Finally yesterday the BBC picked up on cuts in funding of English Language courses (BBC News/Education/Migrant English classes cuts row - pity the title is practically illiterate!). Their story focussed on the fact that nearly 100 MPs have signed a motion complaining about proposals to change eligibility for free English Language classes. Could it be because Boris Johnson MP is involved - always good for a news story?
This is an issue that has been rumbling along since around the time the British jobs market was opened to the Accession 8 countries or newly joined EU nations. In part, as people came to Britain, and particularly England, the funding bodies were actually happy to ensure that funded places for learning English were available, as successful achievement of these courses helped them to meet their Government targets for Basic Skills achievements.
However, along with housing, medical facilities and schools, the providers of English Language learning have been caught out by the sheer volume of demand. While willing to offer provision and to find ways around learners working antisocial hours, rotating shifts and weekend working, providers are currently facing a shortage of qualified teaching staff, and from August 2007, also face substantial changes in the funding regime as well.
With former colleagues at Mercia Research & Strategy, I have looked into this issue in several parts of the UK. Ministers know that demand is huge, and believe they cannot afford to fund English Language learning at the level of that demand. They have therefore prioritised funding to those on benefits and the unemployed. They believe that employers and employees should pay their own way.
Our work has shown that many migrant workers are on the minimum wage, or even potentially on wages below that, while paying market rate rents as they are not entitled to housing benefit. As they often work anti-social hours or shifts that British residents are unwilling to take, they have to have and maintain their own transport as well. This leaves little enough over for living costs, so where do they get the money to pay for ESOL courses (probably costing up to £400 per year or a month's rent)?
There are some excellent employers out there, who when they recruit migrant workers, sometimes going to Eastern Europe to do that recruiting, ensure that language training is laid on for workers from arrival in the UK. Sadly, it is my belief that these are in the minority, and most employers, some with particularly healthy profit figures, are more than happy for the State to pay for their workers to improve their English, and when the rules change on August 1st 2007, will NOT put their hands in their pockets and invest in their workforce.
Penny pinching on ESOL training will have one effect in my view, and that is to make it much more difficult for inward migrants to integrate into the community. This will in turn breed resentment and misunderstanding, and could lead to social unrest, particularly if unemployment rates increase significantly.
It would be nice to see the employers who can afford to train, but don't, named and shamed. I know Sir Digby Jones has threatened that he might do this in other spheres, this might be a good area to start!
Jane, you make a number of good points, but with adult learning budgets under such competing pressures politicans, of all shades, are left to make difficult choices between competing priorities. I think that most people would agree that when employers are benefiting from migrant labour they have at least some duty to help pay towards the costs of integrating them into the society in which they are living. After all, UK employers already contribute towards the educational costs of indigenous workers.
Posted by: Marc | 01/15/2007 at 04:42 PM