Praise for “From Teacher to Manager”

I’m half way through writing a post about feedback, which I will hopefully get finished tomorrow, but in a happy coincidence I have just received some feedback regarding the book after which this blog is named.  And it’s very positive, so I thought I’d puff my chest out a bit and share it. A genuine blog post will follow soon I promise.  Happy New Year to anyone who happens across this!

The message below came from our contact at CUP (the publisher):

As you may be aware, we recently entered your book From Teacher to Manager in the The Duke of Edinburgh ESU English Language Book Award 2009. Unfortunately it didn’t win a prize, but it was shortlisted and received some exceptionally positive feedback, which I’ve pasted below for your information. Well done! Please visit http://www.esu.org/page.asp?p=1833 for more information on the award.

Feedback from Duke of Edinburgh ESU English Language Book Award panel:

From Teacher to Manager: Managing Language Teaching Organizations by Ron White, Andy Hockley, Melissa Laughner and Julie van der Horst Jansen

This entry received universal praise from all judges and indeed was on the final shortlist. The judges felt this was a ‘vital book’ and a ‘serious and comprehensive’ guide to an absolutely crucial, but perhaps overlooked, area of the ELT industry – namely the strategic and operational management of language teaching operations. It was collectively felt that not only did the book address this, but that it did so ‘professionally and with an imagination which reflected the creative and educational best of the ELT industry itself’.

The approach of the book, particularly the use of operational models and case studies ranging from a Greek Frontisteria to a Japanese chain to a language unit as part of a Middle Eastern university, allowed for a range of institutional models with differing priorities, problems and imperatives. Throughout the book, the task-approach for readers  was ‘immensely beneficial to learning and understanding’ and, given that potentially the prime target audience is teachers and directors of studies already within LTOs, the techniques employed were considered ‘ highly appropriate’.

The judges felt that this was a truly exceptional book and that it should have a powerful and beneficial impact on the ELT industry and was worthy of the highest praise. At the same time, they felt that it did not ultimately qualify for the Duke of Edinburgh ESU English Language Book Award since the emphasis of the Award criteria is upon excellence specifically within the practice of English Language Teaching.

Oaths of Office

I was recently listening to a BBC podcast which asked how much blame for the global financial crisis should be attached to MBA programmes (You too can listen to it by clicking here, should you be interested, and believe me it is worth it). To summarise, in case you can’t bothered to listen to it, or don’t have time, people in charge of MBA programmes (or MBA programs, as it probably ought to be since they focus on the US and especially Harvard), feel that their only failing was that the model of risk assessment that was taught has proved to be deficient. Others, meanwhile, say that in fact, MBA programmes taught their graduates to put shareholders interests ahead of anything else, and in fact in one damning piece of research quoted (conducted by the Aspen Institute), students entering an MBA were asked what the role of business was and answered that it was to produce goods and services for the community, and by the time they finished the degree had changed their primary answer to “maximising shareholder value”.

Anyway, one of the things that was raised on the show was the MBA Oath, which is something that has been put together by some students to try and make graduates of such programmes more responsible leaders and managers. You can find the full text of the oath here.

As someone who teaches/trains on a post-graduate course for managers (though not an MBA, but the IDLTM), I wondered how much relevance this has for me and for those students I work with. Now, I don’t for a moment think that myself and my colleagues who teach on the course have been focussed on maximising shareholder value and profit, and in fact I suspect we do a good job of making sure managers who go through the course are fully focussed on the teachers, admin staff and other employees, and by extension the learners who are at the heart of any language teaching business.

Also, in general, as a profession, I think many school owners and managers do tend to be more people than money oriented.  This doesn’t apply to every school, and I’m sure we’ve all experienced LTOs (language teaching organisations) which are very much focussed on advancing the financial status of the owner

Having said that, however, I think it’s never a bad idea to examine (and re-examine) the way things are done and the ethics and moral choices that lie behind the things that we do.  The more I look at that oath, though, the more it seems self-evident (and only serves to highlight what a problem was being created by traditional MBAs in that some of those things had to be stated)

So, here, rather than trying to apply a set of platitudes of the “obey the law” and “think about things other than just personal profit” type, I’d like to come up with a list of commitments that LTO owners and even perhaps DOSs (or other middle managers) might want to keep pinned to their office wall. I have decided to take a leaf out of Ken Wilson’s book and start this off as an open thread for commenters to make their suggestions -  I do have a few ideas myself, but rather than pre-empt things, I will, for now, keep my powder dry and see if people reading this would like to suggest some items of their own.

So, over to you!

Jargon: Doubleplusgood or doubleplusungood?

It’s time for everyone to pull together, think outside the box, and work together on a shared vision that we can all buy into, which will enhance synergy and drive greater market penetration.

I’m currently teaching a group of DoSs (Directors of Studies) online and someone commented that most EL teachers will never accept or even listen to the terminology of management.  Words and expressions like many of those included above are ridiculed and laughed at.  As a manager, then, how to deal with this?  Is it a problem?  My answer is no…

Firstly I think we should forget the suggestion that is just an ELT issue.  Management speak is ridiculed and treated with deep cynicism everywhere.  Witness popular games like Bullshit Bingo, and TV shows like The Office.  There are a number of reasons for this – a healthy suspicion of “management” brought upon by previous bad experiences, a little bit of cultural cringe (particularly from non-US Americans of expressions thought of as American), a general mistrust of jargon, etc etc.  But, primarily, I think a lot of the problem comes with the suspicion that what these words represent are just hollow and empty concepts with no meaning that are just bandied around instead of actual ideas and concrete actions.  It’s this last problem which is the one we’re in a position to deal with.

Because what this mistrust forces us to do is to actually ensure that we are NOT talking in empty rhetoric and are actually using terms which are meaningful and valid.  This may mean that we actually have to change the terms themselves (by now words/expressions like win-win or vision may have become so devalued that they have become to all intents and purposes unusable), but it definitely means that managers have to make sure that they know what they’re arguing for.  Things like “shared vision”, for example, and “buy in” are not bad concepts just because the words are devalued.  In fact I’d argue that shared vision and buy in are extremely useful concepts. (There are however, words -like synergy, for example- which I do think are for the most part meaningless buzzwords, which really ought to be disposed of).

Forced to outline why shared vision is a good thing (whatever words you end up using to explain the concept and value), before starting to work on developing such a thing, enhances transparency, communication and openness, as well as making sure that the development work is fully understood by everyone. Who knows, it might even increase buy in

So, embrace cynicism.  It will make you a better manager, and will actually serve to make your organisation a better more open place, with greater understanding and clarity for everyone.

Further reflections

A long time ago, when I last posted to this blog (many apologies for the extended hiatus everyone), I talked about how managers could use the concepts of reflective practice, familiar from teaching, in their own “management practice”.  I also said, during that post:

I would like to suggest that managers of language teaching organisations should therefore consider two specific courses of action. Developing the reflective skills of and building in reflective time for their staff, and, also, for themselves

I then went onto to describe how the second half of that might work. My intention then was to look at the first half in a second blog post, before life (and death) intervened and halted my blogging for a while. But now I’m (finally) back, and would like to look at that second piece – that of “Developing the reflective skills of and building in reflective time for their staff”.

Now I won’t go into great depth explaining why I think providing professional development opportunities is something that ought to be one of the top priorities for any school, I think we can take it as a given (but if anyone wants to question that assumption, I’m happy to do so at some later date).

What I will do is to assert that well-structured reflective practice is one of the best and most effective sources of professional development that exists.  It is also one of the cheapest (and while this ought not to be a deciding factor in selecting PD , let’s face it, it is unfortunately not unimportant).

Many teachers these days have a fairly good idea about how to best reflect on their practice – courses like the CELTA reference it, while the SIT TESOL Certificate (the closest US equivalent to the CELTA) is built around reflective practice. But how many teachers, faced with long hours and heavy schedules, really make the time to actually reflect on their practice?

So, a five step process to make reflection less the exception and more the norm:

1. Run a workshop (or series of workshops) on reflective practice, covering the why, the how, and even the what.  Get people inspired by the idea of reflective practice, and give them the tools to get the most out of it.
2. Initially set up a series of facilitated reflective practice sessions.  In such a session, teachers meet to share their experiences and work through the process themselves (with facilitator assistance).  You may find that there are some very committed reflectors in your staff – use them to help and support the others.  they can be the facilitators in such a process.  Check out the literature on this process – there’s plenty out there.
3. Once everyone is competent and really sure of themselves and the process, then they can either stay within the facilitated session system if they wish, or find a place within their own work week to independently keep reflecting.  Working with someone is more effective than working alone, so perhaps a buddy system can be encouraged, but ultimately teachers should work out the way that works best for them.
4. To make this as systemic as possible, I’d even go as far as to write one hour of reflective practice time into everyone’s contract.  That doesn’t mean it should be clocked in and clocked out of, just that it is clear that this is something that the organisation values, and that teachers should avail themselves of the opportunities offered in this area.  how and when people choose to take this hour is up to them (as, indeed, is whether – the hope is that having gone through a process of training and practical experience, they will in fact make sure that they make reflection part of their weekly work load)
5. As ever, seek feedback, monitor and evaluate how this is going.  Get feedback from teachers on how the training, facilitated sessions and subsequent independent reflective practice is going.  What could be done to make it better?  Are they actually doing it?  Why/Why not?  If not, what would help them to do so? Do they feel that it’s helping their teaching?  Are there follow up/refresher trainings that could be useful? Etc etc.

Reflective practice should not replace other forms of professional development, but it should form a major part of the professional development programme of any language teaching organisation.  In order to do so, it needs to be fully integrated into the work week, and needs to be supported with training and support.

Thoughts?

Apologies for absence

It’s been a difficult month which is the reason for my absence (as explained here). From Teacher to Manager will return very shortly. Sorry about the hiatus.

Reflections from Transyvlania

[I bet you thought that people in Transylvania didn't actually have any reflections didn't you?]

Anyone who has ever been a teacher knows the value of reflection. What did I observe in my lesson? What did the students do/not do? What conclusions can I draw from this? How will this inform future lessons? This rough cycle of questions is (or should be) familiar to all teachers, and will certainly be familiar to anyone who has taken a valid teacher training course. It is, I hope, a given that reflecting on our practice in this context is an extremely valuable thing to do, and will ensure that we focus on the students’ learning and that we continue to develop as teachers.

But it is not just teaching and teachers that benefit from this process. Reflecting in and on action (as Donald Schon and later Peter Senge termed it) is valuable for all of us, in whatever field of endeavour. I would like to suggest that managers of language teaching organisations should therefore consider two specific courses of action. Developing the reflective skills of and building in reflective time for their staff, and, also, for themselves.

I’ll start with managers themselves. Every week you do loads of managementy things. I won’t list them all here, but obviously there are tons of different tasks you do in the week – some planned, others responding to circumstances. Do you ever take a moment to reflect on what you did? To sit and think through a series of questions which might help you learn from the experience (in a fairly structured way)? Probably not. We tend to assume that there is too much to do. All of our (expanding amount of) work is crammed as tightly as possible into the time available. How would we ever find time to reflect on top of all that? Yet somehow, though there are always more things to do, and new tasks that we have, we always do seem to find the time. So, if necessary, think of reflection as yet another vitally important management task. Because it is one.

If it helps to have a plan laid out to structure this reflection time, here is one: First, decide when you are going to reflect. One option would be at the end of the week, since that works in the looking-back-at-what-I’ve-done sense. The downside is that if you set 4pm on Friday as a weekly reflection time, there’s always a danger that it will get shunted back by other things, until it’s too late and it gets dropped as being less important. This is really only something you can work out with the knowledge of your own schedule and your working approach. I find that it works for me to set two times a week as reflective time – at the end of the Tuesday, and at 111am on Friday. I do everything I can to keep these times fixed (and treat the times like predetermined meetings with myself). If it is really impossible to avoid scheduling something else at 11am on a Friday on a particular week, then obviously do that and move the reflective “meeting” back a couple of hours. To start with put aside an hour for each such “meeting”. When the time comes, make it clear that you cannot be disturbed for that time, and turn off your computer (at the very least make sure you are not distracted by incoming emails – for me actually turning it off is the only way I can really do that).

Start by brainstorming a list of all the things you’ve done since the last time you reflected. Note them all down. Some of the things will be easy as they will have been scheduled, others may be harder to recall since they may have been short and unplanned. But try as much as possible to remember everything you did in the week. It doesn’t have to be in chronological order. Now take a look at your list. Is there anything that stands out? Something that didn’t go well? Something that went very well? An event or activity that seemed to contain a critical incident or other learning moment? Take that activity and break it down, asking yourself the following series of questions:

• What exactly happened? What did I do? What did others do? (What, not why. List everything you can remember, no matter how trivial, just in case it turns out to have relevance)
• What possible explanations are there for these events (what I did, what others did, actions, reactions, etc)? Make a list of any or all that you can think of.
• Which of these explanations are most likely to be factors in what happened? Can I draw any general conclusions from this? What can I learn about management, my own management style, and about the needs and styles of others?
• Based on this, is there anything I could have done differently, more successfully? If some similar situation arises in the future, what do I want to make sure I remember?

Obviously there’s nothing earth-shattering about this set of questions, they are a standard set of questions designed to take one around Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. But by doing this in a structured way it’s more likely that you’ll get something valuable out of it.

There’s one way of doing it better though, and that’s to involve others. Get their input into how things have gone, get their input into the way you’ve handled things. The more feedback you can get and the more opinions you can accumulate the fuller your view of things will be. But now we’re getting onto feedback, another of my little obsessions… and for now, this will have to do.

What is the IDLTM?

Over the course of the last two weeks in Barcelona, I´ve been training on the IDLTM.  But, what is the IDLTM?  Other than being an extremely cumbersome acronym, that is.

[Disclaimer:  I´m about to explain what the course and certificate are.  While I do not directly profit from the success of the course, as one of the regular trainers on the course, I do have a vested interest in it being successful.  I was also one of the team that developed the curriculum, so I am quite personally attached to it, too.]

The International Diploma in Language Teaching Management is a course and qualification for managers of language teaching organisations.  The three organisations behind the course/certificate are Cambridge ESOL (like CELTA, DELTA etc), the University of Queensland, and the School for International Training (USA).  All three organisations are well known for their work in ELT and so the diploma itself is widely recognised, and very globally portable.  In addition the IDLTM is the sole  ELT management qualification recommended by NEAS (the Australian language teaching accreditation body).

Content and delivery

The course covers 8 modules: Managing Organisations; Human Resource Management; Managing Financial Resources; Marketing; Customer and Client Services; Project Management; Managing Change; and Academic Management, all of which are specifically tailored to the language teaching organisation context. [A full syllabus can found in this PDF document]

It is a blended learning course involving (usually) 2 weeks face to face at the beginning, in which typically all the 8 modules are begun.  Subsequently, in a 7-8 month period, the modules are extended and gone into in greater depth in an online format.  This is also the period in which the assessment takes place.  Assessment is by way of an assignment for each module, which are designed, as much as possible, to be practical tasks which are (it is hoped) of value to the person taking the course (and his/her organisation), as well as being an assessment tool for the diploma itself.  To give an example, the marketing assignment is to create a marketing plan for a new course, while the financial management assignment involves creating a fully costed proposal for some development of the organisation.

The course is designed to be at a post-graduate level, and indeed within the University of Queensland system, it can be applied towards their MA in Educational Leadership degree (it counts as 1/3 of that MA).

History

UCLES (as it was then – now Cambridge ESOL), developed a course in the early 90s called the Advanced Diploma in Language Teaching Management.  This was piloted in a number of countries and contexts.  Based on this original course, at the turn of the century, the three institutions which now “own” the diploma came together and decided to revise and redevelop the course and relaunch it as the IDLTM.  The first IDLTM course began in the USA on October 1^st, 2001  (I vividly remember this date as I was the course coordinator and three weeks before the course was due to start, there was a fairly major world event, which we thought would force us to cancel the course as all the participants in that particular group came from outside the US, and not ony did some need visas, but all, of course, needed to fly in.  Fortunately, we pulled it off).  Since then there have been a number of courses run around the world – in Brattleboro (VT, USA), Brisbane, Brazil, and Barcelona.  There is no actual requirement that courses must be held in places beginning with B, just in case you wondered.  This year aside from the the Barcelona course I´m working on at the moment there was one which started in Brisbane in April, one which will be in Brisbane at the end of October and one which will be held in DaNang, Vietnam in November (see, I told you it didn’t have to be a place that starts with B)

The online segment of the course nowadays takes place on Moodle.  So, far the course has had an extremely good record of student retention, with fewer than 5% dropping out (which as I understand it for blended or online learning is a very good rate).

Why take it?

Other than the fact that you might get me as a tutor, you mean?   Well, obviously I’m biased, but I reckon it’s a great course for managers of language teaching organisations, many of whom have come into management positions through teaching and have had very little (if any) actual management training.  This course meets the needs of such people, and provides both a hands-on and an in-depth theoretical grounding in management principles and practices.  It offers a portable qualification and certification by three of the (arguably) biggest names in ELT.  However, I do need to point out that it is not the only course in existence.  I’ll write another post in the next few weeks listing some of the other qualifications, to provide a modicum of balance (though only a modicum, you understand).  I also hope some people who’ve taken the course come across this page and add their feedback on the course as comments so you know there are people who have real participant-eye experience of the course who can give a different view.

And finally…

The most important question of all. How the hell do you pronounce “IDLTM”? Assuming you don’t want to refer to it as The International Diploma in Language Teaching Management all the time that is, obviously. Well, opinions differ. There are some who pronounce a short I, with a schwa between the T and M. Something like Idyll-Tm. Others go for a longer I (Idle-Tm) though some dislike the whole “Idle” bit, while some participants have played fast and loose and gone with Ideal-Team. I’m an idle man, myself, but then if you’ve been following this blog and it’s very slow post-growth, you’ll probably have guessed that already.

Inertia or caution?

Apologies for taking so long to write a second post!

One of the first suggestions I received on a topic to write about on here came from Nik Peachey:

How do we educate or encourage our managers / administrators to become better educated about what the web can do and the real issues and potential surrounding its use?

Nik’s question was mirrored a little in Karenne’s post here.  I’m going to rewrite Nik’s question slightly (as we trainers are always told not to do, of course), and ask how we can encourage managers to become better educated about technology in general.  And also to think about what considerations managers might have in thinking about technological solutions.

The first problem of course, is the dizzying pace at which the technological revolution is moving – each week seems to bring an innovation in classroom technology, online learning or some other area that managers (and teachers) need to be aware of and make decisions over.  As in many areas of life, inertia is easier (though rarely the best policy in the long run).

Then of course there is the financial aspect.  To equip a school with interactive whiteboards (IWBs) and train everyone to use them involves no small capital outlay.  Similarly running online courses, while not necessarily involving a great amount of up-front expenditure, often seems to have a very low margin (and frequently such courses are run at a loss, based on the vague assumption that this is the way of the future and even if it costs in the short term it will pay off in the long term).

And, then there’s the much talked about digital native/digital immigrant divide.  Most managers are almost certainly digital immigrants (I could write small programmes in BASIC when I was 15, but I don’t really think that puts me in the digital native category – my kids, on the other hand, seem to be fluent).  Give it ten years or so and there will be a different story here, but for now, it’s what we have to work with.

The ADKAR model of change management suggests that managers of people in an organisation which is engaged in change need to take care of 5 things – Awareness (are people aware of the need for the change?); Desire (do people actually want to make the change?); Knowledge (do people have the necessary training to perform the new tasks that are necessary under the change?); Ability (are people able to implement the change?); and Reinforcement (are they continually supported?).  But let’s turn this model on its head a little and look at it from the perspective of changing the  manager’s approach in the case of technological innovation in language teaching and learning.

Are managers aware of the need for this change?  Increasingly, I believe, they are.   Or at least they know that things are changing in the way teaching and learning are supported by technology, and that at some point there is a nettle that needs to be grasped. (It certainly comes up very often when I talk to managers of language teaching organisations).  They might feel that being at the cutting edge in their specific market would give them a competitive advantage even if they were still to be entirely convinced of the benefits of the innovation from a pedagogical standpoint.  After all, it’s pretty rare these days to find a language school that doesn’t have its own website, so it’s not a fear of technology per se.

Do they want it?  Less so, I suspect. Or at least the uncertainty and faddishness of technological solutions can and will cause doubts.  With so many options, so many possibilities and a limited amount of resources to devote to whatever decision is taken (and with IT as a sector in itself being so seemingly hit and miss – for every silicon valley success story there seem to be ten failures), it’s understandable if managers tend to adopt a wait-and-see policy.  While large well resourced organisations like the British Council can devote time and money on trying out all the possibilities and learning from their mistakes and successes, this is simply not an option for smaller language schools.  Waiting to see which approaches are going to be the necessary and long-standing ones (both pedagogically and for the marketplace) is on some levels a sensible and thoughtful approach.  And there’s no shame in being part of the early or late majority rather than an innovator – especially when it’s not just a personal decision, but one which impacts the organisation, and, by association, all the people in it.  [Plus, of course, I am writing this at a time when language schools are suffering financially from the current global downturn.  Just, possibly, as the current wave of pedagogical/technological tools is starting to break over us.  And one of the big ironies about all this of course, is that it's better to change things when things are going well, and not as a reaction to a crisis, but much more difficult to convince people of the need when everything's seemingly going well]

Without the awareness and desire, then, there is unlikely to be any sudden shift in the way things are done.

Michael Fullan has identified a number of reasons why educational innovations fail, and I think this can be tied into the same process as we have looked at above.  Among others he cites:

• Believing that complex problems can be solved quickly
• Adopting innovations which have only symbolic benefit
• Responding too quickly to fads
• Misunderstanding resistance as an attempt to block, rather than as indicating a need for help and support
• Allowing pockets of success to fail through lack of support

By way of conclusion, I’d like to focus on that fourth one, though I think all 5 have a relevance to this debate (and a couple of them I have already touched upon here).   There is, I think, a tendency to assume that managers are seemingly attempting to block innovation, or are just against change.  And while this may be true in a few cases, in many cases I believe it is in fact a need for help and support and advice.  What, I submit, is less helpful is ridiculing cautious managers as luddites and stick-in-the-muds.

And where will this help and support and advice come from?  Good managers will be reading and studying the literature on educational innovations, which will be part of the driving force, and on top of this I believe much of the impetus will come from teachers.  Teachers are increasingly realising that to engage with their learners they need to do so with and through new technology.  This needs to be transmitted to managers, who, sadly but inevitably, often have little direct contact with the learners as learners.  And reading a few customer satisfaction surveys does not have the impact of conversations with enthusiastic teachers.

I hope this does not come across as passing the buck.  The good manager will be very aware of the issues and research and potential of the web and of other technologies.  But taking that step into the unknown and making a policy decision which is going to have far-reaching consequences can be a daunting thing to do.  Perhaps this is where managers become leaders.

Finally, a story which I was told while training on the International Diploma in Language Teaching Management.  Some years ago, a large language teaching organisation made a decision, in consultation with its teachers and students, to replace the video cassette recorders and tape players in all the classrooms with DVD players which could also be used to play CDs.  Money was set aside for this task, which was a fairly expensive undertaking, and during the summer break, all the classrooms were changed over to the new, very flash and beautiful machines.  The teachers were delighted and they knew the students would be impressed. It wasn’t until the first day of the new term, that everyone suddenly realised that there was a slight problem.  The staffroom resources, of course, were unchanged.  Teachers had access to lots of cassettes and videos from various different coursebooks and supplementary materials, but nothing to play them on.  And, of course, no CDs or DVDs.

The Role of Teacher Observations

One of the big issues in the annual work cycle of many a DoS or other manager of teachers is the teacher observation. This is usually part of the annual performance review/appraisal system, and probably also involves a meeting where the DoS/Academic Manager gets together with the teacher to discuss their performance and possibly set goals for the year ahead. Most people have probably been through this process from at least one end – as teacher or other employee and/or as manager.

The teacher observation as a part of this process, usually involves teacher and manager agreeing a class to be observed, the teacher providing a lesson plan, and, after the class, a discussion (which may involve some form of documentary process, whereby the manager writes down her comments and the teachers signs off on his agreement/understanding of those comments).

But how useful is this? How effective is it as a way of managing performance? Obviously teacher observations which are specifically developmental can be an extremely useful tool for professional development – anyone who has ever been a teacher will have gained a great deal by being observed by a teacher trainer or a peer or even a manager – and I definitely believe in the teacher observation in this regard. But as part of “performance management”? I’m much much less convinced (well to be honest, I think it’s a bad idea altogether).

Some reasons why I think it’s a bad idea:

1. However much you make it clear that the object of the observation is developmental and not judgmental, by making it part of the annual (or semi-annual, or whatever regular interval) performance review cycle, it will inevitably take on at least some judgmental aspects (both from the teacher’s and the manager’s perspective)
2. How useful is it to review a teacher’s performance based on one (almost inevitably unrepresentative) hour out of their annual workload of possibly 1000 hours?
3. It’s time consuming.  For the teacher – who has to produce more formalised lesson plans, and has to go through the pre and post lesson meeting; and for the manager – who will be looking at least 2 hours time (for a one hour lesson) for each teacher under her management – even before the actual performance review process which will  require another couple of hours per teacher (the latter is time well spent, the former less so).  Even with as few as ten teachers under a DoS’s supervision, the time commitment is pretty high.
4. In some cases the manager has not come to her role through teaching – in this case it clearly makes very little sense to observe teachers and be able to make any meaningful suggestions or analysis.
5. Very often the teacher observation as part of the performance management process just exists because it always has been done this way, and nobody has thought to question it.  And it’s always worth challenging those mental models!

So, if I’m proposing that we drop the teacher observation from the performance review, I guess I should propose a replacement.  As the manager of a very large project to help a major Brazilian language school “reculture” itself, this was something we looked at, and what came out of the process was, I think, an excellent alternative solution to the standard review.  A working committee of teachers from all of the school’s branches was formed, and they worked together to propose something which they felt would be a better performance management system – and one that would be acceptable to both teachers and managers.  What they eventually settled on (and which became the new system) was something akin to the portfolio system of student assessment.  Teachers, over the year, were required to keep a portfolio.  This was designed to reflect their successes, problems, development, reflections – crucially whatever they wanted to take from the year.  Lessons that had been a great success, workshops attended, activities that had worked, activities that had not worked (and reflections as to why not), student work that had touched them in some way, whatever they wanted to remember and take from the year.  As part of the performance review meeting with their line manager, teachers presented these portfolios, sharing things that they wanted to share with their boss that came out of the year.  As it was an ongoing process and not just an annual thing, the portfolio further encouraged teachers to think and reflecting on their work constantly.  And the manager got to hear stories and anecdotes from the classroom that she would otherwise not have heard.  Both teachers and managers felt that the new system made a lot more sense and was of much greater value.

That’s not to say that this is all the meeting should involve – the idea of setting professional development goals for the year and reflecting on last year’s goals in a formalised way, is I think also very important, as are many other areas of performance management systems.  But as a replacement for the teacher observation section of that process, I think it is worth considering.

Just to be absolutely clear, I think well structured teacher observations as part of teacher development are fantastically useful  (both for observer and teacher), and there’s another blog post in the question of how to set up a successful peer observation system (for another time).

So, what do you think?  Teacher observations as a management tool – useful or not?  If you think they are important, why, and how should they best be set up?  Any and all comments gratefully received!

Introduction and Request

Thanks for coming along and taking a look.  The object of this blog is to provide some resources for managers of language teaching organisations, and to invite people to contribute their own questions, ideas, suggestions, problems and general chat.

To that end, what I need from  you the reader is your input.  In particular, I’d like to have a weekly “agony” column where you post in your management problems/issues/current difficulties (it can be from managers or from teachers who feel they have a management problem), and one or two leading experts from the field (and me, not necessarily part of that group), will respond with our suggestions/ideas.

Send problems/issues/questions here!

I will also post other stuff, so don;t feel you have to wait for weeks at a stretch to check back