Introduction/History of the program:

English Language Programs (ELP) became a foundation program (in 1994) out of necessity, and, to this very day it has been run out of necessity. Very early on, the foundations realized that it was hard to foster programs directly related to building open societies if these programs—many of which necessarily included a significant international component&$151;were accessible only to people who had a good command of English. Forging open societies relies to a considerable degree on the ability of educated local people to communicate successfully with the world beyond their most immediate state and/or regional boundaries.

Knowing that other international organizations (primarily British Council) run English language programs, George Soros was reluctant to establish a full fledged ELP in the Soros foundation network. However, because of the growing interest among the foundations to establish English/foreign language schools, and, indeed, in getting highly qualified EFL teachers who are native speakers of English, in March 1994, ELP was established and given the status of a New York–based network/regional program. From a financial point of view, this consisted of a network/regional component, SPELT, and a national component, SELP.

Soros English Language Program (SELP) focuses on country-specific needs for English language support, and is nationally budgeted.

Soros Professional English Language Teaching (SPELT) provides the countries in the foundation network with Masters degree EFL specialists who are native speakers of English. They teach English at local schools at all levels and, perhaps more importantly, bring modern teaching methodology not only to the capitals and major cities, but also to small far-off places.

Mission: The mission of OSI/Soros English Language Programs is to promote English language learning and teaching in the countries of the foundation network because a good command of English is necessary for international communication which is critical for building open societies.

Goals: OSI/Soros English Language Programs have two overall goals:

• To provide English language support to actual and potential participants in other foundation programs including, but not limited to, education and academic programs, scholarships, medical, media, and civil society; or, George Soros has put it, to provide support to "something else people want to do and need English for;"
• To upgrade English language learning and teaching so that new generations of young professionals, and educated people in general, will not need additional foreign language training once they complete their education. This is our long-term goal.

Guidelines of the program (SELP and SPELT): In late 1994 the following guidelines for ELP were agreed upon (by the NY program management and foundation network), and approved by George Soros:

• That the national SELP and network/regional SPELT work very closely together and complement each other, i.e., that the network SPELT be integrated in the national SELP in terms of providing the necessary international component to the national program’s endeavors.
• That the development of ELP must be based on a comprehensive EL needs assessment for each and every country in which the foundation wants to develop SELP and participate in SPELT. These needs assessments have been updated biannually.
• That ELP should not duplicate or overlap with other international efforts in the ELP field. Rather, the foundations should seek collaboration, on a partnership basis, with all international and local governmental and non-governmental organizations engaged in ELP development.
• That the NY management of ELP should provide professional guidance and oversight of the program development, monitor its cost-effectiveness, set the standards for the program’s ongoing evaluation (evaluation was defined as a tool for program improvement), develop the program’s exit strategy targeting impact (rather than just the intrinsic value of projects) and sustainability of ELP projects, make sure that the program continuously supports the general mission of OSI/Soros Foundations (primarily in that the program stay socially inclusive, i.e., accessible to all segments of society in as many regions of the country as possible.)
• That the establishment and development of English/foreign language schools must be based on a three-year business plan reviewed and approved by New York prior to the establishment of a school.
• That the schools may charge tuition fees in order to become self-supporting but may not become socially exclusive, i.e., their fees need to be affordable to an average income family.
• That the schools will be funded for up to three years (on a sliding scale) and, within this period, will be declared self-supporting (and get off the foundation funding) when their income breaks even with their expenses.
• That SPELT fellows need to engage in regular professional extra-curricular activities, i.e., week-end and summer teacher training workshops and seminars, so that a large number of local EFL teachers may benefit from SPELT.
• That ELP priorities be established by country and across the network so that the program may be developed systematically and with an end in sight.
• That local ELP expert committees be established in all countries in which SELP annual budget allocation exceeds $50,000.00.

Needs for English language support: According to the by-country needs analyses, English language support should address the following:

• General lack of good command of English although English is taught from elementary school to secondary school to higher education (usually for 12-14 years, with modest results);
• Un- or underqualified EFL teachers; (Good EFL teachers leave the profession for better paid jobs.)
• Qualified teachers whose command of English is very poor or whose English is not poor but they lack communicative classroom teaching skills/methodology.
• Complete lack or lack of adequate EFL course books and other teaching materials and resources;
• No modern curriculum for in-service teacher training/development;
• Lack of qualified ESP (English for specific purposes) teachers, which is the reason young professionals need extensive additional EFL training if they need English in their job.
• Absence of or very old and ineffective English department university curricula.

General strategy: To address these needs and achieve ELP goals we have continually used our financial assistance strategically, i.e., as a tool to gradually lessen beneficiary dependency; continue supporting commercially viable private initiatives in education; as well as further encourage utilizing SPELT teaching fellows beyond teaching English, in ways that not only broaden students’ views, but also enhance local teachers’ professional performance.

Moreover, as a crucial matter of our ELP exit strategy, we have endeavored to build local capacity so that our programs may live on long after the foundations are gone. Therefore, we have identified our program’s stakeholders and developed both SELP and SPELT in a way that allows our projects to be taken over by local organizations (pedagogical universities, or the ministry teacher retraining facility, or local teachers’ associations) without much difficulty. We have also developed projects over which local people may claim ownership (foreign language schools) and, thus, become motivated to secure the future of these projects when the foundations cease to exist.

Exit strategy criteria: Foundations may safely disengage when we:

• Manage to empower local EFL teachers, via internationally recognized teacher training programs, to become teacher trainers, and take over pre- and in-service in-country EFL teacher training. (e.g. Romania)
• Secure the future for the foundation-established schools for English/foreign languages by helping them become self-supporting within three years of their existence. As of the end of 1999, schools that may not survive without the foundation financial assistance will be either sold/privatized or closed down upon review of their financial status. Of 20 schools established in 10 countries of the foundation network, 12 have become self-suporting.
• Spin off viable ELP projects. For example, with the foundation’s assistance local EFL teachers’ associations may develop income-generating projects (translation and interpreting services, and/or foreign EFL book sales) which will help them not only survive without further foundation assistance but also take over the foundation ELP projects such as ESP (English for specific purposes) and teacher training. In a few countries, teachers’ associations have also managed to find alternative sources of funding. (e.g. In Latvia, teachers’ association is no longer funded by the foundation because the association receives funds from the British Council and USIS.)

Sustainability: English language programs may become self-supporting faster and more easily than other foundation programs because they have a great potential to develop income-generating projects.

In more concrete terms, individual project sustainability is discussed in the foundations’ individual strategy papers.

As for spin-offs, English/foreign language schools have been gradually spun off. Teacher associations have a potential not only to fundraise but also to develop income-generating projects (e.g. translation and interpreting services) which may, in terms of financial viability, secure their future. Teacher training need not be spun off because it is about capacity building. Once our work is completed in this program area, many existing local education institutions will have the capacity to take over, maintain and further these efforts.

Systemic impact: Given the ELP stakeholders, we have every reason to believe that our efforts in the fields of teacher training (pedagogical universities, secondary schools, ministry retraining facilities, private sector), as well as foreign language curriculum design (universities) will have systemic impact. Soros English/foreign language schools have also been involved (as consultants) in different government organized discussions on the modernization of foreign language curricula, teaching materials and methodology within state education.

Collaboration with other donors: Across the network, ELP has been collaborating with almost all international and local organizations that are involved in the development of English/foreign language programs. Our most successful collaborative efforts to date include, but are not limited to, projects with British Council (teacher training, teaching material development, and teacher resource centers in all countries that have BC), Peace Corps (upgrading EFL teachers’ English), USIA (very few workshops with USIS fellows), French, German, Italian and Spanish embassies and cultural centers (introduction of foreign languages other than English).

ELP priorities: Aware of the budget constraints ELP has always had, we have endeavored to develop an exemplary program that will support the overall mission of OSI, upgrade general command of English via sustainable projects, and address the EFL needs of other foundation programs.

To meet these ambitious objectives in the most efficient and effective way, the priorities for ELP have been identified as follows:

• Teacher training: pre-and in- service;
• English/foreign language schools;
• Teachers’ Associations;
• >Support to other OSI and/or foundation programs and initiatives

Teacher training:
In the field of teacher training, we proposed a three-step plan of action in 1996. This plan was favorably reviewed by the management of the foundations as well as by the OSI Board in New York (at the 1997 budget review held in December 1996). Our plan is as follows:

• In the first step we train as many local EFL teachers as possible. The eventual goal of this teacher training is that the best of our trained local teachers may qualify for further training to become teacher trainers, which takes place in the second step of this project. In the first step which is currently in progress, an array of very successful teacher training projects have been organized in different parts of the foundation network.
• In the second step the best of the trained teachers across the network compete to get on a teacher trainers’ program either in the US or in the UK. Upon completion of this program, the first few generations of local teacher trainers will run teacher training for two consecutive summers across the foundation network (not only in their own countries). Before they are sent abroad, the successful candidates commit to this obligation.
• In the third step the best of the local teacher trainers compete to participate in the final phase of professional training, the one that allows them to become trainer trainers.

This three-step action plan for teacher training will help us create a staircase-like structure of local professionals who will be able and internationally qualified to take over local teacher in-service education. The most significant benefit of this plan is that it will enable us to empower local teachers to be on the same level as their professional counterparts in the English-speaking world.

Moreover, if we create a local structure of top notch EFL specialists in teacher training, our foundations’ efforts in the field of education transformation may benefit from their expertise as well. EFL teacher training skills are transferable and applicable to other content subjects (as is proven in Moldova by the results of the above mentioned teacher training).

English/foreign language schools: These schools were first established to provide alternative high quality foreign language instruction which would complement rather than substitute foreign language programs provided by the state education. In addition to the general English courses, these schools offer an array of ESP courses to young professionals, tailor-made courses for the emerging local corporate world, and foreign language courses for young learners (pre-school and elementary school level). Several of these schools also offer courses of local language(s). By and large, the target student population of these schools consists of secondary school and university students, and young professionals.

As mentioned above, these schools are income-generating non-profit small businesses. In the countries of the foundation network, the laws regulating the non-profit sector either do not exist or differ considerably from one country to another. It is not easy to be successful running a private non-profit small business in an environment which is unstable and unpredictable both in terms of legislative and economic development. Therefore, our decisions regarding the status of self-supporting schools need to continue to be made on a case-by-case and/or by-country basis.

Download a chart that provides information on the schools in the Soros English/Foreign Language School Network.

Teachers’ Associations: As a vital part of our sunsetting strategy, we have also proposed that the foundations get as involved as possible in the establishment and/or development of teachers’ associations. In addition to the fact that local professional associations are most likely to outlive our presence in the countries of the foundation network, we believe that they may, perhaps sooner that other NGOs, become a factor in the local socio-political scene.

We must be aware of the limits and limitations of what our foundations may do for education in the countries in our foundation network. What we cannot do for local teachers is to change their social status. For as long as the governments in their countries do not reevaluate teaching as a profession, local teachers will continue to be overworked, unappreciated and underpaid, which is the main reason teachers leave the profession for jobs that pay better.

However, what we can and should do for these teachers is assist them in their efforts to change their status by themselves. Unlike individuals or small interest groups, a strong professional association of teachers stands a fair chance to make an impact on the process of governmental decision-making regarding education. Governments in the countries of our foundation network are, for the most part, quite hard up as well. So, for the time being, teachers’ associations may focus on getting governmental recognition for what they do for their country. It is common knowledge that teaching is a vocation, as well as that teachers are reluctant to leave their profession. Therefore, it is realistic to expect that more appreciation for their profession may keep more skilled and devoted teachers in teaching.

The experience of many international organizations shows that projects for which success depends more on local support than on foreign funding, yield better results if they stem from local people and/ or organizations. Therefore, we have not imposed the idea of local teachers’ associations. Rather, we have taken time and worked on this idea, its introduction and implementation country by country. To this end we have used the savvy of the local teachers who have been beneficiaries of our programs, the wisdom of local teachers who teach at the foundation-established schools, and experience of our renewing SPELT fellows, who have become quite knowledgeable of local conditions in education.

Another very important reason for us to support teachers’ associations is that they provide a network of local professionals all over the country who assist our program coordinators in the organization and development of outreach projects (e.g. Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Yugoslavia). Teachers associations also have a great potential for successful spin-off once they become more firmly rooted in the local educational scene.

Support to other OSI and/or foundation programs and initiatives:
Servicing other foundation programs’ needs for English language support has been done on request of and in close collaboration with the foundations and their coordinators of these programs. To date, English language programs have provided support to the following programs: Education (including the International Higher Education Scholarships Program), Scholarships, national and network Media, national and network Medical and Health, Debate, Civil Society, Legal, national and network Library, national and network Arts and Culture, as well as others.

Other services ELP has been providing to the foundation programs:

• TOEFL prep courses and administration of the TOEFL test for scholarships;
• ESP courses for the following national and network programs: Library, Medical, Media, Arts and Culture, Civil Society (English for NGOs, and Legal English);
• EFL support to Internet, HESP (university administrators), OSI-Budapest (EFL summer school for the foundation senior staff and board members);
• EFL component to education programs for the Roma (in several countries in the network);
• ELP support to the women’s rights organizations in several countries.

Expected outcome: To leave behind a structure of internationally qualified local professionals who are able to:

• provide high-quality pre-service EFL teacher training;
• take over in-service teacher training;
• manage successfully self-supporting private schools for foreign languages; (these schools may become hubs for other ELP projects, and they may continue to provide EFL services required by other foundation programs including but not limited to Scholarships, HESP, Library, Media, Medical, and Civil Society programs.); and,
• run and develop an active and conscientious professional association so that our ELP efforts may have a systemic impact that will reach beyond education and gain leverage over local labor and employment policy.(For example, the teachers’ association in Romania has developed standards for high quality foreign language teaching for the private sector. These standards have been approved and made official by the Ministry of Education. Furthermore, this association has been involved in the forging of the Romanian educational policy, and, not less importantly, has initiated a campaign to improve the social status of the teaching profession.)

Evaluation: ELP evaluation has been an ongoing process which includes but is not limited to the following instruments:

Outside evaluation:

• TOEFL scores of our TOEFL preparatory course students;
• Internationally recognized teacher training certificates (e.g. IH C-TEFL and D-TEFL, CEELT, SIT SMAT);
• International House Annual Inspection Report (for SIH schools);
• British Council evaluation of programs we do together;

Inside evaluation:

• Ongoing close collaboration with OSI-New York management;
• mid- and end-of-the-year progress reports;
• SPELT fellows’ and teacher trainers’ reports (two per year);
• Host school’s and program coordinator’s evaluation of SPELT fellows’ and teacher trainers’ performance.