Individual Learning Plans for ESOL Learners in Community Education

Introduction and Rationale

The purpose of this paper is to examine how individual learning plans affect the role of the ESOL practitioner in community education. It further documents the position that, although individual learning plans are necessary, they do not suit all types of learners in community education settings.

Just as each individual differs in ability, capacity for learning, and optimal learning method, so too does the English as a Second or Other Language (ESOL) learner. This consideration must be built into the instructional practice of any ESOL practitioner who intends successful outcomes for their students. Many ESOL students have no English-speaking skills upon entering high school, with most choosing academic diplomas rather than vocational credentials (Howard, 1999). There are also often undetected learning disabilities among this population (Ga. Dept. Ed., 1997, p. 1), making the job difficult for educator practitioners, school faculty, and support staff alike. According to McCallum (1999), students often reach the eleventh grade with a required grade point average of "C," yet fail the Georgia High School Graduation Test due to their inability to fully comprehend English — particularly in subject areas such as Language Arts, Science, and Social Studies.

Each school has been directed toward a prescribed ESOL curricular agenda for implementation within its system. Historically, the ESOL curriculum has been designed and handed down from the highest levels of educational governance to the classroom teacher — that is, from policymakers at the top of the power structure down to the practitioners actually working with ESOL learners. Too often, those at the top lack the experiential knowledge necessary to fully understand what is missing in practice, and therefore should give greater weight to the wisdom of front-line practitioners who apply these principles daily and know from experience what works and what does not.

Brief Overview of ESOL Curriculum

This is not to say that governance in education is unimportant — proper oversight is indeed critical. However, when government bodies become so removed from the reality of classroom application, their demands risk becoming unrealistic and their standards may fail to address the actual problem or provide workable solutions.

The UK government's strategy for improving national skills in literacy, numeracy, and English for speakers of other languages is the Skills for Life Policy, which set a target for 1.5 million adults to achieve national certificates in literacy and numeracy by 2007 (Skills and Education Network, 2005). Key estimates from a DIES-commissioned report in 2002 include the following:

Approximately 1.7 million adults (5% of those aged 16–65) have literacy skills below Entry Level 3, and 5.2 million (16%) fall below Level 1. In numeracy, 6.8 million adults (32% of those aged 16–65) score below Entry Level 3, and 15 million (47%) fall below Level 1. Among men aged 16–24, only 26% reached Level 2 or above in numeracy, compared with 37% of men aged 25–34.

Policy Context: Skills for Life and RARPA

The Moser report further revealed that one in five adults cannot use an alphabetical index to find a plumber, and one in three cannot calculate the area of a room even with a calculator. The Skills for Life Policy aims to raise standards, increase learner achievement, boost demand, and ensure provision capacity — with a particular focus on priority groups including hard-to-reach learners, the unemployed, offenders, and lone parents.

Following its implementation, the ESOL program was significantly restructured. In the fall of 2000, the program expanded from five 6-unit courses (requiring 30 units for completion) to eight courses requiring 35 units. A study by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning examined the impact of these changes on student enrollment, persistence rates, course completion rates, and demographics. Results indicated that students were generally satisfied with the new program, and that writing courses were reported as more helpful than listening, speaking, and reading courses. Recommendations included further research into ESOL student success rates in academic courses following program completion (McCallum, 1999).

In parallel, the government introduced the RARPA (Recording and Recognition of Progress and Achievement) program, developed through pilot projects from April 2003 to March 2004 by the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) and the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE). Since 2002, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) had focused on establishing appropriate methods for recognizing and recording the progress and achievement of learners in non-accredited provision through a "Staged Process" model.

The RARPA framework applies an explicit, common staged process to the recognition and recording of progress and achievement, validated through a range of judgments about its consistent and effective application. The framework reflects a broader vision for a learner-focused system of recording outcomes from non-accredited programs, and plays an important role in the delivery of the Skills Strategy, as outlined in the July 2003 white paper 21st Century Skills: Realizing Our Potential. The five elements of the staged process, each linked to the Common Inspection Framework, are:

1. Aims: appropriate to the individual or group of learners.
2. Initial assessment to establish the learner's starting point.
3. Identification of appropriately challenging learning objectives: initially set, then renegotiated and revised as needed.
4. Recognition and recording of progress and achievement during the programme (formative assessment): including tutor feedback, learner reflection, and progress reviews.
5. End-of-programme assessment: learner self-assessment, tutor summative assessment, and review of overall progress and achievement.

RARPA was characterized by a learner-centered approach, with reported benefits including better motivation, faster progress, and greater engagement in learning.