Category Archives: Critical Outlook

Parenting, Nepalese Private (Boarding) Schools, English, and Child-friendliness

Critical Outlook, Teacher's Experience/anecdotes

— Kashi Raj Pandey

Yes, teaching English in Nepal for more than a decade, from primary, secondary, and now in a university has compelled me to reflect myself with different hats; basically every day, now a days, I have been wearing two hats: first, a professional hat; second of a “good” parent. A born, dedicated teacher and a very finicky parent, as teaching professionals are the most difficult clients for “boarding schools” too.

Last weekend, with sufficient activities and monitoring at Kathmandu University’s Undergraduate classrooms, I returned home, tired. Good that our elder boy was already there with the small one and their mother waiting: I was the last to reach home that relieved me from worrying about others’ arrival as we all absent ourselves day time; one a hosteller, another day-scholar, and the couple both working in different sweat shops.

Our meeting was followed by a homely Dinner; and during dinner time, we talked as usual. My wife was an initiator. She said, “Look, I have something to say today”. I, with curiosity, gave my response, “Yes. Go ahead”. Then she proceeded, “Our children are doing good in studies. They score good marks. But, the bigger one had a request whether we could speak English in home so that he can confidently speak in English with his teachers”. He is a nine grader studying in one of the “finest” boarding schools. In Nepal, we love to make judgment about the standard of schools on the basis of the money they collect from parents; like how much, how often, and how early. This school is “good” because of the amount they charge, frequency of events they advocate for extra money, and reason they find for collection. From this year they claimed that they have also improved their quality by rescheduling the mid-term exam as early as possible. They said it is good because the children can have their result before Dashain (the major festival in Nepal with a long holiday), but I know the reason, and so do you, all intelligent readers.

By now you all can guess, as a teacher of English, one thing with intention, I failed was this – not speaking English at home. And, I kept quiet waiting to continue that issue in the next session. I nodded – “Yes, the dinner is delicious and how nice eating together after a week’s hard work!”

Next session continued, as very often we do this. Parents sitting together with children for sometimes, may be just talking and talking even with no issues, we believe strengthens compassion among. And, that time we had an issue. I asked the boy to tell me about him. He said, “Everything is good”. But my boy needed further counseling, I could imagine.  As we kept talking, many things started to unfold. I even remembered and recited the first stanza of a poem by W. B. Yeats, “Among School Children” with them:

“I walk through the long schoolroom questioning;
A kind old nun in a white hood replies;
The children learn to cipher and to sing,
To study reading-books and histories,
To cut and sew, be neat in everything
In the best modern way – the children’s eyes
In momentary wonder stare upon
A sixty-year-old smiling public man.” (ll 1-8)

Yes, after some moment, he revealed that if we spoke “English” in home, he could have excelled in everything and among everybody in the school. Then, I realized the problem, but I never took “English” and “only speaking English” that way.  That made me little emotional and thoughtful. I have seen many “good English speakers” not doing anything even in the Americas, seen a village-wo/man with a great heart doing a lot; s/he may be poor, unfortunate to attend so called “boarding schools” but also NOT devoid of humanity. I know more on what I have to make them unlearn than what they are learning in school.

Children are learning that they need to pay fee for the admit card so that they can sit down for the exam and go for unhealthy competition. I am saying this because I saw an innocent little girl crying in one of the good private schools on her result day because she could not hold the FIRST position among some 600 students while the “Block Incharge” was trying hard to convince the child and her parents saying, “You should try next time”. My goodness, isn’t scoring the SECOND position in this huge mass a fabulous job? I think yes, and for me it is always a “WELL DONE!” Do these schools worry about giving prizes in the same way as they are curious to collect fees before exams? Children (ALL) I have always seen happier coming home with the envelope (a receipt inside) than their exam results.

We make children to be disciplined. And they are disciplined in such a way that even at their Undergraduate levels, when we ask them to contribute in some way or express their views, first thing they do is “standing up”. It has become their habit; most of them do not worry on the issue but ask to repeat again after they stand up; they have become habitual this way. We are giving them the “wrong” message that only educated people are comfortable to survive in this world and the toppers are always “respected”. I agree, but what about the other parts? Don’t we have to enjoy life with children? Is our home NOT different than schools? Aren’t we also paying high to imprison their childhood?  Honestly, I have sent my boys to these private schools not because I really wanted them to but just to make ourselves “socially” comfortable and put myself under this “veiled prestige and power relationship”. Now, I do remember the lines from Daniel Goleman’s essay where he has inserted a dying patient’s reflection, he mourns past losses and wrongs he has committed, “he regretted that when his daughter was small and needed him, he was on the road making money to provide a good home. Now, that he was dying, but she was grown and had her own way of life”. He felt it was too late to play, talk, and even share a lot of things that were possible earlier and, most of the times, I find hard to see myself differently.

How have we motivated the children? John Holt says we still claim children go to school to learn as if learning is different than living and that the child hadn’t been learning before.  They are learning to hide the home works. They are learning countless strategies for prying “right” answers out of the teacher, for conning her/him into thinking s/he knows what s/he does not know. Children when suggested to change certain things that were not right, they fear whether they could write that way in exams too. Many parents also fear a good amount of project works during holidays. I have seen them working actively in many student projects, that to be submitted to teachers, for the sake of children’s happiness. At this point, I worry whether children go to school to learn for themselves or for others?

Next, is “ENGLISH” terror. As I have seen fine slogans painted or posted in many private school walls like; ENGLISH IS COMPULSORY. PAY Rs. 5 Or 10 FOR EVERY TIME YOU SPEAK NEPALI. Why do we advertise this way? Can’t we simply speak English in the schools, a “correct” English I mean which may come from different sources, may that be watching TV, reading novel or anything. Parents in Nepal would love to see their wards speaking English, no doubt. But, don’t we also have to cultivate reading habit or don’t we have to give our children the knowledge about the life style, culture, feast and festivals of the target language? Can’t we also take our children to several events like Cultural Programs, Book Exhibitions, or other Educational Fairs? Keeping these all in mind, I was comfortable when my boy agreed with me as we are doing all other activities at the maximum possibility, though English was not compulsory in HOME. And this is the beauty that children find a home more homely, different than “Boarding” schools in Nepal.

I worry who has time to look into these issues with due priority for these children’s childhood has been imprisoned unknowingly deceiving them in the name of discipline, competition, success, or what not.

Active, passive, and professional voices

Critical Outlook, Critical Pedagogy, Miscellaneous

— Shyam Sharma

I just finished reading the book Writing in the Academic Disciplines: A Curricular History, which historicizes reductionist views about writing among scholars and teachers in the disciplines across the university. The author, David Russell, argues that most scholars outside the discipline of writing itself tend to believe that writing is a transparent tool for transcribing ideas (and not a tool for exploring and learning ideas), that the problem of poor writing should be solved as early as possible by those who are assigned to teach writing (and not that teachers across the disciplines should help students learn to do increasingly specialized writing along with their advancement in the disciplines), and that one size fits all program for teaching universal writing skills, if done well, is enough to deal with the challenge of writing in the university (instead of integrating writing within the disciplines and through the learners’ disciplinary careers). That is why most scholars in most disciplines punish students for poor writing (because poor writing is caused by the fault of the student and their English/writing teachers): they don’t see poor writing in advanced levels of education as caused by their own disregard for writing as a learning tool at all levels, in all disciplines.

When I finished reading this book, I could not help thinking about similarly problematic views about scholarship, about research, and about professional discourse in general in our own scholarly communities at home. Consider this: editors of our blog magazine Nelta Choutari have been urging fellow NELTA members to please kindly contribute any teaching stories/anecdotes, general blog entries in the form of reflection on ELT, branch updates, anything—and we’ve got some very interesting and useful stories and reflections. However, on the one hand, there has been generally a scanty response to this solicitation; and on the other, even when we are lucky enough to receive contributions, which are always great, these materials do not elicit as much response and discussion from the general community as do the topics of grammatical rules on the mailing list. Of course, the mailing group is a more established forum and the email “posts” also prompt response by reaching everyone’s inbox—unlike the blog where users need to either revisit or be reminded by someone that a discussion is going on. But this technological reason aside, if we look at the level of enthusiasm towards subjects of larger import of the profession among the general members of our community, we see a striking need for us to engage more in larger discussions of the profession, to share our stories, ideas, arguments/debates on issues larger than grammar. We need to talk about grammar, but we also equally importantly need to talk about more substantive issues about our profession: we are yet to see that balance. Here I want to reflect on some possible reasons for the relative lack of interest in discussing larger issues of the profession than in the nitty gritty of language.

In general, the Nepali culture is hierarchical. What is a bit intriguing is that even teachers don’t seem ready yet to rethink the internalized hierarchy and focus on more liberal and professional relationships among ourselves. Individuals with higher academic credentials/degrees, those who have more political clout in the academic/professional community, more administrative power, more years of experience in the field, or simply more years in their lives are seen as more important, more respectable. Too often, they are respected for no other reason than due to our internalized acceptance of hierarchy for its own sake. Needless to say, people with more degrees (and sometimes more marks on their certificates), more experience, and simply more years in their lives are likely to have more knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, more refined professional skills, and more confidence. But that is only half the story, the other half of which is my subject here.

Our internalized sense of hierarchy makes us believe that older, more experienced, and more credentialed people naturally/logically have more knowledge, that they must not be challenged, and—this is my point—that the younger, less credentialed, and less experienced people must not be so “disrespectful” as to speak up, challenge, or even contribute their ideas to the professional community. Even when we do participate in discussions, we tend to stick to the ground. This sense of hierarchy, whether conscious or not, and if that is what is keeping the line of division intact, is not only irrelevant today but also harmful for our social, intellectual, and professional progresses.

To illustrate my point, let me share a story. I taught Manoj Khadka in 8th grade, when he was 14, in a public school in Biratnagar, 15 years ago. Manoj is now 29, and say he is an assistant professor of education, has done extensive research and impressive publications, and is leading a major educational project that helps develop educational resource for English teachers across the country. Now, whenever I get a chance to talk to Manoj, he not only considers me his “teacher”—not former teacher but a forever “guru,” and he is forever my “student”—but he also makes sure to praise me for things like how well I taught active and passive voice. He knows that I am still in the field of education, pursuing my own goals, but he and I have not shared much intellectual/professional substance. He found me on Facebook last year, and we are in touch through that medium, besides occasional emails. Since we reconnected, I found out about his professional works and his project, and I have tried to learn more about them—in vain. He says, “ke hunu sir, eso ali ali.” His emails are intimate but there is something fundamental in his language, and the lack of substance, in his writing that seems to inhibit him from talking to me like a fellow professional, a colleague. He rarely seems to have the confidence to describe his fascinating resource development project with me; he downplays its significance, if not refuse to discuss it altogether. I become uncomfortable because I wonder if my own internalized sense of hierarchy has made me somehow sound patronizing to him in my communication, forever guru-like, forever on a higher pedestal. I am not sure….

As evident in the above semi-fictional example of my relationship with a former student, the hierarchical relationship among the different generations of scholars in our professional community seems to me to be the most important factor behind the scholar-teacher division that is so prevalent in our discipline, as well as our society in general. Those who have PhDs are scholars, others are teachers. Those who taught you should talk like scholars, not you, in any forums where both are present. Those who are older should be listened to, not talked with. Those who do research, those who publish books, those who present conference papers, those who write in journals, and those who are capable of writing in online forums… they are scholars, the bidwans, gurus: the rest, younger, without the PhD tag, second-division walas, those who are not authors of journal articles or books, or worse those who haven’t even done a conference paper… these may at best call themselves teachers—actually, look around before you use the word “teacher,” in case there are real teachers nearby: “hoina, sir, ke teacher bhannu. Yeso ali ali jyan palne meso ni.” In between the “jyan palne” not quite even teachers and the awe-inspiring “educators,” there has been and continues to exist a great gap. In some academic disciplines, especially ELT, that gap seems to have somewhat decreased recently, for instance, as indicated by the quiet “hijacking” of the very word “educator” by younger scholars. This can be seen in email signatures and resumes: “Manoj Khadka, Teacher Educator, X Campus.” But the hegemony still basically replicates itself—it’s such a diehard thing—and even with the advent of “loktantra” and “ganatantric paddati,” the academic sphere doesn’t seem to think or act very differently.

Does this mean that we should stop giving the respect that is due to people who have spent their lives contributing to the academia and the society? NO. Should we respect them less? NO again. The question is what kind of respect makes sense and what kind of respect doesn’t make sense. Let us respect and promote ideas and productivity and contribution to the progress of our profession and the society, not respect for the person, their age, political clout, degree, region, sex, culture, class… Let the younger scholars lead new initiatives, invite the older generations to contribute and inspire.

Does this mean that we should start giving more respect to younger scholars than we are used to giving? Yes. But, again, it’s not a matter of “respect” to the person: we need to appreciate younger scholars’ contribution to the professional community, encourage them to share more ambitious ideas—and not be too humble, lacking in confidence before older scholars, just waiting to hear what guru will say. I want Manoj Khadka to share his ideas with me, to tell me how he is doing better work than our professional community has conventionally done, to engage me in much more serious discourse than his emails that simply say things like “dear sir, how are you? … I still remember how you taught active and passive voice…” I have asked him to put more substance of professional significance into his writing; but the more I do that, the less frequently he writes to me! I want Manoj to initiate discussions on subjects that have larger professional significance than the correct use of preposition or conversion of active to voice—or on top of those subjects.

I am not entirely sure—and I want to offer this for discussion (please comment)—but it makes me very uncomfortable when I think that Manoj’s participation in our discussion forums is limited to active and passive voice, preposition, articles because he doesn’t consider himself qualified to engage in discussions of larger issues of our profession. It is possible that Manoj is uninterested or unwilling to go beyond grammar in our discussions because he has a limited view of the profession, or because he subscribes to the division of roles whereby the scholars play the “higher” roles of scholarly discussion, research, and publication and the mere teachers should stick to talking about grammar.

The separation of scholar and teacher is in itself a very troublesome problem for any profession, and it is not unique to Nepal. But that separation becomes even more troublesome when it is reinforced and perpetuated by an internalized acceptance of hierarchy and hegemony and not just due to conscious choice to remain “practitioners” on the part of younger scholars, the non-PhDs, those who don’t have first division written in their certificates, those who live/teach outside Kathmandu, those who don’t have cozy connections with the “big” people at the center, and so on.

Therefore, dear Manoj,
As much as I love to read anything you write—including when you write about articles and prepositions—it would be even nicer of you if you could initiate and participate in other larger subjects about our profession and our development as a professional community.

Your once-upon-a-time teacher, and today a fellow ELT scholar/teacher,

Shyam Sharma

Teaching English: Lifeless life?

Critical Outlook, Scholarly Article

Ashok Raj Khati

NELTA Ramechap Branch

A teacher gets up at 5 am, rushes to the college at 6 am and starts his lesson at 6.30. He gives lectures till 10.30, and then comes to have a meal in hurry. He has to take several classes in a school from 11 am to 4 pm where he is a permanent teacher. He has been working as an English teacher for 15 years. Every year he enters into the same classrooms with the same walls, writes on the same blackboard, opens the same textbooks, gives the same notes that he had prepared many years ago.  He finds that his students are always passive listeners every year except in the first month of an academic year. He usually uses chalk, duster, blackboard, and sometime cassette recorder for listening activities.

He reads the reading texts, than explains them in his own words. Very often he over explains as well as translates difficult sentences into students’ mother tongue. He also writes the answers of questions given in the texts. He himself writes essays on the board, and tells his student to copy that. He gives rules, and explains them followed by some selected exercises while teaching grammar. Moreover, he writes the summary or central ideas of literary texts for students. He does not forget to remind students some important questions for exam in every lesson.

I think he is making his job easy. At the same time, he finds his job boring and to some extent he is not satisfied with his own teaching. He sits in the same office on the same chairs in front of the same pictures of national heroes hanging on the same wall for 15 years. Most of his colleagues are those who have been teaching in the same school for more than 7 to10 years. At the end of the month, he collects his salary and pays out for his all expenses of the whole month. From the next day, he is again penniless.

He is doing the same job for 14 years. No more innovations, no more materials, no more fun, and no more variety in the classroom. In nutshell, he is having a Lifeless Life.

It is the story of an English teacher, my colleague for last two years. I have observed similar kind of story of high school teachers in this particular part (Ramechap district- a remote part of Nepal) of the country. May be this situation is different from that of urban areas where teachers grow professionally. They may have completed required degree from university in their respective subjects. They may be trained. But in this part of the country trainings are taken only as a tool for promotion and financial attainment. Teachers never pay for trainings. But they grumble: Our job is monotonous.

How can an English teacher enjoy his profession particularly in under resourced context of Nepal? In response to my query, Aneta Naumoska, an English teacher for Macedonia commented as follows via e-mail:

Hi Ashok, by writing this text that sincerely touched my heart and raised an issue in the context of teaching English that appears not only in Nepal, but in many other places worldwide! Honestly, I have several examples to add to yours that I don’t even know how and where to start! You made an excellent point by exemplifying what I am avoiding at all costs to become in the future as an EFL teacher!

One of the factors that according to me hinders teachers thoroughly enjoying their profession and finding satisfaction in it is their lack of eagerness to become an active part of the worldwide ELT community, to share experiences with their colleagues from all around the world by attending (or presenting at) seminars, conferences, workshops and the like. From such passive colleagues I have noticed that their absence and non-involvement in such places makes them lose interest in the fact that the English language is constantly changing and speeding in the fast track! Such involvement with other colleagues surely opens your horizons on a number of ELT issues!

My experience in teaching (as well as attending many ELT classes as a passive observer) has shown me that being innovative, resourceful, and many other things, comes from the teacher himself/herself … not from the textbooks they use in class or other external materials (like handouts). Use every single source of knowledge and materials that is available to you and adapt it to the teaching situation, and to the different students and their various learning styles.

This way, we teachers not only bring novelty to the classroom, but we also stay young at heart!

All the best,

Aneta Naumoska,

An English teacher, Macedonia

English: a boon or a bane?

Critical Outlook, Critical Pedagogy

Madhu Neupane

English language teaching (ELT) has been a matter of prestige in Nepal since past. There is a growing trend of learning and using it with an assumption that English provides wider global socio-economic opportunities. However, the condition of teaching English has not been improved as is expected.

One of the major reasons behind this, in my opinion, is the faulty planning of English language teaching programme in general. The improvement in the teaching and learning of the English language should start from the beginning or foundation. If the foundation itself is poor, large building cannot be constructed on it. The evidence to support this idea in the ELT is that of developmental order. Applied linguists (e.g. Ellis 1989) argue that there are certain prerequisites that should be fulfilled for the learner to be able to learn a language item successfully. There are studies to prove that teaching can change the rate of acquisition or learning but not the route (e.g. Ellis, 1989). For example, students cannot master passive sentence without mastering the tense system as it is prerequisite for learning passive.

Similarly, learners should be able to produce correct sentences in isolation before they can write a paragraph. In the context of Nepal, learners at the higher level who are supposed to have reached a certain developmental level are found to be far below that level. This is due to the fact that learners are promoted to upper levels without having the required level of proficiency at their lower level. In other words, they are promoted to the next level without assessing what they are supposed to learn. One of the factors behind this is the faulty examination system. For example, in our examination system students can make fair guesses of the questions that are to be asked in the exam by looking at the list of the questions asked previously. They may learn them by heart and reproduce them in the exam.

In this regard, one of my students once said, “Madam, I passed English in Grade XI without knowing anything but I could not pass English in Grade XII. What should I do?” I had no answer as he had put both questions and answer in his saying. I was puzzled in a way. Likewise, one of my sisters once said, “I used to get good marks in English at school level. I don’t know how that would happen. I was certainly not better in English than in other subjects.” Sometimes, I ask my students at Bachelor level about the marks they secured in the previous levels. When I notice a gap between their marks and the present level of proficiency, I ask them further question, “why is it so?” Their responses vary. Some students say that the answers were written for them on the board in the exam where some say that they copied the answers from talented students. Some of them also revealed that their teachers had asked them to fill in the pages by writing what they slightly know about the questions. Coincidently, while I am writing this article there is news on the television that XII Graders are protesting in different exams centres (final examination) because they are not getting chance to cheat openly.

Many students also say that English has never been an attractive subject for them. One of my students said, “I studied English the whole day but understood nothing.” Other students just don’t pay attention because their mind is already preoccupied with the view that English is not the subject which they can understand. When provided with written assignments, they say, “I could not do it” even without trying it. Correcting their written work takes a longer time. There are many grammatical mistakes which are difficult to identify even. It is difficult to find out what they are trying to say in their writing. On top of that the students are unlikely to go through the feedback teachers provide to them. Due to above mentioned factors learners are not in a position to learn the language in their course which has been designed with an assumption that they have already learned basic things required for present learning. Moreover, teachers always have to face problems to deal with weak performance of the students. On the one hand, there is a pressure to finish the course in time and on the other hand, students cannot learn the things given in the course without providing them background information which are not mentioned in the course (e.g. New Generation English). Sometimes this leads to a frustration as well.

Oops! So much for dissatisfaction!! But we should be optimistic for hope provides us with life. The same glass of water with the same amount of water can seen to be half full or half empty. For the long term solution reforms should be started from the beginning by making the learners learn what they are supposed to learn at respective levels. There should be no compromise for that. But for the students who have come to higher level without the required level of proficiency we can do something.

The first thing that I do with my students is to develop positive attitude in them. I usually do this by saying that they are not as poor in English as they think about themselves. While teaching I ask very simple questions that almost all of them can answer. This provides them with a sense of achievement.

Sometimes I substitute the exercises given in their textbooks with my own. This has helped me to develop positive attitude towards learning English in my students. For correcting their written work I tick the sentences which they have written right rather than crossing and correcting their mistakes. This provides me with a sense of happiness and I also have found students motivated by this. It helps them to build on what they already know and then keep on writing. I believe in course of time they learn to write by writing. To sum up there are many factors that contribute to the poor performance of the learners. But we should be optimistic and start from the point where we are now rather than doing nothing by blaming others. Let’s say, “Yes we can” for when we say we can or we cannot we are usually right.

Win-Win Approach

Critical Outlook, Scholarly Article

Win-Win Approach

Heather Ashley Hager

Ending the political stalemate and making headway on Nepal’s new constitution is proving to be a Herculean task for the Maoists and coalition of parties in the current government. One of the main reasons for the lack of forward momentum is the predominance of a “winner-take-all” mentality in which the slightest compromise is viewed as the equivalent of defeat.

America’s founding fathers, who wrote the United States constitution and heralded the world’s first successful experiment with democracy, were successful only because they understood the necessity of compromise – agreeing to table the issue of slavery, for example, and creating a system of checks and balances to maintain an equal distribution of power between the states and federal government to assuage those who were suspicious of a strong central government. To move forward, Nepal’s political leaders must view the constitution-writing process with a drastically different mindset. They must jettison the ‘winner-take-all” model and approach the challenges from a “win-win” perspective.

The “win-win” solution is an approach developed by Roger Fisher, Professor Emeritus of Harvard Law School; author of Getting to Yes, the best selling book on negotiation; and a world renowned international mediator who, among other things, negotiated a peaceful settlement of the Columbia/Peru conflict using his “win-win” approach. “Win-win” means meeting the essential interests of each party in a dispute or conflict. It is contrary to the zero-sum game of “win-lose.” The idea is that both parties can achieve their essential interests if they brainstorm together on solutions that reflect both party’s primary concerns. In a “win-win” scenario, there is no clear winner or loser, as both parties can claim credit for accomplishing their main objectives.

The recent passage of the health care reform package by the US Senate provides an example of the “win-win” approach in action. The liberals agreed to give up the so-called “public-option”, which would have provided US citizens with the option of a government-sponsored insurance plan, and the conservatives agreed to offer private insurance company packages on a competitive basis. The result was that both liberals and conservatives can now claim credit for passing the first comprehensive health reform legislation in over 20 years—a significant accomplishment from any perspective.

To move forward, Nepal’s political leaders must view the constitution-writing process with a drastically different mindset. They must jettison the ‘winner-take-all” model and approach the challenges from a “win-win” perspective. Teachers from Takshashila Academy participated in a training developed by Teacher Training Initiative-Nepal (TTI-Nepal) to promote critical thinking and problem solving in the classroom. As part of an exercise in viewing an issue from a range of different perspectives, teachers agreed to take on the task of resuscitating the constitution-making process using the “win-win” approach. Their proposal, which involves painful compromise on both sides, provides a necessary alterative to the current scenario of endless ultimatums and intransigence on all fronts.

Teachers identified the following steps as necessary preconditions for establishing a national consensus government and writing the new constitution:

The Constituent Assembly (CA) agrees to dissolve the current government and select a new prime minister (PM) using the rules of law outlined in the interim constitution.

This action takes into account both the Maoist‘s desire to re-enter the government and have a shot at re-claiming the PM position and the government’s commitment to creating a consensus government using the rule of law as opposed to force and intimidation.

All parties agree to dissolve their youth forces including the CPN-UML’s Youth Force the Nepali Congress’s Tarun Dal, and the Maoists’ Youth Communist League and to confiscate all youth force weapons.

This approach requires simultaneous action from all parties rather than a quid-pro-quo scenario which leaves one party looking like the loser in the situation.

Integrate all UN-qualified Maoists’ Peoples Liberation Army combatants into different sectors of the Nepal Army including the industrial security force, the border security force, the security force that protects the parks and the national natural resources as well as the general armed force.

This resolves the issue of what to do with former Maoist combatants and, because Maoists are integrated into all sectors of the national security force, addresses the government’s concern regarding a Maoist-dominated army.

After forming a new government, establish a timeframe for fulfilling all former agreements outlined in the 12-Point Agreement. The timeframe would be determined by consensus of all political parties.

Insisting on compliance of the 12-Point Agreement as a precondition for forming a new government has proven to be a formula for inaction. Requiring mutual compromise, on the other hand, by asking the government to temporarily table the 12-Point Agreement and asking Maoists to reaffirm their commitment to fulfilling former promises, enables both parties to move forward without losing face. This move recognizes the government’s primary concern to draft a new constitution using a democratic process and the Maoists top-most desire to participate in the government and regain the popularity of the people in anticipation of the next election.

This teacher-inspired plan deserves serious consideration by the upper echelon of policy makers as it is based on a shared aspiration for peace and political stability and addresses the primary, often conflicting, concerns of interested parties. What makes this plan unique is the give and take required from all sides so that every party can claim success and no party loses credibility with its constituents.

From a pedagogical perspective, this consensus building activity embodied the higher levels of critical thinking and problem solving that should be taking place in Nepal’s classrooms. If democracy is to ultimately succeed in this country, the people must learn how to actively participate in the democratic process. This means suggesting new solutions to Nepal’s plethora of problems and holding leaders accountable for their election promises using the ballot box rather than the banda. The responsibility of ushering in a new generation of innovative, visionary leaders falls on the shoulders of Nepal’s teachers. They must teach future generations how to think for themselves rather than passively depend on the government or on foreign NGOs to solve their problems.

The high levels of critical, forward-looking thinking demonstrated by teachers during this simulated activity to end the political gridlock proves that using a “win-win” approach to finding middle ground in the current crisis is possible if only Nepal’s ‘top brass” were similarly willing to think outside the box.

(Writer is Director of Teacher Training Initiative-Nepal, a project to promote critical, creative thinking and problem solving in Nepal’s schools.)
(This article was originally published on 2010-06-02 01:35:39 in My Republica)

Bubbles are bound to burst

Critical Outlook, Teacher's Experience/anecdotes, Teaching Tips

Eak Prasad Duwadi

Kathmandu University

Be it students or administrators, everyone used to praise me for engaging learners satisfactorily in the class; and I was very self-motivated. In fact, I was started imagining myself to be one of the best teachers in the world. Was I a snob?

Well, I have been teaching English as Foreign Language at reputed schools and colleges in Nepal for more than five years. Besides having degrees, I possess dozens of ELT workshops certificates. Whichever class I go to, learners see me off with broad smiles. Not only they produced what I asked in class but also did every assignment promptly. So I used to feel proud and maintain my learner-friendly status.

However, some time back I had gone for a month long rigorous training along with four other trainees. Besides, theoretical perspectives and language games, we were required to go to real schools along with lesson plans and materials.

It was my first teaching practice of that training. It was also an opportune time to prove one’s worth as a teacher. The instructor and peers would observe the class so as to give feedbacks later. I was so confident that I thought I was the best teacher in the world. I entered the classroom of Grade 10, and started my lesson that had to do with grammar (direct/indirect questions).

As a warm up, I drew some pictures for context setting, and displayed a chart. To my surprise, before I had finished half of the lesson plan, the bell rang, and it was time to wrap up. I felt so guilty that I nearly burst into tears. My ego got dismantled as fragile pane. What I realized was that I was having a vicious circle of self scorn. I was not a perfect teacher as I still had to learn hundreds of methods and countless exposures. It laid bare the threads the fabric of superiority that I had cultivated. Above all I had never thought about timing which is very important. Returning to school, my peers and instructor reflected on my strengths and weaknesses.

I found the first was insignificant in comparison to the second. Obviously, the trainer asked for ‘Repetition’. Although very bitter, I accepted their remarks and promised to do better from another day. It was but another lesson learnt: learning and familiarisation continues all throughout life; and no one is perfect.

Linking global with local

Critical Outlook, English as a Global Language, Global thought, Native Perspective

Linking global with local

Prem Phyak
Department of English Education
Tribhuvan University

I cannot say what exactly happened. I cannot say who said what. I cannot elaborate all important things discussed there. That was all about sharing professional ideas and experiences among ELT practitioners. This was voluntary aspiration and effort for the professional development of English language teachers in Nepal and around the globe in general. Moreover, that was all about breaking the barriers between the so-called dichotomies of senior and junior, novice and expert/experienced, researcher and applier, teacher and learner/student, native and non-native speaker and so on. In essence, that was a successful effort to establish a mutual bondage between local and global ELT practitioners.

The above background sets the foundation for sharing the experience of NELTA’s 15th International Conference held in Kathmandu on 19-21 February (I am sorry I could not go to Surkhet. We would be grateful if Surkhet friends can share about that). About 800 ELT practitioners from home and abroad not only attended the conference but also share many valuable ideas of teaching English. In fact it was a professional rendezvous place which provided English teachers a platform to generate and construct new knowledge. With the success of that mega gathering, I do not hesitate to say that English teachers have given a big lesson to the country, that is, if there is a benevolent collaborative effort, like we are doing, we can generate a lot of knowledge which can be used for the better future of not only English teachers but also of human kinds in general. Prof. Tirth Raj Khaniya, Honourable Member of National Planning Commission, in his speech said that NELTA is successful to make a significant political implication in Nepal. He reiterated that NELTA is not doing any direct political activities by following any political party’s agenda but it has become successful in giving a good lesson to all political parties. It has taught them how hardships and professional vigour can be translated into meaningful power in a difficult circumstance collaboratively. He highlighted that NELTA is successful in doing purely an academic and professional politics of English teachers. At the same time, Prof. Jai Raj Awasthi focused that we teachers should not put the hat of a teacher but that of a learner. He argues that teachers are always learners. We should learn, unlearn and relearn through sharing and collaboration. This implies that professional collaboration is needed without which learning may not become meaningful.

Let me highlight some significant issues which emerged during the conference. I will start with Rt. Honourable Chair of the Constituent Assembly (CA), Mr. Subas Chandra Nembang’s speech. I know, he was born in the Limbu community (one of the indigenous communities in Nepal) and his mother tongue is Limbu. Moreover, being the Chair of CA, all participants had expected that he would deliver his speech in Nepali as other leaders do. But beyond that expectation he addressed the ceremony in English. His speech in English has reflected his multiple identities constructed through the English language. He did not only deliver speech in English but also raised some crucial issue that we, English teachers, have to discuss. He said;
The importance of the English language has become universal. Undoubtedly, it has been widely used in the present day. Without the knowledge of the English language our access to more than half of the world would become inaccessible. Our ability to communicate with a large part of the world and do business with them would be extremely limited. We will miss al the nice opportunities that more than half of the world offers to us for our all-round development. Therefore, it is not wise not to have good command of English for all of us.
He focuses that we need to learn English in order to communicate with people from other parts of the world. This implies that our relationship (professional, business, political etc.) is based on the way we communicate in English. The tragedy of not learning English is hard to imagine. This idea is telling us that our linkage with the global community is possible only through the English language. At the same time, speaking English stands for the symbol of the civilisation on the basis of which a society progresses further. However, he contented;

I frankly want to tell you the fact that I am not satisfied with the knowledge or the skill that the majority of students acquire the English language out of their 20-year long studies in Nepal.

Of course this is true. And this leaves a significant implication for the mission of NELTA and our future initiatives. The issue which emerges from this is: How should we work to improve the standard of English in Nepal? This leads me to raise some other questions: Do we need to assess the method of teaching English we are adopting for our students? What methods fit in our context? Should we follow only one method or many methods? Are we promoting a sustainable learning or spoon-feeding students? Do we promote critical thinking skill? Do textbooks address learners’ identity, culture and values? Are we teaching the English language in isolation or making students able to link local with global issues? I am not answering these questions here because they do not have absolute answers and they cannot be measured in terms of a product. However, these questions may lead us to a process which helps us to lay a strong foundation to develop our students’ English ability and make them able to digest conflicts and differences.

David Graddol, one of the key speakers of the conference, said that “…two billion people [will] be speaking or learning English within a decade.” He highlighted that with the spread of globalisation, which includes technological advancements, global flow of people, multinational business etc., English has become a global language. He further said that the number of non-native speakers of English is increasing rapidly. However, he also mentioned that, the global spread of English… will lead to serious economic and political disadvantages in the future…. A future in which monolingual English graduates face bleak economic prospects as qualified multilingual young people prove to have a competitive advantage in global companies and organizations. This clearly indicates that monolingual knowledge of English will not be helping us to cope with the future need of the complex multilingual world. If I relate Graddol’s idea with the theme of the conference, English in Diversity, I could say that we should also make our students competent in other languages along with English. The importance and existence of English is realised vis-à-vis other languages. This argument is related to what the Chair of CA said, “Nowadays knowing only one language is not enough for our all-round development. We have to learn more than one language.”

Dr. Numa Makee, another key speaker, highlighted that not only the population of English speakers is increasing but also the varieties of English are increasing rapidly. This implies that the distinction between native and non-native speakers of English is breaking. We have different varieties of English in different countries and within a country. In this regard, Dr Markee highlighted the implications of World Englishes (WE) in the context of Nepal. “In the complex linguistic, geographical, ideological, and sociocultural ecology that characterizes WE, Nepal is in perhaps a uniquely difficult position,” he said, “Geographically, it is a small, under-developed country which is sandwiched between the world’s largest emerging economic super powers of the 21st century, India and China, respectively.” This indicates that the variety of English we are speaking should either be influenced by Indian English or Chinese English. Moreover, he raises a question: whether we have Nepalese English variety? How feasible is it to use as a medium of instruction in schools? These are important issues we Nepalese English teachers should explore. At this moment, I can only make a hypothesis that, based on the notion of WE, one day we will have a separate variety of English, Nepalese English. This may emerge with the publications of textbooks and materials in Nepal by local authors instead of importing books from India and other parts of the world.

Likewise, Markee’s presentation indicates that we, English teachers, do not only have the responsibility of teaching English but also have a key role in formulating the language policy in order to promote the status of English. At this moment I would like to put what Markee exactly said;
Nepal is in the process of developing a new constitution. Nepalese applied linguists and ELT teachers should take a leading role in framing the discussion of language issues that is bound to ensue. 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?”
This profound observation has added another great responsibility among us. This indicates we do have responsibility of discussing the issue of language policy which guides the whole profession of ELT. But we need to contemplate on some other questions which are embedded in the issue raised above. Should we take this role? Are we ready to take this role? How can we be successful in taking this role? In addition to this, Markee discusses another responsibility of Nepalese ELT teachers. He asks a question: What steps should Nepal take to maintain its linguistic and cultural heritage from the potential “killer” characteristics of English? This question has a great implication not only for ELT but also for the whole notion. This indicates that being ELT practitioners we should also look after a unique linguistic and cultural diversity we have. This is our responsibility to address the values, skills, attitudes, and cultures of people while teaching English. In that sense, English becomes a tool to empower learners and maintain social harmony. When we empower children they know the local issues and build a strong base for exploring global ideas. What do you think?