PERSONAL PRINCIPLES OF PROCEDURE & THE EXPERT TEACHER. Beverley Labbett, 1996 The purpose of this paper is to communicate something of the idea of principles of procedure. Working out one's personal principles of procedure is in order to develop expertise by setting for oneself personal teaching standards in line with one's values. INTRODUCTION. Why the phrase “principle of procedure ?" The phrase has been part of the everyday language of a group of my colleagues in the University of East Anglia's School of Education and Professional Development. In the literature, Les Tickle used the term principles of procedure to describe such statements as ------ " tutors should present themselves in a variety of roles......" He wrote that the statements had been “devised to guide and inform the conduct of the teaching-learning experiences of the students, teachers and tutors" ( Tickle, 1987, 114) in the four year B.A. Hons degree in Education. The earliest use of the term principles of procedure that I have found is in Stenhouse's An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. See Pages 38 and 39 of the 1978 edition. I have always assumed that the statement the discussion should protect divergence of view rather than attempt to achieve consensus. ( Anon, 1970,1)   was an example of a principle of procedure, as was the statement in the aims of the 1970s' social science curriculum Man: A Course of Study that its purpose was " to create a new role for the teacher, in which he becomes a resource rather than an authority. " ( Stenhouse, 1978, 39) 1. Ann's Ambush 20th June 1996 Rejected Title: AMBUSHED AT FIFTY FIVE To be ambushed in the classroom is to be pitchforked into a form of paralysing confusion on the basis of something unexpected happening. It can happen easily in discussion-based classroom work. Just such a moment happened in Week 14 of MLA6, a 30 credit Masters Level course entitled - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM. It was Thursday 20th June. I had prepared a session exploring the key course question - How does one unearth and recognise the expert teacher in the Age of Information Technology ? On the whiteboard before the students returned from coffee, had been written the following propositions: In the democratic society in which we live, I have not yet seen a satisfactory and agreed set of criteria that can mark out the expert teacher. There can be no agreement about the expert teacher without publicly-stated criteria that can allow teachers to judge retrospectively the quality of their classroom performance. We are left with individual teachers monitoring their own level of expertise against criteria they set themselves and make public. For forty minutes the session proceeded without any surprises. I made my input, outlining the idea of principles of procedure as a way of measuring one's level of expertise. Then Ann lobbed in her hand grenade..... “I don't believe there is such a thing as the expert teacher." I heard those words instantly, without, thinking, as a dismissal of the ideas I had been trying to communicate. The planned evening would be undermined.... and after all that work, all that preparation, all that anticipation, that hope that this would be a successful evening. There we were for real in this room, and it was falling apart. For some five minutes, behind the public gaze of interest in what the students were saying, I was attacked by a growing uncontrolled feeling of disappointment. That cherished idea - principles of procedure - was being jettisoned. The gap between myself and the students ( teachers from the real world) was widening widening. As the students talked, I went to the course handbook I had handed out in February 1996 at the first session and looked at the list of principles of procedure on which the course was based. Merdre. ( Stenhouse was right, damn it. " By standards as near as absolute as we can conceive, men are relatively predictable, limited and uncreative." ( Stenhouse, 1975,82) ) Merdre. When Ann had said what she had said, I had clean forgotten that there was on paper a a principle of procedure I said I would be testing during the course. The words stared up at me. when the tutor chairs discussions that follow his own input in a seminar, he should assist the student to formulate a critique of that input rather than focus on defending his own arguments.   In the above statement you can see the basic structure of a principle of procedure. It is a written statement which starts with the word teacher or tutor or ÔI' and contains within it the words "should" and "rather than". The use of the ÔI' is to stress the personal nature of principles of procedure. 2. A First Encounter with principles of procedure. The first encounter with the idea of principles of procedure ( or criteria for assessing the quality of one's performance in the classroom ) for students on the PGCE Secondary History 1995-96 course came on Friday 17th October 1995. This was the task set based on notes I had made observing a student teacher at work. Work out a possible principle of procedure at work here in the actions of the student teacher, whose work is described below A PGCE student teacher was at work ( June 1992) teaching history lesson with a class of 13 -14 year olds on PUBLIC HEALTH IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. She was asking the pupils questions and wrote on the blackboard the exact words they said. When a boy said, " Inadequate equipment " she wrote that on the board. When a girl said, "Terrible" in answer to a question, the word "Terrible" went on the board. I wrote on the Record of Supervision Sheet.. "Your policy seems to be that when pupils answer your questions, you place on the board what they say, in nearly all cases exactly what they say."   When we spoke about this afterwards, she was mystified by my remark. Her reply was to the effect that it was the last lesson of the day, she was dead tired, and it just happened to come out like that. She said she hadn't thought about it.   The student teachers devised these principles of procedure for consideration: I should write the answers to questions on the board exactly as said rather than refining them. I should write exactly what the pupils say rather than my interpretation of what was said. I should treat all pupil responses with equal validity rather than rating some above others. ( But one student disagreed with the above ways of handling the situation and wrote ) I should discuss and modify pupils' answers, in order to guide debate rather than write answers on the board uncritically. Principles of procedure are created by the teacher, who works alone year in year out except when appraisers or ofstedders visit. Given the nature of the job, teachers are busy managing class after class, teaching themselves skills, internalising those skills, and becoming inarticulate about those skills that are, of course, based on their values. Devising principles of procedure is one way of becoming articulate about the level of personal expertise a teacher has reached. Principles of procedure are created by the teacher in order to translate +his/her curriculum aims into action criteria for examining retrospectively the level of expertise reached against the criteria s/he has devised in line with her values, and made public. 3. Writing a principle of procedure. In the summer of 1992 I asked a group of young qualified teachers what made them angry. Here are their replies.   seeing a pupil chewing gum in front of me pupils talking when I'm talking being forced to carry out exercises in the classroom which in my judgement are pointless and where by so doing the children are being made to fail. one pupil humiliating another in the classroom - as when someone has a good joke at someone else's expense uncharitableness and lack of acceptance of other ways of doing things pupils getting my attention when I'm already attending to another pupil the ideas of younger staff being ignored with the words "it doesn't work" when a senior teacher came in and takes over the lesson.   In discussion we devised some principles of procedure for handling the situation of a senior teacher coming in and taking over a lesson.   when a senior member of staff enters your classroom and reprimands a pupil in front of you , you should say nothing rather than something even though that person is invading your professional space.   This was amended later to read....   when a senior member of staff invades your professional space, you should tolerate it rather than not tolerate it because there is a higher procedural principle needing to operate. That higher principle reads - In the presence of pupils staff should be seen to act with public unanimity rather than from a basis of public disagreement.   We returned again to this matter again (17th of June 1992) when one of the teachers quoted from his research diary " I will not tolerate racism in my personal life but in school I have to. Both staff and pupils make Irish and black jokes. Although my classes know I have a sense of humour but won't tolerate any prejudice, the teachers fail to accept this." Here are some principles we devised. I should make public to colleagues that which I am reluctant to tolerate rather than remain silent. OR I should remain silent rather than make public to colleagues that which I am reluctant to tolerate ( or from the point of view of the Headteacher ) I should ensure that the staff of this school make public to their colleagues that which they are reluctant to tolerate rather than remain silent about such matters OR ( or from the point of view of the Headteacher ) I should ensure that the staff of this school remain silent about such matters rather than make public to their colleagues that which they are reluctant to tolerate.   Principles of procedure are about teacher behaviour not pupil behaviour. Principles of procedure are about teacher actions not pupil actions. That allows one to focus on such questions as What messages did pupils pick up today about what you value? What is fixed and consistent about your behaviour? 4. Difference between an actual and a derived principle of procedure. An actual principle of procedure is based on what one does in the classroom; a derived principle of procedure emerges from the analysis of a curriculum aim. Take Ann's Ambush, referred to earlier. Given the tutor's descent into silence following Ann's statement, the actual principle at work seemed to be:   In the face of a challenge to the premise on which the tutor's input has been based, the tutor should remain silent rather than help the student formulate her critique of the tutor's input.   On examining his actual performance and writing it out as a principle of procedure, it was clear that the principle was a poor one. It did not accord with the tutor's values. And something even more important. A good principle of procedure discriminates between alternative but defensible behaviours. The test of a good principle of procedure is that it passes the skilful neglect test.. i.e. the alternative form of behaviour ( specified after the words rather than , is in itself reasonable, defensible but less skilful than the other stated form of behaviour, given the teacher's desire to act in ways consistent with the curriculum aims s/he has set for the classroom work. 5. Unearthing an implicit principle of procedure. Principles of procedure can be derived from what one does on autopilot, without thinking. Take this case. A teacher walks along the corridor and the following conversation takes place. "Tuck your shirt in." "Why?'" "It makes you look smarter."   By studying retrospectively what she had said the teacher came to the conclusion that she didn't really believe the argument she had put forward in the corridor to the pupil but thought that in practice she could be said to be working to this implicit principle of procedure   that the teacher should tell pupils the official reasons for doing something rather than act on the basis of personal belief.   Out of that came the idea of there being institutional as well as personal principles of procedure operating. Giving the official reason for acting in a particular way may be seen as a clue to an institutional principle of procedure. An institutional principle may or may not clash with personal principles.   Teachers should maintain public unanimity in the face of pupils rather than showing that there are a range of views on any matter. Teachers should show that there are a range of views amongst staff on any matter rather than maintain public unanimity.   Devising principles of procedure assumes that there are messages worth your pupils hearing. It assumes that all your actions carry messages and that those messages do not hit empty heads. They hit alert minds, minimally concerned with the question 'is that treatment of me fair?' The significant messages are never to be found in the written statement of aims but in the actions of teachers. It is the consequence of particular actions that are remembered by pupils, not teacher intention. Devising principles of procedure presupposes that we can teach ourselves to do things in certain ways, in order to act consistently. 6. Teaching ourselves to devise principles of procedure. Teaching oneself to create principles of procedure that pass the skilful neglect test is for a purpose - in order in a busy classroom to act in a preferred way , consistent with one's curriculum aims. A teacher might say - " I will make explicit to pupils this principle of procedure and test out the consequences that when faced with problems of discipline, I should act in ways that involve publicly reprimanding pupils and explaining their error to them , rather than face them with considering the consequences of their actions.   or   that when faced with problems of discipline, I should act in ways that face pupils with considering the consequences of their actions rather than publicly reprimanding them and explaining their error to them.   One teacher talked to me about how hard it was to change his habit of assuming that questions require immediate answers. In order to challenge that habit and test out another way of acting, he created this principle of procedure as a way of monitoring retrospectively how he acted when asked an unanticipated question.   when asked an unanticipated question by a learner, I should mull over that question rather than give an immediate answer.   He would of course have to wait for one of these questions. When it came, he could, after the lesson, looked back at how he had acted. Had he worked to the principle ? With what consequences ? Did the principle survive the experience ? 7. Linking principles of procedure to curriculum aims. Principles of procedure are linked to curriculum aims. In the two examples below, the curriculum aim was in the first case - to teach pupils about ways of handling historical evidence and in the second case - to open up and keep alive lines of inquiry. I should allow pupils to ask their own questions and support them in investigating those questions rather than deciding which questions are to be investigated.   I should decide which questions are to be investigated rather than allow pupils to ask their own questions and support them in investigating them.   I should encourage the children to realise the variety of interpretations available rather than pushing towards a particular point of view.   I should act in ways that push the children towards a particular view rather than in ways that helps them realise the variety of interpretations available. ( Otherwise they will be encouraged to sit on the fence )   In this second example, the curriculum aim was clear to the teacher - to teach learners how to open up and keep alive lines of inquiry. The group had been studying the following computer-generated data from the 1858 shipping records of St Malo, as published in L'Union malouine et dinannaise.   MOVEMENT OF SALT. Port of St Malo, France. Jan-March 1858. SHIP CAPTAIN CARGO FROM TO Rockabey Menier sel Cadix blank Désirée Galopet sel Cette St Malo Jeune-Arthursel AmiraudCette St Malo Lévrer Fauquet sel St Martin St Malo Amiral-Magon Douguin sel Cette St Malo Joséph-Adrien Lesteven sel St Nazaire St Malo Léonie Barré sel Cadix St Malo Amiral-Magon Dauquin sel St Malo St Servan Jeune-Céline Rigour sel Hyères St Malo Hermine Darfois sel Croisic St Malo Adèle Grosvalet sel St Martin St Malo Eliza Levèque sel St Martin St Malo Fabien Noel sel St Malo St Pierre-et-Miquelin Rocabey Martin sel St Malo St Pierre-et-Miquelin Claude Lefèvre sel St Malo St Pierre-et-Miquelin Léonie Barré sel St Malo St Pierre-et-Miquelin Glaneur Chambort sel St Malo St Pierre-et-Miquelin Czar Pierre Jacquerou sel St Malo St Pierre-et-Miquelin Accéléré Allain sel St Malo St Pierre-et-Miquelin Jeune-Ludovic Magnan sel St Malo St Pierre-et-Miquelin Armoricain Magnan sel St Malo St Pierre-et-Miquelin Armoricain Lecornu sel St Malo St Pierre-et-Miquelin The question arose - Why was salt being transported to St Pierre et Miquelon ? The students were invited to speculate about possible reasons. Whether we engaged in what Chris Forrest called “reasoned speculation" can be argued over. The speculations explaining the above data included - that there was a monastery at St Pierre et Miquelon , that there was a French community there set up by those fleeing from religious persecution; that there was a need for salt for whaling purposes; and then this one based on evidence that Napoleon III was due to visit St Malo in August 1858. Salt , a student proposed, was being shipped to St Pierre et Miquelon, a part of St Malo, in order to clean the place up, in order to get rid of the smells before the visit of Napoleon III on August 18th 1858. Now the teacher knew that St Pierre et Miquelon is not in the neighbourhood of St Malo . Was what the student was saying just a joke ? Should it be treated as a joke ? Here is the dialogue that followed: Student I know. St Pierre is part of St Malo. They shipped salt there in order to get rid of the smells before Napoleon arrived. Teacher No. St Pierre was not part of St Malo in the physical sense. Student. That can't have been the answer anyhow because everything stank then and Napoleon's nose would not have been offended. ( Laughter all round) But what if the teacher were working to these two principle of procedure, a principle consistent with the curriculum aim of opening up and keeping alive lines of inquiry...   that I should give precedence to reasoned speculation rather than correcting what I know to be wrong answers. that an incorrect answer should be handled for what can be made of it rather than being rejected politely.   If the teacher had been working to those principles the dialogue might have gone like this....... , Student I know. St Pierre is part of St Malo. They shipped salt there in order to get rid of the smells before Napoleon arrived. Teacher OK. Tom suggests that St Pierre is part of St Malo. And his idea that it might be to purify the atmosphere, raises such a question as - " Did salt have a role to play in street-cleaning and smell-removal ?" Student. That can't have been the answer anyhow because everything stank then and Napoleon's nose would not have been offended. Teacher Sophie's not going along with Tom's idea.... etc etc....   8. Principles of procedure and the expert teacher Ann was right. There is no such thing as an expert teacher. We are left with individual teachers monitoring their own level of expertise against criteria they set themselves and make public. One way of specifying these criteria are as principles of procedure. The most elegant and most powerful principle of procedure I have come across - indeed the most powerful educational proposition I have come across is linked to the aim of helping learners age 14 to 16 discuss controversial issues. The principle of procedure reads:   that the discussion should protect divergence of view rather than attempt to achieve consensus. ( Anon, 1970,1)   To contact author: Bev Labbett School of Education and Professional Development University of East Anglia   email: b.labbett@uea.ac.uk. REFERENCES Anon ( 1970) The Humanities Project - an introduction. London: Heinemann Educational Books. Williams E ( 1990) VICTOR WILLING Independent Magazine 20th January 1990) Stenhouse L ( 1978 edition, first puiblished 1975) Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann. Tickle L ( 1987) Learning Teaching, Teaching Teaching. Falmer Press. Return to main page.