As FErret’s colleagues reported last week, there’s a lot of confusion when it comes to English for speakers of other languages (Esol).
The Department for Education makes it sound straightforward - apparently, the government always meets “50 per cent of the costs of Esol courses and the full costs in cases where people need Esol training to get off benefits and into work”. But on the ground, things are quite different.
Exactly how much (if anything) learners have to stump up varies by provider, with each making its own decisions as to what provision should be paid for.
Not surprisingly, this causes some consternation. This is explained in detail in the report of the London Adult and Community Learning Review - an area review purely for adult and community learning (ACL) providers carried out over recent months by the Holex organisation.
While this hasn’t been formally published yet, a copy seen by FErret offers an insight into the diverse, complex and little understood world of ACL provision.
Holex’s research reveals that the overall level of annual funding received by ACL providers in the capital amounts to £100 million, with 10 per cent of this coming from fees. Some of the work scrutinised - particularly Esol, literacy and numeracy - was found to be outstanding. Financial management in the sector is also described as “strong”.
But that’s not to say that there aren’t issues. Each service has its own “mission and vision”, which the report argues “inhibits a coherent offer to students and residents”. There is no common policy for Esol or basic skills, leading to substantial variation in the offering in different parts of the city. As a result, the report concludes, there is much “reinventing the wheel”.
At one end of the spectrum, there are parts of London not served by any community learning at all; at the other, there’s much duplication. While some ACL providers choose not to charge tuition fees, which helps students in the short term, in the longer term this could put the services themselves at risk, the report finds.
And the solution? More London-wide policies to cut down on duplication, and a focus on the most vulnerable people and those furthest away from work.
But what about mergers and efficiencies? In the first instance, the report suggests retaining the existing provider base and asking them to share back-office services. In the longer term, providers should consider creating four or five sub-regional services to coordinate provision. The findings are being disseminated across the sector, so it will be worth keeping an eye on what changes result.
Share your gossip, scandal and intrigue with FErret by emailing ferret@tesglobal.com
