Survey of English proficiency of teachers: Doing it right is not enough, need to be professional!

In April, the Ho Chi Minh City Department of Education and Training conducted an online survey of English proficiency for teachers teaching at public primary, secondary and high schools in the area. According to the Department's leaders, the core purpose of this survey is to assess the current situation, not to test individual proficiency.

However, as Dan Tri newspaper reported, the implementation of a large-scale survey with 73,000 teachers was limited by technical errors, the timing was not suitable, and the survey questions were too difficult, not close to the reality of teaching work to see how teachers use English in teaching and self-study?

Surveying all teachers, including those who do not teach English, leaves many feeling pressured and unsure of what the ultimate goal is.

About 73,000 teachers in Ho Chi Minh City have just taken an English proficiency test (Illustration: Hoai Nam).

First of all, it is necessary to affirm that the policy of assessing English proficiency for teachers is correct. But the above story, in my opinion, is a vivid proof that doing the right thing is not enough, it also needs to be done professionally. And more importantly, education needs long-term visionary steps, not hasty, hasty decisions.

Looking back, this is not an isolated case. It recalls similar incidents that have occurred in many previous teacher training and development projects, including the Project "Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages ​​in the National Education System".

More than 10 years ago, when conducting English proficiency surveys to develop a roadmap for English teacher training, instead of classifying them into groups - primary and secondary English teachers - most survey units used a common TOEFL-style test (ETS's international English proficiency test) or similar. This inadvertently created unnecessary pressure and was even counterproductive.

In reality, an elementary school English teacher only needs to have clear, standardized pronunciation and guide students in basic listening and speaking skills. They do not need to achieve the level of academic reading comprehension or complex essay writing required by a TOEFL test.

When the survey exceeds the practical needs of the job position, it not only wastes training resources but also distorts the goals of professional development.

The confusion in assessing competency that arises from a chronic illness is a failure to understand or refuse to understand the fundamental principles of Training Needs Assessment.

A professional process cannot stop at the question: "What do they lack?" but must go deeper: "In their current position, what do they need to complete their professional tasks?". Training is not to "satisfy a general standard" that is far from reality, but must come from specific job requirements.

The survey of teachers' English proficiency by the Ho Chi Minh City Department of Education and Training also raises concerns about standardizing job positions.

A modern education system must develop a professional competency framework for each type of teacher. Each grade level, each subject, and even each career ladder (new teachers, homeroom teachers, subject group leaders, principals, etc.) requires specific, clear, and measurable criteria.

Only then will the survey be truly meaningful when it is the right person, the right skill, the right target. And from the survey results, the work of building a new training program will have a scientific basis, avoiding the situation of "teachers attending classes to meet the quota" but in the end cannot be applied to actual teaching.

The lesson to be learned is not just for English. This is a common lesson for all teacher training and development programs, from improving professional capacity and pedagogical skills, to digital transformation, STEAM education (interdisciplinary teaching combining arts with traditional subjects), and integrated interdisciplinary education.

A successful training program must adhere to at least three principles.

The first principle is to survey the needs according to job position : It is impossible to apply a general assessment and survey style to all teachers. It is necessary to base on the specific professional characteristics of each target group to design appropriate survey content.

The second principle is to define practical, applicable output standards : Competency criteria must be closely linked to work practice. For example, requiring a math teacher to know how to read technical documents in English is completely different from requiring an English teacher to guide students in writing essays.

Third principle, design a personalized, tiered training program : There needs to be a different roadmap for each group of teachers, from basic knowledge training to advanced skills development. It is impossible to force everyone to participate in a uniform, one-sided program.

If these principles are not followed, it is easy for teachers to lose faith in the training program, education leaders to struggle to correct mistakes, and financial resources, time, and effort to be wasted.

Broadly speaking, any reform in education, whether big or small, needs to start from practical surveys, scientific analysis and the construction of a tight roadmap.

The desire to “make English a second language” or “complete digital transformation” are all noble goals. But if implemented unprofessionally and without respect for the specific nature of teachers’ work, the result can be silent resistance and failure in practice.

Any educational reform, no matter how well-intentioned, will fail without practical understanding and professionalism in implementation. To successfully train teachers, it is not possible to "just do it for the sake of it", but must be done thoroughly, from needs survey to program design.

We live in an age when education cannot afford to be subjected to random experimentation by amateurs.

Education is a journey of planting and nurturing, not of skipping steps, and certainly not of racing to find achievements, hastily innovating and doing things too much.

Author : Dr. Hoang Ngoc Vinh, former Director of the Department of Vocational Education, Ministry of Education and Training.

The FOCUS column hopes to receive readers' comments on the content of the article. Please go to the Comments section and share your thoughts. Thank you!

Source: https://dantri.com.vn/tam-diem/khao-sat-nang-luc-tieng-anh-giao-vien-lam-dung-chua-du-can-chuyen-nghiep-20250507195644601.htm