Memorandum by the University and College
Union
UCU
The University and College Union (UCU) represents
nearly 120,000 further and higher education lecturers, managers,
researchers and many academic-related staff such as librarians,
administrators and computing professionals across the UK.
UCU represents over 40,000 academic staff in
Further Education (FE) colleges and adult and offender education
services. This includes staff delivering English for Speakers
of Other Languages (ESOL) programmes.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
UCU was extremely concerned when in October
2006 the then Department for Education and Skills (DfES) announced
changes to funding policy in relation to programmes for ESOL.
These restricted entitlement to free courses to those on benefit
or income support and meant new fees for those not qualifying.
They removed automatic eligibility for free tuition from asylum
seekers. These changes alarmed and angered ESOL practitioners
and students, as well as many other stakeholders. UCU has taken
a leading role in the campaign to reverse these changes.
In November 2007 UCU asked members teaching
ESOL about the effects.[34]
They told us:
— Enrolments have been affected across
the board.
— Learners who need beginner and entry
level courses have been turned away as course provision has moved
to higher levels. It appears that this switch does not follow
the pattern of demand.
— Those most affected by the new fees
and by the cuts in beginner and entry level course provision are
the most needy and most vulnerable people in the UK, often women
on low incomes in settled communities or migrant workers.
— The funds to support low income learners
are complex, inconsistent and patchy in impact and offer no long-term
solution.
UCU recommends that:
— ESOL provision must be safeguarded
and expanded.
— Free provision for ESOL should be
restored up to at least Level 1.
— The resources for this should come
from across all those government departments that have a strong
interest in fostering and developing community cohesion.
— Action is taken to secure employer
funding for ESOL workers through statutory means. Exhortation
and relying on voluntarism is no longer enough. If legislation
is introduced around agency working, then agencies that import
migrant labour should be made responsible for the costs of any
ESOL provision that may be required.
— Long term investment will be needed
to allow individuals and communities time to build up skills and
confidence to access fully not only ESOL provision, but more general
learning and skills provision.
— Refugees be allowed to access ESOL
provision again from the point they make the claim for asylum.
It is then that they need the access to essential services that
language gives. The lack of language skills of asylum seekers
will only reinforce their isolation and can damage community relationships.
— Spouses and families of migrants
be allowed to access ESOL provision without having to wait a year
in the case of spouses, and three years in the case of families.
There is sufficient evidence to show that such waiting periods
are detrimental to language acquisition, and thence to settlement
and community cohesion.
— When the responses to the current
DIUS ESOL consultation have been received and analysed, UCU would
recommend that particular attention is paid to the needs of women
from settled communities, as they seem to have suffered disproportionately
from the changes to ESOL funding regimes and programmes.
1. INTRODUCTION
UCU has made submissions to various inquiries
and bodies looking at the various issues around migration, community
cohesion and ESOL provision. UCU welcomes the opportunity to submit
evidence to the CLG select committee.
A number of important reports over recent years
have stressed the importance of English as a key element in terms
of integration of migrants and some groups within already settled
communities; and in demonstrating that English language programmes
are a crucial element in equipping arrivals to this country for
a full social, civic and economic life and diminishing deprivation
which the Commission for Integration and Community Cohesion[35]
identified as a key component in building community cohesion.
"English is both an important part of our
shared heritage, and a key access factor for new communities to
the labour market and wider society. It binds us together as a
single group in a way that a multiplicity of community languages
cannot ... we are therefore committed to the importance of English
language training for all communities".[36]
The National Institute for Continuing and Adult
Education (NIACE) in its report "More than a language: the
final report NIACE Committee of Inquiry on ESOL"[37]
"English language learning has an impact
on individuals, communities and the productivity and safety of
workplaces in England. For individuals it makes a difference to
the way we relate to each other and it impacts on our children.
Without doubt there is for many a correlation between their self-esteem
and the level of confidence they have in spoken English. For many,
confidence in English language opens doors and helps people engage
in and contribute to civil society. Lack of fluency in the language
condemns many people to poverty".[38]
UCU believes that not only is the acquisition
of English important for migrants in itself, but also the process
of acquiring English by attending structured high quality ESOL
learning programmes is a key element in integration and community
cohesion.
UCU would argue that the recent changes to ESOL
provision have damaged efforts to foster integration and community
cohesion. A UCU member and ESOL teacher put it thus:
"their (ESOL students) attendance at ESOL
classes is in itself a vital contributor to community cohesion.
Their ESOL class is sometimes their only link with the English-speaking
world which offers a supportive environment on which to learn
about using English"
A TUC report on migrant workers in the labour
market[39]
reported that ESOL programmes assisted migrants on social inclusion,
improved health and safety in those work places where ESOL was
provided because of improved communications and improved migrants'
mobility and employability by increasing access to other provision
to learning and skills development.
2. CHANGES IN
ESOL PROGRAMMES
Two sets of changes have impacted on ESOL programmes
over the last two years. Whilst the total amount of resources
made available for ESOL programmes funded by the LSC has not been
cut in overall terms, the change in priorities and introduction
of fees have had substantial consequences.
LSC priorities and targets
The first set of changes stem from the LSC moving
its funding to support a different set of priorities; that is
those programmes leading to qualifications that make up the national
targets. This was first expressed in October 2005.[40]
For ESOL it meant that some local LSCs moved funding away from
low level ESOL programmes because the achievements gained in these
courses did not count towards the national targets, despite such
programmes often being necessary precursors for progression to
the higher level programmes that did count towards the national
targets.
Imposition of fees for ESOL
The second set of changes was announced in the
autumn of 2006, and came into force in the new academic year starting
September 2007. These instituted fees for ESOL programmes for
the first time. Until then, ESOL along with the other skills for
life programmes in literacy and numeracy had been free. Fees in
LSC provision are set to return a percentage of the costs of delivery.
In September 2007 the student contribution had been set at 37.5%.
However other government policies had already set out that fees
in LSC funded provision would rise each year until 2010 when they
would amount to 50% of the costs of the programme. These fees
would apply to ESOL students in work. Within the LSC funded provision
there is a process that allow fees not to be charged for those
students and their families that are on various types of benefit.
The government also decided when it announced the imposition of
fees for ESOL programmes, to remove the ability of asylum seekers
to attend learning programmes.
Subsequent changes in proposals
In the face of overwhelming opposition to the
changes that were being proposed for ESOL from students, community
groups, ESOL teachers and whole range of others concerned about
the impact, and the results of their own Race Impact Assessment
exercise, the government did make some changes to their proposals
before they were implemented.
Over £4 million was added to the existing student
support funds for those ESOL learners who could not afford to
pay the new fees. Asylum seekers who had not had their cases heard
within six months (the time that that the government stated that
all asylum claims would be heard) would be able to attend ESOL
programmes again.
In London the Mayor's Office and the LSC were
able to find an additional £15 million to support some of
the lower level ESOL work that had lost its funding under the
LSC re-prioritisation referred to above.
In the autumn of 2007, new ESOL for work programmes
were launched to meet the needs of migrants at work.
In January 2008 the Department for Innovation,
Universities and Skills, the successor for FE of the DfES announced
a consultation on ESOL provision. The main thrust of this was
to propose that priorities for ESOL provision were to be set by
local authorities within a national framework. This consultation
ends in early April.
3. IMPACT OF
CHANGES
In September 2007 with the introduction of the
changes in fee policy for ESOL, a number of organisations attempted
to survey their members engaged in ESOL work, and/or ESOL providers
on the impact of the changes. These included UCU, NATECLA, the
organisation for ESOL teachers and NIACE.
This task has not been easy. In September providers
are fully occupied in reaching out to potential ESOL students,
offering them advice and guidance so that they enter the right
programme at the right level and then enrolling ESOL students.
In addition ESOL programmes often take some time to enrol students
as potential students are often very unconfident and may not be
aware of the existence of ESOL courses.
Consequently much of the information on the
impact of the ESOL changes has been anecdotal. It also tends to
come from those organisations and areas whose provision has been
hit hardest by the changes. Surveys attempting to assess the impact
of the changes are still in train.
From the reports that have been assembled, it
is clear that the changes have had variable impact: some provision
and some areas have been hit hard whilst others seemed to have
suffered far less.
In December the LSC published the First Statistical
Return of students enrolled in its funded provision for the year
2007-08. This is based on a student census carried out by providers
in the autumn period. In its published form, this information
is at a level which does not allow for detailed analysis of any
particular set of programmes. However the census information should
be capable of analysis to reveal changes in the numbers at least
of those enrolled on different levels of ESOL provision. UCU has
repeatedly called for a meeting between the government, the LSC
and the ESOL stakeholders so that the census data can be examined
together to ascertain the impact of the ESOL changes. This has
not yet happened.
3.1 IMPACT OF
THE LSC CHANGES
IN PRIORITIES
There is evidence that in some parts of the
country lower level programmes have been reduced. Sometimes this
has led to higher level courses remaining undersubscribed while
entry level courses have long waiting lists of learners. Some
learners have been turned away because there is no provision for
them. One south London college cut 10 full-time and one part-time
Entry 1 and Entry 2 ESOL classes. These cuts affected beginner
level classes. Overall there was a reduction of 10% in the number
of ESOL courses run, despite being hugely oversubscribed. Staff
at another London college reported that waiting list numbers had
remained high for Beginner, Entry 1 and some evening Entry 2 courses,
but there were no waiting lists for Entry 3 and above—where
there were still places. In Birmingham an ESOL tutor told the
UCU survey that "195 learners were turned away because the
classes were full. 147 of these were at pre-Entry to E2 levels,
provision of which has been reduced in line with LSC priorities".
3.2 IMPACT OF
THE CHANGES
TO FEE
POLICIES
The impact of the changes to the ESOL fee policies
has been greatest on the most vulnerable groups and individuals
in the communities that require ESOL provision. In particular
women from low income families, especially those from African
and Asian settled communities are hit hardest by the new fee regime.
Without English and the support of ESOL courses they face increasing
isolation. This can harm the impetus for both integration and
community cohesion.
In the Midlands an OFTSED report on an adult
and community learning service reported that some learners who
had free classes last year who are not eligible for any fee reduction,
have not returned—often wives who are just over the threshold
for fee reduction who will not spend money on themselves as they
cannot take that money out of the family.
ESOL teachers in a college in the North East
reported more than 50% reduction in ESOL enrolments in September
2007, with over 50 would-be students expressing an interest in
joining an ESOL course, passing the college's eligibility checks
but then not enrolling because they could not afford the fees.
As we have stated above, the government did
try to alleviate some of the hardship from imposing fees for ESOL
with over £4 million additional funding going into provider
learner support funds. However guidelines for the use of this
arrived very late and providers seem to have interpreted them
in a variety of ways. From the reports reaching UCU, access to
this support seems to have been a post code lottery and very dependent
on the particular criteria that providers used in September.
The OFSTED report referred to above, stated
that the explanation and administration of implementing the new
funding system had a huge detrimental effect and led to extra
pressure on the tutors. This was in terms of the time involved
in talking about funding with learners who mostly have a low level
grasp of English. The words of an ESOL teacher in Liverpool capture
some of what happened:
"Our biggest problem is getting the relevant,
and more complex, documentation for enrolment. Students often
don't understand what to bring and why. Most enrolments here need
seven different pieces of paper! Getting the necessary paperwork
for enrolment from students has been a nightmare which has left
teachers completely frazzled and demoralised".[41]
The government in its various statements on
ESOL since introducing the changes to fees policies, has frequently
said that employers using labour whose first language is not English
should pay for ESOL provision. A new suite of shorter more employment-orientated
ESOL at work programmes and qualifications have been introduced
and there are examples of excellent ESOL workplace programmes
often introduced with the assistance of trade unions and union
learning representatives.
However there still remain considerable problems
around obtaining sufficient employer action in taking responsibility
for the ESOL needs of their workforce. Despite programmes such
as Train to Gain which carry large amounts of government funding,
around two thirds of all employers provide no work place training
whatsoever, so the likelihood of such employers providing ESOL
courses or paying for their employees to attend such programmes
is small. There are concerns as to whether Train to Gain in its
present form is a suitable vehicle for ESOL in the workplace.
Many migrants are employed in low-wage low-skills
work. Much of this may entail long hours, shift work, and temporary
work which can change at short notice. Many may be housed in isolated
accommodation with poor transport links. All these factors and
others can militate against the kind of sustained learning that
those without English need. Indeed as providers are judged on
their success rates for learners which are calculated on the basis
of attendance and achievement, some providers may be reluctant
to organise ESOL programmes for potential students who through
no fault of their own, have very disjointed patterns of learning.
4. THE WAY
FORWARD
The Commission on Integration and Community
Cohesion[42]
argued that given "the key role immigration now plays in
the success of the UK economy, and the importance of interaction
in reducing concerns about immigrants, ESOL funding needed to
be reconsidered; and that more innovative ways of providing ESOL
need to be looked at".
It recommended that the then DfES should continue
to review its allocation of resource for ESOL, to ensure that
there is adequate provision, and respond to increasing demand;
that local areas should be encouraged to use their money for English
language provision more flexibly and that new commissioning structures
could enable close partnerships with voluntary sector organisations,
and these should be explored further; that money saved on translating
written materials should be added to the resources available for
English lessons, and that there should be increasing recognition
that learning English is not just about formal ESOL classes, it's
about how community groups, places of worship, schools and family
learning can be part of a set of pathways that lead to a standard
exam. It also went on to argue that:
"it is only right that those who benefit
most from migration, including businesses that employ migrant
labour, should pay a contribution towards the cost of ESOL training".
These suggestions and the recommendations at
the beginning of this document will form part of the UCU response
to the current DIUS consultation on ESOL and community cohesion.
The government has made clear on several occasions
that it wants to focus provision on those most in need. In a letter
to The Guardian on 16 January 2007, Minister for Further
and Higher Education and Lifelong Learning Bill Rammell, wrote:
"... I want to ensure those in the greatest
need continue to get full support| we must also address the needs
of those settled in the UK who have been disadvantaged through
poor skills for too long and who will remain a cost to the economy
without the means to progress...".
Our members are committed professionals, serious
about playing their part as educators in bringing hope and cohesion
to our poorest and most socially excluded communities. Now that
the impact of the changes in ESOL provision is becoming clear,
they are calling on the government to play its part by thoroughly
evaluating the funding regime to ensure that it supports rather
than penalises those in greatest need.
34 "Increasing exclusion, raising barriers: the
real cost of charging for ESOL", UCU, November 2007. Back
35
Commission on Integration and Cohesion-Our shared future July
2007 Department for Communities and Local Government. Back
36
Commission on Integration and Cohesion-Our shared future July
2007 Department for Communities and Local Government Page 56. Back
37
NIACE "More than a language: the final report NIACE Committee
of Inquiry on ESOL" October 2006. Back
38
NIACE "More than a language: the final report NIACE Committee
of Inquiry on ESOL" October 2006 Preface Page 3. Back
39
TUC Unionlearn Report "Migrant workers in the labour market"
December 2007. Back
40
LSC Priorities for Success-Funding for Learning and Skills October
2005. Back
41
UCU "Increasing exclusion, raising barriers: the real costs
of charging for ESOL" November 2007. Back
42
Commission on Integration and Cohesion-Our shared future July
2007 Department for Communities and Local Government Page 57-58. Back
| 
