When discussing English Language Education (ELE) globally, scholars often refer to Kachru’s (1992) model of the Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle, or Holliday’s (1994) distinction between BANA (British, Australian, North American) contexts and TESP (Tertiary, Secondary, and Primary) education. In these frameworks, BANA contexts typically represent privileged, private education systems, while TESP refers to public or state education.
However, when we look closely at ELE in Myanmar, the picture is more complex. There are not only two broad layers (private vs. public), but also multiple sub-layers within each. In my view, understanding ELE in Myanmar requires looking through three lenses:
1. When – the historical and political period
2. Where – the geographical location
3. Who – the socio-economic and educational backgrounds of learners
This brief reflection does not aim to cover all details exhaustively but offers an overview of key features and changes over time.
1. When – Historical and Political Context
The colonial period was a turning point for English in Myanmar. As the language of the British colonial administration, English was used in governance, missionary schools, and government schools. English proficiency was often linked to better employment prospects, motivating many to learn it (Lwin, 2000).
After independence, the government prioritised Burmese as the medium of instruction in basic education, reducing the role of English. This led to significant challenges when English was reintroduced as a medium at the tertiary level, as students often lacked adequate preparation (Tin, 2024).
From the 1980s onwards, English regained prominence, seen as essential for economic development and international engagement (Lall, 2021). It was reintroduced from primary level, and many subjects in basic education began to be taught in English. However, centralised control, limited resources, and socio-political constraints hindered progress (Tun, 2024).
During the reform period (2011–2021), increased foreign investment and study-abroad opportunities further fuelled interest in English. Education reforms encouraged the growth of private and international schools, as well as language centres (Lall, 2021).
Then came what I call the “Coup-vid” period — the combined disruption of COVID-19 and the 2021 military coup. COVID-19 forced schools to close, accelerating a shift to online learning. The coup exacerbated instability, creating fragmented and politically divided education systems. Despite this, demand for English learning grew. Today, ELE in Myanmar takes place in diverse settings: unstable state schools, private and international schools, online classes, schools under the National Unity Government (NUG), schools in ethnic resistance organisation (ERO) areas, community-led schools, and alternative systems such as monastic or religious schools.
Online learning has surged but remains inaccessible to many due to electricity shortages and unreliable internet connections, particularly in rural and conflict-affected areas (Tin, 2024).
2. Where – Geographical Location
Geographical disparities in ELE are also significant.
Urban areas such as Yangon and Mandalay offer many options: international schools, private schools, language centres, the British Council, American Centres, and numerous online learning opportunities. Better internet and transport make high-quality learning more accessible.
Rural and ethnic areas, however, often face the opposite: poor infrastructure, lack of internet and electricity, and security challenges. Education provision is sometimes supported by ethnic organisations, community groups, or the NUG in those areas (Lall, 2021).
Online platforms like Zoom, Google Classroom, and Facebook have become prominent in English teaching since “Coup-vid.” While they offer flexibility and variety, participation still depends heavily on access to electricity and the internet.
3. Who – Learners’ Socio-Economic and Educational Backgrounds
Socio-economic differences also shape ELE opportunities.
Urban, financially secure families can afford private or international schools and online courses, preparing their children for study abroad.
Low-income families, whether in urban or rural settings, often rely on under-resourced state schools or the nearest accessible institution. The inability to afford devices or internet access for online learning widens the education gap.
School types also matter:
State schools serve the majority but often focus on English as a subject mainly for exam preparation. Availability of qualified teachers and teaching resources varies widely by location (Tun, 2024).
NUG, ethnic, and community schools primarily follow the national curriculum, though some ethnic areas use localised curricula. English is taught as a subject, often valued for access to opportunities, but resource and security constraints are severe.
Private schools generally have better teacher–student ratios and more resources, and some provide additional English language courses.
International schools use curricula such as British, American, or IB, teaching most subjects in English. High tuition fees restrict access to wealthier families.
Online language schools cater to varied learners, offering General English, communication skills, and exam preparation (IELTS, TOEFL). Fees range from affordable to premium, widening choice for those with internet access.
Monastic and religious schools offer free education to disadvantaged children, using the state curriculum with English taught as a subject. Resource availability depends on location, with urban schools often better equipped.
Conclusion
In Myanmar, interest in learning English is growing, but access remains uneven, shaped by when (historical and political conditions), where (urban–rural and conflict-related disparities), and who (socio-economic and educational backgrounds). These factors create significant layers of inequality in ELE, leading to varied learning environments and opportunities across the country.
This reflection is based on my personal observations and interpretations. I welcome dialogue and corrections where needed.
References
Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). University of Illinois Press.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge University Press.
Lall, M. (2021). Myanmar’s education reforms: A pathway to social justice? UCL Press. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/51835/9781787353695.pdf
Lwin, T. (2000). Education in Burma (1945–2000). Thinking Classroom Foundation. http://www.thinkingclassroom.org/uploads/4/3/9/0/43900311/lwin_t._2000._education_in_burma_1945-2000.pdf
Tin, T. B. (2024). English language education and educational policy in Myanmar. In A. J. Moody (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Southeast Asian Englishes. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192855282.013.27
Tun, P. W. (2024). Investigating the teachers’ implementation of a new communicative English language curriculum in Myanmar primary schools. ELTED Journal, 26, 32–51. http://www.elted.net/uploads/7/3/1/6/7316005/phyo_final.pdf
