Turning language learning into an incentive: Five key insights from other countries

1. Language provision as a tool for integration

Each of the countries explored in our review explicitly acknowledges that proficiency in the language/s of the host country is central to integration. Some countries, such as France, take this a step further by embedding mandatory subsidised or free language learning for those who are granted residency.  

This approach aims to ensure that individuals have the tools to navigate daily life and can be active participants in society. However, it is important to remember that such an approach must avoid making language proficiency a prerequisite for accessing services, and must not conflate integration with assimilation. 

2. Minimum entitlements in language provision 

Some countries also have a minimum and maximum number of free or subsidised teaching hours to which learners are entitled, as well as a language level that learners are expected to achieve. For example, learners in Wallonia, Belgium who are new to French receive at least 400 hours of French lessons with the expectation that they reach A2 level, based on the Common European Framework for Languages (CEFR), within three years of starting the course. 

The approach taken by other countries, such as Norway, aims to offer more flexibility: a learner’s previous educational experience determines the minimum standard of Norwegian learners are expected to achieve within a set timeframe.  

3. Targeted and tailored provision 

Many of the language courses that we looked at have a desired outcome for participants, be it language development for the world of work or for day-to-day life. Much of the provision is also tailored according to the learner’s prior education and goals, ranging from learners with no previous schooling to those who have completed secondary or tertiary education.  

Australia, for example, offers a range of levels in their English courses, with the focus progressing from core concepts – such as the alphabet – through to engaging with formal documents like job applications. The aim here is for learners to gradually build the language skills needed to enter further vocational training or employment. 

Pathway systems are common in EU countries, with the Netherlands also offering work placements for those who arrive with a higher language proficiency. There, language provision has been tailored to promote outcomes that benefit both the learner and the country through social and economic participation. 

4. Regional implementation 

A common theme throughout the countries in this review is that local municipalities are also responsible for local language provision alongside the state. In addition, each municipality has oversight of the number of people who require language learning as well as those already accessing it.    

In some countries, such as Switzerland, local integration and language funding can be matched by the state, thus doubling the available funding. These are examples of targeted provision where there is a collaborative effort of both the state and regional Governments.   

5. International and national standards of language ability 

Most of the countries in our sample use either national or international standards for describing language ability. The most usual being the Common European Framework Reference for Languages (CEFR).  

The CEFR, originally developed in 2001, is now used all over the world and describes language ability on a six-point scale, outlining what learners are able to do at each level using can-do descriptors. For example, a learner working at the A1 (beginner) level in speaking can use simple sentences to describe where they live.  

There are various advantages of this alignment with the CEFR – such as ensuring that different countries, states, and stakeholders have a shared and comparable understanding of a learner’s language proficiency. Since the CEFR is rooted in the latest evidence on how people learn a language, it is our recommendation that new ESOL standards in England should be aligned to this framework in order to drive effective teaching and learning, and to inform equitable assessment across regions.  

Conclusion  

These case studies demonstrate just how much importance is placed on language provision as an enabler for learners to become active citizens in their local communities. 

Incentivising learners with free or subsidised language provision that is tailored to meet their individual needs, and is readily available, is just the first step. Following a globally recognised language framework, offering wraparound support, and having regional decision-making to help address local needs, alongside a clear national framework of expectations and accountability, all demonstrate how Governments elsewhere can take active steps to enable people to integrate. 

These are all useful insights as we consider how we can create a more joined-up and learner-focused approach to ESOL that supports learners’ social and economic participation in society.