I refer to the letter from Philip Li (South China Morning Post, May 17), regarding the relative merits of Native English-speaking Teachers (NET) scheme teachers and local English teachers. It is regrettable that this student has not yet had an opportunity to speak to the NET teacher at his school. I am also a NET teacher and I have no doubt that the NET teacher at Mr Li's school would be only too happy to converse with him if she were aware of his need. It is a fact that the standard of English in Hong Kong is poor, and it has been declining in recent years. That is the reason the Government initiated the NET scheme. If local teachers were able to speak with the fluency, pronunciation, and intonation of a native speaker, there would have been no need to launch such a scheme. As it is, local teachers would be the first to admit that their expertise in English leaves much to be desired. I have attended several seminars at which local teachers have been present. I continue to be shocked at their inability to pronounce such words as 'three' and 'old' (one hears instead 'free' and 'owed'), and at their obvious struggle with the structure of English sentences. I am similarly unimpressed with the standard of English exhibited by those on TV and radio. I am very happy to be a NET teacher in Hong Kong, but I must protest at the appalling lack of encouragement given to local teachers by the Government. Local teachers of English are frequently uncertified and unqualified (by 'unqualified' I mean they do not have a degree in English, surely a necessary prerequisite for a Chinese person who is teaching English). Instead of expecting teachers to attend evening or weekend mini-seminars, the Government should sponsor training schemes to enable local teachers to improve their standards. This would ideally involve immersion courses in a Western country, and more paid study leave. A Chinese colleague at my school has often voiced the opinion that NET teachers would be better employed in helping to train local teachers of English. Instead, we seem to be viewed as the panacea for all ills in the drive to produce bilingual citizens. I note with interest Mr Li's comments about Australian NET teachers. Since many Hong Kong people choose to emigrate to Australia, Australian teachers are invaluable in the NET scheme. There is nothing wrong with having a preference for a particular accent, though I wonder if Mr Li is aware that the majority of NET teachers were hired from Australia (relatively few having been hired from Britain or the US). I urge Mr Li to approach the NET teacher at his school; I am sure both he and the teacher in question would benefit from his initiative. ANGELA JACKSON New Territories
