Formal Adoption of Wholistic Evaluation of English is Urgently Needed to Avoid Generation of Racism in the West, and Under-Development in Africa

Introduction

My interest in proposing a new way of assessing knowledge of English arises from a problem that I perceive to be very prevalent in today’s globalizing world. My concern is with English learning and use in Africa, and by extension in other outer-circle parts of the world.¹ (I here refer primarily to Africa.) In many parts of Africa, foreign-subsidy of English learning and use in education and other sectors has rendered English the de-facto language for formal purposes. This de-facto role has not arisen from any inherent locally-recognised indigenous suitability of English. Rather, the end of the colonial era bequeathed Africa with a set of European languages. (I will concentrate only on English.) Africa had little choice in this selection (Alexander, 1999),. Fit for purpose may be far from ideal. This situation contributes majorly to a problematic and debilitating brain drain.

Outside subsidy continues to perpetuate the current situation. Because of outside subsidy, indigenous languages that may be a much better local contextual fit stand little chance of competing with English. English-knowledge has numerous perceived and often very evident benefits, such as international job prospects, that indigenous languages do not share. Many of these benefits arise as a result of what I here refer to as a not-holistic evaluation of English. Contemporary assessments of quality in English are largely based on indicators such as grammatical ability, vocabulary, fluency, clarity of expression, and so forth. What is not assessed, is the area by some considered to fall under the category of pragmatics. That is, whether someone’s articulate, fluent, grammatically-accurate and clearly expressed English ‘works’ in a given context. Incorporating whether English ‘works’ would be to make an assessment holistic.

The possibility of any lack of workability of English can be problematic. I raise two questions:

• 1.

  Is English used in indigenous contexts an adequate functional substitute for local languages? Does use of English instead-of alternative indigenous tongues allow clear (local) functional communication?

• 2.

  Are contemporary formal assessments of English language knowledge a sufficient measure of whether someone can operate effectively in an English-speaking context to which they are not habituated?

If the answer to the first is negative, then the bequeathing of English to a people can handicap their abilities at communicating ‘productively’ in their own communities. If the answer to the second question is negative, then assessments of English falling short of evaluating functional competence can result in people being put into positions where their weaknesses, i.e., incompetence’s, cause problems for them. In other words, accrediting capability in English in a way that is not holistic (it excludes culturally and contextually related competency), can result in a double whammy:

• 1.

  It can prevent African people from communicating clearly and effectively ‘at home’.

• 2.

  It positions African people in the native-English speaking West on the basis of a competence that is only imagined.

Number 2. can produce or perpetuate many problems for African people in the West. Because it results in incompetence, that arises from an unacknowledged avenue, it can and almost certainly does fuel racism.

On my evaluation, the correct response to both of the above numbers 1 and 2 is negative. Thus, contemporary assessments of language skill that are not holistic, i.e., that largely ignore pragmatic competences, if used to assess someone’s ability, are deeply problematic interculturally.

My proposed solution relates to globalised education. Educational systems around the world are largely built on those devised in Europe. Their original use in a relatively culturally monolithic Europe was appropriate because Europeans’ education pre-supposes(d), presumably with some accuracy, that competency in one area of thinking, e.g., grammatical knowledge of a language, is a good indicator of the likelihood that broader competence is extant. Extending this situation globally though becomes problematic. People from elsewhere through hard struggle meeting the ’basic criterion’ for competence as used in Europe, will not indicate functional capability. Supposed equivalence is then, in practice, merely theoretical or even ‘mythical’.