I'd like to ask you to think about something.
Consider the following two descriptions of people.
Person one: just arrived in the country from Sudan, fleeing war and possible death, speaks Arabic and one of the 140 or so other languages from the country but cannot read or write in either, has no English whatsoever and requires a translator for even the most basic of communication.
Person two: is also from Sudan and speaks the same languages but is educated and literate in both, has been in the UK for about five years and has learned English to a level where day to day functioning in the country is fine, could perhaps get work but lacks the language skills to get a good job.
Now here's what I'd like you to think about. Obviously both of these people have the need for language classes and equally obviously they are not the same need. If you were only allowed to educate one of them which would you choose?
If you are anything like me you would choose the first person because their need is more immediate and more urgent. The second person has at least survival skills but the first person cannot function at all. It's clear to me that while the very idea of choosing is an anathema if it has to be done then you choose the one with the greatest need.
The education system however is set up with different priorities. The Government sees the primary, indeed the only, purpose of education as being getting people into work as quickly and as cheaply as possible and by that measure it's obvious that the second student should be chosen as a small amount of time and work will put them into a job.
The reason for my rant is that as of the next academic year we have removed our provision for what are called "pre-entry students", by which we mean people who have no English at all. This isn't a criticism of my college. To the contrary, we have maintained our provision for longer than most other colleges — we have done well to do so — but the bottom line is that such students are unlikely to progress quickly to an acknowledged qualification and without that there is no funding for them. No funding means the college loses money which they can't afford to do. Colleges are businesses not charities, they can't run courses at a loss. It isn't a college matter, it's a national one. I'm not sure of the logic behind depriving the very people who need it most of the chance to learn the language. I'm not sure, looking at the big picture, how creating a subculture of people who require help to achieve even the most basic things helps anybody. I'm not sure how the policy achieves the much touted aim of increased social cohesiveness. In fact, I'm not sure of what it achieves at all other than disenfranchising all those people.
Nevertheless, when people with no English turn up looking for courses we have no choice but to send them away, to say, in effect (though they won't understand it), "You can't have English lessons because you need English lessons."
Someone somewhere, someone in Government needs to take a long hard look at the logic of this. I won't be holding my breath waiting though.
Consider the following two descriptions of people.
Person one: just arrived in the country from Sudan, fleeing war and possible death, speaks Arabic and one of the 140 or so other languages from the country but cannot read or write in either, has no English whatsoever and requires a translator for even the most basic of communication.
Person two: is also from Sudan and speaks the same languages but is educated and literate in both, has been in the UK for about five years and has learned English to a level where day to day functioning in the country is fine, could perhaps get work but lacks the language skills to get a good job.
Now here's what I'd like you to think about. Obviously both of these people have the need for language classes and equally obviously they are not the same need. If you were only allowed to educate one of them which would you choose?
If you are anything like me you would choose the first person because their need is more immediate and more urgent. The second person has at least survival skills but the first person cannot function at all. It's clear to me that while the very idea of choosing is an anathema if it has to be done then you choose the one with the greatest need.
The education system however is set up with different priorities. The Government sees the primary, indeed the only, purpose of education as being getting people into work as quickly and as cheaply as possible and by that measure it's obvious that the second student should be chosen as a small amount of time and work will put them into a job.
The reason for my rant is that as of the next academic year we have removed our provision for what are called "pre-entry students", by which we mean people who have no English at all. This isn't a criticism of my college. To the contrary, we have maintained our provision for longer than most other colleges — we have done well to do so — but the bottom line is that such students are unlikely to progress quickly to an acknowledged qualification and without that there is no funding for them. No funding means the college loses money which they can't afford to do. Colleges are businesses not charities, they can't run courses at a loss. It isn't a college matter, it's a national one. I'm not sure of the logic behind depriving the very people who need it most of the chance to learn the language. I'm not sure, looking at the big picture, how creating a subculture of people who require help to achieve even the most basic things helps anybody. I'm not sure how the policy achieves the much touted aim of increased social cohesiveness. In fact, I'm not sure of what it achieves at all other than disenfranchising all those people.
Nevertheless, when people with no English turn up looking for courses we have no choice but to send them away, to say, in effect (though they won't understand it), "You can't have English lessons because you need English lessons."
Someone somewhere, someone in Government needs to take a long hard look at the logic of this. I won't be holding my breath waiting though.
3 comments:
On the surface this rule - the no qualification, no funding rule - appears sound, weeding out the Mickey Mousers, and this is no doubt the level at which it was scrutinised in government. The problem is that it is easy enough for even moderately scrupulous colleges to get round it at higher levels, but leaves the people with most need stranded.
Nice to see you. I thought you'd been kidnapped by aliens or something. I, for one, am not looking forward to trying to get this message across to the lowest level students.
BTW, how's the sneezing going?
Post a Comment