Keeping on top of the game

(c) Michael Sarver, via Flickr

I listened to a disturbing conversation last week.  I was standing at a buffet table with two experienced teachers who I’ve known for some time were discussing the relative merits of the English curriculum in their respective states in Germany.  Quickly it broadened out into a debate as to which of the major publishers produced the most curriculum-oriented course book.  One major publisher apparently only focuses on competences, another is slavish in following the prescribed pedagogy.  Part of my job is to know what’s on the market, so the opinions on the books were interesting.  However, as the conversation went on my irritation grew and eventually I felt forced to add an opinion.  The two teachers stared at me as if I had suddenly grown another nose on my face and ignored my question completely and continued discussing which publisher taught Shakespeare better.  What had I said, that was so totally unimportant?

“Don’t you think it would be better to focus on the kids being able to communicate in good English?  If they can do that then they’ll fulfil the requirements of any school curriculum.”

In some subjects a curriculum is a relatively straightforward list of topics and standards that should be met by certain stages and will be tested at some point in the school program.   In language it is, I feel, a lot more complicated.

Take the example of a learner with relatively little experience or knowledge.  However, this learner can really use the limited grammar and lexis well.  She doesn’t need passive forms or mixed conditionals, because she can apply what she knows and can explain what she wants to explain.  The second learner has far more experience and knowledge, but hasn’t really internalised it.  The result is that the less-experienced learner gives the impression of being better in English than the higher level learner.  I’ll go further – the less experienced learner is better in English.  I see this on a daily basis and it has very little to do with talent in the subject.  In the majority of cases, I can trace the lack of communicative skills back to the teaching style that the learner has been subjected to.

Now this isn’t a communication v. grammar rant – both are needed and a balance has to be struck between them, depending on the circumstances.  This is far more important.

Publishers are obsessed with curriculum and many teachers are obsessed with the course book.  The problem is that curriculum writers are often more concerned with filling up the timetable than producing a modern, progressive course.  Milestones are arbitrary, and stage tests need to prove that the curriculum is a success.  Just about all the stage tests I’ve seen are pitched well below the level of the learned content.  The only reason for this is grade inflation (which is then used as proof that everyone is doing a good job).

Obsession with the curriculum dramatically increases the pressure to teach to the test.  If the curriculum states that at the end of Year 7 a child should be able to write an email on a given topic, then this will be practised. It will, of course, be a handwritten exercise.  Can’t ever remember getting a handwritten email, but I’m sure Professor Doctor Soandso knows better.  If the noble Professor had read Michael Lewis’s The Lexical Approach, he’s know that reported speech is incredibly rare among native English speakers, but that doesn’t stop it taking up several weeks of teaching time. (Could it be because it’s easy to correct?).  The present continuous is also a pretty rare form in English – around 5% of usage if I remember rightly – so why is it a major part of the first book in nearly every course?  In one course book it is even taught before the present simple.

This is what I found so disturbing about the conversation I mentioned at the beginning.  Two highly qualified teachers, who both speak impeccable English, have been conned into thinking that the curriculum is more important than the mastery of the subject.  For me this is putting the cart before the horse.  The system has become the more important than the people it is supposed to be serving.  How do I know this is a bad thing?  It’s because I conduct far too many interviews for companies where the school-leaver has good marks in English, but basically can’t hold a simple conversation.  In many cases they have excellent marks, and they perform well in written diagnostic tests, but are orally incompetent.  On the other hand, I meet very few candidates with good oral skills but unacceptable written skills.

I called this article, “Keeping on top of the game.”  The problem is that many teachers are playing the wrong game – they are competing with the curriculum instead of taking on the language.  Keeping on top of the language game requires stronger nerves that doing battle with the curriculum.  You might need to ignore the book for several weeks, you will certainly need to do things in a different order, and you will get more bad marks in the stage tests.  But when it’s all over and the final whistle is blown, you’ll have learners that are far better equipped to deal with communication than those who have simply collected points along the way.

I tell my young learners this:

“It’s not about getting good marks in the next test.  It’s about being able to speak good English in 5 years’ time.”

That’s often hard for them to grasp at first, but once they develop the trust, progress comes in leaps and bounds.

For teachers I have another message:

“If your learners can speak good English, they will do well in any fair test.”