It’s that time of year when some of us are interviewing. John Piazza wrote here on the PLC on the topic, posted first back in 2014:
Hi Ben,
I wanted to let everyone know officially that I have emerged from my unemployment woes, having been offered a job at my first choice, a large public high school in Berkeley CA, with a strong but small Latin program and an administration that wants to see the program grow in numbers and diversity.
In addition to all the personal support that I have received by being a part of this PLC, I want to acknowledge that, professionally, this group has provided me with the tools and coping skills to handle both the interview process, and the daunting task ahead of me, with humor and good will.
A few weeks before getting my job, I had the chance to attend a gathering of TPRS/CI teachers in my area. Although we didn’t do any workshop-style activities, we did have extended conversations about what we were struggling with at this point in the year, about our students, colleagues and administrators, job concerns, and the challenges of teaching in a way that many do not understand or appreciate.
One issue that came out of our discussions, and which is worth repeating, is this: be careful when, where, and with whom you use the terms “TPRS” and “Comprehensible Input.” There are too many people out there who have a negative view of and/or negative experiences with “TPRS” for us to use the term freely, especially in job interviews, evaluations, etc. Just because we think we are right, it doesn’t change the fact that some people will respond in a negative way simply because of their preconceived notions of and prior experiences with the words we use to describe what we do. They are buzz words and they tend to polarize.
At that meeting I shared some advice that I got from Ben when I was first embarking on interviews, and which had been echoed by Diane Grieman: don’t say you’re a “TPRS teacher.” I think one reason my interviews went so well was that I made a conscious choice not to say “TPRS” or “Comprehensible Input,” thus avoiding the risk of polarizing or alienating the people in the room.
Instead, when asked to describe how I teach, I described specific activities that I do with students, and then how those activities promote student comprehension of the language and align with the standards. This way, if some people in the room are looking for CI/TPRS, they get it. But if someone in the room is “allergic” to those terms, or is being pressured by a boss to avoid “those” teachers (true story!), they don’t hear the terms, but instead they are hearing about good effective teaching.
If I was ever “cornered” about my experience with TPRS/CI and involvement with that community, I would revert to the “one tool in the toolbox” image that administrators love to hear and prevents them from pigeon-holing me as “that kind of teacher.” I explained that I had spent a lot of time learning about this interesting method, and that there is an appropriate time and place for this strategy to be used to supplement a comprehensive language program, especially to support students with learning differences. Now who can argue with that?
More and more I have come to think of our interactions with colleagues, administrators and parents as further opportunities for us to implement CI strategies: speak in a way that makes everyone in the room feel included and heard; avoid language that may raise affective filters and elicit emotional knee-jerk responses; establish meaning by avoiding technical terms (unless that’s what they know and want to hear). Not only will this improve our relationships with the people we work with, but it may save our careers.
Instead of coming into an interview situation with our TPRS/CI guns flying, here is what we can do to get the jobs we want and still be honest to ourselves and our potential employers about our ideals. No need to polarize anyone, just refer to the toolbox, speak about TPRS as one effective tool among many, and that there is a proper time and a place. Same with technology, textbooks, projects, etc.
When describing what we do, we don’t label, we just talk about the power of stories and how students pay attention and understand everything they hear and read when a story is engaging. We talk about the importance of listening, of attention as necessary for comprehension, and which align with the interpersonal modality in the ACTFL revision of the standards. We are the experts in the room, so we refer to the latest standards, and educate others in the room if they aren’t familiar with those revisions. We talk about how everything we do aligns with the standards set by ACTFL and even common core, we talk about how our teaching is flexible enough to deal with mixed classes, and is naturally differentiated even for IEP students.
Grammar? We teach that too, as Ben loves to point out, in fact we teach it in a way that is more efficient and goes into their long term memory. Students use complex grammar, and use it correctly and without difficulty, from the first year. We do this by teaching it in context. The context is stories that they are interested in. We try to avoid charts and forms out of context, because this favors a certain kind of learner, and because the latest standards (ACTFL and 21st Century Skills) have de-emphasized this. Of course, analytical skills are important, and we like to introduce this during the later years, when students are able to understand it, and when it will help them in placement tests at high schools or colleges. When placement tests are based on the standards and on proficiency, students do very well. If the test is more analytical, we can prepare students to do that as well. There’s a time and a place for all this.