Assessing teachers with IELTS should not be controversial

I refer to “Hong Kong education authorities to replace test for English teachers with IELTS, as lawmaker raises concerns over shake-up” (March 27).

The replacement of the local Language Proficiency Assessment (LPA) with the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) from September this year raises questions about the impact on non-English-major teachers who would like to switch to teaching English or those teaching other subjects in local schools with English as the medium of instruction. Although the goals of LPA and IELTS are closely related, the tests are functionally different from each other. The former “assesses candidates’ proficiency” in the English language for teaching the subject in schools, whereas the latter assesses individuals’ ability to communicate in English effectively. Both are language proficiency tests, but the former focuses on pedagogical language skills while the latter focuses on academic (IELTS Academic) and practical language skills (IELTS General Training).

Two distinctive components of LPA that are omitted from IELTS are classroom language assessment and correction and explanation of errors in student compositions, which obviously target the specific requirements for language teaching. An example from the briefing session for 2024 LPA (English language) is of a candidate being required to detect the one error in the item “in this six months in Australia” and explain specifically that the writer “should replace the singular determiner/demonstrative adjective/pronoun ‘this’ with ‘these’ because ‘months’ is plural”. Knowledge of metalanguage such as grammatical terminology is essential for this paper.

It has been pointed out English teachers still have to take classroom language assessment and that subject knowledge has been included in postgraduate diploma in education programmes offered by local universities, which will compensate for the missing components in IELTS. The shift to IELTS is also expected to be more cost-effective and efficient for both the government and teachers.

IELTS test scores are generally accepted as proof of English language ability at universities and workplaces around the world. The results are at best a testimony to one’s English proficiency level in general. The proposed requirements for both teachers and panel chairs should not be controversial as they are not planning to study in or migrate to an Englishspeaking country, which may require language skills that are commonly used in academic settings, social situations or workplace environments.

Andy Seto Wood-hung, Shau Kei Wan