I regret for being educated

I understand that while raising such questions educated people (like me) may think that my views are cynical. However, I think time has come to self-assess our own role, as a so-called educated person,  in the society.

Quite recently, I am collecting news reports on anti-humanity, corruption, violence, conflict and war from various national newspapers for my own research purpose. As it is not possible to bring all of them here, I will try to cover them under major themes. Let me start with a killing of a college girl. In June 2009, Khyati Shrestha was killed by her own teacher Biren Shrestha. He amputated the body, kept in the refrigerator for some days and threw different parts in different places. He demanded ransom even after killing Khyati with the help of his another student. You can read the detail news here http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Life+term+for+Khyati+Shrestha+killers+&NewsID=266298 and watch the video in this site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sTegs1rn0k. Similar kind of crime was committed by a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Armed Policy Force last moth (January,22, 2012). The DIG killed his wife, took away her dead body in his own car and burned it (You can read the news details at this link http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=41099).  Brawls among students supporting different political parties are usual practice in campuses (please watch this video http://www.mastinepal.com/thread54043.html). The involvement of political leaders in the abuse of the authority of various natures always dominate the pages and screens of media. The abuse of red passport is only one example. http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2011/may/may08/news09.php

If we critically analyze above news we find the involvement of literate/educated people in these crimes. This situation raises some questions: Why are educated people more hostile, dishonest, impatient, inhumane and egotistic? Are they contributing to social development  and harmony or creating mistrust and violence? I understand while raising such questions all educated people (like me) may think that my views are cynical. However, I think time has come to self-assess our own role, being so-called educated people, in the society . Is our education system able to prepare students to work for the prosperity of human civilization? Are our schools and universities able to produce students who can do something independently and sincerely for humanity and democracy? These are some representative questions that emerge from the sample news reports mentioned above.

At this moment, I remember what my late grandfather reminded my father when he decided to send me to school. He said that children should not be sent to school because they become dishonest and lazy. He confidently reiterated that children learn how to cheat others, become immoral and leave their parents and society when they are educated. Before 26 years, I thought that my grandfather had very traditional and illogical judgment about the value of education. I thought he was so prejudiced orthodox Limbu old man who never liked to send their grandchildren to school.

But after reading and watching representative news reports as mentioned above for two years above, I now realize that my grandfather’s words were full of wit and wisdom. His views exactly echo  what H. L. Mencken, a famous American columnist and essayist says, ‘the main thing children learn in school is how to lie’. His views reflect what Everett W. Reimer, says in his book School is Dead (1971): ‘parents and grandparents have never known schools as places they expected their children to attend. They do know, however, what schools imply. Going to school means leaving the traditional life, moving to a different place, laying aside physical burdens for the work of the tongue and the mind…’. (The book is available online at http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/dead.pdf)

While analyzing my grandfather’s opinions in relation to the involvement of educated people in various heinous activities, I find that, we, educated people are more cruel, hostile and uncooperative than the uneducated ones. With due respect to all those who have been doing magnificent works for the society, most educated people (including myself) seem to be more selfish, unsympathetic, and unsocial than the uneducated ones. We, educated people, who live mostly in urban areas with romantic charisma of globalization and pop culture, can never become a neighbor with the people living next door or room or house. Of course, these are all due to our orthodox hierarchical education system in which we are indirectly teaching our learners to be dishonest, lazier, hostile, egoistic and unsocial indirectly.

A famous educationist Ivan Illich wrote a ground-breaking book Deschooling Society (1971) in which he strongly argues that ‘by the time children go to school, they have learned how to use their bodies, how to use language and how to control their emotions. They have learned to depend upon themselves and have been rewarded for initiative in learning. In school these values are reversed’. (For details, http://www.davidtinapple.com/illich/1970_deschooling.html). Critiquing on the commodification of knowledge in institutionalized education system, Illich asserts that for schools ‘knowledge is a valuable commodity which under certain circumstances may be forced into the consumer [learners]. Schools are addicted to the notion that it is possible to manipulate other people for their own good’. Illich’s assessment resonates both how I was taught and I, as a teacher, am teaching now. Rather than giving chances to exercise learners’ natural potentialities and creativity, I often force my students to follow what I think is right. They cannot ask any question and share their views constructed in their rich socio-cultural contexts. I never count them as an agency and rich source of capital. By doing this, I am killing students’ ability to self-initiate and take ownerships of their own learning. Moreover, I am simply transferring prefabricated chunks of knowledge as specified in the curriculum which may not really address my learners’ needs who come from different cultura and linguistic backgrounds. I am making my students dependent, lazier, and a consumer.

Our classroom practices are instrumental for producing uncooperative and hostile learners. We create neither collaborative learning atmosphere nor try to generate diverse ideas (considering learners themselves as an abundant source of learning) so that learners can negotiate their own world views. We hardly give students chances to work and interact with friends and teachers. On contrary to this, illiterate or uneducated people in villages seem to be so cooperative. We feel the warmth of love and respect among the uneducated and rural people.

Although we aim to develop democracy and inclusion in society through education, our classroom practices are dominated by undemocratic and exclusionary deeds. We never bother engaging our students to set their own agendas and find their own learning style. We aim to build a peaceful world through education. But we, directly and indirectly,  are terrorizing children in school both mentally by giving excessive rote learning practices and homework without considering their cognitive level. We always tend to impose what we know. Ivan Illich contends that "The claim that a liberal society can be founded on the modern school is paradoxical. The safeguards of individual freedom are all cancelled in the dealings of a teacher with his pupil".

We have already isolated children from their society while teaching such contents which are not related to their life. Being a so-called educated man, I regret for not being able to meet my own granny and parents for three years. Sometimes, I feel bad about myself for being a so-educated man. Why is this modern education system  too much urban oriented? Why do educated people  not like to go back to their society? I should have returned  my village if the education I received had focused on the importance of rural life,  language, culture and indigenous knowledge. Unfortunately, through the present education system we are increasing children’s ambitions that can never be achieved. Isn’t it a good example of hypocrisy in education?

Margaret Mead, a famous anthropologist, once said, “My grandmother wanted me to have an education, so she kept me out of school.” This leaves a great implication that schools may not provide education in real sense. We need to assess how they are helping children to become independent, social, respectful, patient, adaptive and democratic.

Teaching English in Multicultural and Multilingual contexts: Challenges or opportunities?

(This article was published in the NeltaChoutari March Issue. For comments on the article please click this link http://neltachoutari.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/teaching-english-in-multicultural-contexts-more-challenges-and-even-more-opportunities/)

English is no longer the language of only so-called native speakers of English (e.g. Americans, British, Australians, and so on) because the number of native speakers is already outnumbered by non-native speakers of English. It has already become a global language which is not only a means of disseminating new knowledge in any field throughout the world but also a means for intercultural communication. English has already become an inevitable part of the education in Nepal though there are many challenges to make its teaching more effective. Those challenges include techniques of teaching to macro-level educational language planning in Nepal. One of the major challenges is how teaching of English can be made appropriate in the multilingual and multicultural context of Nepal. Nepal English Language Teachers’ Association (NELTA) organized its 16^th international conference in Kathmandu (18-20 February) and Pokhara (22-23 February) where more than 500 and 400 participants in the former and the latter respectively discussed challenges and opportunities of teaching English in multilingual and cross-cultural context of Nepal. There were more than 200 papers and plenary speeches of different scholars, researchers and English teachers from home and abroad. Professor Adrian Holliday from Canterbury Christ Church University, UK and Professor Emeritus John F. Fanselow, Columbia University, USA delivered key speeches on the theme of the conference ‘English in multilingual and cross-cultural contexts: exploring opportunities and meeting challenges’.

Despite the fact that indigenous languages are on the verge of extinction, there is a craze of learning English among students and parents also aspire to educate their children in English medium schools. This aspiration has been already reflected in the educational language policy of the Ministry of Education (MoE) to introduce English from Grade One in community schools. In the same way, the MoE has already given the authority to management committees of the community managed public schools to shift themselves from Nepali to English medium of instruction. The number of schools switching to English medium is increasing every year. On the other hand, English is both subject and medium of instruction from pre-primary level in private schools. However, there are many challenges to teach English to students who come from various linguistic and cultural backgrounds. One of the challenges is that whether or not students get chance to utilize their own cultural and linguistic knowledge in schools while learning English. Some questions pertinent to the theme of the conference were: how our socio-cultural background can shape teaching and learning of English? How can we teach English while addressing linguistic and cultural diversity of Nepal? How can we foster critical and creative thinking skills? There were discussions on how learners’ prior linguistic and cultural knowledge helps in learning English. The papers presented in the conference provided a great implication that students’ cultural knowledge can be a resource for teaching and learning English.

Professor Holliday argued that the English language can foster intercultural communication among the children from diverse cultural as well as linguistic backgrounds. Focusing on the importance of children’s prior knowledge, he reiterated that teachers of English should capitalize multicultural experiences that children bring into the classroom while teaching English. He also put a significant point that teaching of English should be contextual and we need to educate children about the nature of English in relation to society. This clearly indicates that to address the expectations and experiences of children from diverse cultural backgrounds, teachers’ role as a passive-technician is not enough rather they have to be a transformative intellectual. Teachers should understand that classroom is socially constructed and historically situated and they should create such an environment where students from various backgrounds can get opportunities to utilise their prior knowledge. In general, English teachers are not simply in-charges of classroom but also agents for social change. They can also contribute to foster democracy and critical thinking skill by creative inclusive learning environment where students can exercise their values, assumptions and identities shaped by local, national and global socio-cultural settings and expectations. In the same line, Professor John F. Fanselow, another key speaker in the conference, focused on how students can be taught creatively so that they get more opportunities to use English. Breaking rules of traditional teaching, he discussed that teachers have to arouse curiosity of students to resolve various puzzles themselves rather than showing their fault while they make mistakes. Emphasising the importance of thinking process, he stated that students should be given enough time to think while teaching English. He also presented the idea of recording and transcribing learners’ classroom language which can be an abundant source for teaching English. This clearly indicates that we need to rethink the way we are teaching English in Nepal. Some crucial questions that may help us to further our debates are: How often do we give students chance to think critically? Are we aware of their socio-cultural backgrounds? Have we tried doing something new or beating the same old drum? Professor Fanslow’s presentations were all about deconstructing the old rules of teaching English and reconstructing alternative ones to engage students in doing things.

Professor Abhi Subedi, critically assessed the consequences of detaching teaching English from cross-cultural context in Nepal. Analyzing the socio-political and historical discourses, he strongly condemned that our practices of teaching English have not been able to address socio-cultural realties. He argued that ‘methods [of teaching] … failed to suture the diverse experiences of English teachers in this country’ and is critical about teachers’ resistance towards change. He showed his concern about the fact that teaching and learning of English has been confined within the classroom. This clearly indicates that there is a huge gap between socio-cultural reality and teaching of English in Nepal. He appealed that we can design syllabuses and can develop viable methods of teaching by considering our own multilingual and multicultural realities. He also mentioned that now there is no point in following British or American Standard English to teach English in Nepal. In the same way, focusing on the importance of English, Professor Jai Raj Awasthi presented that three language policy (mother tongue, Nepali and English) can be a pragmatic policy for placing English in multilingual and multicultural context of Nepal.

The reflection of the only mega event of its kind in Nepal points out some crucial issues regarding teaching of English. First, there is an urgent need of taking the ownership of English rather than considering it as a ‘foreign’ language (in literal sense, not in pedagogical and political sense). Since there is a craze of learning English even in rural areas of the country, we have to closely observe how English is being produced (Spoken and Written) to indentify our own variety of English. Second, we have to work hard on designing syllabuses, writing textbooks and producing learning materials which address expectations of Nepalese children from multilingual and multicultural backgrounds. Third, we have to explore more opportunities and should try developing alternative ways of teaching to foster students’ creative and critical thinking skills. Overall, we have to deconstruct the tradition that confines English in the classroom, break the rules that make students produce only minimal language (formulaic speech), smash the hierarchy between teachers and students to foster two-way communication, demolish monolithic and mono-cultural world view to advance intercultural communication and forget prescriptions of any method to instill critical thinking skills for independent learning in students.

A famous story writer

By Prem Phyak

Rabindra was ten when he went to Kathmandu. He was surprised to see so many cars, buses, and motorbikes. He had never seen such crowds of people in the street. Street lights and supermarkets were amazing for him. Because he was a village boy, he was frightened to walk in the street alone because of the heavy traffic.

Rabindra, his parents and two sisters had no money for home so they made a small shelter of bamboo and old rice sacks under the bridge of the Bagmati River.

It was a hard time for Rabindra’s family in Kathmandu. They had nobody to help them. Rabindra’s father started collecting used bottles, metals, plastics and papers. He visited different places from the morning to the evening. He sold what he found to the recyclers.

Before he went to Kathmandu, Rabindra was studying at Grade 3 in the village. He was very good in his study. But he couldn’t continue his study in Kathmandu. He had to help his father to collect plastics from the dumping site which was nearby their shelter. Sometimes he also took his two sisters. They were so happy when they found something to eat from the garbage.

Rabindra loved the old books he had found in the dumping site. He had kept them so safely. He read stories for his parents and sisters from the books every night.

One misty cold morning, he was raking through the piles of rubbish when he saw a book underneath a dirty black plastic bag. He pulled the bag off and cleaned its cover with his sleeve. There was a beautiful green colour book. The title of the book was ‘A Poor Boy’. He wondered if it was about a boy like him. He looked at the first page of the book. It was written: BE HONEST, WORK HARD, YOUR FUTURE IS BRIGHT. 

He read some pages of the book in the dumping site. He knew that the story in the book was similar to his own story. He told the story to his parents and sister at night.

One sunny Saturday morning, Rabindra found an old small leather bag. He picked up and opened it. There were some pieces of gold, some money and important papers. He rushed to the shelter with the bag. He told his father about the bag.

They opened the bag again. They found the name and phone number of the owner of the bag. They went to the nearest police office and asked them to telephone the owner of the bag.

After a while, an old man arrived in his car at the police office. He saw Rabindra and his father holding the bag. He was so happy to see his bag.

The old man took his bag. He wanted to take Rabindra and his father back to their home in his car.

The gentleman requested them again. He took them in his car to their shelter. The gentleman was so shocked when he saw the poor condition of where they lived and worked. He was impressed by the honesty of the family. He wanted to help them.

The old man wanted to take all the family to his own house. Rabindra’s father didn’t agree because it might be difficult to continue collecting for recycling.

Finally, Rabindra’s father agreed with the old man’s request to help Rabindra in his study. Rabindra joined school at Grade 4. He started writing stories about his own family. He read all the story books he had collected from the dumping site. He finished his higher education with very good grade.

Rabindra and his family left their village to go to Kathmandu. They left their village because they didn’t have their own land, home and they were very poor. Rabindra was very sad to leave to school. He loved reading and particularly he loved reading books and stories. 

Now he is a famous story writer. His books are all about poor people and their children. He has earned enough money to buy a small house and feed his family.

From Far West

Pictures speak themselves. 

(This is the longest and the most beautiful bridge over the Mahakali 

River  between Nepal and India. Unfortunately, the river is dry because 

India has taken  water of the river by constructing a big damp. 

This is the Dash Gaja place (No man's land). I and my guru, Vishnu Rai 

pointing at the pillar on the boarder.) 

Dying mother tongues

Local languages are being displaced from schools, both public and private. In private schools, English is not only the medium of instruction (MOI) and a subject in the curriculum, but also the language of communication. No matter the language policy devised by the government, it is only applicable for public schools. And currently, not a single private school features a local language as the MOI. Moreover, private schools attract students by overemphasising the English medium, for which many parents pay huge sums of money.

One parent, a taxi driver, from Kathmandu recently told me, “I am sending my son to a private school because they teach English and give a lot of homework. With most of his friends in private schools, my son doesn’t want to go to a public school. Since he started, his English has significantly improved.” The motivations parents have for sending children to private schools seem never-ending and often trump the difficulties many families face in paying high fees for private schools.  “It is difficult to afford private school, but in this modern age our children need to know English to get good jobs. And if I send my son to a public school, he thinks that he is from a lower class family…all rich people send their children to private schools. Besides, although I am Tamang, my children speak very little of the language and don’t like to use it.” It appears that private schools are selling English and projecting it as a key to material attainment by focusing on its commodity value. In this regard, sociologist Martha Caddell says, “English-medium instruction emerged as a key dimension of the selling of dreams that characterise these aspirations. Use of English—even of a very poor level—is considered to connect students to a wider international project, offering a greater potential for mobility than Nepali-medium government schools.”

There are two different educational language policies—one for private schools and one for public schools. This phenomenon has created a clear line between the haves and have-nots—a phenomenon similar to what educationist RA Giri argues as the “unspoken privileging of the English language has created a further division in an already divided Nepali society”. The social identity of the children who go to private schools seems to be richer and more civilised while those who go to public schools are considered to be poor and uncivilised. Given this division, parents are discouraged from sending their children to public schools where English is not as central as in private schools.

Another policy that contributes to the displacement of local languages in primary schools has been the voluntary transfer of public school management to local communities. The handover of management responsibilities to the community per the Seventh Amendment to the Education Act of 2001 envisioned enhanced participation of the local community, improved quality of education, and increased efficiency and accountability in schools. In 2003, the World Bank funded the government’s Community School Support Project (CSSP) to support community-managed schools. According to the Department of Education (DoE), more than 8,000 public schools have already been handed over to communities where School Management Committees (SMC) have taken sole responsibility for their management—including the hiring of teachers, the selection of the MOI, and the generation and allocation of funds for overall school development. The policy also aims to address the deteriorating quality of education in public schools. To this end, there has been a shift from Nepali or local languages to an English MOI in community-managed schools.

Regarding the switch, a head teacher at one community-managed school in Kathmandu said, “We had to switch to compete with private schools. Parents want their children to be taught in English, so without doing this, parents will send their children to private schools instead. Without English as the MOI, we are not able to increase the number of students, which limits the quota of teachers we receive from the government.”

Upon asking him asked him why the children, a majority of which are Newars, are not taught in Newari, he responded, “If we teach in the Newari language, Newari guardians will send their children to private English-medium schools instead of ours. The number of Newari students increased after we introduced English from grade one.” This view indicates that the government’s unwillingness to issue a uniform language policy for both private and public schools is forcing community-managed schools to introduce an English MOI to compete with private schools.

Why do community-managed schools introduce an English MOI? One obvious reason is that they want to increase the number of students so they receive more teachers from the government. If the number of students is low, fewer teachers are allotted for the school, both to teach classes as well as handle administrative work. The more students enrolled, the more teachers a school is entitled to. Because of this, community-managed schools are compelled to use an English medium, displacing local languages (even Nepali), to increase the number of
students.

The government’s policy meant to encourage teaching in mother tongues in primary schools seems to be nothing more than rhetoric. The overall general educational policies of the government contradict its claims to be promoting local languages in schools. The dominance of over poor, marginalised and tribal groups has been legitimatised through the introduction of English MOI from the early grades in community-managed schools and private schools. There is a need for a more concrete national language policy to address not only the country’s multilingual realities, but also the strong aspirations of parents and children to learn English over their mother tongues. 

Towards Local Literacy: Globalization and Nepalese ELT

(This article was published in the NeltaChoutari, January, 2011 Issue. There are wonderful comments from readers followed by my responses. Please click this  link http://neltachoutari.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/towards-local-literacy-for-nepalese-elt/#comments to read discussion on this article)
Introduction
Anything that is ‘local’ is generally better in terms of quality and permanence. Let me give some examples: local chicken is tasty, local fruit is hygienic, local vegetable is fresh, and local people make a big difference in your life. What about local literacy? In this short article, I highlight the importance of local literacy in relation to ELT in Nepal. I will also briefly discuss how local literacy in ELT can be promoted in the classroom. Let me start with some perspectives on globalization as the basis of this discussion.

Globalization and Local literacy: What?
We all know that English has become a part of our social and individual lives: it is not only in our education and professions but also in our homes, through television, internet, mobile phones, and other information and communication technologies. Through social networking and new media in particular, English is continuing to work as one of the most powerful means of globalization (See related article in May 2009 issue of NeltaChoutari). We cannot consider the trends of globalization and the spread of English as neutral without being extremely naïve. As Bourdieu (2001) tells us that
“Globalization” serves as a password, a watchword, while in effect it is the legitimatory mask of a policy aiming to universalize particular interests and the particular tradition of the economically and politically dominant powers…It aims to extend to the entire world the economic and cultural model that favours these powers most, while simultaneously presenting it as a norm, a requirement, and a fatality, a universal destiny, in such a manner as to obtain adherence or, at the least, universal resignation. (as cited in Phillipson, 2004)

The term ‘globalization’ has now become a buzz word in every field, and it has very important implications in ELT because the English language is the most influential means of “universalizing particular interests and particular tradition of the economically and politically dominant powers” as Bourdieu argues. To say that we are simply “using” a “common” language for “communicating” across linguistic borders is both absolutely correct but absolutely ludicrous if we don’t “also” recognize/admit that languages belong to societies that wield cultural, social, and political powers through their languages: as language teachers, we must not limit our understanding and scholarship to dictionary definition of “language” because we must also know that the relative difference of the power that different language communities makes huge difference in both material and intellectual terms for people and societies. So, it is important to understand what role English plays in globalization of ideas and practices of dominant cultures. English is considered a ‘global’ language (Graddol, 1997; Crystal, 1997), and the number of researches on the role of English in globalization has increased in the last decade. Recent scholarship in this area helps us understand why and how the role of English as a global language should be assessed critically. The views about the role of globalization in language teaching are, however, more divergent. In their groundbreaking edited book ‘Globalization and Language Teaching,” Block and Cameron (2002) summarize following major views regarding globalization:

• Hegemonically Western, and above all extension of American imperialism
• Extreme of standardization and uniformity
• Synergetic relationship between the global and the local- globalization

We see that the first view takes Gramsci’s ‘hegemony’ and Phillipson’s ‘linguistic imperialism’ about globalization considering it as a means to disseminate the Western and American economic, cultural, political and educational ideologies. In this sense, globalization is another face of Westernization and Americanization. This view is concerned more with the political and ideological discussion which, as I see, does not make more sense in ELT. But the second and third views have a great impact on ELT.

We can relate two major issues – native speakerism and imported method – regarding the ‘standardization’ and ‘uniformity’ in ELT respectively. Standardization here means many things. The most obvious point related to ELT is that in order to maintain standard we have to follow ‘native’ English representing maybe CNN and BBC English. The uniformity can be interpreted as ‘adoption’ of the same textbook, method of teaching and learning material all over the world without considering the ‘local’ socio-cultural context.

The third view – glocalization – is the negotiation between the global and the local in which we find the mixture of the both. At present, this cocktail idea has come to the fore to soothe the criticisms against globalization on the ground of ‘hegemonic’ and ‘imperialistic’ ideology. With this view, we can argue that globalization has its presence at local level as well. We can also say that it is the continuum which has greater impact at the global context but have less impact at the local context. This degree also differs in terms of power, economy and technological advancement. It is obvious that the societies which are poor, powerless and technologically underdeveloped have less impact of the globalization. In this regard, Block (2008) claims

Globalization is framed as the ongoing process of the increasing and intensifying interconnectedness of communications, events, activities and relationships taking place at the local, national or international level. (p.31)

Although it is accepted that ‘local’ components can also be incorporated in the ‘globalization’, questions which have been ignored are: To what extent we have recognized the value of ‘local’ in ELT literacy practice? Which one (the global or the local) is dominant? How can we bring the ‘local’ into ELT pedagogy? In the remainder of this article, I discuss these issues with reference to ELT in Nepal.

Local literacy and local society
Going through various literature and studies regarding literacy (e.g. Wallace, 1999, 2002), we find three major interpretations of local literacy. First interpretation takes local literacy as teaching through local languages. This is concerned more with the anti-linguistic imperialistic discussion pioneered by Phillipson (1992). Second interpretation is grounded on the use of language for daily communication. Teaching of English, in this regard, is considered as a planned and systematic academic endeavor to help ‘local children’ [Nepalese] use English in informal communications outside the classroom. But to what extent, Nepalese children, studying at Grades 1, 2, 3 in rural areas have to speak English while shopping, for example? Does such a projection of the English language as a means to achieve commodity help children achieve true essence of education? These issues are often ignored in academic discussion especially in the global ELT discourse. At the same time, as Cameron (2002) claims, ‘The dissemination of ‘global’ communicative norms and genres, like the dissemination of international languages, involves a one-way flow of expert knowledge from dominant to subaltern cultures” (p. 70).

The third view, which I want to focus in this article, is concerned with the contextual sensitivity of any language literacy including ELT. According to this view, ELT should be in consonance with the socio-cultural and politico-economic realities of particular context where literacy in English takes place. Moreover, this view believes that English language learning is a ‘situated practice’ which happens with the ‘bottom-up’ fashion rather than ‘top-down’ and through so-called expertise-delivered-knowledge. To be more specific, let me ask some questions (although there are many) regarding teaching English in Nepal;

• Do the methods we are adopting while teaching English address our children’s values, beliefs and expectations?
• Are the textbooks that we use for teaching the English language appropriate to our local socio-cultural and politico-economic realities?

We cannot answer these questions in a ‘yes/no’ manner. However, we can be realistic while discussing these issues. Elsewhere, Canagarajah (2002) vehemently argues that the global methods of teaching (e.g. communicative language teaching) have created inequalities in the global pedagogical village. Following a single method with ‘fits-in-all-context’ assumption does not really address learning needs and expectations of local children. Moreover, such an assumption does not empower children rather it marginalizes them psychologically and cognitively as well. This clearly indicates that we need to think about exploring our own practices of teaching English which is relevant to our own soil and people. At the same time, I am not claiming that we should not be aware of the global practices. We should be well informed with them but we should critically scrutinize those practices keeping our realities in view. I think I can discuss much about this when I come to textbook issue in the following paragraph.

In many parts of the world like in Nepal, textbooks are sole source of teaching and learning English. In that sense, textbooks are the most important component of ELT pedagogy in Nepal. However, it is not bizarre to say that, writing and production of textbooks is the most neglected agenda in Nepal. Let me start with the textbooks prescribed by the government. The textbooks in many cases include ‘foreign culture’ as reading texts and situations for conversation, which are difficult to conceptualize for children, are also foreign in some cases. In a way, such situations and texts take children away from their own context. If our goal is to develop reading skills of children, why don’t we bring the texts which deal with local issues, cultures, realities and challenges? Let us research which text (related to local or global text) is effective for enhancing reading skill of Nepalese learners of English.

The textbooks in private schools are more frustrating in terms of local literacy. The global textbooks like Headway/New Headway which are considered to be the global textbooks are prescribed in private schools without any approval from the government. Such global textbooks seem to promote more European and American culture, and project an affluent commodified life style (Gray, 2002). Through the texts like how much Bill Gates earn (New Headway/Upper-Intermediate, 1998) and going on holidays in London, New York, Paris and other expensive cities of the world, the global textbooks are projecting pleasure in life but they are ignoring pain of how a farmer in rural villages works hard to earn and feed his family. Why don’t we have reading texts on holidaying in Jomsom, paragliding from Sarangkot, trekking in Karnali and so on? Can’t we think about including the texts related to Maruni, Kauda, Dhan-nach, Deuda, Goura, Maha-puja, and so on? Are they not useful in teaching English? Of course, YES. On one hand, such texts promote interconnectedness between society and classroom teaching/learning and on the other hand, they help to address precious linguistic and cultural diversity we have. However, we, teachers of English, should always be ready to take the role of ‘transformative intellectuals’ (Kumarivadivelu, 2003) by going beyond our traditional role – teachers as a passive technician in the classroom – to accepting the extended role to show our concern in social reflection and situated practice of teaching English.

Future Directions: Critical Literacy and Postmethod Pedagogy

The above discussion implies that the so-called global textbooks and methods of ELT do not seem to be inclusive and appropriate in diverse world contexts. ELT in Nepal has the same problem. The fundamental reason behind this is that ELT policies we have made are so far shaped by the traditional notion i.e. ELT means teaching about the English language only. But this notion is already obsolete because ‘methods’, ‘textbooks’ and ‘assumptions’ which work better do not fit in other contexts. Moreover, ELT is more than ‘teaching about English’ it is a part of education which is heavily loaded with culture, identity and ideology which need to be scrutinized in relation to local contexts.

How we can promote local literacy is another crucial question we need to discuss. I am not expert at prescribing ideas which work better. But I think, Critical literacy and Postmethod Pedagogy are two major approaches which are helpful to promote ‘local literacy’ practices in Nepal.

The basis of critical literacy is Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) in which he criticises the transmission or ‘banking’ model of education (teachers are depositors and learners are depositories) and advocates for ‘dialogic’ model in which learners are not passive recipient but an active ‘agent’ of whole learning process. We have already discussed this issue in a January 2009 article of NeltaChoutari.

One major issue that critical literacy addresses is inequalities that persist in ELT. It focuses on bringing social issues and controversies into the classroom. Moreover, this approach involves students in a continuous process of thinking critically through a dialogic process in which students are provided opportunities to discuss the issues which have relevance in local socio-cultural context. Thus students clearly see the relevance of learning English in their life which, moreover, promotes local literacy. In this regard, Norton and Toohey (2004) claim

Advocates of critical approaches to second language teaching are interested in relationships between language learning and social change. From this perspective, language is not simply a means of expression or communication; rather, it is a practice that constructs, and is constructed by, the ways language learners understand themselves, their social surroundings, their histories, and their possibilities for the future” (p. 1).

The Postmethod Pedagogy (Kumaravadivelu, 2001) is another approach which may be helpful in promoting local literacy in ELT. The three parameters of the postmethod pedagogy include particularity, practicality and possibility. According to the pedagogy of particularity, “Language pedagogy…must be sensitive to a particular group of teachers teaching a particular group of learners pursuing a particular set of goals within a particular institutional context embedded in a particular sociocultural milieu” (p. 538). Similarly, the pedagogy of practicality “does not pertain merely to the everyday practice of classroom teaching. It pertains to a much larger issue that has a direct impact on the practice of classroom teaching, namely, the relationship between theory and practice” (p. 540). Finally, the pedagogy of possibility is concerned with “participants’ experience which draws ideas not only from the classroom episodes but also from border social, political and economic environment in which they grew up” (p. 542). We can see that ‘local realities’ and ‘experiences’ of participants (teachers, and students) are core of ELT in every world context. This indicates that we need to share our experiences to generate more local knowledge which can be a treasure for the whole ELT community of practice. To this end, we have initiated NeltaChoutari as a voluntary work to tell Nepalese ELT stories to the rest of the world. We hope this sharing through monthly publication in future will provide a basis for producing local materials for ELT in Nepal.

Conclusion
The looming trend of banishing ‘local practices’ due to acceptance of ‘global practices’ as a granted is one of the serious global issues in ELT around the globe. The notion of uniformity and standardization do not seem to be appropriate in linguistically and culturally diverse world contexts. At the same time, the expectations, values and beliefs of learners should be addressed through all kinds of pedagogy including ELT. In this regard, we should think about the use of locally produced materials and be fully informed with the process of adapting ‘creative and critical instructional practices in order to develop pedagogies suitable for their [our] community’ (Canagarajah 1999 p.122). Moreover, as Holliday (2005) has argued, we should discuss whether methodological prescriptions generated in BANA contexts (British, Australia, and North America) have ‘currency’ in our contexts, whether they are locally validated or appropriated. In this sense, whole idea of local literacy in ELT is concerned with the idea of (re)generating locally appropriate methods of teaching, (re)producing local materials using local resources and incorporating local issues and identities and accommodating learners’ experiences through a dialogical process in the classroom.

I am not saying that the ideas discussed in this article address all dimensions of local literacy nor I am saying that we should not be aware of global issues. What I am saying is our full dependence on global methods, norms and textbooks in ELT may not help to promote and sustain our identities and treasure of local knowledge. What I am saying is that we have wonderful ELT practices that we are not able to share with the people from other parts of the world which we need to do urgently. Let me give some example: we have very precious linguistic and cultural diversity in which English is being taught as a foreign language. We have been teaching under the shade of tree and sometimes in the open sky. We have been teaching more than 100 students in the same classroom even without chalk, duster and blackboard. We are teaching students who come from various linguistic, ethnic, religious, cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. Don’t you think that such realities and experiences are important source for teaching English? Of course, they are. We need to document these experiences so that other members of ELT community of practice will benefit a lot. Why don’t we take initiation of using local cultural texts (in addition to the texts given in the textbooks), for example, to teach reading and writing skills and see how it works? Can’t we bring stories of child labor, gender discrimination, inequality, poverty and so on to teaching English in the classroom? Of course, YES. But we need to work hard to achieve this end. We cannot make changes overnight but if we collaborative through different means like NeltaChoutari we can accomplish so many things for better ELT in Nepal.

Finally, the future of ELT in Nepal will be even better if we don’t consider teaching of English not simply as teaching about the English language but also as part of education that aims to empower children and to bring some positive transformation in the knowledge-based society. I argue that English teachers are not merely ‘classroom teachers’, we are ‘agent of change’. This is possible only when have a strong foundation at local level. We can access global means only with the strong ‘local foundation’. I would say that the best ELT practice is the practice which accommodates local realities and helps learners to link them with global ones. For this, we need to be aware of maintaining balance between local and global.

References

Block, D. & Cameron, D. (2002). Globalization and language teaching. London: Routledge.

Block, D. (2008). Globalization and language education. In S. May and N. H. Hornberger (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Volume 1: Language Policy and Political Issues in Education, 31–43. Springer Science+Business Media LLC.

Bourdieu, P. (2001). Contre-feux 2. Paris: Raisons d’agir.

Cameron, D. (2002). Globalization and the teaching of ‘communication skills’. In Block, D. & Cameron, D. (eds.) Globalization and language teaching. London: Routledge.

Canagarajah, A.S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Canagarajah, A.S. (2002). Globalization, methods and practice in periphery classrooms. In Block, D. & Cameron, D. (eds.) Globalization and language teaching. London: Routledge.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London: The British Council.

Gray, J. (2002). The global coursebook in English language teaching. In Block, D. & Cameron, D. (eds.) Globalization and language teaching. London: Routledge.

Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35/4, 537-560.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond method: Macrostrategies for language teaching. NewHaven, CO. Yale University Press.

Norton, B. & Toohey, K. (Eds.) (1997).Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Phillipson, R. (2004). Review article: English in globalization: Three approaches. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 3:1, 73 — 84.

Wallace, C. (1999). Critical language awareness: key principles for a course in critical reading. Language Awareness 8, 2:98-110.

Wallace, C. (2002). Local literacies and global literacy. . In Block, D. & Cameron, D. (eds.) Globalization and language teaching. London: Routledge.

Double Roles of English in Nepal

A famous British linguist David Crystal estimates that more than two billion people speak English presently. He further claims that this statistics is increasing every year because people have to learn English in order to keep them updated with the world news on politics, education, scientific innovations and economy. In general, we learn English not because it is the world’s largest language but it possesses a huge social and economic resource through which we define our social identity in the present globalized world. We, especially the people from the developing economies (Third World), are learning English not because it is the language of British, America, Australian and other developed countries, but by assuming that English develops our life style, provides job and enriches knowledge. In this regard, another British linguist and researcher, David Graddol in his book The Future of English claims that the nineteenth century British colonialism and the twentieth century American capitalism and culture are the two fundamental reasons for such a wide spread of English as a world language. In the same line, Braj Kachru describes English as a gateway to economic prosperity. Due to such a perceived materialistic charisma of English, the people from the developing economies assume that learning English is inevitable for individual and social empowerment. We consider English as a ‘passport’ to cross the boarder.

Although there are a number of benefits of English as mentioned above, we should not ignore the fact that its spread has also created some serious socio-economic and political issues not only in the developing economies but also in the developed countries like in America and the entire Europe. One of the major social-economic issues, to give an example of Nepal, is: the English language has created a big gap between haves and have-nots. If we flash back the history of the English language in Nepal, we could see it as the language of elites and affluent families. The Ranas’ protectionism of English as the language of rulers and the Panchayat’s covert willingness to make it the language of elites had clearly divided the whole Nepalese society into two groups. This clearly indicates that the English-literates dominate over the English-illiterates as the former possess the socio-economic and political power created by the English language. Moreover, after the restoration of democracy, English became the language of the expensive private schools which are affordable only by the affluent families. This clearly indicates that the English language does not seem to become the language of maintaining social equality in Nepal rather it has become only ‘power’ for the elites to dominate the whole society.

But against such a situation, people from different language communities are becoming aware of their vanishing language identity and on the other hand, different universal declarations (e.g. Declaration of Human Rights) have also clearly stated language as a human right. Following such provisions, Nepal has already introduced Education for All (EFA) programme in which mother tongue education in a major focus.

Moreover, human right activists and indigenous community leaders claim that English language teaching (ELT), especially in early schooling, marginalises the ethno-indigenous cultures and language, and creates social inequality among rich and poor. In this regard, a famous applied linguist, Robert Phillipson passionately contends that maintaining the legacy of the former colonial history of English speaking countries and presently being the language of globalisation, English has become a major threat for local languages. This is happening in Nepal too. In addition to the long domination of the Nepali language in all domains, now, English has been introduced from Grade One in schools without any intensive research. It has been introduced because all, especially policy makers (who are from elite groups), assume that English is important at this modern age. However, they have never looked at the problems faced by children while learning English from Grade One. They are not serious about the vanishing local language and culture. Although there is the provision of mother tongue education, due to the socio-economic power ascribed to English (and Nepali), the innocent children and parents are motivated to learn English by forgetting their own ethnolinguistic identity. This implies that the taken-for-granted assumption towards English will lead to serious economic and political disadvantages in the future.

This is a bizarre fact that developed/industrialised countries are focusing on producing competent multilingual manpower. They have shifted their mind from monolingual-English-speaker to multilingual ones. They have seen that a multilingual young man is more competent than one who is a monolingual English speaker. However, what we are assuming and doing in Nepal is that as far as possible we are trying to make our students monolingual speakers of English through its overemphasis in education. This will of course be a serious disadvantage for the forthcoming generations. This discussion clearly indicates that there is an urgent need of an academic meaningful discussion on the policy of English language teaching in Nepal and in other developing economies.

Another issue of teaching English in Nepal is whether or not we are able to link the English language with students’ real world view. Closely associated with this issue are the questions: Are we following only the methods that are developed in the West or creating our own methods which fit in our context? Are we promoting a sustainable learning through critical thinking or just making students a parrot to drill the grammar of English? Do our textbooks address learners’ identities, cultures and values or only borrows ‘foreign’ ones? Are we teaching English in isolation or by linking it with local and global issues? I am not answering these questions here because they do not have absolute answers. However, these questions lead us to a process which helps us to lay a strong foundation to set up the positive role of English in the diverse context of Nepal.

While talking about the identity, there come different varieties of English. Since the number of native speakers of English is already exceeded by the number of non-native speakers, there is no point in prescribing only one or two so-called standard variety of English. With the global spread of English not only the population of English speakers is increasing but also the varieties of English are increasing. In this context, we should contemplate on some issues like whether we have a Nepalese English variety? How feasible is it to use as a medium of instruction in schools? At this moment, I can only make a hypothesis that one day we will have a separate variety of English, the Nepalese English. This may emerge with the publications of textbooks and materials in Nepal by local authors and writers instead of importing the books from foreign countries.

In this regard Numa Markee, Professor of University of Illinois, argues that Nepalese applied linguists and English teachers should take a leading role in framing the discussion of language issues. In particular, “what (quasi) official role (if any) should English play in relation to indigenous Nepalese languages, and in particular sectors of the economy, education, science, business, and tourism?”

The above discussion suggests that there is an urgent need of a comprehensive survey of language issues in Nepal which closely looks at the role of English in education and social life of people. English teachers should not only be a teacher, they have a social responsibility to address the beliefs and values of learners while teaching English. We should move beyond the English-Only assumption to English-With-Other-Languages. As professor Makee has put: What steps should Nepal take to maintain its linguistic and cultural heritage from the potential “killer” characteristics of English? has to be borne in our mind. Otherwise, English will only become the symbol of ‘hegemony’ as the nineteenth century philosopher Antonio Gramsci says.

(Mr Phyak researches and writes on the issue of English in multilingual contexts, and ethnolinguistic and cultural identity. He can be reached at pphyak@gmail.com)