All the talk about teaching Mathematics and Science in the English language makes me wonder if those talking are aware of the realities of classroom teaching.

As a city boy who first taught in a rural school15 years ago, I more or less had a culture shock during my first few weeks. I was thoroughly enthusiastic about wanting to improve the standard of English language in the school where I was one of only four teaching the subject.

I remember making plans for English language competitions, projects, debates, et cetera.

But in my very first lesson for a Form Two class I learnt the hard way what it was really like teaching in a rural school. I wrote the sentence "Michelle went to the market" on the board. I then proceeded to explain the word "market" by talking about selling fish, buying vegetables, et cetera.

Then one kid shouted out pasar (market) and I said betul (correct). Then I tried to explain the word "went" with all sorts of sign-language and gestures and then arrived at the word "go" before explaining the past-tense. And so I thought I had explained the sentence well and that the students had understood what it meant.

I was about to switch to the next sentence when a kid from the back of the class asked: " Cikgu, apa itu Michelle? " (Teacher, what's Michelle?) These were 15-year-olds, mind you (they did an additional year in "Remove" class since they came from vernacular primary schools).

So, when decision makers talk about introducing classical English literature or importing native speakers to teach the language, I think they ought to go spend a few weeks in the classrooms first.

It is not the same for kids in a classroom in the city where they are exposed to English daily as for kids in the kampung where hardly anyone uses English.

Another time I tried to introduce the reading of newspapers. I then found out this meant the kids had to go out and buy the newspapers, since their families didn't have them. But they returned to tell me that the newspapers had sold out in the village, where daily supply is no more than a dozen or so copies.

Even some of those teaching English have problems. I remember setting exam papers which were in general quite innovative, as it would involve puzzles and word-games. But, by no means difficult, since they were geared to the Form One and Two levels, by kampung standards, that is.

Some of the other teachers were so intrigued by the exams that they too attempted to answer the questions (since they had to sit through to invigilate the exams anyway). And believe me, most of the time they got only 80 or 90 percent correct. That's the standard of our teachers today.

While at teacher's training college, about half of my colleagues in the English Option class could not string together two sentences in English without making mistakes. I remember a friend who was sent to a convent school for her teaching practice.

Every week she would ask for help in correcting the students' essays. That poor woman could not speak English well and so resorted to giving plenty of written assignments in class so she need not do much actual teaching. However, she then had to do something about all the assignments and so asked for help as she could not understand what the kids were writing.

Of course, it would be safe to presume that the kids studying in a city convent — even if only in Form One or Two — speak and write much more in English than the teacher.

What's my point? By all means, encourage the use of English...but don't neglect to look at the resources we have to work with and see if they can deliver the miracles we hope for.