Just over one in ten (11 per cent) respondents reported that English was not their first
language.53 This is an increase from 2003, where the equivalent figure was seven per cent. Half
(50 per cent) of these respondents were from London, which remains unchanged compared with 2003 (47 per cent) (Table 5.1).
52 The Background questionnaire can be found in Annex 3.
53 It should be noted that the background questionnaire did not record immigration status and that speaking
Chapter 5: Skills Levels and demographic characteristics
49 Table 5.1 Location of respondents by first language (EFL / ENFL)
2003 2011
Total EFL ENFL Total EFL ENFL
% % % % % % South East 16 16 15 16 17 12 London 15 13 47 16 12 50 North West 14 14 8 13 14 7 East 11 11 5 11 11 7 West Midlands 11 11 8 10 11 8 South West 10 10 3 10 11 2
Yorkshire and The Humber 10 10 6 10 11 7
East Midlands 9 9 7 9 9 5
North East 5 5 1 5 5 1
Unweighted 8730 8270 460 7230 6620 610
Base: SfL2003 All aged 16-65 / SfL2011 All aged 16-65
London had the largest proportion of respondents who reported that their first language was not English (ENFL) (34 per cent). Other Regions had far fewer respondents with ENFL, as Table 5.2 shows.
Table 5.2 First language (EFL / ENFL) by Region All South
West North East North West Midlands East East Yorkshire and the Hum.
South
East Midlands West London
% % % % % % % % % % 2003 EFL 93 98 97 96 95 97 96 94 95 79 ENFL 7 2 3 4 5 3 4 6 5 21 Unweighted 8730 941 974 989 856 842 970 1229 931 998 2011 EFL 89 98 97 95 93 93 93 92 91 66 ENFL 11 2 3 5 7 7 7 8 9 34 Unweighted 7230 750 457 938 627 815 742 1310 771 820
Base: SfL2003 All aged 16-65 / SfL2011 All aged 16-65
Mirroring the findings from 2003, just over two thirds of respondents with ENFL (67 per cent) were from black and minority ethnic groups (BME) and they made up just over half (52 per cent) of all respondents from BME backgrounds. Additionally, the majority of respondents with ENFL were not born in the UK (92 per cent) and the most common places of birth were India (13 per cent), Pakistan (eight per cent) and Poland (eight per cent).54
50
Table 5.3 displays first language spoken by age. Declines in the proportion of respondents with EFL since 2003 are evident amongst those aged 25-34 and 35-44.55 If first language status is used as a proxy for immigration, this would suggest that there has been more immigration amongst younger groups into England.
Changes in first language spoken by age and generation are examined further in Section 5.5.1 of this chapter, and in the generational analysis in Chapter 6.
Table 5.3 First language (EFL / ENFL) by age
All 16-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-65 % % % % % % % 2003 EFL 93 97 92 90 93 93 96 ENFL 7 3 8 10 7 7 4 Unweighted 8730 498 673 1925 2256 1679 1696 2011 EFL 89 91 89 83 87 92 95 ENFL 11 9 11 17 13 8 5 Unweighted 7230 386 513 1397 1616 1584 1731
Base: SfL2003 All aged 16-65 / SfL2011 All aged 16-65
Three quarters (74 per cent) of respondents with ENFL felt that they spoke English well enough to hold a conversation. This is broadly in line with the data from 2003 (67 per cent). Twenty seven per cent spoke English as their main language at home, and 61 per cent spoke English as their main language at work or college. Whilst there is no change since 2003 in the proportion who spoke English as their main language at home (31 per cent), this represents an increase in the use of English in the workplace (50 per cent in 2003).
After English, the four most common languages spoken by respondents with ENFL were Punjabi (13 per cent), Hindi (12 per cent), and French and Urdu (10 per cent respectively). In 2003, the four most common languages were Punjabi (15 per cent), French (13 per cent), Urdu (12 per cent) and Gujarati (10 per cent)56. Examining respondents’ self assessment of their English
skills, 37 per cent of respondents with ENFL reported that they were ‘very good’ at speaking English, and a further 31 per cent felt they were ‘fairly good’. These self assessments remain unchanged from 2003.57
Literacy and Numeracy
Reflecting the findings observed in 2003, respondents who reported English as their first language tended to perform at a higher level on both the literacy and numeracy assessments than respondents with ENFL. The importance of English as a first language is also highlighted in the regression analysis later (in Section 6.3), which shows not having English as a first language
55 Whilst the table shows declines in all other age groups also, these do not reach levels of statistical significance
at the 5 per cent level.
56 See Appendix Table 5.A2. 57 See Appendix Table 5.A3.
Chapter 5: Skills Levels and demographic characteristics
51 is a predictor of ‘weak’ literacy and numeracy performance. As shown in Table 5.4 respondents whose first language was English were more likely to achieve Level 1 or above on the literacy assessment and Entry Level 3 or above on the numeracy assessment.
Table 5.4 Literacy and Numeracy Levels by first language (EFL / ENFL)
LITERACY LEVELS NUMERACY LEVELS
All EFL ENFL All EFL ENFL
% % % % % %
Entry Level 1 or below 5 3 21 7 5 18
Entry Level 2 2 2 5 17 16 20
Entry Level 3 8 7 17 25 26 23
Level 1 28 29 27 29 30 25
Level 2 or above 57 60 31 22 23 14
(Literacy - Entry Level 3 or below) /
Numeracy - (Entry Level 2 or below) 15 12 42 27 22 38 (Literacy - Level 1 or above) /
(Numeracy - Entry Level 3 or above) 85 88 58 76 78 62
Unweighted 5824 5345 479 5823 5328 495
Base: SfL2011 All aged 16-65 with literacy scores/ SfL2011 All aged 16-65 with numeracy score
When focusing solely on respondents who spoke English as a first language (EFL), there has been a small increase in the proportion reaching Level 1 or above in literacy: in 2003 86 per cent reached this standard, rising to 88 per cent in 2011. Findings for numeracy mirror the findings for all respondents, with a small decrease in the proportion reaching Entry Level 3 or above since 2003 (decreasing from 80 per cent in 2003 to 78 per cent in 2011).58
Respondents with ENFL who claimed to have ‘very good’ spoken English tended to perform to a higher standard in literacy: 78 per cent were classified at Level 1 or above, compared to 58 per cent of all respondents with ENFL. Reflecting the pattern observed in 2003, their performance was similar to that achieved by respondents whose first language was English. Although they were still less likely to achieve Level 1 or above and more likely to achieve Entry Level 3 or below, there were no marked differences in performance at each individual Literacy Level (Table 5.5).
For numeracy, as shown in Table 5.5, these respondents performed at a similar standard as those with EFL. In 2003, whilst these respondents outperformed all other respondents with ENFL, they still had weaker skills than respondents with EFL.
52
Table 5.5 Literacy and Numeracy Levels by first language (EFL / ENFL) and self assessment of spoken English
LITERACY LEVELS NUMERACY LEVELS
All EFL ENFL ENFL but ‘very good at speaking
English’
All EFL ENFL ENFL but ‘very good
at speaking
English’
% % % % % % % %
Entry Level 1 or below 5 3 21 9 7 5 18 8
Entry Level 2 2 2 5 4 17 16 20 13
Entry Level 3 8 7 17 9 25 26 23 19
Level 1 28 29 27 26 29 30 25 35
Level 2 or above 57 60 31 52 22 23 14 25
(Literacy - Entry Level 3 or below) /
Numeracy - (Entry Level 2 or below) 15 12 42 22 24 22 38 21 (Literacy - Level 1 or above) /
(Numeracy - Entry Level 3 or above) 85 82 58 78 76 78 62 79
Unweighted 5824 5545 479 182 5823 5328 495 191
Base: SfL2011 All aged 16-65 with literacy scores/ SfL2011 All aged 16-65 with numeracy score
Respondents were asked to give a self assessment of their maths skills by rating how good they were at working with numbers. Interestingly, respondents with EFL were more likely to give an ‘accurate’ rating (when maths ability is measured by the score on the numeracy assessment). Eighty eight per cent of respondents with EFL who rated their maths ability as ‘very good’ also achieved Entry Level 3 or above on the numeracy assessment. However, amongst such
respondents with ENFL, 74 per cent achieved Entry Level 3 or above.59 This may be due to the
fact that the numeracy assessment was written in English and so respondents would need to be able to read the question text in English to carry out the numeracy tasks. Alternatively it is
possible that people from non English-speaking cultures may have an inaccurate or poorer concept of what English numeracy standards involve, and/or numeracy standards in general. ICT
Table 5.6 illustrates the performance of respondents with EFL compared to respondents with ENFL in the four components of the ICT assessment.
Of the three practical components, differences were only apparent on the spreadsheet
component with respondents with ENFL more likely to achieve Entry Level 2 or below (51 per cent versus 37 per cent) and less likely to achieve Entry Level 3 or above (49 per cent versus 63 per cent). Whilst differences in performance on the other two practical components are evident in Table 5.6 they do not reach conventions of statistical significance (at the five per cent
confidence interval level) due to relatively small base sizes.
Chapter 5: Skills Levels and demographic characteristics
53 The largest differences between the two groups were found on the multiple choice component. Native English speakers tended to perform at a higher standard on this component compared to respondents with ENFL, with 55 per cent being classified at Level 2 or above compared to 31 per cent of respondents with ENFL.60
Table 5.6 ICT Levels by first language (EFL / ENFL)
WORD PROCESSING EMAIL SPREADSHEET MULTIPLE CHOICE
All EFL ENFL All EFL ENFL All EFL ENFL All EFL ENFL
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Entry Level 2 or below 43 42 53 31 30 40 39 37 51 9 9 16 Entry Level 3 16 17 13 9 9 7 27 28 21 12 11 23
Level 1 15 15 17 8 8 6 17 17 17 26 25 30
Level 2 or above 25 26 17 52 53 47 17 18 12 53 55 31 Entry Level 2 or below 43 42 53 31 30 40 39 37 51 9 9 16 Entry Level 3 or above 57 57 47 69 70 60 61 63 49 91 91 84
Unweighted 2253 2081 172 2247 2075 172 2228 2057 171 2274 2099 175 Base: SfL2011 All aged 16-65 with word processing / email / spreadsheet / multiple choice score
Further analysis suggests that English speaking ability may play a role in ICT performance. The performance of respondents with ENFL who rated themselves as ‘very good’ at speaking
English was more in line with the performance of all respondents with EFL across the four components. The main exception to this is in the email component: 67 per cent of respondents with ENFL who rated themselves as ‘very good’ at speaking English achieved Level 2 or above, compared to 53 per cent of all respondents with EFL.61
Additionally, respondents were asked to give a self assessment of their computer skills.
Interestingly, respondents with EFL were more likely to be accurate about their ICT ability on the multiple choice and word processing components. For instance, 77 per cent of native English speakers who rated themselves as ‘very good’ at using computers achieved Level 2 or above on the multiple choice component compared to 55 per cent of such respondents with ENFL. For word processing, the equivalent figures were 50 per cent versus 33 per cent. However, no such differences were found for the email component and spreadsheet component.62 It is important to
note that respondents were required to rate their general computer ability, not their ability at specific computer tasks and this may explain some of the above differences. This analysis must also be treated with caution due to the small base sizes of some of the groups.
60 For full breakdown see Appendix Table 5.A6. 61 See Appendix Table 5.A6.