imp roved levels of L2 proficiency. Only in the case of English immersion programs, where English becomes the medium of instruction for a variety of school subjects, will the age advantage be apparent. Such programs satisfy the two key conditions for effective learning by young learners: (1) they cater to implicit language learning and (2) they provide ample exposure to the L2.
Of course, policymakers have reasons other than promoting communicative proficiency for introducing English in the elementary school:
1. To promote international understanding (Japan) 2. To deepen intercultural awareness
3. To enhance communication in societies that are becoming increasingly multilingual.
4. To enable schools to imp rove their recruitment of students. Thus, even if starting English in the elementary school proves disappointing in terms of what is probably its main goal ——— developing students' communicative competence in English ——— it may still be worthwhile from these other standpoints. Policy makers and educators, however, need to be clear and realistic about what can be achieved and what their aims for an early start program are.
Implementing an English in the elementary school program
（建议7分钟——对比分析3分钟+表格分析4分钟）
In this section I will address whether and to what extent the policy of introducing English in the elementary school be effectively implemented in countries.
Effective implementation requires:
1. Elementary school teachers who are proficient in English and who are trained in teaching young learners. 2. Access to suitable teaching materials
3. An appropriate methodology for young learners 4. Sufficient time allocated to English 5. Parental support for learning English
One reason why ‘early starts’have not been shown to be very effective may be that these requirements have not been met.
Hu (2008) investigated the impact of China’s policy of introducing English in the elementary school through case studies of four elementary schools in Wenzhou Prefecture ( two schools were classified as ‘privileged’and two as‘less privileged’).
Hu considered ‘implementation’in terms of: 1. Provision for English classes 2. Time allocated to English classes 3. Availability of trained English teachers
4. Environmental support for English within the school 5. Parental support for learning English
However, he did not consider ‘implementation’in terms of how English was actually being taught in these schools. Arguably, what really counts where ‘implementation ’is concerned, is what transpires between the teacher and the students inside the classroom.
(表格的讲解)Table 1 below summarizes Hu’s findings. There is a clear difference in the level of implementation evident in the
‘privileged’and the ‘less privileged’schools. In School A, for example, English was being taught in grades three through to six with 3 x 35 minute classes each week. The teachers were all trained and two of them had received training in primary education. There was considerable environmental support for English in the form of multimedia classrooms and English signage around the school. In general, the parents of children in this school supported the introduction of English classes and some tried to assist their children at home. School D, however, presents a completely different picture. English was not being taught at all. The other two schools fall in between School A and School D in terms of the level of implementation.
Hu concluded that the extent to which policy was being successfully implemented was very varied. He noted that there was a serious teacher shortage in some schools, that there was a considerable disparity among
schools in the implementation of policy and that this could reinforce and perpetuate social stratification. His final verdict was ‘it can be argued that the policy was implemented prematurely’(p. 533).
The decision to introduce English in the elementary school is taken centrally ——— by the Ministry of Education ——— but the task of implementing it is necessarily left to the local (often district) level. This can be seen as both a problem and an advantage. It is a problem where the local resources ( in terms of money or teacher availability) are limited. It is an advantage where specific districts/ schools are well equipped to teach English. Policy was formulated centrally but in a somewhat loose way that allowed for considerable interpretation at the local level. Implementation in many schools was very limited as the home room teachers who were made responsible for English often lacked confidence in their English abilities. Little training in English language instruction was available in many districts. The reliance on hiring native speakers as Assistant Teachers was short sighted as many of these lacked both qualifications and experience to teach English in primary schools. The picture that emerges from these studies of the implementation of central policy regarding the introduction of English in elementary schools is a rather bleak one. It suggests that implementation is extremely patchy. This raises a key question. To what extent is it appropriate to formulate such a policy given that the means for implementing it are obviously not
in p lace? There are, of course, two answers to this question. One is that the policy will motivate implementation over time. The other is that no policy should be formulated until the means for implementing it fairly for all children are in p lace.
Choosing an appropriate methodology
（建议10分钟-导入2分钟+示例一3分钟+示例二3分钟+结论2分钟） Let’s back to my question:
What language teaching methodology is best suited to teaching young learners of English?
Implementing a language policy is not just a question of resources; it is also, importantly, a question of how English should be taught to maximize learning opportunities for young learners. Policy decisions whether made at the national or more local levels will have little impact on elementary students’English unless consideration is also given to the teaching methodology to be used. Successful language learning is ultimately more a matter of methodology than of policy making. Thus, it is by addressing this question that I can make the switch from talking about ‘limitations’to considering ‘possibilities’. Traditional methodologies allow the learner little control. Here’s an example.
（第一个例子的解说）Consider this exchange between a teacher and a student. The teacher was trying to guide the student to produce plural