Education has from the beginning been given a high priority. The Academy encourages the teaching and use of effective English at all levels of education. The following activities reflect this.

Teaching English Today

Teaching English Today (TET) is an online publication for English teachers which is issued twice a year but is open at all times for comment and discussion. Go to: www.teachinglishtoday.org. Contributions are welcome and may be emailed to the Editor, Dr Malcolm Venter, at drv@worldonline.co.za.

A bequest from our first president funds a bursary, given periodically on recommendation to a teacher of English to assist with the improvement of his or her qualifications. Recent recipients include students at the Universities of the Free State, Limpopo, Venda and Zululand.

Language in Education

The Academy monitors the situation in schools and higher education. As well as direct representations to the authorities, members of the Academy serve on various bodies that are involved in the development of language policies in education. To read a document on language policy that was partly co-authored by Academy members, please click here for transfer to our “Language Policies” section.

Advice on Usage

The Academy has published Guidelines on Terms and Punctuation. Copies are available for a small fee from our administrative office (telephone 011.717-9338).

In addition, it has a widespread network of voluntary language counsellors. Please click here to transfer to our “Language Advisory Service” section, which defines the scope of the free service offered and lists the contact particulars.

The English Academy of Southern Africa supports the move away from the South African version of an OBE curriculum. The new curriculum documents represent a decided improvement. However, we have four main concerns, which are likely to be shared by those responsible for other languages:

1. The curriculum embodies a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, it depends on teacher flexibility and innovativeness. On the other, it attempts to regiment. We understand the difficulty. Our national aim is to provide the best education, but we have a corps of teachers, many (and perhaps most) of whom are inadequately equipped for the task. Providing structure through weekly planners will undoubtedly help those who would otherwise be at a loss, and will in some cases allow educational managers to insist on evidence that the work is covered. However, the future success of our education system depends very largely on exemplary teachers who go far beyond compliance.  We need to promote the flexibility and innovativeness that give life to any curriculum. Unless the weekly planners are actually treated as guidelines and do not effectively become mandatory for all, they will inhibit the pace-setting teachers. The curriculum needs to indicate unequivocally that the planners are intended as guidelines to be used with discretion.
2. As presented in the curriculum, “Language Structure and Use” becomes a subset of other skills. We recognise the need to take account of best practice internationally. In language study in the English-speaking world, this often means analysing situated language use. However, situatedness is by definition not abstract. The text-based approach as developed in Australia suggests six school text types that can be effectively used to promote language across the curriculum. A key problem in South Africa is the large numbers of language teachers who lack the very high levels of knowledge and skill needed to implement a text-based language curriculum. Unless specific guidance is provided to teachers, situated language study is likely to degenerate into a hit and miss business, often giving rise to deceptive or fundamentally inaccurate observations. While we acknowledge that there is no easy solution to this problem, in the current situation we appeal for a curriculum which provides a basic structure for language study in relation to reading and constructing texts for particular purposes. This should promote the nuanced and rich understanding of language in social process that situated language analysis makes possible.
3. Film is an important and accessible form of literature which a modern curriculum should not downplay. We are concerned that its significance at FET level, for example, has been reduced to an element in “Listening and Speaking”. It deserves a full role in the Literature part of the curriculum. That part of the curriculum, in turn, should have scope beyond the 44% of time which the new curriculum allocates to it. “Literature” is concerned with much more than study of works of literature. Among other things, it demands a  large amount of critical listening and speaking practice, making reasonable a claim that some listening and speaking time could be devoted to the Literature part of the curriculum.
4. We are concerned at the increased burden of assessment placed on language teachers. They currently have a marking load which is probably too high, particularly given class sizes. The new curriculum increases it substantially. While it is undoubtedly important that learners should practise more, that does not necessarily mean that language teachers should have their formal assessment load increased. The distinction between formative and summative assessment may help. Teachers need to provide formative assessment for learners, focusing on how they can improve. At its best this helps learners develop more rapidly. It may involve group feedback with some attention focused on individuals. Formative assessment promotes learning. A significant problem with the current system is that all assessment is effectively taken as summative. The focus then is on marks rather than learning, and on the teacher’s accountability for the final mark. Quality promotion in language teaching requires reasonable loads, recognition of good learning practices, and accountable mark allocation. We appeal for a redescription of assessment requirements with practical constraints in mind.

Submitted to the Department of Basic Education, November 2010