These were the words so aptly spoken by President Rajapaksa at the official start of 2009 as The Year of English and ICT. Well might he be congratulated by those who have been pressing for such an announcement about English language for many years. How is it that it needs a Presidential decree to bring some common sense to the teaching of English? Is the President the only voice in government that sees the need for English to become a life skill available to all? How is it that the Minister and Secretary for Education have not been able to make such a simple insight during their numerous deliberations on education? How is it that the Directors of English at the N.I.E. and Ministry of Education, as well as many others whose sole job is to promote English language, have never come forth with the same intelligent conclusions as the President?

The writer has been involved in English language in Sri Lanka for six years and for three years gave unpaid service to the English Education Department at a Provincial Education Office. The numerous seminars, workshops and school visits he conducted were centered around making English a tool of communication. Yet the majority of those in supervisory positions in English language were opposed to this emphasis. As far as most were concerned, the only way to teach English was by using the text books page by page, often using more Sinhala or Tamil than English. The fact that many students could not follow the lessons or were bored was inconsequential. Contact with some Regional English Language Support Centres indicated a similar approach, and the 26 English support centres seem to have had little influence during their fifteen or so years.

A short while ago the writer invited a local grade 12 student and a grade 5 student to his home. The grade 12 student had an A grade English O level GCE and the grade 5 student had received informal English lessons for over one year. The grade 5 girl was able to comfortably participate in a conversation, albeit with some grammar mistakes, whereas the older student could hardly put a meaningful sentence together and showed a complete lack of self-confidence in using the language. It is also highly likely that the younger student could succeed in a simple pass In English GCE if given the opportunity.

"On my direction, the Presidential Task Force on English and IT has adopted several radical measures to transform the English teaching method and curriculum in our schools to make the language user-friendly and less elitist."

A welcome announcement by The President but we are yet to learn what are the radical measures the Task Force has adopted. There are literally hundreds of qualified people in the higher echelons of education whose sole responsibility is English. It is unbelievable that over decades not a single one seems to have hit upon the realisation that English is a language of communication. It is only several years ago that in their wisdom the Ministry of Education introduced ABOE – activity based oral English. And what a fiasco that was. Million of wasted rupees, thousand of wasted hours, and millions of photocopies that thankfully have remained either undistributed or in cupboards that will never be opened. The writer was asked to conduct some of these seminars but refused as in his opinion the initiative was useless. That may be in the past, but only months ago the Ministry have introduced a new workbook for grade 3 English. Nothing as important as conversation or visual stimulation, but page after page of letter copying and colouring, as if the little students had not done enough of that in the Montessori schools. The President seems to be the only innovative, creative and articulate person when it comes to certain educational matters. He will find it difficult to make the necessary radical changes when those who set the methodology and curriculum for English have a different mindset.

The writer who has over forty years experience in education in various countries has written well over 100 letters to the Ministry and NIE to comment on English language teaching and offering suggestions. Despite these registered letters and at least the same number of emails, responses were not forthcoming. Probably the pressure of work prevented such a response. In addition he has published over 30 articles on education in the local English newspapers, and although there have been numerous supportive email replies, the articles have not triggered responses from education officials. On one occasion he had the opportunity to meet briefly with The President at Temple Trees and handed a letter addressed to the Minister of Education and was assured that it would be made available to him. Again, no response. Ministers obviously receive hundreds of letters and cannot respond to all. However, it is noteworthy that five years ago, Dr Tara De Mel as Secretary for Education, did send a 4 page response to a letter within a few weeks.

The fact that students can study English for eleven years and for over 1000 hours, and yet be unable to hold a simple intelligent conversation in the language is an indictment as to methodology and content. The fact that many civil servants, if not most, also cannot express themselves in English adds weight to the inadequacies of English language instruction and its goals. The fact that numerous international schools, posing as businesses, are attracting an increasing number of students, is certain indication that parents recognise that proficiency in English is not attainable at most government schools. English medium Montessori schools are flourishing for the same reason.

It is no longer politically correct to refer to English as the "link language". Government policy and the Presidents goal is to make Sinhala and Tamil the two national languages. As laudable as this intention appears, the weekly hour or two given to these languages is unlikely to make even a dent in these aspirations. It will not be long before the north and east will be able to rebuild their community structures in a peaceful and democratic way. President Rajapaksa plans a radical overhaul of English teaching, and as a tool of integration, it can rapidly promote this ideal. Those who believe the myth of India as a country with a large population speaking English may consider the official research that quantifies English speakers as a mere 3%. However, 3% of well over one billion is far larger than the population of Sri Lanka. India does has a rising English speaking middle class, but away from the urban areas, and even in urban areas, there are millions no better at English and maybe a lot worse than the majority of those in Sri Lanka. This is in spite of 20-40% of students attending "private" schools. Yet Indian "experts" are seen as the salvation for improving English and come and go, leaving precious little behind.

English has become big business for the benefit of numerous tuition masters and investors who have jumped on the bandwagon. The British Council does offer good teaching but at well over Rs1000 an hour for group classes are not affordable by most. Seemingly, every child, even from grade one, attends an English tuition class which can be found nowadays even in rural villages. As to the quality and benefits of most of these classes, when often the teachers have poor English skills, is anyone’s guess.

Criticisms about the government’s English textbooks and workbooks have been levelled at the Ministry for many years and has resulted in three changes in less than 10 years. No doubt there have been some marginal improvements and the books slimmed down to half the original number of pages, but the exercise has costs millions and has not resulted in much higher standards. The authors may be fluent and excellent English speakers but appear to have little insight into the science of language acquisition.

Even with improved methodology and books and the dearth of seminars that always follow new initiatives, many schools still have abysmal physical facilities for teaching any subject. For a subject such as English that requires maximum communication, the noise levels that accompany classrooms with half walls or classrooms that share a common space, mitigates against constructive verbal communication. There is no easy solution and the more inspired teachers have often resorted to taking their classes outside.

It seems incredible that so little use has been made of audio-visual resources for teaching English. Even the basic cassette recorder can offer a variety of stimulus using native speakers from various countries. When books and audio cassettes are linked lessons can be more interesting and meaningful, and easily repeated. The cost of such innovation is miniscule compared with textbooks, seminars and consultants. Again, the writer offered to pay all costs to set up a project to produce various audio tapes, if several teachers could be seconded to the project for 6 months. The offer was made to a Provincial Education Director and to the NIE and Ministry of Education. No response! During the last few years technology has leapt ahead of the simple cassette recorder and now computers can provide programmes and videos that can make English language teaching an exciting field. The writer, through a Sri Lankan teacher, received a high award several years ago in the Microsoft competition for innovative educational programs. The program for teaching basic English and several books he has published, are used by schools in various countries, but most Sri Lankan teachers are afraid to deviate from the government syllabus. President Rajapaksa, in his wisdom, has rightly associated ICT with English but made no reference to the utilisation of ICT in teaching English.

There has been almost no research at any of the universities in Sri Lanka into English language teaching, and though there are thousands of web sites alluding to the subject, there are none from Sri Lanka. As far as is known there have also been no pilot projects into different methodology. "I know what I do and I do what I know" seems to be the common adage in education. Trying to acquire information about such projects or about any information related to English language is tantamount to applying for top secret security details. The Freedom of Information Act does not seem to apply for information related to English.

In conclusion, an interesting article appeared recently in one of the local English newspapers. It was written by Rachel Selby, an experienced American volunteer teacher who had taught English in Sri Lanka at three different schools. Her conclusion was that in the short time she had taught at these schools, the students acquired more practical English as well as confidence in using it, than many had acquired despite seven or eight years of lessons. She sent a copy to the Ministry of Education for comment. No response!