NIACE response to government skills strategy Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 16:21

Commenting on the Skills for Sustainable Growth and Investing in Sustainable Growth papers, NIACE Chief Executive, Alan Tuckett, said:

"The papers contain a number of proposals which confirm that, despite the painful consequences of budget reductions, Ministers are alive to the need to maintain high levels of participation in lifelong learning."

"As such, the protection of funding for adult and community learning to support personal development, inclusive communities and a route into formal learning for the disengaged, is an important affirmation of the wider social benefits of learning. Similarly, maintaining full funding for courses to improve people's basic reading, writing and mathematics, shows a recognition that these are essential skills for adults."

"The main area where NIACE would ask the government to think again is around its proposals for English for Speakers of Other Languages. Expecting employers to meet the cost of providing ESOL for economic migrants from outside the EU is long overdue, but the proposals look likely to result in injustices and anomalies - particularly for people from settled communities taking up part-time jobs as a route off benefit."

Alastair Thomson, NIACE Principal Policy Officer, said:

"The expansion of adult apprenticeships is a positive move. The introduction of government-backed fee loans for people aged 24 and over to undertake qualifications at level 3 and above, is a further welcome development. This narrows the unfair gap in the relative treatment of students in further education, compared to those in higher education. At present though, loans will be limited to those studying full-time and will not help the majority of adults who study part-time and who face higher fees and fewer courses. We do acknowledge though that the introduction of lifelong learning accounts has the potential to allow more flexibility in the future."

Peter Lavender, NIACE Deputy Chief Executive, added:

"There is a disappointing omission in the papers though. On first reading they are silent on proposals for students with learning difficulties and disabilities. NIACE assumes that this means current entitlements will be continued. However, as money is devolved to providers, there is a risk that courses for those aged over 25 will continue to quietly decline in volume, marginalising learners rather than including them. NIACE urges the government to monitor the situation closely and act if the volume of places collapses."

NIACE is also disappointed in the scant reference to other important areas of ESOL especially the provision of ESOL for newly arrived spouses. From 29 November 2010, spouses will be required to pass an Entry 1 level English language assessment before they are granted a visa to enter the UK. A timely intervention of language provision as soon as spouses arrive could have significant cost benefits, as those learners are likely to learn ESOL faster and better.

At present, two Government departments are developing policy in relation to language and immigration. In BIS and also in the Home Office, there has been policy development in relation to ESOL and citizenship. 203,875 migrants were granted UK citizenship in 2009. 13% (26,503) of these new citizens took the ESOL citizenship course route by doing an Entry level ESOL Skills for Life qualification. If the Home Office introduces a two stage citizenship application process, this will double demand for ESOL provision, already overstretched. The learners who need ESOL for Indefinite Leave to Remain or UK citizenship should certainly be regarded as ‘settled communities' and therefore should be a priority group.

The Discretionary Learner Support Fund (DLSF) has been well used and provided a ‘safety net' for the ESOL learners most in need, but not necessarily claiming Job Seekers Allowance; women who are not allowed access to their husband's documentation, victims of domestic violence and so on. There would be widespread support for the continuation of the discretionary fund amongst ESOL providers.

A continuum of fees, rather than a full fee remission / 100% fees model would be equable. Whilst employers paying the full costs of ESOL provision seems reasonable, one could argue for a sliding scale or a range of fees, rather than 2 stark alternatives, to accommodate ESOL learners in very low paid employment or part-time work.

There were 39 recommendations made in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into ESOL, More than a Language (NIACE: 2006). Much has been achieved since 2006 but there are important issues which still have to be addressed.