Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival
Posted 25 February 2013 - 06:11 PM
I guess its a good thing, it should mean these pupils when they become working age will have received a good education and having the ability to speak two languages might be an advantage in future jobs. its only a isolated case which can be accepted, but if this becomes the norm nation wide how will the school / educate budget cope, on a grand scale more spending would be needed.
Gladstone Primary is believed to be the first in Britain where every single one of its pupils does not speak English as a first language, but more and more pupils across the country are now from foreign backgrounds. In a 2012 census of 1,600 schools, it was found English-speaking children are now in a minority, with the figures particularly startling in the 14 inner London boroughs, where there were 98,000 non-native English speakers compared to 78,000 who could list the language as their number one. Nationwide, there were 97 schools where the number of pupils speaking English as a mother tongue was fewer than one in 20 of the school population. After London, Birmingham had the highest concentration of 'foreign' pupils, followed by Bradford and then Leicester. Punjabi was the most widely-spoken first language.
I am just wondering what additional costs are involved in this situation, and whether the diverting of Budget Funds to meet this requirement, means there is less to go around the Native English Speakers in terms of new equipment etc?