School refusing to provide translator

[CapturedLeprechaun]

I'm on the Governing body for a school with a really high proportion of kids with English as a second language. It's over 80% of their pupils. Many of the parents speak little or no English at all. There are some families who have been here 5+ years where one or both parents speak no English at all still, and even a "your child has no PE kit, they need to wear their PE kit on Mondays and Wednesdays" wouldn't be understood.

The school always use translators for meetings with parents - either a staff member who speaks that language who is available, or else they have a telephone translator service that they pay for, so the phone is on loudspeaker and a translator translates the conversation.

This is done for all parents evenings/ attendance meetings/ SENCO meetings etc for parents who don't speak or understand English.

Important letters like school trips/consent forms are provided translated in the three most common languages spoken.

The school offers English classes to parents, one held in the school one morning a week in the hall, one held in the evening each week.

School has now said translators will only be provided to parents whose children have been at the school for less than a year. If your child has been at the school for more than a year and you are unable to understand English, no translator will be provided, due to staff shortages and costs, and you have to bring a friend/family member who can translate. Letters will only be provided in English, and parents can use the translate feature on google if they need to.

On the face of this, does this seem a reasonable decision? The head has announced this and I don't know why it doesn't sit right with me, and I can't really articulate why. It has a lot of support from the English speaking parents, but it feels... divisive, I guess? And most likely children who will suffer. Currently trying to weigh up whether this is something I should raise, or accept this is a reasonable step for the school to take.

It's not just Brits abroad who call themselves expats. Tbh I am pretty sure it caught up more in English so people don't confuse emigrant vs immigrant, which I've seen on here as well.

The worst paid work in this country does not require much English. And it’s honestly not that easy to claim benefits as a new immigrant. Don’t assume they are all on benefits.

I think it’s reasonable when schools funding is so low that teachers pay out of their own pockets and redundancies are happening. Translators are so expensive. I honestly think you should be able to access language lessons so you can understand the language of the country you live in. It happens in my workplace people who have lived in the country for years and years demanding translators and it’s costing the NHS an absolute fortune. They are making no effort to learn the language but because of consent they have to be provided

HOWEVER how easy it is for these families that have been in te U.K. got a short time that may have little money, time, knowledge and so on to actually access language lessons I’ve no idea.

Caught up more in English? Sorry I don’t understand.

That's a rather rude reply to a perfectly reasonable point.

Getting your kids to help translate has been the standard method for years when people move to new countries. It's insensitive when an adult has to seek medical care for their kids to act as translator, but it's completely appropriate when school is communicating about that kid. The school could also prioritise certain sorts of comms to be translated, such as safeguarding issues, where the kid can't act as translator reliably.

May I point out that the adults may not be literate in their own language? If they come from certain sorts of places where literacy is poorly taught, so they need a spoken translation anyway.

My cousin moved to Italy from England and had to learn the language pretty quickly as translators are not provided anywhere, not even in healthcare. Ex-pats to any country should learn the language to be able to function in society, especially if they have children. Translators by telephone don't come cheaply so well done the school.

Became more popular. Sorry

There needs to be a point at which the needs of the child are put first.
fair enough to stop routine translation but any really important intervention needs to be translated. Imagine discussing adhd, dislexia, neurodiversity, child protection or possible exclusion in a second language - if the stakes are high or is not fair in the child to penalise them for something totally out of their control (no child can force their parents to learn English).

Totally understandable, parents who have been here for a year should be able to speak/understand basic English and also use free online translation tools.

I work with parents on a daily basis (in a different capacity). Too many parents nowadays want to be spoon fed and would rather make more work for somebody rather than taking responsibility themselves.

Haven't RTFT but what's all this nonsense about being 'unable to read and write' = can't learn?
I'm from a multilingual country in South East Asia. My grandmother couldn't read but speaks 4 languages. Equally we have people moving here from other countries, working in service jobs/labourers who pick up a couple of our languages quickly enough...

And yet a HUGE number of Brits living abroad don't speak much, if any, of their local language. I've even had a British person tell me they integrated in the country, when they don't speak the language! They say their local friends say they're integrated too. Yet those friends can't speak their own language when this person is around, because she doesn't understand. And she's lived there 10+ years. That's nota one off!

That's true, but Brits abroad don't routinely demand interpreters and the use of translation services. They are also usually retirement age, don't have school age children and don't need access to many of the services that use interpreting and translation services here.

Should they make an effort to learn Spanish, for example? Yes, absolutely, but they won't need it as much as say a family with two children and an ailing granny who have come to the UK.

English is an international language.
I’ve lived in a city in a non-English speaking country with several English schools.
They weren’t only attended by English/ American kids, but also by other expat kids from non-English speaking countries and even some locals.

Agree, imagine all that money being used on translators being spent on more sen provision for our kids would be amazing.

@Tartareistasty @ZippedTop @LlynTegid
Expats are people sent by the company on short-term work trips the key element here is a company sponsored relocation package, private school paid for etc in a few years they will move them elsewhere. British retirees in Spain are certainly NOT expats.
There are expats of every colour and nationality not just British.
Expats are a type of immigrant but not every immigrant is an expat.

I agree with you - pupil premium is there to help with the needs of these pupils and 1.5k on language services is a small amount from the 300k which is meant to be for their benefit, not just top up the overall pot.

Once a week lessons in English, even if accessible to the parents, won't touch the sides of fluency in a year and as pp says - google translate was built to translate into English and is pretty poor in many other languages.

I'm guessing with that level of premium in inner London its a high degree of the poorest immigrants, a fair few of who will have come in circumstances of persecution rather than being economic migrants with connections established in the country. They are less likely to be getting exposure to English at work and socially. PPs are underestimating the challenges which face low status and poorer migrants in accessing language support for learning.

If the head is targeting these families both in terms of withdrawing language support (which is their special need) and hardlining on attendance are they actually just trying to reduce the minority/struggling intake to massage up the league tables results?

I'm laughing at all the posters saying they should learn English and its rude to live in a country without learning the local language.
The Brits are infamous for travelling the world imposing their own language on countries and living in their little expat enclaves which operate like little Britain but with servants. Its rank hypocrisy.

But what's your solution @MaudGonneOutForAFag . Schools are underfunded. If they're covering for illegals they're certainly not going to get any extra translation money are they?
Also I love this 'British vs immigrants' debate. Immigrants through legal channels contribute a lot to this country in terms of tax getting less in return (we have to pay a NHS fee and can't claim benefits for a start). We take a dim of view of other people needing handholding and more money. If they are refugees etc they should be in a language program but if they're illegal then that's not a problem I want my tax money to solve.
As immigrants even it's not ourselves certainly our parents and grandparents have struggled with few resources so we take a dim view of other people needing spoon feeding. It seems that people in the same conditions in other countries make it, but the moment they migrate to a 'rich' country like the UK expect everything to be done for them.

As an immigrant myself, I agree with you.
I do think it’s in everyone’s best interest to make an initial investment in language services for recent arrivals, i.e. spend some tax money on free / low cost language courses and translation services.
But the effort and engagement needs to come from both sides, not just from the host country.

Also @MaudGonneOutForAFag I don't see why if the 'community' is sheltering people they can't translate for them. When there's a big group of people from a similar background at least a couple can speak English, why can't they translate? Why does someone have to pay 'official' translators?

You don't have to be sent by company with flashy package to be an expat.
Yes, it's usually move on temporary basis rather than very long term or permanent move, but the term is being used by others (non brits) for the latter sometimes too.
Actually now I think about it. Do the retirees return to UK when they get "too old" or do they usually die and bury in the country they retired to? I always considered them non permanent tjinkimg they return eventually

I agrée with you that it doesn’t feel very inclusive and it doesn’t help most disadvantaged children. The parents will just not engage with the school most likely. I see it in our school that some parents never know what’s happening and are just a bit disengaged. It’s the kids who suffer, while their friends come to clubs and events, these kids don’t. So it’s not actually helping. I agrée it’s the kids who have to be put at the centre of this.

Can the parents be sent on an English course at the local authorities cost? If this is how complicated parents evenings are - I’m wondering how fluidly the teachers can teach? Or do they teach in another language? To suit the children in the area?

Overall, if my child went to school in say Italy or France, I would see it as my responsibility to have enough language to converse with teachers over school matters and also would assume that the classes/learning would take place in French/Italian too.

Please let’s not hear the word racism mentioned. Speaking the language of the country you live should be a basic requirement of settling as an economic migrant.

A year is quite enough time to learn some basic English. The issue is that in many communities,(more so muslim and pakistani) women, in particular, live in very insular ways as a means of controlling them. Men don't want them to mix and learn English and possibly be influenced by our freedoms as women or to behave the way they perceive English women behave. The men can often speak English but choose not to.

Yes apols, it does depend on what context you use but at work for example (large MNC) an 'expat package' is usually when the company wants to relocate someone on a temp basis. Of course, they could choose to stay on permanently but that's beyond the contract.
People who want to move of their own volition are 'immigrants'.
Say, for example staff in the India office who apply for a UK job and have been accepted. The company won't pay for anything other than visa, airfare and a temp place to stay. On an expat package the entire move would be managed, schools etc sorted.
Certainly I myself am not from the UK and worked with people from everywhere who have moved around a lot and it's always been understood what the difference between an immigrant and expat was.
But having Googled it some places agree with me, others say an expat is someone who lives outside their country of origin, so I guess my explanation was contextual.
The whole 'expat vs immigrant' debate makes no sense to me because in my circles of internationally mobile people the difference is very clear.

Yes this true sadly and the crux of the issue but people don't want to say it because RACISM.
All sorts of excuses PTSD, SEN blah2 but really this is an issue too.