16 November 2006
The Citizenship Taskforce
DIMA
PO Box 25
Belconnen
ACT 2616


Re: Australian Citizenship: Much more than a ceremony


Dear Members of Citizenship Taskforce

On behalf of the members of the Association for Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (ATESOL) NSW Inc.), I would like to respond to the discussion paper, Australian Citizenship: Much more than a ceremony. As the professional association representing ESOL educators across all sectors in NSW, we will confine our comments to the proposal that successful completion of an English language test be made a prerequisite for the granting of Australian citizenship. We agree in principle with the federal government’s view as expressed in Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Andrew Robb’s Foreword to the document which states that “it is important that immigrants develop English skills which allow them to communicate effectively with their fellow Australians, to fully contribute to Australian society and to realise the great opportunities available in Australia through jobs and education.”

At issue is the level of English skills which should be required and the need for adequate provision of learning opportunities to enable those skills to be acquired.

It is often assumed by monolingual English speakers that migrants and humanitarian entrants who have limited spoken or written communication skills in English are uninterested in learning English or are unmotivated to learn the language. In the experience of educators within our association, this is not the case. Many factors can impede progress in learning English as a second language. These include language programs which lack flexibility. For example, AMEP currently provides between 510 and 910 hours of English training for eligible migrants and refugees from language backgrounds other than English. However,, students who have to interrupt English lessons to take up offers of casual work need programs which can accommodate breaks in attendance and offer additional hours of training if required. Some migrants work long hours in unskilled positions which require minimal English language skills and would only be able to improve their English if training were provided at or very close to their workplace.

The learning of refugees can be impeded by additional factors including lack of literacy in any language, and unfamiliarity with formal education or the use of common implements such as pens, pencils and computers. Refugees may also be troubled by anxiety about family members – a husband, wife or children – left behind and unaccounted for. Refugees who have suffered torture and trauma have particular difficulties. They may have impairments to sight and hearing which prevent effective reading or listening, be sensitive to noise and light, have inordinate difficulty retaining information even after repeated learning, be easily distracted, or prone to confusion, so that presenting arguments or following instructions present great problems.

The difficulties of learning English and the challenges faced by migrants should not be underestimated. Second language acquisition research indicates that it takes a minimum of seven years of specialist language tuition for an individual of average intellectual ability, educational background and first language literacy skills to reach a level of second language proficiency which approaches that of their native-speaking peers.

We note that those applying for citizenship are already required to demonstrate a basic knowledge of English during a brief interview. It can be argued that the functional level of English demonstrated during this interview is adequate for citizenship applicants and that no changes are required. It should be recognised that the new proposals appear to require much more of migrants in terms of English language proficiency than has been attained by a large proportion of Australian-born native English speakers. If it is considered desirable that citizenship applicants should have a higher level of English, we recommend that the starting point be to accept that migrants want to improve their English for the very purposes outlined by Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Parliamentary Secretary Andrew Robb.

The question of what level of English skill should be required cannot be taken in isolation from the question of the level and type of  resources which are provided by government. Government funding for ESOL education has not kept pace with increasing demand. The Vinson Inquiry into the Provision of Public Education recommended that 100 additional ESL positions be created in NSW schools to address unmet needs in primary and secondary classrooms. Despite representations made by ATESOL NSW and many other agencies and individuals, only a few additional positions have been approved. Given the current shortfall in ESOL teaching positions, our association is concerned that the introduction of a new citizenship test requiring a higher level of English than is now needed may create additional demand for services which cannot be met with the current level of resourcing.

ATESOL NSW has long experience in consultation with government and other groups on the English language needs of migrants. We would be pleased to assist in this way, either independently or in collaboration with the Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA), to determine what changes, if any, should be made to the standards of English now required of citizenship applicants and to advise on the corresponding resourcing requirements. I would also like to take this opportunity to endorse fully the response prepared by Misty Adoniou, President of the Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA), and submitted on behalf of the members of ACTA, representing English as a Second Language educators in every State and Territory in Australia.

Yours sincerely

Dr Robert Jackson
President ATESOL NSW Inc.

4 August 2005                                                                                      

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt MLC
Minister for Education and Training
GPO Box 5070
SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Minister

I write to you on behalf of the members of the Association for Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages New South Wales Inc. (ATESOL NSW), to draw your attention to the alarming shortfall between ESL need and ESL teaching support in government schools in NSW. Our Association previously wrote to the then Minister for Education and Training, Mr John Watkins MP, regarding this issue in December 2002 (your refs RML 03/1285 and RML 03/1394).

As you are no doubt aware, there has been no increase in the number of ESL teaching positions in government primary and secondary schools since 1993, however, each year there are additional numbers of students enrolling in NSW schools who require intensive English language support. Second language acquisition research indicates that it takes a minimum of seven years of specialist language tuition for an individual of average intellectual ability, educational background and first language literacy skills to reach a level of second language proficiency which approaches that of their native-speaking peers, and which will enable them to participate independently in a mainstream academic setting.

For students who have experienced torture and trauma, who have interrupted education in their countries of origin, or who possess limited or no first language literacy skills – students from refugee and refugee-like backgrounds, for example, particularly those from African communities – both the duration and degree of support required are significantly more. In order to address this issue, the Catholic Education Office, Sydney, has extended the length of stay at Lewisham Intensive English Centre to 18 months or more for students who require additional intensive English language tuition and resettlement support. No such accommodation has been made in the government sector’s Intensive English Program, however, despite intense lobbying from students, parents, teachers, schools, and community representatives.

It is clear that there has been an increasing disparity between ESL need and ESL teaching provision in government schools over the last 12 years, and the data verifying this are readily available: the ESL student-to-teacher ratio has doubled, and the number of students requiring, but not receiving, specialist ESL instruction has increased threefold, for example. What is not readily apparent from cold statistics, of course, are the ramifications for students, families, schools and communities in terms of school participation and completion rates, welfare and juvenile justice issues, post-school and vocational opportunities, and, ultimately, social cohesion and social capital. It is a failure of equity and foresight which the government education sector can ill afford.

We urge you to implement the recommendation of the Vinson Inquiry into the Provision of Public Education that 100 additional ESL teacher positions be created in New South Wales in order to address the unmet ESL need in primary and secondary classrooms, and to provide government Intensive English Centres and the Intensive English High School with the discretion to extend the length of stay to two years for those students assessed as requiring additional intensive English language and resettlement support.

Yours Sincerely

Robert Jackson
President
ATESOL NSW

cc. Mr Jack Passaris, Chair, Ethnic Communities’ Council of NSW
Mr Stepan Kerkyasharian, Chairperson, Community Relations Commission
Mr Angelo Gavrielatos, Senior Vice President, NSW Teachers Federation

      *  *  *

14 September 2005                                                                                           

Mr Andrew Cappie-Wood
Director-General of Education and Training
Managing Director of TAFE NSW
NSW Department of Education and Training
Level 2  35 Bridge Street
Sydney NSW 2000

Dear Mr Cappie-Wood

I write to you on behalf of the members of the Association for Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages New South Wales Inc. (ATESOL NSW) in regard to the English (ESL) course Higher School Certificate examination. The ATESOL Council and its members are deeply concerned at the unresolved issue of an inequitable time allocation for English (ESL) Paper 1 and Paper 2 in comparison with the English (Standard) and (Advanced) papers in the HSC exam. We have previously written to the Board of Studies NSW on 17/3/2004 providing the reasons for our concerns and recommendations for change, and we now seek the support of the NSW Department of Education and Training to progress this issue to a satisfactory resolution.

Currently, the total length of time allocated to candidates to complete the English (ESL) HSC examination is 3 hours. This comprises Paper 1, of 1 hour and 30 minutes duration, Paper 2 (Modules) of 1 hour duration, and the Listening Paper, which is 30 minutes. By contrast, the total length of time allocated to candidates to complete the English (Standard) and (Advanced) HSC examinations is 4 hours. This comprises Paper 1, of 2 hours duration, and Paper 2 (Modules), which is also 2 hours.

While the course weightings are identical, and the Modules and mark allocations in the various papers are comparable, ESL candidates are given less time to complete their examination responses. For example, English (ESL) Paper 1 is worth 45 marks, as is the English (Standard and Advanced) Paper 1, however, English (ESL) candidates have 30 minutes less to complete their paper, and they actually have an additional prescribed text to address in their extended response on the Area of Study. Similarly, both Modules in English (ESL) Paper 2 are worth 20 marks, as is each Module in both the Standard and the Advanced Paper 2, yet ESL students have only 30 minutes to write their extended responses on their chosen electives while Standard and Advanced candidates have 40 minutes in which to compose each of theirs.

Detailed analyses of the discrepancies in time allocation, and of the effects of insufficient time provided to ESL candidates on the number of non-attempt and incomplete responses in the pertinent sections of the examination, have been conducted. Alongside this, all available second language acquisition research indicates that language processing takes longer for ESL learners than it does for native speakers. Providing ESL learners with less rather than more time in which to read and interpret instructions and stimulus texts, and to compose their examination responses, as well as being counter-intuitive, provides an absolutely inequitable context for ESL learners to demonstrate achievement of the HSC English syllabus outcomes.

We have made the following recommendations to the NSW Board of Studies, in order that the timing for the English (ESL) HSC examination be brought into line with the English Standard and Advanced exams:

• English (ESL) Paper 1 to be extended to 2 hours
• English (ESL) Paper 2 (Modules) to be extended to 1 hour and 30 minutes

Along with the 30 minute Listening Paper, the total time for the English (ESL) HSC examination would then become 4 hours, an equivalent duration to the English (Standard) and English (Advanced) examinations.

The aims of these recommended time increases are: to provide ESL candidates with the opportunity to demonstrate fully their knowledge, skills and understandings; to elicit a better quality of response (rather than longer responses); and, to consolidate equity between the three English courses. It is not envisaged that these increases in examination time for English (ESL) candidates would extend the duration of the HSC English (ESL) marking operation.

I thank you for your time and urge you to make the appropriate submissions to the NSW Board of Studies at your earliest convenience.

Yours Sincerely

Robert Jackson
President
ATESOL NSW

cc. Mr Jack Passaris, Chair, Ethnic Communities’ Council of NSW
Mr Stepan Kerkyasharian, Chairperson, Community Relations Commission
Mr Angelo Gavrielatos, Senior Vice President, NSW Teachers Federation

      *  *  *