Writing As Enhancing Means to Integrate in Dutch Society

Writing as Enhancing Means to Integrate in Dutch Society

An Investigation into the Role of Developing Writing Skills in the Management of Civic Integration of Low-Educated Migrants in the Netherlands

Details of student: Name of the Supervisor(s):

Name: Lisan Swartjes Name supervisor: Dr. M. Spotti

ANR: 314156 Name second reader: Dr. H. Siebers

Master thesis Management of Cultural Diversity

Tilburg University | Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences

August 27th, 2020 ABSTRACT

Policymaking regarding civic integration of newly arrived migrants within the Netherlands has been a highly debated topic over the past 40 years. During the 1990s civic integration tests were introduced and have ever since been the cornerstone of civic integration policy. Knowledge of the culture and the state’s official language is viewed key in defining whether an immigrant is integrated in Dutch society. Whereas the Dutch government acknowledged the alleged discriminatory nature of including literacy skills in the civic integration regime for low- educated and low-literate migrants, writing became a compulsory component in the examination in 2007 nonetheless. Language-based attainment requirements have become stricter over the years and with the new Law on Civic Integration taking effect in 2021 requirements will further be sharpened to CEFR level B1. Against this background, this study aims to develop an understanding of civic integration policies in the Netherlands and unravel the discourses on newly arrived migrants, language and identity they contain. More specifically, it investigates the role of writing skills development in the management of civic integration of low-educated migrants. It does so by means of a socio-culturally rooted discourse analysis of policy documents issued by an array of governmental agencies and through a review of existing literature in the fields of integration, language testing, identity, writing in an L2 and low literacy skills.

Keywords

Policy, discourse, civic integration, newly arrived migrants, low literacy, L2, writing skills, language testing, CEFR, identity

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 2. METHODOLOGY ...... 8 2.1 Research desing ...... 8 2.2 Search strategy ...... 8 2.3 Data analysis ...... 11 2.4 Research quality indicators ...... 11 3. LITERTURE REVIEW ...... 13 3.1 Development of the Dutch civic integration regime...... 13 3.2 Literacy and the importance of written language ...... 20 3.3 The Common European Framework of Reference ...... 26 3.4 Divergent perspectives on the notion of language ...... 29 4. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ...... 33 5. LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 37 REFERENCES ...... 41

1. INTRODUCTION

Over the past 40 and odd years there have been large shifts in policymaking regarding integration of migrants in the Netherlands. Whereas in the 1960s and 1970s there was no such thing as an explicit integration policy, the 1980s saw a first policy attempt aimed at newcomers to integrate in Dutch society. The ‘Ethnic Minorities Policy’ and the paradigm that came from it, aimed at promoting equality in society, especially concerning vulnerable groups such as asylum seekers, guest workers, migrants from Surinam and the Dutch Antilles, Moluccans and nomadic travelers. However, at the end of the 1980s there was a lot of criticism on the policy approach and the tendency became that the policy had “failed in important areas of labor and education” (Bruquetas-Callejo, Garcés-Masareñas, Penninx and Scholten, 2007: p. 12). The shift in the public opinion during the 1990s ultimately led to a turn in policy in 1998 where the focus was much more on the individual’s responsibility in the integration process and more emphasis was put on the socio-economic aspects of integration rather than on ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious preservation of someone’s origins. Further, civic integration courses and exams were introduced and became crucial statements for a government that was changing its integration policy discourse regarding newly arrived migrants (Bruquetas-Callejo et al., 2007). The emphasis in these tests, although they may also be dealing with cultural norms and values of the host country, is mostly on language, showing that the mastering of the official national language is key to defining whether someone is integrated or else (Kurvers & Spotti, 2015). After the millennium turn, the dominant view withheld by both Dutch political and public discourse, was that the failed integration policies had led to the endangerment of Dutch society. More stringent rules regarding integration were introduced and the multicultural approach of the 1980s had shift away towards an assimilation stance (Bruquetas-Callejo et al., 2007). While engaged in giving an overview of the integration landscape across Europe, Extra, Spotti and Van Avermaet (2009) claim that “the topic itself, the public discourse and the political and legal regimes surrounding it are in flux, generally moving in the direction of more restrictive regimes over time across nation-states” (p. 5). Correspondingly, looking back at a decade of developments on this topic, De Waal (2017) argues that increasing civic integration requirements in several EU member states has resulted in a diminishing number of permanent residence permits or the granting of citizenship. This is also evident in Dutch society: according to a report by the Court of Audit (Algemene Rekenkamer, 2017a) only 60% met civic integration requirements in time in 2017, of which 6% was exempted for the examination. What has been striking here, is that the requirements to pass for the integration test are still getting

4 higher over time (Groenendijk, 2012). The new Law on Civic Integration, that will take effect in 2021, will further increase the language requirement from CEFR level A2 to B1 (Koolmees, 2018), while current attainment requirements are already hard to be achieved. By further raising the level to pass for civic integration tests, the government subscribes to and authors a political discourse that lays bare a linkage between high level of Dutch language proficiency and overall civic integration. This level of Dutch a newly arrived migrant must attain is the highway into Dutch society, getting newcomers to work and thus to rely less on State benefits (Rijksoverheid, 2019). With regard to language requirements, Section 2 of Article 7 of the Law for Civic integration states that migrants are compulsory to complete an exam in oral and written skills on CEFR level A2 (Wet Inburgering, 2020). Article 3.9 of the Decree for Civic Integration elaborates on that in section 2 by stating that the parts that need to be completed are: reading, listening, writing and speaking (Besluit Inburgering, 2020). What is interesting in that respect, is that literacy skills have not always been part of language proficiency examination. It was, in fact, not until 2007 that reading and writing became compulsory parts in the civic integration test. Later on, in 2011, literacy skills were also included in the pre-departure (WIB) test which immigrants need to pass in order to be admissible to the Netherlands. While the pre-departure test was already introduced in 2006 and needed to be completed at CEFR level A1-minus, only speaking skills were examined. However, when literacy skills were added to the equation, attainment levels immediately raised to CEFR level A1. Questionable in this regard is how writing has become so important in the integration of newly arrived migrants. Another important note is that by examining writing skills, people who do not know how to read and write or have low literacy level of proficiency in this skill, will inevitably be excluded (Spotti, 2013; Koolmees, 2018). Haznedar, Peyton and Young-Scholten (2018: referring to Condelli et al., 2003, Kurvers et al., 2006 and Tarone et al., 2009) argue, that migrants’ progress in second language (L2) acquisition is affected by conditions upon immigration. If an individual develops literacy skills in the mother tongue it helps one in learning how to read and write in a new language. This means that for migrants with limited or no formal education and limited or no literacy skills, meeting integration requirements presents a greater challenge than for schooled ones. Kurvers and Spotti (2015) argue that while stricter rules on passing for integration exam(s) have impact on all newcomers, statistics show that it has become especially hard for low-educated migrants. It not only shows a decrease in applicants for the tests, but also the pass rate has diminished.

Against the above, Joppke (2007) argues that over time “the obligatory, coercive side of civic integration moved to the fore” (p. 249). Though civic integration policy aims for acquiring language skills as well as obtaining knowledge of Dutch culture and society (Regeling inburgering, 2019), there is a clear focus on language learning in particular. Language proficiency is examined separately from the other two components – that is, knowledge of Dutch society and orientation on the Dutch labor market. However, those are administered in Dutch as well, by which some argue that this functions as a hidden language test (Extra & Spotti, 2009). Especially writing skills have become increasingly important in civic integration policy. The impact of writing skills on low-educated and low-literate migrants, however, is in need of further assessment. Therefore, in this thesis the field of civic integration policy, second language acquisition and in particular the acquisition of writing skills for civic integration purposes will be further explored. More specifically, this study looks at the effects of the stricter policy requirements on low-educated and low-literate migrants. In so doing, this research is led by the following main research question:

What is the role of writing skills development in the management of civic integration and how does this affect low-educated newly arrived migrants in the Netherlands?

In order to give an answer to this research question a set of sub-questions are formulated: - What kind of discourses are authored and authorized by the Dutch government and other institutional bodies when it comes down to civic integration of low-educated newly arrived migrants? - What kind of discourses are authored and authorized by the Dutch government and other institutional bodies when it comes down to language learning for civic integration purposes with a specific focus on writing? - What kind of identity frames are being ascribed to low-educated newly arrived migrants through these discourses? - What kind of identity frames are being ascribed to low-educated newly arrived migrants through these discourses with a specific focus on writing? - What are the implications of acquiring writing skills in the management of civic integration of low-educated newly arrived migrants?

This study aims to develop an understanding of civic integration policies in the Netherlands as a body of discursive practices encapsulated in policy documents and, in so

6 doing, it unravels the discourses on language and identity they contain giving way to the framing of these migrants’ identities. This study therefore contributes to the fields of study in migration and integration. While most research into civic integration focuses on policy requirements in general, this study takes a closer look at writing skills as one of the attainment requirements in particular. Acquiring writing skills has not always been a compulsory component in civic integration but is deemed increasingly important for participation in society. It is therefore particularly interesting to further investigate its role in immigrant integration, especially since proficiency levels will increase in 2021. Hence, conducting a study before the new Civic Integration Act takes effect is relevant as the new law should improve the process of integration. Therefore, this study aims to look at the basis on which writing skills requirements are made and how it affects low-educated migrants. It does so by going beyond governmental institutions and looks at the integration process from a holistic perspective. This thesis consists of five chapters. The present chapter serves the purpose of an introduction of the field under study and presented the problem statement and research question that will be further investigated. The second chapter presents the research methodology that is applied in this study. It gives an overview of the research design, search strategy and the method of analysis of the data. Chapter three comprises the largest section in this thesis. It is in this chapter that documents are analyzed, and literature is presented in order to give an answer to the sub-questions. It takes a close look at the civic integration regime and the importance of literacy within the Netherlands from the 1980s onwards and shows how it developed over time. It presents views from the Dutch government and its agencies, European institutions and Dutch foundations that are engaged in language, reading and writing. It furthermore discusses the role of the Common European Framework of Reference. The chapter concludes by contrasting the perspectives of the State and academia on language and language as means to integrate in Dutch society. Chapter 4 brings together all literature and studied documents in the conclusion and final discussion, after which in chapter 5 the limitations of the study are outlined and recommendations for future research as well as practical implications are presented.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 RESEARCH DESIGN The research design of this study is qualitative in nature, carrying out both theoretical and policy research. Whereas theoretical research is engaged in producing knowledge for understanding, policy research goes beyond that and focuses on knowledge for intervention, ultimately aiming to stimulate change instead of merely understand particular issues (Hakim, 2000). Theoretical research has been carried out by means of literature review: “A research literature review is a systematic, explicit, and reproducible method for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by researchers, scholars, and practitioners” (Fink, 2020: p. 6). Carrying out a literature review served a threefold purpose: 1) it provides an overview of existing knowledge on a specific topic, and integrate other areas of study in this overview, 2) it does so by means of a diachronic approach and therefore includes a chronological perspective on the development of policy and related research on the topics under investigation, and 3) it seeks to identify possible problems, flaws, inconsistencies or controversies in the areas under study (Baumeister & Leary, 1997). Besides the literature review, policy research has been carried out by analyzing policy and other documents regarding Dutch language learning for civic integration purposes, issued by governmental bodies and other institutions, for content and for the discourse models that they contain. In so doing, the study includes both theoretical and empirical elements.

2.2 SEARCH STRATEGY Based on the research question and sub-questions, an organized structure of key terms has been used to search for information in several databases. In order to give a thorough answer to the research question, four main fields of study have been distinguished: civic integration (policy), L2 acquisition, writing skills acquisition and low literacy. These fields cover the whole spectrum of the main research question. Preferably all studies around those topics were in a Dutch context. However, the number of studies out there regarding L2 acquisition and writing skills acquisition in, specifically, a migration context was limited. Hence, the available studies related to those topics in a Dutch civic integration context are scarce as well. Therefore, research conducted in other countries and in non-migration contexts have been explored as well. However, research carried out in other geographic locations had similar demographic, socio- economic and cultural characteristics to the Netherlands, as well as comparable civic integration

8 requirements. Also, when a different target group was addressed in particular studies, this is explicitly mentioned. The criteria for inclusion and exclusion of publications were based on the four main research areas. For each of the distinguished fields of study, a set of search words have been used in order to find related books and articles. Table 1 shows the main search terms for each research area. The terms are all in English. However, the same search words have also been used in Dutch, in order to make a crossover in the two languages about the terms (see Table 1). The search engines used to find relevant journals, books and articles were mainly Google Scholar, Web of Science and Tilburg University Online Library. By using synonyms and words such as ‘OR’ and ‘AND’ the probability increased that a publication contained particular concepts or contexts. In so doing, relevant publications were found in which the fields of study and search terms were addressed (Aromataris & Riitano, 2014). However, keyword searches did not always present the most related books or articles, or contained all the information I was looking for. This is due to the variety of keywords used in publications and the lack of consistency in it (Lecy & Beatty, 2012). Therefore, after reading an interesting book, chapter or article, I checked the bibliography. This snowball sampling strategy is a technique to expand the web of inquiry and opens possibilities for including additional subjects (Atkinson & Flint, 2004). By so doing, the literature sample grew exponentially (Lecy & Beatty, 2012). Likewise, when an article in a particular issue of a journal was of interest for this thesis, other articles in that issue were also reviewed for their relevance. For the analyses of policy and other documents, official websites of the Dutch government and its agencies, foundations and EU-institutions were consulted, such as Overheid.nl, Rijksoverheid.nl, Parlementaire monitor, Algemene Rekenkamer (Court of Audit), Stichting Lezen en Schrijven (Foundation for Reading and Writing), Stichting Het Begint met Taal (Foundation It Starts with Language), Nederlandse Taalunie (Dutch Language Union), Council of Europe and European Union. The documents included national legislation, decrees, provisions, memoranda, letters to parliament, statements by politicians and research publications. Different time frames were chosen in various searches in order to find relating documents matching specific policy developments. When searching for statistics concerning the main fields of study, the most recent publications have been used in order to present the most up to date information.

Table 1: Fields of study and search terms

Civic integration L2 acquisition Writing skills Low literacy (policy) acquisition Civic integration Learning a second Learning how to Impact of literacy policy in Europe/the language write (Dutch) in L2 skills (on immigrant Netherlands integration) Integration of newly Dutch as a second Writing and civic Acquiring literacy arrived migrants in language integration skills (for civic Europe/the integration purposes) Netherlands Language testing L2 classrooms L2 writing in The importance of regimes in classrooms knowing how to read Europe/the and write Netherlands Integration regimes New speaker VS Purpose of (L2) Being low literate in Europe/the native speaker writing Netherlands (Policy) discourses Language learning Writing skill Low literacy among on language, and civic integration development migrants in the integration and Netherlands identity Policy development Language learning Writing and identity Literacy in civic integration and identity construction socialization in Europe/the construction Netherlands Free market Language Writing socialization Literacy principle of course socialization development providers in civic integration Law on Civic Acquiring literacy Integration (+year) skills in the Netherlands Law on Civic Importance of Integration Abroad literacy skills in the Netherlands Pre-departure language test in Europe/the Netherlands

2.3 DATA ANALYSIS The method of analysis used for the collected textual data was discourse analysis. By means of discourse analysis the meaning behind the phenomena of civic integration policy, language and identity of newly arrived migrants in the Netherlands were unraveled. The approach adopted among the array of possible approaches present in the discourse analytical field, focus on analyzing the social context around those phenomena and provided “insights into the complex and dynamic relationships among discourse, social practices, and learning” (Gee & Green, 1998: p. 119). Context in language is important. By looking at discourse, this study did not merely analyze language-use in for instance texts, dialogue, speech and other forms of communication, but focused on its contextual meaning. It “analyzed language as it is fully integrated with all the other elements that go into social practices (e.g. ways of thinking or feeling, ways of manipulating objects or tools, ways of using non-linguistic symbol systems, etc.)” (Gee, 1999: p. 9). The way we humans experience the world is based on patterns and theories in our minds. These so-called ‘discourse models’ (Gee, 1999) are deeply embedded in peoples’ practices. However, different people have in their mind different bits and pieces of discourse models. Those theories and ‘situated meanings’ “don’t simply reside in individuals’ minds; very often they are negotiated between people in and through communicative social interaction” (Wu, 2010: p. 131). Therefore, in this thesis discourse analysis was used to unravel the discourse models present in policy texts concerning civic integration, their underlying ideologies and how that affects the process of integration in the Netherlands. The analysis of (policy) documents engaged a three step process: 1) scanning a document; i.e. glancing through its content (superficially), 2) close read of the document; i.e. thorough examination, and 3) interpretation of the text, following the discourse analytical approach outlined above. While engaged in the interpretation of texts, documents were not treated as giving a complete and accurate overview of an event. Rather, the meaning of texts within documents, and what they contributed to public discourse in relation to other events happening in a particular time frame were explored as well (Bowen, 2009).

2.4 RESEARCH QUALITY INDICATORS There are both advantages as well as limitations when it comes to conducting research based on previous studies and document analysis. The largest benefit in carrying out research in this fashion, is the availability of previous studies and (policy) documents on the internet. In an era of digitization, many documents were available in the public domain and obtainable without the need for permission (Bowen, 2009). Especially when it comes down to policy, the (Dutch)

11 government is obliged to provide information, notify policy(changes) and explain its content. The right to this information is established in the Constitution and Freedom of Information Act (Rijksoverheid, n.d.). Furthermore, reflexivity, that is here understood as: “the awareness of the researcher’s contribution to the construction of meanings attached to social interactions and acknowledgement of the possibility of the investigator’s influence on the research”, is not an issue in this research design, as documents are not affected by the research process (Bowen, 2009: p. 31). Consequently, the researcher’s presence cannot change the data, which makes documents suitable for repeated reviews. Hence, research reliability is provided for. As document analysis offers multiple advantages, there were also a few drawbacks attached to this research design that needs to be outlined here. As (policy) documents from over 40 and odd years had to be consulted, it was quite challenging to obtain these files and records. This also applied to the review of previous studies. As mentioned earlier, search terms vary across publications. With a large body of documentation and literature, biased selectivity may occur (Bowen, 2009). To prevent this from happening, different perspectives on policy developments were consulted in order to provide a comprehensive analysis. The digital access to all kinds of databases and publications, enriched the review and contributed to the reliability of the study. Selection bias has been minimized by avoiding ‘cherry picking’ as much as possible. By using inclusion and exclusion criteria, perspectives from multiple disciplines and institutions, contributed to a large degree to a more consistent and unbiased research paper (Winchester & Salji, 2016).

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE DUTCH CIVIC INTEGRATION REGIME Policymaking regarding civic integration of newly arrived migrants in the Netherlands has been a highly debated topic over the past 40 years. In the 1980s concerns regarding migrants began to influence integration policies. Even though there were already large flows of migration before that time, already since the 1950s, the government considered the stay of those who came to the Netherlands to be temporary (Van Oers, De Hart & Groenendijk, 2010). While large groups of migrants were settling in the Netherlands, Dutch government was not keen on developing a policy for immigrant integration (Duyvendak & Scholten, 2012). In a Memorandum by Bauke Roolvink: former Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health, Carel Polak: former Minister of Justice, Roelof Nelissen: former Minister of Economic Affairs and Marga Klompé: former Minister of Culture, Recreation and Social Welfare, in 1970, it was argued that “the Netherlands is certainly not a country of immigration” (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 1970: p. 9) and therefore not in need of an elaborating policy. Duyvendak and Scholten (2012) argue that based on this normative belief, the Netherlands was in a "phase of denial" (p. 272). The general conception of the Dutch government was that migrants, who were seen as temporary ‘guests’, should receive a warm welcome but also preserve their cultural identity, as to eventually return to their countries of origin successfully (Entzinger, 2003). A report by the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) in 1979 ultimately pointed out that most migrants did, however, not have the intention to go back to their home countries after a short stay. The government was therefore advised by the Council to develop a policy aimed at equal participation of minorities in society (Van Oers, De Hart & Groenendijk, 2010). This resulted in the ‘Ethnic Minorities Policy’ in the 1980s, which provided for institutional arrangements that ran parallel to existing mainstream arrangements and were supported with public funds (Entzinger, 2006). The policy promoted ‘integration with preservation of cultural identity’. Instead of maintaining cultural identity as a successful means for return, it was now considered essential in promoting multiculturalism within the Netherlands (Entzinger, 2003). Scholten (2013) stated that:

“the basic premise of this national multicultural model is that the recognition and institutionalization of cultural pluralism is an important condition for the emancipation and integration of immigrant groups into Dutch society” (p. 97).

According to Vasta (2007), the Netherlands had “institutionalized the acceptance of difference and had a reputation for its high levels of ‘tolerance’” (p. 714). This ‘open-minded’ attitude, however, did not persist, and during the 1990s the public and political opinion shifted. There was a lot of criticism on the ‘multicultural’ policy approach at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s. The prevailing claim was that migrants did not meet their responsibility to integrate socially and economically (Bruquetas-Callejo et al., 2007; Entzinger, 2003; Vasta, 2007), and the policy approach fueled migrants’ isolation from mainstream society rather than promoting integration (Entzinger, 2006). It was the Scientific Council for Government Policy who, in 1989, published a report which disclosed that immigrant unemployment rates had not been improved, but instead raised to alarming levels. Furthermore, a public debate about the opposing beliefs between Islamic and ‘western’ values, triggered by Frits Bolkestein in 1991, changed the attitude regarding immigrant integration. Though the debate calmed down after a while, the notion of cultural pluralism, fundamental in Ethnic Minorities Policy, remained an issue of concern. Consequently, the Ethnic Minorities Policy was ultimately revised into Integration Policy which emphasized socio-economic participation. Socio-economic development was viewed key to improve socio-cultural integration as well (Entzinger, 2006; Duyvendak & Scholten, 2012). Though the integration landscape and the popular opinion around it had changed, it was not until 1998 that there was a real turning point in integration policy itself. From there, the tendency increasingly became that lacking immigrant integration was also a result of insufficient knowledge of Dutch language and society. Accordingly, Dutch language and civic integration courses were introduced (Scholten, 2013) and became mandatory in 1998 for adult migrants in the Civic Integration for Newcomers Act (WIN) (Vasta, 2007). Opponents from these obligatory courses argued that it presumed that migrants did not want to learn Dutch, which was a rather negative connotation. Especially, since the waiting lists showed the opposite: a lot of migrants did in fact attend Dutch language courses (Entzinger, 2003; Kurvers & Spotti, 2015). Also, as liberal democracy, it was uncommon to require adult individuals to attend a schooling program (Entzinger, 2003). Nonetheless, the programs were launched. Furthermore, migrants were now, alike non-migrants, expected to make use of mainstream institutional arrangements, instead of parallel institutions. In a memorandum by Roger van Boxtel, former Minister for Urban and Integration Policy, the two-sided character of the new Act was further accentuated. In the letter called “Providing opportunities, seizing opportunities’ (Kansen krijgen, kansen pakken), he stated:

“Members of ethnic minorities can be expected to do their utmost in order to acquire an independent position in our country as soon as possible. Therefore, it is essential that they opt for this society and take responsibility to avail oneself of the many facilities our country has to offer to its new compatriots. Crucial in this regard is the mastering of the Dutch language.” (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 1998: p. 1)

Evident from this statement is the emphasis on Dutch language proficiency in order to be an integrated citizen. At this time, however, there were no requirements with regard to the level of language proficiency that needed to be attained (Kurvers & Spotti, 2015). After the millennium turn, integration requirements became stricter and there was argued that the multicultural integration policy had made room for an assimilationist turn. The ‘Integration Policy New Style’ stressed the importance of national unity, which could be achieved through a common language and abiding to the same norms. Socio-cultural difference was no longer believed to improve immigrant integration but was instead seen as a hindrance (Duyvendak & Scholten, 2012). Ghorashi (2018) argues that the ‘abrupt’ policy shift was in fact not so discursive as a lot of scholars make it seem. Moreover, De Zwart (2012) claims that “the idea of a break with multiculturalism, and the deterioration of tolerance and ethnic harmony that is often attributed to this break, is deceptive” (p. 301). He continues that the ‘tolerant regime’ should not have been baptized as multiculturalism to begin with. Instead, it was just a mere “strategy to promote quick and efficient redistribution among designated ethnic groups for the purpose of pacification” (p. 302). According to De Zwart this ethnic targeting is still prevalent in present day policymaking. Ghorashi (2018) argues that the ‘tolerance’ toward migrants in the 20th century was mainly based on indifference, considering them automatically as outsiders. This would fuel feelings of exclusion and treatment as ‘the other’. Furthermore, she states that the ignorant attitude towards migrants by the government before the 1980s had constructed a particular image of migrants that is still prevalent in contemporary society. The notion of temporary settlement and portraying migrants as ‘guests’ has made society see migrants as completely different from ‘native’ Dutch. Since the idea was that migrants would eventually go back to their countries of origin, they were not considered as part of Dutch society. She continues: “consequently, the identities of migrants are approached as fixed and rooted in their past, making them always feel out of place in their new country, because they in fact belong to somewhere else and can never be considered as ‘really Dutch’” (p. 81). This ‘process of

15 othering’, as Ghorashi calls it, is still prevalent within the Dutch dominant discourse on identity and migration (Ghorashi, 2003). After the turn of the millennium, the development of integration policy in the Netherlands was triggered by a series of events. One of the initial incitements was a national debate, provoked by an article of publicist Paul Scheffer in January 2000 (Bruquetas-Callejo et al., 2007). His publication comprised of criticism on the multicultural approach toward immigrant integration. He argued that this approach had led to a multicultural tragedy and that “policy of extensive admission and limited integration has enlarged inequality and contributes to the feeling of alienation in society” (Scheffer, 2000: p. 1). Furthermore, occurrences such as the 9/11 attacks, the murder of populist politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and the murder of film and television producer Theo van Gogh in 2004 contributed to the changing tendency towards migrants. Also, the impact of the rise of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant political parties such as the Freedom Party (PVV) by Geert Wilders was significant. These developments resulted in more restrictive policies with regard to migrants, in terms of arrival as well as civic integration requirements (Kurvers & Spotti, 2015; Van Oers, De Hart & Groenendijk, 2010). Migrants increasingly became expected to speak Dutch. Former Minister for Integration and Asylum Affairs, Rita Verdonk, explicitly expressed that ‘integration starts with language’. One of the Acts she proposed and was passed, was the Law on Civic Integration Abroad (WIB) in 2006. Among other things it required migrants to pass a language and country knowledge test before being able to enter the Netherlands. It consisted of an oral test, examining listening and speaking skills, which needed to be passed at CEFR level A1-minus (Goodman, 2011; Kurvers & Spotti, 2015). In so doing, the Netherlands could: “test the willingness and ability of immigrants to learn the language …, which some believe is a good predictor of immigrants’ ability to integrate successfully” (Groenendijk, 2011: p. 1). Examining written skills was not part of the test because the government did not want to exclude unschooled migrants:

“The aim of the settlement requirements is not to prevent specific categories of migrants, such as illiterates, from entering the Netherlands. Therefore, literacy is not required to be able to pass the basic exam abroad” (Verdonk & Bot in Kurvers & Spotti, 2015: p. 176).

In 2007 a new Law on Civic Integration (WI) was passed and replaced the 1998 Act (WIN). Up to that point, migrants only had to take part in integration courses. There were no attainment levels, mere attending the program was enough. However, when the new Law on Civic

Integration (WI) took effect, a test for civic integration was introduced and passing was a condition for permanent residency (Besselsen & De Hart, 2014). The examination system involved testing language proficiency: Dutch speaking and writing skills (at CEFR level A2), knowledge of society and a ‘practice’ part for testing language skills in daily life situations. The introduction of testing written skills is particularly interesting in that respect, given that Dutch government stated in 2006 that it did not want to include literacy skills in its integration regime because it would be discriminative towards low-educated migrants (Kurvers & Spotti, 2015). Nonetheless, the consequence of failing to pass for the test could be that one is not granted a permanent residence permit (Fischler, 2014). Requirements became also stricter in the sense that it were not only new arrivals that needed to pass for civic integration examination, but also ‘old comers’ – that is, individuals who already lived and worked in the Netherlands for a longer time – became obliged to take the test and sufficiently complete it. Though, with regard to writing skills, old comers only had to meet CEFR level A1 instead of level A2 that was required for newcomers. For oral skills there were no exemptions (Kurvers & Spotti, 2015). Besides the increasing language requirements, the individual’s responsibility in integration became more important, meaning that migrants had to decide themselves how and where to prepare for the exam and taking the costs on their own accounts for it: “The government does not determine in which way he should acquire missing knowledge and skills, but gives him the freedom to choose the path which suits his personal circumstances best” (Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 2006: p. 3). The only obligation was passing the exam within a fixed period of three and a half years. Low-educated migrants had two more years to fulfill their obligation. Furthermore, the ‘free market’ principle for the provision of courses was introduced, so any course provider could offer programs for preparation to the civic integration exam (Bonjour, 2013; Van Meeteren, Van De Pol, Dekker, Egbersen & Snel, 2013). Despite these changes, integrating migrants did not participate in these courses and a lot of classes remained unattended. Therefore, the Deltaplan was introduced, through which municipalities could offer courses themselves. In so doing, the sole responsibility of migrants to integrate was no longer a key pillar in the 2007 Act. Instead, the central government, municipalities and welfare organizations shared responsibility in the management of immigrant integration (Algemene Rekenkamer, 2017a). During 2007 it became evident that almost 90% of those who had taken the pre- departure test, stemming from the Law on Civic Integration Abroad, had passed. Therefore, politicians argued that the attainment level could be further increased to CEFR level A1. Though, it was not until 2011 that this was implemented. Also, similar to the introduction of

17 testing Dutch writing skills in the civic integration program, the pre-departure test started to incorporate written language skills as requirement for being admissible to the Netherlands (Groenendijk, 2011). Again, this was contrary to the statement of the government in 2006 regarding literacy skills. Besides the raising requirements for examination abroad, the time limit to pass for civic integration after arrival was in 2012 reduced to three years. Low-educated migrants still had two years extra to fulfill their obligation. Furthermore, the ‘practice’ part for testing language skills in daily life situation was abolished, meaning that language skills were now only tested through fixed exams (Kurvers & Spotti, 2015). In the Budget Memorandum in 2011 there were announced substantial cuts in integration policy, resulting in a cut on the budgets for civic integration at municipalities. Among other things, this provoked law amendments in 2013 (Blom, Bakker, Goedvolk, van der Maas-Vos & van Plaggenhoef, 2018). In the revised Civic Integration Act (2013) municipalities’ role in migrants’ integration trajectory was formally vanished. Whereas in the 2007 Act municipalities had a key role in the management of integration, five years later this was no longer deemed effective. More than ever, the individual’s responsibility formed the leading principle of integration policy (Dagevos & Gijsberts, 2012). By institutionalizing these changes, some of the initial provisions of the 2007 Act were revived. Furthermore, the central language exam was now divided into 4 separate tests (listening, speaking, reading and writing), instead of having one test that incorporated all components (Blom et al., 2018). The Court of Audit, however, reported that the new law did not improve the situation: “The Civic Integration Act 2013 has led to 50% fewer people passing their integration exams than under the previous Act from 2007” (Algemene Rekenkamer, 2017b). On the other hand, research showed that CEFR level A2 was not sufficient enough for the labor market or to start an education. Instead CEFR level B1 would be necessary. Despite these findings, the Dutch government argued that increasing language requirements from A2 to B1 was not feasible for many migrants (Algemene Rekenkamer, 2017a). Remarkable, but also contrary to this statement, are the current plans to revise the Civic Integration Act once again in 2021. Nonetheless, attainment levels will then further increase to CEFR level B1 (Taalunie, 2019a; Razenberg & Gruijter, 2019). Minister of Social Affairs and Employment, Wouter Koolmees, argues that current policy comprises too much obstacles and he acknowledges the system to be “too complicated and ineffective” (Koolmees, 2018: p. 1). Despite manifold law amendments with different perceptions on civic integration in the past, none of the policy changes has led to improvement of immigrant integration in Dutch society. Dutch government does, nonetheless, believe that raising civic integration requirements

18 once again is the answer to resolve integration issues, or that it at least is a step in the right direction. Though not everyone has to take the test, immigrants from EU-countries, Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are exempted from the civic integration obligation (Rijksoverheid, 2020a). However, whereas Turkish newcomers were exempted from the test since 2011 as well, from 2021 onward this group will be obliged to meet civic integration requirements again (Rijksoverheid, 2020b). In a letter to the parliament, Minister of Social Affairs and Employment argues that this is necessary because statistics have shown that Turkish newcomers have not integrated in Dutch society as well as immigrants from other EU- countries (who also do not have to meet civic integration requirements) and immigrants with a Moroccan background (who do have to meet civic integration requirements). Therefore, improvement of integration of this group is essential, so he claims (Koolmees, 2020). A trend analysis carried out by the Dutch Language Union (Taalunie, 2019b), illustrates what has been proven effective and what aspects of integration policy are currently in need of change. In light of the latter, the most important findings were that civic integration lacks coherence and stands too much on its own. Furthermore, the analysis shows that the sole responsibility of migrants to integrate seems unrealistic and there are little to no stimuli to improve quality and tailor-made facilities. Also lacking transparency on the free market for course providers disrupts migrants to choose the right program. On top of that, the quality of the civic integration courses is not assessed properly and also the obligation to merely pass for civic integration examination is by no means effective. It is striking though to see that with the new Law on Civic Integration to be implemented from 2021, a lot of advisory reports discuss the role of municipalities and how they can anticipate on the upcoming changes, as they will get back more authority in the integration process once again (De Nationale Ombudsman, 2018; Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur, 2019; Taalunie, 2019a). But what does not seem to be discussed are the possible shortcomings in existing integration courses for migrants (e.g. possible barriers), the ones they are expected to take in order to meet language-based integration requirements. Meanwhile, the attainment targets for passing language tests have increased, what seems lacking is a closer look at how integration courses are implemented and how civic integration is carried out in practice. Moreover, the different aspects of civic integration seem to be in need of further, separate examination. Especially with regard to the acquisition of writing skills, integration policy has undergone significant changes. What is evident from the analysis of policy developments and the discourse practices they contain, are the conflicting statements from the government at times. Essentially the introduction of writing skills as attainment requirement, while the ministry stated before that this would lead to exclusion, is

19 striking. Moreover, where there was a difference in levels across language requirements in the past, speaking and writing skills are now stressed to be equally important. Attainment levels of written language skills nowadays proportionately increase with oral language skills, which shows a changing perspective on the importance of writing. By requiring immigrants to already have attained Dutch writing skills before arrival, the question is how this can be justified against the process of exclusion that automatically occurs in that matter.

3.2 LITERACY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE The past decade literacy has become very important in modern European societies. Being able to read and write “empowers the individual to develop capacities of reflection, critique and empathy, leading to a sense of self-efficacy, identity and full participation in society’ (EU High- Level Group of Experts on Literacy, 2012: p. 21). Research by Bynner (2004) shows that literacy skills are significant in gaining, retaining and advancing in employment. Besides the impact on economic well-being, it also relates to issues such as aspirations, family life, health, and civic and cultural engagement. Literacy skills are crucial in parenting, in being an active consumer, for matters concerning health care, participating as a citizen and taking advantage of digital developments, both socially and at work (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2010; EU High- Level Group of Experts on Literacy, 2012). The absence of such skills can pose a threat to cohesive society and consequently lead to social exclusion (Bynner, 2004), especially in modern-day European societies. Digitization is an important development that has accelerated the importance of literacy skills (Maastricht University, 2018): “Digitization has added new dimensions to our ways of connecting and communicating” (EU High-Level Group of Experts on Literacy, 2012: p. 23). Since digital means concentrate on the written and typed word, literacy skills are nowadays more entwined with the way we live our lives, socially and professionally. However, as literacy skills are considered ‘basic skills’ in present-day European societies, a lack thereof has become a hidden issue. People do not feel comfortable to express the absence of ‘adequate’ literacy skills, which are taken for granted by so many. Also, the lack of awareness among politicians, policymakers and many other players in society does not improve the situation (EU High-Level Group of Experts on Literacy, 2012). A poll by the Foundation for Reading and Writing in the Netherlands showed that among the Dutch public, 81% consider low literacy to be an important issue. However, research by the Court of Audit revealed that the current approach by the Dutch government to face this issue is far from effective. Results show that less than 5% of the target group is reached and the problem is much

20 bigger than the size of measures that are currently taken (Stichting Lezen en Schrijven, 2018; Algemene Rekenkamer, 2016). Large-scale research into language proficiency and low literacy in the Netherlands has been carried out by PIAAC (Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, led by the OECD) in 2012 at last. Since this research is carried out every 10 years, new results are expected to be published in 2023 (Nationaal Regieorgaan Onderwijsonderzoek, n.d.). Based on the latest statistics, it appears that the Netherlands performs well with regard to language proficiency compared to other countries. However, the Netherlands also seems to be one of the countries which shows a large gap in language proficiency between ‘native’ Dutch residents and immigrants. Taking into account countries of origin (western vs non-western) and first- or second-generation immigrants, it appears that the biggest difference exists between ‘native’ Dutch and non-western first-generation immigrants. Large discrepancies are not desirable because it can create isolation (Buisman, Allen, Fouarge, Houtkoop & Van der Velde, 2013). Research by PIAAC furthermore shows that there is a shift in educational policy, in which more emphasis is nowadays put on higher education programs. Whereas traditionally a lot of attention was given to individuals who were lagging behind, present-day policy in education focuses more on programs of excellence and the economic relevance for the Netherlands in that respect (Buisman et al., 2013). Though, low literacy within the Netherlands has increased over the past years. Whereas the percentage of low literacy was 9,4% in 1994 and 9,6% in 2007, it was 11,9% in 2012 (Buisman & Houtkoop, 2014). CINOP, ROA and Etil have made an estimation of the amount of low-literates clustered in groups, based on the PIAAC research. It shows that among those different groups, individuals with a migration background clearly came to the fore (Huijts, Bijlsma & Van der Velden, 2020). Within this group approximately 31% is low-literate (GeletterdheidInZicht.nl, n.d.). Along with information from Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek), it has been estimated that there are approximately 394.000 low-literate immigrants within the Netherlands (age: 30+ and in particular first generation immigrants) (Verbakel, Van den Brink & Groot, 2020). Among first generation immigrants, the percentage of low-literate individuals has increased considerably: from 25,8% in 1994, to 32,4% in 2007 and 36,2% in 2012. The difference between shares of low-literates among ‘native’ Dutch and first-generation immigrant is quite large. Partly, this is due to an average high level of language skills among ‘native’ Dutch people and the lack of language knowledge of immigrants before arrival. Other explanations could involve the composition of the immigrant population, the nature of immigration and integration policy, and the differences between migrants’ mother tongue and the official language of the host country (Buisman & Houtkoop, 2014). In addition,

21 the growing number of immigrants coming to the Netherlands causes more need for language support. Even more so, the increasing attainment requirements for civic integration to CEFR level B1 will add to this need (Het Begint met Taal, 2020). It Starts with Language (Het Begint met Taal) (2020) argues that to meet this increasing need for language support, more effort from course providers and other institutions is necessary. This must be organized on a local level since the Netherlands does not have in-depth policy on a national level with regard to civic integration education. A report by Maastricht University, commissioned by the Foundation for Reading and Writing and elaborating on the PIAAC research, shows that the Netherlands has a rather different approach toward adult education compared to other countries. Whereas most countries have developed national policy regarding quality and facilitation of adult education, the Netherlands applies the free market principle of course providers (De Greef & Segers, 2016). Policy on a national level defines general requirements which migrants have to meet but does not further elaborate on how one can reach those requirements. It does not describe the path through which teachers and students should be able to achieve this goal. Here comes in the concept of autonomy and self-sufficiency (‘zelfredzaamheid’), underlying civic integration policies (Blom et al., 2018). This means, among other things, that migrants decide themselves where to attend courses in preparation for civic integration tests (Algemene Rekenkamer, 2017). These course providers are, in turn, able to shape their own curriculum (Driessen, 2008). The Foundation for Reading and Writing requests the Dutch government to give more attention to the quality and accessibility of language education for the vulnerable group of low-literates. They furthermore question the way in which language education for civic integration purposes is regulated through the free market principle: “The question is whether the working of market forces is sensible for something as basic as language learning” (Stichting Lezen en Schrijven, 2017: p. 1). The significance of literacy skills, and impact in the case of them lacking, is evident: there are many drawbacks when one is not being able to read and write, especially in modern- day European countries such as the Netherlands. But what is interesting in this respect, is that by requiring immigrants to obtain a certain level of Dutch language skills – and in particular literacy skills – before and after arrival in the Netherlands, individuals who do not know how to read and write or have low literacy level of proficiency in this skill will inevitably be excluded. At this stage, the consequence of not passing all components of the language test for civic integration is quite severe: one could be denied permanent residency. Though, it presents a much greater challenge to unschooled migrants or migrants with little formal education to meet civic integration, language-based requirements in comparison with individuals who

22 already acquired literacy skills in another language. These skills are, however, considered ‘basic’ in the eyes of many. On the other side, not acquiring these skills will also lead to processes of exclusion in many aspects of life. This can therefore certainly be identified as a dilemma, especially with the expectation that the number of low-literate individuals will further increase. Simpson and Whiteside (2015) put forward the question: “what makes language and particularly literacy such an important criterion for entry to a country and for residence?” (p. 5). In their consideration, they argue that language can be seen as an important element in the preservation of national identity in the face of progressive globalization. They furthermore argue that language proficiency is deemed essential to civic participation. However, they question to what extent the proficiency required will ensure migrants the ability to understand and engage in matters that involve national core values, such as political debates, discussions and legal issues. If that will hardly be the case, would it not just be a gatekeeping device in immigration control? (Simpson & Whiteside, 2015). Elaborating on Simpson and Whiteside’s argument that language is a means to preserve national identity, Lam (2000) argues that with literacy learning socialization processes take place in which someone’s identity plays an essential role: “for in practicing any form of literacy, the user is at the same time enacting a particular social role and membership in a particular group” (p. 459). Also Gee (2015) argues that literacy is more than just being able to read and write. He argues that socialization is part and parcel of literacy, so is enculturation and development in social and cultural groups, in schools and other institutions. While engaged in doing research in discoursal construction of identity in academic writing, Ivanic (1998) recognizes and underlines the contextual and ideological nature of literacy. She claims identity to be a crucial factor in writing: “acquiring certain literacy practices involves becoming a certain type of person” (p. 67). Furthermore, she argues that the written word is in some ways similar to spoken language, as it is as much embedded in social context. However, it is also different, as writing takes place in a different physical context than where it is read. This shows the perceived complexity in literacy and the difficulty in conveying a message on paper: “literacy is not just about texts but also about actions around texts” (Ivanic, 1998: p. 62). As literacy involves both reading and writing, writing skills acquisition in particular has not received much attention in sociolinguistics. Blommaert (2008) argues that what is considered ‘writing’ in daily language-use “is a very complex set of semiotic practices that involve the visualization and materialization of ideas and concepts, their archivability and transferability across time and space” (p. 4). Accordingly, “any consideration of writing is

23 forced to address material aspects as well as ideational ones, and both categories of aspects are of course in turn lodged in social, cultural, economic and political contexts” (Blommaert, 2008: p. 4). The underlying complexity in the written word is enormous and it is too simple to assume a degree of homogeneity in writing practices, so Blommaert (2008) argues. He also claims that globalization contributes to the complexity of writing. Literacy products – texts, documents – may be appropriate in one society but can be an error in another. Therefore, social, cultural, historical and political factors all need to be considered when producing a written word (Blommaert, 2008). As language is inextricably linked to culture, knowledge of the culture is crucial in order to produce a text. Language and culture are closely entwined as the meaning of most words have cultural presumptions (Van Kalsbeek, 2015; Bossers, Kuiken & Vermeer, 2015). There are plenty of culture-bound words, phrases and utterances that are unique in one particular language and cannot be understood if one does not master that language (Padiernos & Lee, 2018). This cultural awareness is even more important in writing than in oral communication. As illustrated in the work of Ivanic (2009) earlier, when something is written there is no immediate interaction taking place. The person who is writing does so for an audience who will read the text later in time. Consequently, the reader cannot respond immediately to the written text nor ask for clarification (Verboog, 2015). When producing a text, L2 learners often rely on language knowledge in their mother tongue. Learners bring with them their knowledge and ideas about writing, texts, text structure, and style. However, these norms and ideas can differ from language to language as well as from culture to culture. Social conventions play a key role in what people write and how they do so. These social norms and values are taught in educational settings and in social interaction with other people and institutions in one’s surroundings. The way we express ourselves is conceived by others. Also, the genres and phrases we use, reflect those genres and phrases that have been used by others. In this way, culture provides us words, images and forms which we use as we write (De Bakker, 2015). Thus, by learning a new language and, more specifically, by acquiring writing skills, one also learns a culture. Kim (2003) argues that language is a means to preserve culture and states that “the learning of a second or foreign language enables one to view life through another cultural lens” (p. 1). Moreover, she goes further than highlighting the interconnectedness between language and culture and argues for its impact upon one’s identity. She agrees with Peirce (1995), who argues that language plays a key role in shaping a language leaner’s social identity. Peirce claims that when L2 learners communicate, “they are not only exchanging information, but they are constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense of who they are and how they relate

24 to the social world” (p. 18). This ‘investment’, as Peirce calls it, in learning a second language is subject to power relations. So, when individuals learn a second language, they do so with the purpose of acquiring more resources such as education and relationships, but also capital goods, real estate and money. This ‘return on investment’ is then the motivation for people to learn a new language, and “will give them access to hitherto unattainable resources” (Peirce, 1995: p. 17). When translating this to the context of learning Dutch as a second language for civic integration purposes, this is evident as well. By obtaining Dutch language skills, one will get access to more resources as one is provided with a residence permit. The power exerted on migrants in this situation is clear: one is obliged to pass for civic integration examination in order to legally stay in the country. If one fails to do so, one will be denied permanent residency and face the consequence of deportation. As mentioned earlier in this section, little to no research has been carried out with regard to writing skills acquisition, especially in an adult migration context. What is known is that acquisition of literacy skills in general and writing skills in particular bring with them cultural implications. By learning these particular language skills, one also learns a new culture, which in return has implications for someone’s identity. So when it comes to language learning for civic integration purposes, the Netherlands has the tendency to perceive the notion of residency and citizenship, in terms of identification with and loyalty to culture. To say the least, acquiring writing skills is a complex matter. Though, it is even more difficult for individuals with a low educational background or for individuals with a low-literacy level. As individuals are likely to draw knowledge from their L1 when learning a L2, low-educated and low-literate individuals are not able to do so. With the knowledge that the number of low-literates will further increase as a result of, among other things, a growing number of immigrants coming to the Netherlands, the policy decision to increase language-based civic integration requirements (of which writing skills is an important element) is particularly interesting. It is striking that a policy on this issue is developed while there is a lack of empirical evidence with regard to writing and writing as enhancing means to socio-cultural and socio-economic integration. The only impact that has become evident is the impact on identity construction, a construct that deserves discretion as it concerns someone’s private life. But does the lack of further knowledge about the consequences of such policy not make it premature to develop criteria that will determine an immigrant’s residential status? Though the importance of literacy skills in general has been shown, questionable is whether the consequences of not obtaining CEFR level A2 (soon B1) in writing are reasonable or legitimate, or how they can be justified objectively. De Bakker (2015) furthermore argues in this respect that the assessment of writing is not a straightforward task,

25 but rather a difficult affair. Besides the subjectivity in what is considered for instance an adequate text, an individual’s proficiency in writing can also differ across subjects and levels.

3.3 THE COMMON EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE The EU High-Level Group of Experts on Literacy (2012) argues that at international policy level, writing has not received much attention either compared to other language skills. Since there is no universal instrument to measure individuals’ writing skills, it is difficult to make an international comparison with reliable indicators on how well people are doing at writing (EU High-Level Group of Experts on Literacy, 2012). The framework used by the Dutch government to measure, among other things, written proficiency for civic integration purposes, is the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). By using this framework attainment requirements are defined. The CEFR formulates six levels in which language proficiency is categorized. The levels range from A1-A2, B1-B2 to C1-C2, and can be organized in three groups accordingly: Basic User, Independent User and Proficient User (Council of Europe, n.d.). Each CEFR level provides “descriptions of communicative activities and matching descriptions of communicative language competence” (Janssen-van Dieten, 2006: p. 143). It is not specified to a particular language, but it is assumed that any communicative task requires a comparable level of proficiency from language to language (Little, 2007). By using this framework, language proficiency can be measured and it can track the progress made by immigrants over the course of time (Spotti, 2013). As the name already indicates, the CEFR aims to offer a frame for reference. It intents to provide a comparative scheme which can be used across different countries for the recognition of language qualifications. It also serves as a coordination mechanism for language schools, teachers, test agencies and other educational bodies (Council of Europe, 2001; Spotti, 2013), as it was designed for the development of L2 curricula, L2 teaching programs and assessment of L2 learning outcomes (Little, 2007). Over the course of time it evolved into a widely used framework in determining what is deemed as acceptable language and it is commonly used as an instrument to develop language policies for admission, residence and/or citizenship of immigrants (Extra, Spotti & Van Avermaet, 2009). The often wrongly made assumption is that the levels within the framework are “a set of rigid testing standards” (Little, 2012: p. 1). Accordingly, Simpson and Whiteside (2015) argue that the levels have become used in practices beyond those where it was initially intended for. Also, Little (2007) argues that “to date, its impact on language testing far outweighs its impact on curriculum design and

26 pedagogy” (p. 648). The scale seems apt to be used as means to assess language proficiency in a test and then compare results across languages and countries. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Tests claiming to assess, for instance, level B1 in Dutch cannot fully ensure that a B1 exam in English is assessing the same thing. Many CEFR descriptors do not contain detailed or specific indicators, which leads to diverse interpretations (Extra, Spotti & Van Avermaet, 2009) and will therefore not guarantee complete conformity (Little, 2007). Questionable is, however, to what extent that would ever be possible. Krumm (2007) adds to this, that in a world where so many different social, cultural and linguistic backgrounds congregate,” one instrument and approach cannot address all situations and contexts nor meet all needs”. He continues by arguing that “although the CEFR is not intended to be applied uniformly to everybody, in some cases it is applied in just such a fashion, thereby undermining its much more broadly conceived intentions” (p. 667). The CEFR levels used in Dutch civic integration policy are applicable to all newcomers, irrespective of conditions upon arrival, such as educational background. Spotti (2011) argues that this is quite problematic because the level descriptors of the CEFR mainly focus on measuring language knowledge of more educated individuals. However, as illustrated earlier, the percentage of low-literate immigrants has increased over the past years and will probably further increase in the future. Extra, Spotti and Van Avermaet (2009) point out that even “the CEFR descriptors at the lower levels clearly imply an already existing basic knowledge and literacy” (p. 17). Van Avermaet (2009) argues that this is because the framework was developed to promote multilingualism in Europe and not as a means to create linguistic homogenization, hence assuming literacy skills. Janssen-van Dieten (2006) also addresses the underlying assumption in CEFR scales that all L2 learners have acquired literacy skills in their mother tongue. However, when it comes down to L2 learning by immigrants, some basic knowledge or knowledge of how to read and write is not always present. Nevertheless, low- educated and low-literate migrants are expected to meet the same requirements as higher- educated and (high) literate individuals. This is problematic, because failure to meet language requirements at CEFR level A2 (soon B1) within a fixed period has consequences for one’s residential status. Van Avermaet (2009) adds that this is a serious concern, as the CEFR was not developed for the purpose of immigrant regulation. Also Little (2012) stresses that the framework and its proficiency level descriptors have not been developed with the communicative needs of adult migrants in mind, and therefore should not be applied in those contexts without careful consideration.

CEFR levels have been adopted by most language testing agencies in Europe (Little, 2012). Extra, Spotti and Van Avermaet (2009) claim that it is striking that the CEFR levels chosen for admission, integration or citizenship purposes differ across Europe. McNamara (2009) argues that it not only diverges among different stages of the integration process, whether or not language requirements are imposed on immigrants, but also the levels applicable differ considerably.1 Therefore, they call into question the validation of CEFR levels by policymakers when applying it. Van Avermaet (2009) argues that large variation in the required level of language proficiency is rather remarkable in an increasingly unified Europe. He puts forward the questions:

“How will Europe deal with the reality that an immigrant, who may have obtained citizenship in the Netherlands with an A2 level of Dutch, might then, with the associated right of free mobility within Europe, translocate to Denmark, where a B2 level of Danish is required for citizenship? Or what will happen with an immigrant living in Belgium who can acquire citizenship without any language condition and who – once citizenship is granted – can freely move to countries in Europe that have language tests?” (p. 33)

McNamara (2009) argues that the various language requirements across European countries are not a result of the difference in functional use of language, but rather different political aims. Studies in particular contexts (in the UK by Blackledge 2009, the Netherlands by Extra and Spotti 2009 and Luxembourg by Horner 2009: in Hogan-Brun et al.) all view increasing language requirements for civic integration purposes within discourses of identity and cultural belonging. Therefore, McNamara (2009) claims that these language tests are actually constructs for cultural identity as defined by politicians. He argues that consistently stepping up these attainment requirements over the past two decades, seem to be less in the interest of the migrant and more so in light of social cohesion. The symbolic function of language, as a way to preserve national culture, seems to dominate over its communicative function. McNamara (2009) claims:

“The arguments in favor of requirements for language proficiency on practical, functional grounds of communication are useful in masking the deeper motivation of the use of language tests as a reinforcement of linguistic and cultural hegemony. The real construct in the test remains covert.” (p. 158)

1 See Van Avermaet 2009 in Hogan-Brun et al. for a comparison of language requirements across European countries. 28

Overall, it is remarkable that the CEFR, a tool initially developed to advance plurilingualism, is now used by policymakers to promote the development of a policy of linguistic homogenization and thereby focus on the deficiencies of migrants instead of on what they could provide for in terms of resources to a more diverse society (Extra, Spotti & Van Avermaet, 2009). As Extra and Spotti (2009) put it: “the CEFR … has been introduced and intended as an instrument for valuing competences, not as an alibi for exclusion” (p. 143).

3.4 DIVERGENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE NOTION OF LANGUAGE As became clear in previous sections, acquiring language skills for civic integration purposes has an underlying ideological interest. The analysis clearly shows the changing perspective of the government on language and language as means to integrate successfully in Dutch society. In this final section, the divergent perspectives on the notion of language and language-use of the Dutch government and academia are outlined. Essentially, these opposing views form a fundamental difference in the way a policy could be constructed and paves the way for a final discussion in the next chapter. It is through language policy that the State can enforce a specific set of norms for language use. It does not only enable the State to determine which language is the official or national language, but also which language variations or dialects are accepted and/or tolerated. In general, there is more tolerance towards intra-language variation than inter-language variation, meaning that dialects from regions within the country or language variations which have historical roots on the State’s territory are much more accepted than languages or language variations which come from other geographical areas and that can be directly linked to migration. Furthermore, the tolerance of other languages than Dutch has progressively decreased (Kroon & Spotti, 2011). By policing language as in civic integration policy, it seems that there is advocated for a monolithic notion of language and language use in society. Blommaert and Spotti (2016) argue that “it is the mainstream view held by institutions – education and immigrant services champion such a view – that language(s) are neatly separated entities” (p. 161). However, from a sociolinguistics point of view, this perspective on language is rather obsolete. Globalization has resulted in the blurring notion of language as something fixed and monolithic. Even more, the notion of language as something authentic and legitimate is nowadays seen as problematic from a sociolinguistic perspective. Authenticity relates to a specific place, a territory and the idea of ‘where you come from’. It also relates to “time and nostalgia for the

29 past. This re-assembling of the past, as Bucholtz (2003) highlights, is a residue of Romanticism where rural peasant populations, supposedly untouched by urbanity, often came to be valorized as authentic sources of cultural and linguistic knowledge” (O’Rourke & Walsh, 2015: p. 65). Globalization has, in fact, disrupted this cultural and linguistic homogenization. Large flows of migrants and the emergence of online communication systems have resulted in super diverse societies. The notion of ‘super-diversity’ underlines the complexity of social, cultural and linguistic variety in present-day societies (Blommaert & Backus, 2013). According to Vertovec (2007) “such a condition is distinguished by a dynamic interplay of variables among an increased number of new, small and scattered, multiple-origin, transnationally connected, socio-economically differentiated and legally stratified immigrants who have arrived over the last decade” (p. 1024). Due to technological developments and low travel costs, immigrants maintain ties with their country of origin and other places where they feel connected to, outside the country of settlement (Vertovec, 2007). The large degree of diversity and the mixing and blending of spoken as well as written languages that occurs in superdiverse communication settings has shed a different light on the established notion of language as stable and monolithic (Backus & Blommaert, 2013). As a result of mobility and migration new speakers have emerged, meaning that individuals learn languages other than their mother tongue (Ó Murchadha, Hornsby, Smith- Christmas & Moriarty, 2018). Social and geographical movement has transformed the traditional view of language as bounded and unitary in a looser perception of language-use. This development has also shed a different light on the concept of the ‘native speaker’, since that concept presumes that there is a particular, authentic and ‘correct’ use of a language (O’Rourke & Pujolar, 2013). Consequently, it “is based on the assumption that one can only be considered a ‘real’ speaker by virtue of biology and/or culture” (O’Rourke, Pujolar & Ramallo, 2015: p. 7). The concept of native versus nonnative implies a hierarchy and a deficit model, which suggests that native speakers and native speech is superior to nonnative speakers and their practices (Ó Murchadha et al., 2018). This construction of native supremacy leads to processes of discrimination and exclusion. It favors one group of speakers of a particular language over another (Paikeday, 1985). Schmitz (2013) argues that, “underlying the notion “native speaker”, there lie dangerous ideologies of superiority, racial purity, asymmetrical power relationships, the native having the upper hand while the nonnative is often viewed as deviant and deficient” (137). Evident in these constructs is the position of power and privilege underlying this ideology of language.

Though sociolinguists call for equal value of languages, political and popular discourse often attach more value to the State’s official language and its standard varieties. Even more so, deviations from the norm are considered inferior (Collins 1999 in Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2001). The desire for language standardization derives from the idea that harmony in society can only be reached when all speak the same language in a particular fashion (Blackledge & Pavlenko, 2001). Lippi-Green (1994, in Blackledge & Pavlenko 2001) argues that such dogmas ultimately aim to promote language homogenization and suppress alternative variations of language. Blackledge and Pavlenko (2001) state that, because these hegemonic ideologies are broadly supported in institutional settings such as in education, at the workplace, politics, media and even in the law, people seem to accept a culture of “monoglot standardization” (p. 254). Taken on board here is Bourdieu’s model of symbolic domination, in which is argued that “the official language or standard variety becomes the language of hegemonic institutions because both the dominant and the subordinated group misrecognize it as a superior language” (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004: p. 11). Consequently, individuals who are either unable or decline to adopt dominant language practices will potentially be marginalized or excluded (Blackledge & Pavlenko, 2001). Civic integration policy in the Netherlands explicitly shows the symbolic value of the State’s official language. Not being able to meet language-based attainment requirements for civic integration purposes has serious consequences for one’s residential status. An immigrant could be denied permanent residency or citizenship due to the mere reason of not passing the civic integration test at a specific level. Even more so, it seems that the Dutch government continues to step up these requirements as a response to an increasingly diverse society due to globalization, hence underlining the ideology for linguistic homogeneity. Reaching harmony and (national) unity through a uniform language-use is, however, not as discursive as political discourses make it seem. Hymes (1961 in O’Rourke et al. 2015) argues that “to participate in a speech community is not quite the same as to be a member of it” (p. 9). Blommaert and Verschueren (1998: in Driouichi, 2007) complement in that respect that learning a new language does not automatically lead to the adoption of values and culture of the ‘native’ speakers. Language is not homogeneous but instead a variable instrument, they continue. Learning the language of the host country would not guarantee fluid communication, let alone bridge ethnic and socio-economic differences. Simpson and Whiteside (2015) agree with Blommaert and Verschueren to some extent but argue that proficiency in the national language of the host country will, without a doubt, be advantageous, both economically and socially. That includes oral as well as written language skills. However, according to these

31 scholars, mastering the national language will not enable newcomers to metaphorically ‘survive’ in every social context. They furthermore argue that an assumption made easily is that with ‘sufficient’ language skills all problems migrants face will be solved automatically. Ghorashi (2018) argues in light of civic integration in the Netherlands that, despite the obligation to learn the Dutch language, migrants’ fluency in Dutch is never considered adequate enough. She contends that “there appears to be an unrealistic expectation of a native level of language perfection from first-generation migrants” (p. 86). The question, however, remains when immigrants will then be considered fully integrated citizens? Leung, Harris and Rampton (1997) quite similarly question in their article about TESOL practice: “At what point are the people involved in migration to be considered as a permanent and integral part of the host nation and not as part of a kind of permanent ‘otherness’?” (p. 547). Referring to Bhabha (1994), they argue that this permanent otherness derives from fixed ideologies about ethnicity and where people come from. Based on the findings of Gilroy (1987), they furthermore state that certain minority groups are permanently excluded from the 'in-group' – that is, mainstream society. Gilroy identified ‘ethnic absolutism’ as the predominant perspective on nations and their respective communities, meaning that nations are considered “as culturally homogeneous communities of sentiment” (p. 59-61 in Leung, Harris & Rampton, 1997: p. 547). However, cultures, languages and identities are not fixed, but are instead fluid, constantly in contestation and negotiation, subject to change and thereby creating new dynamics in ethnicities.

4. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

This study has dealt with the developments of civic integration policy in the Netherlands and the discourses on newly arrived migrants, language and identity that it contains. It focused on the importance of second language acquisition and in particular writing skills acquisition of low-educated, newly arrived migrants, as these skills seem to become increasingly important in the management of civic integration. Therefore, it were these skills that needed further assessment, especially since, among other things, writing skills attainment requirements will increase once again from 2021 onward as a new law on civic integration will take effect. Therefore, this study was led by the following research question:

What is the role of writing skills development in the management of civic integration and how does this affect low-educated newly arrived migrants in the Netherlands?

Language has always been a cornerstone in civic integration policy. For the past 20 years, there have been language-based civic integration attainment requirements that newly arrived migrants had to meet in order to legally and permanently settle in the Netherlands. The ability and willingness to learn the Dutch language was, and still is, seen as a determining factor in defining whether someone is integrated in Dutch society. However, with regard to reading and writing skills the government was at first reluctant to include those as attainment requirement in integration policy as it would prevent people with a low-literacy level from entering the country or being able to stay. Despite the acknowledged, discriminatory nature of literacy attainment requirements for civic integration purposes, the government nonetheless decided to make writing a compulsory component in the civic integration test in 2007. The Dutch government deemed the development of Dutch writing skills crucial in the management of civic integration. Though, an explanation or justification for this turning point in policy cannot be found in the studied documentation. With regard to literacy skills in general, it is shown by scholars (Bynner and Hanushek & Woessmann) as well as other institutions (EU High-Level group of Experts on literacy and Foundation for Reading and Writing) that development of these skills contribute to integration in society – that is, economically, socially and culturally. Even more so, lack of literacy skills could lead to exclusion. However, scholars such as Simpson and Whiteside (2015) do question if the required proficiency will enable migrants to engage in matters which are considered essential in civic participation in society. It is then especially rigorous on low-educated and low-literate migrants that when they are not able to develop

33 writing (or reading) skills for civic integration purposes it may lead to, in the most extreme case, deportation. But on the other side, putting in a lot of effort to acquire these skills will not completely ensure them to function as fully integrated citizen in Dutch society. This is problematic as the number of low-literate people has increased considerably, especially among the immigrant population. Moreover, it seems that this process of language learning is not facilitated carefully by the government. Covert behind the concepts of ‘autonomy’ and ‘self- efficacy’, migrants have a large responsibility in finding the right institution(s) to help them in meeting civic integration requirements. As the government does not prescribe the path through which migrants should achieve this goal, it seems like a hindrance in the way to integration. It not only presents a number of challenges for newly arrived migrants, but it also lacks to create guidelines for institutions who should facilitate and further manage the integration trajectory, such as language schools. By letting such institutions create their own policies and curriculum, it is not clear whether policy on a national level is consistent with civic integration practices. Another ambiguous matter is the framework on which the language tests are based. Though the CEFR is a framework developed for L2 learning, L2 curricula and L2 teaching, it has not been intended to be used in the way it is currently applied in language testing for civic integration purposes. The proficiency level descriptors within the framework furthermore presume basic language knowledge and literacy, which is rather problematic as low-literacy rates are not only highest among the immigrant population but are also expected to increase further in the future as a result of mobility and migration. While the integration trajectory presents a number of challenges in terms of practicalities, there is another issue hidden in civic integration policies – that is, the framing of migrants’ identities. The analysis clearly shows the process of ascribed identity framing intertwined in civic integration discourse. Across the decades, migrants have been framed as a certain category of people, they are singled out as a group that is different from mainstream society and leg behind at the outset accordingly. This process of identity framing is not so evident at first sight, rather it is managed underneath the surface. Though, as the link between learning a language, or specifically literacy, and identity is clear, the connection between writing and identity in a migration context in particular has not been studied in detail. Elaborating on the latter, but in a more general perspective, the most important conclusion that can be drawn from here is that, though research has been carried out regarding literacy skills in general, research with a particular reference to writing skills acquisition in a migration context is limited to basically non-existent. Particularly the role of writing skills development in the management of civic integration in the Netherlands has, in fact, not been

34 studied before. Therefore, there is no clear-cut answer to why writing has become part and parcel in the testing regime and what its role is in the civic integration of migrants. Furthermore, the affect it has on low-educated, newly arrived migrants in the Netherlands is not evident.

Coming to the conclusion that there is no clear-cut answer to the research question, certainly has a number of implications that need to be discussed. The fact that the consequences of prescribing the acquisition of writing skills for low-educated migrants are not explored and there is a lack of knowledge on how acquiring writing skills in a Dutch civic integration context works, sheds a different light on the policy by itself. Lacking empirical evidence about writing and writing as enhancing means for socio-cultural integration, put the discussion about making those requirements from a policy point of view in a very particular perspective. Accordingly, what the Dutch testing regime is doing and what the discourses contain in civic integration policy do focus on something that has to do with language, but not as language as it is understood from a sociolinguistic perspective. From the perspective of sociolinguistics, it is the diversification of society that has led to a variety of linguistic repertoires and should be embraced rather than concealed. The traditional notion of language has therefore made room for a looser perception of language-use where different patterns of language learning and the repertoires that emerge from those processes are to be acknowledged (Blommaert & Backus, 2013). The notion of language from the State’s point of view is, however, considerably different. With its contemporary civic integration regime, the government subscribes to a culture of monoglot standardization. Though considering language as something fixed and monolithic is rather salient in an era of globalization, in which languages and cultures mix as cross-border movement is constituent in everyday life. It consequently appears that the upward trend in civic integration policy requirements is a response to progressive globalization, as a means to preserve national identity. By using the proficiency levels of the CEFR, the language requirements within civic integration policy come across as objective criteria in determining who is admissible and allowed to stay in the country in the long-term. But it seems, in fact, that using this framework is a means to conceal the underlying ideology for linguistic homogeneity and to further the State's agenda. The apparent objectivity works much more in the interest of the State than it does for the migrant. Even more so, it is this framework that allows the State to increasingly step up requirements for integration. Though civic integration policy has undergone significant changes over the past years and integration requirements became stricter, there is also some kind of continuity in the State’s perspective on immigrants. Policies have always identified migrants as people who represent

35 different cultural and linguistic characteristics from the Dutch, which is considered a hurdle. This was already visible in the ‘multicultural’ approach of the 1980s and is still prevalent in the new Law on Civic Integration that will take effect in 2021. After it became clear that segregation does not result in national unity, the predominant discourse on integration was that migrants have to adapt to Dutch norms and standards. Even more so, they have to ‘earn’ a place in society, by showing that they are able and willing to learn the Dutch language and culture. Thus, the policy approach changed, but the objective remained the same: protecting and preserving national identity. The shifts in policy did therefore not represent a radical change in the established perspective on immigrants and their integration obligation. It rather shows a consistent course in which the coercive side of the integration regime has increasingly come to the fore. Though by treating migrants as ‘the other’, singling them out as different from mainstream society and portraying them as people in need of re-education in terms of language and culture, an uneven playing field is created. Consequently, language testing is used to construct an intangible border for migrants, preventing them from having an equal place in society or even as means of deterrence. By policing civic integration in such a fashion as the Dutch government is currently doing, it seems that what is considered to be about language, has actually little to do with language as such and more with language and identity from a very normative perspective. Ultimately, the testing regime is a means to produce and sustain an identity framing machine, constructing intangible boundaries and working as shibboleth at the State’s door (Detailleur, 2010). Blommaert and Backus (2013) argue that “in spite of significant advances in the field of language knowledge, dominant discourses on this topic seem to increasingly turn to entirely obsolete and conclusively discredited models of language knowledge” (p. 12). They argue that methods for testing language knowledge and literacy skills according to CEFR levels for civic integration purposes illustrate this at best. Assessing language proficiency through uniform testing is still predominant in discourses on immigrant integration and has become a cornerstone of administrative and bureaucratic machinery, “operating with exceptional power” (Blommaert & Backus, 2013: p. 30). The results from the research in this thesis are in accordance with these claims. The critique on the regime does not seem to affect discourses on immigration, labor, or education. In fact it is supposedly the opposite, the increasing requirements show the growing support among national and supranational authorities in these fields.

5. LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Though the research findings have provided significant insights in the fields of civic integration, language and identity, there are a few limitations within this research that need to be outlined. Firstly, as this thesis relies on a review of existing literature, there has not been carried out empirical research. Though there has been done discourse analysis on the basis of documents, there are no empirical insights on the basis of interviews, observations, and the like. Due to an unfortunate worldwide pandemic, the research design was altered in a fashion that enabled the researcher to carry out a thesis project within the academic year of 2019-2020. As a result, it is on the basis of the structure of this thesis that the research question cannot be answered thoroughly. The discourses produced and identity frames ascribed by the government and other institutions in the management of civic integration of low-educated, newly arrived migrants have become evident. It is, however, the role of writing skills acquisition within this process of integration that has not been empirically investigated. Another important limitation is therefore the lack of existing knowledge on the subject under study.

Despite the fact that there has not been found a feasible explanation to the role of writing skills in the management of the integration of newly arrived migrants, the research has resulted in relevant findings regarding the policy as a whole. Though to develop thorough recommendations for future research as well as with regard to the prescribed policy, a set of hypotheses is presented stemming from the conclusions in the previous section. As the research question cannot be fully answered on the basis of the structure of this thesis, recommendations will me made based on the hypotheses which assume particular outcomes as if empirical research had been carried out.

Hypothesis 1: Developing writing skills for civic integration purposes on CEFR level A2 (soon B1) does not directly lead to deeper integration of low-educated newly arrived migrants in the Netherlands than when writing skills are developed on a lower level or not at all, because the required proficiency level does not allow them to participate actively in civic affairs.

Hypothesis 2: Increasing writing skills requirements in civic integration policy is a means to prevent low-educated migrants to enter and stay in the Netherlands because

the State does not consider this group to be contributive to the Dutch economy.

It would be on the basis of these outcomes that I recommend the government to offer tailor- made civic integration programs to newly arrived migrants in the Netherlands (see also Taalunie 2019a) and not only consider migrants in terms of economic value from the outset. Individuals should be regarded to all have a fare share of qualities, of which some need longer to come to light than others. Crucial in this regard is taking into account pre-knowledge. Migrants are not mere blank slates, rather they have already a sociolinguistic as well as literacy biography. This is especially important when it comes to the group of low-educated or low-literate individuals. These individuals do have some pre-knowledge, but not to the extent the State expects them to. It is, therefore, this group that falls between stools, as they are neither illiterate nor (higher) educated. Individuals might know how to read and write in another script than Latin, but only to a limited extent. Recognizing this group is therefore important, especially since low literacy rates among the immigrant population will further increase in the future. By offering tailor- made programs, individuals with different educational backgrounds can reach a viable level in the Dutch language, on the basis of which they can become active in Dutch society. More specifically this would imply that it is possible to acquire a higher proficiency level in one language skill and a lower level in another. It is through this way that migrants with a low- educated or low-literate background have equal chances to stay in the country and become valuable for society.

Hypothesis 3: Developing writing skills for civic integration purposes on CEFR level A2 (soon B1) does not directly lead to deeper integration of low-educated newly arrived migrants because once the exam is completed but the individual no longer uses writing skills regularly, the proficiency level will decrease.

Furthermore, I recommend the government to create follow-up programs combined with incentives for an extended integration trajectory: a program that continues after one has received a permanent residence permit. This way individuals can get the most out of their integration trajectory, as one is provided more resources with the status of permanent residency. Especially migrants with a lower educational background will get the chance to further develop themselves without the fear of not being granted permanent residency. In so doing, the return on investment for the State in terms of economic value will increase as well, as these people will get more opportunities when their language proficiency enhances – i.e. being able to start

38 an education and in turn having more job opportunities, which also means they have to rely less on State benefits.

Hypothesis 4: There are discrepancies between top-down civic integration policy on a national level and bottom-up practices at educational institutions because the State does not provide guidelines to facilitate the integration trajectory, and consequently institutions have to create their own policies and curriculum.

On the basis of this outcome, I would recommend the government to offer more guidance to educational institutions to create policies and curricula on a local level to further manage the integration process of newly arrived migrants. This way it becomes more clear whether policy on a national level is consistent with civic integration in practice. Furthermore, by diminishing these discrepancies, programs offered by course providers can be more easily assessed on their quality, and subsequently migrants are more assured of a good preparation for the civic integration exam.

As these recommendations are based on hypotheses and cannot be directly extrapolated from this research, this study explicitly calls for further empirical research to test these claims. More specifically, there is a need for empirical research with regard to writing Dutch as L2 in a civic integration context, with a particular reference to low-educated migrants. Since there is a lack of knowledge on the role of writing in integration processes and this particularly impacts low-educated migrants and their identity framing, it is necessary to further explore the consequences of contemporary policy measures, with a particular eye to the future in which requirements become stricter. By gaining more empirical based insights into how writing skills acquisition works and how it contributes to civic integration, the government has more of a basis to make policy requirements or, on the contrary, a reason to reconsider its current policy approach. In light of the latter, it is recommended to conduct a study to investigate possible discrepancies between policy and practice. The generally defined policy requirements do not only lack an empirical basis, but also fall short in providing guidelines for institutions who actually manage the integration process in practice. Especially educational institutions are overlooked in this respect. The Dutch Language Union has published in a trend analysis that the quality of civic integration courses is not monitored well, nor is the mere passing-the-test obligation effective. However, as a lot of attention goes to how the role of municipalities is

39 important in this regard, what seems not to be topics of discussion are the actual integration courses. Therefore, research is necessary within schools and among teachers, as those are the ones who manage civic integration. The courses they provide are essential in whether or not migrants pass the test, hence being able to stay in the country. The courses are especially important for migrants with a low educational or low literacy background, because for this group it is even harder to learn a second language as they not only have limited knowledge in L1 (especially with regard to reading and writing), but also lack experience in schooling in general. Studies should aim to identify possible discrepancies between civic integration policy requirements, curricular policy, and educational practice of teaching writing skills as part of civic integration of newly arrived migrants with a low educational background. Top-down policies and bottom-up practices should be further explored in relation to each other, as to provide insights in macro, meso and micro level practices. As long as there is no empirical based evidence on writing as enhancing means for civic integration, I would recommend the government not to be so inclined to increase policy requirements on issues about which hardly any knowledge is available. From a similar outlook, it is the way in which the State looks at migrants that needs to be reconstructed. Crucial in this regard is that the discourses produced by the State are directly and indirectly passed down to institutions who actually manage civic integration of migrants and therefore influencing their future position in society. As discussed earlier, migrants do have a sociolinguistic as well as literacy background. It is, however, the extent to which this is present that varies among individuals. In this light, I would recommend to consider every individual as unique, with their own cultural characteristics, linguistic repertoire, and personal identity. Both linguistic and cultural diversity is considered problematic, or at least as something that needs to be bridged. This form of ‘trained blindness’ (Spotti & Kroon, 2016) on the account of the State and educational professionals, illustrates a blind focus on linguistic standardization and cultural uniformity. As a result, nationalistic ideologies overshadow the actual benefits that could derive from superdiversity. In line with Spotti, Kroon and Li (2019), language policy should therefore be revised and further developed in light of superdiverse language repertoires and identities, instead of fixating on a monolingual approach.

REFERENCES

Algemene Rekenkamer (2016). Aanpak van laaggeletterdheid. Retrieved 04-06-2020 from https://www.rekenkamer.nl/publicaties/rapporten/2016/04/20/aanpak-van- laaggeletterdheid Algemene Rekenkamer (2017a). Inburgering: Eerste resultaten van de Wet Inburgering 2013. Retrieved 11-05-2020 from https://www.rekenkamer.nl/publicaties/rapporten/2017/01/ 24/inburgering Algemene Rekenkamer (2017b). Changes in civic integration policy have not produced better results. Retrieved 11-05-2020 from https://english.rekenkamer.nl/latest/news/2017/01/ 24/changes-in-civic-integration-policy-have-not-produced-better-results Aromataris, E. C. & Riitano, D. (2014). Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review. The American Journal of Nursing: 114(5): 49–56. Atkinson, R. & Flint, J. (2004). Snowball sampling. In Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A. & Liao, T. F. (Eds). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing Narrative Literature Reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3): 311–320. Besluit inburgering (2020). Retrieved 30-04-2020 from https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0020674/2020-01-01/ Besselsen, E. & De Hart, B. (2014). Verblijfsrechtelijke consequenties van de Wet inburgering. Een onderzoek naar de ervaringen van migranten in Amsterdam. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers. Blackledge, A. & Pavlenko, A. (2001). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(3): 243–257. Blom, M., Bakker, L., Goedvolk, M., Van der Maas-Vos, G., & van Plaggenhoef, W. (2018, June 13). Inburgering: systeemwereld versus leefwereld. Evaluatie Wet inburgering 2013. Significant. Blommaert, J. (2008) Grassroots Literacy: Writing, Identity and Voice in Central Africa. London: Routledge Blommaert, J. & Backus, A. (2013). Superdiverse Repertoires and the Individual. In De Saint- Georges, I. & Weber, J. J. (Eds.) Multilingualism and Multimodality: Current Challenges for Educational Studies (11–32). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Blommaert, J. & Spotti, M. (2016). Bilingualism, Multilingualism, Globalization and Superdiversity: Toward Sociolinguistic Repertoires. In Garcia, O., Flores, N. & Spotti, M. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society (161–178). New York: Oxford University Press. Bonjour, S. (2013). Governing diversity: Dutch political parties' preferences on the role of the state in civic integration policies. Citizenship Studies, 17(6-7): 837–851. Bossers, B., Kuiken, F. & Vermeer A. (2015). Maatschappelijke, politieke en culturele aspecten. In Bossers, B., Kuiken, F. & Vermeer, A. (Eds). Handboek Nederlands als tweede taal in het volwassenenonderwijs (395–407). Bussum: Coutinho.

Bowen, G. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. Bruquetas-Callejo, M., Garcés-Masareñas, B., Penninx, R. and Scholten, P. (2000). Policy- making related to immigration and integration. The Dutch Case. IMISCOE Working Paper: Country Report. Buisman, M., Allen, J., Fouarge, D., Houtkoop, W. & Van der Velden, R. (2013). PIAAC: Kernvaardigheden voor werk en leven. Resultaten van de Nederlandse survey 2012. ’s- Hertogenbosch: ECBO Buisman, M. & Houtkoop, W. (2014). Laaggeletterdheid in kaart. ’s-Hertogenbosch: ECBO Bynner, J. (2004). Literacy, Numeracy and Employability: Evidence form the British birth cohort studies. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 13(1): 31–48. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe (n.d.). The CEFR Levels. Retrieved 14-05-2020 from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/level- descriptions Dagevos, J. & Gijsberts, M. (2012). Eigen verantwoordelijkheid in de inburgering. In Veldheer, V., Jonker, J. J., Van Noije, L. & Vrooman, C. (Eds.). Een beroep op de burger. Minder verzorgingsstaat, meer eigen verantwoordelijkheid? (213–230). Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. De Bakker, I. (2015). Schrijven. In Bossers, B., Kuiken, F. & Vermeer, A. (Eds). Handboek Nederlands als tweede taal in het volwassenenonderwijs (317–357). Bussum: Coutinho. De Greef, M. & Segers, M. (2016). Europese vergelijking systemen van volwasseneneducatie en aanpak laaggeletterdheid. Maastricht University, Educational Research & Development (ERD) School of Business and Economics. Retrieved from https://www. lezenenschrijven.nl/uploads/editor/20160829_Rapportage_Europese_vergelijking_systee m_VE_-_DEF.pdf De Nationale Ombudsman (2018). Een valse start: Een onderzoek naar behoorlijke inburgering. Retrieved from https://www.nationaleombudsman.nl/system/files/ onderzoek/2018065%20RAP%20Inburgering%20Een%20Valse%20start_0.pdf De Waal, T. M. (2017). Conditional belonging: A legal-philosophical inquiry into integration requirements for immigrants in Europe. Retrieved from https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/ 16275466/Thesis_complete_.pdf De Zwart, F. (2012). Pitfalls of top-down identity designation: Ethno-statistics in the Netherlands. Comparative European Politics, 10(3): 301–318. Detailleur, J. N. (2010). Shibbolet aan de poort: de theorie van de taalanalyse als middel herkomstbepaling in de Nederlandse asielprocedure versus de praktijk van een Soedanese Arabischsprekende asielzoeker met vermeende Nuba-achtergrond. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. Driessen, G. (2008). Towards citizenship education in the Netherlands. Country report. Torino, It: International and European Forum on Migration research. Driouichi, F. (2007). De casus Inburgering en Nationaliteitswetgeving: iconen van nationale identiteit. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Duyvendak, J. W. & Scholten, P. (2012). Deconstructing the Dutch multicultural model: A frame perspective on Dutch immigrant integration policymaking. Comparative European Politics, 10(3): 266–282. Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal (2006, October 10). Regels inzake inburgering in de Nederlandse samenleving (Wet inburgering). Retrieved 06-06-2020 from https://zoek. officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-20062007-30308-F.html Entzinger, H. (2003). The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism: The Case of the Netherlands. In Joppke, C. & Morawska, E. (Eds.) Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States (59–86). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Entzinger, H. (2006). Changing the rules while the game is on: From multiculturalism to assimilation in the Netherlands. In Bodemann, Y. M. & Yurdakul, G. (Eds). Migration, Citizenship, Ethnos: Incorporation Regimes in Germany, Western Europe and North America (121-144). New York: Palgrave MacMillan. EU High-Level Group of Experts on Literacy (2012, September). Final Report. Retrieved 02- 06-2020 from https://www.lezenenschrijven.nl/uploads/editor/literacy-final-report_en.pdf Extra, G. & Spotti, M. (2009). Testing regimes for newcomers to the Netherlands. In Extra, G., Spotti, M. & Van Avermaet, P. (Eds.) Language Testing, Migration and Citizenship: Cross-National Perspectives on Integration Regimes (125–147). London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Extra, G., Spotti, M. & Van Avermaet, P. (2009). Language testing, migration and citizenship: Crossnational perspectives on integration regimes. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Fink, A. (2020). Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. Fifth edition. Los Angeles: SAGE. Fischler, F. (2014). Integration Policy – Netherlands Country Report. London :INTERACT, European University Institute. Retrieved 11-05-2020 from https://cadmus.eui.eu/ bitstream/handle/1814/32657/INTERACT-RR-2014%20-%2015.pdf?sequence= 1&isAllowed=y Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London & New York: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2015). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses (5th edition). London: Routledge. Gee, J. P. & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse Analysis, Learning, and Social Practice; A Methodological Study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169. GeletterdheidInZicht.nl (n.d.). Aandeel laaggeletterde naar regio. Retrieved 30-05-2020 from https://geletterdheidinzicht.nl/ Ghorashi, H. (2003). Multiple identities between continuity and change: The narratives of Iranian women in exile. Focaal - European Journal of Anthropology, 42: 63–75. Ghorashi, H. (2018). Challenges of Integration and Belonging: Iranians in the Netherlands. In Mobasher, M. M. (Ed.). The Iranian Diaspora: Challenges, Negotiations, and Transformations (74 – 92). Austin: University of Texas Press. Goodman, S. W. (2011). Controlling Immigration through Language and Country Knowledge Requirements. West European Politics, 34(2): 235–255.

Groenendijk, K. (2011). Pre-departure Integration Strategies in the European Union: Integration or Immigration Policy? European Journal of Migration and Law, 13(1): 1–30. Groenendijk, K. (2012). Kroniek inburgering 2010-2011 van integratiebeleid naar immigratiebeleid. Asiel & Migrantenrecht, 3(1): 36–48. Hakim, C. (2000). Research Design: Successful Designs for Social and Economic Research. Second edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Hanushek, E. A. & Woessmann, L. (2010). The Cost of Low Educational Achievement in the European Union: Analytical Report No. 7. European Expert Network on Economics of Education to the European Commission. Hart, C. (1998). Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Haznedar, B., Peyton, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (2018). Teaching Adult Migrants: A Focus on the Languages They Speak. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 6(1): 155–183. Het Begint met Taal (2020). Toename aantal nieuwkomers met behoefte aan taalondersteuning. Retrieved 30-05-2020 from https://www.hetbegintmettaal.nl/toename- aantal-nieuwkomers-met-behoefte-aan-taalondersteuning/# Huijts, T. Bijlsma, I. & Van der Velden, R. (2020). Wetenschappelijke Verantwoording Doelgroepenanalyse Laaggeletterden. Retrieved 30-05-2020 from https://etil.blob .core.windows.net/media/wetenschappelijke-verantwoording-doelgroepenanalyse- laaggeletterdheid-definitief-200210.pdf Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Janssen-van Dieten, A. M. (2006). Common European Framework of Reference and L2 learners with a low level of education. LOT Occasional Series, 6: 143–150. Joppke, C. (2007). Transformation of immigrant integration: Civic integration and anti- discrimination in the Netherlands, France, and Germany. World Politics, 59(2): 243–273. Kim, L. S. (2003). Exploring the Relationship between Language, Culture and Identity. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 3(2). Koolmees, W. (2018, July 2). Kamerbrief Hoofdlijnen Veranderopgave Inburgering 2 juli 2018. Retrieved from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/ 2018/07/02/kamerbrief-hoofdlijnen-veranderopgave-inburgering Koolmees, W. (2020, February 4). Kamerbrief motie over inburgering Turkse nieuwkomers. Retrieved 30-05-2020 from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/ kamerstukken/2020/02/04/inburgering-turkse-nieuwkomers Kroon, S. & Spotti, M. (2011). Immigrant minority language teaching policies and practices in the Netherlands: Policing dangerous multiculturalism. In Domoviç, V., Gehrmann, S., Krüger-Potratz, M. & Petraviç, A. (Eds). Europäische Bildung. Konzepte und Perspektiven aus fünf Ländern (87–103). Münster: Waxmann. Krumm, H. J. (2007). Profiles Instead of Levels: The CEFR and Its (Ab)Uses in the Context of Migration. The Modern Language Journal, 91: 667–669. Kurvers, J. J. H. & Spotti, M. (2015). The shifting landscape of Dutch integration policy: From L1 literacy teaching to literacy in Dutch as entrance criterion to the Netherlands. In Simpson, J. & Whiteside, A. (Eds.). Adult Learning, Education and Migration: Challenging Agendas in Policy and Practice (173–186). Abingdon: Routledge.

Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 Literacy and the Design of the Self: A Case Study of a Teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3): 457–482. Lecy, J. D. & Beatty, K. E. (2012). Representative Literature Reviews Using Constrained Snowball Sampling and Citation Network Analysis. SSRN Leung, C., Harris, R. & Rampton, B. (1997). The Idealised Native Speaker, Reified Ethnicities, and Classroom Realities. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3): 543–560. Little, D. (2007). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the Making of Supranational Language Education Policy. The Modern Language Journal, 91: 645 – 655. Little, D. (2012). The linguistic integration of adult migrants and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Language Policy Unit, Council of Europe. Maastricht University (2018). Feiten & Cijfers Laaggeletterdheid: De invloed van lage basisvaardigheden op deelname aan de maatschappij. Retrieved 04-06-2020 from https://www.lezenenschrijven.nl/uploads/editor/2018_SLS_Literatuurstudie_FeitenCijfer s_interactief_DEF.pdf McNamara, T. (2009). Language tests and social policy: A commentary. In Hogan-Brun, G., Mar-Molinero, C. & Stevenson, P. (Eds). Discourses on Language and Integration: Critical perspectives on language testing regimes in Europe (153–163). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Nationaal Regieorgaan Onderwijsonderzoek (n.d.). Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). Retrieved 30-05-2020 from https:// www.nro.nl/onderzoeksprojecten/piaac/ O’Rourke, B. & Pujolar, J. (2013). From native speakers to “new speakers” – problematizing nativeness in language revitalization contexts. Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 35(2): 47–67. O'Rourke, B., Pujolar, J. & Ramallo, F. (2015). New speakers of minority languages: the challenging opportunity – Foreword, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2015(231): 1–20. O’Rourke, B. & Walsh, J. (2015). New speakers of Irish: shifting boundaries across time and space. International Journal of the Sociology of language, 2015(263): 63–83. Ó Murchadha, N. P., Hornsby, M., Smith-Christmas, C. & Moriarty, M. (2018). New Speakers, Familiar Concepts? In Smith-Christmas, C. et al. (Eds.) New Speakers of Minority Languages (1–22). London: Palgrave Mamillan. Padiernos, M. O. G. & Lee, S. (2018). Cultural Presupposition and Accommodation. The Journal of Studies in Language, 34(3): 457–473. Paikeday, T. M. (1985). The Native Speaker is Dead! Toronto: Paikeday Publishing Company. Pavlenko, A. & Blackledge A. (2004). Introduction: New Theoretical Approaches to the Study of Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. In: Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts (34–67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ldt. Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social Identity, Investment and Language Learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1): 9–31.

Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur (2019, August 8). Briefadvies Wetsvoorstel Inburgering 2021. Retrieved from https://www.raadopenbaarbestuur.nl/documenten/publicaties/ 2019/08/12/advies-wetsvoorstel-wet-inburgering-2021 Regeling inburgering (2019). Retrieved 02-02-2020 from https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0020657/2019-07-01 Rijksoverheid (2019). Rijksbegroting 2019. Retrieved from https://rijksbegroting.nl/2019/voorbereiding/begroting,kst248601_23.html Rijksoverheid (2020a). Moet ik als nieuwkomer inburgeren? Retrieved 30-05-2020 from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/immigratie-naar-nederland/vraag-en- antwoord/moet-ik-als-nieuwkomer-inburgeren Rijksoverheid (2020b). Turkse nieuwkomers worden inburgeringsplichtig. Retrieved 30-05- 2020 from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2020/02/04/turkse-nieuwkomers- worden-inburgeringsplichtig Rijksoverheid (n.d.). Communicatiebeleid van de overheid. Retrieved 01-07-2020 from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/overheidscommunicatie/communicatiebeleid- van-de-overheid Scheffer, P. (2000). Het multiculturele drama. NRC Handelsblad, 29 januari 2000. Retrieved 10-05-2020 from https://retro.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Multicultureel/scheffer.html Schmitz, J. R. (2013). The native speaker and nonnative speaker debate: what are the issues and what are the outcomes? Calidoscópio, 11(2): 135–152. Scholten, P. (2013). The Dutch Multicultural Myth. In Tarras. R. (Ed.). Challenging multiculturalism: European models of diversity (97–119). Edinburgh: University Press. Simpson, J. & Whiteside, S. (2015). Adult language education and migration: Challenging agendas in policy and practice. Abington: Routledge Spotti, M. (2011). Ideologies of Success for Superdiverse Citizens: the Dutch Testing Regime for Integration and the Online Private Sector. Diversities, 13(2): 39–52. Spotti, M. (2013). Language testing for immigration and citizenship in The Netherlands. In Kunnan, A. J. (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (390–403). Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell. Spotti, M. & Kroon, S. (2016). Multilingual Classrooms at times of Superdiversity. In Wortham, S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Discourse and Education (1–18). New York: Springer. Spotti, M., Kroon, S. & Li, J. (2019). New speakers of new and old languages: an investigation into the gap between language practices and language policy. Language policy, 18(4): 535– 551. Stichting Lezen en Schrijven (2018, September 3). 81% van de Nederlanders vindt laaggeletterdheid een belangrijk probleem. Retrieved 04-06-2020 from https://www. lezenenschrijven.nl/nieuws/81-van-de-nederlanders-vindt-laaggeletterdheid-een- belangrijk-probleem Stichting Lezen en Schrijven (2017, January 24). Algemene Rekenkamer stelt dat marktwerking niet werkt bij inburgering. Retrieved 01-06-2020 from https://www. lezenenschrijven.nl/nieuws/rekenkamer-stelt-dat-marktwerking-niet-werkt-bij- inburgering

Taalunie (2019a). Taal en Nieuwkomers: Adviestekst. Retrieved from https://taalunie.org/publicaties/121/advies-taal-en-nieuwkomers Taalunie (2019b). Trendanalyse: Een analyse van de trends en hiaten in het onderzoek en beleidsadvisering over de taalverwerving Nederlands als tweede taal van de afgelopen 15 jaar in Nederland en Vlaanderen. Retrieved 11-05-2020 from http://www.cteno.be/www_ cteno/assets/downloads/cteno/onderzoek_trendanalyse_Onderzoek_en_Beleid_taalverwer ving_NT2.pdf Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (1970, January 14). Nota buitenlandse werknemers. Retrieved 08-07-2020 from https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/sgd:19691970: 0004252 Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (1998, November 30). Nota “Kansen krijgen, kansen pakken, Integratiebeleid 1999-2000”. Retrieved 07-05- 2020 from https://www. parlementairemonitor.nl/9353000/1/j9vvij5epmj1ey0/vi3ah94vgrs2 Van Avermaet, P. (2009). Fortress Europe? Language policy regimes for immigration and citizenship. In Hogan-Brun, G., Mar-Molinero, C. & Stevenson, P. (Eds). Discourses on Language and Integration: Critical perspectives on language testing regimes in Europe (15–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Van Kalsbeek, A. (2015). Taalonderwijs en didactiek. In Bossers, B., Kuiken, F. & Vermeer, A. (Eds). Handboek Nederlands als tweede taal in het volwassenenonderwijs (49–90). Bussum: Coutinho. Van Meeteren, M., Van De Pol, S., Dekker, R., Egbersen, G. & Snel, E. (2013). Destination Netherlands: History of Immigration and Immigration Policy in the Netherlands. In Ho, J. (Ed.). Immigrants: Acculturation, Socioeconomic Challenges and Cultural Psychology (113–170). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Van Oers, R., De Hart, B. & Groenendijk, R. (2010). EUDO Citizenship Observatory. Country Report: The Netherlands. Retrieved 05-05-2020 from https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/ 1814/19629/Netherlands2010.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Vasta, E. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(5): 713–740. Verbakel, D., Van den Brink, M. & Groot, A. (2020). Anderstaligen met een behoefte aan taalondersteuning. ’s-Hertogenbosch: ECBO. Verboog, M. (2015). Spreken. In Bossers, B., Kuiken, F. & Vermeer, A. (Eds). Handboek Nederlands als tweede taal in het volwassenenonderwijs (133–169). Bussum: Coutinho. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6): 1024 – 1054. Wet inburgering (2020). Retrieved 30-04-2020 from https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0020611/2020-01-01/ Winchester, C. L. & Salji, M. (2016). Writing a literature review. Journal of Clinical Urology, 9(5): p. 308–312. Wu, H. (2010). A Social Cultural Approach to Discourse Analysis. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 130–132.