Merging English Home Language and First Additional Language curricula: Implications for future quality assurance practices

Abstract South Africa has a uniquely differentiated English curriculum in a bid to cater for diverse proficiency levels prevalent among its learner population. While this stride made sense in a population with one of the highest inequalities in the world, it is equally important to reflect on whether the differentiated systems do serve the purpose of equal access in relation to the quality of provision. Surprisingly, very little research has been carried out to validate the merits of this curriculum and assessment differentiation to date. In this paper, I report on Umalusi’s commissioned study on English curriculum benchmarking with three countries: Kenya, Singapore and Canada. This four-country case analysis focuses on curriculum goals and the depth and breadth of English Home Language (EHL) and English First Additional Language (EFAL). The results of the analysis show that the objectives of EFAL and EHL are largely similar and that both compare favourably with these subjects taught in the three other countries under investigation. However, framing the study within theories of language acquisition and language variation, I argue that the EFAL/EHL differentiation at both curriculum and assessment levels is unmerited and serves the opposite intent: deepening inequalities and access to the English language. In the end, useful recommendations for repackaging an assessment of English into one that takes account of its diverse learner population are advanced and further research opportunities are highlighted.


Introduction
The differences between what is traditionally referred to as a first language (L1) and a second language (L2) have received a plethora of research attention, both in psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics fields for more than 70 years (Pan and Liu 2019;Godfroid and Hopp 2022). Psycholinguists focus on cognitive dimensions and access to language, on the one hand, and sociolinguists draw attention to stratification and cultural socio-dimensions in language variation, on the other hand (Preston et al. 2022). Despite this balanced body of knowledge, language curriculum choices and related assessment regimes do not always follow the research direction in these fields due to contextual policy expediencies and the changing environments that no longer fit within traditional language boundaries (Umalusi 2008;Dhillon and Wanjiru 2013). South Africa is one such country that has differentiated curriculum offerings for English. There are two broad categories: English Home Language (EHL) and English First Additional Language (EFAL) (Umalusi 2007;2008;2010;Department of Basic Education 2011a;2001b). These differentiated curriculum offerings were prompted by the notion of diversity in the post-Apartheid era and recognition that the country has one of the most unequal learner populations in the world, where English proficiency levels vary significantly (Makalela 2015). Notably, most of the learners who learn through the medium of English are mother-tongue speakers of one or more indigenous African languages (Makalela 2014;Taylor 2019). Some studies have shown that notions of home language and additional language do not represent the contextual realities in which South African learners live and use the language (e.g., Plüddemann 2015;Ntombela 2016). This means that home language learner cohorts are populated by non-mother-tongue speakers, while additional language learning features a wider array of language differences based on access and the learning context. When framed in this light, it follows that curriculum segregation representative of South African learning contexts remains unattainable and unauthentic, and the assessment practices hinged on this curriculum differentiation fall short of validity. Surprisingly, however, very little research has been carried out to validate the merits of this curriculum and assessment differentiation practice to date. This study sought to investigate the validity of curriculum and assessment differentiation in the English language in two ways. First, by comparing curriculum specifications in these English curricular programmes and, second, by validating the findings with a curriculum benchmarking exercise that compares the South African English curriculum programmes with those of three other countries: Kenya, Singapore and Canada. This four-country case analysis focuses on curriculum purpose and the depth and breadth of EHL and EFAL. In the end, useful recommendations for undifferentiated packaging of English assessment practices, taking into account the diverse learner population, are advanced and further research opportunities are highlighted.

Similarities and differences between first language acquisition and second language learning
Understanding the differences between English as a home language and English as an additional language is framed within the language acquisition theoretical framework. Research that spans over 70 years has been directed at the distinction between L1 acquisition and L2 (e.g., Gass and Maden 1984). The first distinction is between the natural process in which L1 learners acquire their knowledge organically and the conscious process in which L2 learners learn (see Godfroid and Hop 2022;Block 2003). For this reason, L1 is acquired, while L2 (representing any number of languages after the first one) is learnt. However, the picture is often complicated by the fact that acquisition (learning a language through immersion) can lead to learning (learning about a language through direct attention to forms and structure), whereas learning a language in L2 contexts may lead to the status of the language being acquired (Doughty and Long 2008). Associatively, immersion methods, such as communicative approach and direct methods, have seen their way into L2-induced curriculum parameters and, on the contrary, these are not preferred in L1-influenced curricula, as basic communication is assumed to be in place through naturally immersive contexts, such as in the home. Although these boundaries become blurred, the principles underpinning curriculum choices, which are largely informed by these factors, remain unchanged.
It is thought that L1 acquisition is genetically triggered at the most crucial stage of the child's cognitive development, when children subconsciously process and develop the linguistic knowledge of the environment in which they live. This means that they are not aware of grammatical rules as they receive and process the linguistic input. On the contrary, L2 learning takes place where the target language is spoken in the community, which differs from L1. In other words, L2 is not genetically triggered in any way, unless the child grows up in complex multilingual settings where several other languages are acquired simultaneously before the child reaches the age of six (Preston et al. 2022). In this instance, there is no L2, but multilingual L1 acquisition (De Houwer 2017). The latter is increasingly becoming a norm where mobility and immigration have intensified exponentially at the turn of the 21st century. Unlike traditional L1 learners exposed to one language at a time, as was historically the case in Western Europe, learners who have this repertoire of language resources develop a metalinguistic awareness, which may predict complex and higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) (Makalela 2018). Notions such as mother tongue, L1 and L2 do not apply in these contexts when more than one language is acquired within the threshold of six years (Makalela 2018;. Worth noting is that L1 acquisition is a passive process since children listen to the people around them while subconsciously processing the words, sounds and sentence structures. Before the child can read or write a single word in their L1, they are able to use vocabulary and grammar structures acquired without actively being taught how to speak. Research shows that they are able to distinguish sentence structures at the early age of seven months (Atkinson 2011). This explains why some people never learn how to read or write, but they can still speak their L1 fluently. L2 learning, on the other hand, is an active process where learners learn vocabulary and grammar to achieve their goals. Most people will need a teacher at school or the instructions of a course book or audio course. Despite this intentional attention to learning the language, research shows that many L2 learners will never reach anywhere near native-like proficiency due to many factors, such as the transfer of skills from their L1 (Ellis 1989;Krashen 1992).
Another area of difference between L1 acquisition and L2 learning is the quantity of input (Gass and Madden 1984;Krashen 1992). The language learning process depends on the frequency and regularity of input received. Generally, the quantity of exposure to a target language is richer in children than among adult learners. Children hear the language on a daily basis, whereas an adult learner may only hear the target language in the classroom. In the case of English Second Language (ESL) learners, it could be as little as three hours a week. Even in total submersion situations, the exposure quantity for adults is still less compared to what a child gets with a parent or another caregiver. In other words, L1 acquisition situations provide many chances to practice with native speakers, whereas L2 situations are input-reduced contexts.
The next difference between L1 acquisition and L2 learning is age (Spada and Lightbown 2019). A large part of this is the idea of a critical period after which successful language learning becomes difficult. The end of this time is usually aligned with puberty, when every learner undergoes physical, cognitive, and emotional changes (Lardiere 2017). These changes occur at the same time as a reduction in opportunities to practice extensively with native speakers. This means that the older one gets, the harder it is to acquire language natively. The learner language, referred to as inter-language, is less likely to evolve towards the targeted native language, due to a process referred to as fossilisation (Atkinson 2011). The stage where interlanguages cease to move towards native-like forms has been the subject of debate and contestation by sociolinguists who argue that learners are taking agency of their learning and choose whether they desire to be native-like (Tarone and Han 2014). It should be stated that while age is a factor in language acquisition broadly, it is not always a hindrance to language learning among older learners. In fact, the opposite is found, albeit seldomly, in other L2 learning contexts (ibid.). For the purpose of this paper, it is important to highlight that most EFAL learners do not have native-like exposure before and after puberty. They learn English in input-reduced contexts.
Taken together, these parameters of L1 acquisition and L2 learning have implications for curriculum assumptions on the 'ideal' learner expected in EHL and EFAL, respectively. For example, the L1 acquisition context is subsumed in the EHL curriculum, whereas the EFAL curriculum is premised on the L2 acquisition context. This study focuses on curriculum purpose and coverage, underpinning the EHL and EFAL distinctions, which are compared with three country specifications. The questions thus remain: Are there substantial differences between EFAL and EHL CAPS curricula justifying different curriculum programmes for quality assurance? Is there a model of good practice where such a differentiation serves the English learner populations effectively?

The study
Informed by the aim of the study, which sought to assess the validity of English curriculum differentiation in South Africa, it was necessary to conduct a document analysis of the EFAL and EHL Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS) in effect from 2011. In addition, the researcher sought to conduct a cross-case comparison of English education provision contemplated in curriculum statements of three countries to model good practices for a singular, standardised curriculum. This dual focus was deemed necessary to answer the research question on curriculum differentiation and modelling other practices. The author was commissioned by Umalusi to review a benchmarking exercise that compared English curricular programmes in three different countries with the CAPS. This work was carried out with the view to make recommendations for improving the CAPS as a high-quality curriculum for the South African basic education system. There were three countries against which the CAPS was compared, namely, Canada, specifically the province of British Columbia, Kenya and Singapore. Singapore presents a vast number of diverse ethnic groups and multiple languages, and it was found to be a comparable Asian country. It was assumed that Kenya would have more in common with South Africa as an African country, and its performance in English is relatively advanced compared to most African countries. British Columbia is a province of Canada lauded for its successful English teaching curriculum (as a model for home language) in the West. This cross-continental comparison provides an ideal benchmarking frame for an English language curriculum in a diverse, non-mother-tongue, home language and multilingual African context. The author also participated in a comparative study of the National Curriculum Statement (NCS) and the CAPS anchored by Umalusi in 2014. Although the benchmarking work involved a spectrum of curriculum levers: purpose, structure, pacing, specification, sequencing, depth and breadth, only purpose, breadth and depth were analysed and reported on in the results of the study. The comparison included Grade 10, 11 and 12 syllabi based on curriculum statements for each country. Using textual and thematic analyses, the themes were derived and reported on with supporting evidence from the curriculum documents from the four countries in the benchmarking work. Segments of analysis were extracted from numerous benchmark reports and are summarised for brevity and for the purpose of this paper.

Findings
The findings of the benchmark work are summarised under the following themes: curriculum objectives and curriculum coverage: depth and breadth, as discussed below.

Curriculum objectives
The success of curriculum implementation rests on well-defined objectives. It was necessary to look at the stated curricula objectives for the four countries under investigation.

CAPS EHL objectives
First, the objectives of CAPS EHL were compared with their British Columbian, Singaporean and Kenyan curricula counterparts. Table 1 summarises the results of objective comparisons across the four country-specific curricula. Table 1 shows that the CAPS HL curriculum objectives are similar to the objectives in the other three countries' curricular statements. These include aesthetics, confidence, use of language in authentic contexts, imagination, acquisition of language skills, argumentation, critical engagement with texts, create use of language, and using language to manage information. It is only in Kenya that the purpose of broadening and deepening the home language is not indicated as a priority. This shows that the South African HL English curriculum compares favourably with the curricular programmes of the three countries.

EFAL
It was necessary to compare the EFAL curriculum objectives with EHL, on the one hand, and to gauge whether EFAL has any purpose-related connection with the standard curricular programmes from the countries under comparison. The results of this comparison are provided in Table 2, which shows that apart from the similarity between the CAPS EFAL and EHL, both curricula programmes compare favourably in sharing the following broad aims: to create critical and creative thinkers able to express and justify their own views, appreciate literature and explore the human experience, as well as being confident, effective communicators. They also aim to teach learners to write with audience, purpose and context in mind. All four identify reading, writing, listening and speaking as the core curriculum organisers. This shows that the CAPS EFAL is similar to home language curricula both in South Africa and the other three countries.
Further analysis of the curricula shows that only Kenya and the CAPS EFAL/EHL list grammatical items and language structures as a discrete thread or organiser -something that seems to go against the intended integrative organisation structure. A close look at British Columbia shows a strong emphasis on diversity and gaining insight into multiple perspectives, especially indigenous knowledge, which the other curricula lack. It also has a much stronger emphasis on language as a tool to enhance thinking, a cognitive and meta-cognitive aspect which is less apparent in the CAPS and Kenyan curricula. The CAPS EFAL and British Columbian curricula share a common goal to develop language for learning across the curriculum, which is neglected in the CAPS EHL, Kenyan and Singaporean curricula. CAPS EHL and EFAL and the British Columbian curricula also include values and ethics, and developing the ability to recognise and challenge power relations in texts. Taken together, the CAPS curriculum is comparable to the three countries' versions, both at the home language and additional language levels. An important insight to note here is that the objectives for CAPS EHL and EFAL are not different in content and intention. Learners in both the EHL and EFAL streams would need to meet each of the objectives stated. Equally, when both curricula programmes are put together, they do not deviate from the English home language versions from British Columbia, Singapore and Kenya. This thus questions the validity of differentiating the CAPS EFAL and EHL at the curriculum level.

Content coverage: breadth and depth
This section addresses curriculum coverage by comparing the content, concepts and skills covered in each curriculum. This is done by considering the breadth, which is gauged by the number of topics and/or sub-topics represented in the curricula and the depth, which refers to levels of complexity and the extent of the cognitive challenges associated with the topics.

Breadth comparison
The level of breadth envisaged in a curriculum is crucial to the success of its implementation. A checklist method of isolating content and skills reflected in each curriculum was used. It is noteworthy that the content and skills of the language are all interrelated and integrated and that it is not possible to split them up effectively. Table 3 presents a summary of the breadth of content for each year or level and for each full qualification. Table 3 shows the number of topics covered in the CAPS EHL and EFAL, British Columbia, Singapore and Kenya in each of the Further Education and Training grades (10-12). There is a consistent number of 69 topics in all three grades in both the CAPS EHL and EFAL. For the whole band, there is a total of 207 topics. A similar pattern is observed in British Columbia, where each grade level scored 58 topics, giving a total of 174. Singapore's curriculum shows a gradual decrease in the number of topics covered, ranging from 43 to 24. Kenya has the lowest number of topics, totalling 94 over three years of study in this band. In short, the breadth of the CAPS English curricula is similar but notably higher than in the other countries. One of the reasons for the breadth in the CAPS curricula is the inclusion of formal grammar and language structure as separate items, despite the communicative, contextual, integrative and descriptive approach to grammar. Under the heading 'Rationale for teaching the language skills', it is stated that 'Language structures and conventions play an important role in understanding and producing oral and written texts and should therefore be integrated with the above-mentioned language skills' (Department of Basic Education 2011a: 10-11).

Breadth of literature texts to be studied
This section reports on a comparison of breadth between EFAL and the integrated English language curricula of the three countries. Although EFAL cannot, at face value, be compared with these countries' curricula, the mapping exercise was necessary to gauge if EFAL has a unique position compared to offerings elsewhere where the majority of learners are not F1 or home language  Table 4. It is clear from Table 4 that the CAPS EFAL literature curriculum is significantly broader than the Singaporean O-and A-level curricula. Within two years in Grades 10 and 11, the CAPS EFAL expects learners to study double the amount of literature compared to Singapore's O-level students. Equally, in Grade 12, the CAPS requires learners to study the same number of set texts as a Singaporean A-level student does over two years. By contrast, in Kenya, students are required to study three setworks in Grade 11 and three in Grade 12, which is even more than the CAPS. This means that the CAPS EFAL breadth in terms of literature is between the two curricula under comparison and, therefore, it does not significantly deviate from them.

Breadth of writing types
The number of situational and transactional texts contained in a curricula programme is indicative of the curriculum breadth. For a representative overview of the breadth coverage in the CAPS, all the countries' coverages were compared. The results are presented in Table 5. Table 5 shows the suggested text types per grade per term in the EFAL and EHL curricula teaching plan. There is an average of five transactional texts, which translates to 45 texts over a period of three years. The teaching plans list the following types of transactional texts that learners should learn to write by the end of Grade 12: Friendly/formal letters (request/complaint/application/business/thanks/sympathy); formal and informal letters to the press; curriculum vitae and covering letter; obituary; agenda and minutes of meeting; report; book or film review; newspaper article; magazine article; brochure; speech; dialogue; written interview; advertisements; diary entries; postcards; invitation cards; filling in forms; directions; instructions; flyers; posters; emails (Department of Basic Education 2011a: 79).
Text length for all the FET grades is specified as 80-100 words for shorter transactional texts and 120-150 words for longer transactional texts.
Kenya does specify the types of text per form, but they amount to 19 text types over two years: Form 3 and Form 4. Form 3 includes notes of thanks, congratulations and condolences; telegrams; letters of application; notification of meetings; agenda and minutes memoranda. Form 4 has recipes, emails, fax, instructions to family and friends, letters of inquiry, letters of request, reviews, questionnaires, curriculum vitae, and speeches. The text length is not specified in the curriculum document nor in the sample examination paper evaluated.
With regard to Singapore, the O-level candidates are expected to write a situational text in response to a visual stimulus to suit any purpose, audience and context. The examples specified are email, letter, report and speech. This suggests four types over two years with a text length of 250-300 words. With regard to the A-level, the Singaporean candidates are required to write a two-part 'adaptive writing and commentary', in which they adapt material written for another medium, for a different audience and purpose, using a specified format. The text types are specified as information brochure or pamphlet, article for a magazine or newsletter, publicity in the form of an email, blog or advertisement, and a press release. This means that there are eight text types over two years with no word length identified. Finally, Table 5 shows that British Columbia does not have specified text types, but the following learning outcomes are stated in the assessment report: It is expected that students will write purposeful information texts that express ideas and information to explore and respond; record and describe; speculate and consider; argue and persuade; analyse and critique; and engage (Umalusi 2010: 121).
It further specifies that students will: use and experiment with elements of form in writing and representing, appropriate to purpose and audience, to enhance meaning and artistry, including: organization of ideas and information; and text features and visual/artistic devices (Umalusi 2010: 121). Because there is no number of required texts or indications of expected length, the British Columbian curriculum does not compare to the other curricula programmes. One can only infer that the broader themes are covered. Overall, it appears that the volume of transactional texts in the CAPS EHL and EFAL curricula is broader than those in British Columbia and Singapore, but only slightly broader than the Kenyan curriculum. That there are also no significant differences between the HL and EFAL CAPS curricula coverage on breadth questions the necessity of separating them.

Depth differentiation in CAPS EFAL/EHL: comparisons with British Columbia, Kenya and Singapore
The depth of the curriculum is established in the content learners must know to achieve the skills required to complete tasks. The following section offers qualitative insights into the depth of each curriculum under investigation.
With regards to the CAPS, the benchmarking team found that the depth in EFAL and EHL is not specified per grade level, nor is it differentiated between these programmes. The curricula give no detail about the depth in the teaching plans that outline the content. In a very limited and vague way, it may be inferred from the Overview of Content and Strategies (Department of Basic Education 2011) as well as in the length of texts across the grades. This information is tabled under length of texts for listening comprehension and duration of oral communication, and written length of texts to The British Columbian curriculum suggests depth in terms of cognitive complexity. There is evidence of an expectation of increasing cognitive difficulty as learners progress from grade to grade. This is shown in the Prescribed Learning Outcomes and the Achievement Indicators. The curriculum is aimed at the 'ideal' student who is well and truly engaged in broadening and deepening their English language skills in all of the integrated Arts. The curriculum emphasises that students should undertake sustained and independent reading of a range of texts to enrich all their competencies in English.
The curriculum documents from Singapore are mostly silent on the depth required and only provide vague suggestions for teachers about deepening complexity. For example, it is stated that at Upper Secondary level, teachers will revisit, reinforce and teach the Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions at increasing levels of difficulty and through the selection of more challenging texts so that students will achieve mastery in the subject.
The only mention of depth for O-level literature states that band descriptors are differentiated for 'N' and 'O' level candidates, that is, the band descriptors for grading 'O' level answers will be scaled one level higher compared to those for the 'N' level.' It also shows that from Primary 5, English will be taught at the appropriate level according to the ability of the student.
Due to its nature as a syllabus or content-based curriculum, the Kenyan curriculum does not indicate the depth of the curriculum. However, depth may be inferred from the content and text types learners are required to know to achieve the objectives of the syllabus. These text types are different for each form. However, the document does not indicate the level of cognitive difficulty that texts should have; thus the complexity and extent of cognitive challenge associated with the topic are not clearly stated.
The major observation gained from the curriculum statements of the four countries is that British Columbia specifies depth in terms of cognitive complexity, which allows a graded system of difficulty in the same curriculum band to account for diversity. The Singaporean English curriculum differentiates depth according to A and O bands, whereas the Kenyan curriculum is silent on this. These findings suggest homogeneity in terms of the levels of depth expected. Like the Kenyan system, the South African programmes are silent on curriculum depth. As a result, there is no basis for differentiating the curricula into two single and unrelated programmes as far as depth is concerned.

Discussion: implications for curriculum and assessment review
This paper has so far compared the purpose, breadth and depth of the EFAL curriculum with the EHL curriculum. At the same time, each of these curricula programmes was compared with practices in Kenya, Singapore and British Columbia to glean best practices on curriculum integration, treatment of cultural diversity, and level variation. The key observation is that none of the countries investigated has two streams for the English curriculum, as the case is with the South African EFAL and EHL, making South Africa an outlier in the English teaching world. English second or foreign language learning is never a 12-year arrangement but months of induction so that immigrants in Englishspeaking countries can be immersed into the language of wider communication. In this sense, EFAL would have similar goals to ESL and EFL for immersion purposes, but not as a standalone curriculum separating learners of the same nation-state. As indicated in the theoretical frameworks of L1 and L2 situations, it has increasingly become difficult to differentiate learning from acquisition. As a result, Kenya, Singapore and British Columbia blended L1 and L2 by grading their single curriculum in terms of levels of difficulty and explicit statement on cultural diversity to be inclusive of the sociolinguistic dimensions where English is learnt and used in a multilingual world. As pointed out above, a number of learners taking English at EHL level are not traditional 'mother-tongue speakers' of the language, while EFAL learners are not true L2 learners where comprehensible input is available in their immediate environment. In this case, therefore, having two separate curricula programmes is not supported by empirical evidence in South Africa and the benchmarking exercise on models of English teaching.
There are a number of lessons gained from this benchmarking task. First, the British Columbian curriculum is designed for a developed and predominantly English country where there is comprehensible input outside of the classroom. Only 10% of the British Columbia school population is designated as ESL students, which would be equivalent to the EFAL cohort. These learners are not offered an EFAL or Second Additional Language curriculum. Second, in Singapore, English is compulsory, and it is blended to include the home language and additional language levels of difficulty. It is for this reason that both the EFAL and EHL compare favourably with Singapore English teaching. In addition, students are required to do a 'Mother Tongue', which is offered at different levels and/or a third language to strengthen the multilingual outlook of the state. The English curriculum is divided into language and literature specialisation to increase depth in each of the streams. Here, two strengths that surpass curriculum separation are: • Based on their level of proficiency, students may progress at their own pace; and • Students' abilities and skills are recognised early on, and students are guided onto appropriate pathways (i.e., language or literature).
Third, the Kenyan English curriculum is not differentiated according to levels of proficiency. The concept of a home language or an additional language is non-existent as all Kenyan learners take the same curriculum offering. Like South Africa, the majority of the Kenyan learners are not traditional mother-tongue speakers of English, but their curriculum compares favourably with EFAL and EHL combinations.
The findings of the benchmarking exercise and the selected analysis reported here have far-reaching implications for the South African English curricula offerings. It is evident that South Africa's differentiated English curricula are not matched by the foreign counterparts investigated. Each country grades the curriculum according to levels of difficulty so that everyone has an equal chance of acquiring or learning English to function in their societies. On the contrary, South Africa offers completely segregated curriculum programmes targeting different learner populations. As pointed out, these different curricula programmes fit in within the traditional boundaries of L1 and L2 contexts described in the paper instead of going beyond them to accommodate diversity and steer cohesion at the same time. That is, EHL learners are not necessarily a 'true' L1 learner population, whereas the EFAL learner population is not 'authentically' L2. From the British Columbian curriculum, it is evident that the cultural identities of the learners should be honoured by instructional practices rather than attempts to replace them. Finally, the analysis converges on the finding that the curriculum purpose and coverage of the EFAL and EHL are not materially different. When framed in this light, it appears that there is no scientific and model justification for curriculum segregation and multiplicity of assessment protocols based on these curricular distinctions. To concentrate quality assurance processes on assessment protocols and offer all South African learners equal access to the English language, three points stand out: • Working towards one integrated English language curriculum with similar outcomes; • Having one assessment system with various choices or gradings that are context-bound; and • The curriculum will reduce in breadth and increase in depth to align with foreign counterparts.

Conclusion
This paper sought to investigate the need for segregated English curricula programmes, as is the case with EHL and EFAL in South Africa. There are three main findings from the study. First, the results show that the purposes for which EFAL and EHL are designed are relatively similar, and both compare favourably with international curricula on the purposes of learning English. Therefore, the validity of differentiating EFAL and EHL over a period of 12 years and setting different examination protocols for each is questionable. It is likely that EFAL may be confused with an immersionbased type of English teaching known as English as a Second Language or English as a Foreign Language, which are highly paced short programmes offered mainly for immigrant populations to fit into the culture and language of wider communication. Second, the coverage for EFAL and EHL is comparable but far broader than the other three curricular coverages. Again, here, there are no grounds for differentiation of curriculum programmes with similar coverage. More importantly, the CAPS curricula programmes are non-specific regarding depth and level of cognitive complexity associated with each task. With this lack of depth specification, it is difficult to gauge the differences between EFAL and EHL and make a case for their separate existence.
Taken together, the findings of this study show that EFAL and EHL are not materially differentiated at the core curriculum levers: purpose and curriculum coverage of breadth and depth. In line with the international standards of having an integrated and graded English curriculum, the EHL and EFL curricula need to be collapsed into one to tighten the quality assurance processes currently split between the two programmes. There is a need for policy re-engagement to review the initial rationale for curriculum segregation, which seems to deepen inequalities of access to high cognitive levels of English and reduce the socio-cultural content needed in a multicultural country such as South Africa. The latter should ideally be the genesis for curriculum differentiation, but not at the expense of social cohesion and quality of access. Further research that involves analysis of examination papers, cultural content and performance scores to augment the findings of the study is urgently needed.