Association of CollegesNovember 2014

Language and employability skills provision for JCP-mandated customers

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 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.

2 3

Contents

Executive summary............................................................................................................................4Key findings.........................................................................................................................................5Introduction.........................................................................................................................................7A summary of Skills Funding Agency and DWP guidance for ESOL Plus provision.................10Collaboration between colleges and JCP teams...........................................................................14Colleges’ ESOL Plus provision.........................................................................................................18Impact of ESOL Plus provision........................................................................................................26JCP expectations of the ESOL Plus provision................................................................................28Managing the quality of provision..................................................................................................29Strategic considerations..................................................................................................................33Recommendations...........................................................................................................................37

Appendix A: JCP ESOL interview questions..................................................................................40Appendix B: Individual Learning Plan content............................................................................42Appendix C: The quality cycle........................................................................................................44Appendix D: Learner end-of-course review..................................................................................45

4

Executive 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.

Key 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

5

6

short 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.

7

Introduction

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.

8

3. 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

8 9

classes. 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.

10

A 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 11

Funding was allocated by the Skills Funding Agency to providers delivering large proportions of low level ESOL provision in 2012/13 with the proviso that it was only to be used on new claimant referrals and could not be used for existing ESOL provision, which was to continue to be funded from their Adult Single Budget.

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

‘They must not use the additional funding for learners deemed not to be in scope, that is, mandated by JCP and assessed with English language skills below Entry Level 2.’

12

was 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

13

8. 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.

14

Collaboration between colleges and JCP teams

Since research carried out by NIACE (unpublished, 2013) into the working relationships between SFA providers of ESOL and JCP, this report evidences notable development here. In the NIACE report the focus had been on the importance of building relationships, of colleges being more proactive in engaging with JCP and for colleges to examine their own systems and delivery processes to be more accommodating of JCP requirements.

Seven of the eight colleges interviewed indicated that the collaboration was more deep rooted; that continued and extensive working with JCP had led to very meaningful partnership activity; and that there was an equality of ownership of ESOL provision.

By considering what had contributed to making the partnership work, some common themes emerged from these colleges.

1. Understanding how JCP works

The seven colleges with ESOL Plus funding all fed back the importance of learning how JCP works, what their priorities and targets were and how to accommodate their needs in the college programme. This had often been learned the 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

‘JCP are on same wave length. We’ve tried to put on what they want. Things have been successful. They want it to work. They have a level of trust that we’re not going to put on something rubbish and they respect our professional knowledge without being too prescriptive.’

‘When we first started in college to work with JCP one member of staff worked on the liaison and spent all their time in JCP to explain what we do. When you get the ball rolling it gradually gets easier. Success breeds 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.’

‘The college has legal responsibility to report back concerns/absences to JCP. Advisers are very strict in interpreting rules.’

14 15

that 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.

All providers realised the criticality to JCP of being able to refer new ESOL learners on a regular and frequent basis. One college noted that this was JCP’s overriding concern: reaching their 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

‘Even JCP were surprised by our speed in getting this off the ground!’

16

been 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 benefited from a very supportive and understanding senior manager at JCP, although not all frontline JCP staff were flexible.

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.

Within colleges, structures needed to be in place for teachers to report absences and difficulties.

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.

‘The JCP Regional manager is very reasonable and has taken time to understand. He has listened [to us] and taken in what is said.’

‘The teaching team for JCP ESOL went to all Jobcentres and promoted the course.’

17

5. Advantages of working with JCP

‘It has facilitated ESOL access.’

‘It stops us losing our students.’ (Stated by three providers)

‘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.

‘We have common objectives and seeing us work together has a positive impact on the students.’

18

Colleges’ 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

19

term ‘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.

20

Table A Comparison of course provision across providers

A B C D E F G HESOL Plus funding 14/15

None £1.2m Almost £0.5m

£2,500 £0.420m £0.554m £1.2m £0.5m

How long work with JCP on ESOL?

4 years long history 1 year ESOL. longer on other provision

several years 3 6 - 7 years 5 years

Course details:

• week 10 8 12 4 12 12 9 4 to 7 15 12

• hours per week

9 12 12 12 12 15 13.5 15 14 10

• format 3 mornings or 3 afternoons

2.5 days

Total 90 96 144 48 144 180 121.5 60 - 105 210 120

Expected occurrence

poss 2 poss 2 2 - 5 2 2 2 poss 2 poss 2

Possible max 192 240 240 288 324 243 420 240Students per group

10 15 15 - 18

Referred levels E1, E2 PE E1 PE, E1 PE E1 PE, E1 PE, E1 PE, E1 PE, E1Course levels PE, E1, E2 PE, E1, E2 PE, E1, E2 PE, E1, E2 PE, E1, E2 PE, E1, E2 PE, E1, E2No of intakes 3 pa every 2

weeks and infill

every 2 weeks and infill

every 2 weeks and infill

3 new groups every 6 weeks and infilll

4 new groups every 6 weeks and infilll

every half term and can infill into courses up to 3 weeks

Weekly, can infill up to 4 weeks of course

Weekly

Teach all modes? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YQualifications ESB where

possible ESB where possible

ESB where possible

ESB where possible

N C&G

RARPA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - all do first

21

2. 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.

22

Table B Example Scheme of Work

Week Language skill Topic - Block 1 Topic - Block 2Week 1 Language development

and language inputGreetings Basic skills - alphabet, numbers

Food and drink, shopping

Week 2 Language development and language input

About ourselves Where I live

Week 3 Applying learning to a work situation and employability skills

Jobs and vocabulary Customer service, getting to an interview

Week 4 Applying learning to ESB tests: use of presentations, role play

Practice, revision, assessment

Practice, revision, assessment

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.

23

One 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

24

with 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

25

Outcome-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

26

Impact 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 considered coming to classes. On the other hand, many of the ESOL Plus mandate learners 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.

2. Impact on teachers

From all interviews there emerged a changing picture of the ESOL teacher 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.

Whilst some colleges described a somewhat segregated workforce of permanent teachers working on the mainstream ESOL and of temporary staff recruited to meet the needs

‘They are delighted to be there and they know they are jumping the queue.’

‘‘JCP are willing to reassess their ESOL needs and have let us re-enrol them on longer, less intensive courses e.g. ESOL with vocational, maths, nail art, customer care.’

‘Just in the last year the whole attitude has changed in the department. I think they can suddenly see how important this whole provision is.’

26 27

of 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.

28

JCP 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:

Otherwise, responses were generally negative unless such a checklist was more of a guide to employability skills than a prescriptive list. Given the huge range of learner skills levels it would be difficult to create one skill set to fit all learners. It would be possible, however, to define a set of desirable employability skills against which any learner could be mapped to 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.

‘There should be some kind of measuring tool. There is no official baseline assessment. If a tool were created we would just need to use it at the beginning and end of the learning period. It could help with getting more time.’

‘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.’

29

Managing the quality of provision

This section covers the main aspects of quality provision and aims to show how colleges addressed these in the context of their ESOL Plus provision.

1. Learning outcomes

1.1. Qualifications

Whilst JCP stated explicitly that they were not concerned to see claimants achieving qualifications (and given that they work closely with employers this may also represent the views of their employer base), qualifications are nonetheless an effective way of providing evidence of learners learning. Learners appreciate the recognition of their achievements through formal assessment. Qualification achievement has been the basis for many years of determining learning success, by both funding and inspection agencies.

All the colleges interviewed used ESOL skills for life qualifications on their generic programmes and valued these highly. Their biggest issue, which was outlined in the AoC report on ESOL qualifications (2014)5 was the time needed for people to progress on both the Speaking and Listening qualification and the full level ESOL qualification. Explicit in that report was the use of non-regulated funding to support qualification achievement. With regard to their ESOL Plus-funded provision seven of the eight colleges interviewed were offering ESOL Skills for Life Speaking and Listening qualifications, using them when and where learners were identified as being test ready. It was too early at the time of the research to get accurate percentages of learners completing and achieving a qualification.

1.2 Non-qualification outcomes

The problems with putting all learners onto qualifications from the outset were directly related to the impact on success rates of learners not completing the course and insufficient time in the majority of cases to complete the qualification. The short courses that were being delivered in small learning blocks were too short in themselves to determine whether a learner had a reasonable chance of completing or whether they had a likely chance of achieving a qualification; providers were only able to consider enrolling onto a qualification after a learner had progressed to their second or third block of learning and for that to happen they were also reliant on JCP re-referring an individual.

Regardless of the issues discussed above, it was clear from the content of the courses that their design paralleled that of a qualification bearing course: students were being taught the same language skills and with the same rigour as if they were on an ESOL Skills for Life qualification course. As noted in the section on colleges’ provision, assessment for learning was integral to all learning activities with 4-weekly in-class assessments contributing to a learner’s ILP, with targets for both language and employability.

5 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

30

2. Quality processes

Three providers described in detail their quality assurance processes for non-regulated provision which were as thorough and detailed as any internal assessment and verification procedures in place for programmes leading to external certification. Procedures comprised teachers’ meetings for assessment decisions and moderation activities and internal verification sampling timetables supported by meetings where good practice and issues could be raised in addition to recording results.

All providers were using the RARPA process for all ESOL provision that was not externally accredited, to record progress and achievement.

3. Using RARPA as a quality framework

The RARPA6 process began as an initiative to raise the quality of teaching and learning on non-accredited programmes in adult education and its aim is to support the recognition and recording of learner progress and achievement on courses where no external qualification or certification is offered. The framework consists of a five-stage process:

• course aims that are clearly stated; • initial assessment of learners’ starting points and needs; • discussion and negotiation to identify appropriately challenging objectives; • formative assessment, checking on progress and giving feedback; and • summative assessment: final recognition of progress, recording and celebration of

achievement.

RARPA draws on the documents identified in the quality cycle above as evidence of progress and achievement used in the context of providers’ existing self-assessment and continuous improvement processes.

All colleges interviewed described using RARPA systems and processes to record their ESOL Plus learners’ success and two described them in the detail above. Clearly this is a well-established route for informally accrediting ESOL learners’ progress that is part of colleges’ rigorous moderation and IV systems. These systems have been observed by Ofsted and accepted as good practice.

In 2013, LSIS published guidance documentation on quality procedures for RARPA7. This was the outcome of a project led by NATSPEC, the Association of National Specialist Colleges. The project resulted in the publication of a set of standards for RARPA provision, aligned to the Ofsted Common Inspection Framework and detailed in the LSIS guidance document.

6 Recording and Recognising Progress and Achievement7 Guidance on how to quality assure RARPA in provision for learners with learning difficulties, July 2013, LSIS. (working in partnership with NATSPEC). Accessed via the Excellence Gateway website, 18 September 2014, http://send.excellencegateway.org.uk/content/eg6813

‘The ILP is based on the core curriculum so it’s not going too far away from our home... in a way the purpose of the core curriculum was to give structure to ESOL so it’s still doing its job however many years on, so let’s not chuck it out.’

31

Interestingly the Excellence Gateway website notes the following addition to the quality procedures.8

‘Project participants developed and tested a process for internal review and external moderation of RARPA against these criteria. Providers then conducted an internal review of their provision against the standards, criteria and evidence indicators. After the reviews were completed, they received external moderation visits by a consultant and by a peer reviewer. Each provider also conducted a peer review of another participant organisation.’ Although this project was looking at RARPA in the context of learners with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), there are clear parallels with ESOL provision and the flexibility needed to support this cohort of learners.

A succinct endorsement of the quality assurance afforded through RARPA is given by Yolande Burgess, London Councils:

4. Record keeping

The quality cycle is described in Appendix C in order to demonstrate how the RARPA process aligns with a college’s quality processes.

Records which play a key part in the quality cycle are the following:

• Initial assessment; • Individual Learning Plan (ILP) containing learner reviews; • SoW and lesson plans drawn from the standards and core curriculum; • Records of teacher qualifications, CPD and observations; • Samples of formative and summative assessment materials; • National qualification certificates; • Moderation and IV records; • Inclusion of programme review in SAR

These have all been described in a previous section as being in place and used effectively to record student progress on ESOL Plus provision.

5. The Individual Learning Plan

The ILP is a universal document within further education. It is expected by Ofsted to be used on all learning programmes to record long and short term learning goals, to describe the learning programme and provide a record of review and progress against the targets. On completion the ILP is used at exit review to reflect skills gained and future plans. As

8 Project report, ‘Developing criteria and approaches to quality assure RARPA in provision for learners with learning difficulties’ (LSIS, 2013) http://www.excellencegateway.org.uk/node/26660

‘My key message to colleges and training providers is, if you’re delivering non-accredited provision - great, because we need you to, but please make sure it’s of high quality; if you want it be of high quality and if you want a process that enables you to deliver really good evidence to commissioners, please use the work that’s been undertaken through this project.’

32

described previously it underpins the RARPA process.

There is no standard format as its identity is based on the concept rather than a template. Colleges have always designed their own templates and teachers complete them with their students on a one-to-one basis.

All colleges had devised ILPs for the ESOL Plus courses with similar content. Three colleges had the same format and content for ‘Academic and Homework targets met’ drawn from a JCP list of desired outcomes. Content is detailed in Appendix B.

6. Teacher qualifications

All providers use fully qualified ESOL teachers (with full teaching qualifications and the ESOL subject specialism). The majority of ESOL teachers have come through the Cambridge CELTA training route, many with DELTA qualifications in addition. The CELTA is the traditional entry point to ESOL teaching which is respected and expected by the ESOL profession. In NRDC reviews of the Skills for Life teaching workforce, ESOL teachers were by far the more qualified group of the Skills for Life subject (literacy, numeracy, ESOL). ESOL teachers then move on to do a DELTA, an integrated Diploma in teaching ESOL or an integrated PGCE in teaching ESOL.

Where agency staff are used (particularly the case with ESOL Plus provision for more flexible working contracts) the level of qualifications is comparable to permanent staff; colleges using agency staff tend to use them on a long term or bank basis.

7. Retention and achievement

Non-attendance, non-participation and non-completion are significant issues for the majority of colleges on this provision and all recognise the need for tight management of record keeping, follow-up work with clients and data monitoring by managers. Providers have put in place warning letters to students: one college uses a format from the Every Lesson Counts schools resource to highlight to students the importance of full attendance. Another works on recording success stories and case studies of ESOL learners who have gone on to get work and uses these to incentivise students and to attract participation of local communities.

‘Staff know they have to get every success story and every job outcome before they leave the course. Staff are also asked to try and keep in touch with learners after they leave to follow up with their progression.’

33

Strategic considerations

BIS/Skills Funding Agency

BIS have stated that the funding for ESOL Plus provision is to support additional provision rather than to target a group who were not otherwise being supported. Some of the people who are now in scope of this additional funding may voluntarily enrol on to ESOL classes (or at least getting on to waiting lists). What the funding had done was to highlight to JCP the urgency and importance of early identification of a need for language training.

Now potential ESOL learners are expected to be identified when they first start to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance, giving them increased opportunities to improve their spoken English language. JCP were already mandating clients and had developed good working relationships with providers: the additional funding was building on the success of that collaboration. Although additional funding was specifically for new claimants, providers were expected to integrate new ESOL learners within their existing provision for JCP without displacing other JCP ESOL provision. The Department acknowledges that initially there is a need to monitor the referral rate of new claimants to ensure that there is a match between the additional provision and demand. A significant mismatch may require allocations to be reviewed. There was no expectation that there would be any change to the eligibility requirements as a result of the additional funding.

BIS/Skills Funding Agency and DWP/JCP had worked at a strategic level to identify the areas and providers that would attract the ESOL Plus funding in the first year with some flexibility of funding to accommodate other places in the country that demonstrated a need.

ESOL Plus funding has been allocated for two years - 2014/15 and 2015/16.

BIS is interested in the use of national qualifications for the lowest level of ESOL and the impact of achieving college certificates for which there are no national quality assurance processes.

RARPA could present a solution although further advice would be needed about its use as a quality assurance process. Whilst colleges can clearly evidence the rigour of their internal quality systems, there remains the issue that there are no external standardisation measures in place. Of prime importance is that jobseekers get the best outcome. The Department is prepared to look at alternative qualifications e.g. pre-entry qualifications, NOCN and basic skills units.

There was a suggestion that there might be useful intelligence to be gained from recent work in the EU on adult basic skills. NRDC has been engaged in several working groups and projects in this area and will explore language acquisition and employability in that context.

DWP/JCP

DWP had information about those areas where the provision for JCP customers was most effective from their point of view: this was based on how receptive providers were in putting on the length of courses JCP needed and on being able to take regular referrals so

34

that customers were not left waiting to be enrolled which ate into their training entitlement time. London was noted as an area with no problems which chimed with providers’ perceptions that London colleges had more flexible relationships with JCP.

The expectation was that additional provision for new claimants would work best in those areas that historically had a good record of working well with JCP: after six months this was proving to be the case although DWP were still getting reports of areas where there was not enough provision or where the provision was less appropriate to JCP need.

JCP was identifying places where there was a need for ESOL Plus funding but no provision had been allocated and noted that Sheffield, for example, was already up to capacity. Even in the areas where there was no new funding the need was increasing. There were, for example, increasing numbers from the Roma community around the country (which tallied with providers’ perceptions).

JCP staff were pleased with the new screening tool and had received training to support them to use this to identify the lower levels of ESOL need. They were conscious of being able to more accurately refer clients to the right level of training.

With regard to the relationships between colleges and JCP, DWP stated that this works best where providers understood JCP needs, where there were agreed processes at local level to deal with issues and where the key contacts had been clearly identified.

They confirmed that where an individual has completed a mandated programme and is subsequently re-referred to a second progression programme within the six-month period defined by the ESOL Plus funding, this second referral counts as a new referral even though it is for the same person.

The targets for JCP were solely aligned to clients being successfully referred, mandated and enrolled onto ESOL programmes and DWP did not anticipate that the nature of the target would change. However, the ultimate JCP goal is for their clients to be ‘job-ready’ with no barriers to prevent them from moving into employment or onto a Work Programme if appropriate. DWP reported that Work Programme providers had in the past raised concerns that progress in acquisition of language skills seems minimal following an ESOL intervention and had requested that clients be re-referred although they had no feedback yet following the ESOL Plus interventions.

They believed that Jobcentre staff would find most helpful a report from providers on the skills that individual learners had acquired during their six-month (or less) programme, directly relating to their job-readiness. Bradford College was cited as an example of good practice in this regard, and in Appendix D there are examples of theirs and Leeds City College’s final report provided to both their ESOL students and to the student’s JCP Work Coach. This schema is now used by other providers.

DWP further noted an emerging issue in regard to JCP ESOL provision related to new claimants getting ‘caught’ by the three-year residency rule. This has caused problems for those colleges carrying out their routine Skills Funding Agency checks on mandated ESOL learners who found that, although eligible to claim benefits, some learners fell short of the Skills Funding Agency three-year residency rule. This research found that some colleges were not carrying out eligibility checks on mandated clients on the understanding that if they were mandated by JCP and therefore entitled to claim benefits,

34 35

they were therefore eligible for Skills Funding Agency funded learning. JCP do not use the same rules for residency as Skills Funding Agency and are concerned only that individuals have the correct Home Office documentation and residency requirements. New claimants may be required to complete a Habitual Residency Test to ensure that economically inactive migrants aren’t entitled to benefits and JCP staff have been told not to refer people where such test results have not been received.

College senior management

There were examples of risk taking amongst all the ESOL Plus providers. The most commonly voiced was that of being dependent on JCP for referrals (in contrast to the very large waiting lists for their generic provision, of c. 1000-2000 people). Five colleges had experienced a slow referral rate following the introduction of the new mandation for ESOL Plus at the beginning of May. JCP had reported to one college that they were suffering from initiative overload in the new financial year and gave this as the reason for slow referrals to ESOL Plus. Two colleges reported regional and seasonal variations (e.g. Roma communities moving abroad or to other parts of the country in large numbers for harvest time and fruit picking.) One senior manager confidently noted, ‘If I build it they will come’, adapting the quote from the1989 film Field of Dreams.

Another risk identified related to JCP’s priority concern being to meet ongoing referral targets. As learners were able to stay longer in learning where a need had been agreed with JCP (and at these low levels this was the norm rather than the exception) up to a maximum of six months, there could potentially be a lack of funding to meet the ongoing referrals. Mid-year 2014/15 was seen as a critical point for this. However, it has now been confirmed by DWP that each time a learner is re-referred for a second tranche of learning, this counts as a new referral.

One college noted that JCP on occasions referred so-called mandated clients to ESOL Plus who were not actually signed up to JSA or other eligible work-related benefits and warned that colleges should not assume that the JCP referral per se was a sufficient eligibility check. This has caused issues for providers and IAG time has been wasted. Where individuals slipped through enrolment and subsequently left the provision, this has impacted on both success rates and funding.

Providers saw the potential of these cohorts to adversely impact on retention and achievement rates, and were conscious of the importance to pick up on students’ difficulties and any erratic/non-attendance immediately.

The differences between ESOL Plus cohorts and groups of learners on generic ESOL provision is discussed in the section ‘Impact of ESOL Plus provision.’

There was concern amongst senior managers responsible for ESOL learners that the focus on new claimants is detrimental to large numbers of claimants from before end April 2014 sitting outside this funded provision. Where adult budget cuts have resulted in cuts to generic ESOL provision these people are now in the waiting list queues.

Additional staffing has been required to support the ESOL Plus funded provision to cope with the increased student numbers, the range of student needs and the complexity of

‘College staff have got to be on top of the students all the time.’

36

short course planning. Colleges have seen additional recruitment of ESOL teachers, administrators, and student support staff, and in one college a second ESOL curriculum coordinator. One college reported that they could run double their generic ESOL provision compared to JCP ESOL primarily because of the additional administrative and communication requirements.

36 37

Recommendations

Providers

Smaller providers who are keen to run JCP ESOL need to radically re-think the structure and frequency of their provision

Providers must be responsive to JCP needs regarding course structure and it may be easier to re-develop their mainstream ESOL than have two different models i.e. short and fat rather than long and thin, 20 weeks of up to 16 hours a week with at least two intakes per term and the possibility of infilling. Larger providers are better able to provide flexible programmes that meet JCP needs for short courses and frequent intakes: it is a greater risk for a smaller provider to plan several new intakes that may not materialize.

Collaboration with other providers

Provider partnerships will improve capacity for JCP provision. South and City College Birmingham works in partnership with the local adult education service that also has additional ESOL Plus funding and has found that aligning their provision helps to tackle student distribution problems. Course start times in the area can be staggered, providing continuous referral routes.

Learning the JCP language

Providers new to working with JCP must engage with them and learn their language and benefit rules. Going to the Jobcentre to talk to staff and present a programme offer will bring results. Provide opportunities for JCP staff to sit in on classes, or attend a short college taster.

Senior management leadership of ESOL provision

Backing from Principal and Vice Principals for delivering ESOL in its entirety is essential given the very different delivery models required. ESOL provides significant funding to many colleges yet often the internal profile does not reflect this. Whole-college support and detailed planning are critical to the organisation and success of large scale JCP programmes that run throughout the year.

In this research it was very clear where this was the case and how great a factor this high level involvement was for success.

Eligibility checks

Providers cannot assume that JCP have always got their customers’ claims status correct and should always carry out their own eligibility checks to ensure that clients are eligible for Skills Funding Agency funding and for ESOL Plus provision.

Use the National Careers Service

The National Careers Service is funded to support ESOL learners. It is a free, underused resource which colleges can access. NCS staff can help with job search and work plans.

38

They will work one-to-one with learners, lead small groups, and they have ready access to the national database of training programmes.

Learner destinations

There is a need for comprehensive data collection on learners gaining employment. Providers should review their own procedures for collecting this data which will support their own success measures, will provide JCP with evidence they can understand about effective learning. As some colleges already recognise, this is a powerful tool with local employers and learner recruitment.

JCP

Eligible claimants

As for the providers, JCP should not assume that because a client is eligible for mandation they will be eligible for Skills Funding Agency funding. They should also ensure that the client is entitled to claim benefits and has no outstanding Habitual Residency Test before referring them to a provider - even for information, advice and guidance.

Re-referral response

With such short courses providers need a form of rapid response to their requests to JCP for learner re-referral. At local level systems should be put in place in good time, when a need for re-referral is considered necessary, so that JCP can make appropriate decisions that will not disrupt a learner’s programme continuity.

Use of learners into employment data

JCP should make available to providers, at local level, any data they have on their former learners getting employment. As previously noted, this is now a success measure for colleges; with data hard to come by once the learner has left, JCP support here is critical.

Skills Funding Agency

Appropriateness of success rates with JCP provision

Given the noticeable impact by all providers on their ESOL success rates with the ESOL Plus provision and the nature of the new cohorts of learners, colleges would appreciate the disaggregation of this provision from their overall success rates with the use of a JCP indicator. Success rates could then be reviewed separately and addressed without impacting on whole ESOL provision.

ESOL FAQs on Skills Funding Agency website

The Skills Funding Agency is preparing to publish FAQs on ESOL funding and learner eligibility on their website. Such a facility will have to support providers’ ability to respond to new demands. This area needs to offer providers an option to raise queries about funding requirements.

39

FAQs should include:

• that re-referrals count as new referrals • how to determine eligibility of ESOL learners to ALS funding and evidence

requirements.

Fund and publicise use of RARPA

The use of RARPA process as the basis for continual assessment and recording of achievement of non-regulated learning is an essential and desirable alternative for those students for whom a nationally recognised qualification is not immediately appropriate. Guidance should be readily available on RARPA principles and processes. Work with local providers to develop processes for the external moderation of RARPA provision.

Issue guidance to JCP ESOL providers for use and completion of the Individual Learning Plan

This would cover recommended, but not prescriptive, content of the ILP. It would need to be agreed with DWP/JCP at national level and would comprise the list of JCP-desirable employability outcomes from which providers will be expected to draw and agree with their own JCP at local level.

Produce checklist for would-be JCP providers

A ‘how to’ checklist to be developed for colleges wanting to deliver ESOL Plus provision or other JCP-referred programmes.

JCP and SFA

Regular updates on adequacy of ESOL supply

There needs to be regular sharing of information about supply and demand between JCP and Skills Funding Agency to ensure that provision is matching greatest need across the country.

AoC

Further longitudinal study of ESOL Plus provision

AoC should revisit colleges in 2014/15 to get an update on referral rates, and on percentages of students achieving national qualifications versus non-regulated achievement.

External verification of RARPA

Using the work done by NATSPEC, develop a common tool for ESOL providers to use across providers to standardize processes and assessments.

40

Appendix A: JCP ESOL interview questionsAims: To identify how providers determine the summative assessment judgements that will indicate a JCP ESOL student has sufficient language to be employableObjectives: To produce a checklist of key principles that will inform agree-ment of assessment criteria for JCP ESOL courses, between a provider and their local JCP

Probes Samples A History of working with JCP (VP, Curriculum Manager)

1 For how long have you worked with JCP on any provision?2 What are the advantages to your organisation of working with JCP on ESOL

provision?Financial, political, a way of meeting local ESOL need?

3 At what level was the decision made to do this?4 Do you have any concerns about the viability of this provision?5 Is this provision promoted at senior level?6 What QA systems are in place to assure SMT that the college’s quality standards

are being maintained?Numbers of learners involved

B Current partnership working (VP, Curriculum Manager and practitioner)1 How will the college cope with the additional ESOL funding for mandated

clients?2 How are course decisions made e.g. timetables, length of course (what

decisions, at what levels)?But see funding question below.Jointly JCP and college? Who has final word? How much flexibility is there here for the colleges, and what are the mandatory requirements? Who at JCP does this partnership work? How much is the smooth running dependent on individual advisers?

3 In what ways do you work with JCP? Provision other than ESOL, numbers of learners involved

4 Can you renegotiate further learning where student makes little progress? When would this happen – at the end of the 6 months? Or is there scope to make this decision earlier

5 Does the college have a role to play in students’ job search and employment?6 Does JCP support learners to complete their ESOL course once they get a job? Problem is that once they are in work they have to

pay for their course

40 41

7 Do you feel you have an equal partnership with JCP?8 How much of the course content is your decision and how much JCP’s?9 Does this learner cohort (JCP ESOL) require different teaching approaches? Do you have different staff teaching from

the mainstream ESOL provision?C Funding (VP, Curriculum Manager)

1 What are the funding requirements currently for JCP ESOL - length (number of weeks and number of hours per week) and outputs?

2 Do you draw down any SFA funding for this provision (e.g. ALS)?3 What other funding does JCP bring: childcare help; training allowances; any other

benefits?4 Does the funding cover all costs inc. overheads and on-costs: (staffing, materials,

printing, rooms, lighting, heating, use of ICT equipment)May not need to ask - see A4

5 How cost effective is this provision compared with other ESOL courses? May not need to ask - see A4D Initial assessment

1 Does JCP do any initial screening?2 If yes to screening question, have your teachers seen JCP tool and contributed to it?3 Who is responsible for choosing and administering initial and diagnostic assessments?

42

Appendix B: Individual Learning Plan content

Key course information

Student details Course dates and name JCP adviser with contact details Class aims

Individual start information

Initial and diagnostic assessment results by each skill (S, L, R, W) Individual’s long-term goals: Personal Work Prior experience/learning: Work Courses Interests/hobbiesInduction activitiesHealth and safety informationPermissions: photosTripsAdditional learning support identified and specified

ILP content

Targets Review dates Tutor feedback Support and guidance from IAG adviser

Exit information

Progression Accreditation and level of achievement Learning goals met Targets met:

1. High level targets

• Attendance• Punctuality• Effort• Team work• Flexibility• Attitude to learning• Student self-assessment• Accreditation

43

2. Academic and homework targets (JCP source)

• Personal information skills• CV completed • IT skills• Using Universal Job Match• Job seeking skills• Interview skills• Time management and using a timetable skills• Homework skills• Conduct in class• Email skills• Telephone skills• Application form completed• Personal statement completed• Presentation skills

3. Subject skills targets

• Speaking and listening• Reading• Writing• Numeracy• IT• Employability

44

Appendix C: The quality cycle

The ESOL learner quality cycle begins with a potential learner being fully assessed, and enrolled onto an appropriate course at an appropriate level.

To ensure quality learning, teachers and managers must plan their courses and lessons in line with ESOL standards (i.e. the national literacy standards and the ESOL Core Curriculum).

The quality of teaching and learning in the classroom requires fully qualified ESOL subject specialist teachers, regular observations of teaching and learning, ongoing professional development.

The engagement of the learner and ongoing motivation is enhanced by initial recording of individual learning goals and progression plans (e.g. work, further education or training, family support, community involvement) through the Individual Learning Plan.

The quality of learning is monitored through continual formative assessment on programme and interim one-to-one reviews.

The progress made on completion of the learning programme is measured by summative assessment(s) which may be supported by the achievement of a national qualification.

All teacher assessment decisions are moderated and verified through internal verification processes.

As part of the Self-Assessment Review process teachers and managers review the programme in the context of learner, teacher, manager feedback; success statistics; progression data; teaching observations.

Learner progress is enhanced where there is adequate learner support in place; this may be in the form of pastoral, financial or referral to external agency support.

45

Appendix D: Learner end-of-course review

Bradford College

End of Course Review (summary of your discussion with your teacher during the review - please complete section below)Progression activities: Are you prepared to move on? - Student to complete What is your intended progression route following this course? (please tick)Further FE course Progress to HE Employment Apprenticeship Other:

Have you received support and guidance? Y/N Do you require further support and guid-ance? Y/N

Information Advice and Guidance (IAG) Advisor

Name:Student:

Date:

Personal Evaluation and Progress - Student to complete - see the goals you set at the start of the course (1.9)Your Personal Goals - have you met these goals or made significant progress towards meeting them?

1.

Your Education or your Employment Goals - have you met these goals or made significant progress towards meeting them? 1.Have you completed your course? Y/N Tutor to recommend next step (new course/level or employment)

Current level of achievement:

Please comment here:

Academic and Homework Targets Met (ESOL only)

N/A (Unable to

complete task)

Basic Quality (Needs strong

support)

Average Quality (Requires some

support)

Good Quality (Competent to perform task)

CV completed

Personal Information SkillsUse of timetables/Time Management/Time Keeping Skills Job Seeking Skills Presentation SkillsInterview SkillsUniversal Jobmatch Skills Use of IT Skills to upload files (e.g. CV, covering letter)Homework Speaking & Listening PracticeHomework Reading & Writing PracticeStudent Signature Student Name:

DoB:Teacher Signature Date:

46

Leeds City College

Leeds City College - End of Course Review and Progression

Progression activities: Tutor to complete with student

Student name: Student number:

What is your intended progression route following this course? (please tick)

Further FE course Progress to HE Employment Apprenticeship Other

Student learning journey – from goals that were set at the start of the course:

Your goals – have you met these goals or made significant progress towards meeting them? Yes /No

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Have you completed your course? Yes / No

Student comment

Current Level of Achievement:

Pre Entry, Entry 1 / Entry 2 / Entry 3/ Level 1/ Level 2

Comments:

Tutor to recommend next step / comments

47

Leeds City College - End of Course Review and Progression

Academic and Homework Targets Met N/A(Unable to

complete task)

Basic Quality (Needs strong

support)

Average Quality

(Requires some support)

Good Quality

(Competent to perfrom

task)

Can give name, address and personal information with confidenceCV completed – Yes/NoWord processed without support

Use of IT Skills to upload files (e.g. CV, covering letter)Universal Jobmatch skills Yes /NoHas completed own registration

Job seeking skills- e.g. Newspapers, agencies InternetPersonal information skills Yes/NoCan answer 6 questions with confidence

Interview skills - Yes/ NoCan answer with confidence questions at interview relating to a specific job role which is relevant to their skills and experience

Use of timetables/time management/time-keeping skills

Homework completed on time

General conduct in class

Can email to apply for/enquire about a jobCan communicate on the telephone to ask about a jobCan complete an application form

Can write personal information on an application form legiblyStudent’s signature Student’s name:

DoB:

Teacher’s signature Date:

© Association of Colleges 2014

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