翻訳をお願いします。
長いのですが、下記の英文を翻訳していただけないでしょうか。
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe aims to globalize Japan’s workforce and says that Japan must become more competitive in the English language. This has touched off a debate among native English teachers, Japanese who teach English, Japanese speakers who don’t speak English, and English sheepdogs owned by both Japanese and English speakers.
On one hand, you have people who ask why Japanese people should be required to study English at all since English is not used in Japan, the country where most students will spend the rest of their lives working for a Japanese company. On the other hand, people say that Japan needs to learn English to keep up with the rest of the world. The few strays not in either camp say, “Woof!”
Whereas internationalization was the big thing a decade or so ago, and droves of students were studying overseas to gain a broader understanding of language and the world, nowadays Japanese people are turning inward, seeking domestic solutions. They’re beginning to think, “Why should I go abroad, risk getting shot or car-jacked by someone in America, when I can just stay and study here in Japan?”
The question is, did all that previous domestic internationalization combined with study abroad make Japanese more competitive in the global workforce? If so, shouldn’t we still be reaping the benefits? Japan seems to have forgotten about this part of its recent history, the results of which could help shape their future in English language education.
In an attempt to get Japanese speaking better English, the Liberal Democratic Party is thinking of doubling the number of Assistant Language Teachers in the next three years. Is that like double mint or double fudge? Twice as much has got to be better? Keep in mind that the number of ALTs was just recently reduced when the Democratic Party of Japan targeted ALTs as “wasteful spending.” Why has no one done any assessments to gauge if the number of ALTs makes a difference in students’ English comprehension?
If the LDP regards native English speakers as vital to teaching the language, as they say they do, then you have to wonder why ALTs aren’t actually teaching any classes themselves. Why must they “team teach” together with a Japanese teacher in the classroom? Certainly in my country we wouldn’t consider having an American teacher in a Spanish language class being taught by a Spanish teacher.
Another proposed change by the LDP is to shift from the current Eiken test used to gauge English proficiency, to using the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) instead because the TOEFL concentrates more on verbal communication skills. Whenever we talk about testing, people invariably point out that tests aren’t very accurate at testing language communicability.
Others argue that the more test-oriented English is, the more students will hate studying English. Well, English is not a disease and no one has yet died from studying it. Lots of students hate broccoli, studying, getting out of bed in the morning and walking the dog. And someday they’ll have to do all of those things before leaving for work in the morning!
I realize that students already take enough exams. Furthermore, they have to pass tests to receive their yellow belt, green belt or black belts in martial arts. There are university entrance exams, driver’s tests and maybe someday, lie detector tests. After they get married, their spouses will test them on their spending habits while their children will forever test their patience. And we’re complaining about a TOEFL test? Even if they do not pass the TOEFL test with flying colors, it’s not the end of the world, so we should not act like it is.
Yes, it would be nice if there were no tests at all. There would be less stress for students and less work for teachers, who could then focus on teaching more communicative competency, the ultimate goal of English communication. But students would never study if there weren’t tests!
