I was pleased that Mr Higginbottom and Ms Sveistrup (Education Post, December 8) thought my idea of intensive English centres (Education Post, December 1) was 'worth considering' albeit in 'modified form'. I was, however, concerned that they chose to ignore the whole point of my article, which was that intensive centres were a most effective way to deploy native English-speaking teachers to serve primary children. A body of research indicates that intensive centres are by far the most cost-effective method of teaching foreign languages (and make no mistake about it, English is a foreign language for most Hong Kong children). This research goes back to the first intensive centres set up to train intelligence operatives in World War II. Intensive Language Units (ILUs) have proved their worth with migrant children in Australia, and ELICOs (English Language Intensive Centres for Overseas Students) centres have a great record of preparing both school and university age overseas students to study in English. The assertion about teachers being 'dedicated professionals with an insatiable thirst for staff development' may be the impression one gets from the teachers in a trial group of 40 schools (all of whom must realise that they are on show and have to impress). This is definitely not the case for the majority of Hong Kong's teachers, who are massively overworked. If Mr Higginbottom and Ms Sveistrup doubt the truth of what I say they can refer to the Professional Teachers' Union recent study of teacher workloads and stress levels. Their remark 'no new tests please' also indicates either (a) an attempt to adhere to current progressive orthodoxy (I know this is an oxymoron, but that's the point) (b) a denial of the reality that children and parents are not concerned about anything which is not formally examined, or (c) ignorance of the fact that the decline of English standards here dates from the removal of a formal exam in English at the end of Primary Six. I agree that schools need to reduce their testing, if for no other reason than to give teachers time and energy to actually teach. This does not mean that there should be no external exam in English at the end of Primary Six. The test I was suggesting would be heavily weighted in favour of oral skills. Of course teachers would drill for it but they would have to drill oral skills which are exactly what the current system neglects. MARK ALDRED Kowloon
