Consultation on English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Qualifications September 2012
Consultation questions English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Qualifications We invite you to answer to the questions below about our consultation on English for Speakers of Other Languages qualifications. We would like to hear what you think about our proposals so that the regulatory framework for ESOL qualifications is the best it can be. We will publish the evaluation of responses to this consultation in early 2013. It is important that we are able to understand who is responding to the consultation, and in what capacity. Therefore, we are asking all respondents to complete our information page. The evaluation will only consider those responses where the information section has been completed. Please note that, if you do not want your response to this consultation published, you must state clearly that your response is confidential. The deadline for responses to this consultation is Monday 3rd December 2012 at 5pm. Ofqual 2012 1
How to respond to this consultation Please respond to the consultation questions using one of these methods: Completing the online response form at http://comment.ofqual.gov.uk/esolqualifications/respond/ Emailing your response to consultations@ofqual.gov.uk. Please include the consultation title in the subject line of the email Posting your response to: ESOL Consultation, Reform team, Ofqual, Spring Place, Coventry Business Park, Herald Avenue, Coventry, CV5 6UB. Ofqual 2012 2
Questions English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Qualifications The Federation welcomes the opportunity to comment on Ofqual s proposals for ESOL qualifications. In preparing this response we have worked with ESOL experts from a number of our member organisations and have used their in-depth knowledge and experience in this area of qualification development and provision to inform our response. Before we provide comments on each section of the consultation document the Federation wishes to make some general points relating to the proposals as these apply across a number of the questions and we wish to avoid the need to repeat these points throughout our response. General points for consideration by Ofqual are: The Federation is concerned that Home Office requirements are subject to frequent change and a qualification that is primarily designed to meet current Home Office requirements may not remain relevant for any significant period of time. Members could therefore invest significant amounts of resources into the development of an ESOL for Life in the UK qualification only to see it cease to be relevant in a relatively short period of time because of a change in the Home Office requirements. This would not be an efficient use of awarding body resources and could also potentially be confusing for the market and learners. Ofqual should seek assurance from the Home Office that their requirements in this area are not expected to be subject to review in the shortto-medium term and should communicate this to the awarding body community. The Federation would welcome clarification about whether or not Ofqual s intention is that the ESOL for Life in the UK qualification will be a QCF qualification. It is critical that awarding bodies have this clarification at the outset when making a decision whether or not to proceed with work to develop this qualification for the market and to avoid confusion and inconsistency in the sector. Clarification is required on whether the ESOL for Life in the UK qualification will automatically be subject to full accreditation for the foreseeable future. We appreciate that this may be clarified in the Ofqual response to the Risk Based Regulation consultation which we understand is due for publication later this month. There is a need for Ofqual to confirm that their definition of external assessment is as follows : Ofqual 2012 3
A form of independent assessment in which question papers, assignments and tasks are set by the Awarding Organisation, taken under specified conditions (including details of supervision and duration) and marked by the Awarding Organisation. More critically there is a need to ensure that there is an alignment between the definition used by Ofqual and that used by the Home Office. Some of our members have been led to believe that the Home Office s definition will require the awarding body to physically send an examiner into each centre to conduct the exam. Although some of our members do currently do this, others employ an external moderation where exams are recorded and sent to the awarding body for moderation. A blanket requirement which requires all awarding bodies to send examiners into their centres would have a significant implications for some of our members; especially those who operate in international markets. If necessary, the Federation would ask that Ofqual clarifies the position with the Home Office and communicates the position to the awarding bodies as soon as possible (via the Federation, if this would be helpful). It is not possible to fully comment on the proposals on external assessment in the absence of this clarification. The Federation recognises that malpractice in relation to ESOL qualifications has been significant in the past. However, Ofqual itself has confirmed at the Malpractice and Maladministration event on 8 th November 2012 that there has been a significant decline in malpractice recently. This has been aided by the work that Ofqual and awarding bodies have undertaken in partnership to address areas of concern, including a forum for awarding bodies to share information about malpractice cases within centres. The Federation welcomes this partnership approach and believes this will have a more significant impact on further reducing malpractice than would the introduction of blanket rules such as a requirement for 100% external assessment. Ofqual should clarify whether they intend the proposed ESOL for Life in the UK qualification to be available in the market alongside the current ESOL Skills for Life qualifications. It is not clear from the proposals whether or not the new qualification is intended to replace current qualifications which would then need to be withdrawn. This needs to be made clear so that awarding bodies take any necessary action including communicating to the centre which qualifications will/will not be available for them to deliver to their learners in the future. Ofqual 2012 4
ESOL for life in the UK English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Qualifications 1. To what extent do you agree that we should introduce new regulations for an ESOL for life in the UK qualification, designed to define and assess achievement of the Home Office s English language requirements for entry, settlement or citizenship in the UK? ( ) Agree (x) Strongly disagree 2. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? In relation to this proposal the Federation would like to make the following points: The Federation does not agree there is a need for a new ESOL for Life in the UK qualification. If it is intended that this new qualification will be available alongside the existing ESOL Skills for Life qualification, we do not believe that it will add value to the market or to learners but merely duplicate provision that already exists and that centres are familiar with. Members are also concerned that this qualification is being driven by a political agenda rather than for pedagogical reasons. We believe that any qualification of this type should be developed in response to the learning needs of its target learners. There are a number of detailed points that the Federation would like to make in relation to the draft condition in the consultation document : o If this qualification is intended to meet the Home Office requirements it is not clear why 1b includes Reading and Writing when the Home Office only require achievement in Speaking and Listening. o It is not clear why the draft Condition (point 3) states the qualification levels as being from Entry level to level 2 as the Home Office only require Entry level 3 to be achieved. If the intended aim of the ESOL for Life in the UK qualification is to meet Home Office requirements, then it is not clear why the qualification would be developed at levels above and below the level required by the Home Office. The Federation would recommend that if Ofqual proceeds with this recommendation that only Ofqual 2012 5
an Entry 3 qualification should be developed and the current ESOL Skills for Life qualification should continue at all other levels. o The Federation does not support the requirement to map the ESOL for Life in the UK qualification to the CEFR. See our response to question 5 below for further details. o It is not clear why 60 GLH (point 6) has been specified and in the absence of a rationale this appears to be an arbitrary figure. This is lower than the GLH for the current ESOL Skills for Life qualifications. A consequence of the introduction of a 60 GLH qualification could be that this is the level at which funding will be set. This would probably result in providers having little choice but to deliver the shorter qualification which may not meet the learning needs of many learners. o It is not clear what is required by point 8 in the condition in relation to recording the photographic ID used to verify the identity of each learner. Our members already have processes in place to check photographic ID so they will need clarification from Ofqual about the extent of this requirement. For example - does Ofqual require scanned or photocopied records to be kept of the ID document or is a log of the check having taken place and a record of the ID unique number sufficient? 3. To what extent do you agree that ESOL for Life in the UK is an appropriate title for this kind of qualification? ( ) Agree (x) Don t know/no opinion 4. Do you have any comments or other suggestions for an appropriate title? Please see the information provided in our response to question 2 above. Our members do not support the introduction of this new qualification and consequently have not devoted time to identifying an appropriate title for it. However, the Federation would like to point out that the proposed title could be misleading for some learners. The name infers that it is the qualification for citizenship in the UK and this could be a source of confusion for learners. Ofqual 2012 6
In this regard, it is important to note that there may be a mix of awarding bodies in the market who achieve Ofqual accreditation for the new qualification. It is our understanding that the Home Office does not have to, and so may not, approve all awarding bodies whose qualifications have been accredited by Ofqual for inclusion in their approved list of providers. As the qualification name infers that it is a route to citizenship then learners may assume that the achievement of the qualification from any awarding body will be suitable for their citizenship application. However this may not be the case where an awarding body is not included on the Home Office list with a resulting potential for confusion in the market. 5. To what extent do you agree that we should require ESOL for life in the UK qualifications to be set at any single level from Entry Level to Level 2, mapped to the descriptions of language proficiency in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages as follows: Entry Level 1 mapped to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages level A1 Entry Level 2 mapped to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages level A2 Entry Level 3 mapped to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages level B1 Level 1 mapped to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages level B2 Level 2 mapped to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages level C1? ( ) Agree (x) Disagree 6. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? In relation to the mapping to the CEFR. the Federation would appreciate further information on why a qualification that is designed for the UK market needs to Ofqual 2012 7
link to a European framework. Further information on the purpose and value of this mapping is required. Our members believe that such a qualification need only be mapped to the National Curriculum. Furthermore, if this is to be a requirement, there needs to be more information provided about the process related to the endorsement of this mapping and details of who will have ownership of this endorsement process. To our knowledge there is no organisation that can claim ownership of the CEFR and we would like clarification about whether or not Ofqual will make decisions about the referencing to this framework or whether they intend to seek the views of a third party. 7. To what extent do you agree that we should require that the qualification should clearly indicate the areas covered in relation to: The demand of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages common reference levels How contextualised activities, as appropriate to the student group, relate to the four Common European Framework of Reference for Languages domains (public, personal, educational and occupational) Communicative and linguistic competences Coverage of production and interaction (for speaking mode)? ( ) Agree (X) Disagree 8. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? Please see the response to question 6 above for our position on the CEFR mapping proposals. 9. To what extent do you agree that we should require that ESOL for life in the UK should demonstrate a clear relationship to the Adult ESOL Core Curriculum and meet the requirements of the National Standards for Adult Literacy? Ofqual 2012 8
(x) Agree English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Qualifications 10. Do you have any comments or other suggestions about this? This is a requirement in the current regulations and the Federation feels it is appropriate for this to continue. 11. To what extent do you agree that we should require that the qualification should assign a minimum of 60 guided learning hours? ( ) Agree (x) Disagree 12. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? The Federation does not support this proposal for a number of reasons: The proposed minimum GLH value is lower than the 120 minimum GLH of current ESOL Skills for Life qualification in this area. We are concerned that making a 60 GLH qualification available in the same market could result in funding levels being set at this lower level which will mean that providers will switch to the shorter qualification regardless of whether this fully meets the needs of the learners. We have previously raised our concerns about GLH with Ofqual and the need for a consistent definition to be developed and used. As Ofqual has now moved the timescale for this work into 2013, we continue to have concerns about the inconsistency and lack of clarity in this area. Until this is in place, we question the value of specifying any minimum GLH requirement. Ofqual 2012 9
13. To what extent do you agree that requiring 100 per cent external assessment will help to secure the standard of this qualification? ( ) Agree (x) Disagree 14. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? The Federation would like to provide the following information in response to this proposal: o A clear definition of external assessment is required that both Ofqual and the Home Office agree on. Until this is provided it is difficult to fully comment on this proposal and its likely implications for awarding bodies and the market. (See our initial comments above) o We acknowledge that malpractice relating to ESOL qualifications has been a significant issue but cases of malpractice in this area have now declined without 100% external assessment being introduced. It would seem to the Federation that there are more effective ways to safeguard standards then the implementation of this blanket approach. Ofqual should instead consider how it can work with the ESOL awarding bodies to support them in communicating incidences of malpractice amongst their community. o If Ofqual were to define external assessment in such a way that it requires an examiner to be sent by the awarding body to each centre for exam purposes, this will have significant implications for the market. The resource implications would be considerable and could make it difficult or impossible for some awarding bodies to continue operating in this area. 15. To what extent do you agree that verification of valid official photographic identification at assessments will help to maintain the security of this qualification? Ofqual 2012 10
(x) Agree 16. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? This proposal appears to be in line with the current practice of our members. However, there is a need for Ofqual to provide detailed clarification of what records should be maintained. For example, is it sufficient for the awarding body to hold a record of the document that has been checked, for instance the document s reference number, or will Ofqual expect that they maintain photocopies/scanned copies of the documents that have been presented for verification? Clearly this latter option would have some resource and cost implications. 17. Do you have any other comments or suggestions about this qualification? The Federation has no further comments or suggestions to make. ESOL International 18. To what extent do you agree that we should introduce regulations for ESOL International qualifications, based on existing regulations? (x) Agree 19. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? The Federation would like to see further clarification of 4.7 bullet point 4 and whether this requires that an ESOL International qualification covers all of the areas listed. As it is currently stated this requirement is ambiguous. We would encourage Ofqual to allow awarding bodies some flexibility in this area to Ofqual 2012 11
ensure they are free to design and develop qualifications that meet the needs of learners and the market. 20. To what extent do you agree that the ESOL International title should be kept? (x) Agree 21. Do you have any comments or other suggestions for an appropriate title? This title is in use and it clearly reflects the purpose of the qualification and distinguishes it from the qualifications intended for use in the UK market (although it is important to note that the ESOL International qualification can be accessed in the UK through summer school provision). 22. To what extent do you agree that we should require ESOL International qualifications to be set at any single level from Entry Level to Level 3, mapped to the descriptions of language proficiency in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages as follows: Entry Level 1 mapped to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages level A1 Entry Level 2 mapped to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages level A2 Entry Level 3 mapped to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages level B1 Level 1 mapped to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages level B2 Level 2 mapped to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages level C1 Level 3 mapped to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages level C2? Ofqual 2012 12
(x) Agree English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Qualifications 23. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? The Federation understands the relevance of this mapping in an international qualification. However, we still request that Ofqual clarifies the process that will be followed to endorse this mapping. See our answer to Question 6 24. To what extent do you agree that the qualification should clearly indicate the areas covered in relation to: The demand of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages common reference levels How contextualised activities, as appropriate to the student group, relate to the four Common European Framework of Reference for Languages domains (public, personal, educational and occupational) Communicative and linguistic competences Coverage of production and interaction (for speaking mode)? (x) Agree 25. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? The Federation has no comments in this regard Ofqual 2012 13
26. To what extent do you agree that we should require that the qualification should reflect the interests and needs of adult learners at all levels and not be designed specifically for use pre-16? (x) Agree 27. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? Although the Federation agrees that the qualification should not be designed specifically for use pre-16, it is important to note that the ESOL International qualification is commonly used in schools for learners who are under 16 and in some instances as young as 7 years old. There is a downward trend in the age at which international learners take the exams for this qualification and awarding bodies are able to respond to this by selecting suitable assessment items for under 16s. If the final version of the Condition contains a reference to pre-16s then the Federation would want to see clarification issued by Ofqual to confirm that it is acceptable for awarding bodies to continue to offer this qualification to learners under the age of 16. 28. To what extent do you agree that we should not set a requirement for ESOL International to be based on the requirements of the Adult ESOL Core Curriculum and the National Standards for Adult Literacy? ( ) Agree (x) Disagree 29. Do you have any comments or other suggestions about this? We can see no particular justification for the ESOL International qualification not to be based on the requirements of the Adult ESOL Core Curriculum and the Ofqual 2012 14
National Standards for Adult Literacy. Currently this provides for an alignment of the qualifications to other similar ones in this area and it seems perverse not to continue with this relationship. 30. To what extent do you agree that requiring 100 per cent external assessment will help to secure the standard of this qualification? ( ) Agree (x) Disagree 31. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? The Federation s position on this matter relies on the definition of external assessment that will be applied. As we have highlighted above, we need to be completely clear about the alignment or otherwise of the Home Office and Ofqual definitions of external assessment As we have said above our members operate a number of different approaches currently including those that already send awarding body examiners in to conduct exam with learners while others train all assessors to the required standard, require assessments to be recorded and then moderated by the awarding body staff.. Clearly a requirement for awarding body examiners to be present at all exams will have significant implications for the market in these qualifications. 32. Do you have any other comments or suggestions about this qualification? The Federation has no further comments in this regard ESOL Skills for Life and ESOL for Work 33. To what extent do you agree that we should withdraw the existing regulations for ESOL Skills for Life qualifications? (x) Agree Ofqual 2012 15
English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Qualifications 34. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? The Federation believes that ESOL Skills for Life qualifications can be regulated via the General Conditions of Recognition and that the existing regulations can be withdrawn without posing any risk to the future quality of the awards. 35. To what extent do you agree that we should withdraw the existing regulations for ESOL for Work qualifications? (x) Agree 36. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? Other Members have also raised the issues relating to the withdrawal of funding for this ESOL Skills for Work qualification, especially since it is mandated by Job Centre Plus for learners that they work with. Although this funding issue is not within Ofqual s remit the Federation felt it was important to raise it in this response. 37. To what extent do you agree that we should not introduce additional qualification-specific Conditions (beyond those in the General Conditions of Recognition) for any other kinds of ESOL qualifications? (x) Agree 38. Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? Ofqual 2012 16
The Federation would like to see a movement towards all Conditions being held in one place as part of the General Conditions of Recognition (GCR). Having additional qualification-specific Conditions that sit outside of the GCRs gives rise to the potential for them to over- looked and can lead to confusion about their status. 39. Do you think that we should set any additional requirements for organisations that offer ESOL qualifications? The Federation believes that Ofqual all ESOL awarding bodies should have stringent quality assurance procedures in place and should check and monitor any providers offering "high risk" ESOL qualifications in order to give learners the security they need. 40. Are there any equalities issues which have not been considered in the accompanying equality analysis? The Federation has no further comments. 41. Do you have any other comments you would like to make about any aspect of these proposals? The Federation has no further comments. Ofqual 2012 17
Information pages: your details Your name* Ailin O Cathain Your organisation s name* Federation of Awarding Bodies Organisation* ( ) School/college ( ) Private training provider ( ) Higher education institute ( ) ESOL awarding organisation ( ) Other awarding organisation ( ) Student/learner ( ) Parent/carer ( ) Employer (x) Other representative group/interest group ( ) Government body/organisation (national and local) ( ) Other (including general public) The Federation of Awarding Bodies is the trade association for vocational awarding bodies with over 130 organisations in membership ranging from large generic awarding bodies to those working in specific occupational areas, including professional bodies. A number of our members award ESOL qualifications and we therefore have a significant interest in Ofqual s proposals. We wish to make this submission for Ofqual s consideration. This response is submitted on behalf of the FAB membership following consultation with them and with the Federation s Board of Directors. Ofqual 2012 18
Awarding bodies are a diverse community and our members may wish to make their own individual submissions containing their own particular perspectives and emphases, in addition to any comments forwarded to the Federation for inclusion in this overall response. School / College type ( ) Academy and/or free school ( ) Comprehensive ( ) State selective ( ) Independent ( ) Special school ( ) Further education/sixth form ( ) None of the above How many staff does your organisation employ (full or part time)? (x) Fewer than 50 (but the Federation has over 130 awarding body members). ( ) 50 to 249 ( ) 250 or more Representative group/interest group type ( ) English language expert group ( ) Refugee or immigrant representative or support group ( ) Equalities group ( ) Union ( ) Sector skills council Ofqual 2012 19
( ) Employer/business representative group ( ) Other voluntary or community group (X) None of the above Organisation name* Federation of Awarding Bodies Nation* (x) England (x) Wales (x) Scotland (x) Northern Ireland (x) Other EU country (please state which) (x) Non-EU country (please state which) Our members operate in all nations listed above. EU and non-eu countries will vary by each member. Email address* Ailin.ocathain@awarding.org.uk How did you find out about this consultation? ( ) Our newsletter or another of our communications ( ) Via internet search (x) From our website ( ) Via another organisation (please state which) ( ) Other (please state how) May we contact you for more information? [x] Yes [ ] No Ofqual 2012 20
Would you like us to treat your response as confidential? [ ] Yes [x] No We are changing the way we communicate. We want to write clearly, directly and put the reader first. Overall, do you think we have got this right in this document? (x) Yes, to a certain extent, but more detail required to support some of the proposals. ( ) No Do you have any comments or suggestions about this? On the whole the document was clear and the structure helped to present the 3 proposals well. However, there are several places within the document where further information is required to provide real clarity about what is being proposed. We have specified these in the responses above. Although we understand the motivation to keep consultation documents as succinct as possible this does make it difficult to fully agree or disagree with some of the proposals when there is a paucity of information regarding exactly what is being proposed. Ofqual 2012 21
We wish to make our publications widely accessible. Please contact us if you have any specific accessibility requirements. First published by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation in 2012 Crown copyright 2012 You may re-use this publication (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit The National Archives; or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk This publication is also available on our website at www.ofqual.gov.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation Spring Place Coventry Business Park Herald Avenue Coventry CV5 6UB Telephone 0300 303 3344 Textphone 0300 303 3345 Helpline 0300 303 3346 2nd Floor Glendinning House 6 Murray Street Belfast BT1 6DN