Needs based programming and the provision of English language tuition in the AMEP

One of the most significant developments in the AMEP in recent years has been the emphasis placed upon Needs-Based Programming (NBP). The subject of at least one major report, this approach has received considerable funding for research, inservice, materials and program development. It has placed new demands upon AMEP teachers necessitating increases in teacher release from classroom duties.

While the aim of better meeting the needs of immigrants from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB) is undeniably valid, there has been very little debate in Australia either about the educational validity of NBP itself or about its efficiency.

The adoption of a needs-based approach raises serious issues. The fundamental issue is an educational one: we argue that the approach is mistaken in the light of recent research. We also have economic and political reservations about the approach’s suitability for the AMEP regardless of its educational validity. Even if language learning were viable via NBP, that it is less efficient for the AMEP—in that it is less cost-effective, and less equitable, than existing alternatives—is discussed in later sections of this article.

Before proceeding to examine the concept, however, we wish to state our agreement with many of the general principles currently being articulated throughout the AMEP: the ideas of encouraging learner autonomy and of courses being responsive to students’ needs.

We further agree that students at the more advanced level (ASLPR 2) could profit from concentrating their studies on particular areas of linguistic need, provided such courses are well designed. However, the majority of AMEP students fall far below this level and cutbacks in course entitlements and lengths mean that few will reach such a level during their course of study within the AMEP. The arguments which follow are consequently directed against NBP at the beginner and intermediate language proficiency levels.

Examples are drawn from the practices of AMES (New South Wales) and the Department of Technical and Further Education (TAFE) in New South Wales, but this should not limit the validity of the argument for other states.