I have not trolled on here ever, so I’m afraid you’re going to have to take that self-righteous carrot out of your pompous arse.

Ooh, temper! It sounds like someone else’s arse is the one with the carrot in it… And it’s never good to call someone else ‘self-righteous’ when you have claimed to know what other people on a thread are thinking:

What I don’t agree with is the general tone of comments on the thread that the problem self-evidently ought to be seen as morally or financially mainly the responsibility of Britain itself rather, than of people choosing to move to Britain.

Where was that unequivocally stated? Or did you just see what you wanted to see?

OK – I apologise for calling you a troll. That may have been short-sighted of me.

I maintain nonetheless that it is hypocritical for the likes of PH to complain about people not speaking English ‘properly’ and then have a problem with them trying to access English language learning in this country. Neither he nor you have addressed the point I made @ 9; it is utterly disingenuous to ignore that learning to speak a language (English particularly) is about more than ‘speaking’ (grammar, idioms, social interaction). There’s no ‘faulty comprehension’ involved there!

And no, I do not think that the government necessarily has any ‘moral obligation’ to provide English education, as you have inferred above. However, this thread is about services in Hounslow – a borough in which I am resident, are you? – and which has plenty of residents who will not necessarily speak English as their first language (and always has many more passing through, not least due to our proximity to Heathrow and Southall). In areas like mine, I don’t see how cutting back language learning services can ever have good results – and as Rumbold illustrated, the money could’ve been saved elsewhere.

Your ‘mockery’ of Philip Hunt was a misrepresentation of what he said. He said

“if all people coming here could speak English, there would be no need to teach them it.”

Which is self-evidently logically correct. You then misrepresented this thus:

“Philip Hunt believes that ’speaking English’ is all that asylum seekers and immigrants need to get by”.

He had given no indication of any such belief in what you quoted. You misrepresented him, either because you are dishonest or because of your faulty comprehension. Assuming you to be sincere and not dishonest, I reasoned it was faulty comprehension.

“I have seen you troll on here before, so I’m afraid we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. ”

I have not trolled on here ever, so I’m afraid you’re going to have to take that self-righteous carrot out of your pompous arse.

“I suppose all I am trying to say is that having a class with children who all understand English makes teachers’ lives easier (not that they are unable to cope if this is not the case, merely that it requires more adjustment).”

I once taught a class of English as first language children who were utterly disengaged with their learning, were entirely off-task; indeed were possibly one of the worst-behaved, underachieving group of children I have ever taught. Oddly, I was actually very fond of them (it rather helps) and I have some skills in behaviour management. My point is that their language skills were not the main issue in the problems they (or I as their teacher) faced.

“Which is why I support English-language lessons for children.”

I think you need to look at the Frameworks for Literacy. The Primary Framework confirms the emphasis on the teaching of word and sentence level (grammar level) of the earlier Literacy Hour and embeds these critical components of the teaching of English to EAL and non-EAL children in a more cohesive manner.

Incidentally, many Primary Schools *do* maintain extra support for EAL-status children both formally (in terms of timetable) and informally. However, the emphasis continues to rightly be on the teaching of Primary phase children in inclusive, whole-class environments.

Yes, I was (and am) the only teacher in those classes. In fact, I do not have access to a classroom assistant, either.

I presently work overseas (as an Assistant Head in charge of curriculum and assessment); but my career in UK has been exclusively in inner-city schools (mostly in London).

Don’s points are excellent! Greetings fellow chalk-face worker.

And I wasn’t correcting your usage, I was criticising your faulty comprehension.

I must correct your faulty comprehension in that case. I was mocking you. Saying that I need lessons in English language because I mocked the hypocrisy of Philip Hunt made you a pretty deserving target.

The fact that you don’t agree with what I say does not make me a troll.

Nooo – it doesn’t. Interesting that you say that, given that I didn’t actually know what your opinions on this issue were at the time, though.

I’m sure you are capable of proper comments (as evident above) and SHOCK HORROR, I can live with a difference of opinion, but I have seen you troll on here before, so I’m afraid we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

I suppose all I am trying to say is that having a class with children who all understand English makes teachers’ lives easier (not that they are unable to cope if this is not the case, merely that it requires more adjustment). Which is why I support English-language lessons for children.

That would be a lesson plan. Do you really want me to post one? They are quite boring to non-teachers.

I agree that the best thing any government could do for teachers is to stop changing things round all the time. The bureaucracy is immense. And schools need to be more wiling to back teachers against parents/children.

To give an example of what I am trying to ask, how would you deal with, say, a child who couldn’t speak English if the lesson that day involved reading the class a story, and the children were then expected to answer questions on it (presuming a class size of twenty five, with five children who lacked the English skills to follow the story)?

It’s not a problem if you don’t see it as a problem. Which sounds a bit hippy, but you just plan and look for desired outcomes, as you would with any class. What do I want this kid to achieve over the next twelve weeks? How do we make that happen? It’s the job, it’s not a problem.

Cut class sizes and get off our backs about new initiatives, that would help.

(But thank you, Labour government for the really rather excellent new building you are putting us into. Damn PFI, but it’s going to be a very nice building even so and fair does on the budget increases.)

But language issues? We’re teachers, we can deal with that.

OK, I’m coming to this as a special needs teacher with maybe a slightly different way of approaching communication. But back when I was in mainstream urban secondary and from friends still there, it really is not a major issue.

Stories of schools with umpteen first languages and none of ‘em English are generally negative and woe, woe and thrice woe in the press. But they just don’t reflect how education actually works.

Well, I can’t argue with you as I am not a teacher, but surely children who can’t understand what you are saying present an extra problem?

I agree. Sponsoring somebody into the country should entail a serious commitment to their acclimatisation.

Agreed, but once stuck with it we should take practical measures to deal with it. It’s not a huge expense and has serious beneficial results.

True, but the same could be said of any non-English speaker in Britain. Why is one a fool and the other entitled?

Because one has access to reliable information about the current demand and the other doesn’t. And I didn’t say entitled.

Good English language training is not wildly expensive, it gets good results and benefits everyone.

Also, a non-English speaker in Britain is generally expected to work like a bastard for a fraction of the wage a Brit would expect. A Brit in Spain would just go home if that were the case.

Asylum seekers are an entirely different matter.

thanks for your reply. You make some fair points, though I take issue with the following:

“I doubt that there are many spouses brought into an utterly unfamiliar environment and living in isolation,”

Whereas we know there are many such spouses in Britain, but it appears to be believed that it’s the responsibility of the British taxpayer to pay for such people, rather than that it’s not good a good practice for those involved or for British social cohesion, or that the repsonsibility lies with the nation of origin or the people who are migrating. Effectively the British taxpayer must pay to rectify the problems caused by the indifference or inability of others.

“and any monolingual Brit competing on the open labour market with spanish workers would be a bloody fool.”

True, but the same could be said of any non-English speaker in Britain. Why is one a fool and the other entitled?

“Also, if you plan on moving to Spain you have ample opportunity to test the water and can take a good quality spanish language course pretty much anywhere in the UK for pocket change. There are agencies to turn to if things get sticky and a cushioned landing if your plan doesn’t work and you decide to go home.”

True. It appears that either no such plans are available for many of those migrating to Britain, which tends to mean Britain is stuck with them even if they can’t or won’t adapt. I don’t think that’s a reasonable expectation to make of Britain, because it seems as if the responsibility is saddled on the host, not on those who have chosen to move to Britain without proper preparation (intentionally or not).

I except refugees from those I am referring to, as I do believe we have a moral responsibilty towards them. I also agree with the general view that in practice it is better that non-native speakers have the opportunity to learn English than not. For practical reasons I think cost cutting should be avoided.

What I don’t agree with is the general tone of comments on the thread that the problem self-evidently ought to be seen as morally or financially mainly the responsibility of Britain itself rather, than of people choosing to move to Britain.

The overriding principle with migrants to Spain and Britain is the same, namely that in each case the host nation would be expected to pay for the language learning of people who have come from another country. It’s not self-evidently clear that there is any moral obligation in either case (again, I except refugees).

The need for language training is greatest among adults, and I would suggest among adult females in particular. Not only does a good facility with the language improve economic prospects it also provides unmediated access to information on rights and the law.

Someone attending a language course will invariably come into contact with people they would otherwise never get to know, will in time become more comfortable with the surroundings of an adult education venue and may even find other courses they might choose to take.

It is an investment, both economic and social, rather than a cost.

BTW, Hi Vikrant. Good to hear from you. How are things with you?

Stanislaw,

Sorry about not getting back to you earlier. I would say they are not comparable because about 10% of Brit ex-pats in Spain are retired, about 20% are part-time resident (i.e. holiday homes)and most of the rest have either chosen to set up businesses catering mainly to the Brit tourist/ex-pat market or are employed by such operations. Relatively few, I suspect (sorry, no stats) expect to become Spanish either legally or socially. There are no Brit asylum seekers or refugees, I doubt that there are many spouses brought into an utterly unfamiliar environment and living in isolation, and any monolingual Brit competing on the open labour market with spanish workers would be a bloody fool.

Also, if you plan on moving to Spain you have ample opportunity to test the water and can take a good quality spanish language course pretty much anywhere in the UK for pocket change. There are agencies to turn to if things get sticky and a cushioned landing if your plan doesn’t work and you decide to go home.

So not really comparable.

“Let me just repeat what you said back to you: Evidently you are in need of English language lessons yourself.”

What I wrote was perfectly idiomatic English. And I wasn’t correcting your usage, I was criticising your faulty comprehension.

As to your ‘troll’ accusation, I don’t spam this board, I rarely post here and I argue my points. The fact that you don’t agree with what I say does not make me a troll.

Actually this is not so. A class teacher will, in any class, differentiate by ability and task. Having EAL status children in the class should not negatively effect the teacher’s workload, nor the achievement of the other learners.

My last four Year 6 classes have been nearly 100% EAL status children. We have achieved SATS results for English close to the national average.