The aversion towards English has at been discarded in West Bengal. Good sense has prevailed with the government deciding to set up “English medium wings” in state-run schools. Collaboration with the British Councils in the conduct of teachers’ training programme is also on the cards.

But can anybody dispute the fact that the declining standard of English among students is because of the method of teaching which has been faulty, despite a series of experiments. After the reintroduction of English in 2004 at the primary level, it was proposed that English medium sections would be opened in government schools from the session to follow. Unfortunately, however, the proposal was shelved.

The fact of the matter is that if English has to be taught, it should be taught correctly. So dismal is the scenario that Calcutta High Court had to direct the state government a few years ago to punish school teachers if more than 30 per cent students failed in English in the board examinations. It matters little whether English lessons are introduced in Class I or Class V; the guiding principle should be that a language should be taught properly or not at all.

Even 60 years ago, English used to be taught only from Class V, except in some missionary or private schools. There used to be considerable emphasis on grammar, composition and précis writing. From Class 6 onwards, a 200-mark paper was introduced in English and the syllabus included prose by Oscar Wilde and poems by Rossetti and Longfellow.

With this background, a large number of students would make it to the IAS. The exam had two compulsory papers, English Essay and General English. It was not without reason that the Kothari Commission had observed that English should not be taught before Class V ~ “The stage at which Hindi or English should be introduced on a compulsory basis as a second language and the period for which it should be taught will depend on local motivation and need, and should be left to the discretion of each state”.

Overall, English teaching in West Bengal is in a mess. The sharp decline in the teaching and learning of the language has resulted in academic backwardness. The proficiency level achieved is not commensurate with the time, money and effort spent on English teaching. Most students remain awfully weak in grammar, use of tenses, correct spellings and prepositions. This is particularly discernible in the answer scripts of Madhyamik examinees.

The evaluation suffers from an antiquated syllabi and subjective assessment. The tragedy of Chandrani Mondal more than a decade ago highlights the dichotomy of two distinct classes ~ one that knows English and the other with little no command over the language. The second category is unable to cope with the demands of higher education.

Chandrani committed suicide. The gap has continued to widen with the declining standard of teaching English in vernacular schools. Teachers and policy-makers in West Bengal ought to realise that as long as English is worth-teaching, it is worth teaching well. Students also must remember that while learning English, they are not learning one of the foreign languages, they are learning something beautiful and alive, a language of international communication; not just a language but the language of Shakespeare and Milton, Shaw and Russell.

The Left Front had charted a new path in English-teaching. Methods were changed, textbooks written and new strategies introduced. Translation was considered outdated as was conventional grammar. The new books neither contained poems nor short stories. The stress was on communicative English. The Ashoke Mitra Commission advised the government to “cross over” to a better method of teaching.

It recommended training courses on the theory and practice of teaching English. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in its syllabus introduced in 1984 highlighted the need for a functional communicative approach which calls for the grouping of structures/grammatical items of the previous structural syllabus. However, Michael Swan has reason to be critical. His comment is contained in English Teaching in India ~ “Along with its many virtues, the communicative approach has most of the typical vices of an intellectual revolution, it over-generalises valid but limited insights until they become virtually meaningless; it makes exaggerated claims for the power and novelty of its doctrines; it misrepresents its currents of thoughts it has replaced; it is often characterised by serious intellectual confusion; it is choked with jargon”.

A study was conducted by SCERT in collaboration with the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. It covered two groups of students ~ one exposed to English taught in the traditional way for six years and the other with only two years of exposure, but in the communicative way. The findings showed that students with less exposure fared quite as well as those with a longer exposure. Teachers have not been able to discern the difference between the teaching of English as the first language and as the second language.

We have unwittingly taught English as a foreign language or as a supplementary language. There ought to be a complete revamp of the teaching of English. Kreshan’s Monitor Theory of Second Language Learning (1981) evoked much interest among linguists. The teacher must help the student by improving his spoken English. Since teaching can be planned, the teacher must be able to draw up his agenda. He must help build up self-confidence, the ability to take risks, to analyse, to develop self-audition and other traits of a keen learner of a language.

The majority of teachers are yet to realise that learning and teaching a language are two different propositions. Each language is unique in its nature and has its own peculiar structure and system. Language is a skill, not a “content subject”. The biggest problem of teaching and learning English lies in the fact that teachers often teach English as a content subject, not as a “skill subject”. They tend to teach too many topics at the same time ~ structure, composition, translation. As a result, the specific needs of the learner are not spelt out.

Their learning level, ability, age, proficiency and aptitude are not taken care of. In fact, they teach ideas on English, not English itself.

Most of the teachers have no proper idea about linguistics, para-linguistics, phonetics, phonology, socio-linguistics, lexicography, semantics, psycholinguistics, applied linguistics, language pedagogy and teaching methodology. For most of them transformational generative grammar, language acquisition and language learning, communicative approach to language teaching have no meaning. The hierarchy of skills ~ listening, speaking, reading and writing ~ is not followed properly.

Learners are not motivated and activated. Written and spoken English need not be reckoned as separated activities. One is a formula with fixed conventions, the other a game where a player sets his own rules. It might seem too late to make amends right now but the government must set things right. This certainly calls for creating the right conditions in schools by appointing suitable teachers and by ensuring that proper books are made available.

Sometime ago primary teachers had alleged that such textbooks as Chhara o Chhabite Ingrezi Sekha, used to teach English in Class II, were full of inconsistencies and below standard.

Even the textbook ‘Learning English’ prescribed for Classes VI, VII and VIII bristled with errors including the spelling of “learning” on the cover. Men, study material, and methods are essential.

(The writer is a former Professor, Dept. of English, Gurudas College, Kolkata)