ESOL practitioners will know that use of a first language in class is often frowned upon. It is said that it uses up valuable practice time and also upsets any fluent rhythm generated in speaking activities. But is this really the case? As far as we know there hasn’t been any definitive research in this area. It can be argued, of course, that practising with non-native speakers is akin to practising anything with the underqualified i.e. that it is better than no practice at all, yet far from ideal. Naturally, it may be easier and more convenient to ask for help in one’s L1 and to offer advice, too, but wouldn’t even that be better off being expressed in the language being practiced?

Since it was announced that there wouldn’t be automatic fee remission for ESOL students, there have been howls of protest from refugee groups, teaching unions and even the right-wing press. But, speaking from experience (one of our Editors is an ESOL practitioner) it is clear that the Government have got it right.

We say this for the following reasons:

1. Student numbers, especially at Beginner level, are down, despite the line being peddled in the Press. And down quite significantly.

2. Even with the long waiting lists of last year, it is clearly not essential for those students with stronger language skills to take ESOL courses as they already have the ability to find work.

3. Most importantly, students should contribute if they can. That’s only fair. Those who cannot afford to pay won’t have to and vice versa.

Of course, nothing is perfect. What is worrying is that there will be a number of existing students who will choose not to re-enrol because they work in the cash economy and therefore can’t or won’t provide proof of income in order to claim benefits. Obviously, given a choice, work will come before a class. This means that social mobility, social inclusion and fairness don’t apply to the most needy; the ones the Government is seeking to protect. Instead of basing it on benefits claimed, B-liar and his gang should base free course entitlement on whether there is a need. Entry 3 could be the cut-off point, for it is here that immigrants gain the right to apply for citizenship as well as a chance to move into mainstream education. The Government’s policy is too ambitious and too strict. It is wrong to expect immigrants to reach Level 2 before they can study Access to University course especially as the majority of higher level ESOL students already have first degrees and/or professional qualifications. By lowering their sights a little and concentrating on those who need it most, Edumonolith could save money and advance social equality.

Seems that we learn words based not on BBC English phonics but according to how we process words. No longer can we allow external assessment as this allows for socio-cultural inequality and regional margnalisation i.e. we fail exams as they are not written in our language but in the language of Others.

This will allow SMT’s to sweeten the pill that is redundancy and postpone the inevitable for another year. Such money, of course, does not come without strings and it was interesting to note the 1/3 of the cash was stumped up by the London Development Agency whose luminaries include many business leaders who “will require more delivery focussed on supporting people into work and more delivery in the workplace.” Looks like the marriage between ESOL and business is here to stay.

Do we really desire recent migrants harbouring these views? You could say that they will learn about multi-culturalism from living in the UK? But what if they don’t? What if they pass on those values to their children or vote based on such beliefs?
Fundamentally, we either believe in what we preach i.e. multi-cuturalism and respect for all, or we don’t. If we don’t, then let each man work it out for himself. But if we do, we must educate, even if that means confrontation and conflict. What did the UK fight a war against Hitler for? So that people could be taught Skills for Life or because Nazi values were diametrically opposed to ours?

And it isn’t just the ESOL classroom, either. See here.

1. Courses should not have been free in the first place.
2. Any cuts should have been made after changes to existing provision were implemented to allow for some breathing space for employers and employees
By not doing the above allows unions to scaremonger, demotivates staff and leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. The DfES through the LSC have a lot to answer for. Playing football with the lives of others is clearly not the best policy.

Think of the time and cost savings of having only one exam to sit every year. Of course, exam bodies will protest and peddle misinformation about the need to have graded levels but…

Progression onto different classes or educational institutions is the only measurement that counts. It tells us if our courses were worth the prospectuses they were written in and would be effective even if students feel progress has been made despite not gaining a piece of paper with an exam. This would empower students further and be a wake-up call for those schools, colleges and unis who currently dictate rather than respond to student need.

Should students who possess only instrumental motivation be allowed to disrupt class dynamics and generate extra paperwork? Or should they, once identified, be blacklisted and banned for life?