2. Overview of the systems for language training in the Nordic countries

The purpose of this chapter is to give a comparative overview of the various systems for language training in the Nordic countries. We describe the systems for formal and non-formal language training in each country, comparing how training is organised, responsible actors, eligibility, requirements for teaching qualifications, funding models and costs, as well as the goals and results of language training. In addition, the chapter provides a brief presentation of how EU/EEA regulations influence language training in the Nordic countries.

2.1 Summary of findings

Overall, we have found that the Nordic countries are largely similar when it comes to both the formal and non-formal language training services that are offered to adult immigrants. Speaking the national language is widely recognised as being a prerequisite for immigrants to integrate. As such, language training is a key element of integration policies in all Nordic countries, which provide formal language training services to some or all immigrants to facilitate the integration process. Non-formal language training services, a significant variation of which are found in all countries, provide an important complement to formal services. As well as offering training to immigrants who may not be eligible to participate in formal language training services, they facilitate social integration and provide arenas for immigrants to practice their language skills – both through digital tools and physical meetings.

Unsurprisingly, given the priority of language training at policy-level, services are, to a considerable extent, publicly funded. For formal language training services, the exact system of redistribution, as well as tariffs and costs differ between countries, as does the administrative level responsible for funding the training. For non-formal services, public funding also constitutes an important revenue stream, even though user fees, donations and volunteer work are often important sources of funding.

The main long-term goal of both formal and non-formal language training services is to facilitate integration, both into the labour market and socially. With labour market integration being the main goal of all Nordic integration policies, formal language training in all countries has developed in recent years as this focus has increased. All countries provide the opportunity to combine language training with either vocational training or primary or secondary education. While the goals of non-formal language training services are often vaguer than for formal services, labour market integration often constitutes one of the main goals. For services that offer CV-workshops or courses tailored to a specific profession, this goal is explicit, whereas for services with a more social focus, social integration and building a social network is prioritised. In the shorter term, the goal of both formal and non-formal language training is for participants to achieve proficiency in a Nordic language. Such results are, however, only measured nationally in relation to formal services, with factors such as education-level correlating with better results and higher proficiency in all countries.

2.2 Formal language training services

Formal language training services are services that are offered through public actors. Typically, unemployed immigrants are required to participate in formal training as part of their integration process. Formal services are regulated in terms of their organisation, contents, eligibility, and requirements to participate. They are publicly funded, albeit commercial and non-profit providers are often procured to deliver the services.

Table 4 presents an overview of the formal language training systems in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden regarding responsible actors, types of training and levels, main providers, eligibility criteria, requirements related to teaching qualifications, funding models, costs, and goals. While the systems are complex and organised in somewhat different ways, there are also many similarities. The main similarities relate to the role of procured commercial and non-profit providers, which play an important role in delivering training, that training is arranged in “tracks”, based on determined prerequisites and abilities of participants, that training must be completed within a set time frame (except in Sweden), and how funding for providers is primarily based on participants completing the course (except in Norway). The key differences, on the other hand, relate to which immigrants are eligible to participate free of charge, the requirements for teacher qualifications, the regulation of training content through set curriculum and course plans, and costs per participant.

Table 4. Overview of formal language training systems in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden

	DK	FI	NO	SE
Responsible actors	Municipalities	Regional development centres (ELY centres)	Local municipalities	Municipalities
Types of training offered	Danish education (DU) Preparatory adult education (FVU), Basic Integration Education (IGU)	Integration training, basic education, liberal education	Norwegian training for adult immigrants	Swedish for immigrants (SFI) Primary municipal adult education (komvux), upper secondary municipal adult education
Main providers of language training	25 percent public providers, 75 percent procured private and non-profit providers in 2016. Deloitte (2016) Likely to have increased	All training provided by procured private and non-profit providers	Vast majority provided by public providers, but municipalities may procure private, and non-profit providers	Approximately 50 percent public providers, 50 percent procured private and non-profit providers Skolverket (2022)
Main procurement processes	Competitive bidding	Competitive bidding	Authorised providers	Competitive bidding and authorised providers (differs between municipalities)
Eligibility	All immigrants with a residence permit, regardless of sub-group	Unemployed immigrants with a residence permit	All immigrants with a residence permit except EU/EEA labour migrants	All immigrants with a residence permit regardless of sub-group
Length of training	Up to 5 years to complete the equivalent of 1.2 years of full-time language training	3 years from the start of the integration plan	18 months to 3 years, depending on individual plan	No limit
Teaching qualifications	30 ECTS in Danish as a foreign language required to teach	Not required by law, but typically considered when services are procured	30 ECTS in Norwegian as a foreign language required to teach	30 ECTS in Swedish as a second language to grade participants, no requirements to teach
Funding model	Funded by municipalities with state support, determined through a reimbursement scheme	Integration training funding distributed from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment to the regional ELY centres	State responsible for funding. Municipalities redistribute to providers	State responsible for funding. Municipalities redistribute to providers
Timing of compensation	30 percent at the start of a module, 70 percent at completion	Providers compensated when participants complete their course/module	Compensation paid out quarterly and retroactively at a predetermined date, based on the training provided	Providers compensated when participants complete their course/module
Costs (2016 baseline)	DKK 1.8 bn	EUR 60 mill (budget)	NOK 1.99 bn	SEK 3.07 bn
Long term goals	Labour market integration	Labour market integration	Labour market integration	Labour market integration
Language proficiency goals	Proficiency required to gain employment	B1 level	A2-B2 depending on individual integration or language plan	Proficiency required to gain employment

Integration policies determine the organisation and contents of language training

The design of immigration policies and regulations at national level has a major impact on the composition and volume of immigration, as well as support for labour market integration, including access to language training. All four Nordic countries have comprehensive laws that regulate the organisation, funding, eligibility related to language training for adult immigrants. In Finland

Finland’s Act on the Promotion of Immigrant Integration (1386/2010) is currently being amended to ensure that it is compatible with forthcoming changes to health and social care legislation.

and Norway,

Norway’s Integration Act (Lov om integrering gjennom opplæring, utdanning og arbeid (integreringsloven)) replaced the previous Introduction Act (Lov om introduksjonsordning og norskopplæring for nyankomne innvandrere (introduksjonsloven)) in 2021. The Introduction Act still applies to immigrants who received their residence permit prior to 1.1.2021. The main difference in the Integration law is an increased focus on formal training and qualifications, as well as combining language training with work experience.

the legislation that regulates language training is an integral part of broader integration legislation. In Denmark

Access and responsibility to participate in language training is regulated partly through the Integration Act (Integrationsloven), whereas its organisation is detailed in the Law on Danish Education for Adult Immigrants (Lov om danskuddannelse til voksne udlændinge m.fl.). The latter was implemented in 2017, providing a comprehensive reform of the Danish education area for adult migrants with more labour-oriented language training, to ensure stronger labour market integration for migrants.

and Sweden,

In Sweden, the organisation of language training is specified in the School Law (Skollagen) and the Adult Education Regulation (Förordning (2011:1108) om vuxenutbildning).

the integration laws are complemented by laws specifically concerned with access to adult education.

The contents of formal language training are regulated in all countries, both through laws that determine the extent to which social and labour market orientation must be included and through national curricula that determine the contents of the language training. In recent years, the emphasis on social and labour market integration as a part of language training has increased in all Nordic countries. In addition to the language learning curricula, courses in social orientation and knowledge of the labour market typically complement language training, either as a mandatory requirement for all participants, or as a part of an individual’s integration or establishment plan. Both Denmark and Norway place a particular focus on courses in social orientation, which are legally mandated. In Finland and Sweden on the other hand, such courses may form a part of an individual immigrant’s integration or establishment plan based on their needs and prerequisites.

Municipalities are key actors in the organisation of formal language training services, being responsible for either procuring or providing the services in all countries but Finland, where the responsibility instead lies with regional development centres, so-called ELY centres.

Language training is offered with different speed and intensity depending on participant prerequisites

Formal language training in the Nordic countries is organised in largely similar ways, that allow participants to be allocated to “tracks”, aligned with their educational backgrounds and other needs and prerequisites:

Denmark. Danish education (Danskuddannelse, DU) is offered in tracks 1-3 depending on participant prerequisites.
Finland. Integration training is provided according to individual integration and offered with a slower path, basic path, and fast path.
Norway. Individual integration or language learning plans determine the intensity, speed, and contents of provided language training (norskopplæring).
Sweden. Swedish for immigrants (Svenska för invandrare, SFI) is offered in tracks 1–3 depending on participant prerequisites.

In all countries, the training offered is adapted to the educational background of the participants, which determines which track an immigrant is placed within, based on expectations as to how quickly they will be able to progress. Based on how familiar the participant is with the language they are learning; all countries offer different starting points within the tracks. Depending on the track, the speed, intensity, and focus varies, as does expected progression and the CEFR-level that participants are expected to achieve.

In all countries, integration or language plans state what type of language training – or other education – participants are obligated to partake in. In addition to language training, immigrants in in all four Nordic countries may be required to participate in the equivalent of primary level education to strengthen basic skills and their opportunities to gain employment. Immigrants to Finland participate in so-called basic education, whereas immigrants to Sweden may have a “duty of education” to participate in primary municipal adult education (komvux). In Norway, a key objective of the Integration Act is that refugees participate in formal education parallel to their language studies, particularly at upper secondary level.

Eligibility for formal language training a main difference between the Nordic countries

One of the areas in which the Nordic countries differ when it comes to formal language training eligibility. The main national difference in eligibility is whether labour market immigrants have access to formal language training and how their participation is funded. A residence permit is a prerequisite to be eligible to participate in regular formal training in all countries. As the only country, Norway also provides and requires asylum seekers in asylum centres to participate in language training, albeit this is organised in a different way to the formal language training provided to immigrants who have received their residence permit.

Table 5. Eligibility to participate in formal language training in the Nordic countries

	Refugees and their reunited family members	Family members of Nordic citizens	Labour migrants from EU/EEA	Labour migrants from outside EU/EEA
Denmark	Eligible and required to participate free of charge for up to 15 hours a week on average for a maximum period of 5 years.	Eligible to participate free of charge in 3.5 years of training throughout a 5-year period. Participants pay a DKK 2000 fee to enrol in a module, which is refunded upon completion of the module. From 2017 to 2022, labour migrants and their spouses, family members of Nordic citizens, students and au-pairs were subject to a voucher system (Klippekortsordningen). The system encompassed six “vouchers” – one for each module – that expired after a certain time, to ensure that participants completed their language training within the mandated five years. The system was phased out in July 2022.	Eligible Includes immigrants with a residence permit based on employment, studies, arriving as an au pair or through reunification with a Danish spouse. to participate free of charge in 3.5 years of training throughout a 5-year period. Participants pay a DKK 2000 fee to enrol in a module, which is refunded upon completion of the module.
Finland	Eligible and required to participate free of charge during a three-year integration plan.	Eligible to participate free of charge.	Not eligible to participate. Employed immigrants, regardless of reason for residence permit.
Norway	Eligible and required to participate free of charge until proficiency goal in the introduction plan is achieved. Typically, within 18 months to 3 years.	Eligible to participate free of charge through language training plan.	Not eligible to participate. A voucher-based system (Tilskudd til norskopplæring) was implemented by the Directorate of Integration and Diversity in 2021. The system allows providers of formal language training to apply for a grant to offer non-formal training free of charge to immigrants, regardless of their sub-group.	Eligible and required to participate, but at self-cost (immigrant or employer). The requirement ceases when proficiency level is met, or 300 hours of training have been completed.
Sweden	Eligible to participate free of charge for an unlimited period of time. Required to participate for the duration of their establishment plan.	Eligible to participate free of charge for an unlimited period of time, required to participate for the duration of their establishment plan.	Eligible to participate free of charge for an unlimited period of time.

Tariffs and costs differ both within and between countries

The Nordic countries differ when it comes to how the tariffs for language training courses are determined. In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, the tariffs differ between municipalities, whereas in Finland, tariffs depend on the type of language training offered. In Denmark and Sweden, this is primarily due to the way training is procured through competitive bidding processes. This also applies to Finland when it comes to Integration training. In Denmark, competitive bidding has resulted in a wide range of tariffs.

Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet (2020a)

In Norway, on the other hand, all municipalities are given a grant to cover the cost of language training, calculated according to the number of immigrants in the target group. In addition, municipalities receive an integration subsidy to help cover the costs of immigrants who participate in language training through their introduction programme. In practice, however, the costs of language training often exceed the received funding.

IMDi (2020)

Table 6. Costs of formal language training in the Nordic countries in 2016.
Sources: Skolverket, Statistisk sentralbyrå, Finnish Government Budget, Det nationale integrationsbarometer

	DK	FI	NO	SE
Types of training	Danish education	Integration training	Norwegian education and social orientation	Swedish for immigrants
Year of measurement	2016	2016 (budget)	2016	2016
Local currency	DKK 1.8 bn	EUR 60 mill	NOK 1.99 bn	SEK 3.07 bn
EUR (2016 conversion)	242 million	60 million	219 million	314 million
Number of participants	57,014	Data missing	41,552	150,142
Average spending per participant (EUR)	4,245	Data missing	5,277	2,093

Costs differ substantially between countries, both in terms of total costs as well as average spending per participant. Table 6 shows the costs of training in 2016 for all countries, as well as the number of immigrants who participated in training. Based on this data, we have calculated the average cost per participant, showing that in 2016, Norway had the highest level of spending per participant in formal language training, whereas Sweden spent the least.

While Sweden’s average cost per participant have increased in recent years and Norway’s has decreased, the overall difference still applies (Table 7). While we have been unable to collate data on more recent costs in Denmark, a study shows that the costs of training have decreased significantly since 2016.

Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet (2020)

This is attributed to a strengthening of oversight of municipalities to procure training through competitive bidding in 2017. Data for Finland on the number of participants in integration training is unavailable at national level.

Table 7. Costs of formal language training in the Nordic countries in 2021/2022.
Sources: Skolverket, Statistisk sentralbyrå, Finnish Government Budget, Det nationale integrationsbarometer

	FI	NO	SE
Types of training	Integration training	Norwegian education and social orientation	Swedish for immigrants
Year of measurement	2022 (budget)	2021	2021
Local currency	EUR 53 mill	NOK 1.06 bn	SEK 3.53 bn
EUR (2022 conversion)	53 million	105 million	329 million
Number of participants	Data missing	22,199	133,000
Average spending per participant (EUR)	Data missing	4,748	2,474

EU/EEA regulations have limited influence on language training in all countries

EU/EEA regulations have very little influence on language training in all Nordic countries. The main area where regulations affect language training is the procurement of language training, which takes place to varying extents in all countries and thus affects them all. Procurement is affected in that it must be based on EU principles for competitive procurement.

Other EU principles have affected national policies related to lifelong learning. For example, the European Qualification Framework for Lifelong learning affected the National Qualification Framework that was implemented by law in Norway in 2017, six years after its first implementation. In Sweden, the EU’s eight principles on key competences

Literary competence; multilingual competence; mathematical competence and competence in science, technology and engineering; digital competence; personal, social and learning to learn competence; citizenship competence; entrepreneurship competence; cultural awareness and expression competence.

are considered when education policy is developed. However, neither of these have any direct influence on the organisation and delivery formal language training.

The main goals of language training are language proficiency and potential for labour market integration

The main goal of language training in all countries is labour market integration, meaning that participants must develop sufficient language skills to either attain employment or to be able to participate in further education. To reach this goal, language training in all countries is combined with both social orientation and training that strengthens participants’ knowledge of the labour market and culture. In addition to employment and labour market integration, there are also goals related to language proficiency. While this is found in all the Nordic countries, it is more formalised in Finland and Norway, where participants goals set according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) scale.

The CEFR scale is an international scale for describing language ability on a six-point scale: Basic user (A1, A2), independent user (B1, B2), and proficient user (C1, C2).

Goals are individual and depend on the participant’s individual integration or language learning plans. On average, most participants are expected to achieve a proficiency level of B1. In Norway, the proficiency goal can also differ in relation to different aspects of language learning, such as reading, writing, understanding, and speaking.

Pass rates are high among exam participants, but proficiency levels are lower than desired

Whilst the long-term goal of language training is labour market integration, there is limited data that links the elements in a national language training system to employment. The results of language training are thus mainly measured in relation to the proficiency that participants achieve. While methods of measurement differ somewhat between countries, absence rates, pass rates and grades when completing courses or exams are typically monitored. All countries have final tests and exams at the completion of courses, equivalent to a level on the CEFR scale, albeit Finland and Norway place a heavier emphasis on the scale.

In all countries, a higher level of education correlates with both pass rates and achieved grades. While there is little differentiation between sub-groups, some patterns are visible. In both Denmark and Sweden, pass rates for labour migrants are lower than for other groups, albeit their grades are higher.

VIVE (2019); Statistiska Centralbyrån (2020)

In Denmark, refugees on average receive the lowest grades in their exams compared to other sub-groups.

Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet (2020c)

Other factors that seem to correlate with exam grades and pass rates are age, time spent in the Nordic country, and how teaching is delivered. In all countries, younger age groups achieve better results.

VTV (2018); Statistiska Centralbyrån (2020); Nordic Council of Ministers (2019)

Data from Finland show that those who have lived there longer also achieve better results. Results from Denmark show that in-person learning affects grades positively, compared to self-study.

Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet (2020c)

Results are measured in different ways in different countries. As such, Sweden and Denmark are comparable, whereas Finland and Norway are comparable. Data for Denmark and Sweden show that pass rates are generally high, but higher in Denmark for exams at B1 and B2 level compared to A2. The opposite is the case in Sweden, where pass rates are the highest for exams at A1/A2 level (Table 8). It should however be noted that in Sweden, dropout rates among participants are high, with almost 50 percent interrupting their courses in 2020, which is likely to affect the pass rates.

Skolverket (2020)

Country	Type of exam	Pass rate (percent)
Denmark (2020)	Danish Education 1 exam (A2)	82.6
	Danish Education 2 exam (B1)	91.4
	Danish Education 3 exam (B2)	91.5
Sweden (2019)	Swedish for Immigrants, national examination B (A1/A2)	92
	Swedish for Immigrants, national examination C (A2/A2+)	85
	Swedish for Immigrants, national examination D (B1/B1+)	85
	Swedish as a second language, national examination 1 (B1+/B2)	77
	Swedish as a second language, national examination 3 (C1)	88

Table 8. Pass rates among immigrants who have participated in exams at different proficiency levels in Denmark and Sweden.
Sources: Udlændinge- og integrationsministeriet, Skolverket

Data from Finland and Norway compares the distribution of language proficiency levels among participants who have completed final examinations (Table 9). Here, Norway stands out as having a higher proportion of participants who achieve both the lowest result (A1) and the highest result (B2) in the final proficiency exam compared to Finland. In Norway, results have improved in recent years, with more participants achieving a B1 or B2 level in proficiency exams in 2021 compared to previous years.

Statistisk sentralbyrå (2021b)

Country	Type of exam	Percentage of participants
Finland (2018)	Results A1 achieved at end of integration programme	12
	Results A2 achieved at end of integration programme	50
	Results B1 achieved at end of integration programme	35
	Results B2 or higher achieved at end of integration programme	3
Norway (2021)	Average A1 or lower in final proficiency exam	16
	Average A2 in final proficiency exam	39
	Average B1 in final proficiency exam	33
	Average B2 in final proficiency exam	12

Table 9. Results in final exams for formal language training in Finland and Norway.
Sources: VTV, SSB

Language training is combined with vocational training

All Nordic countries offer language training that can be combined with vocational education and training (VET). Structures for this kind of combined training vary between countries, but courses tend to offer workplace-based training within occupations with local or regional demands for labour. Generally, courses combine classroom-based language training with theoretical and practical VET. In Norway and Sweden immigrants typically apply to predetermined courses, whereas in Denmark and Finland, this type of training takes a more individualised approach (Table 10). Studies from Norway show that this type of training is a beneficial way of ensuring that immigrants learn relevant vocational skills in conjunction with language training.

Oxford Research (2017); Ideas2evidence (2020); By- og regionsforskningsinstitutet NIBR (2019); NORCE (2022)

An evaluation of Denmark’s Basic Integration Education also shows that this type of training is considered to improve the participants’ opportunities for employment and continued education.

Rambøll (2018)

Table 10. Examples of language training that combines formal language training with vocational training in the Nordic countries

	DK	FI	NO	SE
Examples of training	Basic Integration Education (Integrationsgrunduddannelsen, IGU)	Integration plan	Labour market training (Arbeidsmarkedsopplæring, AMO), other types of combined training offered within introduction plan	Swedish for Immigrants with VET (Yrkes-SFI), Komvux with VET (Vuxenutbildning med integrerad språkträning)
Target group	Refugees and their family members, aged 18–40	Unemployed immigrants who have resided in Finland for less than 3 years	Immigrants who are not eligible to participate in formal language training, immigrants with introduction plan in need of upskilling	Unemployed immigrants
Providers	Municipalities and companies	Employment and Economic Development (TE) Offices	Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV), municipalities	Municipalities

2.3 Non-formal language training services

In this study, we have defined non-formal language training services as services that are typically not subject to regulations concerning eligibility, funding, procurement, organisation, and contents. They encompass a wide variety of services, comprising everything from traditional classroom-based language learning to social initiatives such as language buddies and sports to digital services where learning is gamified. All types of non-formal services are found across the Nordic countries. Non-formal language training services are provided by a broad variety of actors in all countries. The providers encompass both private actors that offer language training as a commercial product and non-profit providers such as civil society organisations and foundations.

See Annex A, Table 16 for examples of commercial and non-profit providers in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.See Annex A, Table 16 for examples of commercial and non-profit providers in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

In all countries, non-formal training is also offered by universities and colleges, to e.g., exchange students.

The main differences between non-formal language training services are found at service-level rather than between countries or immigrant sub-groups. While there are few substantial differences between the Nordic countries when it comes to which types of services are delivered in which way, non-formal language training services seem to be especially important to the broader language training systems in Finland and Norway, possibly owing to substantial groups of immigrants not being eligible to participate in formal language training.

As a part of this study, we have conducted eight case studies of initiatives that offer language training services. Six of these services offer non-formal training. A comparison of the services based on the type of service they provide, their modes of delivery, target groups providers, funding goals, and results is presented in Table 11.

Detailed descriptions of the studied language training services can be found in Annex A.

Table 11. Comparative overview of six non-formal language training services

	Sprogland	Gimara – Brighter Future	YLE Language school	Folkeuniversitet	MiR	Lingio
Country	Denmark	Finland	Finland	Norway	Norway	Sweden
Type of training	Social language training	Non-formal traditional language course	Non-formal traditional language training	Non-formal traditional language course	Social language training	Non-formal traditional language course
Mode of delivery	Digital	In-person	Digital	In-person	In-person	Digital
Target group	All immigrants	Potential labour migrants from Myanmar	All immigrants	All immigrants, particularly labour migrants not eligible for formal training	All immigrants, particularly those far from the labour market with limited knowledge of Norwegian	Employed immigrants who lack specific language skills for their profession
Name of provider	Red Cross Denmark	Gimara	YLE and Språkkraft	Folkeuniversitetet	MiR	Lingio
Type of provider	Non-profit	Commercial/ Non-profit	Commercial/ Non-profit	Non-profit	Non-profit	Commercial
Funding	Publicly funded	Privately funded	Publicly funded	Privately and publicly funded	Privately and publicly funded	Privately funded
Short term-goal	Language proficiency (general)	Language proficiency (general and professional)	Language proficiency (general)	Language proficiency (general and professional)	Language proficiency (general)	Language proficiency (professional)
Long-term goal	Social integration	Labour-market integration	Social and cultural integration	Social and labour-market integration	Social and labour-market integration	Labour-market integration

Non-formal language training covers both traditional language sources and social language training

Findings from this study suggest that non-formal language training services can be divided into two broad categories: non-formal traditional language courses and social language training. Non-formal traditional language courses encompass teacher-led training, either classroom or online-based, that exist outside of the formal language training system. Providers can be both commercial actors and non-profits, but commercial actors that offer training through private language schools are a typical example. Unlike formal language training, courses do not necessarily have a set curriculum, but the contents, duration and intensity of training can be adapted to the needs of the learners. Among the participants surveyed for this study, participation in traditional non-formal training is high, with almost 60 percent of respondents having participated in either language courses at their workplace, language courses they paid for themselves, and/or free language courses delivered through apps such as Duolingo or YouTube.

Social language training encompasses a service that combines a social aspect with the possibility to practice a language. Examples of such services are language cafés, where a group meets to practice the language, or a language buddy system, where two individuals are in contact for the purposes of practicing a language. Social language training services can also comprise non-language related activities such as sports, cooking classes and nature walks, where the primary goal is to practice the language in a social setting, promoting social integration as well as language learning. Social language training is primarily offered by non-profits, ranging from large actors such as the Red Cross to small organisations. Services typically rely on volunteers. Among respondents surveyed, approximately 40 percent have participated in social language training activities, such as language cafés or language buddies or other social activities such as friendship-building activities, cooking classes or sports.

Services delivered through digital services are increasingly popular

Non-formal language training services can be delivered through both in-person learning and meetings as well as digital services. While in-person meetings were long considered the norm in language learning, interviewed experts and providers ascertain that the Covid-19 pandemic has contributed to an increased demand in online tools and technologies (something that is also the case in formal language training). Platforms that were launched during the Covid-19 pandemic, such as the Red Cross’s digital meeting platform Sprogland thus expect to continue beyond the pandemic. Interviewed providers also highlight that digital apps such as Sweden’s Lingio or Finland’s YLE Language School can provide a gamified way to enhance language learning. The platforms typically offer a high degree of flexibility to language learners, who can participate in language training on their own terms and at suitable times.

No overall eligibility criteria to participate in non-formal language training

Given the heterogeneity of available non-formal language training services, any eligibility criteria depend on the individual service. Many non-formal services are, however, targeted at specific immigrant sub-groups. According to interviewed providers in Sweden, it is, for example, common for social language training services to focus specifically on immigrants who lack opportunities for social integration, such as women with little education and caregiver responsibilities, who often have a refugee background. But initiatives such as language cafés and language buddies are generally open to everyone. In Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, civil society organisations are the only actors that offer language training to asylum seekers, who are not eligible to participate in formal language training in these countries.

Since not all immigrants are eligible for formal language training in Finland and Norway, non-formal traditional services seemingly play a larger role in complementing formal services than they do in Denmark and Sweden. In Finland, so-called liberal adult education institutions

E.g., adult education centres, folk high schools, learning centres, sports training centres, summer universities.

offer non-formal training to immigrants who are not eligible or able to participate in formal language training such as stay-at-home mothers, immigrants who have lived in Finland for more than three years and employed immigrants. Training is often flexible, taking place on evenings and weekends, and can be combined with e.g., childcare. In Norway, on the other hand, a subsidy was introduced in 2021 (Tilskudd til norskopplæringsordning), aimed at strengthening the Norwegian skills of immigrants who have either completed the formal language training that they were eligible to participate in, or who have never been eligible to participate. The system allows commercial and non-profit providers that have been certified by the Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills or by municipalities to apply for funding to provide non-formal language training that is innovative and based on participant needs.

IMDi (2022a)

Non-formal providers are funded in a variety of ways, but public funding is important

Non-formal language training services are funded in a variety of ways. Commercial providers are typically self-funded, but depending on the specific services that they deliver, they can also apply for public funding. According to an interviewed commercial provider in Denmark, costs depend on the duration and intensity of the course and the size of the groups but are also adjusted to make language training accessible to as many as possible. A representative from Folkeuniversitetet, a non-profit actor in Norway that provides an array of traditional non-formal traditional language courses, explains they adjust the duration of their courses to what participants and/or their employers are able or willing to pay, which limits the proficiency that participants can achieve.

Non-profit providers are mainly funded through a combination of public grants, grants from foundations, project funding, and donations from companies and individuals. Non-profit providers also mainly rely on volunteers to deliver their services. According to interviewed non-profit providers in Norway and Denmark, the process of applying for public grants is often time-consuming and requires that the providers have in-house knowledge of how the system works.

Goals vary according to type of service, but integration is key

The goals of non-formal language training services differ, corresponding to the type of training offered. Broadly speaking, non-formal language services facilitate language learning in informal contexts, helping immigrants to improve their language skills, build social networks and enter the labour market. According to interviewed providers from Denmark and Norway, non-formal traditional courses aim to teach immigrants a Nordic language as fast and efficiently as possible, by creating learning groups that are homogenous in terms of educational backgrounds and offering a high degree of flexibility. Social language training services, on the other hand, have less specified goals, but according to a Swedish provider, initiatives such as language cafés and language buddies aim to improve conversational skills by expanding vocabulary and increasing confidence. The services also facilitate social integration by increasing participants’ understanding of society, allowing them to become a part of their local community, build networks, and become better equipped to deal with services such as healthcare and schools.

Non-formal services rarely monitor results

The results of non-formal language training are not monitored or measured in the same way as formal language training services. Non-formal traditional language courses typically follow up the results of training using testing and certificates to gage the proficiency that the participant has achieved.

Social language training services on the other hand, focus on the delivery of a high-quality service, with interviewees in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden highlighting this as being a prerequisite for any results among participating immigrants. Moreover, services that are open to all participants and flexible in terms of participation and duration are unable to measure progress over time. Nevertheless, respondents to this study’s survey are generally satisfied with their participation in non-formal language training services.

Annex B: Figure B 6

Providers from Denmark and Sweden consider high-quality non-formal language training services to be a complement to formal language training by offering opportunities to practice the language.

Key takeaways

Formal language training services are provided and funded in largely similar ways across all Nordic countries, where integration policies determine how they are organised, the contents of training, and the qualifications required to deliver training.
The main goal of both formal and non-formal language training services is integration, both labour market and social. To facilitate this, formal training services are increasingly being combined with other types of training, such as VET, as well as both primary and secondary education.
One of the main differences between countries in formal language training services is who is eligible to participate. In Denmark and Sweden, all immigrants are eligible to participate. In Finland, formal training is only available to unemployed immigrants, whereas in Norway, it is available to refugees and their family members, family members of Nordic citizens and labour migrants and their family members from outside the EU/EEA.
Non-formal language training services provide a myriad of activities in all countries. The study has not identified any differences between countries in terms of how non-formal services are organised, funded, and provided. For these services, the main differences are between the different types of services offered.
Results of language training relating to proficiency are only measured in relation to formal language training services, whereas non-formal services rarely monitor results. While pass rates are high among exam participants, they do not account for factors such as drop-out rates, which may affect the general results.