English UK Rules………….Okay?

English UK is an association of  language learning centres throughout the UK. To be a member, the school must first become accredited by the British Council. The British Council inspectors visit the centre and assesses whether it meets various criteria. Each school must be inspected every four years and there is the possibility of an on-the-spot inspection. There are aspects of the criteria which, in our opinion, need to be urgently addressed but the principle of minimum quality standards policed by an external body is an important one on which we can definitely agree.

The problem is that there exists a perception amongst many teachers and students that the whole experience of going to study in the UK is far from satisfactory, that students get a very poor return on their “investment”. Moreover, that this is not only true of non English UK schools but English UK (British Council accredited) centres too. Many of the complaints revolve around the accommodation and host family but courses themselves also come under criticism. I am sure that most teachers and students will confirm that during the busy summer period, the school reception plays host to a number of unpleasant scenes where students can be seen arguing with the school administration, very often incredibly angry, and more often than not, in tears.

It is a surprise, therefore, to learn from English UK’s student complaint procedure (student complaints’ procedure according to English UK) that:

 Around 400,000 students a year attend English language courses at English UK member schools, universities or colleges. We receive about 35 complaints a year…

Now the fact that over 400,000 students attend their associated schools is no surprise. They might also have added that, at a conservative estimate (here we rely on data from 2002 and make a projection), these students, along with students visting other non UK English schools generate about 4 billion pounds for the English economy (courses, accommodation, food, trips, visits, gifts etc). This is not to say 4 billion profits, but rather that the value of 4 billion pounds is being invested from abroad into the British economy.

No, what is surprising is the low number of complaints. Less than 0.01 % of those unhappy, seemingly inconsolable, students complain to English UK. Clearly we are being asked to believe that after exhausting the schools complaint procedure (what evidence is there to suggest students know such a procedure exists?) that such complaints are happily resolved.

 The answer may lie in the fact that students paying for a course to help them express themselves in English, something they cannot do to their own satisfaction otherwise they wouldn’t have enrolled in the course the first place, are being told:

write in English to English UK for the attention of the Chief Executive or e-mail tony@englishuk.com

It seems clear to us that students should be allowed to write in their own language if they prefer. Given the enormous financial turnover of the industry and the alleged small number of dissatisfied students, surely English UK can use translation services. Better still, they could reimburse the costs against  the centre which the student is complaining about, giving more incentive for the school to settle the dispute in-house.

 The other disturbing matter about English UK is that they positively discourage whistleblowing:

 We can only deal with complaints from international students on an English language course at a member school. We cannot accept complaints…….. from teachers or other staff, agents or host families about problems with schools.

This is particularly disturbing given that the British Council, who give accreditation, insist:

If the Accreditation Unit receives a complaint against an accredited provider which is a member of English UK: the complaint will be recorded and referred in the first place to English UK for investigation

Meaning, if it is from a whistleblower, there is no obligation to investigate. The first and last step is to refuse to investigate the complaint. Now as Alex Case points out:

Trinity and Cambridge ESOL have no rules about the ownership of schools that would prevent centres owned by someone with a history of bankruptcies, convictions for fraud etc from offering their Certs, just so long as the actual training staff were properly qualified and trained. The same is true for schools with British Council accreditation in the UK.

This whole self-regulation business is, therefore, open to abuse by the most unscrupulous of types and the people best placed to expose it are silenced. Perhaps this is why the English Language Gazette (no longer free on-line so not worth a direct link) had to stumble across five British Council accredited schools paying teachers under the minimum wage, the British Council were clearly incapable/unwilling to discover it for themselves. As Sally Hunt,  general secretary of the University and College Union, said in the same article:

Qualified English language teachers are being badly exploited and receiving pay that would shame even the worst burger bars. There is a need for greater regulation of language course providers.

 Otherwise put: The British Council Accreditation scheme is not fit for purpose.

Now clearly we need regulation of the industry to ensure quality courses and not just attractive logos. That means moving away from the easy supply of recently qualified teachers prepared to work for peanuts and virtually unsupported by senior staff. It means the bulk of teaching hours on general courses must be provided by trained/experience teachers. It means that all specialist courses are taught by people with the appropriate experience and qualifications. It means that new “trainee teachers” are properly supported in lesson provision. It means that host “families” need to have basic training and their facilities and services must meet minimum criteria. It means that staff and students be given a voice to highlight deficiencies in course provision and not be silenced.

It is rumoured that the British Council themselves proposed something similar but the industry claimed it could not support such “strict” guidelines and that the industry would become less regulated (i.e. abandon the scheme and subsequently reduce British Council revenue flow). In this instance English UK is rather like the 19th century factory owners who claimed that they would all go out of business if the 1847 Factory Act was passed (limiting children to 10 hour working days). The British Council appear to have accepted this logic leaving a multi-billion pound industry virtually unregulated, the English UK complaints procedure is symptomatic of that unaccountability, a withered fig leaf covering the shame of profiteering.





Filed under Uncategorized

9 responses to “English UK Rules………….Okay?

  1. alexcase

    And yet the fact that British Council accreditation survived while the easier to obtain ARELS accreditation died (I believe) means that schools will make the effort to reach whatever standards are set (within reason) in order not to seem second class. Also, the BC now has a much stronger hand as non English UK schools will not be able to offer student visas to any students (EU students obviously not needing one, but few schools could survive only with them)

    I do think 10,000 pounds per student might be an over estimate though. Students at a school I worked at paid 5000 pounds for a 9 month academic year, but the average stay is 3 or 4 weeks

  2. marxistelf

    Hi Alex,

    Thanks for pointing out
    1. That the British Council scheme is more demanding than others. We would not seek to dispute this, we would rather argue that it is not demanding enough.
    2. New legislation has been brought in to control “fake language schools” helping vistors around visa restrictions (for a price of course). This should have formed part of the article as it shows the government can act to regulate the industry when it wants (i.e for the purposes of fortress Europe). To our understanding, non UK English schools will be inspected but UK English schools will be exempt from inspection. Should some UK English Schools be found guilty by some accident of fate and this breach be publicised, then the government might just change its mind.
    3. Yes, the article is over-zealous on the figure of 40 billion and the figure will now be revised accordingly in line with proper economic research in the area.
    Thank you as always Alex for your balanced comments. We do share your commitment to fairness.

    • derekdodds

      Yeah, I would say the average student coughs up about a thousand quid. Loads of money but not anything in the range of what Marxist TEFl are arguing. Plus agents from originating countries get to see a load of that.

  3. alexcase

    I was trying to agree in my first point (you might have noticed that I’m not very good at agreeing!) that schools will certainly follow the standards that they are set rather than drop out of accreditation schemes, and therefore that the BC could easily push them harder

  4. tonywatt

    Hi all,

    Unfortunately the British Council also do not set standards relating to teacher’s working terms and conditions over and above compliance with legislation – which is simply evidenced by a declaration and not necessarily verified upon inspection. It seems that schools that do not give staff paid holidays or even contracts can still achieve BC accredited status. In the absence of any TEFL unions, it would be nice if the regulating bodies could at least check.

    I also enquired recently to EngUK regarding guidelines for staff levels depending on school size (mine being severely understaffed) and was politely answered that it varied so much from school to school – from small family run schools to massive international organisations – that it would be impossible to set standards. I was a little disappointed with this response as ensuring staff and resources are sufficient is a BC standard.

    Indeed more robust, industry-wide collection of student AND teacher feedback would be beneficial to the industry in financial terms too. The FE sector has the i-Graduate survey but, this only targets customers.

    BC inspections do focus groups of teachers but what teacher would jeopardise their already lowly-paid job to ruin the school’s BC inspection?

    Anyway, more moaning later…

    Manager of BC accredited and EngUK member school

  5. marxistelf

    Many thanks Tony for all those observations. It’s always great to hear from people with direct and specialist knowledge of the issues we report on.

  6. Pingback: Private ESOL Colleges Come Under Scrutiny. « Marxist TEFL Group

  7. One way to get the BC and English UK to include something about how badly/well staff are treated might be to point out that if they are so concerned about offering a quality ‘service’ to students, then surely the health and happiness of the ‘frontline providers’ (ie teachers) must be considered. A school which pays badly, doesn’t offer sick pay, gives a quarterly payment instead of holiday, and offers no job security – to the extent of taking teachers off the payroll as they approach 12 months service – is surely going to be a less good place to study than a school where teachers are well or fairly paid, have access to sick pay and paid leave and know how many hours work they’ll be getting.
    I find it incredibly frustrating that it is teachers who take the business risk at these private language schools – if students don’t buy the product, it is the teachers who lose out. However, when you see the list of members of the English UK acccreditation board, (http://www.englishuk.com/en/english-uk/about-us/corporate-structure) and see that most work for private language schools or chains, I wonder whether teachers will ever get a fair deal.

  8. Pingback: Feeding Racism: The Staggering Incompetence of English UK. « Marxist TEFL Group

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s