Hello!

Yet again an illiberal proposal regarding langauge and migration hits the headlines - this time, in the context of the launch of the interim report of the Commission for Integration and Cohesion, a widely reported proposal that new arrivals to the UK should learn English before they arrive. It's another fine example of a disgracefully prejudiced and xenophobic policy being dressed up in liberal clothes. For those of you who missed the details, take a look at

http://www.integrationandcohesion.org.uk/ <http://www.integrationandcohesion.org.uk/> 

Go to Interim Statement and download the document.

 You can read the news story associated with this on the BBC website: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6380867.stm <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6380867.stm> 

The proposal itself seems to stem from the speech made by the commission's chair, Darra Singh, who said: 

"One thing might be to provide language lessons for them. Under the new rules, they - and other groups of migrants - will not be entitled to language classes until they have been in the UK for 3 years. By that time, they will have learned to survive without English, and the opportunity to teach them may have been lost. But perhaps we could be braver, and expect spouses to have learned English before they arrive here, which would signal the emphasis we place on its importance. This is not a final recommendation from the Commission. It is a personal reflection." 

My view is that he should know better. But there are no language specialists on the commission to advise him. 

 

Things have been pretty busy today on BAALmail, the email list of the British Association for Applied Linguistics. Here is a summary of messages sent to BAALmail today; I'll be weighing in myself in a little while. 

 

Alison Sealey kicked things off:

I wondered whether other BAAL members feel that it would be appropriate for the association to respond to the proposal, reported in the media this week, to oblige migrants to learn English before coming to the UK?

Some issues that occur to me as relevant include (in no particular order, just offered for debate):

·        the shaky premise on which the proposal is being advocated (reported as a finding by the Commission on Integration and Cohesion that 60% of those questioned believe knowledge of English to be significant in 'integration')

·        the implicit 'message' that responsibility for 'integration' lies primarily with migrants themselves

·        the serious challenge involved in learning an additional language, especially in a context where opportunities to use it are not as available as they are in the 'target' country (how many of those supporting this proposal are fluent in foreign languages themselves?)

·        the additional cost to those placed under this obligation, which would amount to a tax on immigration - and indeed on temporary migration

·        the challenge of finding appropriate teaching provision in the home country

·        the potential for an increased unregulated 'market' in both teaching provision and the qualifications which would be accepted by immigration authorities

·        the financial and logistical difficulties in organising for assessment of knowledge of English (which are bad enough for the comparatively regulated systems of entry to HE and the citizenship tests)

It seems to me that this is an ill-thought-out and discriminatory proposal, and that BAAL might usefully point out some of its shortcomings.

 

Viv Edwards: 

I would like to add my support. The whole tenor of the public 'debate' is most unsettling and we have a responsibility to challenge the underlying assumptions. The question, then is how to proceed and not whether.

 

A. Lawrence:

I would like to add my support.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the requirement to learn English in the 'home country' seems a deliberate barrier designed to exclude rather than include.
In addition to the list of points that Alison has raised, there may be a proportion of people who, for various reasons, have not even had access to basic education in their own country: how they would have access to English language education and testing facilities before coming to the UK is anybody's guess.

 

Anthea Fraser Gupta: 

Agree with all Alison's points. Here are some more....

Don't know where to begin:

** Right of citizens to marry whoever they like and bring them to live with them is violated.

** Already it is much easier to migrate if you are rich. This further discriminates against those who have not had access to a high level of education at home.

** Most people agree it is a good thing to learn English if you are living in the UK. Sensible response is to reinstitute free and available English classes, and to make an effort extend them to 'hard to reach' groups such as women not working outside the home.

** Offer and promote free orientation/English classes on arrival. Anyone who needs a translator to access public services should be specifically approached.

 

Nina Taylor:

I have read your comments and totally agree with what you say. A further  difficulty I can also foresee is that provision for ESOL is going to be dramatically cut by the LSC with the expectation that employers will pay for their classes. From experience I can more or less guarantee that this will not happen -Employers are very reluctant to pay for anything for their permanent staff, let alone for migrant staff with little or no job security. The result will therefore be not only insufficient provision  in the home country but extremely limited provision here (only for those assessed at below L2 in their own literacy skills will be eligible. Though I'm not sure how that will be measured!) 

 

Mike Reynolds:

Please add me to those supporting you in protest at the Commission on Integration and Cohesion's proposal.  I heard Darra Singh's comments and read the Independent article this morning, with dismay and anger.  I've sent off an angry letter to the Commission.  Much good may it do! 
I think this is an excellent brainstormed list, and I'll add what some others have already mentioned: the intrusive absurdity of the suggestion that the learning of English should take place BEFORE coming to this country.  We must stand up for multiculturalism, and try to stop the way that those who one expected might know better - e.g. this Commission and the Commission on Racial Equality - are campaigning to besmirch it as a concept.  

 

Chris Candlin:

I believe that it is vital for BAAL to make a response. Although Australia has had for many years a very well funded program for settlement and ESL for migrants this is now threatened by a parallel  government plan to insist even more than in the past on English language competencies as a condition of residence, and also a test of  awareness of Australian "values". Tim McNamara at U Melbourne has been spearheading with colleagues the opposition to these policies from an applied linguistic perspective.

 

Celia Roberts:

Its wearingly the case that English is so regularly used to respond to
panics and general malaise.

 

And Charlotte Franson mentioned the related debates on ESOL-Research. Thanks Charlotte!

 

Best wishes

James

***********************************
ESOL-Research is a forum for researchers and practitioners with an interest in research into teaching and learning ESOL. ESOL-Research is managed by James Simpson at the Centre for Language Education Research, School of Education, University of Leeds.
To join or leave ESOL-Research, visit
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ESOL-RESEARCH.html
A quick guide to using Jiscmail lists can be found at:
http://jiscmail.ac.uk/help/using/quickuser.htm
To contact the list owner, send an email to
[log in to unmask]