sistema scolastico italiano a.s. 2014/2015.
INVALSI (2012). OCSE – PISA, Rapporto nazionale. Roma: INVALSIPortes, A. (2003). Theoretical convergencies and empirical evidence in the study ofimmigrant transnationalism. International Migration Review, 37(3), 874–892.
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its
variants, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 530(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716293530001006
Rumbaut, R. (1997). Assimilation and its discontest: Between rethoric and reality.
International Migration Review, 31(4), pp, 923–960.
Vertecchi, B. (2001). La scuola italiana da Casati a Berlinguer. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Corresponding author: Luisa Daniele
Email: luisa.daniele69@gmail.com

42