Empowering teachers in English has always been a challenge to English Language Teaching (ELT) centres and teacher training institutions and the various state level and national level agencies such as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). Every year our country witnesses seminars on various aspects of ELT organised by state level or national level agencies and institutions where deliberations after deliberations take place all focusing on the multifaceted issues related to the teaching of English in the country. Notions such as activity based learning, experiential learning, child centred classrooms have gained much currency in our own times and course books and method books in English that are supposedly in tune with these have proliferated during the past two decades. This is all good. Nevertheless, issues remain the same which obviously is an unhappy state of affairs. Why is it that most of our teachers who stand at the cutting edge of the ELT methodology and the classroom practices continue to do what they have been doing for ages? Is it because the academic standards that have been conceived for teaching and learning English are inaccessible for the majority of teachers and learners? Have the curriculum designers have gone wrong in setting the standards? Are teachers entrusted with a mission impossible? Is it because what the ELT schools have been giving them as tools for teaching English have not been fine tuned enough to suit to their local needs?
In this paper I will argue that a major reason for the deplorable state of affairs prevailing in the English classrooms of our country is a natural consequence of certain belief systems created and sustained by institutions, agencies and individuals through the intentional or sometimes unintentional propagation of linguistic imperialism. Unless this is prevented no matter whatever efforts we take to empower teachers in English will have practically no effect at all.
I would like to illustrate the point with the help of a few cases:
Case 1
Several states in the country have entrusted the British Council (BC) to train teachers in English. To begin with, a team of master trainers will be trained by the BC who in turn will be cascading the training down the line to the practising teachers. The module for these trainings is developed by the BC.
Case 2
In Kerala, six native speakers of English have been deployed as special English teachers at the Government Vocational Higher Secondary School at Nilambur, under ‘Sadgamaya’, a project jointly implemented by the Department of Education and the Nilambur municipal body, with UNICEF association. The authorities placed an advertisement in a leading travel magazine in the UK to get English teachers from Britain who could teach a correct and uniform accent. They avoided applications from German and French citizens living in the UK. The six teachers were selected after interviewing 10 shortlisted applicants. Seeing the level of interest from both sides, officials are now planning to implement the project in 70-odd schools in the region next.
Case 3
The Government of AP have decided to open 355 model schools in the State with classes 6 to 12 in conformity with the KV template where the medium of English will be English. In the first year of their launching the model schools will have classes 6, 7, 8 and 11 will be subsequently up-scaled to classes 9 and 12. These schools are located in villages and the learners who are going to be enrolled in these schools will be from the primary schools in the locality. Since the learners will be hailing from households around the school they will be residing at their own homes. However, hostel facilities will be provided to girls. These learners will have undergone lower primary education at the schools in the locality where the medium of instruction is Telugu.
Case 4
I found the following advertisement (it is one, isn’t it?) painted on the compound wall of a Government Lower Primary school which has been serving the society for more than five decades. Quality Education to All GLP School,@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ English Medium divisions in Class 1 in June 2010 Admission started Classes taken by expert teachers
Case 5
Short term courses conducted by state level and national level institutions and agencies for the development of proficiency in English happen to be within the framework of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) which target a certain variety of English designated as Standard English.
Case 6
The media report that across the country there has been a consistent increase in the flow of students from the government schools where the medium of instruction is English to English medium schools in the private sector.
These are apparently independent cases but they are in fact the reflections of certain common belief systems that have been got deeply instilled in the minds of people through several decades. The opening of parallel English medium divisions in government schools, the mushrooming of English medium schools in the private sector and the opening of English medium schools in the government sector, introducing English from class 1 onwards, entrusting the British council for training teachers of English in the country, deploying native speakers of English in schools to teach English, the clamour for correct pronunciation and the fragmentary and skill-based approach to the teaching of English as is followed in teacher training programmes are all in fact reflections of certain belief systems which have been deeply instilled in the minds of the people. These belief systems constitute what Phillipson has formulated as linguistic imperialism which has five unmistakably identifiable tenets namely,
(Phillipson, R. (2009) Linguistic Imperialism Continues; Orient BlaskSwan; pp 12)
The global marketing of English depends upon keeping these beliefs alive in the minds of people. When these beliefs are translated into practice, decisions will have to be taken on several matters such as what kind of English is to be taught and learnt, what the content and the nature of materials could be, what methodology is to be used, who should teach the language and so on. In addition to these, propaganda mechanisms and agencies would become necessary to ensure that only those products whether they are the materials, methodology, or human resources, that are in tune with these decisions will get space in the international market. This is how only those products that follow the parameters of what is labelled as Standard English dominate in the market. Consequently, a situation arises where a single global or centralised teaching-learning English package will be projected as what is needed for all learners and teachers across the world. Eventually, market economy will be able to control the academic domain. It is never critically examined whether these products will suffice to meet the actual needs of the learners.
So long as English is conceived as a finished product the core issues involved in learning the language will never be discerned. They will be detected only if the language is perceived as a political and historical phenomenon. Unfortunately, the global packages of the so-called Standard English marketed as quality products do not approach the language as a political and historical phenomenon. Nor do they approach language holistically as an innate system. Instead they hold and propagate a dubious claim namely, English can be mastered through practising LSRW by virtue of treating language as discrete elements such as grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, etc. Consider for example, Case 1. The British Council has undertaken a massive project of training 750,000 master trainers in English across the country by the year 2014, a project that was conceived by Gordon Brown, the British prime minister in 2008. What message does the world get when the State or central governments entrust the British council to train English teachers? The British Council has a very clearly defined agenda; it is the agency designated to materialize the colonial agenda of establishing its academic control over the world population through the spreading of English. This is done by virtue of a simple mechanism. The training of select master trainers is directly done by the British council which is cascaded down the line with the help of these master trainers. The expenses for all the training programmes is to be met by the concerned state government but the modules for the training will be developed by the British council. The packages insist that all users of English irrespective of their country should be using English according to the parameters of Standard English as propagated by the BC. This insistence leads into a linguistic divide within English in the sense that a particular variety of English gets upper hand as Standard English whereas the other varieties of English are marginalised under the label of non-Standard English. This in fact results in the demolishing of the linguistic and cultural identity of the native speakers of the non-Standard varieties of English. The problem will be much more intense in the case of the native speakers of other languages who are compelled to learn the nuances of Standard English. This in true sense is nothing but linguistic imperialism which at any cost needs to be resisted.
The cases cited here will not pose any problem for non-critical ELT but will have problems for critical ELT and have implications in designing teacher empowerment programmes. Taking cue from Graham Hall these cases can be critically approached by triangulating three themes:
ELT and prosperity; (2) linguistic imperialism and (3) the demand for English. Let us flesh out these notions.
ELT and prosperity:
Many people acknowledge English as a panacea for problems at the level of individuals as well as the State- Central levels. Therefore, quite often an illogical equation is created between English and prosperity. The ELT experts from their side instil wrong expectations in the minds of learners about the benefits that could be accomplished by acquiring Standard English. Consequently, individuals as well as states and countries are attuned to spend large amounts for teaching and learning English.
Linguistic imperialism:
ELT by and large makes use of globally developed products. The much acclaimed communicative language teaching and the related materials are essentially global in nature and are perceived as what is needed wherever there is a situation for teaching and learning English whether this is in India, China or Japan. This is why ELT experts across the world welcome the globalisation of ELT. For them, it is a natural and inevitable phenomenon that would contribute to the lives of people by facilitating better international communication. Therefore, they do not find any problem in the globalization of ELT. However, this is not a view shared by the proponents of critical ELT. Critical pedagogues like Apple, Rogers, Phillipson, Kincheloe, Norton, Kanagaraja, have pointed out the danger of imperialism that lies hidden in the spreading of ELT. According to them, the globalisation of ELT is only a mechanism that suppresses the thinking and language variety of the people across the world and helps in sustaining market economy. The centrally developed CLT does not address the local needs or the local culture. When it is used locally, a tension between centre and local arises and linguistic imperialism comes out in its full vigour.
The demand for English:
There is great demand for English across the world. Whether this demand is genuine or artificially created is a topic for debate between the proponents of the emergent critical ELT on the one hand and the stakeholders of traditional ELT. The impetus for the debate originates from two belief systems that are diametrically opposite to one another. The non-critical ELT adopts a fragmentary approach to language and proposes the skill-based and linear mode of teaching. It is essentially an apolitical treatment of Language. The critical ELT on the other hand problematizes the whole context of language teaching and proposes a pedagogy placing it in the socio-political context. Consequently, it demands a shift from the skill-based and fragmentary approach to knowledge-based and holistic approach to language. The birth of critical ELT is not just a coincidence; it is the culmination of years of research that have gone into topics such as language, language acquisition, social discourses culture and language pedagogy. This debate, I believe is likely to continue for several decades yet to come. Let it be so. What is important is the fact that the demand exists. Keeping the demand alive is essentially a British agenda. The British people meet this demand by providing materials, human resources and what not ensuring that Britain is profited economically, culturally and politically.
In this context it is mandatory to conceive courses in English that aim at empowering teachers both in language proficiency and language pedagogy in tune with the tenets of critical pedagogy and social constructivism. The dubious claims that ELT schools have been making on Standard English need to be problematized looking at the larger context of the several “Englishes” spoken across the world. Curriculum objectives are to be redefined in terms of discourses and classroom processes are to be developed which will help the learners produce language rather than reproduce it. Pedagogic tools are to de designed for ensuring collaborative learning in an inclusive classroom where the expansion of the zone of proximal development of every learner is taken care of. Teachers should know how teacher talk can be used as an effective and authentic listening input for the learners by making it process specific, learner specific and level specific. We need to evolve exploratory practices that involve a continuous, relevant, and sustainable exploration where teaching becomes a ‘thinking activity’. Teachers are to be empowered to work with learners within a critical perspective, producing understandings of classroom events and their relation to wider society. The joint explorations undertaken by the teacher and the learner hopefully will end the divide between the researcher and the researched, between the central and the local, and between possibly different teacher- learner understandings of the classroom. This is extremely important because linguistic imperialism cannot occur within a framework of localised co-operative action. Understanding social practice becomes as important as linguistic theory in the classroom; teachers and learners become empowered actors; and local social, political, and cultural contexts are incorporated into the search for understanding within language teaching so that a ‘safe space’ is created where all students can participate.
Case 1
Several states in the country have entrusted the British Council (BC) to train teachers in English. To begin with, a team of master trainers will be trained by the BC who in turn will be cascading the training down the line to the practising teachers. The module for these trainings is developed by the BC.
Case 2
In Kerala, six native speakers of English have been deployed as special English teachers at the Government Vocational Higher Secondary School at Nilambur, under ‘Sadgamaya’, a project jointly implemented by the Department of Education and the Nilambur municipal body, with UNICEF association. The authorities placed an advertisement in a leading travel magazine in the UK to get English teachers from Britain who could teach a correct and uniform accent. They avoided applications from German and French citizens living in the UK. The six teachers were selected after interviewing 10 shortlisted applicants. Seeing the level of interest from both sides, officials are now planning to implement the project in 70-odd schools in the region next.
Case 3
The Government of AP have decided to open 355 model schools in the State with classes 6 to 12 in conformity with the KV template where the medium of English will be English. In the first year of their launching the model schools will have classes 6, 7, 8 and 11 will be subsequently up-scaled to classes 9 and 12. These schools are located in villages and the learners who are going to be enrolled in these schools will be from the primary schools in the locality. Since the learners will be hailing from households around the school they will be residing at their own homes. However, hostel facilities will be provided to girls. These learners will have undergone lower primary education at the schools in the locality where the medium of instruction is Telugu.
Case 4
I found the following advertisement (it is one, isn’t it?) painted on the compound wall of a Government Lower Primary school which has been serving the society for more than five decades. Quality Education to All GLP School,@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ English Medium divisions in Class 1 in June 2010 Admission started Classes taken by expert teachers
Case 5
Short term courses conducted by state level and national level institutions and agencies for the development of proficiency in English happen to be within the framework of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) which target a certain variety of English designated as Standard English.
Case 6
The media report that across the country there has been a consistent increase in the flow of students from the government schools where the medium of instruction is English to English medium schools in the private sector.
These are apparently independent cases but they are in fact the reflections of certain common belief systems that have been got deeply instilled in the minds of people through several decades. The opening of parallel English medium divisions in government schools, the mushrooming of English medium schools in the private sector and the opening of English medium schools in the government sector, introducing English from class 1 onwards, entrusting the British council for training teachers of English in the country, deploying native speakers of English in schools to teach English, the clamour for correct pronunciation and the fragmentary and skill-based approach to the teaching of English as is followed in teacher training programmes are all in fact reflections of certain belief systems which have been deeply instilled in the minds of the people. These belief systems constitute what Phillipson has formulated as linguistic imperialism which has five unmistakably identifiable tenets namely,
- English is best taught monolingually.
- The ideal teacher of English is a native speaker.
- The earlier English is taught, the better the results.
- The more English is taught, the better the results 5. If other languages are used much, standards of English will drop.
(Phillipson, R. (2009) Linguistic Imperialism Continues; Orient BlaskSwan; pp 12)
The global marketing of English depends upon keeping these beliefs alive in the minds of people. When these beliefs are translated into practice, decisions will have to be taken on several matters such as what kind of English is to be taught and learnt, what the content and the nature of materials could be, what methodology is to be used, who should teach the language and so on. In addition to these, propaganda mechanisms and agencies would become necessary to ensure that only those products whether they are the materials, methodology, or human resources, that are in tune with these decisions will get space in the international market. This is how only those products that follow the parameters of what is labelled as Standard English dominate in the market. Consequently, a situation arises where a single global or centralised teaching-learning English package will be projected as what is needed for all learners and teachers across the world. Eventually, market economy will be able to control the academic domain. It is never critically examined whether these products will suffice to meet the actual needs of the learners.
So long as English is conceived as a finished product the core issues involved in learning the language will never be discerned. They will be detected only if the language is perceived as a political and historical phenomenon. Unfortunately, the global packages of the so-called Standard English marketed as quality products do not approach the language as a political and historical phenomenon. Nor do they approach language holistically as an innate system. Instead they hold and propagate a dubious claim namely, English can be mastered through practising LSRW by virtue of treating language as discrete elements such as grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, etc. Consider for example, Case 1. The British Council has undertaken a massive project of training 750,000 master trainers in English across the country by the year 2014, a project that was conceived by Gordon Brown, the British prime minister in 2008. What message does the world get when the State or central governments entrust the British council to train English teachers? The British Council has a very clearly defined agenda; it is the agency designated to materialize the colonial agenda of establishing its academic control over the world population through the spreading of English. This is done by virtue of a simple mechanism. The training of select master trainers is directly done by the British council which is cascaded down the line with the help of these master trainers. The expenses for all the training programmes is to be met by the concerned state government but the modules for the training will be developed by the British council. The packages insist that all users of English irrespective of their country should be using English according to the parameters of Standard English as propagated by the BC. This insistence leads into a linguistic divide within English in the sense that a particular variety of English gets upper hand as Standard English whereas the other varieties of English are marginalised under the label of non-Standard English. This in fact results in the demolishing of the linguistic and cultural identity of the native speakers of the non-Standard varieties of English. The problem will be much more intense in the case of the native speakers of other languages who are compelled to learn the nuances of Standard English. This in true sense is nothing but linguistic imperialism which at any cost needs to be resisted.
The cases cited here will not pose any problem for non-critical ELT but will have problems for critical ELT and have implications in designing teacher empowerment programmes. Taking cue from Graham Hall these cases can be critically approached by triangulating three themes:
ELT and prosperity; (2) linguistic imperialism and (3) the demand for English. Let us flesh out these notions.
ELT and prosperity:
Many people acknowledge English as a panacea for problems at the level of individuals as well as the State- Central levels. Therefore, quite often an illogical equation is created between English and prosperity. The ELT experts from their side instil wrong expectations in the minds of learners about the benefits that could be accomplished by acquiring Standard English. Consequently, individuals as well as states and countries are attuned to spend large amounts for teaching and learning English.
Linguistic imperialism:
ELT by and large makes use of globally developed products. The much acclaimed communicative language teaching and the related materials are essentially global in nature and are perceived as what is needed wherever there is a situation for teaching and learning English whether this is in India, China or Japan. This is why ELT experts across the world welcome the globalisation of ELT. For them, it is a natural and inevitable phenomenon that would contribute to the lives of people by facilitating better international communication. Therefore, they do not find any problem in the globalization of ELT. However, this is not a view shared by the proponents of critical ELT. Critical pedagogues like Apple, Rogers, Phillipson, Kincheloe, Norton, Kanagaraja, have pointed out the danger of imperialism that lies hidden in the spreading of ELT. According to them, the globalisation of ELT is only a mechanism that suppresses the thinking and language variety of the people across the world and helps in sustaining market economy. The centrally developed CLT does not address the local needs or the local culture. When it is used locally, a tension between centre and local arises and linguistic imperialism comes out in its full vigour.
The demand for English:
There is great demand for English across the world. Whether this demand is genuine or artificially created is a topic for debate between the proponents of the emergent critical ELT on the one hand and the stakeholders of traditional ELT. The impetus for the debate originates from two belief systems that are diametrically opposite to one another. The non-critical ELT adopts a fragmentary approach to language and proposes the skill-based and linear mode of teaching. It is essentially an apolitical treatment of Language. The critical ELT on the other hand problematizes the whole context of language teaching and proposes a pedagogy placing it in the socio-political context. Consequently, it demands a shift from the skill-based and fragmentary approach to knowledge-based and holistic approach to language. The birth of critical ELT is not just a coincidence; it is the culmination of years of research that have gone into topics such as language, language acquisition, social discourses culture and language pedagogy. This debate, I believe is likely to continue for several decades yet to come. Let it be so. What is important is the fact that the demand exists. Keeping the demand alive is essentially a British agenda. The British people meet this demand by providing materials, human resources and what not ensuring that Britain is profited economically, culturally and politically.
In this context it is mandatory to conceive courses in English that aim at empowering teachers both in language proficiency and language pedagogy in tune with the tenets of critical pedagogy and social constructivism. The dubious claims that ELT schools have been making on Standard English need to be problematized looking at the larger context of the several “Englishes” spoken across the world. Curriculum objectives are to be redefined in terms of discourses and classroom processes are to be developed which will help the learners produce language rather than reproduce it. Pedagogic tools are to de designed for ensuring collaborative learning in an inclusive classroom where the expansion of the zone of proximal development of every learner is taken care of. Teachers should know how teacher talk can be used as an effective and authentic listening input for the learners by making it process specific, learner specific and level specific. We need to evolve exploratory practices that involve a continuous, relevant, and sustainable exploration where teaching becomes a ‘thinking activity’. Teachers are to be empowered to work with learners within a critical perspective, producing understandings of classroom events and their relation to wider society. The joint explorations undertaken by the teacher and the learner hopefully will end the divide between the researcher and the researched, between the central and the local, and between possibly different teacher- learner understandings of the classroom. This is extremely important because linguistic imperialism cannot occur within a framework of localised co-operative action. Understanding social practice becomes as important as linguistic theory in the classroom; teachers and learners become empowered actors; and local social, political, and cultural contexts are incorporated into the search for understanding within language teaching so that a ‘safe space’ is created where all students can participate.
