LSC Statement of Priorities - Members views

June Challis (Member of NATECLA management council) writes in response to Peter Kingston’s Article –‘Too expensive in any language’ on Tuesday 24th October Guardian. The National Association for Teaching English and other Community Languages to Adults is concerned that the LSC appears to have ignored the NIACE Committee of Inquiry’s Report on ESOL called ‘More than a language..’ that has involved much consultation. Please see attached official NATECLA response to LSC Statement of Priorities. NATECLA also wishes to highlight the following points about the article: 1. We agree that all ESOL learners with language skills below Level 1 should be entitled to free provision until they have reached that level. The Department for Education and Skill’s Skills for Life strategy based its targets on the achievement to Levels 1 and 2 qualifications. This was possible to some extent through fast track training for literacy and numeracy learners but it lacked an understanding of the needs and starting levels of ESOL learners. Many ESOL learners have managed to achieve one or two levels at entry level. My experience of teaching chiefly settled immigrants in Lancashire, many of whom were women, demonstrated that they were enthusiastic about learning but managed only to achieve one entry level in community classes due to their lack of study skills. They had, however, made considerable strides especially those who could not read and write in their first language but would need long term provision to reach Levels 1 or 2 It would be unacceptable to remove the free entitlement from ESOL learners under Level 2 while retaining it for literacy and numeracy. This course of action would be unfair and discriminatory and it might be an issue for equal opportunities. 2. NATECLA is concerned for the vulnerable groups where fees may be prohibitive as there are many ESOL learners who are on low incomes but above means tested benefit. 3. NATECLA is justly concerned about the decision to remove asylum seekers from the list of those eligible for free ESOL. This is obviously due to current media influence. This shows no understanding of the fact that asylum seekers need to be able to eat, live and talk to others. Perhaps that is the point they are making: they don’t want them to. We have been assured that decisions about refugee status will be made earlier, therefore, surely asylum seekers should have the same entitlements as home learners when the target period for decision on their application has expired? Finally NATECLA agrees entirely with the points made by others that these measures will make it impossible to promote social inclusion and integration. To clarify Peter Kingston’s statement “People coming into the country to take up jobs will no longer get English lessons for nothing”, it is important to note that the ‘free’ English classes for those taking up employment only applied to EU citizens. Formerly, for example, au pairs paid for EFL until LSC funding stated that free English classes were available to those who had been resident in the EU for three years. This was intensified when the Eastern European countries were accepted into the EU. NATECLA fully supports the view that employers should contribute to the cost of tuition particularly if they have been recruiting their employees from outside the U.K. However we feel strongly that any fees raised should go back into dealing with the waiting lists. In reference to that statement above, NATECLA has campaigned for many years about the inconsistency of government promotion of integration when spouses, fiancées and family members of permanent UK residents were excluded from immediate access to the same entitlements to ESOL provision as permanent residents. Click more to read Peter Kingston's article. The LSC Statement of Priorities can be viewed on the NATECLA site.

External Link: http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/story/0,,1929454,00.html