Thursday, 22nd October

This morning Simon James talked to us about the English educational system. But before beginning his lesson, he spent some minutes talking about himself, explaining his own professional career and giving some details about his work as a secondary education history teacher. He also talked about Cornwall, the place he comes from. I find it extremely surprising that all teachers talk about their personal background, their professional development and their peculiar interests and passions. This makes the relationship between them and the students much more human and interesting, and for me it is one of the most appealing aspects of this new approach to teaching. Actually, here I have a good example of something that I could really do with my own students when I go back to my school!

Simon's class was also revealing in another sense. In contrast with what other teachers did, he spent most of the time talking to us, presenting a detailed and thorough overview of the different schools, stages and teaching standards in English education. His session reminded me of my own teaching, which tends to be based on dull and extensive lectures. I know it is not the most engaging way to teach, but I find it extremely difficult to cope with the full contents we must cover using a different approach. Simon's presentation makes me feel relieved, as he didn't use creative, original, interactive and kinaesthetic activities, he didn't bring any signs and he didn't ask us to move around or dance. Fortunately, it seems that my own methodological approach is not so bad, if such a good teacher as Simon uses it when necessary! However, he admitted at the end of his class that 'the more you talk, the less the students learn'. I definitely agree. As a matter of fact, I also try to improve my own methodology introducing teamwork and dynamic activities when possible. The point is that, unfortunately, I find that most of the time this possibility is very remote.

But Simon is also a sensitive and very human teacher. He insisted on the importance of thinking about what the children will be doing during the class, not only in what the teacher is going to do. A good lesson plan should take into account both things. And it should encourage students' active participation and critical thinking. So Simon considers that, after a class, instead of asking the students 'What did you learn today at school?' or 'What did they teach you?', we should ask them 'What questions did you ask today in your class?'

He also stressed the importance of assessment. This tends to be a difficult issue, as correcting the students' mistakes should be done in an assertive though positive way. Simon recommends to avoy the use of 'but', and replace if for the expression 'and even better if…' For example, instead of saying 'Your homework was quite good, but you made some grammar mistakes' (which can be interpreted as a negative comment on the student's lack of proficiency in grammar, despite his good job), we could say 'Your homework was quite good, and it could be even better if you could improve your knowledge about grammar'.

Behaviour management is also a big topic Simon talked to us about. A good trick to give effective instructions to the class consists in asking the students to put down their pens in order to listen to the teacher, so they don't have any distraction. Hands up to talk, for example, can be another essential rule. When applying the rules you have to be consistent, this is very important for the children's eyes. Praise and individual attention are very effective. Learning how to manage a class is not an easy task. The best way to learn good strategies consists in observing how outstanding teachers manage their own classes.

The second big topic of our morning presentation was the amazing list of English teaching standards. There are a lot of them, and all English teachers are supposed to attain all of them. But how can these standards be monitored? Teachers are used to being observed in England. Before having formal appraisals, teachers used to buddy up. This is the way teachers' assessments started up. Nowadays, teachers are appraised every year by their staff manager. One way to do this consists in selecting three basic objectives the teacher wants to attain during the school year. In order to measure these objectives, teacher should not only decide the aims he/she wants to achieve, but also the indicators that will be used to measure these targets. The people who appraise you are the immediate people who are over you. For example, the head of the department will appraise 4 or 5 teachers in his/her department. The head of the department knows perfectly well how the other teachers do their job. He/She can observe them, perhaps for some minutes in their sessions, with a drop-in strategy. People also have the opportunity to observe what good teachers above you do in their sessions. The rough point is that teachers who can't meet these standards, even after receiving extra support, can be eventually dismissed.

The last part of the class also led me to a very critical personal reflection. If I am not wrong, there are nearly 40 different standards that all teachers are supposed to achieve. But I am afraid that these precise, thorough, detailed standards seem to be unattainable! There are so many of them, and they are so ambitious! And, how can they actually be accurately measured? Which kind of indicators and evidence can be used to evaluate our performance? And, most important of all, where can we include the human dimension of education into this assessment guide? There seems to be no reference to emotions, happiness, passion and joy in the teachers' standards, even though from my personal point of view, these are the most essential aspects that define what a good teacher is.