Notes from the NATECLA Meeting with BIS on 24th November 2010

Notes from the NATECLA Meeting with BIS on 24th November 2010 The NATECLA policy team met the Department for Business, Industry and Skills ESOL policy team on November 24th 2010. NATECLA’s policy team: Patricia Sullivan (Co-chair), Irene Austin, Karen Dudley, and Anne Mckeown BIS ESOL policy team: Deborah Persaud (social inclusion including ESOL), Gibb Baron (ESOL policy) NATECLA raised four key issues with the BIS team: 1. Change in eligibility for publicly-funded provision - the comprehensive spending review (CSR) statement on 'settled communities' NATECLA confirmed our understanding that the only people eligible for publicly-funded ESOL provision would be those who were 'settled', a concept as yet undefined by the government. Full funding would be available for ESOL for settled people who are unemployed, on job-seeker’s allowance, on employment support allowance, i.e. in what the government describes as the ‘work-related activity group’. Other ‘settled’ people would be eligible for co-funding - so people on low wages and income support would have to pay 50%. NATECLA said that this will affect certain groups very badly - for example carers and women with childcare responsibilities. We voiced our concern about the fact that many ESOL learners could be excluded, depending on the definition of ‘settled’. We stated that defining ‘settled’ would be impossible and undesirable, likely to create tensions and inequalities. BIS colleagues recognised these points and stated "that the current Skills Funding Agency eligibility criteria would continue to be used. There are no plans to define the term ‘settled community’ further than the definitions already used by the Skills Funding Agency to determine eligibility for ESOL. In addition, providers will consider the needs of learners with ESOL needs as part of their remit to responding to their local community. ” NATECLA asked how BIS suggested we encourage the maintenance of ESOL provision, given the reduced funding expected by providers. The government will ask providers to determine what they offer. They are supposed to be responsible to the communities they are in and expected to work with priority groups in their localities. NATECLA noted that there is no accountability for this responsibility. Furthermore providers are required by the Skills Funding Agency to show 'minimum levels of performance' - scores related to their learner success rates within a certain time period. So they have little incentive to offer ESOL provision to people unlikely to pass exams. It is going to be important for providers to cross-subsidise their provision. As responsibility for 16 - 18 provision is transferring to Local Authorities, the relationship between LAs and local FE providers will become increasingly important. Government strategy includes a renewed focus on informal learning and on community learning. 2. Qualifications structure for ESOL qualifications. NATECLA described how awarding bodies don't accept (R, W, S&L) modes from one another. They are supposed to be transferable, but in reality they are not. We also questioned the lack of clarity regarding the future of ESOL qualifications in relation to Functional Skills and the 2012 end date for current Skills for Life ESOL qualifications. The report and recommendations about functional skills and about ESOL qualifications is not yet in the public domain. 3. UKBA language testing 3a. Testing prior to entry to the UK NATECLA expressed serious concerns re. implications of pre-entry to the UK testing, for the following reasons: - It is much better to learn English in an English speaking environment - Access to and cost of ESOL tuition for those who need it could be prohibitively expensive - Access to testing centres could be difficult/impossible for many people, particularly women and people from rural areas - Cost of tests could be prohibitively expensive - Regulating approved accrediting bodies is likely to be difficult/impossible - Ensuring rigour and integrity of existing qualifications if testing is sub-contracted is likely to be difficult/impossible. NATECLA would like BIS, UKBA and whichever department is taking over from the QCDA to liaise on this urgently and we offered to contribute to this discussion. 3b. UKBA language testing within the UK NATECLA told BIS that the new government priorities and reduced funding will reduce access to ESOL and ESOL citizenship classes. We told BIS that implementing the UKBA policies on language testing in the UK and accrediting UK test centres will be chaotic. 4. The 'Skills for Sustainable Growth’ and 'Investing in Skills for Sustainable Growth’ strategies. We welcomed the way the strategies support literacy and numeracy and questioned the lack of recognition and priority given to ESOL and funding ESOL. NATECLA offered to produce ESOL learner case studies showing the benefits of ESOL to society. ESOL teacher training NATECLA reported feedback from the NATECLA ESOL teacher training working group which suggests a reduction in the volume of ESOL teacher training due to lack of clarify about the future of Skills for Life ESOL qualifications, functional skills and also the cuts in public funding for ESOL. Various organisations, including talent at NRDC, are surveying the current picture and will send NATECLA their findings. Agreed actions BIS will: - keep NATECLA posted about the review of Adult and Community Learning and the implications for ESOL provision. - keep NATECLA updated on the review of the Adult Safeguarded Fund. - contact NATECLA as soon as there is information to share about the further direction of functional skills and ESOL qualifications - seek clarity and progress relating to the letter about awarding bodies accrediting each other’s units. NATECLA will: - speak to colleagues with responsibility for qualifications on the QCF - send BIS the data on the current picture for ESOL teacher training provision as soon as we receive it To read about the strategy click 'more'

External Link: http://www.natecla.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=552