After six years at middle and high school, students should be able to hold a conversation in English, but it doesn’t work that way in this country. That's why we are switching from English for entranc

Well, he's right about that first thing for sure. But we really need to clamp down on the phrase "...communicate with people in foreign countries." That, and "practice speaking" just reinforce the idea that language is only a subject to study; and that it's Japan vs. The World.

Heard it all before. Time to stop flogging a dead horse and stop wasting time and money. Most can't speak it, many are not particularly interested in speaking it, many would freeze like a deer in headlights if they ever had to speak it and most importantly, most don't need to speak it. Make it an option.

Is there such a thing as a "non-foreign" country?

Is there such a thing as a "non-foreign" country?

Yes, many people refer to them as their own countries.

Nice to see an eduction minister who 'gets it'. English for the purpose of passing a test is absolutely meaningless. The whole point of a language is to enable communication between people, and knowing test English doesn't do that, which is why almost no Japanese people come out of six years of English schooling being able to answer much more than the absolute simplest questions (and sometimes not even that) when verbally asked in English.

The question is whether the recognition of this fact will lead to effective implementation to solve this problem. This guy faces a status quo that will push back hard if/when he tries to change things, and as leaders in this country do not have much power, I could see things continuing on much the way they are now. I hope to be proven wrong though.

Doesn't matter about starting early, the entire Japanese education system is based on remembering everything and not learning. It is so bad that the teachers only have to say "remember everything in this book and you will get 100%"... There is no learning involved.

Is there such a thing as a "non-foreign" country?

Yes, many people refer to them as their own countries.

My point was would they say actually say non-foreign country when referring to their own country. The term foreign country is totally redundant and unnecessary... See what I did there?

I'm in shock - a Japanese politician that actually makes sense !!! There's still hope around here...

Heard it all before. Time to stop flogging a dead horse and stop wasting time and money. Most can't speak it, many are not particularly interested in speaking it, many would freeze like a deer in headlights if they ever had to speak it and most importantly, most don't need to speak it. Make it an option.

Agreed! Nothing will improve unless there is a complete change in the system and approach as to how English is taught, but after living so long in Japan, you are right, just make it an option, that way you can cut the cost, saving a lot of grief and frustration. Many Japanese are often so surprised when some foreigners speak semi fluent or fluent Japanese as if it's the hardest language in the world, when in actuality it is rather quite an easy language to learn. Not to mention, many think you're a genius or super intellect if you can speak 2 or 3 or even more foreign languages.

The term foreign country is totally redundant and unnecessary...

How would you say it? You could say 'other countries', 'overseas countries' or whatever. There is nothing wrong with saying foreign countries.

See what I did there?

No, I don't. I still do not get your point.

As to this quote, I think it is a great thing for the goal to be communication, but I do not understand what people mean by 'test English'. English on the tests is real English. It is not the content of the tests that is the problem. It is the way it is taught. Spending 50 minutes speaking in Japanese during a class is hardly the way to teach any kind of English be it with the goal of communication or passing a test.

There should be interview tests that actually require real reactions and interactions in English. Do that and you will automatically have more teachers teaching the students with the goal of them being able to communicate.

How can you expect the students to hold a conversation in English when their teachers can't hold a conversation in English?

One hour a week with charisma man on top of four hours a week learning Katakana English ain't exactly the recipe for success.

All these goofball politicians can make all the claims they want, but unless they SIGNIFICANTLY UPROOT and change the education system, it's all lip service.

slumdog - Yes, English on the tests is real English, but the tests to enter universities in Japan do not prepare students to communicate with others overseas. So many of the students who do well on the English entrance examinations are not able to have the most basic of conversations. The content on the test is important because they do not measure the ability to communicate. They measure their ability to comprehend grammar and long reading passages, but the tests do not show ability to communicate, so the content or how they are being tested is important. Everyone agrees that interview tests are needed, but no one wants to spend the money nor the time that would require when they only have two days that the tests are administered as they are now.

As for "foreign countries," maybe you shouldn't be commenting on something related to English education. Unnecessary and redundant are synonyms. Saying foreign country is redundant. All countries are foreign. The adjective is unnecessary. Politicians and others use the term to place a negative label on countries that are not their own. We should be using "other countries," but we should NOT be using "overseas countries." You're being redundant again. It should be "overseas" or "abroad." Why is it necessary to label other countries as "foreign?"

Yes, English on the tests is real English, but the tests to enter universities in Japan do not prepare students to communicate with others overseas. So many of the students who do well on the English entrance examinations are not able to have the most basic of conversations.

You should read my post again. You've added nothing that I did not write in my post above. You could have just agreed with me and it would have been more concise.

However, to add, someone who can use English naturally will almost always do better on an English test than someone who can't use the language and just studied to pass the test.

Unnecessary and redundant are synonyms

However, foreign is not unnecessary and it is not redundant.

Why is it necessary to label other countries as "foreign?"

You can also say 'other' as well. As I already pointed out to you. However, people do correctly say foreign and foreign language and there is nothing wrong with it.

Politicians and others use the term to place a negative label on countries that are not their own.

That is not how it is being used here. You are reading a negative where there is none.

I did add to it. You just chose to copy and paste the part where I agreed with you. The part after that talked about the content where you said the content of the tests weren't a problem. The content on the tests are a problem.

Explain how foreign country is not redundant and unnecessary when ALL countries are foreign? Why is it necessary to say foreign when talking about other countries? How does it add to the discourse? Using the word "foreign" is a pejorative by definition and just because something is correct or accepted does not mean it is not redundant or unnecessary. There is a definite connotation to using the word and though this politician might not mean anything by it because it's so fixed in the way he speaks does not mean people should ignore how language is used.

I have no problem in using the term foreign when referring to culture, business, trade, commerce or almost any other noun, but the word country itself refers to any country outside one's own, therefore foreign.

The content on the tests are a problem.

How so? What is wrong with the English content that is used? Similar tests are used in countries such as Finland and they have a fine English language program. I suggested that an interview is necessary and you glossed over that part. If the tests contained a bunch of nonsensical English, you would have a point, but that is not the case. The problem is how classes are taught and what is focused on in the classes.

Why is it necessary to say foreign when talking about other countries?

It is necessary to put a word to modify countries in front of the word countries.

but the word country itself refers to any country outside one's own, therefore foreign.

I love countries = I love foreign countries? I don't think so. The second sentence is more natural to me.

does not mean people should ignore how language is used.

I see a lot of people writing about foreign countries they would like to visit on the net and none seem to mean the word in a bad way. I think you are making way too much of this.

Could we not get into a semantic pissing contest, guys? As for the comment by Shimomura, the exact same thing has been said by every Education Minister for the last 20 years. Nothing substantial has changed (in public education). Some private schools are able to innovate, but the rank and file in public schools are consistently screwed over.

'Nice to see an education minister who 'gets it'. They've been trotting out this more 'communicative' approach to English education for as long as I've been here. I suppose looking at Japan's woeful English level ( in terms of test scores and spoken ability ) it doesn't take much to 'get it' that things need drastic improvement. Sadly, sod all will be done about it apart from a few more hours of being taught by teachers who aren't proficient in spoken English to begin with. More blather from politicians trying to look forward thinking.

Sadly, sod all will be done about it apart from a few more hours of being taught by teachers who aren't proficient in spoken English to begin with. More blather from politicians trying to look forward thinking.

I don't know. Is it really true that most Japanese English teachers cannot speak English? I have met some and they seemed to communicate just fine. I believe it is the teacher training and the course curriculum that is the problem in most cases. Adding a spoken factor in the equation that is the entrance process for universities would help to change this. However, it is my impression that the general level of communication skills among teachers has improved. Perhaps it is the teaching methods that need to be addressed now. This includes how teachers are taught to teach in colleges and universities and a much longer teaching practicum.

You know, I'm starting to think that the Japanese govt. really doesn't want an English-fluent population ... because you know what will happen if all the bright young people of Japan actually master English? They'll leave Japan and never come back, that's what!

They'll leave Japan and never come back, that's what!

Nah, I don't think so. There are plenty of Japanese people who are fluent in English, have been overseas, came back and live happily in Japan. Aren't you in Japan? You're fluent in English, aren't you?

They will need to sack 90% of the English teaching staff start from scratch.

Most of the teachers only know how to teach using grammar and memorization.

bigfujiyama is correct. You can't turn the system around unless secondary school English teachers themselves can speak English and it's a fact that most (maybe not 90%) can't. And until the college curriculum requires a junior year abroad in an English language speaking country for people studying to be English teachers, nothing will change. It's nearly impossible to become fluent in any language without some immersion. The current system requires that they only teach to the test. Most students who are serious about learning English as a conversational language attend eikawai, for what that's worth.

Do people really believe most Japanese English teachers still do not speak English? Perhaps they are not the same as native speakers, but I do not think they are as bad as people are claiming anymore. It is the system and the way English is taught. Even a native English speaker can be a bad teacher if they do not know how to teach.