England is debating the issue of a program that teaches foreign workers only workplace English in a program known as ESOL (English for speakers of other languages.) The first major argument brought up against the program is that the workplace English necessary for one environment, such as cooking, is much different compared to the environment of being a dentist. Having one type of instruction really limits vocabulary, and potentially to the detriment of the workplace if it is not common to that environment.
Another argument made is the cost of the program, and who will foot the bill. Should it be taxpayers, employers, the students, or a combination of the three? Personally, I think it should mostly be footed by the employer and maybe some by the student. None by the taxpayer because it's workplace English, not everyday English. Also, if the worker doesn't turn out to be an effective worker and leaves or is fired within six months, then the employer has the right to deduct from the workers paycheck to recoup the loss.
Getting back to the main issue of whether or not it is enough English for a worker to learn, I would have to say it depends on the program. If it is a very communications-dependent environment, such as being a doctor, English should be taught to a much greater degree. If it is a cook, then I could understand a short program tailored to their English needs. Overall, though, I think it would be much more beneficial to teach them everyday English as well as occupation-specific English. What happens when these workers aren't at work and need to buy groceries? What about driving, public transportation, and getting directions? All of this seems to be missing and it seems to be a huge oversight by business owners to think that these areas can be skipped over.
One solution I think might work is a residency program in state that allows structured immersion into the language. It could be set up so speakers of the same native language are roomed together and undergo training as a group. How to pay for this program, I don't know, but I do know it would provide the environment necessary to create happier, more productive citizens and employees. My final comment is I that the proposed program will fall short of achieving its goals. How can an employee work if they can't get to work?
Original Article: http://education.guardian.co.uk/tefl/story/0,,2196880,00.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
That's true - I have always considered the merits of these kinds of programs, but, in light of your post, it seems they do leave a lot to be desired. I imagine the ESOL program will undergo significant continuous recalibration, however. And at least it's a step up from the xenophobic 'learn it yourself' approach inherent not more than a decade ago.
I totally support the idea of the ESOL program, but I can also somewhat sympathize with the businesses hiring these workers. The main goal of the company is to get as much out of their worker with putting in as little as possible. Thus the ESOL solution. Although admittedly, workers would probably be even more productive and happy if they are fluent in a language, but then where does this leave the line to be drawn for the company? Should they be held responsible for teaching their workers English?
Nice post and discussion!
Post a Comment