Migrants required to pass A Level Standard of English

[onceuponatimeinneverland]

www.gov.uk/government/news/migrants-will-be-required-to-pass-a-level-standard-of-english
Just heard this on the news. Is it me or is it totally mad? Especially when you look at the relatively poor standard of speaking, listening, reading and writing that exists already for those actually born in the UK rather than migrating in.

I'm presuming that applicants won't actually have to sit A Level English language as that would be even madder.

Or maybe its entirely sensible. I'm all for having a literal workforce.

What do other countries request I wonder (can't be fussed to actually look).

Yes I am BU - A Level standard English is the bare minimum
No you aren't BU - Its mad

English language A-Level is interesting but designed for native speakers.

I have B2 level Spanish (passed the relevant DELE, I did it for fun) and I would say I am fairly fluent, to give you some idea of what that means in practical terms. C1 and C2 are full fluency and professional proficiency: what you would want for university studies, essay writing, and so on. I have no problem reading or watching the news in Spanish, but reading a novel would be more difficult.

It is a fairly high bar. The gap from B1 to B2 is bigger than you might think.

I think importing people with good literacy makes sense. I think we should export people with poor literacy. Poland for example has been growing so fast it is starting to import labour maybe with should send ship the UK unemployed out to work in Polish care homes.

Tbh, the issue is evident even in this thread.

Many people have read A level standard of English and interpreted that as simply A Level English or assumed it means the standard of English a native speaker would need to undertake A Level English. That people would come here and be expected to have attained an A Level English Literature, to write essays in English and be able to analyse DH Lawrence - the way an English A Level.English student might.

That isn't what It means at all. It means to be able.to communicate effectively at a basic level of English. To understand verb agreements, English syntax and be able to understand and make themselves understood enough to engage and access at a basic level. To have the fundamental understanding that they would be able to build upon once here.

It doesn't mean they will need to be fluent or anywhere near it.

Cambridge First is a B2 ELT exam and isn't I don't think what is taken by those requiring visas. This is a completely different exam called the SELT which has different levels from A2 to B2. It tests speaking, reading, listening and writing skills and is much simpler in format than the First. The First has a lot of grammar which I don't think the SELT specifically tests. It's more about functional communication.

If you'd moved to live in France soon after getting your GCSE, and had to speak and listen to French every day in your daily life, you would very quickly build up you French to the point where it came pretty easily; if you carried on, you would be close to fluent within a year. You learn a language best by living in the relevant country, not by sitting down and working towards an exam qualification.

Does it also include those with learning disabilities? I know several adults with profound disabilities who are unable to read or write or, for example, can just about write their own name. They will never improve but not for lack of effort.

No. They would be considered outliers.

I've gone through the process to obtain citizenship of an EU country and think the whole process of language requirement is a positive thing, if it's done right.
The country I live in has a fairly marginal language, not one spoken worldwide so they are keen to preserve it, they don't demand qualifications in advance but adults with work visas, study visas and migration /family reunification the person entering the country is offered 3 years of funded language learning, and a language qualification is required for citizenship (unless the individual has extreme learning difficulties such that formal language testing is not possible) and some employment.

It's very flexible, much of it evening classes, and different levels are offered to suit all sorts of groups - from people who need high school /university level language skills, dyslexia friendly classes, to a whole set up for those who are illiterate or have never been in formal education before. This also links to further adult literacy /numeracy opportunities, and the potential for work related qualifications.
The language learning has a large cultural component, as a certain amount of information on civics , society, social rules, history and culture is embedded in the lessons and topics. In that way it helps avoid ghettoisation and the sort of issue that arise with having groups living in enclaves who are not informed about or integrated with the land they live in, or living by it's rules or laws. It's also particularly beneficial for female migrants, especially those entering the country due to marriage or family reunion, as the expectation and opportunity for integration is built in. There are still problems, but I think overall, a language requirement put together with the infra works well here and is overall a positive for both society and the individuals migrating here

The problem with this is that you'd need to integrate.

There are a lot of immigrants living on my road. I only really speak to my NDNs on both sides.

One side - both young, both working and both I'd describe as fluent. On the other, the husband works and is fluent. His wife doesn't work, only really engages with her friends and her standard of Englush is very low. We exchange pleasantries - how are you? We are going on holiday. Where are you going? level of conversation. But she wouldn't have the language skills to work (they have young children).

I have friends who are second generation immigrants and their dads are fluent (I've spoken with them). Their mums came here 40 years ago and still can't get by in English because they've only ever really communicated in their native language with friends who have a shared language. Their husbands and adult children act as their interpreters.

You are right that if people immerse themselves in a language they will learn it quickly but, where they don't, just being in a country doesn't guarantee you'll learn the language.

Again, look at the British ex pats living in Spain who only want to eat at English restaurants, shop in English shops and don't learn Spanish because they have their own English speaking communities. They're not fluent in Spanish because they don't need to be.

So to become fluent, people need to work and/or have the basic level of language skills to enable them to engage and build on those.

A lot of people can get by with very rudimentary language skills and gesture but this doesnt equate to functional language which is all 'A Level standard' would provide.

I have an English Language A-Level. All I remember is learning about the importance of a pre modal auxiliary verb in a piece of prose.

I doubt many native English speakers know what a verb(**) is never mind an auxiliary one and even less its pre-modal nature. Indeed I remember the teacher having to teach us what verbs, nouns and adjectives were as we hadn’t actually been taught.

** It’s a doing word apparently.

An improved measure of English speaking ability is a great idea. Making A Level English the standard is ridiculous.

I thought about ex pats as I’ve been reading this thread but as most of them move to Spain to retire then language proficiency is less of an issue. Younger people I know who have moved to Spain to work do speak good Spanish.

This comment completely ignores the issues around parallel societies. Look at many of the Northern mill towns.
People who came to this country years ago speak little or no English because they live in their parallel grouping and do not need it. Social life is entirely within the community, shops managed by the same ethnic group serve that community. This particularly affects women who - usually for cultural reasons - are discouraged from learning English because it makes them more independent and they can access eg domestic violence support.
It disadvantages their children who arrive in the school system with little or no English. Since the schools in those communities are also dominated by that ethnic group they do not speak English outside the classroom either.

Because it’s natural to want to control/improve/put right something where you actually can.

Just because we might be stuck with an indigenous population whose educational achievements leave a lot to be desired doesn’t mean we want to import more of the same. And it’s common sense - it’s advantageous both to the indigenous population and immigrants that they have a good grasp of the language.

And there’s the pressure of funding translation services when money is right. Sometimes people who’ve been in Britain for decades still require these services and I think that’s a bad reflection on them and their culture.

Where is this stat from?!

A Level seems a strange benchmark for all sorts of reasons. Of those who do A Level English only some do linguistics/language.

About 10 years ago, my lovely colleague and her DH became British Citizens. The British history she learned and quite a lot of the other stuff seemed - even then - far more than necessary.

From the BBC news article it says the increased standard is only required by migrants applying to come in under the "skilled worker" or "high potential individual" visas. And I suspect the English language ability of existing/native workers in similar such roles would also be at an equivalent higher standard. So I think the media is pretty abomnible for their headline grabbing hype making out A-level requirement will be for all migrants. The media really seems to want to fuel bad feeling instead of educating people on what's actually happening. It's a disgusting industry these days. Clickbait crap that the masses don't question.

I'm not sure being retired is less of a reason. The retirees I know in Spain still need services, plumber, doctor, hairdresser, dentist, and expect everyone to speak English while moaning about foreigners in Britain.

As an A Level student I would hope you have the capacity to realise that an A Level standard of language for a non native speaker is a very different thing than one for a native speaker.

And wouldn't generally be imported surely

What other countries fund translators for people who have moved there? I don't know of any. Usually people who need translation have to pay for it themselves

I do find it bizarre that anyone would choose to live in a country and not speak the language. But they are the ones who bear that burden of inconvenience.

In an earlier post I described my own experience of dealing with medical professionals in the UK whose spoken English was woefully inadequate and who were unable to communicate with their patients and patients’ relatives. In those cases the burden of inconvenience (at best) or at worst, actual harm due to the professionals’ inability to communicate was on the English speaking patient in an English speaking country.

If someone moved from the UK to Spain to work as a nurse or a doctor, I would expect/hope that they would be able to speak fluent Spanish.

I know Australia required English language tests for PR. There are some exemptions though. As a British passport holder I was not required to sit an English language test. My German and Norwegian friends found it fairly easy but they are fluent in English.

I doubt it’s that hard as the woman who administered my PR health check had a shockingly bad level of English (unless she was there on a 457 visa.)

If you move to a country on a permanent or long term basis and don’t speak the language, you’re basically saying “I don’t know want to integrate or participate in society”.