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.

My children attend a school like OPs. A big group of the persistent absentees are children with very substantial family and cultural ties abroad - loads of my kid’s classmates go back to their country of origin for a month over Easter or Christmas even though the holiday is only two weeks, or they leave in early July for two months abroad or their relatives in Asia are getting married so what would be a Saturday event if their family was local becomes at least a week off school.

Theres plenty of other reasons for absence of course, but it’s a significant one in some schools.

Child of immigrants from non English speaking country, and agree with school’s decision, finite resources and this sadly isn’t the best use of the schools money. That money needs to be spent on teaching staff and resources for children- not their parents. Besides- You cannot force parents to engage if they are not interested, if anything school is enabling it.

So presumably you think these parents are also arrogant in just expecting everybody else to provide and pay for, translators so they can speak their own language?

And yours is exactly the right sort of approach.

And I would apply the same thing to Brits wanting to live overseas. Learn the effing language.

Just got back from Canada and had great fun in Quebec City flaunting my pidgin French while the locals did the same with their English

I agree entirely. And, even if everyone else is right that the parents should have learnt the language, (which I vehemently don’t agree they are) that’s not the kids’ fault is it? It’s the kids that will suffer as a result. Education should put children at the forefront of every decision. This decision is divisive. As a side note, I recently left a school that had no money for an additional printer but bought a £5k coffee machine in the same breath. Please don’t believe that all schools spend their money responsibly. The same school had a CEO, an executive principal and a head teacher. The top two are both on six figure salaries. The head is nearing that. If any of the three were ever off…it made no difference. They collectively bring nothing to the school. Education is full of wonderful people. It’s also often (not always - my current school’s leadership team is brilliant) led by corrupt, ignorant, unempathetic shits. It’s a huge part of why so many people don’t want to teach anymore.

I know three people who moved to the UK not speaking a word of English. Two became fluent within 2-3 years, have fully integrated, have both English friends and friends from their original countries, and other countries. The third, does not speak fluent English but absolutely has learned enough to get by.

Even when I go on holiday to a country in which I do not know the language, I learn key phrases before going. It's basic courtesy and respect.

In my opinion, the school have made the right decision. Providing a translator for a year is good. Parents having been here for 5 years and not even learning the basics is ridiculous, regardless of what brought them to the UK in the first place.

I think you must be quite a poor school governor if you don't understand the reasoning behind this. If you were competent in your role, you should be aware of the financial realities facing school, the difficulties they have with budgets and spending cuts, not to mention recruiting and retaining teachers etc. Schools get so little funding and yet are expected to achieve so much, it is obvious that they cannot have all the resources they need. What would you prefer they cut instead?

Perhaps a better use of your time might be seeing what you could do to help the school raise money, instead of complaining on the internet.

Why should the school use essential funds on people that can't be arsed to learn the language of the country they live in? You wouldn't get it in Spain, or France etc so why should you expect it here? They're offering lessons, it's the parents fault if they don't take them

Perfectly reasonable in my view. I do think they could continue to provide letters in the target language though; surely that's no extra work or expense when the basic template is already there.

@SpringViolet

I have travelled all over the world extensively and have never seen it in any other country.

Is this true?
Do you know what they do in other countries? Nothing? I seem to remember a family member being ill abroad and having to pay for their own translator.

I think all these translation services, although provided with the best of intentions, are actually not helping people.

It's all very well saying they should learn English, but how? And if they don't, it's the children who suffer.

I understand your uneasiness. Is there scope to explore use of voluntary translation services - putting a call out to bilingual parents? Reusing past translated letters?

It's tough, I get it. I sit on a public sector board and there is finite money and seemingly infinite need.

If they're still offering the English classes then I think its ok. Presumably the children will know enough English in most cases to be able to translate too. I do know people in communities who don't learn English because they never have a need to, despite living here decades. If they have a need to (to facilitate their child's education) then they are more likely to learn it. If translation services are always provided then there is no incentive.

I do think though that they should expect there to be a drop in parent engagement and a few issues with things like permission slips not being returned.

Education should put children at the forefront of every decision. This decision is divisive

You can’t put kids first without the money to pay for teachers. Caretakers, cleaners, cooks etc

If this is a poor school with large numbers of FSM - then the school will be poorer as they receive lower funding from parents.

If parents want an interpreter, then they find one or pay for one.

You can’t expect and English education with tout speaking the language.

It’s incredibly disrespectful to move to any country and not learn the language. The parents should learn English. The school is quite right not to pander to their refusal to integrate into British society any longer.

When in Rome.......
I lived in France for a while and immediately began making huge efforts to learn the language.
Make no mistake, it was extremely hard work but it should be obligatory in my opinion.
If you have children and you want them to succeed in life, you should do it for their sake at the very least.

Why is it the schools problem? After a year the child should be able to speak English and can translate

why is it that we provide translators free for everything? Live in other countries, you pay for a translator, or learn the language

sounds good use of money by the school to me

That's whataboutery, given that only about 18% of the Welsh population (most of whom were born in Wales) speaks Welsh, under 15% can also read and write, and only about half of these Welsh speakers claim to be fluent.

Go outside to the shops, the doctor, dentist, school, watch TV, listen to the radio or a podcast or an audiobook, go to the free classes the school put on, go to mother and toddler group, playgroup, playground, pick up your phone and watch countless YouTube videos, go and see a film at the cinema, use Duolingo, visit the library, chat to parents at the school gates.....etc etc etc

When the money runs out, then you can't afford everything.

The level of support you are offering, and will continue to offer all new arrivals for their first year is admirable, and I hope that at least some of the parents, and nearly all the pupils get a good level of English and/or familiarity with tech translation tools.

The child can translate? Can't see any problems with this at all..?
"so, your son is one of the worst students I've ever taught"
"mum, he's saying I am his no.1 student and should go to Cambridge".

Agree about speaking the language.
But you don't seem to understand how school funding works. It comes from the government, not parents, and they actually get an extra of £1320 per per primary child /£935 per secondary child per year in Pupil Premium for children on FSM, as their families are usually less able to contribute to school expenses/trips/etc, and as many will have additional needs for support. They need to account for this money, and perhaps a translator was a good use of funding in the past, but now isn't the best way to meet pupils' needs.

I'm a permanent foreign resident in a non-English speaking country. I think the school is being reasonable. There are only so many resources to go round. Parents need to get to grips with English as quickly as possible, and make use of Google translate and other resources to get the gist of things when there are things they cannot understand. People who don't want to do this should not migrate to another country - it is part of the deal. And English is increasingly spoken in most parts of the world; in cities at least around the world, it's the norm, more and more, for people under 50 to speak at least a bit of English even before they migrate anywhere.

(By the way, the people attending meetings are interpretors not translators!)

There are many many reasons why people can't learn a different language. Maybe they never went to school, and cannot read and write in their own language or maybe their family were murdered or hometown bombed and they have ptsd. Maybe they don't want to be here? This would just push them further away and make them less likely to engage.

Other than people who are actually non-verbal, nobody "can't" learn a second language as an adult; rather the degree of proficiency they are able to acquire varies. I get that it's harder for some, but they need to try. Immigrants vary in personality as much as everyone else, and I've seen some very lazy people among the foreign immigrants in the country where I life; some people really don't try very hard if they know that a language nanny will be there helping them out!

.

I'm with you, the kids are going to be the ones worse off.
Pp are talking about budget, which I get but if 80% of pupils parents use this service it could actually have an impact on whether the school will even be around in 2/3years time.

For me it doesn't sit right because it feels very exclusionary and i suppose some could argue racist.
Also the Head teacher and English speaking parents won't feel the brunt of this, it will be the bilingual teachers and the kids, who will be under more strain because of HTs choice.
Isn't supporting the teachers worth the expense?

Has the school actually reached out to the parents and suggested they contribute to this service as an added opt in with school fees so the school dont actually have to pay for it?