|
Education
English at the primary level
IN THE context of the policy change adopted by many of the State Governments to introduce English at class three and in some cases class one levels, a National Seminar on Teaching English at the Primary Level was recently held at the Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad. Surprisingly, while the speakers at the seminar spoke about the methods and materials to be adopted for teaching English at this level to learners from varied backgrounds, taking for granted that English must indeed start at the earliest stage in the school curriculum, the basic issues involved in the decision itself were not raised.
Let us look at some of the arguments forwarded for the early introduction of English in the school curriculum. The first is based on the observation that career prospects seem better for those who start English early and therefore have a better level of proficiency and that late starters in English do not attain the level required for professional development. This is linked to the number of hours of exposure required for language learning. The counterpoint to this is that there are innumerable instances of successful professionals, even English professors, who have learnt English after the primary level. The reason behind the success of this segment of the population is the quality of the instruction they received and their levels of individual motivation. The second is that the economically forward advocate late introduction of English for the masses and give their own children a good English education. This perpetuates economic disparities. However, we have as many instances of socio-economic upward mobility sans the crutch of English and conversely many who are in deprived circumstances even when English happens to be the home language.
The third is that English has anyway to be learnt before entry into the job market and therefore why not start early. This would hold good only for the section that gets into jobs where fluency in English is a criteria for qualification. There are many sectors where a working knowledge of English is all that is required and there are many where English is not required. We know that in many lower courts and State Government sectors, more in the semi-urban and rural areas and even in the police service, many of the transactions take place in the regional language and there is no reason why the vast numbers who are employed therein really need English. So also in the self-employed business sectors.
While equipping school-leavers with the required level of proficiency in English as an added advantage, is beyond question. What is worrisome is the way the policy decision is being implemented. They are a means of conveying to the electorate, for the most part rural-based and illiterate or semi-literate, that they are recipients of a package of benefits that is being bestowed upon them with altruistic motives; "we are giving you English", in the same tone as "we are giving you mid-day meals". The flip side of the gift is that they include English in the curriculum and do little else. A very lucrative mill starts running in the materials production and publishing market. Short-term workshops are conducted in methodology in the name of teacher training, and an illusion of tackling the problem on a war footing is created. There have been discussions on providing transcriptions of English words in the regional language and as there is no one-to-one correspondence between the phonological systems of English and any of the Indian languages, especially in the vowel and diphthong sounds, this becomes problematic.
The basic fact is that teachers with little English knowledge themselves and, who have lesser inclination to teach it are being coerced into teaching the subject. A pilot study conducted recently in the rural sector in Maharashtra revealed that many of these teachers do not have the minimum adequate proficiency in English, and consequently are not positively inclined to teaching it. Teachers who have been teaching in the regional language for two decades and more are forced to teach English. Training programmes are thrust on those who are on the verge of retirement. There is great resistance from these teachers even to the presence of field researchers in their classes since they are self-conscious of the zero-English learning/teaching condition there.
When we talk of teaching English to disadvantaged sections of society, we need teachers who are both sound in English and in second/foreign language pedagogy. Across the country, at the moment we do not have that kind of teacher resources. Most teachers teach English through the regional language. English is taught as a content subject through rote-memorisation of answers, rather than as a skill to be used. We are making investments that are not properly utilised and perhaps disrupting the process of education in the bargain. The focus could be on enabling the cognitive development of the child in the first language. Once the child gains confidence in negotiating knowledge through the first language, then learning one or two more languages will not be a cognitive strain. This is how earlier generations during the pre-independence times learnt English and within three or four years of high school exposure had the necessary English language skills.
While there might be valid arguments for the introduction of English at the primary level, this in itself will not obliterate the disparities that exist between those coming with an English medium background and those without. For the first group, all information-processing as well as scientific and mathematical thinking is through English, while the second group will only read stories and poems in the English class. This will help them little when they enter the world of work. There is then a clamour for functional English.
The ability to operate in English will accrue only if they are taught to perform various functions during the instructional period. Teachers at the ground level are not equipped with the proficiency required. At best they may be able to transmit the content that the prescribed materials contain. It will be text-dependent instruction. In order to ensure quality of instruction, teachers need the ability to help learners manipulate language beyond the text.
Have the policy-makers assessed teacher availability and teacher capabilities prior to taking such a crucial decision? Will the remedy they have recommended yield the desired results or will it just be a ritual reform perhaps with worse effects? How many qualified teacher trainers will make a committed effort to work with children and teachers at that level? These are the questions that need to be addressed.
Malathy Krishnan & Maya Pandit
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Education
|
