Development and current challenges of language courses for immigrants in Sweden

One of the main issues resulting from globalisation is migration. Europe, primarily in the West, has been considered a desirable destination for immigrants since its economic growth in the 1960s. During this period, Sweden started to accept labour migrants to be employed in its factories (Tingbjörn, 2004). Subsequently, the first courses of Swedish for immigrants (SFI) began. This language education system, called SFI (‘Svenska för invandrare’, Swedish for immigrants), has survived over the decades, and is still run under the umbrella of municipal adult education at a time when Sweden remains one of Europe’s most desirable destination countries.

Migration always includes an element of risk, mainly for the migrants themselves. Many of those who undertake the journey to a new country know very little about what values the destination society has, what jobs they will obtain, how difficult it can be to learn the new language, or simply whether they will be granted residency or not. There is no doubt that language is key to the integration process of immigrants, reducing many of the risks involved. Language courses for immigrants are an important tool in this process.

The question then is in what ways can this system support immigrants during their integration process and what the opportunities and threats to these courses are in the current educational policy of Sweden. The aim of this article is to map how SFI has developed to respond to changes in attitudes towards integration and to migration patterns since the 60s (and not just those connected to the European migration crisis in 2015) and analyse the challenges the system faces after the migration crisis. This article outlines the development of these language courses, explores the criticism against the current model and discusses the current state of affairs. It also gives an insight into problems connected with the marginalisation of immigrants, and suggests that Sweden, often used as a model state for its integration policy, has its limits in this type of education.

Methodological framework for the study

This study is a qualitative case study of SFI and its development. However, while the results are not quantifiable, they can still give valuable insights into how the system has changed due to external and internal pressure, and might also be used to make comparisons with similar systems in other countries. The description of the history and structure of SFI is based on statistics, official documents and previous studies on the topic. When it comes to the current situation, contemporary academic sources are used side by side with newspaper articles and government statistics and policy documents to build a comprehensible picture of the situation. Emphasis is put on discourse analysis, in which the material is compared and evaluated based on its social context.

This choice of method is suitable due to the articles’ partially descriptive aspects and also helps to contextualise the current, changing situation. By combining the official data with other statistics and current events, the picture becomes broader and more informative. The result will naturally be a theoretical construction, but one which can easily be put to the test by further, preferably quantitative, studies.

Basic terminology

The migration crisis that hit Europe in 2015 resulted in the media using the terms ‘migrant’ and ‘refugee’ interchangeably. If we look up the word ‘immigrant’ in the Cambridge dictionary, it is ‘a person who has come to a different country in order to live there permanently’ (Cambridge University Press, 2019). The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (United Nations, 2019) states that there is no formal legal definition of an international migrant; however, according to most experts ‘an international migrant is someone who changes his or her country of usual residence, irrespective of the reason for migration or legal status’.

Many people (see below the statistics for Sweden) applied for international protection in the EU during the refugee crisis. The United Nations (2019) defines a refugee as a person who is ‘outside their country of origin for reasons of feared persecution, conflict, generalised violence, or other circumstances that have seriously disturbed public order and, as a result, require international protection’. Nonetheless, even though one can argue that a refugee and an international migrant who comes to work in a different country may have different needs, in this study the term ‘immigrant’ will be used for all participants in SFI language courses. The reason is simple: although there are many different reasons why people might move to a new country, SFI is aimed at everyone above the age of 16 who needs to learn the basics in Swedish (Skolverket, 2020), notwithstanding the reasons why they arrived in the country. To differentiate between, for example, labour migrants and refugees, would make no sense in this context. These groups may have very different motivations and backgrounds, but they attend the same language programme.

So, why are these courses so important? Simply put, the language of the destination society is key to integration, which is a term closely connected to migration. Heckman (2005, p. 100) defines the concept of integration ‘as the inclusion of new populations into the existing social structures of the immigration country with a consequent reduction of differences in their positions and relations’. There are four dimensions of integration to be distinguished: structural, cultural, interactive, and identification. The structural dimension is connected to the immigrants’ rights and access to the key institutions of the new society. It involves their integration into the job market, but it also concerns immigrants’ access to the education system and housing. The cultural dimension deals with more than just how immigrants learn the local language and spend their free time. Heckman (2005, p. 100) says it is a precondition of participation as well as being about the process of change within the individuals themselves, not only at a cognitive and behavioural level, but also a cultural one. The third, the interactive dimension, reflects immigrants’ contacts with the majority population, and the final, the identification dimension, deals with the extent to which they identify with the new society. Furthermore, both the newcomers and the resident population have to participate in order for the integration process to be successful. Nevertheless, membership in the new society shows on a subjective level through feelings of identification and belonging. It usually has forms of ethnic, national or (often) multiple other forms of social identification (Heckman, 2005).

As stated above, integration implies changes for immigrants as well as for the members of the destination society. In addition to integration resulting from individual choices, integration policies also exist. Such measures are taken to promote the process of integration politically. This sets conditions and creates opportunities that help newcomers to improve their social situations (Heckman, 2005). Language courses offered to newcomers are usually an example of such a measure.

SFI as a system mainly deals with the first three of these dimensions. As we will see, courses have been developed in later years to focus specifically on a certain dimension, with the goal of introducing immigrants into the labour market more seamlessly. The fourth dimension, identification, is less useful in these conditions (it is also difficult to measure). As a more elusive concept, it has a complicated role to play in a system for language acquisition and is seldom mentioned in official policy documents. However, SFI does help newcomers to build up their basic knowledge, since the language learned is not purely an instrument for daily communication, but also plays a crucial role in knowledge building. It enables the process of discovery, identification and storage of newly gained information (Beacco et al., 2015) and is in that way necessary for all four dimensions of integration.

At this point of the study we need to clarify that because of the high number of immigrants in Sweden, SFI courses play a crucial role in the process of integration, as participating in SFI gives many people the opportunity to gain elementary skills in Swedish and climb the social ladder. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2016, p. 15) has pointed out, 16% of the Swedish population was born abroad. This means Sweden has one of the largest immigrant populations among European OECD countries, which naturally places pressure on its integration policy. The EMN Focussed Study 2018: Country Report Sweden (Migrationverket – Swedish Migration Agency, 2018) points out that Sweden’s integration policies impact many different fields, affecting areas such as the labour market, education and health care. The measures for integration are quite generic, and further measures targeting another group can be added if deemed necessary. For this reason, this study mainly focuses on elementary education for immigrants in Swedish, as it is a stepping stone for the further education of adult immigrants and their entry to labour market.

The history of migration in Sweden

As already stated in the introduction, Sweden has experienced a growing influx of immigrants since the 1960s and 1970s, and in the beginning the inflow was mainly made up of labour migrants. These numbers rose steadily, and in 1971 there was a total of 416,600 immigrants in the country (Boye-Møller, 1973, p. 505). The language classes of SFI have their roots in this period, as there was a perceived need to educate the newcomers.

These were times of strong economic growth, and that meant a growing need for labour migration. People from countries such as Yugoslavia, Italy and Turkey worked in Swedish industry, often as a result of recruitment campaigns (Lundh & Ohlsson, 1999). However, Sweden also has a long tradition of receiving refugees. The roots of perceiving Sweden as a ‘security-providing country’ date back to the Second World War, when Sweden accepted about 122,000 Nordic refugees (people from Finland, Norway, and Denmark). During the final years of the Second World War about 35,000 Baltic nationals sought asylum in Sweden, adding around 45,000 refugees from concentration camps in Germany between 1945 and 1949 (Westin & Dingu-Kyrklund, 2003, p. 111).

Sweden also helped Eastern European citizens who wanted to find freedom from communism after 1948 and, after a short hiatus, in the 1960s. Many Hungarians came after the uprising in 1956, and about 6000 Czechoslovak political emigrants fled to Sweden directly after 1968, continuing through the 70s and 80s. In the 1970s, war refugees from Eritrea, and later Kurds, sought asylum, and later in the 70s Assyrians and Syrians started to arrive from the Middle East. After the political coup in 1973, which saw Augusto Pinochet come to power, many Chileans made the journey to Sweden, subsequently followed by people from other Latin American countries and citizens of Iran and Iraq (Westin & Dingu-Kyrklund, 2003 p. 111). One of the largest waves of refugees to hit this Nordic country occurred during the wars in former Yugoslavia, with 70,000 people applying for asylum in 1992 (Roden, 2017).

This number was later surpassed during the European refugee crisis in 2015 and 2016. Even prior to this time, there were immigrants from more than 200 different countries living in Sweden according to the official statistics. Among these we can find people from the Middle East (Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan), Africa (e.g. Somalia) as well as from EU countries (such as Poland, Denmark and Germany), European third countries (Russia) and from Asian countries, mainly China (Statistiska centralbyrån (SCB), in English ‘Swedish Statistical Office’ – further SCB, 2012). According to the SCB, there were 667,232 foreigners living in Sweden in 2012, almost twice the number of that in the 1960s (SCB, 2019).

To this we have to add the people who arrived during the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ in 2015 and 2016. Konle-Seidl (2018) puts the number of asylum seekers in Sweden between 2015 and 2016 at 199,000. This means that out of three countries, Germany, Austria and Sweden, it was the latter that had the highest inflow of asylum seekers per capita. The most common countries of origin were Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia and Iraq (SCB, 2016).

The history of language classes ‘SFI’ in Sweden, and their connection to educational policy

Sweden offers adult immigrants the opportunity to learn Swedish in a system of courses called SFI. The courses are available to all foreigners who are older than 16 and have a low to non-existent command of Swedish. When it comes to refugees, this language training is also a mandatory part of the introduction plan which is offered to the newcomers, and is co-ordinated by the public employment service. The courses are nowadays provided solely by municipalities, who are legally required to offer these classes. Unfortunately, the range and quality of these courses vary from municipality to municipality (OECD, 2014).

SFI offers at least 15 hours to each student per week for an average period of four weeks, and the number of hours can be reduced if it is more suitable for the participants (Skolverket Utbildningsinfo, 2010). The instruction language used is Swedish, but complete analphabets are offered basic literacy classes in their native language (or another language the student understands). From an organisational point of view, SFI is offered via the municipal adult education system (in Swedish komvux). Students can officially combine SFI with work, internships or other programmes within komvux or särvux, i.e. special adult education (Skolverket, 2020), although it has often proved to be difficult to take on both SFI and a full-time workload in reality, with a high level of dropouts (Skolverket, 2019; Lärarnas Tidning, 2016; The Local, 2016).

The venue for the courses varies between municipalities, depending on how they choose to organise the system. Apart from commercial ventures contracted by the municipalities, SFI can also be taught by adult educational associations (Studieförbund; OECD, 2014) and at folk high schools (in Swedish Folkhögskola), which are an alternative to upper secondary schools or municipal adult education for those who are older than 18. Beside vocational programmes folk high schools offer a range of courses for newly arrived immigrants, including SFI (Skolverket, 2020).

As mentioned earlier, SFI started at the end of the 1960s when people came to Sweden to work in industry. We can see evidence of the Swedish government supporting these language courses as early as 1965 (Linberg & Sandvall, 2007). They were first offered as evening classes in companies to their employees. There was no formal curriculum or formal requirements for the teachers of the courses. Gradually, the Swedish government made it possible for immigrants to participate in the language classes during their working hours. Due to economic regression, unemployment among immigrants started to become an issue over time, and reforms opened up SFI for all who needed it, not only those who were employed (Linberg & Sandvall, 2007).

In the first 20 years, SFI courses were rather heterogeneous. They were not steered by any national policy documents or criteria for teacher requirements. It was not until 1986 that SFI courses became part of the national education system, which meant having a curriculum and a need for qualifications on the side of teachers (Linberg & Sandvall, 2007). With a steady influx of immigrants (mainly refugees) in the 90s (due to the wars in former Yugoslavia and Iraq), the language classes were incorporated into the overall system for integrating newcomers into Swedish society.

There are two important events in regard to the history of such courses that are worth mentioning here. Firstly, Swedish society is based on equality, and this is also reflected in the belief that the same rights and opportunities are to be guaranteed to all, without regard to their nationality, ethnicity or cultural background. Therefore, in 1997 the Sverige, framtiden och mångfalden – från invandrarpolitik till integrationspolitik bill (Sweden, the future and diversity – from immigration policy to integration policy) was introduced (Wiesbrock, 2011, p. 50), which guaranteed these principles by formalising them as law.

Secondly, the 90s also brought another very important change. In 1991, the municipalities became responsible for both organising and funding adult education, which until then had been the responsibility of the state (Colliander, 2018; Linberg & Sandvall, 2007). As a result, the 90s saw the introduction of a new outsourcing system for municipal adult education. This meant big changes for many teachers. On the one hand, it meant they could participate in the establishment of new operators on the market, and in this way have a certain professional freedom. On the other hand, schools could not always rely on having their contracts renewed, which caused a certain level of insecurity for teachers (Colliander, 2018). The changes in financial responsibility also meant that local councils in many cases saw schools as a way to save money. Funding, therefore, became a fairly problematic issue, with financial policies varying wildly between municipalities (Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting, 2011).

In 1994, a new goal-based syllabus was introduced, which had to be implemented by the municipalities (Linberg & Sandwall, 2007, p. 85). This resulted in the state no longer being able to control the courses due to the autonomy of the municipalities as well as the fact that teachers could adapt their own work according to their preferences. Another big change came in 2010, when the Labour Office was made responsible for coordinating activities aimed at newly arrived immigrants. In practice this resulted in closer cooperation with SFI (Colliander, 2018, p. 49).

SFI courses try to take into consideration the principles of adult education – such as what education the individual has mastered so far (specifically how many years they have attended or been attending school), and presuming that people with a more extensive educational background have better learning competence and can master a new language faster. The courses are divided into three different levels (it was divided into three study levels in 2003) which take into account the varying educational background of participants, prerequisites as well as goals. These three different levels (in Swedish the so called ‘studieväg’) are: SFI 1 (consisting of courses A, B, C and D), SFI 2 (includes courses B, C, and D) and SFI 3 (courses C and D; Utbildningsinfo, 2017).

As Skolverket (2019), in English the ‘Swedish National Agency for Education’ (29 June), points out, the study paths are aimed at people of different educational backgrounds and with different study habits. SFI 1 is directed at students who have very little education and who primarily need to learn how to read and write, which can take a long time, whereas SFI 3 is meant for participants who are already used to studying.

According to SFI and Vuxenutbildningen Luleå (n.d.), the target group of SFI 1 is characterised as immigrants lacking education or having attended school only for a few years. The SFI 2 level is offered to those who have a good level of education but are not familiar with the Latin alphabet. SFI 3 is meant for adult immigrants who possess a higher level of education and want to study further in Sweden.

Luleå can once again serve as a good example. Students can choose to participate in the courses at two different paces: normal and intensive. The introductory period (which is not mandatory for students without previous education, namely those attending SFI 1) lasts for five weeks. If participants have some previous knowledge of Swedish, they are offered an evaluation to match them to an appropriate course and level for their needs (SFI and Vuxenutbildningen Luleå, n.d.).

There are many options regarding where learners can attend the courses, and relevant information is usually published by the municipality itself (Skolverket, 2020). For many adult immigrants (mainly refugees), SFI is, as mentioned above, part of the Introduction programme, which is obligatory and lasts two years (Konle-Seidl, 2018).

The goal of SFI is not only for adult immigrants to learn how to communicate in Swedish, but also to learn about Swedish society and the local community and to compare Swedish culture with their own. To use Heckman’s (2005, p. 100) terms, this means there is emphasis on structural, cultural and interactive integration. SFI can provide immigrants with information on how Swedish society works, how people behave, what is considered polite, how public holidays are celebrated, and so on. However, the identification dimension of integration is still left out, being a sensitive issue in contemporary debate. It is also a complicated topic on its own, since language courses arguably cannot answer questions about personal identification and belonging. It is also difficult to say how a formally organised system of language education could tackle such a deeply personal dimension as identification, questions such as ‘where do I belong?’ or ‘who am I?’ They are matters of a deep psychological process and are hard to fit into a language curriculum.

Since the language training is paid for by the local municipality where the immigrants live, this means they need to apply for it via the department of the municipality’s adult education programme (in Swedish the so-called kommunens vuxenutbildning). In the example from Luleå, new courses open every five weeks and run throughout the year, except for July and public holidays (SFI and Vuxenutbildningen Luleå, n.d.).

Last but not least, it is essential to point out that SFI is very individualised, and the idea is to tailor the language education in accordance to the needs of every participant. This can have positive as well as negative effects on the integration effort. The advantage is that participants usually study either in the morning or the afternoon (this can result in faster integration into the job market) and for as long as they want to, so long as they make enough progress as active students. Another example of this individualised approach is that students are also given the opportunity to use online materials provided by the learning management system (SFI and Vuxenutbildningen Luleå, n.d.), which has a positive impact on their computer skills.

Current development and discussion

So far, the overall picture seems quite positive. Sweden has received a relatively large number of immigrants, but has both the history and policies in place to deal with it in a productive way. It is not until we take a closer look at the current situation that issues start to appear.

Sweden still scores highly when it comes to integration policy. However, Konle-Seidl (2018, p. 26) in her analysis Integration of refugees in Austria, Germany and Sweden states that Swedish society in general (including key institutions such as the Migration Agency, the Employment Service, the police and in particular the municipalities) was already showing signs of overburdening in 2014. Serious drawbacks in the reception system and a shortage of affordable housing resulted in delays to the settlement process and immigrant integration activities (such as participating in SFI, training in general and searching for jobs).

Unemployment is, undoubtedly, one good indicator of how well integration works in a society. A quick look at the numbers paints a rather gloomy picture. Until the 1970s, immigrants had the same or even lower levels of unemployment in Sweden. Labour migration dominated the influx, and those who moved to the country did so to a large extent for work. At the end of the 1970s, however, this started to change, with unemployment numbers consistently higher for immigrants. In 2018, the level of unemployed in the 20–64 age group was approximately 15% among foreign-born individuals, while only 3% among people born in Sweden. The difference was even higher, although not by much, when only counting women (Migrationsinfo, 2019). Unemployment is also higher among people born outside the EU than among European migrants (Akademikernas a-kassa, 2019).

So what has led to this situation, and can anything be improved by changing the way SFI forms the first, basic steps towards integration? Let’s first of all point out that it is obvious that Sweden will remain a desirable destination country for migration in the future, and it will remain a country that accepts migration as a trait of its society. According to Migrant Integration Policy Index (2015), the Swedish public still has the most positive attitude towards immigrants out of all Nordic countries. More than 80% think that Sweden is right to give immigrants the same rights as Swedish citizens, and they think that Sweden is enriched culturally and economically by migration and that it is a good place to live for immigrants.

On the other hand, in Sweden as well as in most European countries there are political parties that characterise themselves as anti-migration parties, in this case the Sweden Democrats (in Swedish ‘Sverigedemokraterna’). The Sweden Democrats consistently poll highly. According to the latest surveys, they would receive between 16.5% and 21.4% of the vote nationally (Poll of Polls, 2019). However, even the leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmy Åkesson, stated in one of his interviews that Sweden will remain a country that has immigrants, but that the migration needs to be regulated to a level that Swedish society can bear (including the fact that Swedish citizenship should be a privilege; Johansson, 2018). This clearly shows how well-established the idea of Sweden as an immigrant country is among its citizens.

At a time when Sweden has moved towards a knowledge-based economy, integrating newcomers with lower levels of education is a crucial step in preventing them from becoming excluded from society. Therefore, language courses offered for free to adult immigrants are a complete necessity. It is often the only means of being heard by representatives of the majority, as well as of learning about the values of the country that they decided to move to, thereby having a chance to fulfil at least the three first dimensions of integration.

Currently, while Sweden is still fighting to integrate the large number of refugees that arrived in the country between 2015 and 2016 who have the right to language classes, there are some issues with SFI that need to be tackled. The number of students in municipal adult education in SFI has gone up from 150,142 to 163,175 between 2016 and 2017, an increase of 8.7%. The pressure put on the system due to the higher numbers of migrants means that it has become increasingly difficult to maintain standards. Many have had to wait for up to two years before being allocated a place in the courses (Konle-Seidl, 2018).

The funds and resources available were just not enough to handle the sudden rise in student numbers. Due to long waiting times, the government has taken some initiatives to start intervention earlier on. For example, the municipalities have been tasked with organising measures such as additional language courses and social activities for asylum seekers. This has been done through the website www.informationsverige.se. Here asylum seekers can learn about what it means to live in Sweden, start learning Swedish (LäraSvenska) and practice Swedish with others through programs such as Welcome App, and Swedish with a baby (Konle-Seidl, 2018).

It also needs to be taken into consideration that most people participating in SFI nowadays do not come from an education system similar to that in Sweden, which means it may take a longer time for them to learn the language and integrate into the job market. Getting used to a different educational system combined with a different attitude, where the participant takes responsibility for his/her learning results, may be a challenge that SFI will have to eventually face. Analysing the integration of the refugees from the Yugoslav wars, it is clear that a crucial part of their integration into Swedish society was played by the level and quality of the educational system. The fact that the system in Sweden was similar to what they were used to from home meant that they had a higher chance of success (Roden, 2017).

But language learning, for both child and adult immigrants, is also connected to segregation, which according to one OECD (2014) report is yet another challenge that future policy creators will have to face. Segregating adult immigrants in housing and on the labour market limits their opportunities to interact with native Swedes and develop their language skills. Research carried out in 2012 both in the Czech Republic and Sweden showed that there were clear differences in where immigrants used the target language. Whereas the immigrants in the Czech Republic mostly used Czech at public offices and at work, the language participants of SFI in Sweden limited their Swedish to the course only, some complaining they would love to speak the target language but they hardly had any chance to meet native Swedes (Öbrink Hobzová, 2014).

Roden (2017) also hints at the fact that attending the language courses might not always be enough. When writing about the Yugoslav refugees in the 90s, he pointed out the chances of finding employment varied according to where the authorities placed them, and this in turn also affected opportunities to integrate and to learn Swedish in practice, creating a vicious circle.

When it comes to the countries that are most represented in SFI today, Syria is currently topping the list, with 31% of students who attended SFI courses in 2017 originating from there (Skolverket, 2017). It is also interesting to note the educational background of the participants: altogether 18% of those attending SFI in 2017 had fewer than 7 years of schooling, while 35% went to school for at least 13 years. Shorter education is more common among female students (Skolverket, 2017).

The result of all this is that Sweden has a growing number of people without the necessary skills for the job market and who face an integration system that seems to have problems keeping up. But with students who find it harder to adapt to the education system and who have a skills disadvantage in the advanced economy, this means more work and higher demands. The risk is that a large number of people will end up being unemployed for a very long time or even remain isolated outside the job market. It is also clear that it is the most vulnerable groups who face the highest risks.

The increasing number of participants with low education has to be addressed with more qualified teaching staff, ready for the changing demands in the classroom. The policy of individualising the SFI courses to make them suitable for participants from various backgrounds places even more demands on teachers. These dramatic changes are symbolic of the constant changes that SFI has undergone during its lifespan, but they do put teachers into a situation where they constantly need to cope with new regulations and syllabi (Linberg & Sandwall, 2007).

The fact that Sweden right now is lacking teachers for SFI is, in this light, a serious issue. A government report from 2018 (Swedish Government. Kommittédirektiv, 2018) points out that the number of qualified teachers is lowest in SFI out of all forms of schooling in the country, and highlights the need to address this state of affairs.

A further issue is that many students do not finish SFI. Even though they can drop out of SFI whenever they want and come back at a later time, they often prefer to remain in their jobs despite having a poor knowledge of Swedish – good enough for the job, but not sufficient for complete integration into Swedish society (Lärarnas Tidning, 2016; The Local, 2016). According to the newspaper The Local (2016), only 41% decided to continue with their studies at SFI in 2015, while 22% dropped out completely. This number has grown slightly since then (Skolverket, 2018).

The question is whether the reasons students choose not to continue with their SFI classes are a result of a shortage in competent teachers (according to Swedish government. Kommittédirektiv, 2018). The Swedish government itself confirmed there was a lack of qualified SFI teachers in 2018. This is a challenge for the future integration of the thousands of refugees that Sweden has received in previous years. Further, as a result of the huge influx of migrants during the refugee crisis, many students have been enrolled in language classes very recently (Konle-Seidl, 2018), which might slow down the integration process even more.

For students there has to be a stronger motivation to graduate with good marks and become integrated into the job market. A possible means of addressing this, which has already existed for some years, is the provision of professional courses in combination with SFI language classes. An example of this is SFI Stockholm Söderort, which offers language courses and the opportunity to qualify for different professions, e.g. lorry driver, children’s educator, etc. at the same time (Vuxenutbildning Söderort, n.d.).

One example of this is the Fast-Track approach, which is an initiative proposed in 2015 by the Swedish government. Its goal is to coordinate existing measures into a package which is used to accelerate entry into the job market for skilled immigrants who can be employed within areas of labour shortages. The fast-track includes guidance, assessment of skills, validation, work placements, training, apprenticeships as well as language learning and is applied in the field of 31 professions (including cooks, butchers, teachers, and preschool teachers). In practice, it seems to be quite a success. ‘In March 2017, there were a total of 3,540 people who started a fast-track since January 2016. After 13 to 15 months, between 33% (in the food industry) and 52% (in the truck driving sector) of participants were in employment.’ (Konle-Seidl, 2018,  p. 38). Whether this approach will work with groups that have a lower level of education remains to be seen.

Conclusion

Historically, SFI has offered a fairly heterogeneous range of courses that did not have any official steering documents at the national level. With time, the system changed as a response to various demands, and a key moment in this was the transfer of responsibility for running the courses to the municipalities. The current idea is to meet the demands of individual immigrants. But due to the high pressure on the system, many were not given a place in the course until two years after their arrival in Sweden. The change in migrant backgrounds has also forced reform of SFI. While originally aimed at teaching working people the language, it is now a part of the overall integration system, dealing with all different categories of newcomers.

This produces a system that is complex and in many ways well intended, but which seems to lack the ability to cater to participants’ needs. There is a lack of labour market oriented activities asylum seekers can participate in. Most of those who came in 2015 and have received a residence permit (52,896 in 2015 and 86,719 in 2016, Konle-Seidl, 2018, p. 35) have only recently been enrolled in the Introduction programme. Some progress has been made, not the least the initiative to integrate language and professional skills. But the dropout rate is still alarmingly high, and if the waiting times cannot be brought down, many will be left without a fair chance to integrate.

The biggest challenge at the moment is most likely to address the weakest groups. For members of these groups, applying for SFI takes time, they face longer study programmes and longer waiting times before they can qualify for work, and most probably also risk dropping out completely. But reforming the system again might in reality just put even more stress on the teachers, who are already struggling with earlier changes. Speeding up the application process and introducing even more practical, work-oriented measures is probably a better way to go. That would not only combine the courses with occupational training, but also limit interest in staying in worse-paid jobs instead of investing time in courses.

Clearly, there are ways of improving the integration results through SFI. As the OECD report already showed in 2014, SFI can be effective when it is combined with work experience or vocational training. However, the focus should not only be on labour market entry, but also ongoing professional development, so that even people who get low-qualification jobs strive for continuing education, and thus later attain higher-ranking job positions.

The system is not broken, but it has entered deep waters. The answer is not revolution; there has been enough of that throughout the history of SFI. Rather, what is needed is some lubricant to make the wheels turn again in the new environment. Redesigning the system for faster flow is necessary, especially in the beginning of the process. Supporting teachers better is also part of the solution. They have to receive the support they need to keep updated and qualified, and there has to be more of them.

One thing is clear: due to the current migration situation in Sweden (which is not only due to the crisis in 2015), SFI will survive, not least because language acquisition is the key factor in further education, which is necessary for every newcomer who wants to have a decent life in the country he/she has moved to.