Hello all

Just through on the Migrants’ Rights Network blog – a link to a report on the LITUK test by Thom Brooks (Durham University) – the report can be downloaded free by following the links below. I’m pasting the executive summary into this message, with the conclusion that relates most directly to ESOL highlighted.

All the best

James

*****

 The ‘Life in the United Kingdom’ Citizenship Test - Is It Unfit for Purpose?

Dr Thom Brooks

Durham University

(A report by Dr Thom Brooks of an independent review of the uses of the test for British immigration policy)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Life in the United Kingdom test is an important part of British immigration policy attracting cross-party support. This report is the most comprehensive and rigorous examination of the test available. The report considers how the current edition compares with previous editions and it identifies several problems that should be addressed in a future edition. Whilst the third edition is an improvement over past editions in some areas, it is an opportunity lost more generally. The Life in the UK is unfit for purpose at present until several serious concerns are addressed.

Main conclusions

Impractical

The Life in the UK handbook claims it will help applicants ‘integrate into society and play a full role in your local community’ including ‘a broad general knowledge’ of British laws. The Life in the UK test is presented as a test about living in the United Kingdom and the general practical knowledge required enabling successful integration and involvement.

However, the test fails to satisfy its own standard. Much of the problem lies with what has been removed from previous test editions. The current edition no longer requires knowledge about the NHS, educational qualifications, the subjects taught in schools, how to report a crime or contact an ambulance and other everyday knowledge it has been claimed all new citizens should know. Instead, applicants must know the age of Big Ben and the height of the London Eye (in feet and metres). My first conclusion is the test does not fulfil its aims of providing satisfactory information that will facilitate integration into society or general knowledge about British laws rendering the test impractical.

Inconsistent

The Life in the UK test is inconsistent about the information it requires from applicants. They need not know the number of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons any more, but they must continue to know the number of members representing constituents in the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly. Applicants are required to know about all lower courts in the judiciary, but they need not know about the UK Supreme Court. Nor is the UK Supreme Court mentioned in the handbook. My second conclusion is the test is inconsistent about the information applicants are required to know.

Trivial pursuits

The test includes facts that are purely trivial and lack practical significance. One example concerns the following dates in the life of Sake Dean Mahomet that all applicants are required to know: birth (1759), first came to UK (1782), eloped to Ireland (1786), first curry house opened (1810) and death (1851) in addition to having to know the name of his wife (Jane Daly), his wife’s nationality (Irish) and street location for his Hindoostane Coffee House (George Street, London). My third

conclusion is the test includes information that is purely trivial. It is possible that the test questions may include other purely trivial information such as the number of questions on the test and the names of chapters.

Gender imbalance

There is a clear gender imbalance with the test. The handbook’s historical chapter provides the dates of birth for 29 men, but only four women. Neither of the Queen’s birthdays is included. No women artists, musicians or poets receive any mention. There are also problems with diversity in other areas. My fourth conclusion is the test lacks gender balance and women receive much less attention than merited.

Already outdated

Some information for the test is already outdated. The handbook states that former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is alive although she died about a fortnight after its publication. My fifth conclusion that the test is outdated is a problem that could have been avoided better by only including dates and other information that was necessary.

Ineffective strategy on English proficiency

My final conclusion specifically addresses the test as an indicator of English proficiency. Successful completion of the test has counted as satisfying the requirement that all applicants possess satisfactory English proficiency. This remains true for the new third edition, but only until October 2013 when an additional English language test may be required for some applicants. My sixth conclusion is that this change represents an ineffective strategy on several fronts. It will confirm all applicants passing the test today as having satisfied the English proficiency requirement, but not for all applicants passing the same test later this year. This is inconsistent and problematic. Furthermore, the requirement that some applicants pass a further test of English proficiency is subject to at least 10 caveats that render its practical implementation impractical and ineffective.

Need for reform

These conclusions raise serious problems with the current test that should concern the Government. This report does not conclude that the test should be abandoned. I recommend that the Life in the UK test should be reformed so that it is no longer impractical, inconsistent, trivial, gender imbalanced, outdated and ineffective. The test has become an integral part of immigration policy although it has evaded sufficiently close scrutiny. This critical report aims to expose the test’s problems to shed light on how it can be reformed and improved further.

This report’s conclusion provides 12 recommendations for a new, fourth edition of the Life in the United Kingdom handbook and test that will address problems found in the current edition.