Pakistan is a multilingual and multi-ethnic country whereby English is the official language
and Urdu is the national language. It has five different school systems, which operate in
parallel and practice different media of instruction. Such different school systems reflect the
various socio economic status of the students. Consequently, this study focuses on the lowfee
English-medium private schools that cater to children largely from low-income
backgrounds. The number of low-fee schools has exponentially proliferated over the last two
decades, almost ten-fold as estimates suggest. One out of three school-going children attends
private schools. Low-fee schools use an English language curriculum and advertise
themselves as English-medium, which motivates parents from low-income families to enrol
their children wanting them to learn English because it is the ‘passport to privileges’. This
study examines the straight-for-English policy these schools adopt, although, researchers in
bi/multilingual education propose a mother-tongue based policy at primary level, a language
familiar to children, the one to which they have maximum exposure in their social
environment. The study addressed three aspects of the policy: perceptions of stakeholders
about straight-for-English policy, English-teaching and learning practices and children’s
exposure to English. Employing a mixed methodology involving questionnaires, interviews,
observations and field notes, the study surveyed 11 schools in Quetta city, Pakistan. The
respondents consisted of 245 students from high-secondary classes, 8 teachers, 11 school
principals, and 9 expert observers. The study used mixed methodology with a triangulation
research design. Two different perceptions emerge from the data where students, teachers
and school principals strongly endorse the current straight-for-English policy presuming that
the earlier the child gets exposed to the English language, the better. However, language
policy experts express concerns over straight-for-English policy and recommend mother
iv
tongue based multilingual policy. They propose that the formulation of the medium of
instruction policy must be contextualized considering theory, research, available human
resources, and the sociocultural and socioeconomic realities of children. The current policy
can be elusive and ill-informed as it does not take into account any of the above conditions.
In practice, English is not used meaningfully and substantively in classroom transactions,
which can be helpful in learning the language as purported in policy and presumed by
supporters of the policy. In fact, teachers use Urdu language to teach English. On the other
hand, reading practice is usually a chorus repetition, while writing is limited to copying from
textbooks and examination is rote-learning based. As a result, the writing ability of students
stands below average. The children learn a translated bookish English with no
communicative potential; their learning of content is imitative, not interpretive and the use
of English can be symbolic and pretentious. Belonging predominantly to illiterate and semiliterate
parental backgrounds, barring a negligible number, vast majority of children have no
exposure to English at home. The study concludes that straight-for-English policy needs to
be reviewed as it suffers from mismatches in terms of theory, practice and sociocultural
landscapes of students. It might be better if children are taught in their mother tongues at
least in the primary level