Association of CollegesMarch 2015

The experience of colleges using new ESOL QCF Skills for Life Qualifications

2

This document is for guidance purposes only and is no substitute for professional advice regarding your regulatory and general legal obligations. Association of Colleges Limited (“AoC”) accepts no liability for the contents of this document, nor how an individual chooses to apply this document. This document is owned by AoC and must not be copied in whole or in part without the express permission of AoC. © Association of Colleges 2015

A report for the AoC from the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy, (NRDC) and University College London (UCL) Institute of Education (IOE).

2 3

Contents

Summary and recommendations................................................................................................4

Introduction and context..............................................................................................................5

Colleges’ experience of using the new ESOL QCF qualifications..............................................7

The need for continued use of non-accredited provision........................................................9

Progress with JCP links and referrals.........................................................................................10

Referral of learners with ESOL needs to wider mainstream provision.................................12

Continuing demand from changing cohorts of learners........................................................14

The impact of funding on provision...........................................................................................16

Colleges’ longer-term plans for ESOL.......................................................................................18

Colleges’ recommendations to policy makers and funders...................................................20

Appendix A: Survey template......................................................................................................22

4

Summary and recommendations

New English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) qualifications welcomed

Colleges have positively received the new Qualifications and Credit Transfer Framework (QCF) - based ESOL qualifications. Their location within existing national standards limits the change they are capable of bringing about, but this is also welcome in a sector that needs stability. The continued use of existing national standards has prevented the creation of ‘smaller chunks’ of accreditation for learners who need to progress in smaller steps, which was called for in the AoC and NRDC 2014 report.

Ensure separate ‘modes’ count as stepping-stones to GCSE English

The sector has welcomed new qualifications for the separate ‘modes’ of reading, writing and speaking and listening, which enables skills accreditation at different levels and times to accommodate learners’ ‘spiky profiles’. However, questions have been raised as to the extent to which these new separate modes will be applicable as stepping-stones to GCSE for 16 to18-year-old learners.

Continue to fund non-accredited learning

The facility to use non-accredited funding to flexibly meet the needs of all learners, including those needing more time to learn, has been extremely well received and needs to continue. This is particularly important because the new QCF ESOL qualifications were unable to offer smaller steps in accreditation in the lower stages of Entry level 1 that were hoped for. The concept of an ‘average’ learner for the purposes of planning funding continues to be problematic in the context of the extreme diversity that characterises ESOL learners.

Expand Jobcentre Plus (JCP) ESOL to the longer-term unemployed

ESOL for JCP clients continues to develop productively, but could be opened up to the longer-term unemployed rather than being limited to new claimants. The JCP referral systems have brought forward learners who were previously out of reach. This system could be extended to others who need to develop their language skills.

Take steps to ensure learners are not ‘trapped’ on waiting lists

Many ESOL learners are people in transition. With access to learning opportunities they can progress into employment and contribute to the economy. Provision needs to cater for both those who need more support and learning time and those who can make more rapid and independent progress.

Introduction and context

AoC has a keen interest in ESOL provision, which forms a substantial proportion of a number of colleges’ provision, and has worked closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) to support the review, development and funding of QCF-based ESOL qualifications. This has required all parties to identify and resolve key issues associated with ESOL provision.

The 2014 AoC and NRDC report1 examined the nature of ESOL learners and of ESOL teaching and learning. The report found that the challenge in agreeing a standardised package of guided learning hours for each level of ESOL learning was rooted in the extremely wide diversity of learners’ previous educational experiences and the impact this has on the time needed to learn and make progress. The report also detailed the variety of ways in which colleges managed their provision for the diversity of learners in their locality. The use of non-accredited provision was found to play a significant role in supporting ESOL learners at the lowest levels and for those furthest away from achieving a full qualification.

The report recommended that mechanisms should be put in place to accredit smaller chunks of learning, especially for learners at the lowest levels who need more time than an ‘average’ learner to make progress. It also recommended that funding mechanisms should follow learner need, rather than be based on an average learner.

The 2014/15 SFA guidance for interim funding arrangements offered transitional protection that allowed colleges to use non-regulated funding to make up the shortfall between the new funding rates and actual delivery. Providers welcomed this flexibility.

In 2014, new ESOL Skills for Life qualifications were developed to align with the QCF. These were created by eight awarding organisations (AOs) during 2013-14, and approved by Ofqual to be ‘operationally available for delivery 2014 to 2015’2.

In January 2015, AoC asked seven ESOL providers across England to report on their experience of the transition to the new ESOL qualifications: this report summarises the feedback. The report covers the positives of the new qualifications and key issues emerging as colleges plan for the next academic year. It explores the mix of mainstream and Jobcentre Plus provision in the context of ESOL qualifications and funding.

Seven colleges located in four regions in England participated in this review: Bolton College; Bradford College; Greenwich Community College; Hackney Community College; Lewisham and Southwark College; Solihull College and South and City College Birmingham.

The colleges reported on the following aspects (full survey details in Appendix A):

• ESOL QCF qualifications: the awarding organisations used, the pros and cons, the impact on delivery, the impact on programme, the impact on learners, the impact on success rates, flexibility, and staff CPD requirements.

• Use of non-accredited provision: with JCP provision, for bridging levels, for additional 1 ESOL Qualifications and Funding in 2014: Issues for Consideration (AoC, 2014)2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/esol-qualifications-interim-arrangements/new-qualifi-cations-and-credit-framework-english-for-speakers-of-other-languages-skills-for-life-qualifications-funding-ar-rangements-for-2014-to-2015 Skills Funding Agency online guidance (accessed 20 February 2015)

5

6

hours, for low-level beginner learners. • Funding: balance and mix between mainstream adults, JCP learners, 16-18 learners,

impact of changes to adult funding between 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16.• Impact of funding and qualification changes on learner cohorts and learner demand.• Progress with JCP provision (including ringfenced ESOL Plus).• Use of other courses (non-ESOL) for ESOL learners.• Information on waiting lists.• The college’s longer-term plans for ESOL provision and recommendations for the

future.

7

Colleges’ experience of using the new ESOL QCF qualifications

Colleges have generally welcomed the new ESOL qualifications. The new separate qualifications for the different skills areas or ‘modes’ of reading, writing and speaking and listening were especially welcome, enabling more appropriate recognition of progress within learners’ ‘spiky profiles’. The content of the qualifications was broadly familiar given that they continue to be based on the same set of national standards.

It was felt to be too early to judge the potential impact on success rates, with expectations varying from confident to cautious. On the whole provider comments revealed marginal impacts on the shape of programmes and delivery models as a result of the new qualifications. Any changes here were generally expected to come into being more gradually once new patterns had bedded in.

Colleges’ choice of awarding organisation was largely based on custom, practice and established patterns, with only one college taking a more analytical approach to reviewing their options. Any additional CPD needs for staff seemed to be well in hand and not major, given the similarity of content coverage in the new qualifications.

One area of concern lay with arrangements for 16 to18-year-old learners. Because learners in these cohorts are in full-time study programmes it was reported that it was not possible to make use of the flexibility offered by the awards for separate modes – all learners must take the full qualification. A second concern was that the new awards have not yet appeared on the approved list of stepping-stones to GCSE for 16-18 learners on study programmes. There was also some apprehension that assessment topics were less appropriate for 16-18 learners.

It was also noted that the new qualifications still failed to address the needs of two significant groups of learners: the cohorts being referred by JCP onto courses too short to complete a qualification and very low level literacy learners (or ‘pre-entry’). This was because of a lack of sufficiently small steps in qualifications at the bottom of Entry level 1.

Eight AOs are registered to accredit the new ESOL qualifications: Ascentis; Cambridge English; City and Guilds; English Speaking Board (now including reading and writing in their qualifications suite); Gateway Qualifications (formerly OCN Eastern region); NOCN; Pearson Edexcel; and Trinity College London. A summary detailing information about each AO and their credit values is published on the National Association for Teaching English and Community Language to Adults (NATECLA) website . At each level there are separate award certificates for each of the following ‘modes’: reading; writing; and speaking and listening. The majority of AOs collaborated in the development of their qualifications with common credit ratings as follows:

Award Reading: 6 credits Writing: 9 credits Speaking and listening: 12 credits

Certificate All modes: 27 credits

3 http://www.natecla.org.uk/content/596/ESOL-QCF-qualifications NATECLA website, ESOL QCF qualifi-cations

8

City and Guilds has slightly different credit values and these differ across levels:

Award Reading: 9-11 credits Writing: 9-11 credits Speaking and listening: 11-12 credits

Certificate All modes 29-34 credits

8 9

The need for continued use of non-accredited provision

The flexibility offered by the continuing use of non-accredited provision to meet the needs of all ESOL learners was recognised by the colleges – all seven were using non-accredited modes of provision for some learners.

The colleges were also using non-accredited delivery to accommodate JCP learners. All but one was using non-accredited delivery to provide for learners who were at the lowest levels (needing basic English language and literacy) described by some as ‘pre-entry’. All but two were also using it to ‘bridge’ between levels and as a ‘top-up’ for learners who needed more time.

In the words of one of the colleges:

‘The fact that we are now able to balance our learning programmes with a non-accredited com-ponent is welcomed and it makes our job much easier because it enables us to tailor our courses to the needs of our learners.

The flexibility to use non-accredited provision has also been really helpful for the development of our pre-entry level curriculum where learners are not yet ready to cope with Entry 1 accredita-tion.

It has also supported the development of our ESOL Plus JCP programme because learners can focus on the key skills needed for job search and job applications without the need to focus on preparation for specific assessments.’

One provider also highlighted the use of Recognising and Recording Progress and Achievement (RARPA) in their non-accredited provision: ‘this type of delivery still requires a high degree of flexibility which only these qualifications can provide through RARPA’.

This enthusiasm for the continued use of non-accredited funding comes despite administrative problems reported for Management Information Systems (MIS) departments. Non-accredited funding in the QCF uses ZO qualification aims. These are funded in ‘bands’ where anyone allocated additional hours within the same range of guided learning hours will receive the same funding regardless whether they are at the top or bottom of the range. When the college in-filled additional learners to classes throughout the year (to help minimise waiting lists) some learners were on different funding bands according to when they had started the course. As a result, several learners needed different ZO non-accredited qualification codes, creating additional administrative work.

10

Progress with JCP links and referrals

Although JCP ESOL provision had grown, colleges expressed uncertainty about the future. All of the colleges had seen dips in their referral rates, with one voicing concerns about not meeting their target as a result and the impact this might have on future funding. The pattern of referral rates is mixed: dips followed by figures rallying with no discernible pattern and a range of local factors involved.

It would appear that the Genuine Prospect of Work (GPoW) policy introduced in July 2014 may have had some impact. This policy introduced a limitation on European Economic Association (EEA) migrants’ right to reside in the UK as a jobseeker to six months unless they provided compelling evidence of a genuine prospect of finding work, in which case a limited extension could be granted (determined on a case by case basis). EEA claimants were provided with a fact sheet at the beginning of their claim informing them that a GPoW assessment would be carried out after six months. Some felt that this was encouraging claimants to return to their countries of origin.

One college noted dips before public holidays and an impact following changes in JCP personnel. Another college saw more referrals after JCP were sent reminders about course dates. Another cause for lower referrals was the need to be sure that learners were eligible for benefits: initially JCP staff would refer anyone who they identified as needing language provision before their Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) claim had been decided. This caused problems and resulted in more caution on both sides as enrolled clients then had to be removed from courses: either JSA awaited claim decisions before referring clients or colleges delayed enrolment until JSA status had been confirmed. One college reported that 10 out of 35 referrals per week would not yet be eligible, whilst another found that the majority were on appropriate benefits already.

A recent analysis by one respondent of 100 JCP claimants who stopped attending their course (early withdrawals) showed the reasons were:

34% no longer eligible for JSA23% still claiming but no sactions taken as yet by JCP19% gained employment 10% moved to another benefit

If replicated on a larger scale, this information would be very useful to stakeholders and would support the need for considering alternative success rate measures for this provision.

The following table summarises the referral rate trends between last year and this (as yet incomplete) year.

West Midlands

London 1 London 2 London 3 Yorkshire and the Humber

North West

Similar to last year

20% down 38% down Slightly less 33% down dipped but since recovered

10 11

For one college, an increase in JCP learners and closer working with JCP work coaches had reduced the likelihood of learners being taken off courses to attend other JCP provision.

The ongoing use of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) initial assessment tool by JCP appeared to be working well as there were no adverse comments about incorrect referrals. One college favourably commented that the majority of the learners had been assessed at Entry 1 Beginner and Entry 1 levels. Another noted that feedback from JCP advisors continued to be very positive as the programmes were seen to improve learners’ confidence as well as their English and job seeking skills.

12

Referral of learners with ESOL needs to wider mainstream provision

The main categories of provision cited by colleges when asked about other courses that they used to help meet their ESOL demand are shown below.

Vocational Pre-entry Numeracy English / literacy

ICT Personal and Social Development

JCP ESOL Plus provision

6 5 6 4 4 1 6

The purpose of offering non-ESOL provision was two-fold: supporting ESOL learners to progress to other learning programmes that would give them a broad and enriched programme of study and facilitating access to language learning where ESOL funding was not available or people did not have the resources to pay fees. An example of one such holistic learning programme embedded ESOL learning with PCD courses, ICT, maths, English and vocational learning.

In one college ESOL qualifications were only used for JCP ESOL learners (where they were assessed as being able to complete one in the time available) and for a small number of other adults on ESOL vocational programmes. For all other adult ESOL learners, the colleges used English and maths qualifications. Many people from their local community were unable to contribute to fees but were not on the right benefits to qualify for fully funded ESOL. There was no guaranteed facility for learners to study on non-accredited programmes, essential for emerging Entry 1, as every year the college faced challenges from the SFA to use this provision. The majority of ESOL learners were placed on English and/or maths for non-native speakers; full-time programmes comprised English, maths, IT and a vocational progression award.

For all colleges, the facility to progress to vocational courses was seen as essential for students wishing to acquire skills for work. In one college learners were encouraged to progress from ESOL programmes at the end of Entry 2 to vocational programmes starting at Entry 3 upwards. Numbers of ESOL-only courses at Entry 3 and above declined steeply. Another college encouraged students to take up vocational programmes from level 1 and students then moved on to Functional English.

Vocational subjects offered to learners included textiles and fashion, media, health and social care, childcare, science, plumbing, business and IT, hairdressing, travel and tourism, hospitality and catering, motor vehicle engineering, culinary skills, customer care, and accounting.

All colleges used non-accredited ESOL provision for their JCP ESOL learners, with only one offering ESOL qualifications.

All of the colleges indicated that there was demand from their ESOL learners for maths classes, particularly classes that would support their language learning. These were offered from Entry 1 to level 1.

For most ESOL learners who had reached a certain level in English language acquisition by studying at a college, this was a progression. A college used this route for some of their ESOL learners, putting them on adult English and maths programmes. The programmes

13

were not specifically for ESOL learners and therefore it was difficult for the college to count them. One college used basic literacy provision for ESOL learners who could not afford fees or because there was insufficient funding for more ESOL classes.

For 16-18 learners, one college used Functional Mathematics and Life Skills, (vocational qualifications) with ESOL as part of their programmes of study, only offering ESOL qualifications to adult learners. Another used Functional Skills for all level 1 and 2 provision.

Within most of these programmes language learning was delivered as embedded provision: funding was drawn down through the vocational, maths or English learning aim, not for ESOL.

One college commented on the success of their non-ESOL qualifications provision where progression rates were excellent for 16 to 18-year-olds, with over 90% progressing to employment or further study in the college. It was a similar situation with adults at the college – once they had completed a level 1 ESOL bridging course (non-accredited) they progressed to the basic skills curriculum joining native speakers on a pathway to GCSE English and maths.

This college also ran a drop in support service for English and maths that allowed ESOL learners to continue to access ESOL support after progressing to other courses.

14

Continuing demand from changing cohorts of learners

Across the board colleges reported that demand for ESOL learning remains high, often with unmanageably large waiting lists:

‘At a general college open evening on 29 January 2015, with no advertising for ESOL, 450 people applied for ESOL courses. We already had over 400 on the waiting list. If we advertise ESOL we are overwhelmed.’

Numbers on waiting lists are indicated below.

College 1 College 2 College 3 College 4 College 5 College 6 Already assessed and awaiting a place

200 400 175 All placed 264

Not yet assessed

650 1500 252 400 914

Total 850 1900 427 400 1178As a % of college provision

16% 100% 2% 60% 50% 100%

Comments When we have additional funding we can take people on

Will not be able to place even the majority of those assessed

Not large numbers - try to manage demand. Fees have impacted

Communities have changed over time

Improved recruitment for 16-18s. Also take referrals from local ACL.

Waiting lists substantially grown in last 18months due to funding cuts. Encourage self-study activities before placement

Providers that collect data describe those on waiting lists as being predominantly low waged in entry level, hourly paid work. They cannot afford ESOL fees on basic literacy courses.

As the ESOL Plus JCP-mandated provision is for new claimants only, the groups affected most by the cuts in provision are those furthest from the job market:

• The medium and long-term unemployed who would not get referred to ESOL Plus mandated courses.

• Learners unable to access benefits such as people on new spouse visas. • Asylum seekers not entitled to fee remission because they are not active job

seekers. • Those in employment part-time, on low wages, facing co-funded fees in excess of

£500 for one year of study, or unable to commit to courses because of irregular shift work patterns.

• Older and poorly educated learners who struggle to move at the pace required in FE, often with less interest in taking qualifications.

14 15

The make-up of communities represented on ESOL waiting lists varies across the country. As one provider noted: ‘Each year the mix of languages and communities evolves’ as migration patterns change, communities re-locate and settle, immigration rules alter, and new war zones emerge. Within a region there can be wide differences between localities.

The seven colleges identified the following groups as being most prevalent among their student population and on the waiting lists.

Yorkshire and the Humber: White Eastern European economic migrants are by far the highest ethnic group on ESOL courses at present: previously it was Asian / Pakistani communities. 46% of ESOL learners are white Eastern Europeans, the majority from Slovakia and Czech Republic and some from Romania and Bulgaria. More recently there has been an increase in young people from EU countries, for example Spain and Italy.

South East London: The biggest ‘new’ community is that of Nepalese and Ghurkhas and their families. These learners are typically older and often lack basic education. A large number of unaccompanied young Albanian asylum seekers are coming to college. There is also a large cohort of Lithuanian students and there has been a recent spike in Western Europeans. The college is also seeing an increase in students with EU passports who are originally from outside the EU – Nigerians with German nationality, Sri Lankans with Italian passports and Latin Americans with Portuguese or Spanish nationality.

South East London: There has been an increase in the number of students from Albania, Bulgaria and Russia. In total, there are people from 114 different language backgrounds. The largest communities remain French West African, South American Spanish, South American Portuguese and Somali.

East London: There are increased numbers of Spanish and Portuguese speakers in adult and 14-19 provision, not necessarily originally from Spain and Portugal, and these adults tend to have low paid jobs. The traditional local profile has been Turkish, African, Bangladeshi, Eastern European, with an overall diversity and no dominant group.

West Midlands: The largest cohort of learners currently is Black African (911 learners), then Asian / Pakistani (686), White / European (425), Asian other (344). Black African learners come mainly from Somalia, but also Eritrea, Sudan and Congo. There have been increasing numbers of White Europeans – Spanish and Italian – recently. Only three learners described themselves as members of the travelling community; however, there are increasing numbers of Romanian Roma who tend not to describe themselves as travellers.

North West: The profile of our learners has changed significantly over the past five years. We now have new communities from Iraq, Eritrea, Burma, Hungary (Roma) and Sudan.

16

The impact of funding on provision

The recent funding changes along with uncertainty about future funding developments resulted in a range of responses from the seven colleges. The differing position of ESOL within each institution’s leadership priorities and strategy, along with the volume of ESOL provision in relation to the college as a whole, interacted with the funding uncertainties and other local factors to produce some quite different perspectives on potential ways forward. Colleges expressed uncertainty on whether they would continue to be funded for non-accredited provision and how the outcomes of the Ofqual QCF review might impact on ESOL learning.

The colleges were managing the year on year reduction in government funding for adult learning budgets in different ways. The three colleges outside London continued to prioritise ESOL provision as they faced high levels of local need. In London the picture was less clear-cut as colleges struggled to maintain levels of provision against competing institutional priorities for reduced funding. In Birmingham one major college closed its ESOL department in 2014, while several London colleges have considerably reduced their ESOL departments in recent years.

Many reported the expectation that group sizes would grow, that courses would become shorter and fatter, or even shorter and slimmer as provision re-shaped to meet the needs of as many learners as possible. There was also an expectation that they would need to offer more self-study and online learning for ESOL learners at the higher levels to maximise the learning opportunities available.

In reporting the impact of recent funding cuts to provision, one college described three significant impacts on their learners:

• Courses were moving from ‘long thin courses ... to short fat ones’ suiting the unemployed cohort. Provision was more focussed on employability and entering the labour market and less on citizenship and survival skills than it once was.

• Lack of funding for childcare and access to nursery facilities had impacted on learners with young children and numbers of female learners had fallen.

• Fees were a barrier for some learners: fully funded adult literacy-type provision was more attractive for those in low paid work.

One college was training their ESOL teachers to teach Functional Maths and GCSE English to retain highly skilled practitioners in the college and the sector, and to ensure that ESOL learners linguistic needs were met within more mainstream provision.

The increase in JCP provision has resulted in higher numbers of men accessing ESOL courses. Another group newly accessing ESOL provision included people on Incapacity Benefit (IB) or Employment Support Allowance (ESA) who had moved on to JSA. However, colleges sometimes found that this group’s health issues, both physical and mental, frequently impacted on their ability to study.

Colleges reported that there was greater focus on developing progression routes to work, to higher-level vocational programmes, further study or university. Changes in the nature of provision included more use of homework, independent learning and online work to

17

supplement the lack of time in the classroom. Two colleges reported working with community learning and voluntary sector providers to ensure that there was a range of provision available to settled communities, with strong progression routes.

18

Colleges’ longer-term plans for ESOL

The colleges’ longer-term plans are presented here followed by a summary of their objectives and concerns. From seven organisations, seven very different viewpoints have emerged regarding the future, reflecting both the individuality of each college and its location, and the position of ESOL managers and teachers within their institution. It is an area of provision continuously subjected to fluctuating political, strategic and funding decision-making, more than any other in the further education sector.

College 1 had embraced a wider curriculum for ESOL learners anticipating that stability will be more likely where ESOL is integrated within other college provision. The college ESOL curriculum had changed substantially over the last four to five years, moving away from ESOL qualifications to a much broader range of qualifications that prepare learners for the world of work. Students were not only studying for language and literacy qualifications, but also maths, Personal Social Development at Entry 2, Work Skills at Entry 3 and at pre-entry level, using the Edexcel Certificate in Personal Progress. 14-18 programmes included Functional ICT and Maths as well as English at the higher levels. Although this development was triggered by a range of external factors, the result was a positive and proactive move to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum.

For college 2 there was no ESOL strategy: the college intended to continue to support the local community’s need for adult English and maths provision as far as funding permitted. The college was moving away from ESOL delivery and had assimilated the majority of learners within its maths and English provision. The priorities were vocational. For adult provision, the aim was to upskill learners through short courses to enable them to move into apprenticeships, work or better paid work. The reality of managing large numbers of ESOL learners at the college was ever present in their report and demonstrated an awareness of local ESOL needs. ESOL teachers were integral to the planning and delivery of appropriate maths and English programmes for their learners. It was, however, apparent that funding guidance, assumptions and relationships were very different for this college than for the other colleges in this survey, resulting in some hard ESOL policy changes.

College 3 was planning for stability of ESOL provision, keeping the same numbers and programmes wherever possible with some growth funding permitting. ESOL was being prioritised and allowed to grow. The quality of the provision was excellent, which had helped the strategic planners appreciate its priority and the importance of safeguarding for the benefit of the community. The policy was for ESOL provision to be demand-led in order to accommodate any student cohort regardless of need. There were concerns about their newly implemented changes for the ESOL QCF qualifications. If these resulted in continuing high success rates the college would continue to run ESOL qualifications in the same way the following year. There would be a reality check if the results were not as expected and the structure and strategy would need to be reviewed.

College 4 does not have an overall ESOL strategy. In recent years the demand in the local area has at times worked against the department with a sense that there is too much focus on ESOL provision in the college. It remained to be seen whether

19

ESOL would suffer adult budget cuts, or benefit from the fact that the provision was graded good on inspection. The ESOL department was committed to working with partners to broaden the local offer, for example working with ACL and the local borough to ensure links with, and progression routes from, community based provision. Plans to seek alternative funding sources are ongoing to support sustainability of provision.

College 5 does not anticipate any growth in ESOL provision funded by SFA. They intend to grow numbers of international students on vocational programmes, including HE programmes, with support to develop academic English and access to International English Language Testing (IELTS) analysis.

College 6 found the uncertain future an impediment to sound forward planning. It was finding it difficult to be strategic in a volatile political and funding environment. The aim was to keep afloat by responding to local need and demand with ESOL a central aspect of progression. Although subject to funding allocations and further cuts to the adult budget, they planned to maintain provision to meet local needs. If funding and flexibility allowed they would review their course structure, placing an emphasis on the increasing need for more affordable courses (lower hours and shorter courses). This would benefit the low paid and those with European language backgrounds. The college hoped to further develop JCP provision to help take the pressure off adult general ESOL waiting lists. They were mindful that any changes to government immigration policy would also influence strategy.

College 7’s ESOL plans reflected their priority position within the college. Its provision, which was undoubtedly effective in meeting students’ needs, supporting progression and generating income, undoubtedly stood the department in good stead. The college had identified ESOL provision as an important part of its strategy to engage with the wider community and remained committed to providing a substantial ESOL programme to meet local need. Looking forward, they had a real concern that continued cuts to SFA funding would produce year on year reductions in the volume of ESOL provision, further increasing the waiting time for students to access courses.

The key themes emerging from the colleges’ plans were that the future was very unclear: they knew there would be more adult budget cuts that in some cases would hit ESOL provision, but also hoped that the ongoing quality and sufficiency of provision would be considered wise to maintain. The government’s desire to keep a distance from micro-managing providers was understandable but not helpful in removing a cloud of uncertainty over the future of ESOL. Given that language underpins work, social and community structures it might appear anomalous that ESOL provision is not a national priority where demand is high.

College ESOL departments have done considerable work to embed their provision and practices in a variety of ways across the whole curriculum. Where this had been supported by the whole college strategy, the results were impressive: ESOL was not seen as something on the side without relevance to the catering or engineering departments. ESOL managers had integrated their work with other departments and demonstrated symbiotic partnerships. With the development of staff to deliver ESOL and literacy and English skills, the link between ESOL and literacy was becoming more seamless.

20

Colleges’ recommendations to policy makers and funders

Taking into account the likelihood of future funding cuts to the adult budget, colleges were asked for their recommendations to policy makers to safeguard ESOL provision.

An ESOL strategy needs to be put in place so that college management have the confidence to plan for the future and work with their local job centres and communities.

Recommendations from the recent Demos report, On Speaking Terms4, include the development of a national ESOL strategy.

Consider the future economy. ESOL provides migrants with the tools to find work and live independent lives. A once in a lifetime review of funding, which AoC is calling for in its 2015 manifesto, should include ESOL provision.

Develop review strategies for self-funding or learning accounts to enable ESOL students to gain access to language learning and thus jobs. Many ESOL learners have high-level qualifications from their home country and this potential is wasted if they cannot access opportunities to learn English.

Continue to fund non-accredited ESOL provision. The current reliance on expensive external accreditation at the lowest levels is a waste of resources. In a climate of reduced public spending it would be better to spend resources on learning rather than awarding organisations.

Following the NRDC report on ESOL qualifications, it was extremely reassuring to see that funders had understood the complexities of ESOL students and the need for flexible ESOL funding to accommodate different lengths of time to achieve qualifications depending on background and prior attainment. The mix of non-regulated, QCF and top-up seems to meet the requirements whilst staying to some extent aligned to the national framework. It will be important to keep ESOL requirements at the forefront of any ongoing debate on the topic.

Centralised Initial Assessment units. The recent Demos report, On Speaking Terms, recommends that local authorities lead a centralised approach to providing information about ESOL course availability. South and City College Birmingham’s work with Birmingham Adult Education Service has shown that a centralised initial assessment unit can work – students are referred to one point of contact, assessed and then placed on the next available course. There is clarity about availability of places and this could potentially result in clarity about the actual levels of demand in the locality.

Online and blended learning. For literate, well-educated migrant learners of English, provision could be supplemented by online learning packages.

‘Online’ learning or a ‘blended’ approach for learners at higher levels – levels 1 and 2 – is where learners are more likely to be in work and have less time to commit to attending a class. There are some unresolved issues around funding for this kind of approach, however.

4 http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/onspeakingterms On Speaking Terms, Demos report 2014

20 21

A secondary set of suggestions included:

Reducing class time (hours / weeks). In order to provide for as many learners as possible and limit the sheer size of waiting lists, several colleges have suggested that reducing the size of courses, along with increasing group size, forms part of the solution.

Recognition of the value of Functional Skills to ESOL learners. Support as many adult language learners as possible to achieve Functional Skills qualifications. These are recognised by both vocational providers and employers and so increase their chances of success in the jobs market.

Workplace learning. Re-introduce ESOL in the workplace – levy employers or introduce a match funding arrangement to encourage this work.

Include in apprenticeships. It may be useful to include ESOL in the apprenticeship framework so that learners’ ESOL needs are met directly.

There was also a recommendation from one college to introduce greater flexibility to setting fees for learners, especially for exams. However, this was countered by a college with a different experience: they considered that the administrative costs involved in collecting such fees outweighed the income.

22

Appendix A: Survey template

AoC ESOL development project – colleges’ report template

Please complete all sections as comprehensively as you can, indicating clearly where you have no data or views. The completed report should be between 1000 and 2000 words in length.

Organisation detailsCollege: Report author:Job title:Email address:Telephone number:Date report completed:

Use of the new QCF qualifications Which awarding organisation(s) (AO) are you using to accredit ESOL learners’ achieve-ments?

What was your rationale for choosing this AO?

Do you have any plans to change AO in future? (Please give reasons)

Has this made any key changes to your delivery patterns? If so, please describe the chang-es.

Has this made any key changes to your programmes? If so, please describe the changes.

What are the implications for your provision of the ESOL qualifications being on the QCF?

Do you anticipate impact on success rates, either favourable or adverse?

How do the new qualifications compare to the previous ESOL SfL qualifications, for exam-ple assessment requirements?

Does the QCF provide more flexibility for your ESOL provision? How far do the new qualifi-cations meet your learners’ needs?

Have ESOL teachers needed additional CPD to cope with new qualifications?

Non-accredited provision

Do you still need to use non-accredited provision?

Please describe how and when you use non-accredited provision. Include all instances whether for complete programmes, to support learners through Entry level 1, to bridge between levels, for ‘topping up’ learning or for other purposes.

22 23

Funding for ESOL provision What Skills Funding Agency funding do you have for ESOL provision? Please indicate funding and student numbers for both mainstream ESOL courses and JCP provision.

Describe how changes in adult funding have impacted on your ESOL provision.

What further changes do you anticipate for 2015/16? Please describe your future funding plans.

Impact on learner cohortsWhat do you see as the future of your ESOL programmes?

Are you seeing any patterns in terms of groups of learners you are able to accommodate and others whose needs you are less able to respond to?

Can you identify any specific communities that are more or less able to access ESOL provi-sion?

Are you still receiving referrals from JCP?

What is the quantity now compared with last term?

Are there any trends in the pattern of JCP referrals?

Waiting listsIs demand for ESOL provision growing or declining in your area?

What numbers do you have on waiting lists? (Please identify both those to be assessed and those waiting to be placed if held separately)

What proportion of your overall ESOL provision does this represent?

Do you know the characteristics of those on waiting lists?

Are you experiencing shifting patterns of ESOL communities? Please describe you recent and current experiences and the origins / language groups in the ESOL communities in your area.

ESOL learners on non-ESOL courses List any programmes that you use to place ESOL learners, for example vocational pro-grammes, numeracy or English with embedded ESOL.

What numbers of learners are on these courses?

College future plans for ESOL What is your college’s ESOL strategy over the next two to three years?

Do you consider that ESOL has sufficient priority in your organisation’s future strategic planning?

24

Given the potential for future reductions in the adult budget in the next three years do you have any suggestions to support ongoing provision? (Your recommendations will help to inform policy and funding decisions)

Any other pointsPlease record any other issues or comments related to your ESOL provision that you think may inform the final report and recommendations for BIS and the Skills Funding Agency.

24

© Association of Colleges 2015

2-5 Stedham Place, London WC1A 1HUT: 020 7034 9900 E: projects@aoc.co.uk