LINGUISTIC INTEGRATIONOF ADULT MIGRANTS:REQUIREMENTS AND
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

Migration is one of the most contentious issues in current
international politics. To better understand this issue, the Councilof Europe conducted an extensive survey among Council ofEurope member states on requirements regarding language andknowledge of society that migrants must meet to obtain accessto the country, residency or citizenship. This report, based on thatsurvey, will be relevant to anybody interested in migration andlanguage policy.

EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY

PREMS 112819

It pays particular attention to vulnerable learner groups and thedegree to which member states provide migrants with adequate
learning opportunities. In addition to discussing current trends, italso shows that language and knowledge of society requirements
were gradually made stricter between 2007 and 2018. Basedon the survey results and on available research, the authors
formulate a number of policy recommendations, emphasising
the importance of providing adequate learning opportunities
and warning against requirements that might hinder, rather thanfoster, integration.

ENG
The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading
human rights organisation. It comprises 47
member states, including all members of
the European Union. All Council of Europe
member states have signed up to the European
Convention on Human Rights, a treaty
designed to protect human rights, democracy
and the rule of law. The European Court of
Human Rights oversees the implementationof the Convention in the member states.
http://book.coe.int
PDF - ISBN 978-92-871-8974-5€8/US$16
9 789287

189745

Report on the 2018
Council of Europe and ALTE
survey on language and knowledgeof society policies for migrants

LINGUISTIC INTEGRATIONOF ADULT MIGRANTS:REQUIREMENTS AND
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIESREPORT ON THE 2018
COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND ALTESURVEY ON LANGUAGE
AND KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIETY
POLICIES FOR MIGRANTS
Lorenzo Rocca, Università per Stranieri di Perugia, Italy
Cecilie Hamnes Carlsen, Western Norway Universityof Applied Sciences, Norway
Bart Deygers, KU Leuven, Belgium

Council of Europe

The opinions expressed in this work are
the responsibility of the author(s) anddo not necessarily reflect the official
policy of the Council of Europe.
All rights reserved. No part of thispublication may be translated, reproduced
or transmitted, in any form or by anymeans, electronic (CD-Rom, internet, etc.)
or mechanical, including photocopying,recording or any information storage or
retrieval system, without prior permission
in writing from the Directorate ofCommunication (F-67075 Strasbourg
Cedex or publishing@coe.int).
Cover photo: iStockCover: SPDP, Council of Europe
Layout: SPDP, Council of Europe
Council of Europe Publishing
F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex
http://book.coe.int
PDF - ISBN 978-92-871-8974-5© Council of Europe, January 2020
Printed at the Council of Europe

Contents
LIST OF FIGURES		LIST OF TABLES		FOREWORD BY THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
FOREWORD BY ALTE		EXECUTIVE SUMMARY		INTRODUCTION		

4
5
7
9
11
15

The organisation of the 2018 survey

15

Council of Europe states responding to the 2018 survey

16

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)

17

Structure of the report

19

Chapter 1 – ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY DATA

211.1. Language and knowledge of society requirements

22

1.2. Tests

36

1.3. Learning opportunities

Chapter 2 – VULNERABLE GROUPS
2.1. Minors, low-literate learners, refugees

Chapter 3 – DEVELOPMENTS FROM 2007 TO 2018

39

43
43

49

3.1. Pre-entry requirements

51

3.2. Permanent residency requirements

53

3.3. Citizenship requirements

56

Chapter 4 – DISCUSSION

61

4.1. Using language and knowledge of society tests
for integration purposes61

4.2. The lack of agreement about what level is needed
for the same context

62

4.3. The CEFR – its intentional purpose and how it is (mis)used

62

4.4. Providing migrants with opportunities to learn

63

4.5. Vulnerable groups – learning a language and passing
a test is not equally easy for all

64

4.6. KoS tests as implicit language and literacy tests

64

Chapter 5 – RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Learning opportunities

67
67

5.2. Promoting integration

67

5.3. Paying particular attention to vulnerable groups

68

5.4. Test quality

68

5.5. Responsible use of tests

69

5.6. Responsible use of the CEFR

69

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGAPPENDIX		

71
75

Page 3

List of figures
Figure 1 – Number of Council of Europe member states responding to surveys(2007-2018)		

17

Figure 2 – Council of Europe member states responding to the 2018 survey

21

Figure 3 – Countries setting formal requirements for different contexts (percentages) 22
Figure 4 – Countries surveyed with pre-entry language requirements

23

Figure 5 – Pre-entry language requirements (raw numbers)

24

Figure 6 – Countries with language/KoS requirements for temporary residency

24

Figure 7 – Language requirements for temporary residency (raw numbers)

26

Figure 8 – Countries with language/KoS requirements for permanent residency

27

Figure 9 – Language level requirements for permanent residency (raw numbers)

29

Figure 10 – Countries with language and/or KoS requirements for citizenship30

Figure 11 – Language level requirements for citizenship (raw numbers)

32

Figure 12 – Countries setting language and/or KoS requirements (2018)(percentages)		

33

Figure 13 – Language level requirements across contexts

34

Figure 14 – Stages in requirements within Council of Europe member states (2018) 36
Figure 15 – KoS test content

38

Figure 16 – KoS test format

39

Figure 17 – KoS course characteristics – language of tuition

41

Figure 18 – KoS course characteristics – mode of tuition

41

Figure 19 – Language courses for vulnerable groups

46

Figure 20 – Pre-entry requirements in 2009, 2013 and 2018 (raw numbers)

52

Figure 21 – Pre-entry requirements (19 member states)

53

Figure 22 – Permanent residency requirements in 2007, 2009, 2013 and 2018
(raw numbers)		

55

Figure 23 – Permanent residency requirements (subset)

56

Figure 24 – Citizenship requirements in 2007, 2009, 2013 and 2018 (raw numbers) 58
Figure 25 – Citizenship requirements (subset)

Page 4 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

59

List of tables
Table 1 – The CEFR global scale

18

Table 2 – A proficiency profile – overall proficiency in one language

19

Table 3 – Pre-entry language requirements (2018)23

Table 4 – Language requirements for temporary residency

25

Table 5 – KoS requirements for temporary residency

26

Table 6 – Language requirements for permanent residency

28

Table 7 – KoS requirements for permanent residency

29

Table 8 – Language requirements for citizenship

31

Table 9 – KoS requirements for citizenship

33

Table 10 – Requirements for the different stages: list of countries (2018)35

Table 11 – Language test quality

36

Table 12 – KoS test characteristics

37

Table 13 – Language courses

40

Table 14 – Hours of language tuition provided free of charge

40

Table 15 – Exemptions from language and KoS requirements for vulnerable groups 45
Table 16 – Learning opportunities for vulnerable groups

45

Table 17 – Hours of language tuition provided free of charge for low-literate learners 47
Table 18 – Participating countries through the years

49

Table 19 – Pre-entry requirements in 2009, 2013 and 201851

Table 20 – Pre-entry requirements over time (19 member states)

52

Table 21 – Permanent residency requirements in 2007, 2009, 2013 and 2018

54

Table 22 – Permanent residency requirements over time (subset)

55

Table 23 – Citizenship requirements since 2007

56

Table 24 – Citizenship requirements over time (19 member states)58

﻿ Page 5

Foreword by theCouncil of EuropeT

he Council of Europe has been actively promoting plurilingualism and linguistic
diversity since its foundation. The European Cultural Convention (1954) invites
the contracting parties to encourage their citizens to study the languages ofother parties and facilitate that by providing necessary means (Article 2). A particular emphasis on migrant language teaching and learning was introduced with
Resolution (68) 181 on concerning the teaching of languages to migrant workers,
issued by the Committee of Ministers in 1968, and further strengthened with theestablishment of the Linguistic Integration of Adult Migrants (LIAM) project in 2006.
While recognising the importance of language skills for social inclusion, access to
education and employment, and human rights, the Parliamentary Assembly of theCouncil of Europe has expressed concern that formal language requirements forresidency and citizenship may hinder, rather than foster, integration (Council ofEurope Parliamentary Assembly 2013, 2014). It is important to raise awareness ofthe potential for exclusion rather than inclusion of formal language requirements forentry, residency and citizenship, since even though “language competences are an
important component of integration, they cannot be a pre-condition for integration,
since acquiring a language is potentially a lifelong process” (Thalgott 2017, p. V).
This report presents the results of a survey carried out in 2018 by the Council ofEurope and the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE). It forms part of
the Council of Europe 2018-2019 Education for Democracy programme – “Inclusive
approaches in education: language education for migrant/refugee children andadults”,2 embedded in the Council of Europe contribution to the United Nations 2030
agenda. Within ALTE, the LAMI (Language Assessment for Migration and Integration)
Special Interest Group3 took on the responsibility for administering the survey, analysing the survey data and writing the report.
Sjur Bergan
Head of Education Department
September 2019

1. Available at https://rm.coe.int/native/09000016804d7d70.
2. Available at https://rm.coe.int › presentation-new-programme-ed-2018-2019-final.
3. Available at www.alte.org/LAMI-SIG.
﻿ Page 7

Foreword by ALTEThis survey represents another important milestone in the collaboration between
the Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) and the Council of Europe.

ALTE is a multilingual organisation that has the status of an international
non-governmental organisation (INGO) with participatory status in the Council ofEurope. There are three main aspects to its mission in the field of language assessment: setting standards, sustaining diversity and maximising impact.
As an INGO for the past 30 years, all three aspects have been prominent in the contributions that ALTE members have made, and ALTE has contributed to a large numberof Council of Europe initiatives in the wider field of language education. Since its
inception, ALTE has participated in the development and validation of the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and its related resources.
This has enabled ALTE members to contribute their multilingual perspectives on
language proficiency standards and to bring their expertise in language assessment
to bear on many important issues related to policy making.
In order to achieve a positive impact and to promote diversity across a wide range ofsocietal contexts, ALTE has established a number of special interest groups (SIGs) andmost relevant to this report is the work of the Language Assessment for Migration
and Integration (LAMI) SIG. This SIG was established in 2002 when it was alreadyapparent that language tests were increasingly being used within the context of
migration in several European countries. Since then, the LAMI SIG has enabled ALTE
to engage in the widening debate on the use of assessment in migration policy, ata time when the range of assessment purposes has become more extensive – andconsequently more controversial.
Our aim has been to advocate for greater understanding of assessment principles
and practices, to ensure that only valid and reliable tests are used to make important decisions, and to achieve policy goals, such as the successful integration of
newcomers. Recently the scope of this work has widened to bring in perspectives
on social justice and plurilingualism.
The LAMI booklet, “Language tests for access, integration and citizenship: An outline
for policy makers”, was produced on behalf of the Council of Europe for this purpose(ALTE 2016) and is available in a number of languages in addition to English.
The current report provides a useful and very thorough update on the “state of play”
across Europe with regards to policies and current practices in over 40 countries.
It clearly shows the trend that has been followed over the past decade for the﻿ Page 9increasing use of tests and it highlights a number of inconsistencies or gaps in policythat are problematic. For example, the authors note cases where there is a lack of
relevant research and quality management measures to ensure that the tests are fit
for purpose. Another cause for concern is where knowledge of society tests are used
as covert language tests. These problems can lead to negative impacts on vulnerable
groups, such as minors and low-literate adults.
Through more effective engagement with policy makers using this report and similar kinds of evidence, it is hoped that ALTE can continue to advocate for realistic
improvements to policies that can foster better practice and lead to fairer outcomesfor all concerned.

Dr Nick Saville
ALTE Secretary-General
September 2019

Page 10 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Executive summaryT

he purpose of the present report is to offer an up-to-date picture regarding
language and knowledge of society (KoS) requirements for migrants in Councilof Europe member states in 2018. The report contains data collected in the
fourth iteration of the Council of Europe survey on language and KoS policies for
migrants, and aggregates the results of the previous surveys, thus providing an
overview of policy trends in member states from 2007 to 2018.

HIGHEST PARTICIPATION RATE TO DATEThe 2018 survey is larger in scope than any of the previous Council of Europe surveys
and contains more detailed information regarding test procedures and learning
opportunities.
A clear majority of Council of Europe member states responded to the 2018 survey.
As in the earlier surveys, Flanders and Wallonia (respectively the Dutch-speaking
and French-speaking regions of Belgium) were considered as two distinct regions,since they have legislative autonomy regarding migration and integration policies.
As a result, this report covers 40 member states but 41 different contexts/regions.

NO LANGUAGE AND/OR KoS REQUIREMENTS IN SEVEN MEMBERSTATESAt the time of data collection, 7 of the 40 member states surveyed had no language
or KoS requirements prior to entry, for temporary or permanent residency, or for
citizenship. However, some member states have other, often financial, requirementsfor prospective residents, which are beyond the scope of the survey.

PRE-ENTRY REQUIREMENTS ARE THE EXCEPTION, CITIZENSHIPREQUIREMENTS THE NORM
Most member states that set language and/or KoS requirements do so in relation
to citizenship (n = 33) or in relation to permanent residency (n = 21). Comparatively
few countries report requirements for temporary residency (n = 13) or prior to entry(n = 10).
Page 11

SAME CONTEXT, LACK OF UNIFORMITY
Where member states have formal language requirements prior to entry, for residency
or for citizenship purposes, these requirements are typically expressed in CEFR levels.
Since most member states refer to the same six-level proficiency scale it is possible
to compare the language requirements across contexts and member states.
While there is some consistency regarding the most commonly required levels fora given context, there are notable differences between the member states with thehighest and lowest requirements for the same context. Pre-entry requirements varyfrom no requirements at all to A1 level. Temporary residency requirements vary fromno requirements to B1. The most commonly set levels for temporary residency are
A1 and A2. Permanent residency requirements vary from no requirements to B1.
Citizenship requirements vary from no requirements to B2.

LACK OF RESEARCH AND QUALITY CONTROL
Only 8 of the 33 member states which have requirements related to language
proficiency or knowledge of society indicate that their requirements are based on
research. If research is conducted, in most cases it is based on consultation withlanguage professionals within the country rather than on empirical data.
Only half of the member states in which passing a language test is a precondition
for entry, residency or citizenship use standardised language tests, meaning that
half of the member states use assessment tools that are unstandardised and maylack validity. Only seven member states report that the language tests used havebeen subject to external quality control (audit) by ALTE.4

KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIETY TESTS CAN BE COVERT LANGUAGETESTSNearly half of the member states surveyed require migrants to pass a KoS test prior toentry, to gain residency or citizenship status. Most often these tests focus on history
and geography, constitution and law, or customs and traditions of the host country.
In 9 out of 10 cases KoS tests are in an official language of the host country, andthey typically require reading skills. As such, KoS tests function as implicit language
and literacy tests. In quite a few cases it is likely that the language proficiency levelneeded to pass the KoS test exceeds the CEFR level of the language test.

LANGUAGE COURSES: UP TO 250 HOURS ARE OFTEN PROVIDED
In nearly all of the member states/regions surveyed, language courses for migrants
are provided and, in the majority, courses are provided and/or financed by thegovernment and their quality is controlled. Half of the member states surveyed
provide language courses completely free of charge for all migrants, while one third
4. See www.alte.org/Setting-Standards.

Page 12 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

provide free courses for certain groups of migrants. Most member states provide up
to 250 hours, sometimes up to 500 hours and several provide more than 500 hoursof language tuition. More than 1 000 hours are rarely provided.

POLICY RARELY CONSIDERS VULNERABLE GROUPS
Vulnerable groups including minors, low-literate learners and refugees are only
rarely catered for in language or knowledge of society courses. Moreover, very few
Council of Europe member states provide systematic exemptions from language orknowledge of society requirements for vulnerable groups.
Low-literate learners are rarely provided with a sufficient number of hours of instruction to reach the language level required.

INCREASED USE OF REQUIREMENTS SINCE 2007
The use of language and KoS requirements as part of migration and integration
policies has become gradually more common in Council of Europe member statessince the first survey was conducted in 2007. The number of member states setting
language and/or KoS requirements as part of their citizenship policy has doubled
between 2007 and 2018. Also, the number of member states setting requirements
for residency purposes or prior to entry has substantially increased since 2007. In
addition, the specific language proficiency levels required for different purposes
have gone up. While only one country had a B2 requirement for citizenship in 2007,
the number has increased to four in 2018.

Executive summary Page 13

Introduction

For the past two decades a growing number of European countries have introduced language and knowledge of society (KoS) requirements as part of theirimmigration and integration policies. While rarely practised before the year
2000, most countries in Europe today have formal language and KoS requirements
for citizenship, residency and/or entrance to the country. As the findings of thisreport reveal, however, the actual level of language proficiency required varies
considerably from one country to the next, as does the degree to which states
provide migrants with learning opportunities through tailored and free-of-charge
language and KoS courses.
The purpose of the 2018 survey presented in this report has been to map the language
and KoS requirements, as well as the learning opportunities, provided for migrants5in the Council of Europe member states. The Council of Europe conducted similar
surveys in 2007, 2009 and 2013,6 which makes it possible to report trends in language policies over time. A new feature in the 2018 survey is the particular attention
dedicated to vulnerable groups, such as minors, low-literate migrants and refugees.
In addition to explicit language requirements, many countries set KoS requirements.
Typically, KoS tests contain multiple-choice questions about the society, culture,
history and law of the host country. When the KoS test is in writing and presented
in the majority language, KoS tests are de facto implicit reading and language tests,
since passing the test requires both literacy and knowledge of the majority language.

THE ORGANISATION OF THE 2018 SURVEY
To compare the results of the 2018 survey with the previous Council of Europe surveys and to investigate policy trends over time, the experts took the 2013 survey asa starting point. The 2013 survey was improved for clarity and new questions wereadded to collect specific data about minors, low-literate migrants and refugees. The
2018 computer adaptive survey is composed of three sections: (1) language and KoS
requirements for entrance, temporary residency, permanent residency and citizenship;(2) learning opportunities for language and KoS; and (3) language and KoS tests.
5. In this survey, the term “migrants” refers to third country nationals, thus including asylum seekers
and refugees, minors, economic migrants and those who entered the host country for family
reunion. Foreign students and workers from within the EU/EEA are not the focus here.
6. Available at www.coe.int/it/web/lang-migrants/surveys.

Page 15

The survey was launched in September 2018 and conducted in French and English.
The data collection period lasted until November 2018. An invitation to participate
was sent via e-mail directly to government officials dealing with integration/immigration affairs in the 47 Council of Europe member states, and a link to the survey
was made available on the Council of Europe webpage. Factual checks were carriedout through consultation with ALTE experts and policy documents online.7

COUNCIL OF EUROPE STATES RESPONDING TO THE 2018 SURVEY
The survey was completed by 41 government-affiliated respondents. For 21 countries
we received additional replies from individual respondents who were not government
affiliated but had professional ties to the topic of the survey. These answers werecompiled in a secondary dataset, which was used for data triangulation. To increase
the reliability of the study, both datasets were taken into consideration: when thedata related to the same country mismatched in the two datasets and the second
dataset was credible,8 we consulted publicly available policy texts to determine
which answer was accurate.
The 40 Council of Europe states (41 regions) covered in the 2018 survey are as
follows (in alphabetical order): Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Belgium (Dutch
speaking, hereafter Belgium (Fl.)), Belgium (French speaking, hereafter Belgium(Fr.)),9 Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova,
Monaco, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey and the United Kingdom (UK).10 The number of Council of Europe member
states covered by the 2018 survey exceeds that of previous Council of Europe surveys
about requirements for immigration and integration (see Figure 1).

7. It has not been possible to include the voice of migrants in this survey. For a study of migrants’
own perspectives, we refer readers to Strik et al. (2010) and Khan (2019).
8. Responses were considered credible when they provided specific details and/or aligned withlongitudinal policy trends of that country.
9. In this report, the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking regions of Belgium are treated as two
distinct contexts since their legislation regarding residency requirements is federalised. The legislation regarding nationality and citizenship applies to the two communities.
10. More member states replied, but the answers were not sufficiently complete to be included inthis report.

Page 16 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Figure 1 – Number of Council of Europe member states responding to surveys(2007-2018)

37

40

32
26

2007

2009

2013

2018

THE COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE FORLANGUAGES (CEFR)
Many Council of Europe states link their formal language requirements for entry,
residency and citizenship to the language levels described in the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001).11 It should
be pointed out that using the CEFR to set language criteria to control migration
deviates from the CEFR’s intended purpose, which was to promote the free movement of people and ideas.
The CEFR was developed by the Council of Europe over a period of 30 years with the
purpose of promoting mobility and communication across Europe. The underlying
value upon which the CEFR rests is respect for linguistic and cultural diversity. The
CEFR forms part of the Council of Europe’s goal to ensure high-quality education asa right of all citizens. The CEFR contains detailed descriptions of second language
proficiency on a six-point scale ranging from A1 (lowest) to C2 (highest).12 The levels
are described in more than 50 illustrative scales. An overall description of the levels
is given in the global scale, presented in Table 1 below:

11. Readers who are unfamiliar with this document may wish to consult the CEFR self-assessment
grid available online in 32 languages at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-frameworkreference-­languages/table-2-cefr-3.3-common-reference-levels-self-assessment-grid.
12. In 2018 a companion volume to the CEFR was published online by the Council of Europe. In
the companion volume, a new level below A1 was added (pre-A1). See https://rm.coe.int/
cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989.

Introduction Page 17

Table 1 – The CEFR global scale

C2

Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing
arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/
herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer
shades of meaning even in more complex situations.

C1

Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise
implicit meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously
without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can
produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing
controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.

B2

Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete andabstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes
regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for
either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects
and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages anddisadvantages of various options.

B1

Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar mattersregularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with mostsituations likely to arise while travelling in an area where the language isspoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of
personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes andambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.

A2

Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related toareas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family
information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate
in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of
information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms
aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters inareas of immediate need.

A1

Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic
phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce
him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal
details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/shehas. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly
and clearly and is prepared to help.

Most learners do not achieve the same CEFR language level in every skill (reading,listening, writing and speaking). It is common for learners to perform better (i.e. ata higher level) in the receptive skills (reading and listening) than in the productive
skills (writing and speaking). Low-literate learners often perform better in the oral
modes (listening and speaking) than in the written modes (reading and writing).
Page 18 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Page 18

The reason why the CEFR includes more than 50 descriptor scales is precisely to
encourage users of the CEFR to develop differentiated profiles (Council of Europe2018). An illustration of a hypothetical learner’s proficiency profile is presented inTable 2 below.
Table 2 – A proficiency profile – overall proficiency in one language
Pre-A1

A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

Listening comprehension
Reading comprehension
Spoken production
Written production
The proficiency levels and descriptors of what a learner can do at different levels areillustrative only. They are intended to be used selectively and to be adapted to thesituation, needs, abilities and educational experiences of the learners. When using
the CEFR, then, it is important to start from the real-life language needs of migrants,
rather than with a specified proficiency level.

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORTThe rest of this report is structured as follows. Chapter 1 presents the findings ofthe 2018 survey in relation to its three main parts: requirements, tests and learning
opportunities. Chapter 2 examines learning opportunities and exemption fromrequirements in relation to particularly vulnerable learner groups (minors, low-­
literate learners and refugees). Chapter 3 provides an overview of the developments
in language and KoS legislation from 2007 to 2018. Chapter 4 discusses the resultsand Chapter 5 puts forward empirically based policy recommendations.
It should be mentioned that the immigration and integration policies of the Councilof Europe member states are more complex than can be fully covered by a survey ofthe present kind and a relatively short report. The report will therefore necessarily
be a somewhat simplified presentation of main trends.

Introduction Page 19

Chapter 1

Analysis of the survey
data
Figure 2 – Council of Europe member states responding to the 2018 survey

Some 4113 of the 47 Council of Europe member states/regions (87%) responded to the2018 survey. Figure 2 displays the responding countries, showing a good coverageof the Council of Europe member states.

13. The Dutch- and the French-speaking parts of Belgium are treated as two different regions since
their integration legislation differs.

Page 21

1.1. LANGUAGE AND KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIETY REQUIREMENTS
Of the 41 member states/regions responding to the 2018 survey, seven member
states (Andorra, Bulgaria, Ireland, Monaco, San Marino, Serbia and Sweden) do nothave explicit language requirements at any stage of the immigration and integration
processes. In some of these countries, migrants are subject to other forms of scrutiny(e.g. financial), but those criteria fall outside the scope of this survey.
Of the responding member states/regions, 34 of the 41 (83%) have language
requirements at one, some, or all of the following stages: pre-entry, temporary residency, permanent residency or citizenship. As Figure 3 shows, 78% (n = 32) of the
responding Council of Europe member states/regions set formal language and/or
KoS requirements for citizenship. In 21 (51%) and 13 (32%) member states respectively, requirements exist for permanent and temporary residency; 10 member states
have set pre-entry requirements, while 17% of the member states (n = 7) report no
language or KoS requirements as part of their integration/immigration policy.
Figure 3 – Countries setting formal requirements for different contexts (percentages)
90%

78%

80%
70%
60%

51%

50%
40%

32%

30%
20%

17%

24%

10%
0%

No requirement

Pre-entry

Temporaryresidency

Permanent
residency

Citizenship1.1.1. Pre-entry requirements
Pre-entry requirements imply that a certain level of proficiency in the language ofthe host country and/or knowledge of society is demanded even before entering
the country. Pre-entry requirements are typically demanded of a person seeking
family reunification with his or her spouse who is already settled in the host country.

1.1.1.1. Pre-entry language requirements
The 2018 survey reveals that 10 of the 41 member states/regions (24%) require that
immigrants demonstrate a certain level of proficiency in the language of the hostcountry and/or knowledge of society before entering the country. Member stateswith pre-entry requirements in 2018 are Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania,
the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Romania, Turkey and the UK (Figure 4).
Page 22 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Figure 4 – Countries surveyed with pre-entry language requirements

Of the 10 member states setting pre-entry language requirements, 5 require A1 levelin all 4 skills and 2 require A1 in 2 out of 4 skills. Three countries do not specify thelevel requirement (Table 3).
Table 3 – Pre-entry language requirements (2018)
Listening

Reading

Speaking

Writing

Austria

A1

A1

A1

A1

France

A1

A1

A1

A1

Germany

A1

A1

A1

A1

Hungary

Unspecified

Lithuania

Unspecified

Netherlands

A1

North Macedonia

A1
Unspecified

Romania

A1

A1

A1

A1

Turkey

A1

A1

A1

A1

UK

A1

A1

Analysis of the survey data

Page 23

Figure 5 presents the pre-entry requirements graphically and shows that the largest
number of member states (n = 30, 73%) do not have pre-entry requirements. Amongthe member states that do have these requirements, A1 is the most commonly
required level. Respondents representing three member states did not specify thelevel required.
Figure 5 – Pre-entry language requirements (raw numbers)
35
30

30

25
20
15
10
5

3

2

Unspecified

A1 in twoskills50Norequirement

A1

1.1.1.2. Pre-entry KoS requirements
Respondents from two member states (the Netherlands and Turkey) reported
pre-entry KoS requirements.

1.1.2. Temporary residency
Figure 6 – Countries with language/KoS requirements for temporary residency

Page 24 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Of the member states surveyed, 13 (32%) have language and/or KoS requirements for
temporary residency. At the time of data collection, the following member states hadlanguage and/or KoS requirements: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy,
Malta, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Romania, Russia, Turkey and the UK (Figure 6).

1.1.2.1. Language requirements for temporary residency
Table 4 below displays the level of language required for temporary residency. As isclear from the table, most member states with language requirements for temporary residency require the same level in the four language skills (listening, reading,speaking and writing). Only three countries (Italy, Germany and the UK) set different
level requirements in different language skills for temporary residency: Italy has norequirement in reading, writing and listening, but has an A2 requirement in speaking,Germany has an A1 requirement in reading, writing and listening but A2 in speaking,while the UK reports having higher requirements in the written skills (reading andwriting) (B1), than in the oral skills (listening and speaking) (A2).
Table 4 – Language requirements for temporary residency
Country

Listening

Reading

Speaking

Writing

Austria

A2

A2

A2

A2

France

A1

A1

A1

A1

Germany

A1

A1

A1/A2

A1

Greece

A2

A2

A2

A2

Hungary

Unspecified

Italy

A2

Malta

Unspecified

Netherlands

A2

A2

A2

A2

Romania

A1

A1

A1

A1

Turkey

<A1

<A1

<A1

<A1

UK

A2/B1

B1

A2/B1

B1

Figure 7 shows the language requirements for temporary residency in graph form.
It displays the lack of consistency in language requirements for temporary residency across the Council of Europe member states, varying from no requirements(n = 17, 40%), through to B1 in some skills. Two member states do not specify theirrequirements. Of the countries setting formal language requirements, 3 out of 11
set an A2 requirement and 2 out of 11 require A1.
In five member states (Austria, France, Germany, Greece and North Macedonia), it isobligatory to attend a language course to gain temporary residency.

Analysis of the survey data

Page 25

Figure 7 – Language requirements for temporary residency (raw numbers)
A2/B1 (oral) & B1 (writ.)

1

A1/A2 oral, A1 in other skills

1

A2 oral only

1

A2

3

A1

2

< A1

1

Unspecified

2

No requirement

17
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1.1.2.2. KoS requirements for temporary residency
Respondents from 10 member states report a requirement to pass a KoS test for
temporary residency (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands,
North Macedonia, Romania and Russia). In seven member states it is compulsory toattend KoS courses as well (see Table 5):
Table 5 – KoS requirements for temporary residency
Country

CourseTest

Austria

Yes

Yes

FranceYes

Yes

Germany

Yes

Greece

Yes

Yes

Italy

Yes

Yes

Malta

Yes

Netherlands

Yes

North Macedonia

Yes

Yes

Romania

Yes

Yes

RussiaYes

Yes

Page 26 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

1.1.3. Permanent residency
Figure 8 – Countries with language/KoS requirements for permanent residency

The survey reveals that in 2018 21 member states/regions (51%) have language
and/or KoS requirements for permanent residency (Figure 8: Austria, Belgium (Fl.),
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova,14 the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Portugal,
Russia, Switzerland and the UK.

1.1.3.1. Language requirements for permanent residency
Table 6 below shows the level of language proficiency required for permanent residency across the member states/regions that have such requirements. As we saw
in the context of temporary residency above, for permanent residency too only asmall number of member states set differentiated language requirements (different
proficiency levels in different language skills): Germany requires B1 in at least two
skills, Norway has an A1 requirement in oral production (speaking), but no requirement in the other skills, and Switzerland requires A2 in the oral skills (listening andspeaking), but A1 in the written skills (reading and writing).

14. Moldova has no formal language requirement but does have a KoS test.

Analysis of the survey data

Page 27

Table 6 – Language requirements for permanent residency
Country

Listening

Reading

Speaking

Writing

Austria

A2

A2

A2

A2

Belgium (Fl.)

A2

A2

A2

A2

Cyprus

A2

A2

A2

A2

Czech Republic

A1

A1

A1

A1

Denmark

B1

B1

B1

B1

France

A2

A2

A2

A2

Germany

B1

Greece

A2

B1

15

A2

Iceland
Italy

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

Unspecified

Malta
Netherlands

A2

Unspecified

Lithuania
Luxembourg

A2

Unspecified
A2

A2

North Macedonia

Unspecified

NorwayA1

Portugal

A2

A2

A2

A2

Russia

A2

A2

A2

A2

Switzerland

A2

A1

A2

A1

UK

B1

B1

B1

B1

Again, and as is clear from Figure 9 below, there is a lack of consistency acrossmember states as to the specific language requirements required, ranging from norequirements, through A1 oral skill only, to B1 in all four skills (Denmark and the UK).
Most of the member states do not set formal language requirements for permanent
residency, but, of those who do, most countries (10 out of 20) require an A2 level inall 4 skills. Four of the countries do not specify their level. In eight member states
language courses are a compulsory requirement.

15. In Germany, B1 is required in any two of the four skills.

Page 28 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Figure 9 – Language level requirements for permanent residency (raw numbers)
B1

2

B1 (in 2 skills)

1

A2

10

A1 (writ.), A2 (oral)

1

A1 oral only

1

A1

1

Unspecified

4

No requirement

21
0

5

10

15

20

25

1.1.3.2. KoS requirements for permanent residency
In 15 member states/regions surveyed there are KoS requirements in the form of an
obligatory course, an obligatory test or both (Table 7).
Table 7 – KoS requirements for permanent residency
CourseTest

Austria

CountryNo

Yes

Belgium (Fl.)

Yes

No

CyprusYes

Yes

DenmarkNo

Yes

FranceYes

Yes

GermanyNo

Yes

GreeceYes

Yes

Luxembourg

Yes

Yes

Malta

Yes

Yes

MoldovaNo

Yes

Netherlands

No

Yes

NorwayNo

YesPortugal

Yes

Yes

Russia

No

Yes

UK

Yes

Yes

Around half of these member states/regions (n = 7) require migrants to participate
in a compulsory KoS course and pass a KoS test. An equal number requires that
Analysis of the survey data

Page 29migrants pass a KoS test, but without demanding participation in a compulsory
KoS course. Only one region (Belgium, Fl.) requires migrants to take part in KoS
courses, without requiring that participants pass a formal KoS test in order to gain
permanent residency.

1.1.4. CitizenshipThe most common context in which Council of Europe member states set formal
language and/or KoS requirements as part of their citizenship policy; 33 of the 41
member states/regions responding to the 2018 survey (78%) have language and/or KoS requirements for citizenship. Member states with language and/or KoS
requirements for citizenship are: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belgium (Fl.), Belgium(Fr.), Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, the Netherlands, North
Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Spain, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK, as displayed in Figure 10 below.
Figure 10 – Countries with language and/or KoS requirements for citizenshipAs is clear from the map, only a small number of Council of Europe member states
had not introduced language and/or KoS requirements for citizenship at the time ofdata collection (Andorra, Bulgaria, Ireland, Monaco, San Marino, Serbia and Sweden).
Cyprus has a system of obligatory language courses, but no language or KoS tests.

Page 30 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

1.1.4.1. Language requirements for citizenship
Table 8 below shows the level of language proficiency required for citizenship acrossthe member states/regions that have such requirements. Again, it is worth noticingthat very few countries set differentiated language requirements. Only Luxembourg,
Norway and Switzerland set formal requirements in only one or some of the four skills
or different skills for written (reading/writing) and oral (listening/speaking) modes.
Table 8 – Language requirements for citizenshipCountry

Listening

Reading

Speaking

Albania

Unspecified

Armenia

Unspecified

Writing

Austria

B2

B2

B2

B2

Belgium (Fl.)

A2

A2

A2

A2

Belgium (Fr.)

A2

A2

A2

A2

Croatia

Unspecified

Czech Republic

B1

B1

B1

B1

Denmark

B2

B2

B2

B2

Finland

B1

B1

B1

B1

France

B1

B1

B1

B1

Germany

B1

B1

B1

B1

Greece

B2

B2

B2

B2

Hungary

Unspecified

Iceland

B1

B1

B1

B1

Italy

B1

B1

B1

B1

LatviaUnspecified

Lithuania

Unspecified

Luxembourg

B1

A2

Malta

Unspecified

Moldova

B2

B2

B2

B2

Netherlands

A2

A2

A2

A2

North Macedonia

Unspecified

NorwayA2

Poland

B1

B1

B1

B1

Portugal

A2

A2

A2

A2

Romania

A1

A1

A1

A1

Russian Federation

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

A2

Slovak Republic
Slovenia

Unspecified

Analysis of the survey data

Page 31

Listening

Reading

Speaking

Writing

Spain

Country

A2

A2

A2

A2

Switzerland

B1

A2

B1

A2

B1

B1

TurkeyUnspecified

UK

B1

B1

Figure 11 presents the language requirements for citizenship in graph form.
Figure 11 – Language level requirements for citizenship (raw numbers)
B2

4

B1

8

A2 writ./ B1 oral

1

A2 sp./ B1 list.

1

A2

7

A2 oral1

A1

1

Unspecified

10

No requirement

7
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

As is evident from Figure 11, there is a considerable lack of consistency from one
member state to another when it comes to requirements for citizenship. This finding
parallels the trends we saw for pre-entry and residency requirements. This is striking
given the fact that the purpose of the test (a requirement for obtaining citizenship)
is the same from one country to the next, yet the requirements range from none,
through A1, A2 oral, A2, A2/B1 and B1 to B2. Again, some member states do not
specify their requirements and some measure language implicitly through KoS tests
set in the language of the host country.
Of the countries that set CEFR-based language requirements, the levels of proficiency
most often set for citizenship are A2 and B1, with 21% (7 out of 33) and 24% (8 outof 33) respectively; 4 out of 33 (12%) set a B2 requirement. However, there is a substantial group (10 out of 33 or 30%), that does not specify their level requirements.
These unspecified requirements could range from A1 (or below) to B2 (or above).

Page 32 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

1.1.4.2. KoS requirements for citizenship
Table 9 offers an overview of the KoS requirements for citizenship.
Table 9 – KoS requirements for citizenshipCountry

CourseTest

Austria

Yes

Belgium (Fl.)

Yes

No

Belgium (Fr.)

Yes

No

Czech Republic

Yes

Denmark

Yes

Germany

Yes

GreeceYes

Yes

Hungary

Yes

LatviaYes

Moldova

Yes

Netherlands

Yes

NorwayYes

Portugal

Yes

Spain

Yes

Switzerland

Yes

Yes

UK

Yes

Yes

1.1.5. Comparing requirements across contexts
Of the member states/regions setting formal language and/or KoS requirements,
more do so for citizenship (78%) and permanent residency (51%), than for temporary
residency (32%) and entrance to the country (24%), as presented in Figure 12 below.
Figure 12 – Countries setting language and/or KoS requirements (2018) (percentages)
90%

78%

80%
70%
60%

51%

50%
40%

32%

30%
20%

17%

24%

10%
0%

No requirement

Pre-entry

Temporaryresidency

Permanent
residency

CitizenshipAnalysis of the survey data

Page 33

As is clear from the results of the 2018 survey, there is substantial variation in the
proficiency levels the Council of Europe member states require for the same purpose.
This lack of agreement between member states when it comes to requirements forthe same purpose is in itself an important and interesting finding.
Due to the large variation, in order to allow for comparison of the levels required
for the same purpose (prior to entry, temporary residency, permanent residency
and citizenship) across member states, the data were recoded according to thefollowing procedures:
ff member states/regions with no requirements were omitted;
ff in-between levels or dual levels (for example A1/A2) were recoded at the lower
level (a strong A1, but not yet A2);
ff requirements in some but not all skills (for instance B1 in two skills) were treatedas a full level requirement (B1).
Figure 13 serves to show the main trends at a glance. For a more detailed representation of the diversity of level requirements, we refer to the tables and figures
presented earlier in the chapter.
Figure 13 – Language level requirements across contexts
35
30

4

25

9

20

3

15
10
5
0

7
3

Pre-entry

10

1
5

10

5
2

3
3

7

Temporaryresidency

Permanent
residency

Citizenshipunspecified

1

A1

A2

B1

B2

Figure 13 shows quite clearly that the language proficiency levels required are generally stricter for citizenship than for the other contexts. Not only do more member
states set requirements for citizenship than for residency and entry, but the specificlevels required are also higher. Citizenship is the only context in which the B2 levelis required (n = 4). The number of member states setting a B1-level requirement isalso considerable for citizenship (n = 9). The second most common context for which
member states set requirements is permanent residency; three member states set
a B1-level requirement for permanent residency, but the most commonly set level
for this context is A2. Fewer countries set requirements for temporary residency
and prior to entry, and the levels required for these contexts are generally lower
than for citizenship and permanent residency. Within the group of member states

Page 34 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

setting pre-entry requirements 3 out of 10 member states set requirements at anunspecified level and, as mentioned earlier, these requirements may very well exceed
the A1 level. Figure 13 displays, as did the graphs and tables presented earlier, aconsiderable lack of consistency across member states as to the requirements they
set. Formal language requirements for citizenship, for example, vary from A1 to B2.
Table 10 summarises which countries have requirements in place at the different
stages of their migration policy.
Table 10 – Requirements for the different stages: list of countries (2018)
StagesCountries

Pre-entry

Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Netherlands,
North Macedonia, Romania, Turkey, UK

Temporary residency

Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta,
Netherlands, North Macedonia, Romania, Russia, Turkey, UK

Austria, Belgium (Fl.), Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania,
Permanent residency
Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, North
Macedonia, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, UK

Citizenship

Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belgium (Fl.), Belgium (Fr.),
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, North
Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, UK

Figure 14 visualises the trends by indicating which member states set language or KoS
requirements and at how many stages (pre-entry, temporary residency, permanent
residency, citizenship) of their migration policy.
As Figure 14 shows, 7 of the 41 responding member states/regions (17%) have norequirements (Andorra, Bulgaria, Ireland, Monaco, San Marino, Serbia and Sweden),
10 (24%) have requirements at 1 stage (Cyprus: permanent residency; Albania,
Armenia, Croatia, Finland, Latvia, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Spain: citizenship), 11 (26%) have requirements at 2 stages (Poland: pre-entry and citizenship;
Belgium (Fl.), Belgium (Fr.), Czech Republic, Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, Moldavia,
Norway, Portugal, Russia and Switzerland: permanent residency and citizenship),
7 (17%) have requirements at 3 stages (Hungary, Romania and Turkey: pre-entry,
temporary residency and citizenship; Lithuania: pre-entry, permanent residency andcitizenship; Greece, Italy and Malta: temporary residency, permanent residency andcitizenship). Six member states (15%) have requirements at all four stages (Austria,
France, Germany, the Netherlands, North Macedonia and the UK).

Analysis of the survey data

Page 35

Figure 14 – Stages in requirements within Council of Europe member states (2018)
Four-stage requirement
Three-stage requirement
Two-stage requirement
One-stage requirement
No requirements

1.2. TESTS
1.2.1. Language tests
There are official standardised language tests used for migration purposes in 16 member states/regions. Consequently, of the member states that set formal language
requirements as part of their migration policy (n = 3516), around half do not basetheir decisions on standardised measurement instruments. In 11 member states,
multiple tests are used alongside each other. In five member states there is only one
standardised test. The quality of the test instrument is checked in 12 member states,but only 7 tests used for these purposes have an ALTE Q-mark, indicating they meetthe minimum standards of a high-quality test (Table 11).17
Table 11 – Language test quality
Country

Tests

Quality check

ALTE Q-markAustria

Multiple tests

1

1

Belgium (Fl.)

Multiple tests

00Belgium (Fr.)

Multiple tests

00Czech Republic

Multiple tests

1

1

16. Only 35 countries/regions (Belgium (Fl.) and Belgium (Fr.) counted as two regions again) replied
to this last part of the survey.
17. See the ALTE homepage for information about the minimum standards and the ALTE Q-mark:www.alte.org/Setting-Standards.

Page 36 Linguistic integration of adult migrantsTests

Quality check

ALTE Q-markDenmark

Country

Multiple tests

1

1

FinlandMultiple tests

10Germany

One test

11

GreeceOne test

0

0

Italy

Multiple tests

1

0

One test

10Netherlands

Multiple tests

1

1

NorwayMultiple tests

1

1

RussiaMultiple tests

1

0

Slovenia

One test

1

1Multiple tests

1

0

One test

0

0

Moldova

Switzerland
Turkey1.2.2. KoS tests
There is a KoS test in at least 16 (46%) of the 35 responding member states/regions.
Table 12 displays the characteristics of a typical KoS test.
Table 12 – KoS test characteristics

Austria

1

Cyprus1

Czech
Republic

1

1
1

1

1
1

1
1

Denmark
Germany1

Greece1

Hungary

1

1

1

1

1

Italy

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Lingua franca

1

Candidate L1

1

Official language

1Computer

1

Paper

1

Oral

Services

Rights and duties

Employment
1

Language

Customs and traditions

1

FormatHistory and geography

Andorra

Education

Content
Constitution and law

Country

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Analysis of the survey data

Page 37

Latvia1

Moldova11Netherlands

1

1

1

1

Norway1111

Russia

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Switzerland

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Lingua franca

Candidate L1

1
1

1

1

1

1

1

Responsibility of cantons

UK

Official language

Language

Computer

Paper

Oral

Customs and traditions

History and geography

FormatServices

Rights and duties

Employment

Education

Content
Constitution and law

Country

1
1

1

1

1

1

With only two exceptions (Norway18 and Moldova), KoS tests are in the languageof the host country. This means that the KoS test in most cases serves the purposeof an additional, implicit language requirement, the level of proficiency of which isunspecified. It is reasonable to assume that the language level required to take a
KoS test exceeds A2 in reading or listening.
Figure 15 – KoS test content

Services

7

Employment

8

Education

8

Rights and duties

9

Customs and traditions

11

Consitution and law

13

History and geography

14
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18. In Norway, the KoS test for permanent residency has been developed in 28 minority languages,
while the KoS test for citizenship is in the language of the host country.

Page 38 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

As is clear from Figure 15, KoS tests primarily focus on history and geography (14out of 16), constitution and law (13 out of 16), customs and traditions (11 out of 16),
and rights and duties (9 out of 16).
Figure 16 – KoS test format

Oral/paper

1Paper/computer

1

Computer

3

Paper

5

Oral

4
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Figure 16 focuses on the format of KoS tests. When KoS tests are administered, they
are typically presented in writing, either on paper (5 out of 16), on paper or computer(1 out of 16) or only on computer (3 out of 16). When KoS tests are administered in
an official language of the host country, and when they require reading or writing
skills, they constitute an additional language and literacy requirement, potentiallydisadvantaging migrants with a low-literate profile. In four countries the KoS test
is administered orally.

1.3. LEARNING OPPORTUNITIESCouncil of Europe member states vary when it comes to the degree to which they
offer migrants learning opportunities for language and KoS, the number of hours
provided, the cost of the courses and the extent to which the courses are tailoredto different groups. The results in this section are based on the 36 countries that
responded to this part of the survey.

1.3.1. Language courses
In most contexts surveyed, language courses are provided for migrants. The only
member states where this was not stated to be the case are Bulgaria and Hungary.
The tables below are based on the responding member states/regions that do provide language courses (n = 34).
In 32 of these member states/regions, the national or local government provides
or finances language courses for migrants. The exceptions are Albania and theAnalysis of the survey data

Page 39

Slovak Republic, where this does not seem to be the case. The quality of the courses
is monitored and assured by a central authority or an external body in 30 of the
34 contexts. In 21 member states/regions, teachers are inspected and in 23 member
states/regions, teachers receive specific training. Table 13 summarises these results.
Table 13 – Language courses
Availability of language courses

Number of countries

Language courses are provided

34

Courses are provided or financed by government

32

Courses are quality controlled

30

Teachers receive specific training

23

Teachers are inspected

21

Table 14 below presents the number of hours of language tuition provided for
migrants in general in the different Council of Europe member states/regions (forresults regarding the number of hours provided for vulnerable groups, we referreaders to Chapter 4).
Table 14 – Hours of language tuition provided free of charge
Number of hours

Number of countries

0 – 25011

250 – 5008

500 – 1000

41000 – 1500

12000 – 3000

0

3000+

0

Summing up, most Council of Europe member states provide learners with opportunities to learn the language of the host country, but the countries vary greatly
when it comes to the number of hours provided free of charge (see Chapter 4 for a
discussion of this point).

1.3.2. KoS courses
In 25 of the 35 member states/regions, KoS courses are provided and/or fundedby the government. In 20 member states/regions the quality of the KoS courses ischecked by an external or government body.
Regarding cost, the KoS courses are:ff completely free for all migrants in 17 contexts;
ff completely free for certain groups of migrants in 7 contexts;
ff partially funded for certain groups of migrants in 1 context.

Page 40 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Figure 17 shows additional characteristics of KoS courses. In most cases they are
either in the official language of the host country (n = 19, 54%), or in a lingua franca(n = 17, 49%); in 11 countries (31%) KoS courses are in the migrants’ mother tongue.
Figure 17 – KoS course characteristics – language of tuition
19

20
17

18
16
14
12

11

10
8
6
4
2
0
L1

Lingua franca

L2

Figure 18 shows that in 15 member states/regions, KoS courses are unrelated to alanguage course, and in 13 they are about as often independent courses (n = 15, 45%)or integrated into a language course (n = 13, 37%). In one context, the KoS course
relies on self-study.
Figure 18 – KoS course characteristics – mode of tuition
16

15

14

13

12
10
8
6
4
2

1

0
Self-study

Integrated into language course Independent KoS course

Analysis of the survey data

Page 41

Chapter 2

Vulnerable groups
2.1. MINORS, LOW-LITERATE LEARNERS, REFUGEES

L

earning a new language and passing a language and/or KoS test is not equallyeasy for all learners. A language proficiency level reachable for some learners
after a relatively modest number of hours of instruction may require a considerably longer time and more effort for other learners. This is familiar among language
teachers and language test developers, and it is well-documented in research on
language acquisition and language assessment (Dörneyei and Skehan 2003, Allemano2013). Success in language learning is not a mere question of how much a person
wants to learn a language (motivation) but is heavily influenced by factors such as
the relative distance between the learners’ first language and the target language,
educational background, age, level of literacy and trauma, to mention the mostsignificant (Doughty and Long 2003).
Some groups are therefore more endangered than others when language and KoS
requirements are imposed as part of the immigration and integration policy, andhave a more pronounced need for tailored language and KoS courses and exemptions from requirements. Therefore, the 2018 survey focused specific attention onvulnerable groups, minors, low-literate learners and refugees in particular, the reasons
for which are explained below.
Minors are asylum seekers and refugees under the age of 18. A substantial number ofminor refugees have fled without the company of their parents or other adults withparental responsibility for them, and are referred to as unaccompanied minors. Someof the minors have been separated from their parents during the journey, others
are sent alone with traffickers and yet others are orphans. Many of these children
have suffered trauma, abuse and danger before and during their journey, and many
suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (El-Awad et al. 2017; Jakobsen 2018). As
a consequence, minors, and unaccompanied minors in particular, are among themost vulnerable of migrants.

Page 43

Low-literate learners (LESLLA learners19) are migrants who for different reasons have
not had a chance to attend school or have interrupted schooling, leading to no or
only limited literacy skills in their first language. UNESCO estimates that 750 million
young people and adults at the global level cannot read or write.20 While there is a
substantial body of research on adult second language learning, adult learners withlow levels of schooling in their first language have been subject to little researchinterest (Tarone 2010). We therefore lack empirical knowledge on how a new language is acquired without the support of script and, consequently, how to best caterto these learners. Also, there is a lack of teacher training and teaching material tosupport language learning for this group (Windisch 2015).
The third group of particularly vulnerable migrants in focus in the 2018 survey are
refugees. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) defines a refugee as:
someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or
violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely,
they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. (UNHCR 2019)

The difference between a refugee and a migrant who has moved voluntarily toanother country to work or study is significant. The main difference is that refugees have often suffered war, conflict and abuse before and during their journey,
and the fear of being returned to an uncertain future in the home country is often
considerable. Many refugees have had to leave part of their family behind or havebeen separated from their children and spouse during the journey. Worries for one’s
children left behind have been found to significantly affect adult refugees’ language
learning and integration process (Djuve et al. 2017).
Table 15 lists how many member states/regions21 allow exemptions from language
and KoS requirements for minors, low-literate learners and refugees for different
contexts. Low-literate learners receive the fewest exemptions and minors the most.
Overall, minors are exempt from language requirements 3 times out of 10 – considerably more than low-literate learners and refugees (respectively 10% and 15%).
The same trend holds true for exemptions from KoS requirements (minors: 26%;
low-literate learners: 5%; and refugees: 10%).

19. LESLLA learners refer to adult second language learners with little prior schooling and/or low
levels of literacy, and the acronym refers to Literacy Education and Second Language Learning
for Adults, see https://www.leslla.org/research.
20. See https://en.unesco.org/themes/literacy-all.
21. In the table n refers to the total number of countries that have language and KoS requirements
for the different contexts.

Page 44 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Language

Refugees

Low-literatelearners(n)MinorsRefugees

Low-literatelearners

MinorsTable 15 – Exemptions from language and KoS requirements for vulnerable groups

(n)

KoS

Pre-entry

4

1

4

(10)

Temporary residency

4

1

1

(13)

3

1

3

(9)

Permanent residency

8

4

4

(22)

4

0

0

(15)

Citizenship

7

2

3

(33)

4

1

1

(16)

(2)

Table 16 lists the 28 member states/regions that provide learning opportunities forvulnerable groups. The table distinguishes between minors in general and unaccompanied minors in particular, and differentiates between instruction within or
outside the compulsory school system.

X

Belgium (Fr.)

X

Cyprus

X

X

X

X

X
X
X

Czech Republic

X
X

X

Denmark

X

FinlandX

Germany

X

X

Ireland

X

X

Italy

X

X

X
X

X
X

Luxembourg
Malta

Refugees

Belgium (Fl.)

Unaccompanied
minorsX

Minors outside
the compulsory
school system

Austria

Minors within
the compulsory
school system

Low-literatelearners

Country

Table 16 – Learning opportunities for vulnerable groups

X
X

X

X
X

X

Moldova

X

MonacoX

Netherlands

X

X

NorwayX

X

X

Vulnerable groups Page 45

Minors outside
the compulsory
school system

Unaccompanied
minorsRefugees

Minors within
the compulsory
school system

Low-literatelearners

Country

X

X

X

X

X

PolandPortugalX

Romania

X

X

X

RussianFederationX

San Marino

X

X

Slovak Republic

X

Slovenia

X

X

Spain

X

X

SwedenX

X

Switzerland

X

X

Turkey

X

X

UK

X

X

X
X

X

X
X

X

X

Figure 19 shows how many member states/regions offer language courses that are
tailor-made to the needs of low-literate learners (n = 20), minors (within the compulsory school system, n = 17; outside it, n = 8; and unaccompanied, n = 10) andrefugees (n = 15). Again, most adjustments are provided for minors. Courses thatcater to the specific needs of refugees are offered in just under half of the member
states/regions where language courses for migrants are provided.
Figure 19 – Language courses for vulnerable groups
25
20

20
17
15

15

10

10

8

5
0
Low-literatelearners

Refugees

Minors within
the compulsory
school system

Page 46 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Unaccompanied Minors outsideminorsthe compulsory
school system

Low-literate language learners generally need more time to acquire a language than
the general migrant population. Table 17 shows, however, that this group of learners
rarely receives more hours of language tuition to compensate for their learning pace.
With few exceptions, low-literate migrants do not receive additional hours free ofcharge to help them attain the required level.
Table 17 – Hours of language tuition provided free of charge for low-literate learners
GeneralLow-literate learners

0 – 25011

13

250 – 5008

4

500 – 1000

421000 – 1500

1

22000 – 3000

0

1

3000+

0

0

Vulnerable groups Page 47

Chapter 3

Developments from2007 to 2018T

he Council of Europe has carried out four surveys on member states’ language
and KoS requirements as part of the immigration/integration policy, in 2007,2009, 2013 and 2018.22 The number of participating member states/regions
has increased with every study, from 26 countries in 2007, to 32 in 2009, 37 in 2013
and 41 in 2018.
Table 18 shows which countries took part in the different surveys. The countries thattook part in all four surveys are marked in italics.
Table 18 – Participating countries through the years
Country

2007

2009

2013

2018

Total

Albania112Andorra

1

1

2

1

3

Armenia1

1

Austria

1

1

1

1

4

Belgium (Fl.)

1

1

1

1

4

Belgium (Fr.)

1

1

1

1

4

Bosnia and Herzegovina

1

Bulgaria
Croatia

1

Cyprus

1
1

1

1

2

1

1

1

3

Czech Republic

1

1

1

1

4

Denmark

1

1

1

1

4

Estonia

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

4

FinlandFrance1

3

22. For earlier Council of Europe reports, see https://www.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/surveys.

Page 49

2007

2009

2013

2018

Total

GermanyCountry

1

1

1

1

4

Greece

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

3

1

1

Hungary
Iceland
Ireland

1

1

1

1

4

Italy

1

1

1

1

4

Latvia1

1

1

3

Liechtenstein

1

Lithuania
Luxembourg

1

Malta

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

4

1

1

2

MonacoNetherlands

1

1

North Macedonia

3

Norway

1

1

1

1

4

Poland

1

1

1

1

4

Portugal1

1

2

Republic of Moldova

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

4

1

1

Romania
Russian Federation
San Marino

1

SerbiaSlovak Republic

1

Slovenia

1

2
1

3

1

1

1

3

Spain

1

1

1

1

4

Sweden

1

1

1

1

4

Switzerland

1

1

1

1

4

Turkey1

1

1

3

Ukraine

1

1

UK

1

1

1

1

Total

26

32

37

40

4

Table 18 shows that 19 member states/regions have participated in all four Council ofEurope surveys: Austria, Belgium (Fl.), Belgium (Fr.), Czech Republic, Denmark, France,
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, San
Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Page 50 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

The longitudinal analysis relies on two sets of data: (a) the raw numbers showing
the situation in the participating member states in 2007, 2009, 2013 and 2018, and(b) a comparison of the 19 member states/regions which took part in every single
survey. Using the first approach means that no member states are excluded fromthe dataset, but since the number of participating member states increases fromone survey to the next it is important to consider the proportions.
The second dataset consisting only of the 19 countries offers the most robust andreliable picture of the trends since 2007. It is quite possible to generalise from thetrends represented in this section to the wider context of Council of Europe member
states, since the evolutions described here can be also discerned among member
states that have participated in fewer than four surveys.

3.1. PRE-ENTRY REQUIREMENTS
3.1.1. Pre-entry requirements, raw data (all participating member
states)Pre-entry requirements (Table 19) were investigated for the first time in the 2009
survey, which is why there are no data for this context from 2007.
Table 19 – Pre-entry requirements in 2009, 2013 and 2018
Country2009

Austria

2013

2018

A1

A1

Denmark

A1

No

FranceUnspecified

A1

Germany

Unspecified

A1

A1

HungaryNo

No

Unspecified

Lithuania

No

No

Unspecified

Netherlands

Unspecified

A1

A1

No

Unspecified

North Macedonia
Romania

A1

Turkey

No

UK

A1

A1
A1

A1

Figure 20 below presents the results graphically. The most considerable changeover time is the substantial increase in the number of member states setting formal
language and/or KoS pre-entry requirements in 2018 (10) compared to 4 in 2013.
A1 is the most commonly used CEFR level prior to entrance, but in 2018 as well as in2009, several member states set unspecified requirements, which makes it impossible
to know what level is required.
To allow for a graphical representation, the levels were standardised following theprocedure presented in Chapter 1.

Developments from 2007 to 2018 Page 51

Figure 20 – Pre-entry requirements in 2009, 2013 and 2018 (raw numbers)
12
10
8
7

6
4

2

2

4

3

3

0
2009

2013
Unspecified

2018
A1

A2

3.1.2. Pre-entry requirements, subset comparison (19 member
states)Below, only the 19 member states that took part in all 4 Council of Europe surveys
carried out between 2007 and 2018 are included. This approach gives the mostreliable comparison of the development over time. It is also the approach used in
the Council of Europe report from 2014 reporting on the 2013 survey. Note thatpre-entry requirements were not part of the 2007 survey. Table 20 and Figure 21
display the results.
Table 20 – Pre-entry requirements over time (19 member states)
Country2009

Austria

2013

2018

A1

A1

Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
FranceUnspecified

Germany

Unspecified

A1

A1

Unspecified

Unspecified

A1

A1

GreeceIreland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands

Page 52 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Country

2009

2013

2018

NorwayPolandA2

San Marino
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
UK

A1

A1

A1

Figure 21 – Pre-entry requirements (19 member states)
6
5
4
1
3
3

5

2
3
1
1
0
2009

2013
Unspecified

2018
A1

3.2. PERMANENT RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
3.2.1. Permanent residency requirements, raw data (allparticipating member states)
Table 21 displays the member states/regions with language requirements for permanent residency for each of the four surveys.23 The table includes all respondents
each year, so again, the apparent increase of demand in 2018 partly reflects a larger
number of respondents rather than a true proportionate increase. For the mostreliable analysis of development over time, we refer to section 3.2.2.

23. The table contains 20 countries, since Moldova doesn’t seem to have formal language requirements, only KoS requirements.

Developments from 2007 to 2018 Page 53

Table 21 – Permanent residency requirements in 2007, 2009, 2013 and 2018
2007

2009

2013

2018

Austria

Country

A2

A2

A2

A2

Belgium (Fl.)

No

No

No

A2

No

A1/A2

A2

CyprusCzech Republic

No

A1

A1

A1

Denmark

B1

B1

A2

B1

France

A1

(A1)

A2

A2

Germany

B1

(B1)

B1

B1

Greece

A2

(A2)

A2

Iceland

A2
Unspecified

Italy

(A2)

A2

A2

Unspecified

A2

Unspecified

Luxembourg

A1

A2

A2

Malta

No

100h

Unspecified

(A1)

A2

A2

No

UnspecifiedNo

A1 oralA1

A2

Lithuania

Netherlands

24

A2

North Macedonia
NorwayNo

No

Portugal

25

RussianFederation

A2

Switzerland
UK

B1

B1

A2

A1

B1

B1

Again, to allow for a graphical representation, the levels were standardised following
the procedure presented in Chapter 1. Figure 22 visualises the situation for permanent residency requirements from 2007 to 2018.

24. In 2009, Lithuania reported level “A2/B1 to work”. Since this doesn’t relate to residency permits
as such, we have changed it to “unspecified” in this report25. Before 2017, Norway did not have a language requirement, but a requirement to attend a certain
number of hours of compulsory language and KoS classes.

Page 54 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Figure 22 – Permanent residency requirements in 2007, 2009, 2013 and 2018 (rawnumbers)
25
20

3

15

2

10
3
3
1

3
3
4
1

2007

2009

5
0

Unspecified

10

9

A1

3

3

4

2013

2018

A2

B1

3.2.2. Permanent residency requirements, subset comparison(19 member states)
As mentioned already, there has been an increase in the number of member states
setting formal language requirements for permanent residency over time. Within
the subset of countries that took part in every survey, the proportion has steadily
increased from 7 out of 19 (37%) in 2007, to 10 (53%) in 2009, to 11 (58%) in 2013
and to 13 (68%) in 2018. The member states/regions within this subset that did nothave language requirements for permanent residency at the time of data collection
are Belgium (Fr.), Ireland, Poland, San Marino, Spain and Sweden.
Table 22 – Permanent residency requirements over time (subset)
Country
Austria

2007

2009

2013

2018

A2

A2

A2

A2

Belgium (Fl.)

A2

Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic

No

A1

A1

A1

Denmark

B1

B1

A2

B1

France

A1

(A1)

A2

A2

Germany

B1

(B1)

B1

B1

Greece

A2

(A2)

A2

A2

Italy

(A2)

A2

A2

Luxembourg

A1

A2

A2

(A1)

A2

A2

IrelandNetherlands
NorwayA2

A1 oralPolandSan Marino

Developments from 2007 to 2018 Page 55

Country

2007

2009

2013

2018

A2

A1

B1

B1

Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
UK

B1

B1

As can be seen from Table 22 and Figure 23, there is no evidence that the language
requirements for permanent residency per se have become stricter. In other words,
more member states do indeed set requirements for permanent residency in 2018
than in earlier years, but the member states/regions that already had requirementsfor permanent residency in 2007 have not introduced stricter requirements overtime for permanent residency. In 2007 only 7 of the 19 member states/regions hadformal language requirements, but 3 of these had a B1-level requirement. In 2018a larger number of member states/regions have introduced requirements, but the
number of member states setting a B1-level requirement has not increased. It is still
Denmark, Germany and the UK that have a B1-requirement for permanent residency.
Over time, it seems that A2 has gained status as the most commonly set language
requirement for permanent residency.
Figure 23 – Permanent residency requirements (subset)
15
10

3

2

3

5

3

3

0

3
1

4

2007

2009

7

8

3

1

A1

2013
A2

2018

B1

3.3. CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS
3.3.1. Citizenship requirements, raw data(all participating member states)
Table 23 and Figure 24 display the member states/regions with language requirements for citizenship in each of the four surveys.
Table 23 – Citizenship requirements since 2007
Country

2007

2009

Albania
Armenia

Unspecified

Unspecified

Austria

Unspecified

A2

Page 56 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

2013

2018

Unspecified

Unspecified
Unspecified

B1

B2

Country

2007

2009

2013

2018

Belgium (Fl.)

No

No

No

A2

Belgium (Fr.)

No

No

No

A2

Croatia

No

Czech Republic
Denmark

Unspecified

Unspecified

A2

B1

B1

B2

B2

B1

B2

Unspecified

B1

B1

B1

FinlandFranceUnspecified

Unspecified

Germany

B1

B1

B1

B1

Greece

A1

A1/A2

A2

B2

No

No

Unspecified

Hungary
Iceland

B1

Italy

No

Latvia

No

No

B1

B1

Unspecified

Unspecified

A2

Unspecified

Luxembourg

A1

A2/B1 oral

A2/B1 oral

Malta

No

Lithuania

No

Moldova
Netherlands

A2

Unspecified

North Macedonia

Unspecified
A1/A2

B2

A2

A2

No

Unspecified

NorwayPolandA2 oralNo

B1

Portugal

(B1)

B1

A2

A2

Romania

A1

Russian Federation
Slovak Republic

A2
Unspecified

Unspecified

A2
Unspecified

Slovenia

B1

A2/B1

A2

Spain

No

Unspecified

A2

Unspecified

A2/B1

A2 written
B1 oral

Switzerland
TurkeyUK

Unspecified

Unspecified

B1

B1

Unspecified
B1

B1

To allow for transforming the data into a graphical representation, “in-between
levels”, or differentiated levels for different skills were standardised according to theprocedures presented in Chapter 1.

Developments from 2007 to 2018 Page 57

Figure 24 – Citizenship requirements in 2007, 2009, 2013 and 2018 (raw numbers)
35
30

4

25

10

20

3

15
10
5

1
2
1
1

1

9

4
2
2

7

1

6

7

1
3

2007

2009

2013

0

Unspecified

8

A1

A2

10

2018
B1

B2

3.3.2. Citizenship requirements, subset comparison (19 member
states)Table 24 shows which of the 19 member states/regions that took part in all 4 surveys
had formal language requirements for citizenship in 2007, 2009, 2013 and 2018.
Table 24 – Citizenship requirements over time (19 member states)
Country
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech
Republic
Denmark
FranceGermany
GreeceIreland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
NorwayPolandSan Marino
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
UK

2007
Unspecified
No
No

2009
A2
No
No

2013
B1
No
No

2018
B2
A2
A2

Unspecified

A2

B1

B1

B2
Unspecified
B1
A1

B2
Unspecified
B1
A1/A2

B1
B1
B1
A2

B2
B1
B1
B2

No
A2

No
A1
Unspecified

No
A2/B1 oral
A2

No

B1

(B1)

B1
A2/B1 oral
A2A2 oralB1

No

Unspecified

A2

Unspecified
B1

A2/B1
B1

A2 written B1 oral
B1

B1

Page 58 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Table 24 shows that the number of member states/regions setting language requirements for citizenship has increased steadily over the 10 years since the first Council ofEurope survey was conducted. In 2007 only 8 of the 19 member states/regions had
requirements for citizenship. This number had increased to 11 in 2009; 12 countries
had such requirements in 2013, while in 2018, the number was 16 out of 19. Only
3 of the 19 member states/regions did not have formal language requirements for
citizenship in 2018 (Ireland, San Marino and Sweden).
Figure 25 presents the levels required for citizenship in 2007, 2009, 2013 and 2018
for the 19 member states/regions that took part in all surveys.
Figure 25 – Citizenship requirements (subset)
20

3

15

3

10
5
0

1
2
1
1
3

1
3
2
2
3

2007

2009
Unspecified

8

8

A1

3
1

5

2013

2018

A2

B1

B2

When looking at the developments in the same 19 member states/regions from2007 to 2018, there is an increase in the numbers of countries setting language
requirements for citizenship over time and, in addition, the requirements are getting
stricter. In 2007 and 2009, A1 was a level required by some member states/regions,while there are no countries setting A1 requirements for citizenship in 2013 and2018. In 2013 and 2018, 8 out of the 19 countries (42%) set a B1-level requirement
for citizenship. The level which stands out as used by most countries for citizenshipin 2013 and 2018, then, is B1. In addition, while Denmark stood out as the only
country setting an academic language requirement (B2) in 2007 and 2009, 2 othercountries of the 19 that took part in all 4 surveys have introduced a B2 requirement
for citizenship in 2018 (Austria and Greece).

Developments from 2007 to 2018 Page 59

Chapter 4

DiscussionIn this chapter, the results of the survey are connected to societal considerations.
While the values underlying the discussion are those upon which the Councilof Europe is founded, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the interpretation of the findings and related policy recommendations are based on theprofessional judgment of the experts who alone assume responsibility for them.
The recommendations should not be interpreted as an expression of the views of
the Council of Europe.

4.1. USING LANGUAGE AND KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIETY TESTSFOR INTEGRATION PURPOSES
Language tests measure language proficiency. High-quality language assessments
can be helpful for migrants if used to encourage and guide them in developing
their language proficiency according to their real-life needs and different abilities.
When used in migration and integration policies, however, it appears that tests areoften used as if they measure integration, willingness to integrate or success in
the integration process. It should be clear that the reasoning behind this is largely
unsupported by research. The direct relationship between societal integration andlanguage proficiency alone is not sustained by research. In addition, and central to
the focus of this survey, not everybody can reach the same proficiency level even
if a substantial number of hours of instruction are provided. On the contrary, forlearners with low levels of prior schooling and limited levels of literacy, CEFR-based
requirements above A1 in writing may be out of reach. Since language proficiency isimpacted by a wide range of variables, it is difficult to argue that a migrant’s proficiency
level in an official language of the host country is a reliable proxy for integration or
willingness to integrate. If language requirements are part of the migration policy,
the principles of fairness and equality of opportunity would dictate that all learners
be provided with effective learning opportunities which take into account theirprior educational experience, their learning needs and their individual capacities.
Together with the Council of Europe instances cited above and also the Council ofEurope Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2034 (2014), the experts question
the use of pre-entry language tests and oppose them when used in the context offamily reunification, where they constitute a breach of human rights. This position
Page 61is in line with concerns noted by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human
Rights (“Family reunion is a human right and leads to better integration”) and theEuropean Committee of Social Rights. Both have highlighted the substantive rightto family reunification and have raised human rights concerns when language or
KoS tests are used to regulate family reunification.
An additional reason why using language tests prior to entry is a particularly problematic practice is because not all migrants have had access to education or the possibility
to learn the language of the host country before entering the new country. There is avery real risk that pre-entry language tests are disproportionately disadvantageous torefugees, women, or refugees from countries with a poor educational infrastructure.

4.2. THE LACK OF AGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT LEVEL IS NEEDEDFOR THE SAME CONTEXTThere is a striking lack of agreement between Council of Europe member statesas to what proficiency level is appropriate for a given context. For citizenship, forexample, the requirements range from no requirement or A1, all the way throughto an academic level (B2). It is hard to see why access to the same societal status(e.g. citizenship) would require basic or no language proficiency in one country
and academic language proficiency in another. This lack of agreement reaffirmsthat language requirements often fulfil a symbolic function and not real language
needs, as emphasised by Böcker and Strik (2011):
As there is no proven relationship between integration and a specific level of language
proficiency, it is difficult to understand why some member states should have higher
requirements than others for the same purpose. These differences throw doubt on theargument that immigrants need the proficiency level they are required to demonstratein order to successfully integrate. (Böcker and Strik 2011: 182)

It is important to repeat that higher CEFR levels (B2 and above) imply complex reasoning, abstract thinking and academic skills. Not all native speakers can write a text
at the B2 level in their own language, let alone in a second language. B2 is the level
most often required of foreign students in the context of university admission in
Europe. Since it is clear that not all migrants (or indeed all native speakers) will everattain the B2 level, it appears unreasonable to have it as a requirement for migrants
and for non-academic purposes such as entry, residency or citizenship.

4.3. THE CEFR – ITS INTENTIONAL PURPOSE AND HOW IT IS(MIS)USEDThe CEFR was developed in line with the overarching values of the Council of Europe
to promote plurilingualism, respect for diversity, mobility and communication acrossborders (North et al. 2018). Given the centrality of plurilingualism and the respectfor diversity, as well as the positive view of what learners can do with language, it isstriking to see that the CEFR is used in certain contexts as a monolingual obstructive
Page 62 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

tool. This type of use runs counter to its intended purpose, as underlined by Bruzos
et al. (2017):
It seems paradoxical that an instrument developed to acknowledge and facilitate
the idea of a multilingual Europe is employed as a means to legitimize monolingual
policies based on the requirement of given national languages. For that reason, there
is a growing concern that the CEFR is becoming an instrument to control and restrict
immigration. (Bruzos et al. 2017: 423)

It is particularly striking that so few member states set differentiated language requirements (i.e. different CEFR levels in reading, writing, listening and speaking) when the
CEFR document so strongly encourages profiles over uniform levels. If the language
requirements are intended to represent real language needs, one would expect moredifferentiated requirements in terms of an uneven modular profile, as opposed to asimplified global level. For most societal or professional roles, one does not need tomaster each skill at the same level. A taxi-driver or a kindergarten assistant might needoral skills (listening and speaking) at a higher level than the skills needed in reading andwriting, for example. Since most learners perform better in receptive skills (reading andlistening) than in productive skills (speaking and writing), and better in oral (listening
and speaking) than in written modes (reading and writing), a lower threshold for writing
would make the requirements more achievable for a larger group of learners. It should
also be stressed that setting requirements in writing and reading skills discriminate
against the most vulnerable of migrant groups: refugees and low-literate learners withlimited prior schooling and low levels of literacy.
Nonetheless, the use of the same proficiency scale across Europe makes comparison of requirements possible. Since the CEFR is well known, it allows users to sharereflections and experiences, and to work together in raising awareness and seeking
solutions when countries set requirements (e.g. B2 for citizenship) that may resultin damaging and discriminatory consequences for all or some groups of migrants.
For this to happen, however, it is important that there be an informed, common
understanding of what the CEFR levels actually represent and how they can best
be adapted for use in migration contexts.

4.4. PROVIDING MIGRANTS WITH OPPORTUNITIES TO LEARN
The data presented in this report reveal that language courses addressing migrants’needs are provided in most of the Council of Europe member states. Even so, there isa considerable lack of consistency. The differences between member states primarily
relate to the number of hours provided, the cost of the courses and the extent towhich the courses are tailored to specific learner groups, but there are also considerable differences related to teacher training and quality assurance.
Regarding the connection between learning opportunities and requirements, thefindings of the survey show that only in a few cases (Belgium and, in part, Italy) can
migrants receive an exemption from government-provided language tests by attending language courses. Arguably, affordable and adequate language courses could be
more effective than language tests in ensuring that migrants develop the required
language proficiency level. In this respect, the Council of Europe Commissioner for
Discussion Page 63

Human Rights has recommended that countries with language and KoS requirements offer enough free courses and support to enable all applicants to meet therequirements. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has
welcomed the efforts made by some member states to offer free or inexpensive
access to language courses.
It is crucial to ensure that language and KoS instruction are adapted to the real-world
needs of learners and tailored to their learner profiles. Illiterate or low-literate learners
may need literacy training as well as language training, and KoS courses might bemore efficient if provided in a language the participants know, either in their first
language or in a lingua franca. An example of good practice here is Norway, where
the KoS courses are provided in 28 different languages and the KoS test requiredfor permanent residency is provided in the same 28 languages.

4.5. VULNERABLE GROUPS – LEARNING A LANGUAGE AND
PASSING A TEST IS NOT EQUALLY EASY FOR ALL
This report has focused particular attention on vulnerable groups. This was done toraise awareness of the fact that language learning is not equally easy for all learners. It
is important to recognise that refugees who have fled their home countries becauseof war and conflict may have suffered from a lack of schooling and hence not had achance to develop functional literacy skills. For these learners, proficiency in the new
language has to be developed in parallel with learning to read and write, often in alanguage they do not understand. This is a more demanding task than learning a new
language in itself. The lack of schooling also implies a lack of other school-related
skills. Test literacy is such a skill, which is of particular importance when language tests
are imposed as part of immigration policy. It is therefore important to underline thepotentially discriminating effect of language and KoS tests on low-literate learners,
especially if these requirements also comprise reading and writing.
Low-literate learners progress more slowly and often reach lower levels of language
proficiency, particularly in the written modes. To accommodate to these learners’
needs, they should receive more hours of instruction, at a slower pace and tailoredcourses as well as necessary exemptions from requirements. As the survey shows,
low-literate learners are to a limited degree catered for in teaching and testing.
Perhaps language learning courses may need to be treated as an entitlement, atleast for migrants with limited proficiency, with specific courses for those lacking
the necessary literacy skills.

4.6. KoS TESTS AS IMPLICIT LANGUAGE AND LITERACY TESTSThis report refers to language and/or KoS requirements throughout. The reason forthis is that KoS tests are often administered in the language of the host country andhence function as implicit language tests. In many cases, it is therefore not easy to
distinguish between the two. Most often, the KoS test requires candidates to read aquestion and pick the right answer from a list of written distractors. Hence, the KoS
tests normally also require literacy skills.
Page 64 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

There are some potential risks associated with KoS tests. First of all, if the purposeof the test is to measure knowledge of society, using a test format that requires
additional skills, such as literacy skills and proficiency in the language of the hostcountry invalidates the test as a measurement instrument. In a valid test, the result
reflects the skills or knowledge measured in an unrestricted way and should only toa limited degree be affected by other irrelevant skills and knowledge.
The results of the survey show that most KoS tests focus on topics such as culture,
history and law. Addressing these topics in a written test requires a certain language
level and it is difficult to imagine how a KoS test about these topics could be developed at a language proficiency level below B1. As such, KoS tests may act as anadditional, implicit language test, sometimes at a level that exceeds the CEFR level
necessary to pass the explicit language requirements. The language level required topass the KoS test, however, is typically not specified, which is an additional problem
with such tests.
In Italy there is a combined language and KoS test for permanent residency. The test
is oral (no reading and writing required) and the questions are developed so as not
to exceed the A2 level, which is the explicit language proficiency level required forpermanent residency. Consequently, passing the language and KoS requirements is
not dependent on literacy skills, and the level of proficiency is specified and does notexceed the explicit language requirement. As mentioned above, another approachis taken by Norway, where the KoS test for permanent residency is developed in
28 different languages. The KoS courses prior to the test are also provided in thesame languages. Hence, the KoS test is not an implicit test of the language of thehost country, which makes it a more valid measure of KoS. However, the format is a
written multiple-choice test, so it is an implicit test of literacy.

Discussion Page 65

Chapter 5

Recommendations
5.1. LEARNING OPPORTUNITIESI

t is important that migrants receive adequate and affordable opportunities tolearn the language and gain the necessary knowledge of society (KoS) of thehost country. In order to ensure learning opportunities, the following recommendations are made.
ff Language and KoS courses should be tailor-made to different groups of learners,
taking into account factors such as first language, educational background,
literacy level and age.
ff Countries should provide a sufficient and affordable number of hours of
instruction. Low-literate learners who need to learn to read and write at thesame time as learning the language need substantially more hours of instruction
than learners with higher levels of prior schooling.
ff The quality of the teaching materials and teaching staff should be regularly
monitored, and adequate teacher training ensured.
ff Learners’ plurilingual repertoire should be seen as a valued asset in teaching
and learning processes.

5.2. PROMOTING INTEGRATION
It has been shown that language and knowledge of society tests do not facilitate ormeasure societal integration. In fact, language and knowledge of society tests canlead to alienation from the host society.
ff If the goal is to promote the societal integration of migrants, it is recommended
to focus on learning opportunities rather than on tests. Courses are likely to
be more effective than obligatory language tests to foster and facilitate theprocess of integration.
ff If the goal is to ensure that the migrant population learns the language of thehost country and has knowledge of the society, language and knowledge ofsociety courses are to be preferred over requirements.
Page 67

5.3. PAYING PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO VULNERABLE GROUPSIn designing migration and integration policies, some groups of migrants receive
comparably little attention.
ff It is important to consider that not all goals may be attainable for all learners.
For illiterate learners, levels above A1 in writing may be unattainable.
ff It is recommended that vulnerable groups (e.g. low-literate/illiterate persons,refugees, minors, the elderly, disabled persons) be exempt from language andknowledge of society requirements.
ff It is important to emphasise that refugees and those eligible for subsidiary
protection should not be required to meet conditions that may put their current
and future safety at risk. Language and knowledge of society requirements
may add additional stressors or sources of insecurity to people already in avulnerable situation.

5.4. TEST QUALITY
When language and KoS tests have an important impact on test takers’ lives andprospects, it is of great importance that the test instruments are of high quality. The
principles of equality and fairness are central to good practice in assessment. In thecontext of the current report, fairness would imply that all applicants for residency,
citizenship or entry to a country have equal opportunities to meet the requirements.
ff It is recommended that important tests be subject to external quality control.
Language tests can be audited by organisations such as ALTE (the Associationof Language Testers in Europe). Other major language testing organisations (theInternational Language Testing Association (ILTA) and the European Association
for Language Testing and Assessment (EALTA)) do not have auditing systems,
but have published guidelines on developing valid language tests. Many ofthese principles also apply to knowledge of society tests.
ff If tests are computer-based, test takers without sufficient computer skills should
be offered learning opportunities to improve these skills. This is necessary if
the test is to reflect their actual language or KoS skills.
ff If tests are a compulsory component of a country’s migration and integration
programme, it is recommended that these tests be free or at least affordable
for all migrants. Additionally, there should be no limit as to the number of times
an applicant may sit the test.
ff If knowledge of society is to be measured separately from a language test,
the language of the KoS test should be one the migrant knows well. If not, theKoS test would serve as an additional language test, the level of which cannot
be controlled. Furthermore, to avoid invalid measurement, migrants with lowlevels of literacy should be given the choice to take the test orally, possiblywith the assistance of a cultural mediator.
ff It is recommended that language requirements be based on a needs analysis.
Not all professional or societal roles require the same proficiency level in the
Page 68 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

four skills and an analysis of the real-world language requirements in thetarget contexts will help to clarify which language proficiency levels might beappropriate for which migrant profiles.

5.5. RESPONSIBLE USE OF TESTSWhen language and/or KoS tests are used to control access to citizenship, residency
and entry, they may have a severe impact on the lives and prospects of those whotake them. Not only should the tests used for such purposes meet the highest professional standards, but they should also be used with a sense of responsibility andconsideration for the human rights of the test takers.
ff The use of pre-entry tests in the context of family reunification is strongly
discouraged. Since there can be no guarantee that all applicants for entry
have had access to language or KoS courses, pre-entry requirements can beconsidered highly problematic from ethical and human rights perspectives.26
ff If policy makers decide to introduce language and KoS requirements, thebody responsible for introducing the requirements should make sure thatthe consequences and impact of these tests on stakeholders are carefully
investigated. Research should be carried out to check whether certain learnergroups are discriminated against, what the impact of the policy is on migrants
and society, and what consequences (intended and unintended, negativeand positive) may occur. This requires that background variables from test
candidates be collected.
ff It is recommended that policy makers in individual member states consult
language experts and language assessment professionals when setting language
requirements or selecting tests as part of the migration policy.

5.6. RESPONSIBLE USE OF THE CEFR
There are certain responsibilities when using the CEFR to determine language
requirements in migration or integration policies.
ff It is recommended that language requirements be set at a level that is realistic
for most adult learners. Levels B2 and above are out of reach for most language
learners and even for many native speakers. These levels are cognitively
demanding and require academic language skills. If used for migration purposes,
requirements at these levels are likely to severely restrict equality of opportunity.
ff It is recommended that language proficiency requirements be differentiated.
Language skills that require reading or writing are especially challenging for
low-literate learners and it is therefore recommendable to set lower level
26. This point is in line with the recommendations of the Commissioner for Human Rights of theCouncil of Europe, the findings in this respect arising from the monitoring of member states’commitments under the European Social Charter and the recommendations of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (2013, 2014).

Recommendations Page 69

requirements in reading and writing than in listening and speaking. Requiring
proficiency levels in reading or writing above the A1 level goes beyond what
could reasonably be expected of low-literate learners with a limited educational
background. Similarly, for listening and speaking, the requirements should notexceed the A2 level.27

27. Our recommendations of specific CEFR-based requirements are in line with those of the Councilof Europe Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2034 (2014), p. 3.
Page 70 Linguistic integration of adult migrantsReferences andrecommended reading
Allemano J. (2013), “Testing the reading ability of low educated ESOL learners”, Journalof Applied Language Studies, 7(1), pp. 67-68.
ALTE (2015), Language tests for access, integration and citizenship: An outline forpolicy makers, available at https://www.alte.org/resources/Documents/LAMI%20
Booklet%20EN.pdf.
Bauböck R. and Goodman S. W. (2010), “Naturalisation”, EUDO Citizenship Policy Brief
No. 2, available at http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/policy-brief-naturalisation_revised.
pdf.
Böcker A. and Strik T. (2011), “Language and knowledge tests for permanent residence rights: Help or hindrance for integration”, European Journal of Migration andLaw, 13(2), pp. 157-184.
Bruzos A., Erdocia I. and Khan K. (2017), “The path to naturalization in Spain: Old
ideologies, new language testing regimes and the problem of test use”, Language
Policy, 17(4), pp. 419-441.
Carlsen C. H. (2017), “Giving LESLLA learners a fair chance in testing”, in Sosiński
M. (ed.), Proceedings from LESLLA 2016 12th annual symposium, 8-10 September 2016
(pp. 135–148), Universidad de Granada, Granada.
Council of Europe (1954), European Cultural Convention.
Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
learning, teaching, assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Council of Europe (2018), Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume with new
descriptors, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/
cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (1968), Resolution (68) 18 on the teachingof languages to migrant workers.
Page 71

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (2013), “Integration tests: helping or
hindering integration?”, report (Doc. 13361, rapporteur Tineke Strik), Council ofEurope, Strasbourg.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2034 (2014) “Integration
tests: helping or hindering integration”.
Deygers B., Zeidler B., Vilcu D. and Carlsen C. H. (2018), “One framework to unite themall? Use of the CEFR in European university entrance policies”, Language Assessment
Quarterly, 15(1), pp. 3-15.
Djuve A. B., Kavli H. C., Sterri E. B. and Bråten B. (2017), Introduksjonsprogram og
norskopplæring. Hva virker – for hvem?, Fafo-rapport 2017, 31.
Dörneyei Z. and Skehan P. (2003), “Individual differences in second language learning”,
in Doughty C. and Long M., The handbook of second language acquisition, Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, Malden, pp. 589-630.
Doughty C. and Long M. (2003), The handbook of second language acquisition,
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden.
El-Awad U., Fathi A., Petermann F. and Reinelt T. (2017), “Promoting mental health inunaccompanied refugee minors: recommendations for primary support programs”,
Brain Sciences, 7(11), p. 146, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC5704153/.
Hulstijn J. (2015), Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers – Theory andresearch, John Benjamins Publication Company, Amsterdam.
Jakobsen M. (2018), Mental health of unaccompanied refugee minors – A longitudinal
study from arrival in Norway to outcome of the asylum procedure, PhD thesis, The
University of Oslo, Norway.
Khan K. (2019), Becoming a citizen. Linguistic trials and negotiations in the UK,
Bloomsbury Publishing, London.
North B., Angelova M., Jarosz E. and Rossner R. (2018), Language Course Planning,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Strik T., Böcker A., Luiten M. and van Oers R. (2010), “The INTEC Project: synthesis
report. Integration and naturalisation tests: the new way to European citizenship”,
Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Tarone E. (2010), “Second language acquisition by low-literate learners: An under-studied population”, Language Teaching, 43, pp. 75-83.
Thalgott P. (2017), “Foreword”, in Beacco J.-C., Krumm H.-J., Little D. and Thalgott P,
The linguistic integration of adult migrants, De Gruyter, Germany.
UNHCR (2019), “What is a refugee?”, available at https://www.unrefugees.org/
refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/.
UNHCR (2016), “Unaccompanied minors and separated children – Young, alone,
and vulnerable”, available at https://www.unhcr.org/ceu/90-enwhat-we-docaring-for-the-vulnerableunaccompanied-minors-and-separated-children-html.html.
Page 72 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Van Avermaet P. and Pulinx R. (2013), “Language testing for immigration to Europe”,
in Kunnan A. (ed.), The Companion to Language Assessment, John Wiley and Sons,
London, pp. 1-14.
Windisch H. (2015), Adults with low literacy and numeracy skills – A literature review
on policy intervention, OECD Publishing, Paris.

References and recommended reading Page 73

Appendix
Link to the electronic survey: www.surveymonkey.de/r/COE_languagepolicy_2018.
List of respondents28
Country

Department

English translation

Albania

Government of Albania

AndorraGovern d’Andorra

Armenia

Department of Public
Administration

Austria

Bundesministerium fürInneres

Ministry of the Interior

Belgium (Fl.)

Agentschap Integratie &Inburgering

Agency for Integration
and Citizenship

Belgium (Fr.)

Association Jeunesse– Solidarité

Association for Youth andSolidarity

Bulgaria

ALTE contact

Croatia

Agencija za odgoj iobrazovanje

Cyprus

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Czech Republic

Ministry of Education, Youthand Sports

Denmark

Ministry of Integration

Finland

Valtion tieto

FranceMinistry of the Interior

Germany

Bundesamt für Sicherheit in
der Informationstechnik

GreeceMinistry of Education

Hungary

Ministry of the Interior

Iceland

Rekstrarfélag Stjórnarráðsins

Government of Andorra

Ministry of Education

Government ICT Services
Department of Information
Security

Government of Iceland

28. Because of General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) respondents are not listed with names
and e-mail addresses, contrary to the practice of prior Council of Europe reports.

Page 75

Country

Department

Ireland

Irish Government

Italy

Ministry of the Interior

LatviaLR Izglītības un Zinātnes
Ministrija

Lithuania

State Enterprise Centre ofRegisters

Luxembourg

Fondation RESTENA

MaltaFoundation for Shelter andSupport for Migrants

Моldova

Ministrul Educației, Culturii
și CercetăriiMonacoDepartment of Education

Netherlands

Ministry of Integration

North
Macedonia

ALTE contact

NorwayDepartementenes
Sikkerhets- og
Serviceorganisasjon

PolandMinistry of National
Education

Portugal

ALTE contact

Romania

Ministry of Internal Affairs
and Ministry of Education

English translation

Ministry of Education andScience

ICT Network of National
Education and Research

Ministry of Education, Culture
and Research

Ministry of Security andOrganisation

RussiaMinistry of Education

San Marino

Department of Foreign
Affairs

SerbiaAkademska mreza
Republike Srbije - AMRESAcademic Network of the
Republic of Serbia

Slovak Republic

Ministerstvo vnútra SR

Ministry of the Interior

Slovenia

Republika Slovenija
Ministrstvo Za Javno Upravo

Ministry of Public
Administration

Spain

ALTE contact

SwedenSkolverket

National Agency for Education

Fide

Swiss Programme for Promoting
Linguistic Integration

Switzerland
TurkeyTurkish Government

United Kingdom

Academic Network

Page 76 Linguistic integration of adult migrants

Sales agents for publications of the Council of Europe
Agents de vente des publications du Conseil de l’Europe
BELGIUM/BELGIQUE
La Librairie Européenne The European Bookshop
Rue de l’Orme, 1
BE-1040 BRUXELLES
Tel.: + 32 (0)2 231 04 35
Fax: + 32 (0)2 735 08 60
E-mail: info@libeurop.eu
http://www.libeurop.be
Jean De Lannoy/DL Services
c/o Michot Warehouses
Bergense steenweg 77
Chaussée de Mons
BE-1600 SINT PIETERS LEEUW
Fax: + 32 (0)2 706 52 27
E-mail: jean.de.lannoy@dl-servi.com
http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be
CANADA
Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.
22-1010 Polytek Street
CDN-OTTAWA, ONT K1J 9J1
Tel.: + 1 613 745 2665
Fax: + 1 613 745 7660
Toll-Free Tel.: (866) 767-6766
E-mail: order.dept@renoufbooks.com
http://www.renoufbooks.com
CROATIA/CROATIE
Robert’s Plus d.o.o.
Marasoviçeva 67
HR-21000 SPLIT
Tel.: + 385 21 315 800, 801, 802, 803
Fax: + 385 21 315 804
E-mail: robertsplus@robertsplus.hr

FINLAND/FINLANDE
Akateeminen Kirjakauppa
PO Box 128
Keskuskatu 1
FI-00100 HELSINKI
Tel.: + 358 (0)9 121 4430
Fax: + 358 (0)9 121 4242
E-mail: akatilaus@akateeminen.com
http://www.akateeminen.com

RUSSIAN FEDERATION/FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE
Ves Mir
17b, Butlerova ul. - Office 338
RU-117342 MOSCOW
Tel.: + 7 495 739 0971
Fax: + 7 495 739 0971
E-mail: orders@vesmirbooks.ru
http://www.vesmirbooks.ru

FRANCE
Please contact directly /Merci de contacter directement
Council of Europe Publishing
Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe
F-67075 STRASBOURG Cedex
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 41 25 81
Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 41 39 10
E-mail: publishing@coe.int
http://book.coe.int

SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Planetis Sàrl
16, chemin des Pins
CH-1273 ARZIER
Tel.: + 41 22 366 51 77
Fax: + 41 22 366 51 78
E-mail: info@planetis.ch

Librairie Kléber
1, rue des Francs-Bourgeois
F-67000 STRASBOURG
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 15 78 88
Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 15 78 80
E-mail: librairie-kleber@coe.int
http://www.librairie-kleber.com
NORWAY/NORVÈGE
Akademika
Postboks 84 Blindern
NO-0314 OSLO
Tel.: + 47 2 218 8100
Fax: + 47 2 218 8103
E-mail: support@akademika.no
http://www.akademika.no

CZECH REPUBLIC/RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
Suweco CZ, s.r.o.
Klecakova 347
CZ-180 21 PRAHA 9
Tel.: + 420 2 424 59 204
Fax: + 420 2 848 21 646
E-mail: import@suweco.cz
http://www.suweco.cz

POLAND/POLOGNE
Ars Polona JSC
25 Obroncow Street
PL-03-933 WARSZAWA
Tel.: + 48 (0)22 509 86 00
Fax: + 48 (0)22 509 86 10
E-mail: arspolona@arspolona.com.pl
http://www.arspolona.com.pl

DENMARK/DANEMARK
GAD
Vimmelskaftet 32
DK-1161 KØBENHAVN K
Tel.: + 45 77 66 60 00
Fax: + 45 77 66 60 01
E-mail: reception@gad.dk
http://www.gad.dk

PORTUGAL
Marka Lda
Rua dos Correeiros 61-3
PT-1100-162 LISBOA
Tel: 351 21 3224040
Fax: 351 21 3224044
E mail: apoio.clientes@marka.pt
www.marka.pt

TAIWAN
Tycoon Information Inc.
5th Floor, No. 500, Chang-Chun Road
Taipei, Taiwan
Tel.: 886-2-8712 8886
Fax: 886-2-8712 4747, 8712 4777
E-mail: info@tycoon-info.com.tw
orders@tycoon-info.com.tw
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNIThe Stationery Office Ltd
PO Box 29
GB-NORWICH NR3 1GN
Tel.: + 44 (0)870 600 5522
Fax: + 44 (0)870 600 5533
E-mail: book.enquiries@tso.co.uk
http://www.tsoshop.co.uk
UNITED STATES and CANADA/ÉTATS-UNIS et CANADA
Manhattan Publishing Co
670 White Plains Road
USA-10583 SCARSDALE, NY
Tel: + 1 914 472 4650
Fax: + 1 914 472 4316
E-mail: coe@manhattanpublishing.com
http://www.manhattanpublishing.com

Council of Europe Publishing/Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe
F-67075 STRASBOURG Cedex
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 41 25 81 – Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 41 39 10 – E-mail: publishing@coe.int – Website: http://book.coe.int

LINGUISTIC INTEGRATIONOF ADULT MIGRANTS:REQUIREMENTS AND
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

Migration is one of the most contentious issues in current
international politics. To better understand this issue, the Councilof Europe conducted an extensive survey among Council ofEurope member states on requirements regarding language andknowledge of society that migrants must meet to obtain accessto the country, residency or citizenship. This report, based on thatsurvey, will be relevant to anybody interested in migration andlanguage policy.

EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY

PREMS 112819

It pays particular attention to vulnerable learner groups and thedegree to which member states provide migrants with adequate
learning opportunities. In addition to discussing current trends, italso shows that language and knowledge of society requirements
were gradually made stricter between 2007 and 2018. Basedon the survey results and on available research, the authors
formulate a number of policy recommendations, emphasising
the importance of providing adequate learning opportunities
and warning against requirements that might hinder, rather thanfoster, integration.

ENG
The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading
human rights organisation. It comprises 47
member states, including all members of
the European Union. All Council of Europe
member states have signed up to the European
Convention on Human Rights, a treaty
designed to protect human rights, democracy
and the rule of law. The European Court of
Human Rights oversees the implementationof the Convention in the member states.
http://book.coe.int
PDF - ISBN 978-92-871-8974-5€8/US$16
9 789287

189745

Report on the 2018
Council of Europe and ALTE
survey on language and knowledgeof society policies for migrants