Classroom Rules – Updated Feb. 2017

My new updated classroom rules, updated from December. They have changed a lot since the non-targeted issue that began in Jan. of 2016. As per points made last fall by Krista Kovalchick on iFLT, I removed the one about suggesting cute answers. Now, as per Tina’s suggestion of today, I agree that I have to eliminate Rule #3 as well – the one about sitting up, squared shoulders and clear eyes. Why? For one thing, it turns kids who may be suffering – and who among them is not? – into liars. But also all it did was put what we couldn’t do because we were so boring with our circling and massed reps that we put that request on the kids. Our classes need to be sufficiently interesting that they naturally want to pay attention and we cannot force same. As Tina puts it: “If our talk in class is compelling enough, then that rule about sit up and square shoulders is not needed. With that rule, we are asking the KIDS to take on our burden. And we are asking them to do that because we have too much on our plates. Too much on our minds. Our minds were weighted down with target language. With the pressure to get more clicks on the baseball counter. We have now jettisoned things from our hot air balloons – targets and with them all their accessories (massed reps, circling, word lists, etc.), and that can take us on the fast road, the high road, to compelling.”

New Classroom Rules – updated Feb. 2017

1. Listen with the intent to understand.
2. One person speaks and the others listen.
3. Support the flow of language.
4. If the teacher is not clear, tell him/her.
5. Do your 50%.
6. Actors – synchronize your actions with my words.
7. Nothing on desks unless told otherwise.
[#3 credit: Alisa Shapiro]
[#5 credit: John Piazza]

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn

19 thoughts on “Classroom Rules – Updated Feb. 2017”

  1. I like how these are less rules rather than more.

    From mGR, i have look at the words, gestures, pictures (then I added “Actors”)

  2. Yet again, a burning question on my mind regarding classroom management was already answered for me. Glad I looked for it instead of posting a new question. Just have to say that yesterday they seemed SO bored with the story and my questions, and at first I was defensive and kind of hurt. But after reading this I realize that I can’t expect them to be making eye contact and paying rapt attention if what I’m doing is inherently boring, which it was. Good thing my class doesn’t meet today and I have some time to rethink how it will go tomorrow! Thanks!

    1. And Hillary even if it is boring, you are still doing your job when you are delivering understandable messages in the form of comprehensible input. What were mostly boring classes for me when I was doing targeted stories – and I speak only for myself but there are others who have experienced this also – there are a lot less boring stories when I use the Invisibles Star Sequence. Got a nice story in Connecticut these past few days and it was bc of the way an individually created character (an envelope named Saul) moved via the questioning levels into what was really a fine and very enjoyable story creation process w very low levels of fear in my mind about how it was going to develop. Less boredom, a lot less, with the Invisibles train tracks keeping the Invisibles train on the rails.

  3. I need clarification on the meaning of some rules # 1) Listen with the intent to understand-Does this mean if a student/students isn’t/aren’t listening to you, you should walk over and point to this rule?
    #3) Support the flow of conversation-Exactly what behavior are you expecting from your students?

    Does this makes sense?In order for class to be interesting enough to listen and read for hours and hours, students must provide interesting topics of conversation for the teacher to discuss in French. The teacher will create opportunities, and students are expected to suggest fun, interesting, personal conversation ideas. Avoid English-Students are expected to speak French as much as possible. When I need a creative, interesting suggestion, I will say “Au secours!” “Help me”. Then I will allow 1 or 2 English words and the teacher will take over and translate words/ideas in French.

    #4) Do your 50%-What should I be expecting? Should this rule be pointed out when students aren’t paying attention/bothering others. I’m confused as which rule applies to which misbehavior.
    Does the following make sense?
    Eyes on teacher and respond to questions (Sit up, turn your shoulders and look teacher in the eyes). Most of the time I will want a choral response-a)I will gesture thumbs up/thumbs down, yes (Oui) or no (Non!) b) or either c) If I want an individual response-I will raise one arm up. Give enthusiastic responses. I will be teaching you other hand gestures to let you know what kind of response that I would like to have from you. Complete classroom reading and writing work on time.
    Thanks for your help with my questions.

  4. Diane I will respond to these questions above in a new post. I am glad that you are about getting these expected behaviors out to your students/parents and admins this year. This discussion will help everyone. If we don’t have these rules in place, we have nothing. But we don’t read them all out on the first day. We enforce each time they are broken, which is A LOT (and our real hidden agenda) in the first few weeks of the year.

  5. Ben, I am finalizing my syllabi and am looking forward to being able to give clear and concise descriptions of what behaviors aren’t allowed per rule and what behaviors are required to both parents, students and administrators.
    Thanks for your help with this.

  6. I didn’t really answer your specific questions in the post, but I hope it helped.

    Let’s look at some of your specific questions above:

    Q. Does this [listen w the intent to understand] mean if a student/students isn’t/aren’t listening to you, you should walk over and point to this rule?
    A. No, because you don’t know if they are listening or not. Some kids look as if they are listening but aren’t and vice versa. So w this rule it’s more of a general rule, unenforceable really so don’t walk over and point to it. That action of walking over and pointing happens 90% of the time w Rule #2.

    1. So why do you have this rule then? What do I say to my students and parents when they ask what I mean by Listen with the intent to understand?

      1. I put it as rule #1 to set the tone. This sentence I have been asking my students and parents to take notice of for over 30 years now. It is my mantra, as it were. It is less a rule than a statement of expectations. I should maybe not call it a rule, but it fits nicely there.

  7. Diane let’s look at this. You may be writing in your newly finalized syllabi this:

    “In order for class to be interesting enough to listen and read for hours and hours, students must provide interesting topics of conversation for the teacher to discuss in French. The teacher will create opportunities, and students are expected to suggest fun, interesting, personal conversation ideas.”

    To be frank, this can’t work. It’s too mechanized. The kids cannot do that. They cannot provided topics and they can’t suggest fun ideas. ALL OF THAT COMES AS A RESULT OF YOU USING A SYSTEM – MINE IS THE INVISIBLES – JUST SOME SYSTEM TO MAKE THE KIDS WANT TO DO THOSE THINGS. THEY CANNOT BE FORCED TO DO THOSE THINGS. NOR CAN ANY HUMAN CONVERSATION BE THE RESULT OF ONE PERSON DOING ALL THE WORK.

    And this:

    “Avoid English-Students are expected to speak French as much as possible. When I need a creative, interesting suggestion, I will say “Au secours!” “Help me”. Then I will allow 1 or 2 English words and the teacher will take over and translate words/ideas in French.”

    Again, this is not going to work. I suggest dropping this text from the syllabi. Why? It is bc CI has a certain naturalness to it, where you don’t have to put the kind of pressure to control the conversation all on yourself and to force certain reactions out of kids. Kids are supreme fakers. That is so tough on you! And the kids won’t buy into it, even if some act like they are. It all has to be natural and genuine. The Invisibles books are written to allow you to create that easy conversation w/ much less effort.

    I look forward this year to seeing how the journey in letting go of the need to control the class and just being there w them and enjoying their simple answers (to your interesting questions about what they drew) progresses this year. Read this as well:

    https://benslavic.com/blog/lart-de-la-conversation-and-tprs/

  8. Also I would avoid saying this to them:

    “Eyes on teacher and respond to questions (Sit up, turn your shoulders and look teacher in the eyes). Most of the time I will want a choral response-a)I will gesture thumbs up/thumbs down, yes (Oui) or no (Non!) b) or either c) If I want an individual response-I will raise one arm up. Give enthusiastic responses. I will be teaching you other hand gestures to let you know what kind of response that I would like to have from you. Complete classroom reading and writing work on time.”

    1. I dropped that rule about squared shoulders. They never do it. They can’t. School has made it impossible for them to do that. It’s not their fault.
    2. The thumbs up or down thing doesn’t work. This is starting to look like TPRS w all it’s little rules. Doesn’t work. Don’t require it.
    3. I remember trying things like the one arm up thing. It doesn’t work. You won’t be able to remember to do it. And they won’t remember what it means.

    You’re going to have to accept that CI must be natural and cannot be codified or made into a mechanical system. That’s one of the reasons I left the TPRS camp.

    4. “Complete classroom reading and writing work on time.” On the writing they are given ten min. on each of two activities – Free Writes and Dictee. So really minimize the writing. The reading is FCR and should be done also in ten min. at the start of class only.

    Look. This change is hard. Work towards following the natural flow of a developing conversation based on an image. That is the goal. Less is more in this work. Keep us posted on how this goes as you read the Invisibles books. This is a big change.

    1. Again, how do I explain the rules to students and parents? Even if I don’t write it in my syllabus, the students and parents will want to know what I mean by each one of them.
      I definitely won’t get my syllabi approved by the administration here unless I can explain them.
      Since I don’t have FCR library as yet. I can’t use this activity yet. When I get funding from the district I will begin to print out books and purchase more.
      I am not saying that the CI Invisibles approach isn’t the way to go, it is the ideal. But if I am going to move in that direction, I first have to clear descriptions of the classroom rules for students, parents and admin to accept them since 65% of the the student’s grade is in comprehensible input.
      I’d really appreciate if you could help me out here with understandable explanations.
      Merci bien~!

      1. Did you see the above post from yesterday explaining each rule?

        Contact Mike Peto and ask him how to put together a quick library. He’ll have a good concrete answer. mikepeto@gmail.com

        I would say 100% of the grade is in comprehensible input. 65% in the rubruc and 35% in smaller daily grades like dictee, free writes, and quick quizzes.

        There is this from the Big CI Book;

        Assessment Tool #2 – Assessment Using jGR/ISR:
        The assessment tool named jen’s Great Rubric (jGR, also known as the Interpersonal Skills Rubric – ISR) is a skills rubric based on the Three Modes of Communication of ACTFL. It is a true heavy hitter in that it forces students to show that they are interpersonally involved with you and with the learning process in the classroom, as per statements made by ACTFL about skills that are required for language acquisition to occur.
        jGR is the happy outcome of a two year long online collaboration between me, Robert Harrell in Los Angeles, jen Schongalla in New Hampshire and Annick Chen, my colleague at Abraham Lincoln High School in Denver. We named the rubric after jen, who first identified in rubric form the skills that we wanted to see in our students in class.
        Our reasoning in using this rubric is that if our students can exhibit the interpersonal skills that have been defined by our national parent organization ACTFL as necessary in learning a language, then they will learn the language. We want to hold our students accountable for those skills above all others. Holding them accountable means tying those desired skills to the grading process.
        Below is one version of the rubric. Simply put, this rubric is used to measure the quality of the interaction in a comprehension-based classroom. What is the observable non-verbal quality between students and teachers? It is our claim that in CI classes a high quality of interaction is everything we want and need to be successful in our jobs:
        2 4 6 tdslaviccibook161605 the big ci book

        INTERPERSONAL SKILLS RUBRIC (used in daily assessment: 65% of grade)
        5 ALL SKILLS IN 4, PLUS NON-FORCED EMERGING OUTPUT. The student who earns a 5 on the quality
        of their interpersonal interaction with their teacher is a rare student who throws out some good unforced French every once in a while. If I am in the middle of piling up repetitions on “She went camping at Wal-Mart,” this student is the one who says in the target language, “So there is a girl who goes camping at Wal-Mart, right?” and I go, “Yes, that’s it!,” and we go on with no use of English. That kid is a 5 kid. These are really strong co-creators of stories. I would say to this student: “You are giving A+ effort. You play the game perfectly.”
        4 (A/B) THE STUDENT CONSISTENTLY AND IN A CLEARLY OBSERVABLE WAY NEGOTIATES MEANING WITH THE TEACHER NONVERBALLY. This is the student who is really involved but not spontaneously outputting speech yet. They are respectfully involved, always visually locked on, they consistently use the stop sign when they do not understand, they are always there with cute answers, and are just a blessing to each class and I tell them so. These are strong co-creators of stories.
        3 (B/C) THE STUDENT SOMETIMES NEGOTIATES MEANING WITH THE TEACHER NONVERBALLY IN AN OBSERVABLE WAY, BUT THE NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IS INCONSISTENT. THERE IS ALSO INCONSISTENT USE OF THE “STOP” SIGNAL. This student is also involved but more passively. They show that they are not always on top of all the CI because they let the stop sign slide a bit. This is the student who used to get an A in my class just for getting 8 or above on quizzes. No more. These are limited co-creators of stories. They do not blurt out words in English or talk to their neighbor in English. They can be counted on not to blurt.
        2 (C/D) ATTENTIVE BUT DOESN’T RESPOND; DOESN’T USE THE “STOP” SIGNAL. THERE IS NO OBSERVABLE NEGOTIATION OF MEANING WITH THE INSTRUCTOR. This is the student who may or may not get a good grade on a quiz but makes me work way too hard. They just aren’t involved. They don’t get how to play the game yet. They occasionally blurt out words in English or talk to their neighbor in English, both of which destroy the goal of the class, to stay in the target language as per the 90% Use Position Statement of
        the American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), which is the national parent organization for foreign language teachers in the United States. But usually they just stare at me in spite of my being practically on my knees begging them for a more creative and energetic response to all the hard work I am doing. These are not co-creators of stories.
        1 (D/F) NOT ATTENTIVE: NO EYE CONTACT OR EFFORT*. These students are not creators of anything. THERE IS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF OBSERVABLE NEGOTIATION OR MEANING AT ALL GOING ON BETWEEN THEM AND THE INSTRUCTOR. They suck air out of the room. They do poorly on tests. They give nothing to the story. Their chances of failing the course are high. They often blurt out words in English or talk to their neighbor in English, both of which destroy the goal of the class. I would say to this student: “You really don’t add anything to the class; in fact, you might put your head down, come in late, try to do work for your other classes, disrupt others, blurt out in English, talk to your neighbor during class, organize your purse or bag, put on make-up, check the time every other minute, try to text, etc.”
        2 4 7 tdslaviccibook161605 the big ci book

        *One might object that that is just the way some kids are, and are that way through no fault of their own. This may be true, but my job, as described in the main clause of my school’s mission statement, includes the phrase “build productive citizens” who are ready for work in the 21st century workplace. I take that seriously. So if I let those same kids’ stone faced behavior or blurting go, thus not aligning my assessment with the national standards or with my school’s mission statement, then I am not properly doing my job for my employer and I should be fired.
        Note in this rubric that demonstration of interpersonal skills at level 4 does not depend on the student’s ability to speak or write, but on their demonstrated use of skills to negotiate meaning in the target language. Negotiation of meaning is everything in the process of language acquisition.
        It is therefore important to note that students can earn a grade of “A” on interpersonal skills no matter what their level of proficiency/readiness to output. The reason for this is that consistent use of these input skills in the process of language acquisition ensures the highest possible level of comprehension and thus, much later, of output in the form of correct speech and writing.
        Here is how jen defines the word “attentive” in the rubric:
        ATTENTIVE = NOTHING ON DESK OR LAP; SITS UP; MAINTAINS EYE CONTACT WITH SPEAKER; LISTENS WITH INTENT TO UNDERSTAND; RESPONDS TO STATEMENTS/QUESTIONS WITH SHORT ANSWERS OR VISUALLY; DOESN’T BLURT.
        Of course, the close reader can recognize in that definition the Classroom Rules.
        There is another more simplified downloadable version of this rubric in color that is easier for students to relate to. It was designed by Annick Chen and can be found on the posters page of benslavic.com along with the Classroom Rules.
        Robots can sit attentively but the difference is that they give nothing to the group. That’s why jGR is about interpersonal skills and not inter-robotic skills, which are needed when students memorize things for a grade. So the new definition of a successful student in a language class, in my view, is one who tries to do the rigorous work of interacting with me in class, not just by listening, but also by responding actively with one word answers or to whatever degree they can in the TL. Those students should be rewarded.
        As inferred above, teaching a language is not about getting measurable gains on tests, for three identifiable reasons:
        1. Kids process things at different speeds. It doesn’t mean that they can’t learn the language.
        2. Working hard to try to understand is the real work.
        3. We are dealing with a language. It’s an unconscious process. It’s a soup that takes years and years to be ready to serve. Does a gourmet chef dare to pass judgment on the taste of a soup after only fifteen minutes into its preparation when the recipe calls for eight hours of slow cooking before it is ready to taste?
        2 4 8 tdslaviccibook161605 the big ci book

        Let’s be clear. Some students don’t have bubbly personalities. That is not the point. When we talk about showing a strong interpersonal skill, the quietest kid in the room might be one of the strongest and most expressive.
        We all have had those quiet kids. Sometimes in their silence they are more expressive than the louder kids, much more so in fact. So the claim cannot be made that a child who is a quiet superstar would, in jGR, run the risk of getting a lower grade. They could easily be rated at 4. Re-read below the description of a 4 on the jGR scale to confirm that statement:
        4 (A/B) THE STUDENT CONSISTENTLY AND IN A CLEARLY OBSERVABLE WAY NEGOTIATES MEANING WITH THE TEACHER NONVERBALLY. This is the student who is really involved but not spontaneously outputting speech yet. They are respectfully involved, always visually locked on, they consistently use the stop sign when they do not understand, they are always there with cute answers, and are just a blessing to each class and I tell them so. These are strong co-creators of stories.
        Such kids would not be rated at a 5. That is a good thing. We are here to educate the whole child. Ours may be the only class that this kind of “Buddha” student experiences in high school that might push her outside the limits of her comfort zone if they really want the 5 on jGR, which requires that they speak in an unforced way on occasion.
        Forcing a highly intelligent but quiet student out of their comfort zone into occasional unforced speech would be a true service by us to the child, and align with most schools’ expressed mission statements to address the needs of the whole child. Language education is much more than an academic exercise. The children in our schools must be trained to be much more than uninvolved observers.
        Beyond that, jen also uses the term “uses the stop sign” as a key indicator in determining a score above 2. To get a 3 or above, the child doesn’t have to be a fast processor, nor have great talent at writing or speaking, but be able to demonstrate the skill of negotiating meaning in the target language. People who attempt to negotiate meaning in the target language, quietly or not, learn the language. It cannot be said that jGR punishes students for having introverted personalities.
        A student who interacts with me in class nonverbally but in observable fashion and who uses the stop sign and shows up for class in the real way is exhibiting a human and not a robotic response and I will reward that kid with a grade at least above 2. I will not reward a kid who doesn’t use the stop sign or who chooses to give me nothing back in class. Such a student will be rated at a 2 at most. Then passing the class becomes the student’s problem and not mine, which is the way it should be but which is not the way it is now in most school settings.
        There are students in many classes who exhibit considerable skill in being able to get a grade by merely knowing the material. But, in a comprehension-based class, they cannot get away with that. Language, as described on
        the ACTFL web pages, requires that reciprocal back and forth communication occur between the teacher and the student. If a student in my classes chooses to do well on the quizzes (35% of the grade) but not participate in the real way in class as described in the jGR rubric (65% of the grade), then they can earn a 2 on jGR and hope for a
        2 4 9 tdslaviccibook161605 the big ci book

        C in my class. If they want a grade above C then they actually have to show up for class.
        Grading using jGR keeps the teacher and students in line with the ACTFL Interpersonal Mode. Indeed, the only thing that keeps teachers thinking in terms of testing and not in terms of this kind of interpersonal communication in language classes is a failure to professionally identify what really defines language acquisition – interaction with others to communicate ideas – which is something that we cannot quantify.
        No blame on the attentive robots – they probably literally have never had a class in which their grade was determined by a mode of communication.
        And yet, not only do the national standards imply that we should assess in that way, but also many parents are now increasingly asking that their child have, in at least one class, the opportunity to interact in a human way with their teacher instead of with a machine or with a teacher who teaches like a machine.
        Such parents get it. Not everyone is voting for robots and books in schools. There are parents who want their kids to learn interview skills and job marketplace skills and skills that focus on working positively within a group. There are parents who don’t want cyborgs for children.

  9. Diane please do keep in mind that I am extreme and that a lot of people in TPRS especially have no problem w the thumbs up/thumbs down thing, gesturing, etc. Over the 25 years since Blaine powered TPRS, it became increasingly mechanical and increased attempts were even made to align with traditional programs, effectively blending CI with the textbook, and since I personally don’t see that as something that can actually be done in terms of the research, all the increased attempts at teaching mechanically, which obviously you’ve been to TPRS workshops based on what you wrote above, took it further and further from the research, and so you must make your own decisions at this point. You have to decide as you embrace CI more and more if you want to go with the more mechanical stuff and an unfortunate increase in attention to the novels in my opinion vs. the more “loose” approach that I take. Only you can make that decision. I can say one thing. I did it the TPRS way for 15 years and it drove me crazy and now things chez CI for me are going absolutely swimmingly.

    More: https://benslavic.com/blog/category/33-reasons-i-prefer-ntci/

  10. Diane I’m very concerned about how ppl are being trained now with CI methods. I know that the mechanical aspects of creating conversation in CI classes are on the rise, and I think it’s got to do with wanting to “align with the existing (usually outmoded) curriculum, but I don’t think it will lead to any real success.

    Like you, I tried to make it mechanical instead of flowing for half of the years I’ve done CI (15). There is a tendency to want to do that with any method. But in reality, and it took me a full eight years to get this, the only way CI can work is if you have a strong framework within which to be very loose in your instruction. Unless the TPRS and iFLT camps get that, until they keep trying to orchestrate the instruction and rely on novels that divide classes down social and economic lines, they will continue to see opposition from the more traditional teachers, which opposition in my opinion is justified. CI must release itself from all the rules, and find a system (I suggest mine w the Invisibles) that guarantees freedom of expression in each class session. Once that is done, I think the gap that divides CI from traditional will be bridged.

  11. Yes, I agree, however, I am accountable to parents, students and adminstration and I have to explanations for my classroom rules and grades.

  12. I am not aware of any of my admins or parents in the seven buildings I worked in ever challenging me once about the content of my syllabus. It’s because they don’t read them. Of course, your building sounds like an exception. Most people just fill out those curriculum docs and hand them in and people skim them and say it’s all right. The truly never go deep with them.

  13. This is such a good point – the point that you raise about accountability in curricular docs and syllabi. It is one that has occupied my mind on and off for years. There really is no solution. We are talking about a product, CI, that could be compared to eggs that need to packaged in an box (a curriculum) that is built for eggs and they are asking us, with no malice but from no small degree of ignorance about how people acquire languages, to package (write a curriculum and syllabus, etc.) the CI eggs in a box meant for cereal – a cereal box. They like cereal boxes better than egg crates. So there is a fundamental disconnect. I am going to plead weariness after years of years of trying to justify CI in cereal box terms, terms that are written to justify teaching from a textbook. I don’t want to try to do that anymore. If you think about it, do we write a curriculum to learn how to speak our first languages? Do we say that on Nov. 15 of any particular academic year we are going to learn relative pronouns? (This goes against all the research, specifically Krashen’s Natural Order of Acquisition hypothesis.) Do we watch and grade two year-olds on how they are listening when in fact they are acquiring the language at a very high rate of speed in those years of early childhood without putting their minds to it? Do we grade kids when they learn their first language.? Do we have classroom rules? The disconnect is so deep, the chasm so wide. So instead of leaping over the chasm, I am going to say that we cannot, and I for one will not because I really know what I’m doing, cave to these people. The best they will get from me in the form of a syllabus or curriculum will be watered down to their understandings, bless their hearts, and those watered down docs will have to be enough. I will thus be free to pursue my craft of aligning with the research and building a program in which all children can learn and feel included and in which most, instead of just a few, go to the fourth year. I totally get that you are accountable, but I am suggesting to you and all the tens of thousands of teachers now making the switch to CI that you need not afford those requirements as much respect in your curriculum docs that they might demand. They are lucky to have a teacher who is aligning in the real way with the real standards and the real research. It’s something new and it works and they should be grateful and not ask you to put all your eggs in the cereal box. because they (the CI eggs) don’t transfer into cereal boxes very well. Eventually, maybe in twenty years, those admins will not be asking for such things. They won’t have to because the kids will clearly be learning so much! when that happens, we will be able to say that schools will have evolved to a place where the child is more important than what the child is supposed to do, where the happiness and feeling of confidence of the child are more important than how neatly the curriculum is built, where the outdated concept of what a syllabus is will no longer dominate the discussion. I respect what you say, but I will not allow CI to appear weak, or have people roll their eyes at it because they don’t get the proper docs from us and who do not understand the immense power of CI to bring good things, as opposed to things that turn kids off and defeat them, to our profession. So I suggest that you give them what they want, but don’t worry so much about those documents. And if you are in a department that is not transitioning to CI, which means that you will have opposition from your departmental colleagues in trying to bring CI in, why even change? Just do what you’ve been doing. It is far more difficult to deal with the professional and therefore personal upheaval that accompanies trying to introduce CI into a department that resists it than just doing what everybody else does. I know. This is not the right answer for you. But I have to state my truth. I’ve worked too hard to develop new ideas in favor of the kids to sacrifice any of that to please the admins with the “right” kind of curriculum docs. My goal is to help kids to believe in themselves as language learners, because if they have that experience they might believe more in their inherent value and abilities in life, and that is why I am a teacher. I know this rant has gotten to a point where it is far afield from your original point, but that is what we do here. We learn by talking, and sometimes by ranting. I’m just not going to put eggs in a cereal box. Not going to try. For twenty years I gave them one thing and did another in my classroom and nobody noticed. That’s my point in this rant.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Search

Get The Latest Updates

Subscribe to Our Mailing List

No spam, notifications only about new products, updates.

Related Posts

CI and the Research (cont.)

Admins don’t actually read the research. They don’t have time. If or when they do read it, they do not really grasp it. How could

Research Question

I got a question: “Hi Ben, I am preparing some documents that support CI teaching to show my administrators. I looked through the blog and

We Have the Research

A teacher contacted me awhile back. She had been attacked about using CI from a team leader. I told her to get some research from

The Research

We don’t need any more research. In academia that would be a frivolous comment, but as a classroom teacher in languages I support it. Yes,

$10

~PER MONTH

Subscribe to be a patron and get additional posts by Ben, along with live-streams, and monthly patron meetings!

Also each month, you will get a special coupon code to save 20% on any product once a month.

  • 20% coupon to anything in the store once a month
  • Access to monthly meetings with Ben
  • Access to exclusive Patreon posts by Ben
  • Access to livestreams by Ben