CLASSES 1--8 are included in the primary stage. Good. But within the same stage, a segregationist policy has been proposed, i.e. the minimum requisite qualification and training for teachers of classes 1--5, HSC/SSC, and C-in-Ed., and for teachers of classes 6-8, Bachelors degree and B. Rd. This is likely to result in a serious lack of coordination and collegiality, and an unhealthy growth of tension and >11 feeling between these two groups of teachers. However, the qualifications of the incumbent teachers with HSC/SSC and C-in-Ed. should be gradually upgraded.

Introduce English for Specific Purposes (ESP) for 4 credits: The proposed paper is not new—it has been in the course for many years. This is a general English paper for all students of all disciplines’-scicnce. arts, etc. The most pertinent question in the situation is: Why should a student of, say. chemistry, and a student of Bangla study the same English (though their areas of study are different, their needs and goals are different, and moreover, they all have studied general English for 12 years as a compulsory subject)? In fact, they need ESP, the kind of English that will effectively help them study their respective subjects. So, they need English for science, English for agriculture, English for medicine, etc.

No English has been recommended for students studying engineering, law and ICT in the proposed policy. This seems to be an inadvertent omission. Introduce mentoring as an important component of teacher development: Good training is important. Good monitoring and supervision are also important. They may be available to our teachers, but, upon leaving their training room, while they are in their own classrooms, teaching on their own (no supervisor / monitor coming), they usually relapse into their old, do-it-easy, wav of teaching. This is because their training is usually one-off; monitoring and supervision, done by their superiors (in rank and position), are evaluative and often threatening. So, these teachers show their best performance’ to please only their bosses. To prevent this situation, we badly need mentors in addition to monitors and supervisors.

Mentoring teachers is helping them, over a long period of time, to improve classroom teaching. Mentoring takes place in a non-threatening, non-authoritative environment in and outside the school. It is de-linked with any power relations. A mentor helps the teacher like a good colleague, with friendly guidance and support through cooperative and collaborative activities in and outside the classroom, making his/her teaching useful, interesting and outcome-oriented so that learning becomes enjoyable and effective for that teacher. Thus, mentoring can bring about a genuine, sustainable change in the teacher's persona), as well as professional behaviour, thereby, improving the quality of teaching and learning. Share the responsibility of primary education with other stakeholders to develop quality primary education, which Is currently lacking: The responsibility of primary education, no doubt, lies with the government. The question of the transfer of responsibility does not arise in the case of a national centralised education system like ours--it is cooper-

ation and collaboration between different stakeholders that is most important. Think about the huge task of managing only primary education: 80 thousand schools, 300 thousand teachers, 18 million students and (developing, printing and distributing) a staggering 80 million textbooks. The task is often found to be too Herculean for the resource-strapped government to do alone.

On the other hand, competent private organisations/NGOs (with adequately-trained, experienced professionals and with little or no financial constraints) can collaborate with the government to effectively contribute to developing suitable courses, efficient teachers, appropriate textbooks, in fact, any curricular activity. In many developing countries (e.g. India. Sri Lanka), competent private organisations/NGOs are often asked to provide help in developing some particular component of the mainstream curriculum, for example, to produce a teacher's guide in a particular subject and to orient teachers in using the guide. In this way, all sectors, both public and private, should own the national education system of a country and can best endeavour to attain Its excellence together.

The proposed policy statement under primary education just mentions the government's responsibility nothing about the responsibility and the

initiatives of the private sectors, let alone their collaboration. It seems to me that the statement reveals the time-old bureaucratic mindset of the policy makers that ignores the potential advantages of private sector cooperation, patronage and collaboration for developing and implementing a good, sustainable primaryeducation system in the country.

Make special provisions for English Language Teaching (ELT): English was introduced from class 1 in 1990. Since then, it has proved a complete waste of national resource (both material and human). To teach English, especially in classes 1-2, by inefficiently qualified and trained teachers, and inappropriate teaching materials, results in learning inadequate for learners to cope with English in their successive classes. The problem is compounded by the kind of English learned at this initial stage, which has to be unlearned during the laterstage(s).

However, considering the crucial need for English in the present-day ICTbased globalised world, the proposed policy has retained English's present status (from class 1). I strongly support it on one condition: There must be designated English teachers who must be given specialised training in ELT. The currently run 6-day subject-based training at URCs, 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.

Therefore, we propose that a permanent body, say, a National English Language Centre (NELC), be set up, as found in many developing countries of the world. The centre, supported by the Government, can get technical support from a project, if necessary, but will work as an effective autonomous body. The centre's specialists and professionals will work as an independent watchdog on any ELT programmes and issues. The main functions of NELC will be:

• To coordinate ELT activities across all levels, i.e. primary, secondary and tertiary.

• To accredit various ELT courses offered by private institutions, including commercially mushroomed ELT centers;

• To monitor ELT activities at all levels to help MoE and MoPME implement the national ELT policies (to be made);

• To liaise with MoE and MoPME and professional, technical sup-port/link bodies, both within and outside the country;

• To carry out research on ELT issues,

• To suggest measures for improvement.

M Shamsul Hoque is a Curriculum & ELT Consultant, Institute of Educational Development, BRAC University