Rationing of basic learning

DIUS (Dept of Innovation Universities and Skills) published its "new approach" to the teaching of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). See it here

As you'd expect, not one single reference to the practices and people involved in ESOL teaching. It treats ESOL as a process industry with a delivery structure that you tweak to optimize it, like insurance claims processing for example. There seems to be no acknowledgement that giving people language skills is a matter of contact, time, inspiration and good materials used well in good environments. Such a Taylorist approach may well be “new” but can it be effective ?

Also, something troubles me in the underlying assumption that “need” for language learning is a variable function of a deprivation index. Yes it is right to argue that the most excluded should be offered most attention. But No, it surely is wrong to sign up to any political economy with sliding scales of access to a fundamental entitlement like social participation through communication. Those access criteria are going to be set by political processes which may be (already are ?) venal, arbitrary, penny-pinching or hostage to interest-groups. I haven’t completely worked out what the problem is in this approach, but instinctively I’d say, “slippery”. I can’t think of any other kinds of basic education that are meted out on a socially-indexed “need” scale.

Now I expect tomorrow's DIUS proposals will be for restricting English lessons at primary school to only half of the children. And of course the Government will expect praise for setting enlightened access criteria around exclusion.

So what is it about ESOL speakers that makes them suitable for this rationing of opportunity ? Please reassure me that it’s nothing to do with their foreign origins.