Methsiri Cooray’s letter in reply to Mr. King’s article about Teaching English, touches some important points, and agrees that the Presidential initiative is an important new move. However, it is a pity that he had resort to language such as "westernized, urbanized, self-styled ELT experts……who are now a part of history". Does Mr. Cooray include the English language experts in charge at the Ministry of Education and the N.I.E., who for many years have supported archaic and failed English language curriculum? Will any heads roll? Fortunately, the President has side-stepped these institutions.

Mr. Cooray has used wording which seems very reminiscent of Sri Lanka past history. "The patriotic energy that runs through the programme….that will mobilize the youth of the country that will drive it to greater and still greater levels of success and acceptance". He seems to think that a "methodology rooted in our native soil……home grown…..and hence strongly patriotic in flavour" and other such phrases, is the panacea to better English. This approach will politicize it to no advantage to yet another failed initiative.

Does not Mr. Cooray realize that English is international and not "owned " by England or any other English speaking country? Most young people just want to learn and speak good English that will enable them to be better prepared for a technological world, and able to access higher education and employment, here or abroad. Such English does not require "experts" from India or U.K. but simply common-sense methods of teaching English that have been shunned by the Ministry and N.I.E.

As a retired English language teacher I persevered for years to teach "speaker-friendly" English in rural schools. Time and time again, I was criticized by those in the Divisional and Provincial departments for not sticking to the designated government curriculum. My students might not have achieved A or B grades in their "O" level examinations, but were better prepared to use English for communication. Maybe Mr. Fernando should be speaking to people such as myself who have been successful.

The "World Centre for Teaching of English to Non-English speaking People" is a grand name and no doubt Hyderabad has a contribution to make along with numerous other institutions. But where does it differ? Where is the research? I suggest to Mr. Cooray and to Sunimal Fernando that they spend one month visiting rural and urban "ordinary" schools and participate and observe English lessons. Only then can they make some valid and worthwhile judgments. Maybe Mr. King has some valid experience to offer and should be respected for his views and not rejected out of hand.