Language and employability skills provision for JCP-mandated customers - Association of Colleges November 2014
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Language and employability skills provision for JCP-mandated customers Association of Colleges November 2014
A report for the AoC on good practice in the provision of ESOL for JCP-mandated clients
with recommendations for an agreed assessment process.
From the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy,
Institute of Education, University of London.
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 2014
2Contents
Executive summary............................................................................................................................4
Key findings.........................................................................................................................................5
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................7
A summary of Skills Funding Agency and DWP guidance for ESOL Plus provision.................10
Collaboration between colleges and JCP teams...........................................................................14
Colleges’ ESOL Plus provision.........................................................................................................18
Impact of ESOL Plus provision........................................................................................................26
JCP expectations of the ESOL Plus provision................................................................................28
Managing the quality of provision..................................................................................................29
Strategic considerations..................................................................................................................33
Recommendations...........................................................................................................................37
Appendix A: JCP ESOL interview questions..................................................................................40
Appendix B: Individual Learning Plan content............................................................................42
Appendix C: The quality cycle........................................................................................................44
Appendix D: Learner end-of-course review..................................................................................45
3Executive summary
In 2013 the Government announced a new policy of mandating new JSA claimants with low
levels of English language to attend language classes. Prior to this, Jobcentre Plus (JCP) had
been able to refer and indeed to mandate their clients to a college ESOL course; now,
additional funding was allocated by the Government for people with ESOL needs to be
identified quickly, at the start of their claim, and to access early interventions to support
their employability within six months of commencing their claim. The policy was
implemented in April 2014: JCP were to screen new claimants and if a language barrier was
identified they were to be mandated and referred to appropriate English language training
classes in the further education sector. The additional funding was designated ‘ESOL Plus’,
routed through the Skills Funding Agency, and was to put on intensive ESOL programmes
to improve clients’ English speaking and listening skills.
This report was commissioned by the Association of Colleges as a result of difficulties
being encountered by some colleges in developing ESOL Plus provision. NRDC was asked
to carry out research on ESOL Plus programmes to summarise key principles underpinning
successful provision, propose recommendations for good practice collaborative working
between colleges and JCP, and to suggest a summative assessment framework.
Interviews with senior managers, ESOL curriculum leads and ESOL teachers found a variety
of course structures developed through collaborative working between colleges and JCP
within the overarching remit of: short intensive classes (maximum six months); at levels up
to and including Entry Level 2; with a focus on speaking and listening skills in the context of
employability. All the colleges receiving ESOL Plus funding for 2014/15 were selected on the
basis of being large ESOL providers based in the areas of greatest need identified by JCP.
4Key findings
• All colleges had a good history of working with JCP and recognised the importance of
developing mutual trust and confidence in each other’s work. JCP programmes
across the colleges included employability, IT skills, Sector Skills Work-based
Academies and all short continuous courses.
• Colleges held regular meetings with JCP, had regular communication and agreed
tracking systems. Staff training sessions have helped with mutual understanding of
the different cultures.
• JCP had not asked for prescribed outcomes as their targets are the numbers of
referrals; colleges were anticipating that this might change in the future and that
there would be more focus on the impact of training on language skills and on clients
getting into employment. JCP did not seek to be involved in course content or target
setting. Colleges believed their partnership history had enabled this situation
through progress made on other JCP courses (including their clients on generic ESOL
programmes). JCP showed interest in one provider’s use of initial assessment as a
final assessment (distance travelled).
• There was considerable variety of course structure from 4 weeks of 12 hours (48
hours total) to 15 weeks of 14 hours (210 hours total) with cohorts of 12 – 15 people.
Most colleges had organised their programmes into short incremental blocks of
learning and were able to negotiate with JCP for clients to be re-mandated on to a
second or even third block within the maximum six months. One college had a
programme of two 9-week blocks of 13.5 hours (243 hours total).
• Overall, colleges had developed ways of maximising the ‘six months’ mandation
period.
• JCP had improved accuracy of referrals using a newly developed screening tool.
Colleges found that JCP had a much better understanding of how difficult language
learning can be, of the extreme literacy needs people may have, how confidence is
developed through learning, and the barriers faced through lack of language.
• Providers were taking referrals within three weeks of their assessment (some on a
weekly basis) either onto new courses or infilling on existing. This delivery model
impacted on enrolment and exam staff although one college noted that enrolment
staff preferred dealing with regular smaller numbers to the large twice-yearly
intakes.
• Some differences in learner characteristics were noted: more men, high volume of
older people (60s), more Roma. Colleges have seen some reluctant learners, unusual
for ESOL classes, which suggests they were reaching the harder-to-reach who had
not accessed the programme voluntarily before. There were reports of more learners
with life-coping issues related to mental/physical health, homelessness, drug and
alcohol abuse. Again, impact on staffing (student support services was noted).
• There has been an impact on college staffing requiring additional staff to cope with
the increased student numbers, the range of student needs and the complexity of
5short course planning. Colleges have seen additional recruitment of ESOL teachers,
administrators, and student support staff, and in one college a second ESOL
curriculum coordinator.
• College staff at all levels could see that the majority of ESOL learners wanted to get
work and wanted to improve their job prospects. They saw their role as being
‘pushers’ rather than ‘pullers’, developing independence skills as well as nurturing
learners.
• All colleges were using RARPA processes to accredit non-regulated provision, and
speaking and listening qualifications where appropriate for learners (ESB
qualifications were the preferred). All delivery was contextualised with employability
outcomes. All providers included IT training and access of the DWP Universal Job
Match system in their Schemes of Work.
• RARPA processes in each college were found to be extremely thorough. Evidence
was recorded on ILPs and mapped to the ESOL core curriculum. There was regular
recording of assessment (daily or weekly). All learners were given their final ILP with
a record of achievement which could be shared with JCP. Colleges had replicated
their national qualifications moderation and verification procedures for their
non-regulated ESOL provision.
• All colleges have strong support from the Principal and senior management team.
One reported that the whole college mission was predicated on acquisition of basic
skills. Commitment was marked in all colleges. Many reported a change in teachers’
attitudes where staff had now completely engaged with the programme and saw
their role less about nurturing students and more about developing independence
skills to get peopleinto work.
• ESOL staff were fully trained: ESOL has a reputation for having the greatest number
of staff who have qualified in their subject specialism. This includes agency teachers.
ESOL teacher training starting from CELTA through to full teaching qualification has
been a long-established progression route for new teachers.
• Positive and regular use was being made in at least two colleges of the National
Careers Service.
• There were far fewer issues now around class disruption caused by signing-on: one
college was working with JCP on the viability of having a JCP Work Coach on-site to
manage claimants signing on.
• Although there was no requirement to get clients into jobs it did count as an
achievement outcome and one college was already collecting data on job outcomes
and developing case studies to promote courses. Other colleges recognised that
collecting employment data would in future be required for destination evidence and
were starting to set up systems.
6Introduction
1. Project objectives
NRDC was commissioned by the Association of Colleges (AoC) to carry out this small scale
research into the provision funded by ‘ESOL Plus’: this is mandated ESOL provision for JCP
new claimants who are identified by JCP (JCP) as having a language need that is a barrier to
employability.
The objectives of this research were to review current provider practice in accommodating
ESOL Plus-funded learners; to establish current policy and funding directives; and to
summarise key principles underpinning successful provision. This report to AoC presents
the findings of the interviews with recommendations for good practice collaborative
working between colleges and JCP, and for a summative assessment framework.
2. Context
In 2006, Jobcentre Plus funding for basic skills training, including ESOL, was transferred to
the Learning and Skills Council (which was replaced by the Skills Funding Agency in 2010).
This funding was used to develop a national Employability Skills Programme (ESP) of short
intensive training designed to support people on work-related benefits to move closer to
the labour market by improving their literacy, numeracy and/or English language skills. This
programme was a significant step in bringing together the two agencies to work with
learners on work-related benefits.
Traditionally, FE providers have not found it easy to align ESOL course provision with JCP
benefit rules but in recent years there has been greater collaboration between BIS and
DWP and between Skills Funding Agency and JCP to improve partnership working for the
benefit of the client-learner. This has been helped by efforts by both to understand each
other’s funding rules, targets and priorities. The ESP programme was ended in 2010 but
many colleges continued to run ESOL programmes to meet Jobcentres’ requirements.
Where English language need has been identified as a barrier to employment, JCP can refer
or mandate their customers to attend ESOL classes. The Skills Funding Agency has worked
with their funded providers in recent years to support them in the development of ESOL
provision which will best meet JCP requirements (in terms of course length, course intensity
and reporting).
The 2013 Government Comprehensive Spending Review introduced a new policy
requirement to identify claimants of Job Seekers Allowance (and equivalent Universal
Credit group) with little or no spoken English, at the start of their claim. They were to be
speedily referred to appropriate English language training with a local Skills Funding
Agency provider. The funding to support this training has been routed via the Skills Funding
Agency and is termed ‘ESOL Plus’ mandation funding.
It should also be noted that at the time this funding was introduced, the ESOL Skills for Life
suite of qualifications was being reviewed with new qualifications to be available in the QCF
by January 2015.
73. Scope of the research
NRDC was asked to carry out interviews with eight colleges, JCP staff and representatives
from BIS, DWP and Skills Funding Agency. Interviews were carried out between 18 June
and 11 July 2014.
The following colleges were interviewed for this work and thanks are due for their
cooperation, their generosity with time and paperwork, and their openness in presenting
the advantages and issues of delivering this ESOL provision for JCP customers.
• Bolton College
• Bradford College
• Greenwich Community College
• Hackney Community College
• LeSoCo
• Leeds City College
• Solihull College
• South and City College Birmingham
4. Research methodology
The interview schedule is attached in Appendix A. In the majority of cases interviews were
carried out at college premises with a senior member of staff (Deputy or Vice Principal,
Director with responsibility for ESOL), the lead manager for ESOL across the college and a
teacher(s). The aim of the interviews was to ascertain the commitment to ESOL Plus
provision at all levels, best practice with regards to organisation and JCP collaboration,
and to explore the detail of the provision in terms of initial assessment, course structure
and content, the reality of delivery and the effectiveness of the quality assurance systems.
Interviews were arranged with colleges who had significant ESOL Plus provision and were
scheduled at an early stage in the management of this to elicit good practice to support
other colleges and to anticipate future requirements.
It transpired that one of the providers, whilst actively engaged in working with JCP on
current provision, has a comparatively small JCP ESOL provision and does not have any
ESOL Plus funding allocation. It was decided to include their responses as in many cases
this shed light on the efficacy of different ways of working. It also provided a foil
highlighting the difficulties that smaller ESOL providers continue to deal with in balancing
JCP and generic provision. Interviews were analysed and written up to reflect the following
aspects of the provision:
• Collaboration between colleges and JCP
• How ESOL Plus provision is being managed
• How ESOL Plus provision is quality assured
• Measures in place to assess outcomes and impact of provision
5. Terminology
The terms ‘learner’, ‘customer’ and ‘client’ have been used interchangeably in this report to
denote the people at the centre of this work i.e. the recipients of both benefits and ESOL
8classes. The choice is dependent on the context and acknowledges the two main parties
involved in delivery (the college and JCP staff).
Non-regulated provision refers to programmes that do not lead to a national qualification.
Non-regulated funding is the term given to the funding that is used for non-regulated
provision.
Recognising and recording progress and achievement (RARPA), in the education sector in
England, is a tool to measure the progress and achievement of learners on further
education courses that do not lead to an externally accredited award or qualification. The
majority of such courses are in the adult and community learning sector. This tool plays an
important part in ESOL provision. The term ‘Work Coaches’ is now used for staff formerly
known as JCP Advisers.
Mainstream ESOL provision refers to all ESOL provision run by a provider that is not
subject to the demands of JCP ESOL provision – that is, a provider’s traditional ESOL
provision. Many colleges now use the term ‘generic’ ESOL provision, possibly recognising
that JCP ESOL is now becoming their mainstream provision.
9A summary of Skills Funding Agency and DWP guidance for ESOL Plus
provision
1. Allocation of funding
17 JCP districts (below) were identified as areas expected to see increased demand for
ESOL provision as a result of new claimant mandation, and £30m of new ESOL Plus
funding was allocated for provision in 2014/15. £5m was allocated in 2013/14 for
immediate response to JCP. A further £45m is available for 2015/16.1
• Birmingham and Solihull
• Black Country
• Derbyshire
• Gloucestershire and West of England
• Greater Manchester East and West
• Greater Wessex
• Leicestershire and Northamptonshire
• Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland
• London and Home Counties
• Mercia
• Merseyside
• North East Yorkshire and the Humber (Hull)
• Northumberland, Tyne and Wear (Newcastle)
• South Yorkshire
• Staffordshire and Shropshire
• Thames Valley
• West Yorkshire
Skills Funding Agency reserved £2m funding for additional identified demand. A further 8
areas were identified as potential demand areas.
• Cumbria and Lancashire
• Durham and Tees Valley
• East Anglia
• Essex
• Greater Manchester Central and Cheshire
• Northumberland, Tyne and Wear (excluding Newcastle)
• Surrey and Sussex
• North East Yorkshire and the Humber (excluding Hull)
This funding was specifically for:
• new benefit claimants (from 28 April 2014 onwards)
• with low levels of English language (identified as below Entry Level 1 or at Entry
Level 1)
• who are mandated by JCP Work Coaches.
1 New English language requirements issued by Skills Funding Agency and Department for Work and
Pensions (Skills Funding Agency – P – 140063)
10‘They must not use the
additional funding for Funding was allocated by the Skills Funding Agency to
learners deemed not to be providers delivering large proportions of low level
ESOL provision in 2012/13 with the proviso that it was
in scope, that is, mandated
only to be used on new claimant referrals and could
by JCP and assessed with not be used for existing ESOL provision, which was to
English language skills below continue to be funded from their Adult Single Budget.
Entry Level 2.’
2. Screening of claimants
A new screening tool was developed for JCP in February 2014, to support them to
identify low level English language speakers, below Entry Level 2. Using this, JCP mandated
customers to local colleges in receipt of ESOL Plus funding. Providers worked with JCP to
set up ESOL Plus courses from April 2014, working with an allocation from Skills Funding
Agency for the remainder of 2013/14 up to the end of July 2014 and a further allocation for
2014/15.
3. Eligibility for ESOL Plus provision
Mandated ESOL Plus provision was targeted at new claimants of JSA and UC (all
work-related requirements group) from 28 April 2014 onwards. It was not intended to fund
‘existing’ ESOL learners i.e. those already on programme.
All new claimants are screened by JCP at the start of their claim and mandated to ESOL
Plus provision if an ESOL need below Entry Level 2 is identified. JCP continued to refer and
mandate claimants at higher levels if they believed their language need was a barrier to
employment, although such learners were not eligible for funding via ESOL Plus.
ESOL Plus provision relates to provision focused on speaking and listening and
contextualized within employability skills.
4. Required outcomes of the ESOL Plus provision
ESOL learners on this provision were expected to improve their speaking and listening skills
to Entry level 1 or Entry level 2 evidenced either by a regulated ESOL qualification at one of
those levels, or by RARPA documentation linked to the national literacy standards where a
non-regulated programme is more appropriate to the learner’s needs.
5. Course length
DWP required that a learner would be on ESOL Plus provision for a maximum of 6 months
and their expectation was that training would last for between 7 and 20 weeks, and for
less than 16 hours per week. The actual programme length and hours per week was to
be agreed between the provider and the Jobcentre. Keeping it below 16 hours per week
ensured that the learner could attend the Jobcentre and undertake JCP agreed activities
without disruption to their ESOL programme.
6. JCP conditionality
JCP conditionality is the use of conditions attached to the provision of benefits. In the case
of ESOL Plus learners, the condition of them receiving benefits during their first six months
11was that they attend the ESOL programme to which they have been mandated. If they
failed to attend, JCP could apply sanctions resulting in them losing benefits. Providers
were responsible for providing regular attendance data to JCP.
Failure to pass an ESOL exam was not one of JCP’s conditions and a learner could be
re-mandated to further ESOL training. This decision would be made at local level by JCP.
7. Support for learners
JCP can reimburse their customers for travel and childcare costs incurred in attending
training.
Providers can draw down learning support funds from the Skills Funding Agency for
learners with an identified learning need. To do this, providers must conform to the Skills
Funding Agency rules2 which state:
‘We will fund learners with learning difficulties or disabilities as set out in the Apprenticeships,
Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. That Act states that we are responsible for: ‘Securing
the provision for adults who:
• are aged 19 and over, and under 25, who are not subject to an Education, Health and
Care Plan (see note 13); or
• are aged 25 and over and who self-declare they have a learning difficulty or disability.’
Funding guidance 2014/15 p57
To access this additional funding, therefore, an ESOL learner would need to self-declare a
learning difficulty. This might not seem an appropriate support route to many providers.
In order to claim funding, providers must ensure the following procedures are all
followed:
• “227.1. carry out a robust assessment to identify the support the learner needs;
• 227.2. agree and record the outcome of your assessment in the Learning
Agreement;
• 227.3. deliver support to meet the learner’s identified needs, and review progress
and continuing needs as appropriate;
• 227.4. record all outcomes on the Learning Agreement and keep evidence of the
assessment of the needs; and
• 227.5. in the ILR, report that a learner has a learning support need associated with
an identified learning aim, by entering code LSF1 in the ‘Learning Delivery Funding
and Monitoring’ field and entering the corresponding dates in the ‘Date applies
from’ and ‘Date applies to’ fields.”
Funding guidance 2014/15 p59
JCP advisers can consult Disability Employment Advisers and Work Psychologists
regarding claimants with additional support needs.
2 Skills Funding Agency Funding Rules 2014 to 2015, Version 2
128. Interpretations of the guidance
During this research, alternative interpretations of the guidance were noted. At one college,
the term ‘new claimants’ was misunderstood as ‘new arrivals claiming benefits’ and was
considered to be the cause of low referrals in the summer term 2014. There has been
dialogue with their JCP liaison about extending eligibility to non-new claimants which
should be further explored with Skills Funding Agency.
Another provider understood the reference in the guidance regarding the ‘additionality’
of this funding to mean that in order to accept it they could not reduce their Adult Single
Budget (ASB) ESOL numbers, despite cuts to the ASB. As a result, they turned down extra
funding whilst knowing that there would be increased demand from JCP, as they did not
want to destabilise the overall college position.
13Collaboration between colleges and JCP teams
Since research carried out by NIACE
(unpublished, 2013) into the working
relationships between SFA providers ‘JCP are on same wave length. We’ve tried
of ESOL and JCP, this report evidences to put on what they want. Things have
notable development here. In the NIACE been successful. They want it to work.
report the focus had been on the They have a level of trust that we’re not
importance of building relationships, going to put on something rubbish and
of colleges being more proactive in
they respect our professional knowledge
engaging with JCP and for colleges to
examine their own systems and delivery without being too prescriptive.’
processes to be more accommodating
of JCP requirements.
Seven of the eight colleges interviewed indicated
‘When we first started in college that the collaboration was more deep rooted; that
continued and extensive working with JCP had led
to work with JCP one member of
to very meaningful partnership activity; and that
staff worked on the liaison and there was an equality of ownership of ESOL
spent all their time in JCP to provision.
explain what we do. When you
get the ball rolling it gradually By considering what had contributed to making
gets easier. Success breeds the partnership work, some common themes
emerged from these colleges.
success.’
‘Relationships are very good with JCP. The college has a team of
Employment Placement Officers whose role it is to liaise with JCP.
The coordinator is in JCP offices every week.’
1. Understanding how JCP works
‘The college has legal
The seven colleges with ESOL Plus funding all fed
back the importance of learning how JCP works, responsibility to report back
what their priorities and targets were and how to concerns/absences to JCP.
accommodate their needs in the college Advisers are very strict in
programme. This had often been learned the interpreting rules.’
hard way through losing learners from
programmes to attend short training courses or to the Work Programme (WP), often at
critical times such as final exams. Learning more about the strict rules that JCP staff had
to work to was insightful to providers. Colleges were much more aware that many of their
generic ESOL learners were on JSA and that after a year on JSA a claimant automatically
moves to a Work Programme. One college reported how frustrated they had been in the
past whereas now, ‘It has made us aware that we need to check eligibility of all learners. We
have put eligibility questions in the Initial Assessment, ‘How long have you been
signing on?’ ’
And the message, from all, was that teachers needed to understand these rules as well so
14that they can best support their students with all aspects of their job searching.
Conversely, JCP staff had in some cases not understood how SFA funding allocations work
e.g. there was an assumption that more enrolments would generate more funding for a
provider.
This mutual understanding leads to the possibility of negotiation between the two
organisations.
For the college with smaller JCP ESOL and no ESOL Plus provision, the level of collaboration
was less advanced with no direct relationship between JCP and the college ESOL team, and
therefore no opportunity for either party to appreciate the other’s focus and priorities.
Larger providers were better able to provide flexible programmes that met JCP needs for
short courses and frequent intakes. JSA customers have six months from a new claim to
improve their ESOL skills and need to be placed on a learning programme straightaway to
maximize that opportunity. It was generally seen to be a greater risk for a smaller provider
to plan several new intakes that might not materialize.
2. Being responsive to JCP
This was highlighted as key to the relationship with JCP. One provider noted that they had
introduced three interim ESOL Plus programmes on 29 April this year for referrals.
‘Even JCP were All providers realised the criticality to JCP of being able to refer
surprised by our new ESOL learners on a regular and frequent basis. One college
speed in getting this noted that this was JCP’s overriding concern: reaching their
off the ground!’ referrals’ target was as important, if not more so, as getting
learners through a programme as quickly as possible. The
research showed that all of the ESOL Plus providers had been able to negotiate longer
overall learning programmes with the use of repeating blocks of learning. Regular referrals
and short courses (regardless of the fact that learners would need to work through more
than one of these) were the main requirements for JCP.
That need to be responsive was reflected in other JCP work that colleges were engaged in:
• Sector Skills Work-based Academies, working on specific vocational skills in
conjunction with local employers to recruit new, trained staff
• ICT courses
• Employability courses
• Basic skills courses
Although it had not been confirmed at the time of writing this report, one college was in
discussion with JCP to arrange for a JCP ‘signing-on station’ to be located at the college to
facilitate all the college’s JSA claimants signing on without missing classes.
3. Senior management involvement
It was evident from the senior managers interviewed that they had the support of their
Senior Management Team in promoting ESOL across the college. In some cases this had
15been hard fought for and two colleges fed back that it was still difficult to persuade
vocational directors of the importance of progression routes for ESOL learners onto
mainstream vocational programmes. The additional funding which in all cases
represented a significant proportion of the overall college income had definitely helped
to reinforce the position of ESOL at a time when all other adult skills funding was being
reduced.
Most colleges reported that they had ‘The JCP Regional manager is very
benefited from a very supportive and reasonable and has taken time to
understanding senior manager at JCP,
understand. He has listened [to us]
although not all frontline JCP staff were
flexible. and taken in what is said.’
There was also a perception that JCP in London had a more flexible relationship with
colleges than in the north of England.
One college noted that due to high turnover of advisers there was an ongoing risk of
‘losing the JCP people that we have good relationships with’. Another also commented on the
‘churn’ of JCP Work Coaches.
4. Good communications
All the ESOL Plus colleges interviewed cited regular communication as an essential part in
the relationship building. Designated contacts at appropriate levels in both organisations
was ‘a must’, e.g. at operational level this meant weekly meetings and a way of reporting
immediately when a problem arose.
‘The teaching team for JCP Within colleges, structures needed to be in place for
ESOL went to all Jobcentres teachers to report absences and difficulties.
and promoted the course.’
Also stressed was the need for teachers and JCP Work
Coaches to meet face to face. This was often through training sessions put on by both
parties as induction to how they work.
One provider held a training session for JCP staff on the use of their new screening tool
and ways of identifying the lower level needs of ESOL candidates. (Interestingly, JCP could
describe the tool but were not able to share it, it being JCP property.) At the training, one
JCP Work Coach made references to a person’s ‘lilt’ as a way of identifying ESOL need,
which trainers recognised as meaning ‘accent’. At the end of the session the Work Coach
fed back on a sticky note, ‘Now I know it’s not about the lilt. Now I know there are certain
things that make an E1 learner.’ The Work Coach had recognised that focusing on the
accent had been a barrier to analysis of ESOL need.
In some instances college staff carried out their initial assessment at JCP premises
although for the majority this was managed at the college both to cater for the large
numbers of referrals, and to familiarise potential students with the route to college and
the environment.
165. Advantages of working with JCP
‘We have common objectives
‘It has facilitated ESOL access.’
and seeing us work together
‘It stops us losing our students.’ has a positive impact on the
(Stated by three providers) students.’
‘We are meeting the needs of the local community.’
College staff at all levels could see that the majority of ESOL learners wanted to get work
and wanted to improve their job prospects. They saw their role as being ‘pushers’ rather
than ‘pullers’, developing independence skills rather than nurturing learners.
17Colleges’ ESOL Plus provision
1. Course length and structure
All colleges were running short intensive courses to meet JCP needs. These varied in
length from 4 weeks to 15 weeks and in intensity from 13.5 to 15 hours per week.
Colleges found that the intensive nature of the courses supported learner progression. It
was noted, however, that for many learners these hours would not support English
language improvement up to Entry Level 2 and that the distance travelled was entirely
dependent on the learner’s starting point (ref AoC ESOL qualifications report 20143).
The shortest learning block was 48 GLH and the longest 210 GLH. Most colleges had
developed short incremental programmes to allow for learner progression where this
need was agreed with JCP. There were varying expectations of learners being allowed to
do more than one block.
Colleges were all aware that in order for a learner to continue learning after completing
one block they must be re-referred by JCP. There is no automatic extension of the original
programme, and the earlier that JCP was informed of a potential need for re-referring, the
easier the process was. DWP have stated that a re-referral would count as a new referral
for JCP targets.
Table A compares course provision of the providers interviewed.
Two colleges were working in partnership with their local Adult Education Service (AES). In
one of these partnerships the collaboration involved a shared Initial Assessment
service run by the college and bought into by the AES. They also shared a scheme of work.
Referrals would be enrolled to whichever provider had the next appropriate intake and in
line with proportions of allocated numbers. The college partner reflected that initially the
AES had initially struggled to accommodate JCP needs of short courses and regular,
frequent intakes, and to resolve this had turned its provision ‘on its head’: by taking a risk
on the numbers, allocating its most prestigious premises in the city centre for JCP ESOL
Plus learners, and recruiting additional staff on flexible conditions to maintain a
continuous programme.
All colleges except the one that was not in receipt of ESOL Plus funding took learners
described as pre-entry. This description was used to denote learners who are not literate
in their own language usually because they have had little or no primary schooling in their
own country. Some providers preferred the term ESOL literacy or ESOL E1 literacy as a
more accurate description of the skills need. JCP, however, have now become familiar with
the term pre-entry and its intended meaning, so it is perhaps unlikely that the usage will
change. The courses such learners were initially enrolled on were literacy courses with
the development of language skills embedded in the teaching of literacy. At this level, oral
language can be at varying degrees of proficiency and it should not be assumed that
‘illiterate’ ESOL learners do not have spoken English language skills. It is to reflect the
range of level across the four skills of reading, writing, speaking and listening, that the
3 ESOL Qualifications and funding in 2014: Issues for consideration, http://www.aoc.co.uk/sites/default/
files/ESOL.Qualifications%20Report%20%28Jan%202014%29.pdf
18term ‘spikey profile’ is frequently used.
All colleges running ESOL Plus courses had explicitly embedded employability skills in their
programmes. In three instances this had been shared with JCP but this was not routinely
the case and on the whole JCP was satisfied to leave providers to develop and run their
courses without JCP intervention. This was considered to be a reflection on the level of
confidence JCP had with regard to the quality and content of provision.
19Table A Comparison of course provision across providers
A B C D E F G H
ESOL Plus None £1.2m Almost £2,500 £0.420m £0.554m £1.2m £0.5m
funding 14/15 £0.5m
How long work 4 years long history 1 year ESOL. several years 3 6 - 7 years 5 years
with JCP on ESOL? longer on
other
provision
Course details:
• week 10 8 12 4 12 12 9 4 to 7 15 12
• hours 9 12 12 12 12 15 13.5 15 14 10
per week
• format 3 mornings 2.5 days
or 3
afternoons
Total 90 96 144 48 144 180 121.5 60 - 105 210 120
Expected poss 2 poss 2 2-5 2 2 2 poss 2 poss 2
occurrence
Possible max 192 240 240 288 324 243 420 240
Students per 10 15 15 - 18
group
Referred levels E1, E2 PE E1 PE, E1 PE E1 PE, E1 PE, E1 PE, E1 PE, E1
Course levels PE, E1, E2 PE, E1, E2 PE, E1, E2 PE, E1, E2 PE, E1, E2 PE, E1, E2 PE, E1, E2
No of intakes 3 pa every 2 every 2 every 2 3 new 4 new every half Weekly, can Weekly
weeks and weeks and weeks and groups groups term and infill up to
infill infill infill every 6 every 6 can infill into 4 weeks of
weeks weeks and courses up course
and infilll infilll to 3 weeks
Teach all modes? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Qualifications ESB where ESB where ESB where ESB where N C&G
possible possible possible possible
RARPA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - all do
first
202. Initial screening
In April 2014, JCP introduced a screening tool, ‘English Language Screening Aide’, that
comprises a one-page quick reference table with sample descriptors of language at each
level from below Entry Level 1 up to Entry Level 3, and an accompanying text document
with an extended description of skills at each level and a more detailed list of descriptors.
It was developed by NIACE with reference to the ESOL Core Curriculum, and according to
most providers has greatly improved the accuracy of the levels at which JCP is referring
customers. The term ‘pre-entry’ is used, defined as ESOL with literacy needs, although the
descriptor relates to speaking and listening skills.
One college reported that as a result of the screening tool their JCP office was exclusively
sending Entry Level 1 learners, resulting in becoming oversubscribed at that level but with
insufficient numbers at other levels. The range of screening was discussed with JCP which
helped to redress the situation. Another provider who had received large numbers of
referrals at too high a level prior to the tool being used had subsequently only had six
people incorrectly referred.
3. Initial and diagnostic assessment
A variety of initial assessments (IA) was used, all developed by the providers themselves,
including a spoken component in all cases.
One college had developed an IA to be completed by learners at the start and again at end
of programme so that progression could be clearly and quickly identified by the teacher,
the learner and JCP.
One college held regular IA sessions for approx. 90 people referred from JCP. These
sessions were managed by four staff (two ESOL teachers and two employability support
staff), took the whole morning and included free writing, literacy and a five-minute
speaking assessment.
Another provider used the BKSB IA in addition to their own ESOL IA.
Diagnostic assessment was used for ESOL Plus learners to get a more detailed analysis of
skills needs but two colleges used a less comprehensive version because of having less
time to carry out assessment and because of having less learning time; their need was for
an overview of priority skills to work on.
4. Schemes of work
All providers had Schemes of Work (SoW) for their programmes. In most cases the SoWs
comprised learning blocks of 4 or more weeks that could be repeated if a learner was
re-referred by JCP. The learning skills were the same in each block but the topic was
different so that students were not duplicating learning but rather re-enforcing and
building on their skills in different contexts. As an example, one college developed the
following SoW structure for each delivery level. They used the same structure for every
group but the content was different. In this SoW the provider had developed five different
blocks of content.
21Table B Example Scheme of Work
Week Language skill Topic - Block 1 Topic - Block 2
Week 1 Language development Greetings Food and drink,
and language input Basic skills - alphabet, shopping
numbers
Week 2 Language development About ourselves Where I live
and language input
Week 3 Applying learning to a work Jobs and vocabulary Customer service,
situation and employability getting to an interview
skills
Week 4 Applying learning to ESB Practice, revision, Practice, revision,
tests: use of presentations, assessment assessment
role play
In addition to assessment for learning forming the core of each learning activity, every 4
weeks there was in-class assessment which contributed to the ILP with targets for both
language and employability. In every provider SoW there was particular emphasis on
reading and writing in the pre-entry literacy block.
Reading and writing skills were not ignored at any level and this college had agreed that
with their JCP.
Another college used the Learning Unlimited (previously LLU+) ESOL literacy course for
their lowest level learners, covering all four skills equally.
In all cases, SoWs were developed by staff with experience of ESOL or EFL, and
employability skills.
5. Lesson plans
As would be expected there was a wide range of lesson plans with varying levels of
detail always linked to the ESOL core curriculum/literacy standards, identifying the
learning contexts, the specific language skills to be covered, and the learning and
assessment activities. Lesson plans specified differentiation both supportive and
stretch-and-challenge, assessment activities, ICT work, and were contextualised in
employability skills.
All ESOL Plus colleges held induction sessions at the start of programme to lay ground
rules, particularly attendance and punctuality; to cover health and safety and equality and
diversity; and to complete some diagnostic assessment (partial rather than full on the
shorter courses). One college included a tour of the library which has an ESOL readers’
section.
6. ICT
Five colleges noted that they included ICT in all ESOL Plus programmes and a sixth
included in their programmes for Entry Levels 1 and 2.
22One of these had allocated one lesson per week (2.5 hrs) for ICT work.
Four referred specifically to accessing the JCP Universal Job Match system within classes.
One had a Digital Inclusion Pilot project to support the high number of local households
without access to a PC. This project provided a drop-in centre which ESOL Plus learners
could also access.
7. Employability topics
A read across all SoWs provided the following list of skills to be developed and practised in
ESOL Plus programmes. Most SoWs contained many if not all of this content.
• Making job/career plans
• Reading job adverts
• Completing job applications
• Filling in various forms
• Job searching
• Creating a CV
• Reading Health and Safety instructions
• Recognising common signs and notices
• Reading a payslip
• Using the phone
• Following instructions
• Opening a bank account
• Extracting information from maps, pictures and diagrams
• Writing simple sentences
• Using a timetable
• Travelling
• Using IT
• Accessing JCP’s Universal Job Match website
In no instances had JCP contributed to this list of skills although one college had received
a sheet from JCP that described the Successful Job Seeker which they understood to be a
national product. That sheet, included at Appendix B, does share some common skills with
the list above but reflects a JCP customer with language skill levels higher than Entry Level 2
and is unlikely to have been drawn up specifically for an ESOL learner.
8. Progression and re-referrals
The main progression route identified for ESOL Plus learners was on to the next ESOL
programme wherever possible. Colleges found that JCP was, on the whole, happy to
re-refer learners on to the next ESOL Plus block provided this was within the six-month
limit for mandated ESOL learning. In some cases, providers needed to make a case for this
to happen and to raise the possibility in good time before the end of their current
programme so that JCP Work Coaches had time to consider and authorise the re-referral.
This progression might be on to another course at the same level or on to the next learning
level.
Reviewing the re-referral process further into the delivery programme there were issues
23with the speed at which JCP were re-referring learners which had caused problems for
providers and meant that in some cases there was not a seamless transition for learners
from one study block to another.
For some learners, particularly those at higher levels of Entry Level 1 literacy (pre-entry) or
at Entry Level 1, progression might be on to nationally accredited speaking and listening
qualifications at Entry Level 1 or 2.
Some colleges did report JCP agreement to learners moving onto their higher level
mainstream ESOL or basic skills provision. Where this had happened, the college had to
move the learner off ESOL Plus funding onto Adult Skills Budget (ASB) funding.
None of the colleges reported yet that they had been able to transfer an ESOL Plus
learner onto a vocational course within their organisation, although one college did stress
that they have worked hard to build arrangements with their vocational departments to
take ESOL students onto mainstream vocational courses. They have also facilitated the
development of Level 1 vocational courses with ESOL as feeders for Level 2 courses,
recognising that one of the best places for ESOL learners to develop their language is the
work environment. This college also remarked that the college mantra to ‘provide every
opportunity to every learner irrespective of their background or ethnic origin’ had raised
the profile of English, maths and ESOL within the college in the last 12 months and had
flipped the dominance of vocational departments in favour of essential skills. Both
director and manager are on national groups (e.g. AoC groups) which they also find has
helped the profile.
This college also gave examples of their ESOL successes including people going to
university, people acting as student mentors and another who had opened their own
hairdressing salon. Their explanation of this was, ‘Once they get the language skills, they just
fly’.
Two colleges told of their engagement with the National Careers Service (NCS) and had
been proactive in getting them to work with ESOL Plus students. The NCS is funded on
the basis of its interventions and was happy to engage with a large cohort of students
who would greatly benefit from help with job search and career planning. Noted
successes were of one student getting help to pay for driving lessons, and another
getting enrolled onto a course to become a Zumba dance instructor. The college that
worked closely with its Adult Education partner linked them with the NCS so that their
ESOL Plus learners would also get this support.
With regard to progression into a job, there was a wide range of responses, from the
college who had no knowledge of ESOL student job destinations and considered it too
difficult to try to get information, to those who recognised that they should be doing more
to track learners when they finish the course. One college was actually getting
employment destination data from its local JCP although this was considered by others to
be a unique situation. One college was confidently collecting data on a large proportion
of its ESOL students. This college recorded job results/prospects on an exit interview with
each student and required ESOL teachers to continue to maintain contact with
ex-students. Another college believed that the SFA had now reached an agreement with
JCP about sharing employment data which would be immensely useful in assessing
impact. On further investigation this was found to be a BIS consultation on
24Outcome-Based Success Measures4.
One college stated that getting employment should count as a ‘success’, while another said
that it did.
One college is beginning to look holistically across its JCP programmes for opportunities for
ESOL Plus students to engage e.g. in the Sector-Based Work Academies if jobs are
appropriate to their skills. Its JCP partners are interested in this approach.
4 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/342871/bis-14-543-
consultation-outcome-based-success-measures-for-adult-further-education-v15.pdf
25Impact of ESOL Plus provision
1. Impact on learners
Differences were noted by all colleges between their mainstream ESOL cohorts of learners
and the JCP ESOL cohorts, to greater and lesser degrees. Three colleges stated that they
were getting more men and a greater number of older people, and wondered why they
hadn’t claimed before, although this might be more a reflection on the JCP incentives now
to refer people who they might have looked over prior to mandation. There was some
sense that some of these learners were possibly those previously considered the
harder-to-reach, certainly people who wouldn’t
have come voluntarily, people who hadn’t even ‘They are delighted to be
considered coming to classes. On the other hand, there and they know they
many of the ESOL Plus mandate learners are jumping the queue.’
recognised their luck in getting onto a course.
Colleges reported more from the Eastern European Roma communities, more African
Caribbean people, more Bengalis, many more with welfare needs (including homeless
people, people with mental and physical health issues, drug users) and life-coping
difficulties. One provider told of three homeless people in a group of ten students. They
discussed the problems with JCP who were ‘very helpful in these situations. They understand
and refer them to other agencies.’
Two colleges talked about the very high numbers of people with low level literacy.
One college remarked that sometimes it was ‘our own learners who have been found out.’
This college also had to ask one learner to leave and referred them back to JCP because
they were in excruciating pain as a result of their poor health.
One provider had noticed that those on Employment Support Allowance (ESA) have more
problems and some were struggling.
‘‘JCP are willing to reassess their ESOL
2. Impact on teachers needs and have let us re-enrol them
on longer, less intensive courses e.g.
From all interviews there emerged a ESOL with vocational, maths, nail art,
changing picture of the ESOL teacher customer care.’
from someone very protective of their
students, resenting the demands of JCP, the compulsion of attendance ‘JCP boot camp’
and how they might become the ‘benefit police’ to someone still protective of their
students (that wouldn’t change) but valuing the more intensive courses, and recognising
the importance to these students of getting a job. Teachers found the JCP students
‘delightful’ and ‘just as needy as ESOL learners who come voluntarily’.
They realised that as qualified ESOL teachers they could give people a learning experience
which was much more meaningful and valuable than the Work Programmes or some of
the short training they are referred to by JCP.
‘Just in the last year the whole attitude Whilst some colleges described a somewhat
has changed in the department. I segregated workforce of permanent teachers
think they can suddenly see how working on the mainstream ESOL and of
important this whole provision is.’ temporary staff recruited to meet the needs
26of the continuous JCP ESOL, others have seen this as an opportunity to provide their
permanent staff with flexible contracts that enable them to take holidays at different times
of the year. Staff are beginning to see personal benefits to this different way of working.
Most colleges are giving all staff experience of working with the JCP ESOL cohorts.
Another provider found that the focus on tracking attendance also made teachers aware of
how valuable this provision is to the learners and they are much firmer with them in terms
of persevering.
3. Impact on support services
Providers talked about the need to recruit new administrative staff as well as teachers to
support the continuous programmes and enrolments. Three said that their exams and
enrolment staff coped well with the changing patterns and were quite happy to have more,
smaller groups to deal with as opposed to fewer but huge admission lists.
Colleges generally recognised that there was more pressure on student support services
but also that JCP could be relied upon to assist with student difficulties.
27JCP expectations of the ESOL Plus provision
In answering this question providers revealed a significant change in their relationship
with JCP. Whilst JCP were very clear about wanting short intensive courses that they could
refer people on to at regular intervals (every 1, 2 or 3 weeks), when it came to the content
and outcomes of the courses they were clearly prepared to leave that to the colleges.
Colleges were asked whether JCP had wanted to prescribe course content or schemes of
work and whether they had wanted to set the learning outcomes. The responses
indicated that in only a few instances did they want to see what the colleges were doing
and on the whole seemed content to trust them to get on with it.
Some colleges expressed concern that this might change further down the line: JCP’s
initial task was to reach their target of eligible referrals that converted into enrolments on
course. It was reasonable to suppose that once this had been achieved they would then
want to assess the impact of the ESOL programmes either through numbers of people
getting into work or, failing that, at least through records that reflected employability and
language skills acquisition. Within the ILP content they have described a generic job-ready
customer.
Colleges were asked whether a standardised checklist of outcomes would be useful; one
provider answered yes to this:
‘There should be some kind of Otherwise, responses were generally negative
measuring tool. There is no unless such a checklist was more of a guide to
employability skills than a prescriptive list.
official baseline assessment. If
Given the huge range of learner skills levels it
a tool were created we would would be difficult to create one skill set to fit
just need to use it at the all learners. It would be possible, however, to
beginning and end of the define a set of desirable employability skills
learning period. It could help against which any learner could be mapped to
with getting more time.’ show how far they have progressed on a
continuum.
One provider had developed an initial assessment which their ESOL learners completed at
the start and end of their learning programme. The progress they made in terms of their
linguistic skills was summarised on their ILP.
All providers were already summarising progress on the ILPs against initial learning
targets mapped to the ESOL core curriculum. They have been doing this to review
future learning needs and to provide a record of impact. This is standard practice for ESOL
teachers whether their learners are working towards an approved qualification or are on
a non-accredited programme.
‘The idea is that students can show their Work Coach what they’ve been working
on and can talk through it. Something that evolves as the course goes on that is
not too onerous for the teacher that means something to the learner and the
Work Coach.’
28You can also read
