The feedback received indicates that the teachers hold a common / partial agreement that the "students are keen in learning" and that "they maintain good discipline" in class. However, this is, as noted earlier, contradictory of their opinion made during the individual interviews which noted that "students lacked interest and motivation". It's both fascinating and baffling to notice that there is a common consensus in both instances – to say, when interviewed, that the students lacked interest and, in the questionnaire, to claim that the students were keen in class.

The explanation to the contradiction could be one or more of the following. (Though it is external to my purpose of the present paper, I would nonetheless share my own speculation over what I now call "the teachers' paradox"):

1. The interview was informal and open-ended, where the candidates had, one hopes, more room to be less self-conscious. The questionnaire, however, could have taken the form of a "trap" in the candidates' eye, with precise statements – thus, instating a sense of self-consciousness. As the exact purpose of the exercise was not known by the candidate, perhaps – perhaps – s/he became more "defensive" in responding to the questionnaire.

2. The respondents, with the questionnaire, having more time to think over the response.

The second, to me, is the less likely possibility. In any case, neither of the above clarifies as to how all of them – the entire sample – ended up making the same "contradiction". Were they giving ad-hoc answers to the interview / questionnaire? But, then again, it's highly improbable for all seven to end up with the same response.

The teachers' opinion is split regarding the students' comprehension of the lessons. 3/7 felt that the students, in general, are confused in their learning. The four who claimed otherwise were either U/G or U/P. As noted earlier, the "lack of a proper foundation" was also cited as an issue. This fact is substantiated by five respondents while U/P did not agree with it.
The opinion of the respondents is, again, split as to whether the students interact in English within the classroom. Four respondents partially agree with the statement, while three others disagree. The disagreement comes from R/G and U/G/7. Therefore, the students' "non-usage of English" is a common factor to both the Urban and Suburban divisions.
Special Mention: Teachers' Guides

The questionnaire carried eight statements that tested the teachers' attitude towards teachers' guides. Out of the seven respondents, five pointed out that they "did not receive" any teachers' guides at all – which disallowed them from responding to the questions. U/G/6 mentioned that he, in his three year career, had not at least once been provided a teachers' guide.

The only respondent to answer the section on teachers' guides was R/G/6 and 7 (the same teacher taught both Grades). Her responses can be tabled as follows. The key to the table is the same as for Tables 2 and 3, above.

Since our evidence is limited to a single candidate, I do not undertake a close analysis of Table 4. But if the table above is to be regarded as a pointer, the indication is that the teachers' guides are not considered positively by teachers. This is tragic from the standpoint of the implementing of the syllabuses, since the "guide" is, as already noticed, a "direction" given by the "policy maker" to the "implementer" (teachers) of the respective syllabuses. The teachers' insistence that they do not get guides, that the guides are not practical etc. implies a breakdown of consensus and "linking" between the top tiers of the country's English Education plan and the teachers who execute their plans.

3	Synthesis: a Summing-Up.

The aim of my study was to locate what English teachers in Grades 6,7 and 8 considered as "problems" in their work in the classroom. According the views of the considered sample the issues that concern them in teaching English can be seen as:

a) Infrastructural deficiencies:

•Lack of textbooks.

•Lack of teachers' guides.

•Cramped classroom conditions.

b) Issues related to syllabus structure:

•The syllabi not being able to "reach" the weakest and brightest students in class.

•Primary school syllabus as not giving the students a sufficient foundation.

•Group work being unable to address or remedy issues of weak vocabulary and grammar.

c) Student attitudes:

•Lacking of interest in / motivation by students.

The problems they identified, however, are not easily answerable ones. This is owing to the fact that these issues are intricately tied with the wider socio-economic policy / reality of Sri Lanka. Nor are they "new" issues to and recent developments of the discourse of Secondary School English teaching in Sri Lanka. For example, the same infrastructural issues, according to Kandiah, have been there in the system even three decades ago. How these issues can be negotiated with and as to what one can really do is a topic that is outside the scope of my purpose.

It is also indicated that syllabus structure and curriculum implementation, too, needs revision. Yet, with practically short-lived, election-based and party-oriented education policies how this can be achieved is a compelling question. However, as Richards suggests there should be a wider forum for the opinions and views of teachers. Their view, in turn, needs to be critically incorporated in the planning of syllabi and evaluation methods. This "bottom-up" trajectory in policy will enable the "classroom dynamics" to be considered in syllabus making. The practical experiences of teachers, the limitations they face in class, their knowledge of student competency etc have to taken in as "pointers" in syllabus formulation. Perhaps, this is easier said than done (and, perhaps, this very statement was made right throughout the history of our Secondary School English Education). But, as the saying holds, the journey begins with the first step. And it is in the interest of the country and the future development of its secondary School English Education that this (or, these) step/s are taken.

Works Cited.

Kandiah, Thiru. "'Kaduva': Power and the English Language Weapon in Sri Lanka". In Honouring E.F.C Ludowyk. Ed. Percy Colin-Thome and Ashley Halpe. Colombo: Thisara Prakashakayo, 1984.

Richards, Jack C. The Context of Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985.

Attachment:

Questionnaire given to teachers.

This is a survey related to a study on Secondary school English teaching in Sri Lanka.

Rate the following statements along a grid of options 1-4. The key to the grid is as follows:

1 – Agree

2 – Agree somewhat

3 – Disagree

4 – Disagree totally

"I'm satisfied with the text book used in this Grade":

1 2 3 4

"Prescribed text books are useful to the students":

1 2 3 4

"The material in text books is relevant to the students":

1 2 3 4

"Students can easily understand and learn the text":

1 2 3 4

"I feel that the text book is too difficult for the average student of this Grade":

1 2 3 4

"The text book is prepared by some people out there who don't know the real levels of our students' proficiency":

1 2 3 4

"I'm happy with the teachers' guide provided me to teach this Grade":

1 2 3 4

"The school gets enough teachers' guides for this Grade":

1 2 3 4

"The teachers' guide helps me in my task of teaching":

1 2 3 4

"The teacher's guide is practical":

1 2 3 4

"The teachers' guide makes my job difficult":

1 2 3 4

"I always work by the teacher's guide":

1 2 3 4

"The teachers' guide is just a guide. It shouldn't be taken too seriously":

1 2 3 4

"I never use the guide. It is not practical":

1 2 3 4

"Students are keen to learn the subject":

1 2 3 4

"Students show a good discipline in class":

1 2 3 4

"It is very hard to teach as the students seem to be at a loss":

1 2 3 4
"I feel the students, by and large, are confused in their learning":
1 2 3 4

"Students don't have the sufficient foundation of English, which should have been given to them in the Primary school":

1 2 3 4

"Students, in general, seem to have a negative reaction to English":

1 2 3 4

"My students interact in English in class":

1 2 3 4

"My teaching is done mainly in English":

1 2 3 4

"It's very difficult to teach the students in English":

1 2 3 4

"The students don't interact in English in class":

1 2 3 4

"There's no point in teaching them in English. One has to ultimately use the mother language for teaching":

1 2 3 4

"The average student cannot use English well":

1 2 3 4

For my benefit –

Your name:

M/F:

Age:

Teaching experience [service years]:
