ENGLISH PLUS IS A PLUSH

I admit that I am not fluent in English, especially through oral communication and I know most of us do. Not only the Pattseans are experiencing this deficiency but most of the college students, especially those who doesn’t have a strong foundation in English language during their high school. Having such difficulty would also mean a lesser opportunity in landing on their dream job. This might be the reason why the school administration has implemented and added the English Plus Program, a required additional subject for all graduating students and should be taken as part of the requirements for graduation, by hook or by crook.

We don’t have enough knowledge regarding this program. It is just surprising that all graduating students were required to enroll the subject, amounting Php3,500 which should be paid upon enrollment (in full). Well, a very huge amount of money to be paid in such an ambush! I don’t know if this program is mandatory as required by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), but still it is very expensive.

Well, is English Plus really a plus or just a plush? On the brighter side of it, it is very beneficial to the students to improve their English language. BUT, is it really effective? Or is it just another English subject taken for granted? For a 40-hour-long English course, is it really possible to make these students fluent in English? Or might as well enroll in a call center training academy who offers English proficiency for only Php1,995,or even lower, and can be paid in cash or installment basis. They also provide kits for references and exercises. And such training is more feasible to transform their students to speak in English fluently and might as well help them find a job, nonetheless, in call center industry (it might be very far from the aviation course, but at least, practically it is better than being unemployed). However, it is the English proficiency training we are most concerned.

Indeed, why is it necessary to enroll a single English course to improve our English proficiency, the fact that we have five or even six English subjects enrolled as part of our curriculum? That only proves that those English subjects we have taken were useless. Useless in the sense that we have to take another English program just to cover up the defect of those English subjects that should have improved our English proficiency. The sad thing, we have to pay for it!

Under the present economic crisis, it is very untimely to require the graduating students to enroll such course. It would be very pleasant to make it optional, rather than mandatory. Anyway it is just an additional subject. Taking the course might be an advantage for those who can afford. And for those who cannot, may just take the risk in finding a job and answer with confidence during interviews. For an instance, the Review Classes for the Aeronautical Engineering Board Examination is optional. It is up to the graduates whether to take the review classes or not, in PATTS Review Center or in other review centers. It all depends on them, otherwise this just an aid for them to pass the board examination and not an assurance. English plus either is still not an assurance. And is merely a waste of time and money since it does not guarantee the students to be proficient in English after enrolling the course. Instead of adding such course, the school administration, particularly the Language Department, should have enhanced the campaign of the existing English subjects for the advancement of the English proficiency of the students. In relation to this, they should employ more English instructors, effective and qualified enough to teach English subjects, most especially in Oral Communication or Speech improvement. And rather than this English plus program, they should have added Speech Laboratory for the Speech Improvement subjects instead. Such laboratory class should be equipped with manuals and hands-on training using computers in order to be more effective. It is more acceptable since it can be paid in installment, just like the laboratory subjects of the technical courses. There is a lot of way to improve the English subjects. And such improvements "may" not mean additional fees. The fact that we enrolled it, we paid for it, therefore we should get the most out of it. The performance of the medium of instruction will reflect on the students. If the graduates are found to be poor in English, therefore, it means that those English subjects they have taken were “in a way” ineffective or the campaign in English proficiency of the institution is weak.

To end up, English Plus might be an immediate solution, but it is not the cure for the deteriorating English proficiency of the students. It still lies on the English subjects under the curriculum and more on the students. It is like putting a band-aid on a wound; it just conceals the wound for a moment but does not heal it and might even worsen it. It is the English PLUSH.