Restructure English tests for Hong Kong teachers to raise language standards
Philip Yeung says standards will only improve with more emphasis on reading and writing
The Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers (English) is now entering its 13th year. But, despite a revision in 2007, little has changed.
The exams were set up in answer to an outcry from the business and education communities over the fast-falling standards of English in this world city. They carry the weighty mission of raising the standards of English by tightening the entry into the teaching profession.
Designed by specialists, the tests are not subject to scrutiny for their effectiveness by the usual government watchdogs. But, given the importance of the assessment's mission, an external evaluation is overdue.
The assessment was Hong Kong's chance to show the world how to design a purpose-specific language test. Instead, we have adopted methods of assessment that defy proven practice.
The test consists of five papers: reading, listening, speaking, writing, and classroom language assessment (for serving teachers). The results show a disturbing contrast. Year after year, the pass rates for writing languish at between 36 and 46 per cent, and at around 50 per cent for the speaking test. But in classroom language, the success rates are an astounding 95-98 per cent.
This doesn't compute. How can we have a failure rate of 50 per cent in speaking and a near-perfect score in classroom language, unless serving teachers are much better English speakers than non-teachers? The suppressed truth lies elsewhere. First, the Education Bureau conducts the classroom language assessment, whereas the rest of the papers are entrusted to the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.