Last month we looked at the excellent work of the Barcelona based SLB cooperative as part of our ELT strategy series and were somewhat taken aback and disappointed by the direction of the discussion which unfolded (a settling of scores by twitter rather than attention to teachers’ everyday struggles to make a living). While somewhat reluctant to return to the arena of “celebrity culture”, a recent high-quality podcast (featuring “rock star” Scott Thornbury) produced by the SLB coop simply cannot go without comment; for both its good and its bad aspects. We encourage readers to listen to it and indeed all the coop’s podcasts.
The Best of Scott Thornbury
A large part of the podcast is taken up with Thornbury discussing the role of the coursebook in ELT, and we must confess his contributions on the subject were quite excellent- Scott Thornbury at his best. Thornbury clearly outlined the limitations of the coursebook but also identified the practical constraints of teachers attempting to teach without a coursebook. Moreover, Thornbury suggested trying to adapt the course book in creative ways, though this is hardly new given that this is a central core of CELTA inspired teaching methodology. His contribution was far removed from the “book burning controversy” for which he has humbly apologised and moved on. Our issue was always that ELT preferred the “provocative and easily digestible” rather than a thorough examination of the subject, and this is a perfect example, we think, of the difference between Scott Thornbury the ELT celebrity phenomena and Scott Thornbury, the man, who when pushed (at that time too rarely), will make every effort to be more reflective. Indeed, at the same time as his book burning comments he was writing more subtle reflective pieces which simply didn’t get the same oxygen as his more provocative pronouncements. We have said it before but it is worth saying again, we as teachers push Ted Talks as “serious” comments on modern society and far too many of us uncritically introduce themes like “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus” into our classrooms.
Scott Thornbury also explains in the same interview why he has come to be one of the most vocal high profile supporters of trade union rights in ELT. Hats off to him, his support makes a real difference
The Coursebook Rebels
One issue we always had with attacks on coursebooks in addition to our stated position over nine years ago:
To argue for “doing away with” (burning) the course book, in the knowledge that course books are sediments of prejudice, expertise and training, is merely to avoid the questions of the type of institutional changes required in the “profession”
was that clearly some people not only saw the coursebook itself as a site of struggle but such individuals were also prominent in advocating improved conditions for teachers. One such individual is Hugh Dellar and another is Nicola Prentis (but of course there are many others). Both have been vociferous about the need for change and both have been committed to improving the materials available for teachers. Often those quick to criticise the coursebook have not been so quick to offer a realistic alternative (embedded in institutional change) to teachers and have said little about the content of alternative material other than they will be “student-centred”. We would argue that the dreadful Inside Out Series was “student-centred” with its appeal to popular cultural memes but it certainly didn’t challenge the student or the teacher to be reflective about the world they inhabit and their relation to it, other than celebrate superficiality in general and neoliberalism in particular. The less successful Global English series, while far from perfect, at least made an attempt to understand the global world in which we live and promoted a respect for the various English’s which exist in the world. In short, in what ways can so-called “student-centered” be too easily lumped in with a general depressing trend towards micro-marketing, Task Based Learning for Hotel Staff etc.
Capitalist Realism and the CELTA
And so we return to the end of the podcast, and perhaps the most important part, where Scott Thornbury discusses the CELTA. This unfortunately was a classic case of Capitalist Realism, where it is more difficult to imagine the end of the world (or English teaching) than the end of Capitalism (or change to the CELTA). The arguments were that any increase in the length (and subsequently cost) of the course would only lead to people taking another cheaper course (which already happens). Indeed, there was a defence that the CELTA gets people up and running and eventually the teacher (no matter how many bad lessons they have taught in between) will progress to be a relatively proficient teacher.
This can be contrasted with the discussion of Hugh Dellar (from the “evil world of coursebooks”) in in his blog where he confesses:
For natives such as myself, however, who arrive on courses often having spectacularly failed to learn a foreign language at school, with little or no ability to articulate and explain how language works and with no teaching experience whatsoever, a CELTA offers a crash course in how to fake it. A while back, there was a popular reality TV show on Channel 4 entitled Faking It which tried to teach unlikely candidates how to pass themselves off as a genuine example of someone alien. So, for instance, they’d take an Eton public school boy and coach him how to be a doorman / bouncer in a rough East London club. And the time frame within which this coaching occurred? You guessed it: one month! I can’t have been the only native-speaker teacher who saw uncomfortable parallels with their own entry into ELT because – and I’m being brutally honest here – on leaving my own CTEFLA course (as it was back then in 1993), I was little more than a competent fake, an extrovert performer able to gloss over the gaping holes in my linguistic knowledge with running dictations, a bit of TPR and some jazz chants. And yet in the eyes of the market, I was as qualified as any one of my Polish or Brazilian colleagues who’d done the same course – and of course I was also ‘privileged’ to be a native, despite all their bilingualism and prior experience.
In short, in the interests of consumer protection and the need to recognise a track record in language learning (most notably that demonstrated by Non-Native English Speaking Teachers) the CELTA desperately needs to be challenged.
Pound Shop Humboldt
In the podcast there is an attack on long university courses (with no practical teaching experience) as straw-dog justification for sending out teachers with a minimum of teaching experience and extremely limited linguistic knowledge. This is an important issue of whether the accumulation of knowledge in itself prepares the bearer with the capacity to actually teach. For the great Prussian humanist (philosopher, linguist, diplomat) the commitment to acquiring deep and wide knowledge was at the centre of his great liberal project of creating world citizens. For Humboldt each individual must ‘absorb the great mass of material offered to him by the world around him and by his inner existence, using all the possibilities of his receptiveness; he must then reshape that material with all the energies of his own activity and appropriate it to himself so as to create an interaction between his own personality and nature in a most general, active and harmonious form’ While not opposed to vocational training he claimed:
“There are undeniably certain kinds of knowledge that must be of a general nature and, more importantly, a certain cultivation of the mind and character that nobody can afford to be without. People obviously cannot be good craftworkers, merchants, soldiers or businessmen unless, regardless of their occupation, they are good, upstanding and – according to their condition – well-informed human beings and citizens. If this basis is laid through schooling, vocational skills are easily acquired later on, and a person is always free to move from one occupation to another, as so often happens in life.”
The impact of Humboldt’s ideas on European education should not be underestimated. Indeed, much criticism has been made of certain education systems (as we shall see in Part 5 of John Haycraft Notes towards a Biography andproposed reforms to post-soviet education) and it is always this priority of knowledge acquisition and research over practical vocational skills which comes rightly under attack.
However, there is a huge contradiction at the heart of contrasting CELTA to preparation of teachers at a university level (as if this was the only option). Quite simply, CELTA is pound shop Humboldtianism. The idea is that the individual will take it upon themselves to perfect themselves as a teacher and through their reading, individual research and practical experience they will become a complete teacher. We have no doubt that many teachers attempt to do just that, but unlike the university course they do not have a clear and structured path for doing so and will be dependent on the coursebooks, other colleagues behaving in a semi-blind fashion and the goodwill of schools to provide extra training.
If one thing has changed quite significantly since we fist started this blog in 2009 it is that many teachers who have embarked on the long process of professional development are now calling out the lack of evidence behind much of current ELT teaching practice. Meaning that the CELTA is a guarantee for all types of quackery and incompetence unless corrected by a systematic diffusion of reliable knowledge and training (not just reading one’s favourite blogs).
Moreover, in many countries and institutions the only way CELTA teachers can teach ELT is if they already have a university degree. The nature of the degree is unimportant because in Humboldtian terms, this paper guarantees a thirst of knowledge which will compensate for any shortcomings in the practical skills the teacher might have at the time of setting out on their ELT journey.
Funding Longer Courses and In Service Training
At no point have we argued here that CELTA should be abolished or the TEFL adventurer prevented from travelling abroad. There are issues, however, about providing transparency as to what a language learner might expect from a teacher and certain institutions and local state authorities might indeed question their continued support for a system which discriminates against Non-Nest and Second Language Learning Competent teachers (failing to recognise their proven language learning knowledge and competence) and does not provide guarantees above the most basic of training preparation (roughly equivalent to training provided for Bar and Cafe work). Of course, through a system of state supported training and improved regulation and industry transparency, standards could indeed be raised.
Furthermore, it is disheartening to hear those talk about how it was in 1973 and what opportunities it has provided them without realising how the economic landscape has changed considerably for new entrants to the industry. For example, those trotting off to IH for a three week training period in 1973 probably hadn’t already incurred a student debt of over of over 50,000 UK pounds or above. Many teachers today (not all but a significant number) want to see a clear professional path where proper pre-service training can be supplemented by affordable (if not free) in-service training which is then reflected in the remuneration levels available for teachers who have undertaken such training. This is about raising standards and raising pay in those sectors we can, regardless of whether large parts of the tertiary sector prefer to offer low quality courses at lower (because that they are not that low) prices. Already students can do Skype classes for 7 dollars an hour, great!! However, for those requiring a more skilled language teacher they might prefer a course which guarantees higher standards and better-qualified teachers. Currently, many private schools live off the plain quackery of “Qualified” Native Teachers and they are allowed to do so.
In Conclusion
We will leave you then with the words of that “evil coursebook writer”, Hugh Dellar rather than the pessimism (Capitalist Realism) of Scott Thornbury on this subject:
Many on Twitter have pointed out that Cambridge themselves have been surveying current trainers and are keen to revamp the syllabus. We could look at this as a positive sign, of course; we could remind ourselves that many in the profession start from an even lower base and blag their way into work on the back of a week-long course or even a weekend-long one or, in extreme (but nevertheless still depressingly common) instances, simply on the back of having been born in the UK or US! We could embrace any changes and think it’s better than nothing.
Or we could rise up and say enough’s enough. We could refuse to teach on or offer CELTA courses as they’re inadequate preparation for the realities of teaching. We could point out the ridiculous advantages their continued status confers upon natives and just down tools, walk away and instead imagine a better, brighter future where ELT starts seeing itself more as a serious profession, and not one you can claim membership of simply by having done six assessed hours of teaching and twenty mornings of input.
The choice is ours.
Marxist TEFL Group 
A little perspective would go a long way here.
First, the direction of the discussion following your previous post on our co-op was mainly down to score settling by both you and Geoff Jordan, I think largely on your blog and Geoff’s, rather than on Twitter. I’ll leave that there because I don’t think it did either of you any good, nor SLB by implication.
Secondly, on the recent podcast and the CELTA. You report Scott Thornbury’s views, but you don’t mention mine. I repeatedly attacked the CELTA and pointed (like you) to a need for change at state, regulatory level to help us get beyond it. Scott and Geoff only agreed it was good enough if followed by adequate CPD, which as I pointed out, is usually not adequate and worse, Ts have to pay for it in terms of time and/or money. I therefore directed the discussion back to the need for fundamental improvement in pay and conditions, unionisation etc, which is the part of the conversation you pay scant attention to (and you completely ignore my defence of degree-level TESOL courses).
As for Hugh Dellar’s comments on the CELTA, it is worth bearing in mind that Dellar and Walkley’s coursebooks are widely used on the very courses he criticises, as with other coursebooks, which these courses seem largely to depend on. Meanwhile, as someone in the industry with considerable influence, Dellar is perhaps in a position to offer some alternative. But unless something has been going on behind the scenes in the 3 years since he published those comments (which I would wholeheartedly welcome), I think Hugh Dellar’s contributions to teacher training are largely comparable to those of Scott Thornbury: that’s to say, traveling the world offering CPD to teachers whose initial training was inadequate.
So I agree with Hugh that we should rise up and say enough’s enough. But saying it’s not enough. Doing something about it is the real challenge. So, *how* do we begin constructing an alternative to provide the “proper pre-service training” we so badly need?
Thank you Neil for your comments and please accept our apologies if our article (or at least the comments exchange) caused damage to the coop or your on-line course. This was never our intention.
As for the substantive points of your reply, we were referring to the twitter storm (with no doubt a much greater audience than our humble blog) where some very unpleasant comments were made (as they so often are with twitter) and people said they could not promote your course. While we may have inadvertently provoked this we cannot say people were refusing to promote the course because of our recommendation of your coop, but we do recognise our inadvertent part in unleashing this “storm in a teacup”. Sorry!! As per our opinions on one of your prominent coop members we have made a solemn undertaking to say no more on the subject.
On the second point, we urge readers to listen to the podcast and not take anybody’s word for what is said there but listen themselves. The coop has kindly made this series of podcasts available (free!!!) and it appears to us that much consideration and effort has gone into the production (we have certainly enjoyed the content – albeit frustrated and in disagreement sometimes). We do note that you made some quite excellent (if short) contributions but (for us) you may as well have been talking Serb-Croat for all the notice that was taken. For this reason we chose not to mention your attempts to steer the discussion in a positive direction. But, again, people should make up their own mind when listening.
We do not make an equivalence between Hugh Dellar and Scott Thornbury simply because the pernicious celebrity culture of parts of ELT has not wrapped itself around Dellar (at least not to our knowledge) as it has Thornbury. And Dellar, to our knowledge has not succumbed to the fatalism (Capitalist Realism) of Scott Thornbury (at least on the surface, for Thornbury is indeed full of pleasant surprises at times). Our use of Hugh Dellar’s (hated defender of the coursebook) article was to explain how the coursebook itself is a site of struggle. Indeed, those who criticise the coursebook ahead of criticising the CELTA are basically putting the cart before the horse; materials are written for institutional needs, institutional needs are not created for materials.
On the “how”, we are happy to explain exactly that in a separate blog piece (but it should be rather obvious and predicatable what we might say on the concrete steps).
Thanks again for taking the time to converse with us.
Thanks for this. I’ll try to be brief, and I’ll go kind of backwards.
The concrete steps for providing an alternative to the CELTA are precisely what I’d be interested in discussing and developing, rather than talk of content, length etc. (at this stage). It’s how to get the regulation into the sector to make such an alternative viable, and from there to make that standard international, that (for me) presents the real challenge.
I recognise that the CB is a site of struggle but I’m not sure that the CELTA isn’t either, as can be seen with CELTAs that promote Dogme, TBLT or CLT. I.e. the CELTA *can* be done without depending on CBs. Therefore I’m not entirely sure which is the cart and which the horse in this case. In fact, one of the main criticisms I have of the CELTA is that it is not consistent. My CELTA (entirely CB-driven) is worth the same as someone else’s more dynamic one; how can that be?
I think you understand my Serbo-Croat and so it was up to you to take any notice or not. However, I appreciate your suggestion that listeners make up their own minds and I thank you for supporting what we’re trying to achieve here.
Finally, the two people who attacked SLB on Twitter (and I don’t blame your blog for provoking this) are both coursebook writers. Make of that what you will, but one thing I can say about CELTA trainers from experience is that they are not as personally invested in their product as CB writers tend to be in theirs, and their relationship with the Cambridge syllabus is perhaps more open-ended than CB writers’ relationships with editors, the huge corporations they represent, and the markets they are trying to sell to.
Where is the open source online course that the future of tech promised? With a certificate? Blend this with an additional certificate of onsite training and practicum ( and you have a start). Focus on education not the narrow teaching English add on which be just part of the qualification.
Now there is an interesting idea!! And, having seen your twitter comment (we weren’t sure if you were being ironic), we can confirm we read your stuff and you are appreciated. Not that a thumbs up from the Marxist TEFL group will grow your popularity, but worth saying it anyhow!!
“The impact of Humboldt’s ideas on European education cannot be underestimated.”
I think you mean ‘overestimated’. But the slip betrays the weakness in your argument: are you seriously suggesting that the preparation to be a teacher of ELT should focus first and foremost on developing ‘good, upstanding and – according to their condition – well-informed human beings and citizens.’? How exactly would this work? How long would it take? How much would it cost? What would the curriculum look like? (At what point, for example, would you introduce the phonemic script? Tense and aspect? Concept questions?)
There is another great educationalist, the impact of whose ideas cannot be underestimated [sic] either, and that is John Dewey. Dewey shares Humboldt’s distaste for ‘vocational’ or ‘pre-professional’ education, believing that such a narrowly-focused and utilitarian model entrenches class distinctions and militates against self-realisation. But the alternative is not necessarily the humanistic and liberal education promoted by Humboldt. Dewey advocated an experiential, inquiry-based model of education which attempts to ‘heal’ the school-society divide, on the grounds that ‘the school cannot be a preparation for social life excepting as it reproduces, within itself, typical conditions for social life’ (John Dewey: The Middle Works. Vol 4, p. 269).
One way that these conditions are reproduced is through cycles of activity (i.e. experience), reflection and inquiry. Say what you like about the CELTA but – in good hands – it is (or should be) grounded in these principles. Few university courses I know of are. As it happens, I teach on an MA in ELT at a university that was co-founded by Dewey and we try to live up to his educational philosophy. Like it or not, for many students this particular MA is an entry-level qualification. It takes 18 months, minimally, and costs more than 10 times as much as your average CELTA. I like to think we’re doing a good job at implementing cycles of experiential learning and preparing our students to be – not just ‘good, upstanding and well informed human beings’ – but also effective teachers across a range of possible contexts . But I’m not surprised that there are relatively few takers. Nor am I convinced that this is the best model of pre-service training. I’m not saying that the CELTA is either, but it may be the least bad viable alternative.
Capitalist realism? Or ornery realism?
Cheers
Scott
You are quite right the sentence doesn’t make sense- thank you, we have corrected it!!
However, it should read “should not be underestimated” in that the educational reforms Humboldt helped spearhead made the Prussian and the then German models of academic research and excellence envied throughout the world. The hangover from this success is reflected in the fact that teaching jobs in universities around Europe are dependent on a factory of research and article production rather than practical experience of helping undergraduates maximise their learning experiences. But it certainly CAN be “overestimated” in that in the Anglo-sphere at least teaching in state schools was made dependent on a post-graduate certificate of training with a heavy emphasis of practical training in the classroom. Indeed, European education systems can be divided by the amount of Humboldtism, and interestingly in the reform of post-soviet education systems it was often a battle against entrenched Humboldtism rather than anything particular marxist which has characterised the post-soviet period. In Hungary in particular it is fascinating how the country did not just switch from Russian to English as a target second language but institutions like the British Council were very much involved in challenging entrenched Humboldtism in the state sector. Naturally, there was much kickback from institutions with a track record of incredible academic excellence and research, if not a proven track record of an effective teaching system. Peter Medgyes was very much a product of these fascinating times.
In short, Humboldt has zero to offer in the field of effective teacher training though his commitment to research and academic excellence might help ELT in a more indirect way (provided practitioners are equipped to be able to evaluate the benefits of such research).
We welcome your comments on Dewey, especially as an alternative to Humboldt. Dewey was clearly interested in using education to promote democracy and individual growth. Indeed, when we hear right-wing ideolgues attacking the numbers of people entering universities and the teaching of “media-studies” we think they are being rather Humboldtian in reaction to progressive Deweyism which wants all members of society to be able to reflect deeply and critically as possible about the everyday which surrounds them in order that they might participate effectively in developing the future direction of society.
That said, our piece was about teacher training and what we were keen to say is that a critique of Humboltianism cannot be used as an excuse (as it was in the podcast but not by yourself) for accepting the current state of teacher training as represented by the CELTA. Indeed, we suggest that behind CELTA is a kind of parody of Humboldtism; a pound shop Humboldt.
To conclude we would say that the Post Graduate Teaching Certificate is a model (not one that should be simply copied but one to be adapted) for ELT teachers in that it combines practical experience and instruction with wider deeeper thoughts on the teaching process. It is simply dishonest to say someone is “qualified” after a four week course, though that four week course might be a necessary prep exercise before entering a classroom (where people actually pay) and where a process of sustained and planned teacher education can begin.
The practical question is what is expected of a teacher and how we can construct modules of training that support the trainee in reaching those expectations (i.e., being a qualified teacher).
Thanks for the clarification on ‘Humboldtism’ and for reminding me of the PGCE, which I agree provides a better model for pre-service ELT training than either a linguistics degree or a CELTA, not least because it is situated within a broader educational (as opposed to narrowly EFL) context.
I work at Humboldt University in Berlin, but though I’m no expert I think it’s perhaps a mistake to look at German pedagogy through a non-German lens. The whole idea of ‘Bildung’, or formation, is so important here and not in the UK or States. Also I’m not entirely sure I agree that Humboldt’s “commitment to acquiring deep and wide knowledge was at the centre of his great liberal project of creating world citizens” and that “knowledge acquisition and research” are prioritised over practical vocational skills. If this viewpoint was so influential then why does Germany have, arguably, a much better system of vocational education than the UK? There is still an apprenticeship system here, or a dual system, where young people can work as well as get qualifications – whereas in the UK youth unemployment is massive. I guess the point is Marxist Elf is making – as I understand it – is to point to what the ‘Humboldt Ideal’ of education became as it was institutionalised. But then you have the same debate as Marx and Marxist-Leninism: Was Marx responsible for what came after him – for the authoritarian socialism of the 20th century? Was Humboldt responsible for the way some of his ideas became embedded in educational systems? (Or is it just his name that became embedded…)
Scott mentions Dewey, who had a democratic view of schooling sure. But his thought is so damned vague at times it’s practically useless. Dewey and other American philosophers didn’t want to ground their ideas in anything European so they came up with Pragmatism – and so in his texts there are acres of foundation-building which you have to go through to grasp his incredibly airy ideas. Just open ‘Democracy and Education’ – it reads like a Prussian field manual for education in endless laborious detail. There’s also a good critique of Pragmatism too in Pratt (2002 – http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=21225) where he asks: Where did Pragmatism come from? And he argues that large chunks of it were inspired by/ stolen from the Native Americans. (Just ask yourself: Did the colonists who went to the US exhibit the traits we associate with Pragmatism eg openness to experience? If not where did those traits come from?)
Anyway, replace the CELTA with a one-year style course (or 9 months with 3-month practical work?) – good idea! Why don’t people make a draft of a proposed syllabus? Personally, as a corrective to what it exists now I would like to see a module on ‘The Teacher’s Place in the World’ or something, where teachers would *critically* assess the development of the profession/ industry and their place in it.
All good points!!! Would especially agree with your points on Humboldt versus “Humboldtian”. He is claimed by progressive and conservatives for all types of justifications. The key for us is this idea that the Prussians built an almighty education system prioritising research and academia over training (referred to as Humboldtian). It is undoubtedly true German research institutes were once the envy of the world (my god, every self respecting scientists or academic around the world had to learn German) but the history of Prussian and German education tells a far more complicated story of the relation between training and academia than this, including improved teacher training.
At the end of the day rather than make excuses for CELTA as some alternative to Humboldtian excess, we should look at the CELTA for what it is. And it is shocking that such a certificate is taken to mean “qualified”!! Teachers and students are both being ripped off and we should identify the core components of what we expect from a qualified teacher and ensure a teacher exhibits those competencies before being certified “qualified”. These competencies should form, as you say, part of 9 to 12 month training/study programme. This is not withstanding the obvious point a teacher should ideally demonstrate their own capacity to learn a second language.
To avoid being anti-CELTA trainees, however, we could concentrate on how core competences of a qualified teacher might be reflected in transparent pay scales and how shools can be incentivized/forced to adopt such measures (making their training levels and CPD programme transparent to potential students).