The go-to solution for the language barrier in frontline industries are ESOL classes, or English for Speakers of Other Languages. Yet a thorough UK government study revealed failure rates that would be unacceptable in any other educational context: as measured by CEFR language levels, 84% of students showed no reading progression, 82% no writing progression, and 76% no speaking/listening progression after 12 weeks of instruction [1].
Language classes have shown similar problems in Germany & Canada [2][3], yet remain the de facto solution for tackling the language barrier in workforces. For organisations seeking quick solutions to communication problems, ESOL classes represent an apparently professional, scalable intervention that can be easily procured and implemented.
However, the very features that make ESOL seem like the obvious choice-standardised curricula, classroom-based delivery, and progression frameworks-create systematic barriers that prevent effective workplace language upskilling.
In this article, we'll review the latest academic research and worker testimonials to understand why this language training programmes consistently fail to upskill workforce language level.
Rigid Scheduling vs. Workplace Reality
Traditional ESOL requires attendance at fixed times, typically 2-3 sessions per week for 10-16 weeks. This creates fundamental conflicts with shift work and unpredictable employment demands.
Research confirms the severity: 65% of shift workers report wanting schedule flexibility but face last-minute changes that make consistent attendance impossible [4]. Healthcare workers describe choosing between language learning and economic survival. One focus group participant explained: "for female immigrant workers, extra demands on their time as mothers and wives made it difficult to allot time for ESL study beyond the work day" [5].
The impact is severe: working adults demonstrate just 46% year-over-year persistence in educational programmes compared to 81% for traditional students [7].
One-Size-Fits-All Approach Fails Mixed-Ability Groups
ESOL delivers instruction through classes of 15-25 workers, regardless of individual needs or proficiency levels. Meta-analysis of 64 studies shows individualised technology-enhanced learning significantly outperforms traditional group instruction-some approaches achieve twice the learning effectiveness [8].
Research on mixed-ability classes documents that "strong students complete tasks quickly while the rest are just starting" and "the strong begin to get annoyed while the weaker feels anxious and pressured" [10]. These dynamics serve neither advanced nor beginning learners effectively.
Generic Content Misses Workplace Needs
ESOL curricula tend to focus on general English skills, grammar rules, and essay writing rather than job-specific communication competencies. The contrast with workplace-specific training is stark: 93% of nursing students improve comprehension of healthcare content after targeted instruction, compared to minimal improvement from general ESOL courses [11]. Workers in targeted programmes report being able to "explain medication changes to confused clients" and "document incidents accurately"-competencies directly applicable to their daily responsibilities.
Employer feedback consistently highlights this gap. Healthcare sector research reveals workers often complete ESOL programmes but remain unable to communicate about safety procedures, technical terminology, or emergency protocols. One employer noted: "We still see communication difficulties particularly relating to 'occupational jargon' even after workers complete formal language training" [12].
Workers spend months learning to write essays they'll never use while remaining unable to communicate effectively in actual work situations.
It all depends on the teacher
Programme effectiveness varies dramatically based on individual instructor quality, yet research demonstrates that effective teachers cannot be reliably identified through traditional qualification metrics.
Analysis of teacher effectiveness studies shows that only 29% of research on teacher experience demonstrates statistically significant positive effects, while teacher quality accounts for up to 40% of variance in student learning gains [13]. This variability makes ESOL programme outcomes essentially unpredictable, transforming training investments into gambles on instructor effectiveness.
Quality declines at higher scale
As organisations attempt to expand ESOL programmes to serve larger numbers of workers, these quality problems intensify. Government evaluations document that completion rates decrease from 76% to 45% as average class sizes increase from 12 to 28 students [14]. This creates a cruel paradox: programmes sized to serve entire workforces achieve worse outcomes for all participants than smaller interventions that can only reach limited numbers of workers.
The Cost of Systematic Failure
These systematic problems become particularly troubling when considered alongside the substantial financial investments that ESOL programmes require:
- Private instruction: £25-80 per hour
- Intensive programmes: £2,000-2,800 per 10-14 week term
- University programmes: £750 per class
- Community college programmes: £25-200 per course
Research shows that only 45-55% of adult ESL students complete programmes, meaning employers pay premium prices for training that over half of participants abandon. The Boston Foundation found programmes cost $4,024 per Educational Functional Level advancement, when factoring for the students that make no advancement at all. Employers are paying premium prices for solutions that predictably fail over half the time.
Conclusion
Employer persist with ESOL classes not because they are an effective solution, but because for a long time they have been the only solution. For immigrants arriving in a foreign workplace, this means joining a mixed-ability group, finding a way to fit it in with your shifts & ultimately investing precious time in a solution that has proven to be unlikely to help you improve your workplace fluency.
Effective language training must be reconceived as workforce development rather than traditional education. This requires employer engagement, workplace context integration, and flexible delivery mechanisms designed around workplace realities. Alternative approaches like mobile learning and workplace-integrated programmes show promise, achieving 25-60% better retention rates through flexible scheduling, individualised learning paths, and job-specific content [15].
For employers facing language barriers, the choice is clear: continue investing in programmes with documented 80% failure rates, or explore evidence-based approaches designed around workplace realities rather than classroom constraints.
References
[1] IFF Research. (2022). Evaluation of the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) for Integration Fund: Final report. Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-evaluation-of-the-esol-for-integration-fund
[2] Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. (2021). Brief Analysis 7|2021: Course progressions in the General Integration Course. BAMF Research Centre. Available at: https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/EN/Forschung/Kurzanalysen/kurzanalyse7-2021-integrationskursverlaeufe.html
[3] Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2010). Evaluation of the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/language-instruction-newcomers-canada/findings.html
[4] Golden, L. (2015). Irregular work scheduling and its consequences. Economic Policy Institute.
[5] Burt, M., & Mathews-Aydinli, J. (2007). Workplace Instruction and Workforce Preparation for Adult Immigrants. Center for Adult English Language Acquisition, Center for Applied Linguistics.
[6] Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2011). Identity, language learning, and social change. Language Teaching, 44(4), 412-446.
[7] National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Adult Education Participation in 2016/17. U.S. Department of Education.
[8] Arvanitis, P., Krystalli, P., & Panagiotidis, P. (2020). The effects of using mobile devices on language learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1769-1789.
[9] Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169-192.
[10] Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[11] Basturkmen, H. (2010). Developing courses in English for specific purposes. Palgrave Macmillan.
[12] Cameron, R., Daga, R., & Edwards, B. (2013). The role of English language skills in the labour market outcomes of immigrants. Australian Government Department of Education.
[13] Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review, 100(2), 267-271.
[14] Tinto, V. (2017). Through the eyes of students. Journal of College Student Retention, 19(3), 254-269.
[15] Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271-289.