“Primary English Language Teaching does more harm than good”

One of the highlights of the Annual IATEFL conference is the ELT Journal debate, where prominent scholars discuss a controversial topic about language teaching and learning. In 2014, the motion that was discussed in the debate was that “Primary English Language Teaching does more harm than good”. This post, originally written in 2014, summarises some of the points that were raised in that debate.

At the time of writing, there were plans in place to introduce English language teaching (ELT) classes to all primary schools in Greece starting at Year 1. Writing this post was my way of contributing to those ongoing discussions (blogging was a vibrant community for such exchanges in the pre-social media web), and although that attempt proved futile, I still think that there is some value in these reflections.

The background of the debate on TEYL

According to Graham Hall, the (then) editor of ELT Journal, some of the considerations that motivated the motion were the following:

As both parents and educational authorities seek to increase younger learners’ English language skills, we can’t assume that an earlier start to learning English is automatically better.

The advisability of an early start to learning English can be affected by a number of factors, ranging from the availability of suitably skilled teachers and appropriate resources to concerns about the possible implications for the teaching and learning of other languages, and from the development of suitable classroom practices and methodologies to the relationship between a child’s first language literacy skills and their English language development.

The TEYL debate

Fiona Copland (Aston University, UK) put forward the motion, and Janet Enever (Umea University, Sweden) opposed. You can see the full debate in the video below:

[viddler id=97e0cd32 w=545 h=307]

(Update: As of February 2019, it appears that this video is no longer available. I will update this page if I manage to find where it is now hosted.)

Developing a counter-discourse against Primary English in Greece

What I want to do in this post is summarise the arguments why primary English Language Teaching may be problematic. I am conscious that in doing so, and by not providing equal space for Janet Enever’s considered remarks, I run the risk of appearing biased.

However, I feel that there are valid reasons for being selective. The arguments in favour of teaching English in primary education enjoy considerable exposure, and they are part of mainstream thinking about ELT. In the Greek educational context, which is my main concern, professional discourse is dominated by (sometimes uncritical) arguments that advocate extending ELT provision to Year 1. The policy of Teaching English to Very Young Learners (TEYL) has been enthusiastically promoted both by the competent authorities, and by academics in the University of Athens Research Centre for the English Language. Moreover, arguments in favour of TEYL are given voice in a dedicated journal published by the University of Athens, and at least one conference has been held to advance that cause.

A counter-discourse to such claims is, in my opinion, useful in the interest of forming views that are more nuanced and more balanced. Furthermore, it is my hope that such counter-discourse can provide a much-needed safeguard against the forceful imposition of pedagogical recommendations solely on the imprimatur of well-meaning, but perhaps only partially correct, policy planners who are in favour of increasing primary ELT provision.

The case against Primary ELT

Copland began her talk by noting that only a small number of academics and professionals were prepared to propose the motion of the debate, which suggested that “problems with Primary ELT are clearly not filtering down” in the profession. She then proceeded to describe four problematic issues about early ELT provision.

Primary school children as language learners

According to Copland, the empirical evidence regarding the effects of teaching English in primary education is “contradictory” at best. Copland differentiated between children who grow up in bilingual settings, and those who learn English in primary schools. While exposure to English has benefits for the former are, progress in the latter group seems“minimal”. Moreover, there are concerns that the drive to provide English courses to young pupils comes at the expense of literacy and numeracy, which are arguably more important in a primary education setting.

Social and economic issues

Copland raised the question of who stands to gain most from English language education. In her view, provision for English in the primary classroom is most beneficial to those children who already enjoy a privileged status. She cited research suggesting that, whenever English was introduced in primary education, it led to an increase in social disparities. The new policy apparently prompted affluent pupils to attend extracurricular classes, which disenfranchised pupils could not afford.

She also suggested that rhetoric in emerging countries advocates early ELT, but the promised outcomes are rarely achieved. In fact, she claimed, despite massive investment in primary ELT, there are “relatively few state school classrooms anywhere in which students are developing a usable knowledge of English”. Whatever linguistic gains are made in primary school, are also possible in secondary education with a fraction of the effort.

Educational policy

Another issue that Copland highlighted is that many educational systems face a shortage of teachers who can deliver effective ELT education to primary school children. Specifically, she pointed out that it is common to encounter teachers who are qualified to teach children but not English, teachers who can teach English but not children, and teachers who are incapable of both.

Moreover, introducing ELT in primary education could lead to a mismatch in cultures of education. The communicative ethos of ELT, Copland pointed out, does not always align well with established practices of mainstream education. In addition, challenges exist with regard to the teachers’ readiness to implement communicative language teaching, and the number of students often hinders movement and differentiation that is necessary for effective language teaching.

Pupils’ well-being

Finally, Copeland argued that pupils are too young to have any instrumental motivation for learning English. Moreover, primary ELT can devalue local languages, especially when used to pave the way for courses where English is the medium for instruction.

On the strength of these arguments, Copeland concluded that extending ELT provision to primary education benefits the profession, but not the children whose interests the profession exists to serve.

Concluding remarks

I should note Copeland framed her argument in general terms, and she referred to ELT as a global enterprise. It is therefore quite possible that some of the points that she raised might not apply with equal force to every specific context. Moreover, some readers may take issue with the phrasing of the motion. Even if there are problems with primary ELT, does it do more harm than good? Is it even possible to quantify and measure the kinds of outcomes that mostly interest us?

Such reservations aside, I think that Copland compellingly argued that extending ELT provision to the primary school is a contentious issue. It therefore perhaps deserves more consideration than educational authorities in Greece have given it.

---