Gibson Ferguson Language Planning and Education Edinburgh ...

The global spread of English 145
competent, authoritative users of a distinct variety. The outcome, they believe, would
be communication on more equal terms. There are obvious implications for the
teaching of English here, but first we turn to the second form of inequality
mentioned above.
For this, the remedy most commonly proposed, particularly for post-colonial
Africa, involves circumscribing the role of English and elevating the status of
indigenous local languages so as to empower hitherto excluded and marginalised
groups. Given the long-standing neglect of local languages, and all too obvious
current socio-economic inequalities, this proposal has, we argued, real merit. Yet
it needs to take account of the reality that in societies tied into an increasingly
globalised economy English is, and is seen to be, a language of mobility and
opportunity, and that therefore any drastic curtailing of its educational position
could be politically problematic. For this reason we argued that a policy of complementarity
involving both an enhanced role for local languages and democratisation
of access to English might be one of the more feasible ways of ameliorating languagerelated
inequality.
Democratisation in this context positively does not mean, however, the ever
earlier introduction of English into the curriculum, a policy response that is usually
expensive and ineffective in equal measure (see Nunan 2003). It refers rather to the
enhancement of access to English for disadvantaged groups in circumstances where
the language is necessary for mobility and participation yet relatively inaccessible.
Relevant here, and illustrative of what we mean by democratisation, are the criteria
set out by Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), a British aid agency, to guide their
support to English language teaching (ELT) worldwide, which state that:
VSO support (for ELT) should be for a clear time-bound period with clearly
articulated outcomes for disadvantaged individuals and groups. (VSO 2002: 5)
Later in the same guidelines one finds the following distinction drawn:
It is crucial to distinguish between the provision of English to those who already
have access to it and to those for whom it is relatively inaccessible. So, it would not
be appropriate to support ELT simply for ‘national development’ purposes, where
English is accessed only by the more educated ‘middle classes’ on the assumption
they will contribute to increasing economic growth, some benefits of which may
‘trickle down’ to the poorest people. Experience shows this does not necessarily
happen. (VSO 2002: 5)
Applying these principles has meant that in China, for example, VSO support for
ELT has been targeted primarily to the remoter, less developed provinces rather than
to the more affluent, faster developing coastal regions, and to middle schools and
teacher training rather than to high schools and universities (VSO 2001: 5). In these
guidelines it is possible to detect one salutary influence of critical perspectives on
global English: a greater sensitivity, namely, to the effects and socio-economic
context of ELT, a sensitivity which one hopes will steadily diffuse more widely
through the profession.