Immigration: the test case

Controversy has led to the setting up of populist hurdles that may not be productive for the UK, or for those trying to enter it

Immigration: the test case


Talk of immigration is on the rise: a new survey claims most voters feel immigration is bad for Britain; Gordon Brown has made a speech declaring his intention to tighten up policy in the area; and while recently released figures indicate that net migration has in fact fallen by a third, so more people left Britain than came in over the last 12 months, there are still people who complain about the number of people entering Britain.

Some argue that the hot air generated around the issue means hard facts are overlooked in favour of pandering to opinion polls. Policymakers often fail to look at the complexities of the migration process. Today, as part of a reformed immigration strategy, the different groups seeking to enter or settle in Britain are confronted with a range of formal assessments, including English language and Life in the UK tests. These tests take place at different stages of the "journey to citizenship", as the Home Office likes to call it.

But do these tests help or hinder Britain? The UK Border Agency's new framework for immigration rules groups the different types of newcomers into four categories: visitors, temporary migrants (entering for work, study or family reunion), asylum seekers and permanent migrants seeking long-term stay and the possibility of citizenship.

Given the wide range of people and reasons for coming to the UK, many question why the tests exist, and if they serve a useful purpose. There are wider concerns about whether a threshold of English language proficiency is required for a migrant to participate in British society. As Adrian Blackledge points out, testing as such is not going to address the issues of social cohesion or integration.

However, tests should not be regarded as the problem. On the contrary, quality tests, when assessed effectively, offer benefits to not only to migrants but also to the UK as a whole; but they need to be effective and fair.

Take the students and skilled workers who now come to the UK as temporary migrants. It is imperative that students who come to attend British undergraduate or postgraduate courses have an adequate level of English for academic studies. The same applies to doctors or engineers entering the country to work. In these cases it is legitimate to set a high level of proficiency as the threshold, and an English test does act as a gatekeeping device for such entrants; it helps the university authorities select applicants who will benefit from an education in English, and the Border Agency to weed out frauds.

But what about students who want to enter the country to learn English? They may have a very limited command of the language. Are they barred from entry if they can't pass the test at the prescribed level? There seems to be no logic in that. Moreover, language schools make a valuable contribution to the UK economy, so barring genuine students would be counterproductive. If the aim is to reduce fraud, rather than set a proficiency level, would it not make more sense to ensure that other controls are tightened – such as the inspection of language schools?

Even with the best will in the world, not everyone finds it easy to learn another language. Take the variables age and level of education. A child who benefits from special provisions within the latest immigration bill will go to school and is likely to pick up English pretty fast. An elderly person may not find it at all straightforward. What seems to be poorly understood is that a variety of factors such as their age, education, cultural background and their health may hamper their ability to learn English, even if they try hard to do so. Is it just to deny them the right to live and work here on these grounds, even if they are exemplary in other ways?

Blackledge is right when he says that in political discourse, languages other than English are often seen as a threat to national unity. Interestingly, the government's immigration rhetoric contradicts what it has tried to achieve with its National Languages Strategy, which tries to get more people to learn more languages, celebrates linguistic diversity and sees migrant languages as an important asset for the UK. It is an enlightened initiative given how few British teenagers now choose to learn languages like French or Spanish at school.

Assessment should not be demonised, as Blackledge implies. We also need to consider the potentially positive roles that language assessment can play for those on the "journey". Carefully developed, well-managed and thoroughly validated tests are necessary. As migrants progress along the path to citizenship, the nature of the assessment needs to change from a gatekeeping one to one that helps migrants set learning goals to measure their progress. Only then can English tests help someone address their communication needs and help migrants integrate effectively.

Ultimately a recognised English qualification helps migrants to progress in their careers. For the tests to be effective, the UK Border Agency needs to ensure that they are suitable and meet international codes of practice.

In addition, the tests need to be administered securely to prevent cheating and fraud. The Border Agency has a duty to select high-quality tests which are valid and reliable – but we should all remember that the decisions we make using test results are a shared responsibility. They affect people's lives.