This proposal focuses on second language (L2) education and certification as part of the integration policies in Italy. More specifically, it explores the enactment of immigration policies within State schools for adults, by taking into account the translation and interpretation processes of the compulsory testing in Italian L2 for non-EU citizens.
Over the last 20 years, many EU member states have progressively introduced stricter immigration policies targeting non-EU citizens who apply to enter, settle or naturalize in their territories. In order to obtain the residence permit, immigrants are often required to pass a test aimed at evaluating their knowledge of the language and culture of the hosting country (Rocca et al., 2020).
Therefore, language proficiency emerged as a key element in the gate-keeping process leading to residence rights, and as one of the main criteria to measure integration, a phenomenon to which many researchers refer with the expression “testing regimes” (Hogan-Brun et al., 2009). These policies often underpin discourses on a supposed homogeneity of national culture and language, and problematise those languages and varieties that are not considered as prestigious as the standard national one (Shohamy, 2007; Pochon-Berger & Lenz, 2014).
Like other EU countries, Italy introduced compulsory language testing for residence permit purposes in 2009; in 2012 this policy process intertwined with the Reorganisation of the System of Adult Education. Therefore, with their re-organisation, State schools for adults have taken the role of delivering courses of Italian L2 and of creating, administering, and evaluating tests.
The entanglement between immigration and adult education policies has been already addressed in the literature: several studies explored the discourses underpinning the “testing regimes” targeting immigrants in many European countries (Van Oers et al., 2010), as well as in Italy (Love 2014; Machetti & Rocca, 2017). However, less attention has been devoted to how the school staff interprets and translates these “testing regimes” into school practices, and how students give meaning to the practices created for them.
This proposal is theoretically rooted on a definition of policies as social-constructs: “Policy is a fundamental ‘organising principle’ of society which [...] provides a way of conceptualising and symbolising social relations, and around which people live their lives and structure their realities” (Shore & Wright, 2011, p.2). This perspective challenges the idea that policies are rational, linear and hierarchic processes; and it embraces an extended definition of political actors which includes, besides governors, all those involved in the policy enactment: “The passage of law is one moment in a process of appropriation and contestation when a political coalition succeeds in silencing others, making their version authoritative and embedding it in the precepts and procedures of the state. But the dominant version can be immediately contested as it is translated in concrete situations” (ivi, p. 13).
Policy enactment is a concept proposed by Ball et al. (2012), and refers to the “set of embodied practices that are attached to different types and groups of policy actors” (p.121). Putting policies into practice is a complex and creative process, as policies are translated from text to action, in context, through the collective work of individuals with different positions in the school and with regard to the policy, and with the resources available.
This proposal explores the enactment of language tests from the perspectives of school staff and students, by answering the following research question and sub-questions:
How are “testing regimes” enacted in State schools for adults?
1. How does school staff interpret the integration policy and translate the compulsory language testing into practice?
2. How do students make sense of language education and testing practised at school?