LANGUAGE AND EVALUATION POLICIES POSITION PAPER

Flor Emilce Castellanos Perilla

Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana UPB
Master in Learning and Teaching Processes in Second Languages
Evaluation in Second Language Contexts
Professor Juan Diego Martinez Marin
September 14th, 2023
 LANGUAGE AND EVALUATION POLICIES POSITION PAPER

A policy is a textual expression of power (Levinson, 2016) formulated by

governmental authorities to convey decisions on public issues. In general, policies
are intended to specify what, where, when, and how a decision will be implemented.
Additionally, they are enacted in various forms, including laws, regulations,
programs, guidelines, and other types of legal documents, with the aim of engaging
people in their acceptance. Thereby, policies are initiatives that take shape within
institutions and communities when implementers interpret and appropriate them
(Levinson, 2016). Nonetheless, in Colombia, there are evident misconceptions and
criticisms regarding education policies, along with a noticeable gap between these
policies and their implementation in schools.

The Colombian Ministry of Education (MEN) has introduced various policies

aimed at regulating and enhancing teaching, learning, evaluation, and bilingualism
within the national educational system. These top-down decisions have determined
what languages should be legitimized, used, learned, and taught (Shohamy, 2005).
In Colombia, these language policies encompass the Colombian Framework for
English (COFE), the introduction of Curricular Guidelines (1999), the National Plan of
Bilingualism (2004), the establishment of Foreign Language Standards (2006), Law
of Bilingualism (2013), the Program for Strengthening the Development of
Competences in Foreign Languages (2014), National Plan of English: Colombia Very
Well (2014), Bilingual Colombia (2014), the Basic Learning Rights (2016), and the
Suggested Curriculum (2016).

Among the aforementioned language policies, the most prominent and well-
accepted has been the National Plan of Bilingualism (2004-2019). The NPB was
launched in 2004 as a response to Globalization (Valencia, 2013) to foster the
development of English communicative skills under comparable global standards. In
fact, it could be said that this policy is just a government direction focused on political
and economic aspects rather than democratic decisions focused on the country’s
context (Gómez, 2017). Consequently, it is undeniable that in the NPB there is more
foreign intervention than local participation, English was not chosen under
democratic parameters, and this policy represents a lucrative business for some
entities.
 One of the most relevant aspects associated with the National Plan of
Bilingualism (NPB) is the adoption of the Common European Framework of
Reference (CEFR) to suggest how to learn, teach, and assess the target language.
This framework was the result of decades of developments in language education in
Europe (Cambridge University, 2011), so it is not reasonable to compare the creation
of this theoretical framework for the elaboration of any language programs in Europe
with the imposition of it in Colombia just to teach English. The adoption of the CEFR
does not match Colombian language teaching, learning, and assessment due to
different reasons. On the one side, the CEFR was created given the transnational
mobility conditions in Europe that allow citizens to communicate themselves in
different languages while for most Colombians, traveling abroad to practice a target
language is somewhat impossible.

As a result of the implementation of the NPB along with the Common

European Framework, English instruction in Colombia focuses on standardized tests
rather than developing communicative skills or promoting intercultural exchange. On
the other hand, English expected scores, which change with every policy, are
inconsistent with one of the principles of the CEFR that highlights the promotion of a
positive assessment of learners given that everything learners can do in a foreign
language should be important in the learning process (CEFR, 2001). As such,
teaching English must be an instrument to foster intercultural relations rather than
being focused on standardized tests as it is happening after the implementation of
the NPB.

The appropriation of this policy has been so strong that even the standards
are still used to design classes and courses, and the CEFR levels are considered to
learn, teach, and assess the target language.

First, they are government directions focused on political and economic

aspects rather than democratic decisions focused on the country’s context. Second,
each policy has crossed the previous one, so continuity has been affected. Third,
foreign intervention. Fourth, the privileged position of English. Fifth, the perception
that these policies are part of a lucrative business. Finally, although not less
important, the omission of teachers’ voices (Gómez, 2017). Apart from the above
mentioned criticisms, the diffusion of language policies has been scarce; in fact, I
only knew a little about The National Program of Bilingualism (2004-2019), along
with the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)
and the publication of the Standards (2006) to regulate language teaching.

are part of the government agenda to help individuals be more competent and
competitive in a globalized world and improve the quality of English teaching. Since
these plans aim to have citizens able to communicate in English with international
standards, the Ministry of Education adopted the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR)

Although all the criticisms are equally relevant, I will discuss the
implementation of the CEFR that was adopted but not adapted to our context. It is
worth mentioning that it was the result of decades of developments in language
education in Europe (Cambridge University, 2011), so it is not reasonable to
compare the creation of this theoretical framework for the elaboration of any
language programs with the imposition of it in Colombia just to teach English.
Furthermore, while it works for Europeans in terms of multilingualism and
multiculturalism, being bilingual in Colombia has become an impossible dream that
did not come true in 2014 (PFDCLE), 2018 (Colombia Very Well), 2019 (PNB), and
will not either real by 2025 (English National Plan). For sure, there will be another
language policy before a bilingual nation.

The adoption of the CEFR does not match Colombian language teaching,
learning, and assessment needs due to different reasons. On the one side, the
CEFR was created given the transnational mobility conditions in Europe that allow
citizens to communicate themselves in different languages while traveling abroad to
practice a target language is somewhat impossible for most Colombians. As a result,
English instruction in Colombia focuses on standardized tests rather than developing
communicative skills or promoting intercultural exchange. On another side, English
expected scores, which change with every policy, are inconsistent with one of the
principles of the CEFR that highlights the promotion of a positive assessment of
learners given that everything learners can do in a foreign language must be
important in the learning process. Thereby, teaching English must be an instrument
to foster intercultural relations rather than being focused on standardized tests (as
cited by Bonilla and Cruz, 2016).

The implementation of foreign strategies to teach English such as the use of

the CEFR is discriminatory and it affects both teachers and students, especially in
rural areas since there are sociocultural, economic, and political aspects as well as
challenges faced by school agents that are not considered at all (Bonilla and Cruz,
2016). Thus, at the end of the day, the gap between rural and urban areas gets
wider and wider due to the imported discourses, models, approaches, and practices
within the country’s policies that hinder the inclusion and promotion of the languages
spoken in our country (Robayo and Libia, 2017).

Shohamy, E. (2005). Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches

(1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387962