Four reports, one message: the case for a national ESOL framework

Oct 2026
SLC

Four recently published reports look at ESOL from quite different angles but have remarkably similar conclusions.

The APPG on Further Education and Lifelong Learning’s Skills for life, work and place places ESOL within the case for reforming adult education in England.

Francesca Stella and Meg Wishart’s Evidencing the ESOL Crisis (University of Glasgow, with NATECLA Scotland and Migration Policy Scotland) examines ESOL in Scotland, a sector that has had no dedicated policy or strategy since 2020.

MigRefHealth’s community research in London and the East of England approaches ESOL through health and settlement.

The Bell Foundation’s nine policy asks set out what a national ESOL policy framework for England should contain. They are backed by its research on investment, devolution and qualifications.

They start from different places – from national policy, a devolved crisis, local community research, and sector evidence, yet their conclusions are strikingly similar.

1. A national strategy with clear ownership and accountability

All four call for a national strategy or framework:

Bell Foundation: calls for ‘a national policy framework for ESOL, based on the principles of equitable access to high-quality, local provision’. Central government would set principles, expectations and accountability measures as Adult Skills Fund money is devolved to regions.

APPG: wants ESOL to be an integral part of a new national vision for adult education (Recommendation 10).

Scotland: asks for a long-term strategy “with learners’ needs at its core”. It also asks the Scottish Government to say which unit is responsible, proposing Community Learning and Development (CLD).

MigRefHealth: its forthcoming expert report calls for fundamental change to make the system fit for purpose.

Accountability runs through all of them. The Bell Foundation and Scotland both want devolved or local bodies to report on outcomes and unmet demand within a national framework.

2. Stable funding, presented as an investment

All four make the case for stable funding:

Bell Foundation: the Adult Skills Fund, the main source of ESOL funding, has halved in real terms since 2009. This has left learners facing an ESOL “postcode lottery”. Its 2026 Case for Increased Investment in ESOL finds that 759,000 working-age adults in England (2%) say they don’t speak English well or at all. Employment is 78% among those with high proficiency, against 35% among those new to English. It calls for a full cost-benefit analysis of ESOL.

APPG: asks for protected, stable funding.

Scotland: wants additional stable funding and ringfenced money for local ESOL partnerships. Insufficient funding was the top challenge for 74% of the providers it surveyed.

MigRefHealth: points to returns such as the STEP Ukraine programme’s net benefit to the Exchequer.

The four also agree that ESOL is not only about new arrivals. The Bell Foundation and the APPG both note that around a third of people with limited English are UK citizens.

3. Fair entitlement, wherever learners live

All four want access to depend on need, not location:

APPG: proposes a funded minimum offer up to Level 3 “regardless of postcode”.

Bell Foundation: warns against a postcode lottery for ESOL courses and urges ministers to look at countries where newcomers are entitled to a set number of free or subsidised lessons.

MigRefHealth: points to the Danish and German models and calls for an entitlement up to Entry 3/B1.

Scotland: found that access was piecemeal in practice and depended on where learners lived, rather than on need. It asks for transparent principles on who is entitled to free tuition.

4. Better data on (unmet) need and outcomes

All four say better data is a precondition for planning:

Bell Foundation: says there are “very limited accurate national data” on adults who need to learn English. It recommends a new field in the individualised learning record (ILR), the national dataset on FE learners, to identify learners with other language backgrounds, plus baseline and exit data.

Scotland: proposes a national template for collecting data on unmet demand. It cites Glasgow’s ESOL register, whose evidence helped secure emergency funding.

MigRefHealth: calls for single points of contact in each region for registration, assessment and data collection.

APPG: calls for a framework to measure wider outcomes such as wellbeing and cohesion (Recommendation 12).

5. Standards, qualifications and progression

Both the Bell Foundation and Scotland want the qualifications framework to change:

Bell Foundation: wants new ESOL standards aligned to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Its ESOL Qualifications and Curriculum Review (March 2026) finds the adult ESOL core curriculum is about 20 years old and was modelled on literacy standards for first-language speakers. Around 85% of learners study at Entry level or below, and the review argues that Entry 3 is too low a level for moving on to mainstream courses.

Scotland: asks for revised standards, new qualifications, and both accredited and non-accredited learning pathways.

MigRefHealth: wants clear progression routes, an end to mixed-level classes and more provision for higher level learners to vocational ESOL and exam preparation courses. Scotland’s providers also raised mixed-level classes as an issue.

6. Language for work

All four connect ESOL with employment:

Bell Foundation: calls for more ESOL embedded in vocational training, and for FE funding models that don’t discourage colleges from offering ESOL. It also wants incentives for employers to provide ESOL at work, and careers guidance built into ESOL from the start.

APPG: found integrated ESOL and vocational routes among the provision hardest to offer at scale. ESOL learners also often get unclear career guidance on the English their career goals require.

Scotland: recommends incentives for employers and stronger links to labour-market services.

MigRefHealth: wants vocational courses beyond B1.

7. Digital as a supplement, not a substitute

While online ESOL effectively addresses issues around access, convenience and comfort for those who find it difficult to attend in-person courses, the Bell Foundation warns against “a one-size-fits-all digital solution”. It argues that technology should supplement teacher-led provision, not replace it, while also acknowledging that online or hybrid learning can help rural learners and parents. The APPG heard that language learning ‘cannot be replaced by digital tools’. MigRefHealth and Scotland both list digital exclusion as a barrier to access

8. Investing in the workforce

The Bell Foundation and Scotland make almost identical recommendations here. Both call for more recruitment, subject-specific continuing professional development (CPD), and training in trauma-informed practice. The Bell Foundation calls trauma-informed practice “an essential pedagogical skill”. Scotland also asks for better job security, since short-term funding makes it hard to keep qualified staff. The APPG notes tutor shortages but makes no recommendation on them.

9. ESOL as the foundation of cohesion

All four treat ESOL as essential to integration, not as an optional extra:

Bell Foundation: asks government to resource ESOL “as an essential driver of community cohesion”.

APPG: highlights ESOL’s contribution to health literacy, family learning and reduced isolation.

MigRefHealth: frames ESOL as a health-equity issue, and state that

Scotland: shows how asylum dispersal and anti-immigration protests are putting pressure on providers.

Where they differ

The differences are mostly ones of emphasis:

Bell Foundation: the most detailed on system design, covering standards, data fields, funding incentives and digital policy. It is the only one to propose a “What Works” centre to collect evidence and share effective practice across devolved areas.

Scotland: the most detailed on governance, partnerships and entitlement.

APPG: offers the broadest political platform and the most direct help with learners’ costs.

MigRefHealth: brings learners’ own experience to the debate.

What comes next

Timing matters for two of them:

England: the Government’s ESOL review is under way. The Bell Foundation calls it a “once-in-a-generation opportunity”.

Scotland: an ESOL Action Plan is due to go to the Scottish Government this autumn.

With four independent sources now agreeing, the sector has a clear set of asks: a national framework with clear accountability, stable funding, fair entitlement, better data and a properly supported workforce.