Chancellor urged over FE investment, adult education and ESOL

ESOL was also raised by UCU in recent discussions with senior civil servants on the union's submission to the comprehensive spending review (CSR), titled 'Further, Higher, Better'.

In its CSR submission, UCU called for an increase in the percentage of GDP invested in further education. Key elements include:

• steadily raising total central government expenditure on learning and skills to 0.8% of GDP
• closing the schools/FE funding and pay gap - not simply reducing it
• redeploying resources from quangoes to the front line
• investment in high quality staff development and in more teaching staff, to maintain the learner-teacher ratio at the 2002-3 level, and
• investing in wider learner participation by ensuring that fees are not a barrier, especially to vulnerable groups needing ESOL.

In its letter to Gordon Brown this week, UCU said that despite concessions from skills minister Bill Rammell, which UCU has welcomed, the government's plans for ESOL 'jeopardise the government's stated commitment to integration and social cohesion and to raising skills'. According to UCU the plans still mean:

• Thousands of low paid workers - both those settled here and more newly arrived migrants - will not access ESOL courses because they cannot afford the fees.
• Most employers will not foot the bills for courses because there is no requirement for them to do so.
• Many workers will be more at risk of accidents at work.
• Women will be further isolated and even less likely to join the labour market.
• Those fleeing persecution will not have early access to language support when they need it.
• Those with ESOL needs will not have universal free access to courses up to level 2.
• However those with 'literacy' needs will have such access.
• Adult education - where 750,000 places have already been lost - will be further hit.

In his letter to the chancellor, UCU joint general secretary Paul Mackney wrote: 'It is clear that the arrival of hundreds of thousands of migrant workers has put extreme pressure on the DfES budgets. However, given that much of the UK's continuing economic performance is related to the benefits of inward labour migration, it seems parsimonious not to make freely available the language skills needed by migrant workers whose schooling has already been paid for by their countries of origin. There is widespread evidence of the centrality of English language to the government's key priorities and there is an urgent need to meet demand now. We would therefore ask you to consider special allocation of funds to the DfES to assist them in meeting the enormous demand for ESOL.'