The current national context of post-compulsory education and ESOL
The Moser Report (1999) identified approximately “one adult in five” as being “not functionally literate” and a far greater number (roughly 40%) as having basic numeracy problems. In his findings, Moser reported inconsistencies in Basic Skills teaching, which was described as being variable in both quality and quantity, and recommended a National Strategy be implemented to tackle identified shortcomings in ten key areas, including the adoption of national targets, a standardised curriculum, teacher training, improved inspections and planning of delivery and a new system of qualifications.
ESOL was of peripheral concern to Moser, who recommended that an ESOL-specific report be commissioned. This resulted in Breaking the Language Barriers (2000), which reported on the needs of learners for whom English was not a first language. This report made a further series of recommendations, among which were a request that FENTO “develop…initial training and qualifications framework for new entrants to ESOL teaching,” and a call for the production of support materials for ESOL tutors.
Many of the reports’ recommendations were implemented in the Skills for Life Strategy (2001), which set national standards for adult literacy, numeracy and language learning. The ESOL national curriculum was published in the same year, followed in 2002 by curriculum training and the Skills for Life materials. Further to this, Subject Specifications for Basic Skills and ESOL teachers were developed in 2003, and ESOL Skills for Life exams began the following year. The initial target of 750,000 adult learners to obtain an Entry 3 level qualification by 2004 was met, and a new national target was set of 1.5 million to achieve the same by 2007. The role of FE institutions in achieving these goals is crucial, both in terms of providing courses for learners and, as in the case of Newcastle College, training provision for teachers.
The local context: South Tyneside College
South Tyneside College is a relatively small ESOL provider, with a single class at each of the five levels of the National Qualifications Framework. As with all FE institutions, the college has adopted the standardised Skills for Life materials and exams, and teachers are expected to complete termly Individual Learning Plans and Schemes of Work mapped to the curriculum. In line with the Moser Report’s recommendations, community-based provision is offered at outreach and cultural centres, and the use of Information Technology is encouraged within lessons. The ESOL department follows the learning cycle set out by the Skills for Life initiative in compiling assessments, although no use is currently made of the national diagnostic and assessment tools provided by the DfES.
Key education policies currently influencing practice
Teacher Training
Effective from 2003, all new and existing ESOL teachers have been required to train for FENTO subject specialist qualifications. As recommended in Breaking the Language Barriers, these courses involve training in linguistics, pronunciation and intonation, grammar and practical teaching skills. Teachers also need to log at least 30 hours of continuous professional development training every year. In my opinion, these measures can only lead to an increase in the quality of teaching within the sector and, in particular, the awareness of teachers towards methodology, best practice and cultural sensitivity.
The Skills for Life Materials
The 2004 publication of a dedicated set of free teaching materials from Entry Level 1 up to Level 2 has undoubtedly helped to standardise the ESOL curriculum, and increased the scope and quality of materials available to tutors. However, the materials have been criticised for their over-emphasis on skills work at the expense of grammar, while their cultural relevance has dated badly due to demographic changes resulting from the large number of students arriving from EU accession countries. Having used the materials in class, I’ve found that I’m often required to very heavily supplement them. A major area of weakness is the lack of practice activities included compared to the many coursebooks developed for EFL teaching.
The Skills for Life Exams
Administered chiefly by Cambridge and Edexcel, Skills for Life Exams are available in reading, writing and speaking and listening modes from Entry Level 1 to Level 2. In addition to meeting Moser’s call for a new system of qualifications, the exams help to motivate learners and standardise lesson planning, providing goals for learners and their teachers to work towards. However, they retain some significant drawbacks: the qualifications are not widely recognised internationally or by domestic employers and, given the link between exam results and funding, there could be a tendency for teachers to coach their students in the specific language they need to pass an exam as opposed to topics of more immediate need.
The role and implementation of ILPs
From the Skills for Life Initiative to publications such as the FENTO-produced Including Language, Literacy and Numeracy Learning in All Post-16 Education (2004), ILPs are commonly seen as exemplifying good practice in ESOL teaching. Arrived at by mutual negotiation between the teacher and learner, and based on student needs and the results of initial and diagnostic assessments, ILP targets should be measurable and time-bound, aiding the teacher’s course planning and ensuring a focus on the needs of the individual. Additionally, the use of ILPs is seen as essential in enabling independent learning, building a student’s ability to plan, set targets, and both monitor and reflect on their performance.
ILPs therefore form of an integral part of the Skills for Life Initiative’s Learning Cycle, coming after the Diagnostic Assessment (which provides the basis for ILP targets), informing the subsequent choice of in-class learning materials, and being used as the yardstick for regular formative assessments to review the learner’s progress.
The usage, lay-out and scope of ILPs varies widely between institutions. South Tyneside College uses a booklet format with sections for tutor notes on any issues the students may have outside of class as well as end-of-course and tem reviews, termly learning goals and both long and short-term objectives. Carbon-paper is used to enable the teacher and learner to keep their own individual copies. To aid the process of drawing-up and reviewing ILPs individual tutorial time is set aside at the end of lessons.
My own experience of ILPs
Firstly, having started work in the ESOL sector in late-January 2007, I have limited personal experience of both the implementation of ILPs and their effect on my personal practice. However, as outlined above, I’ve found that the use of ILPs offers several potential advantages: they promote a focus on individual rather than just group needs, actively involve students in the learning process, enable teachers and students to record and review progress towards learning goals, and can help to draw attention to the ‘spiky profiles’ of learners within same-level classes.
Allowing for this, I have practical and pedagogical reservations about the current use of ILPs with ESOL learners. In particular, I believe their effectiveness with lower-level learners is open to question. Drawing-up ILPs with a Pre-Entry level class was a substantially teacher-led experience: my students were, in the main, unable to express let alone negotiate their targets. Students at all levels also often have very general goals (“I want to learn English to get a job,” “I want to practise my speaking”) which cannot be strictly measured. In these cases there is a danger of targets being imposed on learners, often to suit the requirements of inspectors.
The need for targets to be measurable and time-bound runs counter to many current theories of language acquisition, assuming a linear process of learning or, in the words of Lightbown and Spada (How Languages are Learned), “the gradual accumulation of one linguistic item after another”. In my own personal experience ‘soft’ targets are often much more appropriate to learners than SMART ones. These could be anything from understanding a neighbour to improving attendance or finding more opportunities to use English outside of class.
My other personal concerns are the time needed to draw-up ILPs - especially in large classes with limited classroom contact time – and the difficulty of integrating individual goals into what are often necessarily group based lesson plans and schemes of work. I have also noted that my students’ short-term needs can change rapidly, often based on knowledge gaps identified during lessons, and that too much emphasis is sometimes put on setting simplistic targets rather than recording actual progress.
Many of these concerns were noted by NIACE in a report entitled More than a Language (2006). The authors called for guidance on the implementation of ILPs “in the ESOL context, taking account of ESOL pedagogy and the needs and capabilities of English language learners,” and recommended that the appropriateness of ILPs for lower-level learners be reviewed.
Conclusion
The Moser Report, and the subsequent findings of reports such as Breaking the Language Barriers, has resulted in huge changes in ESOL, affecting both learners and teachers, and bringing standardised curricula and teacher training, new qualifications and innovations in the planning and quality of delivery.
Although ILPs are theoretically valuable, I believe research needs to be undertaken with regard to their appropriateness for lower-levels, and that much more advice should be issued to teachers on the preparation and review of ILP targets.
Bibliography
How Languages are Learned - Ligtbown and Spada (OUP, 1999)
Findings of the ILP Working Party - LLLU (South Bank University, 2002)
The ILP Debate - Reflect (NRDC, 2005)
More Than A Language - NIACE (2006)
The Moser Report - DFEE (1999)
