There is no need for a radical review of the English syllabus

Last Saturday, my attention was drawn to writer Kiarie Ranji’s article “Let us fix the English Syllabus and exams once and for all”. As a teacher of English who constantly engages in the implementation of the English syllabus at high school level, most of his sentiments in the Saturday Nation resonated with me. After all, he touched on most aspects that appear contentious within the syllabus and whose practical application has been questioned for a long time.

However, I felt Mr Ranji suffered the problem of extreme overgeneralisation, and some of the problems identified do not honestly need the radical interventions he suggested. So while I agree with him on the need for slight improvements, his views were rather lopsided in many ways.

I will start with what I agree with Mr Ranji on. The confusion caused to students by books that give conflicting information on some aspects of English has to be brought to a halt.

It is true that in several functional writing skills, various textbooks approved for use conflict both on the format and what ought to constitute the content of those writing skills. There has to be a level of uniformity in the teaching of these skills.

This is the farthest I am in agreement with this article. The article opens by making the sensational claim that English syllabus is a “total mess” and that “what is examined and what is in the recommended books do not tally”, and thus attributes the failure of students to score the A grades in the subject to this effect. He couldn’t be more wrong.

Testing

The testing in English has continually tended to lean more on the analysis, synthesis and evaluation at the expense of questions that lean on knowledge and comprehension. One only has to look at the testing in Paper 3 that gauges the fluidity of expression and the practical application of literary knowledge to evaluate the moral issues of the day.

The article fails to acknowledge the fact that it is not always true that what is taught would have to tally with what is tested. After all, is the sole purpose of learning English to pass exams and put those As back on the grid? I hardly think so. In fact, if what is taught does not tally with what is tested, is the problem in the content or the testing?

There are speaking and listening skills that are hardly tested, as well as practical discussion skills that are meant to prepare these students and equip them with the values of cooperation, inclusivity and team work. One cannot conclusively measure such skills within the scope of a KCSE paper.

While there are skills like telegram and fax writing that appear outdated, replacing them with the exclusively modern skills is not the solution either. When you test e-mail writing for example, how many students have never used a computer, let alone written the e-mails themselves?

In the 2019 KCSE English Paper 3, there was a question on the disadvantages of the internet. While it is modern in every sense, how fair was it to the students who had no idea what the internet was and equated it to mobile phones?

The cure for archaic content, as the writer called them, is not to replace them entirely with modern ones; it is to find the connections and trends, determine how these modes of expressions have influenced one another and develop a more holistic understanding of the methods.

I found the writer’s attack on cloze tests rather preposterous. The nature of these tests is such that they give a measure of how easy a text is to read and understand for a particular audience. They therefore not only measure a readability score but also the reading comprehension for these learners.

Of course these spaces must have the most suitable words to be used, otherwise what is the purpose of any test? It is also a strong way of developing the grammar usage and vocabulary.

English Grammar

The last claim that I found ridiculous and outright false was that English Grammar has only 15 marks at KCSE level. In Paper 2 alone, where the grammar section he refers to is usually found, the reading comprehension section, the literary appreciation section, poetry or even the oral literature sections continually have grammar questions.

The fact that they are not indicated as so does not mean that they do not exist. When one is given a sentence from a reading comprehension and told to add a question tag to it, is that not grammar? Even the cloze test in paper one that the writer suggests should be done away with, a number of blank spaces usually call for the use of articles, determiners, prepositions or conjunctions to fill in, all elements of grammar.

In paper 3, the creative writing composition tests on the ability of the learners to communicate in good grammar as well. So even if it is not directly implied, grammar takes the bulk of testing.

It is true that the English syllabus needs slight reviews to make it more responsive to the demands of the day. However, to imply that a radical elimination of sections is needed just because students do not do well is to miss the mark.