English: Whatever happened to CDC's great plan?

by Farida J Ibrahim | June 23, 09 5:01pm

With reference to all the controversies surrounding the teaching of English and for it to be a compulsory pass for the SPM, I am convinced this seemingly endless feud can be ended by putting into place a flexible system suggested a long time ago by the Curriculum Development Centre. Back then in the mid ’70s and early’80s, it was already common knowledge that there were greatly varying levels of English Language proficiency throughout the country. In particular, rural students saw no reason to study the language and who could blame them when its only use was in the classroom? The centre was wont at that time to view English as a foreign language in some rural areas and as a second language in the rest of the country. The CDC attempted to deal with this disparity by drawing up a broad classifi-cation of students’ abilities as follows : Those with LEP (Low English Proficiency) Those with SEP (Some English Proficiency); and Those with EP (English Proficiency) The centre encouraged teachers to teach students at their level of proficiency and to bring them up to the next level. In other words, teaching was to be student-centred and not ‘completing the syllabus-centred’ (which many teachers resort to, unfortunately, because they fear the Schools Inspectorate’s expectation is that they ‘cover the syllabus’). Schools were also urged to introduce block-teaching slots in their time-table. For instance, if there were 3 Form Four classes, Monday 9.30 - 10.15 could see all three classes study English at the same time but with one major difference - Class 1 would take in all Form Four LEP students, Class 2 would have SEP students and Class 3 would have EP students. The materials could cover the same topic but be at differing levels of complexity. Students would be more at ease and be more ready to participate as the teaching materials would be within or only slightly beyond their grasp. LEP students would not be left demoralised and EP students would not be deprived of challenges. The CDC’s call then was also for the Examinations Syndicate Board to set examination papers that paralleled its suggested LEP /SEP /EP proficiency bands, with the EP paper of a standard comparable to (if I’m not mistaken) Cambridge’s ‘O’ level. Of course, the exam papers had to take on respect- able names, for example, Elementary English (or Level 1 English), Intermediate English ( Level 2) or Advanced English (Level 3). The centre recommended that English Language exams be held twice a year, in June and in November/December. Both Form Four and Five students were to be allowed to choose which paper or papers to sit for, well knowing what each represented. The plus points for such a system are tremendous. If a Form Four student of English had EP proficiency, he could sit for the paper in Form Four itself and have one paper less in Form Five. An LEP Fifth Former could sit for the Elementary English paper at the end of Form Five, pass it and know that in the following year or years, thoughout of school, he could still pursue learning of the language if he had the will to do so. He or she could register as a non-schooler to sit for the Intermediate or Advanced paper and pass it to improve him/herself and better his/her academic and job opportunities. More importantly, high goals and standards could be set and maintained. Shifting norms, bell-shaped curves and dangerously backsliding pass marks would have to give way to criterion- referenced testing. Students would have to try - and perhaps try again - to come up to the mark fixed either for passing, for credit or for excellence. Colleges, universities and the corporate sector would come to accept certain standards, whether these were Elementary, Intermediate or Advanced, and know what further language courses were needed for those they took in. So what happened to these pragmatic plans? Why didn’t the Examinations Syndicate Board adopt this strategy? Well, only the board knows why. What was bandied around at that time as the unofficial and somewhat smug answer to such a strategy was this - ‘If the CDC/schools taught the students well, they would be able to sit for any English Language exam paper’. {honest, i was thinking about writing to this effect but didn't know of a CDC plan at all}