Hamid GlobalizationEnglishBangladesh

This article was downloaded by: [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB]
On: 15 January 2015, At: 00:32

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Current Issues in Language Planning

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclp20
Globalisation, English for everyone

and English teacher capacity: language
policy discourses and realities in
Bangladesh
a
M. Obaidul Hamid
a
School of Education , The University of Queensland , St Lucia,
Australia
Published online: 16 Feb 2011.
To cite this article: M. Obaidul Hamid (2010) Globalisation, English for everyone and English
teacher capacity: language policy discourses and realities in Bangladesh, Current Issues in Language
Planning, 11:4, 289-310, DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2011.532621
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2011.532621
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Current Issues in Language Planning
Vol. 11, No. 4, November 2010, 289 –310
Globalisation, English for everyone and English teacher capacity:

language policy discourses and realities in Bangladesh
M. Obaidul Hamid∗
School of Education, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia

Downloaded by [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB] at 00:32 15 January 2015
The effects of globalisation and the global spread of English have created a phenomenal
demand for English all over the world. The demand is illustrated by the introduction of
‘English for Everyone’ and early English instruction in many developing countries.
These policy initiatives and their implementation are believed to contribute to these
nations’ human capital development and their participation in the global economy for
national development. However, these ‘more and earlier’ English policies have not
necessarily taken the capacity of English teaching professionals into account in
delivering desired outcomes. Taking Bangladesh as a case, this paper discusses some
of the consequences of developing nations’ endorsement of the discourses of
globalisation and national development followed by their adoption of enhanced
English policies, paying insufficient attention to resources and policy implementation
issues. Specifically, it examines English teacher education and training at the primary
and secondary levels and demonstrates how Bangladesh’s inadequate infrastructure
and limited institutional capacity for English teacher education have directed it to
donor-funded teacher training programs which, despite short-term benefits, cannot
fully address the quantity and quality issues of English teacher education. It is
concluded that, if teachers’ professional capacity is essential for developing learners’
English competence, the more and earlier English policies themselves will not deliver
desirable English Language Teaching outcomes to Bangladesh and other developing
countries and, consequently, their policy goals of developing human capital through
English for national development will remain unrealised. The paper suggests
implications for English-in-education policies in Bangladesh and other developing
nations and draws out a set of recommendations.
Keywords: English language; globalisation; economic development; English teacher
training; donor-funded ELT projects; developing nations; Bangladesh
Introduction
The English language is considered instrumental to nations’ participation in the global
economy. Particularly for developing countries, the international language is seen as
essential for developing human capital, which is believed to contribute to their economic
development. As the official website of a £50 million English language project confidently
declares:
English in Action will provide the communicative English to transform the lives of people in
Bangladesh and make a major contribution to the economic development of the country [. . .]
∗
Email: m.hamid@uq.edu.au
ISSN 1466-4208 print/ISSN 1747-7506 online

# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2011.532621
http://www.informaworld.com
290 M. Obaidul Hamid
It will look to change the lives of up to 25 million people using new approaches to teaching
and learning.1
This economic development, the project asserts, will be expedited ‘by providing
English language as a tool for better access to the world economy’ (cited in Erling,
Hamid, & Seargeant, 2010).
Such discourses that connect globalisation, English and national development have led
developing nations to enhance their commitment to English over the last two decades
(Baldauf et al., 2010; Gupta, 1999; Kirkgöz, 2003; Lee & Azman, 2004; Nunan, 2003; Qi,
2009; Shamim, 2008; Tsui & Tollefson, 2007). At the state policy level, this commitment
has resulted in introducing English for Everyone (EFE) (Wedell, 2008) and/or English being
introduced much earlier than before in the national curriculum (Baldauf et al., 2010; Lee &
Azman, 2004). However, these ‘more and earlier’ English policies are often incognisant of
the level of resources – material as well as human – required for policy implementation.
English teacher professional capacity, which is related to human resources, is a case in point.
Scholars including Nunan (2003), Qi (2009) and Wedell (2008) have argued that a number
of countries in East Asia and other parts of the world have not taken English teacher education
and training into full consideration in enhancing their English Language Teaching (ELT)
policies, although, as Bamgbose (2003, p. 428) emphasised, ‘implementation should be well
articulated even at the point when policy is being formulated’. As a consequence:
Countries in East [A]sia are investing considerable resources in providing English, often at the
expense of other aspects of the curriculum, but the evidence suggests that these resources are
not achieving the instructional goals desired. (Qi, 2009, p. 119)
Focusing on Bangladesh, this paper discusses some of the consequences of developing

nations’ (uncritical) endorsement of the discourses of globalisation and national develop-
ment followed by their adoption of more and earlier English policies, paying insufficient
attention to resources and policy implementation issues. Specifically, it examines English
teacher education and training at the primary and secondary levels and demonstrates
how Bangladesh’s inadequate infrastructure and limited institutional capacity for English
teacher education has resulted in donor-funded teacher training programs (see the section
Project-based English teacher training). The paper argues that despite short-term benefits,
project-based training programs cannot fully address the quantity and quality issues of
English teacher education in the country. It is concluded that, if teachers’ professional
capacity is essential for developing learners’ English competence, the more and earlier
English policies themselves will not deliver desirable ELT outcomes to Bangladesh and
other developing countries and, consequently, their policy goals of developing human
capital through English for national development will remain unrealised.
There are two reasons for focusing the discussion on Bangladesh. First, Bangladesh is
one of the poorest countries in the world with a large population (160 million) living in a
land area of 144,000 km2. Given the low level of its economic development (per capita
national income is US$500 and literacy rate is 53%), Bangladesh is able to allocate just
over 2% of its GDP to education, which is the lowest in the region (see Table 1 for a
comparison).
The budgetary allocation to education in Bangladesh translates into $2 per student per
month at the primary level and $4.50 at the secondary level (CAMPE, 2007). Despite this
low level of public investment in education, the country has adopted one of the most
ambitious ELT policies in the developing world (see the section English access policy in
Current Issues in Language Planning 291
Table 1. Public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP in selected South and West Asian
countries in 2008.a
Countries % of GDP on education
Maldives 8.5
Bhutan 5.1
Iran 4.8
Nepal 3.8
Pakistan 2.9
Bangladesh 2.4
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
Note: aSee http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev_en.php?ID=2867=201&ID2=DO_TOPIC (accessed 6 October 2010).
Bangladesh). Therefore, Bangladesh exhibits the dynamics of the complex interactions

between ambitious ELT policies, high policy expectations and low resource investment.
Although the enhanced ELT policies would have required making English teacher training
an educational priority, Bangladesh has not developed its national capacity to train the
number of English teachers required for English teaching. Instead, it has relied on donor-
funded English language and education projects which have prioritised English teacher
training. Thus, Bangladesh also provides the context for a critical examination of the
contribution of donor-assisted projects in developing ELT professionals in the context of
English for national development.
Donor-funded language projects in the developing world have had a long history.
Hundreds of these aid development projects in Asia and Africa have been funded by the
USAID (United States Agency for International Development), the Ford Foundation, the
Overseas Development Agency (renamed Department for International Development
(DfID)), the British Council and other Western donors since the end of colonial rule (Alder-
son, 2009; Brumfit, 1983; Crookes & Crewes, 1995; Fox, 1975; Kenny & Savage, 1997;
Pincas, 1995).2 Although foreign aid projects have been critiqued in a large body of literature
(Abbott, 1992; Clayton, 2004, 2008; Kaplan, 1998; Kenny & Savage, 1997; Kerr, 2009;
Markee, 2002; Phillipson, 1992, 1994, 2010), they still dominate education and development
activities in developing countries. For instance, Hoque (1999) noted that 22 donor-funded
primary education projects were operating in Bangladesh in 1999 and about a half of
them had an important ELT component. Therefore, critical inquiries into these projects
should continue with a focus on project activities, outcomes and stakeholder interests. More-
over, evaluations of aid projects have traditionally been commissioned by donors and carried
out by experts from donor countries (Brumfit, 1983; Fox, 1975). These donor-initiated evalu-
ations should be complemented by critical inquiries by local authorities and/or independent
researchers, although so far these have been rare (see, Kenny & Savage, 1997 for an excep-
tion). For example, Hunter’s (2009) analysis of an ELT project in Bangladesh (he named
neither the country nor the project; the project will be discussed later in this paper) was
presented from the perspective of the project team leader/consultants from the donor
country which led him to: (1) consider the project as generally successful; (2) show a
greater understanding of the donor and its aid policies; and (3) blame local stakeholders
for all that went wrong – i.e. conflicts between consultants and local authorities and the
conflicting needs and priorities of the two parties in relation to project goals and implemen-
tation (Phillipson, 2010). Introducing a local, critical perspective makes it possible to
examine critically the non-local perspectives inherent in the project.
The second reason for focusing on Bangladesh is related to the paucity of research on
Bangladeshi ELT. With over 25 million school learners of English, Bangladesh can boast
one of the largest ELT undertakings in the developing world. Nevertheless, there have been
insufficient studies on ELT issues from this low-income country. Although studies have
examined critical and pedagogical aspects of English teacher professional practice
(Chowdhury, 2003; Chowdhury & Ha, 2008; Chowdhury & Farooqui, in press; Farooqui,
2008; Hamid, 2007; Rahman, 2007), there has been little discussion of English teacher
education at the policy level.
In terms of methodological approaches, the paper applies Kaplan and Baldauf’s (2003)
language-in-education policy framework and draws on secondary data and material from
local and external sources. The library-based material is supplemented by: (1) data
segments from the author’s PhD research in rural Bangladesh (Hamid, 2009); (2) his
insider knowledge and understanding of Bangladeshi education and his ELT teaching
experience at the tertiary level; and (3) informal interviews with language/education
project personnel.
Policy framework
Kaplan and Baldauf’s (2003) language-in-education policy framework consists of a number
of policy components including:
. Access policy
. Personnel policy
. Methods and materials policy
. Resourcing policy
. Community policy
. Evaluation policy
The paper focuses on access, personnel, methods and materials and resourcing policies
which are pertinent to the discussion. Access policy refers to the extent to which a particular
language is made available to a language learning population or sections of the population
through formal instruction. In the context of English language policies in the developing
world, it refers to the status of English in the curriculum together with curricular weight.
Personnel policy is related to allocation of human resources (e.g. English teachers and
their professional development issues) required for transforming language policies into
pedagogic action. Methods and materials policy refers to language teaching approaches
and methodologies (e.g. communicative language teaching (CLT)) as well as teaching
and learning resources (e.g. textbooks). Finally, resourcing policy involves allocation of
financial resources and infrastructure for organising teaching and learning activities in
schools. Resources, personnel and materials and methods policies are crucially important
for implementing language access policy.
English access policy in Bangladesh

Access policy in Bangladesh has ensured a theoretically broad access to all students irre-
spective of geographic location and social backgrounds and can be called an ‘EFE’
policy (Wedell, 2008). The state has realised this policy by declaring English a compulsory
subject for students, including those who receive madrasa education, the religious stream
running parallel to the mainstream secular education.3 Apparently, this policy is egalitarian
and is informed by principles of social justice and equity: since English is assumed to be
beneficial for individuals, it should be made accessible to all. In reality, however, the
Table 2. Primary and secondary student and teacher populations in the general/secular stream of
education in Bangladesh.a
Grade levels Institutions Students Teachers English teachers
Primary (Grade 1–5) 80,397 16.2 million 344,789 344,789b
Secondary (Grade 6–10) 18,500 7.4 million 232,929 60,000
Notes: aBased on education statistics from the MoE, Government of Bangladesh. See www.moedu.gov.bd
b
Primary teachers are expected to teach all subjects including English.
policy is far from egalitarian because about half of the population is illiterate and does not
have access to literacy instruction in Bangla, let alone in English (Hamid, in press).
Furthermore, it is usual that only students from a particular socio-economic background

succeed in English learning (Hamid, 2009; Hasan, 2003) in an overall dismal picture of
English achievement in Bangladesh.
The access policy provides considerable learner exposure to English through instruc-
tion. Compulsory English instruction starts at Grade 1 and continues until Grade 12.
English occupies approximately 20% of the 1 – 12 curriculum. Introduced in 1992, the
early access policy has resulted in large-scale teaching and learning of English in the
country which can be understood from the size of learner and teacher populations (Table 2).
Resourcing policy
The budgetary allocation given to education (Table 1) is usually spent on teacher salaries
and school infrastructure. Schools do not have additional funds that can be spent on
purchasing teaching and learning aids, resources and library facilities. Moreover, many
rural schools are ill-equipped to varying degrees. As a baseline survey of secondary
schools in rural Bangladesh reported:
Physical conditions of most of the schools were miserable: poor classroom environment, poor
furniture (inappropriate, broken and inadequate), insufficient (or non-existent) library and
laboratory facility and finally poor and uncared surroundings. (Haq, 2004, p. 52)
The majority of Bangladeshi schools do not have access to electricity, let alone compu-
ters and the internet. Hamid’s (2009) fieldwork with eight secondary schools in a rural region
showed that not a single school provided student access to computers. Computer use outside
school was rare; only three students in a sample of 228 reported having a computer at home.
Inadequate infrastructure, limited resources and underqualified teachers (see Personnel
policy) result in poor quality of teaching and learning of English. In rural areas, student
dissatisfaction with schools is intense; those who have financial capacity depend more
on fee-paying private lessons for English learning and academic achievement than on
school instruction in English (Hamid, Sussex, & Khan, 2009).
Methods and materials policy

In 1992, the Government introduced a competency-based curriculum at the primary level
identifying 53 competencies to be achieved at the end of primary education (DPE, 2008;
Malek, Begum, Islam, & Ryad, 2009). In 2002, a revised list of 50 competencies was
produced, four of which were related to English:
(i) [Listen to] and [u]nderstand simple commands/instructions/requests in English

and carry them out.
(ii) Speak and understand simple English according to students’ age.
(iii) Read and comprehend textbooks according to students’ age group and level.
(iv) Write alphabets, words, numbers, simple sentences, passages, paragraphs, informal
letters and numbers according to students’ age group and level.
(Ahmed, 2005, pp. 21–22)
Underlying the competencies is a skill-focused approach adopted in primary as well as

secondary English teaching. CLT was prescribed as the official methodology to teach the
skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing (Hamid, 2005; Hamid & Baldauf, 2008;
NCTB, 2002). Replacing grammar and structure-based methods with the CLT in the late
1990s was marked by high hopes and optimism. It was expected that the state of the art
approach would help: (1) to revitalise English teaching and learning and to raise the
levels of national English proficiency; and (2) to develop learners’ communicative
competence seen as essential for developing human capital (Hamid & Baldauf, 2008).
However, the policy prescription of CLT has not resulted in the new methodology being
adopted in the classroom. In fact, classroom instruction in the post-CLT era still follows
pre-CLT methods (Anwar, 2005; Hamid & Baldauf, 2008). It is not difficult to understand
why teachers accepted CLT only reluctantly. The majority of school English teachers do not
have the required levels of English proficiency to sustain classroom communication in
English (English in Action, 2010). Moreover, despite receiving training (see the section
ELTIP), many teachers are not confident of their understanding of CLT.
With regard to materials policy, Bangladesh has preferred locally produced textbooks
for all subjects including English. The National Curriculum and Textbook Board
(NCTB) is responsible for developing curricula and textbooks for primary and secondary
levels. Materials for English teaching are written by local experts, but external expertise
is utilised when textbooks are written as part of donor-funded activities (Farooqui, 2008;
Hamid & Baldauf, 2008; Hunter, 2009).
Personnel policy
Personnel policy is a critical issue in ELT the world over. Even powerful economies such as
those of Japan, China and Korea have had limited success in training English teaching
professionals for school English teaching (Qi, 2009). When compared with this East
Asian experience, the state of English teacher education and teacher skills in a poor
country such as Bangladesh can be predicted. An examination of the existing English
teacher education facilities for primary and secondary teachers shows a big gap between
what Bangladeshi English access policy requires and what the country actually delivers
in terms of English teacher education and training.
Primary level
There are 344,789 teachers who are responsible for teaching over 17 million primary school
children – roughly 50 children to every teacher (Table 2). Primary teachers are not subject
specialists; they are expected to teach English as a subject from Grade 1 (English in Action,
2010; Selim & Mahboob, 2001). Therefore, all primary teachers require training in English
as well as in other subjects. However, the 1-year in-service training (Certificate-in-Education
or C-in-Ed) offered by 54 Primary Training Institutes (PTI) and the National Academy
for Primary Education (NAPE) does not prepare primary teachers for English teaching
(English in Action, 2010; Selim & Mahboob, 2001) because the C-in-Ed follows a
general curriculum with a peripheral component (6.3%) of L2 pedagogy (Malek
et al., 2009).
Moreover, the content and methodology of the C-in-Ed curriculum are out-dated. The
curriculum is burdened with subject and theoretical knowledge which cannot equip trainee
teachers with skills, techniques and strategies required for classroom practice (Malek et al.,
2009). The assessment system also shows the limitations of the C-in-Ed program since
trainee teachers are assessed through traditional pen and paper tests (Mohiuddin, 2007).
Research has also stressed the poor quality of the C-in-Ed. Quddus (2009) identified a
range of factors which prevented primary teaching from achieving professional status. The
quality of professional training that primary teachers received was considered ‘the main
obstacle’. As Quddus (2009) explained:
The study reveals that government primary-school teachers are aware of and concerned about
the kind of training they are being offered, and consider teacher training system to be the main
obstacle to their professionalism. It also establishes that primary teacher training in Bangladesh
is hierarchically structured and based on very traditional curricula and methods. The curricula
for both the Certificate in Education (C-in-Ed) and ‘sub-cluster’ training are inadequate, and are
of little relevance for teachers’ vocational development and ability to handle classroom
situations. (p. 221)
Beyond quality concerns, one critical issue associated with the C-in-Ed is the capacity
of training providers to meet enrolment demands. Teachers have to wait years before they
are enrolled in one of the PTIs. The problem has intensified in recent years when a large
number of teachers were recruited to meet increasing enrolments in primary schools
(CAMPE, 2002, 2009). As the data in Figure 1 show, in a nationally representative
sample of 436 primary teachers, 66% received the C-in-Ed training. Of the 34% without
this training, 7% had Bachelor of Education (BEd) degrees, but the remaining 27% of
teachers were teaching without training.
Figure 1. Percentage of teachers indicating educational backgrounds in 2005 (CAMPE, 2006,

p. 30).
With regard to English teaching, a more fundamental question concerns primary school
teachers’ levels of English proficiency (English in Action, 2010). As Figure 1 shows, the
majority of primary teachers enter the profession with school qualifications and it well-
known that secondary school graduates attain only low levels of English proficiency
(Hamid, 2009; Hamid & Baldauf, 2008).
In addition to the C-in-Ed, primary teachers have been offered a 5-day subject-based
training (one-off) since 2002 under the auspices of Primary Education Development
Project (English in Action, 2010; NAPE, 2009).4 Although the training is open to all
primary teachers, a 2005 survey showed that only 28.5% of the teachers were provided
with the training (DPE, 2007). Moreover, the training focuses on subject knowledge and
pedagogy which cannot develop English teachers’ language skills. As Hoque (2009)
observed:
The currently run [. . .] subject-based training at URCs5, for all teachers of all subjects, will not
make any change in English teacher development, and hence, cannot prevent (but rather will
continue multiplying) the wastage we are presently incurring in the name of teaching
English. (n.p.)
An impact study was undertaken to measure the effects of the subject-based training on
classroom practice and student achievement (NAPE, 2009). Although the study claimed
that the training had a significant impact on the quality of classroom teaching and teachers’
professional development, ‘none of the teaching learning activities has significant effects on
the achievement’ in English (NAPE, 2009, p. 206). This can be explained with reference to
teachers’ poor English language skills previously discussed.
More recently, the Government has introduced professional development opportunities
for primary teachers at the sub-district level known as ‘sub-cluster’ training (Malek et al.,
2009). Under this provision, teachers from several schools attend a 1-day workshop every
two months. However, these local teacher development opportunities have a general focus
on administrative and institutional issues and not necessarily on problems of teaching and
learning English.
Despite these training provisions, primary teachers’ teaching skills and professional
capacity remain far from adequate. As a qualitative study that investigated primary
student and teacher perceptions of teaching quality concluded:
However, considering the qualification and other in-service training, it would be wrong to
conclude that the quality of the primary school teachers is in general satisfactory and their
performance in the classroom and behaviour with the students reflect any expected quality.
(CAMPE, 2006, p. 30)
Teacher performance in English classes is even less satisfactory given low levels of
English proficiency among primary teachers. This reality of primary English teacher
skills and professional capacity has not informed English access policies in response to
globalisation.
Secondary level
There are 60,000 English teachers in secondary schools (Grades 6 –10). The minimum
qualification required for secondary school teaching is a bachelor’s degree, but after
joining a school, teachers are required to complete a 1-year BEd offered by 82
(14 public, 68 private) teacher training colleges (TTCs) affiliated with the National
University of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Open University also offers the BEd program in dis-
tance mode. Like the C-in-Ed, the National University BEd program is general in nature.
A mere 5% of the curriculum contains English which is compulsory for BEd candidates.
Those specialising in teaching English are required to take an additional English subject
which, however, does not fully equip teachers for English teaching because a large
number of school English teachers do not have relevant educational backgrounds; i.e.
English or L2 pedagogy (Daily Ittefaq, 2010). Moreover, as with primary teachers,
inadequate English proficiency equally concerns secondary English teachers. For instance,
the 1990 Baseline Survey of Secondary School English Teaching and Learning reported:
In the TTCs, the majority if trainees (80%) cannot be considered proficient as teachers in
material taught at Class 8 (i.e. they scored less than 75% on the class test), yet they are expected
to teach up to Class 10. Of these trainees, over a quarter are failing to reach the minimum level
of proficiency (50%) required of the students.
The results indicate continued low levels of English language proficiency throughout the
secondary school and teacher training levels. In the non-government rural schools, the situation
can only be described as desperate. (cited in Rahman, 2007, p. 80)
Hamid (2009) worked with secondary school students and English teachers in non-
government schools in rural Bangladesh. None of the teachers, it was found, had opportu-
nities to practise English or engage in professional development activities. Although they
were required to follow CLT, they admitted to having little knowledge of the popular
English teaching approach.
As part of the interview, the teachers were asked to self-assess their English language
skills (Table 3).
The teachers reported generally high levels of English proficiency. However, the self-
report data should be interpreted along with other information. For instance, their Year
10 students commented that their English teachers had neither required levels of English
proficiency nor adequate skills to conduct English lessons. In fact, student dissatisfaction
with school English teaching, as previously noted, was attributed to a lack of teacher
skills and professional ability (Hamid et al., 2009).
Finally, like PTIs at the primary level, TTCs do not have the capacity to enrol secondary
teachers who seek admission to a BEd program. Malek et al. (2009) noted that although the
number of trained teachers at the secondary level has increased day by day, as of 2006 the
proportion of trained teachers was 48.6%, which means the majority of secondary teachers
were yet to be trained. Therefore, the secondary teacher training scenario is even more
discouraging than that at the primary level.
Table 3. Secondary English teachers’ (n ¼ 6) self-reported English language skills (Hamid, 2009).a
Skills Excellent Very good Good Average Poor
Speaking 1 2 3
Listening 2 2 2
Reading 2 1 3
Writing 3 2 1
Grammar 1 2 3
Spelling 1 3 1 1
Pronunciation 2 2 2
Note: aThese data were collected for the PhD research, but have not been incorporated into the dissertation.
Project-based English teacher training

Given the limited institutional capacity of the PTIs and TTCs to train school teachers in
general and English teachers in particular, English teacher training has become part of
donor-funded language and/or education projects over the last couple of decades. These
projects have prioritised English language teacher training to improve the teaching and
learning of English in Bangladeshi schools. While these projects can be argued to compen-
sate for teacher training inadequacy discussed in the previous section, project-based training
programs have their own limitations. Moreover, apart from the outcomes that these projects
deliver relative to resource investment, their operation raises a range of questions related
to national capacity building in teacher education and provides only a short-term solution
to teacher education needs. A number of these projects will be described in this section to
initiate a discussion of these issues:
(1) English Language Teaching Improvement Project (ELTIP) Bangladesh

(2) English in Action (EiA)
(3) English for Teaching, Teaching for English (ETTE)
(4) Secondary Education Quality and Access Enhancement Project (SEQAEP)
(5) Teaching Quality Improvement in Secondary Education Project (TQI-SEP)
ELTIP Bangladesh (1997 – 2012)

The ELTIP was established in 1997 with funding from the DfID of the UK Government to
introduce CLT in the secondary English curriculum. Initially, the British Council and the
NCTB jointly managed the project, which had two objectives: (1) to provide a 13-day6
CLT training to school English teachers who were expected to introduce CLT; and (2) to
produce an English textbook for Grades 9 – 10 in the light of CLT principles (Hamid &
Baldauf, 2008; Hunter, 2009; Rahman, 2007). The first phase of the project (ELTIP-I),
which spent Taka 25 crore7, ended in June 2002 providing training to 5000 school teachers
and setting up four regional resource centres (RRC) and 12 satellite resource centres (SRC)
where training was organised (ELTIP, 2009). When the DfID exited from the ELTIP in
2002, the Government decided to continue the project in its second phase (ELTIP-II:
July 2002 – June 2005) by mobilising funds from the NCTB and the seven education
boards known as Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) (Daily Ittefaq,
2010). Although extracting funds from these education authorities was predictably difficult,
the Government decision was influenced by a desire to: (1) continue training the remaining
55,000 teachers; and (2) continue to utilise the infrastructure (RRCs and SRCs) and exper-
tise (teacher trainers) developed during the first phase of the project.
The estimated cost of the ELTIP-II was Taka 20.75 crore, but the project actually
received Taka 8.35 crore from the NCTB and the BISEs and was able to spend Taka
6.97 crore (ELTIP, 2009).8 Despite the drastically reduced funds available, the ELTIP-II
is reported to have trained an additional 17,328 English teachers (ELTIP, 2009). The
project was continued in its third phase (ELTIP-III: July 2005– June 2010)9 on the same
basis as previously mentioned, although the funding problem became more acute, as was
reported in a number of daily newspapers (Daily Ittefaq, 2010; Kabir, 2009; Khan, 2007;
Sarker, 2004). Kabir (2009) wrote that the ELTIP had not received annual fund allocations
in the financial years 2007 – 2008 and 2008– 2009, and that it was therefore impossible to
continue project activities. This was echoed in the Daily Ittelfaq which wrote in its editorial:
The teacher training project which aimed at improving the standard of English teaching at the
secondary level [ELTIP] was all set to fail. The project had not conducted training activities for
the last one year and a half. The project staff had not received their salaries for the last 5
months. (Daily Ittefaq, 2010, n.p., translated by author)
Financing the ELTIP-III was ‘imposed’ on the NCTB and the BISEs (Khan, 2007),
ignoring their financial incapacity experienced during the ELTIP-II, and they had to
commit Taka 27.87 crore. However, they actually allocated, although reluctantly, Taka
0.99 crore which went into training another 13,575 English teachers until June 2008
(ELTIP, 2009). The Daily Ittefaq (2010) reported that, as of April 2010, of the 60,000 sec-
ondary English teachers, the ELTIP had given training to 35,000 teachers. In other words,
almost half of the teachers were yet to receive the ELTIP training.
In April 2010, this author visited the project office in the NCTB premises in Dhaka and
informally interviewed two project personnel.10 Among the issues that the officials raised
were the irregular and inadequate allocation of funds promised by the NCTB and the BISEs,
a situation which, they underlined, had seriously affected the training program. However,
they pointed out one positive outcome of the project which was mobilising a cohort of
46 master trainers who developed training expertise from their experience in training
school teachers and receiving further education and professional development activities
at home and abroad. As the project was set to terminate in June 2010,11 the trainers
on the one hand were concerned about losing their jobs and about not being able to
serve the English teaching profession through their expertise on the other. Recently,
however, the Government has decided to continue the project in its fourth phase
(ELTIP-IV: July 2010 – June 2012) (Kabir, personal communication, September 9, 2010).
The continuation of the project will guarantee the employment of the trainers for two more
years, but project staff and secondary English teachers may not be happy about the continu-
ation because the NCTB and the BISEs will have to fund the project again, despite their
inability and unwillingness, and therefore funding issues will reappear on a larger scale.
What has been the impact of this 14-year long project on English teacher professional
development and English teaching and learning in Bangladesh? There has not been much
research on the ELTIP and its outcomes. A few isolated studies that were undertaken
reported mixed findings. For instance, Khan (2002) investigated the impact of the
ELTIP-sponsored teacher training on teacher practice through interviews and focus group
discussion with teachers, trainers and students in one SRC (40 teachers) in an urban
context. Her study showed that the training was generally considered successful in that tea-
chers had developed positive attitudes towards CLT and were trying to use the target
language in the classroom, making their lessons more communication-oriented. Anwar
(2005) worked with 20 teachers and 10 trainers in the RRC in Dhaka to investigate
whether teachers applied the knowledge and skills gained through the ELTIP training in
their classrooms. Although all participants agreed that the ELTIP had the potential to
improve English teaching and learning, 70% of the teachers commented that the goal of
the ELTIP training was not achieved. Moreover, classroom observation of half of the
teachers revealed that there was little application of the knowledge and skills gained
through training; the class was still teacher-dominated while learners were inactive
observers. Unlike Khan (2002) and Anwar (2005), Farooqui (2008) worked with secondary
school teachers in rural areas and reported that teachers welcomed the CLT textbook, but
they could not use the book effectively because of a range of institutional, curricular and
resource constraints. Finally, Hamid’s (2009) PhD research showed that many rural teachers
were yet to receive the CLT training, and those who had been trained did not necessarily
have a clear understanding of CLT or its application in the classroom. These insights drawn
by local researchers should be taken into account in interpreting Hunter’s (2009) obser-
vation that the ELTIP-I (which was funded by the DfID and managed by the British
Council with the NCTB) was generally successful.
English in action (2008 – 2017)

This DfID-funded (£50 million) project began operation in May 2008. Instead of launching
a new project, could the DfID have re-funded the ELTIP which faced serious funding pro-
blems in its second and third phases? The ELTIP authorities expected the DfID to continue
to work with them, as can be understood from their official brochure:
(a) DfID may please consider to work with ELTIP which was created by them. Is it necessary to
take a different project on the same issue?
(b) In ‘English in Action Project’ primary and secondary education and specially migrant
people are in consideration to be equipped with English. ELTIP is planning to initiate
almost the same mission. ELTIP is ready to start training in primary education too. (ELTIP,
2009, p. 23)
The rationale for a separate project (that is, EiA) was probably known to Bangladeshi
policymakers and the DfID (see Hunter, 2009, for the donor perspective), but the differ-
ences between the ELTIP and the EiA in their aims and priorities cannot be denied.
Although both projects aimed to develop communicative competence of Bangladeshi
learners of English, the latter has placed greater emphasis on communicative ability,
Bangladesh’s participation in the global economy, and in economic development (see Intro-
duction). Moreover, the EiA has had a wider focus: in addition to improving teaching and
learning of English at the primary and secondary levels through the use of technology and
teacher training, it aims to provide English learning opportunities to masses of people
through the Internet and radio broadcast. That is why BBC WST has been an important
partner of the consortium involved in implementing the project, the other partners being
the Open University, UK, BMB Mott MacDonald (the Netherlands), the Unprivileged
Children’s Educational Programme and Friends in Village Development (Bangladesh).12
The ELTIP was probably aware of these broader EiA goals and offered the following
solution:
(c) Primary education is a big sector. If DfID desires to work with this separately, it can be
done. [However], let DfID and ELTIP work together in secondary education level . . .
(ELTIP, 2009, p. 23)
It is not clear whether the ELTIP formally approached the DfID with these proposals,
but clearly the DfID, for whatever reasons, was not interested in the ELTIP, even though
it was their creation; DfID was more interested in the new project. The EiA is still at the
initial, pilot phase of its operation and has conducted a number of baseline surveys
(English in Action, 2010). Knowing the outcomes of the project, particularly the extent
to which it succeeded in equipping 25 million people with English skills and thus facilitated
Bangladesh’s participation in the global economy, may take years, a period during which
thorough evaluations of the project along with impact studies will have to be undertaken.
English for teaching, teaching for English (January 2008—December 2010)

The ETTE is a regional project of the British Council which is currently operating in 10
Central and South Asian countries including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The aims of the
project are described in the official website:
English for Teaching, Teaching for English (ETTE) project is for teachers of English living in
far flung areas in the Central and South Asia region. ETTE is particularly for teachers who have
not yet benefited from training or development opportunities.
ETTE helps school teachers improve their performance in the classroom by enhancing their
access to materials, methods and opportunities for their professional training and
development.13
The Bangladesh chapter of the ETTE is funded by the British Council from its own
resources with a small fraction coming from the EiA, but it received no support from the
DfID.14 The project targeted primary school teachers for whom it has developed a training
course by identifying their needs and investigating the reality of Bangladeshi classrooms.
The training has a dual focus – both on developing teachers’ English skills and on equip-
ping them with pedagogical skills. The ETTE is a small-scale project which was able to
train only 2000 primary school teachers.
Although the ETTE is a British Council project, its operation in Bangladesh could not
have been unknown to the DfID when the latter agreed to fund the EiA. Since both projects
focus on primary-level English teachers, one wonders why two projects originating in the
same organisation in the same country (UK) were operating with similar goals almost
simultaneously.
Teaching quality improvement in secondary education project (2005 – 2011)

Unlike the EiA, the TQI-SEP is implemented by the Ministry of Education (MoE) and is
located in the Directorate of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (DSHE) premises.
According to its official website:
The TQI project’s goal is to enhance the quality of education in Bangladesh secondary schools.
Our purpose is to provide quality initial and in-service teacher training, including professional
development opportunities that will improve classroom practice.15
The project is jointly funded by Asian Development Bank (ADB), Canadian Inter-
national Development Agency and the Government of Bangladesh. The first phase of the
project, which had an estimated cost of Taka 644 crore, will end in September 2011. The
second aphase, for which ADB has already approved US$500,000 (Daily Star, 2010),
will commence in 2012.
The TQI-SEP focuses on quality issues in secondary education. Providing training and
other professional development opportunities to English teachers is a priority within this
general focus. The project provides a 21-day CLT training to English teachers with a
specific focus on teaching listening, speaking, reading and writing skills. Because the
ELTIP also provides similar training, the TQI-SEP does not invite teachers who have
already received the ELTIP training.
Teacher trainers in the TQI-SEP are selected from secondary schools and TTCs; the trai-
ners are given a 6-day training.16 They are not full-time staff; rather, they are usually hired
on a casual basis. On the positive side, this cohort of trainers can, on the basis of their first-
hand experience, focus the training on classroom realities and student needs. However,
because they are casual employees who are invited only when needs arise, they may not
be fully committed to professional development of English teachers. In terms of the quan-
titative outcomes of the project, although the aim was to train 28,000 English teachers, not
even one-fifth of the teachers had received training by April 2010 (Daily Ittefaq, 2010).
Secondary education quality and access enhancement project (July 2008 – June
2014)
The SEQAEP is also implemented by the MoE and, like the TQI-SEP, is housed in the
DSHE premises. The SEQAEP is also a general education project and is funded by the
World Bank ($155.7 million) to pursue the following objectives in 121 sub-districts (of
the total 490) in Bangladesh:
(a) improving education quality and monitoring learning levels in project areas;
(b) improving equity and access in project areas through provision of stipends to poor
girls and boys;
(c) strengthening the institutional capacity of MoE both at central and local levels; and
(d) establishing an effective monitoring and evaluation system.17
One significant component of the SEQAEP is the training of English and mathematics
teachers, particularly from low-performing schools in rural areas. Results of the SSC exam-
ination over the years have shown that the highest number of students fail English and
mathematics (Hamid, 2009; SEQAEP, 2010). Moreover, the popularity of English in the
country is offset by students’ fear of English (Hussain, 2008; SEQAEP, 2010). Therefore,
intervention that targets English and mathematics teaching and learning in schools can be
related to quality and access issues, which are the major focus of the project. The project has
a range of intervention programs to enhance the quality of teaching and learning of English
and mathematics including:
. Writing teacher books for English and mathematics.

. Developing supplementary teaching and learning materials.
. Producing demonstration lessons.
. Training master trainers to train English and mathematics teachers.
. Providing a 6-day basic training program for English and mathematics teachers.
. Forming Mobile Training Resource Teams to observe post-training lessons.
. Providing 1-day follow-up training for English and mathematics teachers every three
months.
. Arranging additional English and mathematics lessons for students before or after
school hours.
(Translated and adapted from SEQAEP, 2010, p. 3)
Secondary schools in the country have been divided into three categories on the basis of
student pass-rates in the SCC examination: Group 1 includes the lowest pass-rate schools
(0 – 45%), Group 2 includes the 46– 70% schools and Group 3 includes the 71– 100%
schools. The 6-day training for English and mathematics teachers and extra lessons for
students are offered to Group 1 schools only.
How does the SEQAEP English teacher training differ from that provided by the
TQI-SEP? One of the core English trainers18 explained that while the TQI-SEP enhanced
English teachers’ pedagogical skills, the SEQAEP training was examination-focused,
intended to increase pass rates in English, prevent drop-outs and overcome students’ fear
of English.
In the second year of its operation, the SEQAEP has already produced English teacher
guides and additional teaching and learning materials which will supplement English text-
books. It may take years before the impact of the intervention can be seen on pass rates in
English in public examinations.
Discussion
English teacher training opportunities offered by government institutions (PTIs and TTCs)
and donor-funded projects that have been described in the previous sections raise a number
of issues. Undoubtedly, Bangladesh does not have adequate resources or institutional
capacity to train English teachers either quantitatively or qualitatively because the PTIs
and TTCs are unable to enrol a large number of school teachers in the C-in-Ed and BEd
programs. Moreover, these programs do not actually prepare English teachers. One of
the EiA baseline surveys, which examined the range of English teacher training provisions
in different sectors, pointed out that at the primary level ‘there has been no separate initiat-
ive for EL [English language] teacher training from the Government of Bangladesh to date’
(English in Action, 2010, p. i; see also Selim & Mahboob, 2001). The same conclusion can
be drawn in relation to the secondary level, disregarding the ELTIP, SEQAEP and TQI-SEP
training which would not have been in place had there been no external donors to fund
these projects in the first place. The absence of significant government initiative in
English teacher education and training provides evidence for the observation made in the
introduction to this paper that the English expansionist policies in Bangladesh did not
fully consider whether and to what extent such policies were implementable within the
country’s existing resources and institutional capacity and, more directly, English teachers’
professional capacity.
Although the potential of project-based training cannot be denied, the potential is
subject to a preliminary question: Will the projects live up to their promises and deliver
the expected outcomes? The kind of evidence required (in quantity as well as in quality)
to answer this question will probably never be available in the country, but what is currently
available does not suggest an affirmative answer. For instance, the EiA baseline survey
reported:
One consistent concern expressed by most organisations canvassed is the poor level of commu-
nicative English of both teachers and trainers [. . .] This situation of poor communicative
English is not surprising when university English courses focus on written language,
grammar, and English literature. A degree in English does not prepare people to teach
others how to communicate fluently in English. (English in Action, 2010, pp. i –ii)
Findings such as these provide a justification for the EiA operation in the country which
is intended to develop teachers’ communication skills. What needs to be pointed out in this
context is that teachers’ communication skills have not improved, despite the contribution
of projects such as the ELTIP, which had been introduced with much fanfare and optimism.
If the ELTIP, which had been initiated by the DfID, did not make any significant impact on
teachers’ communicative ability, what are the grounds on which to base any conclusion that
the EiA, again funded by the DfID, would produce such an impact?
Projects including the ELTIP and TQI-SEP have been operating in Bangladesh for a
number of years. Although the number of teachers trained by these projects may not
constitute the best measure to understand project outcomes, the projects cannot be
argued to have delivered much even based on such quantitative measures when the
number of teachers who are yet to be trained is taken into consideration. A number of
scholars and educators have concluded that teaching English at the primary and secondary
levels has been a huge waste of national resources, both material and human (Daily Ittefaq,
2010; Hamid & Baldauf, 2008; Hoque, 2009; Hussain, 2008; Rahman, 2007). Assessments
such as these underline the reality that the donor-funded projects were yet to make any
significant impact on Bangladeshi ELT.

The scope of this paper does not permit a detailed examination of issues related to
English teaching and wastage of national resources. However, the donor-funded projects
introduced in the previous section shed at least some light on this issue. English teachers
are trained by several projects almost simultaneously. The ELTIP set up a number of
RRCs and SRCs in different locations in the country; it also amassed a cadre of experienced
teacher trainers, as previously indicated. In light of this, it is difficult to see why other projects
such as the TQI-SEP, SEQAEP, and EiA, which started their operation within the past five
years, should also focus on English teacher training at the secondary level, or why there is
no coordination between them (see Hoque, 1999 for lack of coordination in relation to
past projects). More crucially, while the lack of resources and inadequate infrastructure is a
much-discussed issue in teacher training, these same resources and expertise remain
underutilised when new projects are approved without considering existing ones. This
author’s conversations with the ELTIP staff showed that while ELTIP teacher trainers were
being underutilised because teacher training was stalled due to the funds crisis, the TQI-
SEP was training English teachers with casual employees hired from schools and TTCs.
Moreover, each of the projects developed its own training infrastructure and resources
which remain underused or unused at the end of the project. Thus, the cycle repeats itself
as projects come and go in one of the poorest countries of the world.
One inherent weakness of donor-funded projects is related to their lifespan and their
coverage.19 Many of the education/language projects introduced in the previous section
target specific groups and/or regions. This means that the benefits of their interventions are
accessible to select groups, and this selectivity has the potential to create divisions between
project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. One aspect of EiA intervention can be taken as
an example. In March 2010, the EiA invited several hundred primary and secondary
school teachers to attend training workshops in selected venues in different parts of the
country (the workshops were held in 3/5 star hotels, not in the ELTIP RRCs or SRCs).
The teacher participants were given new iPods in line with the project goal of introducing
technology to English teaching. Expectedly, the teachers, many of whom were from rural
schools, were excited because for the first time in their lives they owned some kind of
educational technology. Unintentionally, however, this technological empowerment might
negatively impact on relationships between English teachers – between those who received
the iPods and those who did not – in a collegial environment where training recipients, even
when they don’t benefit materially, usually get only cold receptions by colleagues:
Some teachers that have been ‘properly’ trained or re-trained report that, in their first job or on
returning to their schools, they are discouraged and even mocked by other staff and so feel
under pressure to go back to teaching in the Bad Old Ways. (Robinson, 2008, n.p.)
Moreover, projects terminate at the end of their (short) lifespans. Whether they reach
their goals and deliver expected outcomes is often a matter of retrospective evaluation,
which, if undertaken at all, cannot affect activities during the project’s lifetime. When
this inherent nature of projects is taken into consideration, it is arguable the extent to
which the projects described in this paper will address Bangladesh’s need to develop
English teaching practitioners.
From a different perspective, because the projects described in the previous section have
a shared goal of training English teachers, there has been a silent struggle for justification
and assertion of superiority among project personnel which came to the surface when
ELTIP, TQI-SEP and SEQAEP officials were interviewed in their offices. The officials not
only spoke highly about their own project but also emphasised that it was more important
and effective than the others. For instance, the ELTIP officials emphasised their achievements,
arguing that the ELTIP was the longest running project with an established infrastructure and
training expertise. However, the TQI-SEP was critical of the ELTIP on the grounds that the
latter was going nowhere because of its funding crises. The ELTIP critique of the TQI-SEP, on
the other hand, stressed that the latter was ‘wasting money’ in the name of English teacher
training because its trainers did not have credibility as teacher trainers. Therefore, instead
of exerting a concerted effort to reach a common goal of training teachers, the projects
were promoting a culture of hostility, whether real or symbolic.
A more fundamental question relates to the project-based approach itself to teacher
education and training. The Government needs to develop permanent infrastructure and
institutional capacity so that teachers can be trained as an ongoing process. Clearly, the
project-based approach – whether favoured by the Government or imposed by donors –
is taking the attention away from this national capacity development. Furthermore, projects
are dislocating teacher training from the PTIs and TTCs, which are primarily responsible for
teacher education and training.
Implications and recommendations

The spread of English, the phenomenon of globalisation and their reciprocity have brought
immense opportunities as well as challenges for developing nations. These global develop-
ments require a thoughtful, judicious and pragmatic English-in-education policy response
from these nations so that the teaching and learning of English in the national curricula
can serve their national interests by bringing about optimum returns, often from scarce
resources, to their national investment in English. However, as this paper has argued, the
Bangladeshi language policy response to globalisation cannot be considered well-thought
out or prudent. Driven by the discourses connecting English and national development,
its English access policies have not taken into account the resource and personnel policies
required for successful implementation, thereby revealing the weakness of state’s commit-
ment and political will to transform policies into efficient and goal-oriented pedagogic
action. The thorough examination of English teacher training offered by public institutions
and donor-assisted projects has evidenced this divergence of access policy requirements
and actual personnel policy provisions. Consequently, English teaching and learning is
yet to produce desirable outcomes in the country.
Enhanced English access policies, inadequate resource investment and higher expec-
tations of policy outcomes are common English-in-education policy characteristics across
developing countries (Baldauf et al., 2010; Lee & Azman, 2004). Therefore, the teacher train-
ing policies, approaches and outcomes discussed in this paper are not unique to Bangladesh
and can be generalised to other low-income countries at least at a broad level. The English
teacher training policy issues critically examined in the paper suggest a number of
recommendations that can be drawn for Bangladesh and other developing nations.
First, although the reality of globalisation and the spread of English cannot be denied,
developing countries need to develop a critical stance toward the discourses of English,
globalisation and national development. English may facilitate their participation in the
competitive global economy, but there should be clear policy awareness that developing
English proficiency among the population is an overly ambitious goal requiring unaffordable
resource investment. Moreover, participation in the global economy involves competition
between nation states with unequal access to power, resources and technology. Development
of English proficiency and human capital alone may not guarantee developing nations’
access to the global economy because other nations have the ability to increase their national
investment to maintain their competitive edge in the global market (Rassool, 2007).
Therefore, what is required is a critical awareness of the dominant discourses and subjecting
English-in-education policy making to this awareness.
Second, developing nations including Bangladesh need to scrutinise critically, to reas-
sess their English access policy and to redefine its role, status and curricular weight in the
light of national resource investment. For example, if early access policy does not produce
expected outcomes, developing nations need to reconsider whether a delayed but more
intensified access to English would bring better outcomes.
Third, although donor-funded projects may serve short-term goals in English teacher
training, overreliance on them may not be beneficial in the longer term. Developing
nations should utilise such projects for national capacity building and institutional develop-
ment so that English teachers can be trained efficiently at the end of such projects.
Fourth, in developing national capacity for sustainable teacher training, developing
nations need to explore the potential of local institutions and expertise. For instance, in
pursuing ELT projects, the Bangladesh Government has ignored the potential of education
and English departments of public universities which, with their expertise and infrastruc-
ture, can play a significant role in English teacher training in Bangladesh. If the Government
provides financial incentives, these departments may design and deliver different courses to
English teachers teaching at the primary and secondary levels.
Finally, developing nations as well as donor agencies can encourage local ELT experts,
academics and language educators from local universities to work with primary and secondary
schools and English teachers to contribute to the latter’s professional development and ongoing
learning as a kind of community service. The Australian English Language Teacher Trainers
(ELTTs)20 embody this model of English teacher learning in Bangladesh and some other
developing countries. Between 2008 and 2010, seven Australian ELTTs worked for a full
year with their local counterparts at the NAPE, PTI, TTC and primary and secondary
schools and shared classroom teaching, helped develop materials/resources, offered English
language development lessons and demonstrated various teaching techniques (Badrul Alam,
personal communication, June 15, 2010). American Peace Corps volunteers have worked
with local schools and English teachers in Bangladesh and other countries in a similar way.
Following these models, local ELT experts and teacher trainers in developing nations can be
engaged in English teachers’ professional development activities in their own schools.
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 35th Annual Congress of the Applied Linguistics
Association of Australia (ALAA) in July 2010 at the University of Queensland, Brisbane. The author
would like to thank Richard Baldauf, Eileen Honan and two anonymous reviewers of the journal for
their valuable comments and feedback.
Notes
1. Quoted from the official website of EiA http://www.eiabd.com/eia/ (accessed 30 June 2010).
2. Also visit http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/research/collect/elt_archive/elt_projects/
bibliography/ for a bibliography on UK-funded English language projects.
3. There are three parallel streams of pre-tertiary education in Bangladesh: the mainstream secular
(catering to 81% of the total student population), madrasa education (17%) and English medium
education (1%).
4. This subject-based training and other professional development activities at local levels
discussed in this paper are funded by donors (e.g. Primary Education Development Project)
and cannot be considered government initiatives.
5. URCs are sub-district level resource centres.
6. The duration of the training was increased to 21 days in the third phase of the project.
7. One crore is equivalent to 10 million. US$1 is approximately 70 Taka. The DfID contributed
21.5 crore to the ELTIP-I.

8. If funds are not available on time, programs and activities cannot be planned and implemented.
Funds may remain unused at the end of financial years.
9. Although the ELTIP-III was supposed to end in June 2008, the project received two 1-year
extensions and ended in June 2010. See endnote 11.
10. These two officials were interviewed on 18 April 2010 in the project office in the NCTB
premises. Notes were taken during the conversations.
11. On 18 April 2010, when the two officials were interviewed, the ELTIP-III was supposed to come
to an end on 30 June 2010. It was not anticipated that the project would continue in its fourth
phase.
12. Visit http://www.eiabd.com/eia/index.php/main-stakeholders for details on the consortium.
13. Visit http://www.britishcouncil.org/bangladesh-english-teaching-ette.htm.
14. The British Council Bangladesh ELT Consultant, who was in charge of the ETTE in Bangla-
desh, was interviewed on 29 April 2010 in his office in Dhaka. Notes were taken during the
interview which, together with information obtained from the official website, were utilised
for writing the section on the ETTE.
15. See http://www.tqi-sep.gov.bd/.
16. The Deputy Director of the TQI-SEP was interviewed on 11 May 2010 in his office. Notes taken
during the interview and information obtained from the website were used in writing the section
on the TQI-SEP.
17. See http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?Projectid=P106161&theSitePK=
40941&piPK=64290415&pagePK=64283627&menuPK=64282134&Type=Overview.
18. The trainer was interviewed on 16 May 2010 in the project office.
19. The DfID made some significant policy change in this regard and introduced a 9-year long
project (EiA) (Hunter, 2009). However, still EiA cannot focus on the whole country. Moreover,
local authorities are not directly involved in the management of the project. Therefore, its con-
tribution to institutional capacity building remains questionable.
20. Visit http://www.eltt.org/content/ELTTProgram.asp for details on this Australian project.
References
Abbott, G. (1992). Development, education and English language teaching. ELT Journal, 46(2),
172–179.
Ahmed, M. (2005). Teaching English in the primary school: Challenges and options. Bangladesh
Education Journal, 4(1), 17–23.
Alderson, J.C. (Ed.). (2009). The politics of language education: Individuals and institutions. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Anwar, N. (2005). ELTIP: An exploratory study (Unpublished MEd dissertation). Institute of
Education and Research, The University of Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Baldauf, R.B., Chen, A.-H.C., Hamid, O., Lee, H., Li, M., Nguyen, T.M.H., & Ali, N.L. (2010).
Realistic or unattainable and a waste of resources: Primary EFL programs in Asia. Paper pre-
sented at the 8th Asia TEFL Conference, 2010, 6 –8 August 2010, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Bamgbose, A. (2003). A recurring decimal: English in language policy and planning. World
Englishes, 22(4), 419–431.
Brumfit, C.J. (Ed.). (1983). Language teaching projects for the third world: ELT Documents 116.
Oxford: Pergamon Press in association with the British Council.
CAMPE. (2002). Education Watch 2001: Renewed hope and daunting challenges-state of primary
education in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Author.
CAMPE. (2006). Quality education needs quality teachers: Our education our thoughts- dossier for
primary level students, teachers and guardians. Dhaka: Author.
CAMPE. (2007). Education Watch 2006: Financing primary and secondary education in
Bangladesh. Dhaka: Author.
CAMPE. (2009). Education Watch 2008: State of primary education in Bangladesh- progress made,
challenges remained. Dhaka: Author.
Chowdhury, R. (2003). International TESOL training and EFL contexts: The cultural disillusionment
factor. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 283–302.
Chowdhury, R., & Ha, P.L. (2008). Reflecting on Western TESOL training and communicative
language teaching: Bangladeshi teachers’ voices. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(3),
305–316.
Chowdhury, R., & Farooqui, S. (in press). Teacher training and teaching practice: The changing land-
scape of ELT in secondary education in Bangladesh. In L. Farrell, U.N. Sing, & R.A. Giri (Eds.),
English language education in South Asia: From policy to pedagogy. Delhi: Orient Longman.
Clayton, S. (2004). English for Cambodia? Aid, depoliticisation and development (Unpublished PhD
dissertation). The University of Essex, UK.
Clayton, S. (2008). The problem of ‘choice’ and the construction of the demand for English in
Cambodia. Language Policy, 7(2), 143–164.
Crookes, T., & Crewes, G. (1995). Language and development. Jakarta: Indonesian Australian
Language Foundation.
Daily Ittefaq. (2010, April 13). The standard of English teaching [in Bangla]. The Daily Ittefaq.
Retrieved from http://ittefaq.com.bd/content/2010/04/13/print0059.htm
Daily Star. (2010, June 24). $500,000 ADB grant to improve teaching quality. The Daily Star.
Retrieved from www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=24404
DPE. (2007). Baseline report of second Primary Education Development Programme (PEDP-II).
Dhaka: Author. Retrieved October 5, 2010, from http://www.mopme.gov.bd/pdf/B_Survey_
2005.pdf
DPE. (2008). PTI instructor training [in Bangla]. Dhaka: Author.
ELTIP. (2009). English Language Teaching Improvement Project (ELTIP) at a glance. Dhaka: ELTIP,
NCTB.
English in Action. (2010). Baseline study 5: An audit of a range of English language teacher training
and education provision. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from http://www.eiabd.com/eia/index.php/
publications/baseline-studies
Erling, E.J., Hamid, M.O., & Seargeant, P. (2010). Grassroots attitudes to the positioning of English
as a language for international development. Paper presented at the Sociolinguistics Symposium
18, September 1–4, 2010, Southampton, UK.
Farooqui, S. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of textbook and teacher’s guide: A study in secondary
education in Bangladesh. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5(4), 191–210.
Fox, M.J. (1975). Language and development: A retrospective survey of Ford Foundation language
projects 1952–1974 (Vols. 1 and 2). New York: Ford Foundation.
Gupta, R.S. (1999). Globalisaiton and the need for English: Focus on South Asia. In T. Hunter (Ed.),
Proceedings of the international conference on national and regional issues in English language
teaching: International perspectives, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 31 January–2 February 1999
(pp. 101–104). Dhaka: British Council.
Hamid, M.O. (2005). Going communicative. Spectrum: Journal of the Department of English
(University of Dhaka), 3, 38–49.
Hamid, M.O. (2007). Bangladeshi English teachers’ perceptions of their professional practice. The
Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(2), 27–50.
Hamid, M.O. (2009). Sociology of language learning: Social biographies and school English
achievement in rural Bangladesh (Unpublished PhD dissertation). The University of
Queensland, Australia.
Hamid, M.O. (in press). Planning for failure: English and language policy and planning in
Bangladesh. In J. Fishman & O. Garcia (Eds.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity
(Vol. II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hamid, M.O., & Baldauf, R.B., Jr. (2008). Will CLT bail out the bogged down ELT in Bangladesh?
English Today, 24(3), 16–24.
Hamid, M.O., Sussex, R., & Khan, A. (2009). Private tutoring in English for secondary school stu-
dents in Bangladesh. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 281–308.
Haq, M.N. (2004). A baseline survey of rural secondary schools: A quest for teaching-learning
quality. Bangladesh Education Journal, 3(2), 31–54.
Hasan, M.K. (2003). Towards a communicative approach to curriculum development: A linguistics
study of English language curriculum at secondary level in Bangladesh (Unpublished PhD dis-
sertation). Aligarh Muslim University, India.
Hoque, S.M. (1999). ELT issues in Bangladesh: An overview. In T. Hunter (Ed.), Proceedings of the
international conference on national and regional issues in English language teaching:
International perspectives, 31 January–2 February 1999, Dhaka, Bangladesh (pp. 93–100).
Dhaka: British Council.
Hoque, S.M. (2009, October 10). Education policy: Some suggestions. The Daily Star. Retrieved from
www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=109018
Hunter, T. (2009). Micropolitical issues in ELT project implementation. In J.C. Alderson (Ed.), The
politics of language education: Individuals and institutions (pp. 64–84). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Hussain, M.M. (2008). Primary education: Common issues, common concerns. Primary Education
Journal, 2(1), 54–64.
Kabir, K.H. (2009, January 22). English language development project remains neglected [in Bangla].
The Daily Janata, p. 4.
Kaplan, R.B. (1998). Review of T. Crookes & G. Crewes, (eds) Language and development: Jakarta:
Indonesian Australian Language Foundation. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 317–326.
Kaplan, R.B., & Baldauf, R.B., Jr. (2003). Language and language-in-education planning in the
Pacific Basin. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kenny, B., & Savage, W. (Eds.). (1997). Language and development: Teachers in a changing world.
London, New York: Longman.
Kerr, R. (2009). The politics of ELT projects in China. In J.C. Alderson (Ed.), The politics of language
education: Individuals and institutions (pp. 85–103). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Khan, M.U. (2007, November 20). The sole government project for English teaching is an object of
negligence. Daily Naya Diganta. Retrieved from www.dailynayadiganta.com/2007/11/20/
fullnews.asp?News_ID=53115&sec=5
Khan, R. (2002). Impact assessment of an in-service teacher training programme in Bangladesh: A
research report. Journal of NELTA, 7(1&2), 34–47.
Kirkgöz, Y. (2003). Globalisation and English language policy in Turkey. Education Policy, 23(5),
663–684.
Lee, P., & Azman, H. (Eds.). (2004). Global English and primary schools: Challenges for elementary
education. Melbourne: CAE Press.
Malek, A., Begum, M., Islam, F., & Ryad, S.S. (2009). Education science and education in
Bangladesh [in Bangla] (2nd ed.). Dhaka: University Grants Commission.
Markee, N. (2002). Language in development: Questions of theory, questions of practice. TESOL
Quarterly, 36(3), 265–274.
Mohiuddin, A.H.M. (2007). Types of assessment and their implication in the Primary Training
Institutes (PTIs) in Bangladesh. Primary Education Journal, 1(1), 17–28.
NAPE. (2009). A study on the impact of subject-based training (held at URC) to enhance the quality
of teaching and learning at primary school (Vols. I & II). Mymensingh, Bangladesh: Author.
NCTB. (2002). English for today: Class 1. Dhaka: Author.
Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in
the Asia-pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589–613.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1994). English language spread policy. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 107, 7–24.
Phillipson, R. (2010). The politics and the personal in language education: The state of which art?
[Review of J.C. Alderson (ed) The politics of language education: Individuals and institutions.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters]. Language and Education, 24(2), 151–166.
Pincas, A. (Ed.). (1995). Spreading English: ELT projects in international development. London:
Phoenix Press.
Qi, S. (2009). Globalisation of English and English language policies in East Asia: A comparative
perspective. Canadian Social Science, 5(3), 111–120.
Quddus, A.S.M. (2009). The feasibility of professionalization of primary-school teachers in
Bangladesh: A critical analysis of the actors and factors, 1971–2001. Dhaka: AH
Development Publishing House.
Rahman, A. (2007). The history and policy of English education in Bangladesh. In Y.H. Choi & B.
Spolsky (Eds.), English education in Asia: History and policies (pp. 67–93). Seoul: Asia TEFL.
Rassool, N. (2007). Global issues in language, education and development: Perspectives from post-
colonial countries. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Robinson, A. (2008, July 6). Teachers of English. The Daily Star. Retrieved from www.thedailystar.
net/story.php?nid=44378
Sarker, R. (2004, December 21). Fund shortage to stop ELTIP? The Daily Star. Retrieved from www.
thedailystar.net/2004/12/21/d41221070377htm
Selim, A., & Mahboob, T.S. (2001). ELT and English language teachers of Bangladesh: A profile. In
F. Alam, N. Zaman, & T. Ahmed (Eds.), Revisioning English in Bangladesh (pp. 141–151).
Dhaka: The University Press Limited.
SEQAEP. (2010). Manual for quality education (draft) [in Bangla]. Dhaka: SEQAEP, Ministry of
Education, Government of Bangladesh.
Shamim, F. (2008). Trends, issues and challenges in English language education in Pakistan. Asia
Pacific Journal of Education, 28(3), 235–249.
Tsui, A.B.M., & Tollefson, J.W. (Eds.). (2007). Language policy, culture and identity in Asian con-
texts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wedell, M. (2008). Developing a capacity to make ‘English for Everyone’ worthwhile: Reconsidering
outcomes and how to start achieving them. International Journal of Educational Development,
28(6), 628–639.

Hamid GlobalizationEnglishBangladesh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hamid GlobalizationEnglishBangladesh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hamid GlobalizationEnglishBangladesh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Archives & Bibliothèques de l'ULB]

On: 15 January 2015, At: 00:32

Current Issues in Language Planning

Globalisation, English for everyone

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2011.532621

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Globalisation, English for everyone and English teacher capacity:

School of Education, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia

ISSN 1466-4208 print/ISSN 1747-7506 online

Focusing on Bangladesh, this paper discusses some of the consequences of developing

Bangladesh). Therefore, Bangladesh exhibits the dynamics of the complex interactions

English access policy in Bangladesh

Furthermore, it is usual that only students from a particular socio-economic background

Methods and materials policy

produced, four of which were related to English:

(i) [Listen to] and [u]nderstand simple commands/instructions/requests in English

Underlying the competencies is a skill-focused approach adopted in primary as well as

Figure 1. Percentage of teachers indicating educational backgrounds in 2005 (CAMPE, 2006,

Project-based English teacher training

initiate a discussion of these issues:

(1) English Language Teaching Improvement Project (ELTIP) Bangladesh

ELTIP Bangladesh (1997 – 2012)

English in action (2008 – 2017)

English for teaching, teaching for English (January 2008—December 2010)

Teaching quality improvement in secondary education project (2005 – 2011)

. Writing teacher books for English and mathematics.

signiﬁcant impact on Bangladeshi ELT.

Implications and recommendations

21.5 crore to the ELTIP-I.

You might also like