Tuesday, February 25, 2003

What I did today Today, I... Translated the rest of the scripts from Miyanohara Elementary School; Went to Miyanohara Elementary School for three lessons; Chaired the first study session for the five high-school students going to England; Went to Hibiki for dinner with Okamoto-san (and we also invited Wendy).

Today was my penultimate visit of the term to Miyanohara Elementary School. Miyanohara really seems to be a case of 'great children, shame about the teachers'. For example, having agreed at the beginning of the term that making an English video about Miyanohara would be a great idea, one teacher made the (unilateral) decision that the 'video' part should be of the children standing in front of the blackboard, holding pictures and reading out their scripts. No. Afraid not. Eventually I accepted the compromise solution of having the video made of photographs with the children doing a voiceover, but it irritates me immensely that the teachers (1) go back on what we've agreed, and (2) do so without discussing this with me. I suppose it should go without saying that the teacher didn't bother to apologise for having messed me around. Anyway, the lessons. The first- and second-years had prepared questions about Britain, which I answered with the aid of my Powerpoint presentation. What a difference from yesterday!- the teachers were organised (they'd even got me a computer with Powerpoint installed!), and the children asked intelligent questions, and listened interestedly to my answers. It would be interesting to let the teachers of the upper years in Tsukumo see what the lower years in Miyanohara are capable of. I had lunch with the sixth-years. Unusually, there was a little chocolate cake included in the school lunch; I had fun teasing one of the boys about having stolen mine. After lunch, I took the third- and fourth-years for a lesson about greetings and self-introductions in English, French and Italian. The children enjoyed themselves, and it's good for them to learn simple phrases in languages other than English. I think that even elementary school students realise subconciously that English is so common in Japan that it's almost a 'non-foreign' foreign language; they get more enthusiastic about French and Italian than they do about English every time I do this sort of lesson. My final lesson was with the fifth- and sixth-years, who started working on their scripts for the Miyanohara video (the non-video video). I like these children (well, most of them!), but so often I get the feeling that there's a lot of wasted time in my lessons with them. They're fairly childish still for fifth- and sixth-years, so unless someone is standing right over them, they'll spend the time messing around rather than getting on with what they're supposed to be doing. In addition, they're not grown up enough to think for themselves about things; and these two factors mean that the lessons are always very teacher-intensive. To be honest, I don't have high hopes for the video project, especially given the teacher's comments about its production. Without a doubt, it's far more difficult to make a success of something like this when the teachers aren't enthusiastic themselves.

After my lessons had finished in Miyanohara, the Deputy Headmistress brought up the 'If we wanted to do English next year...' question. She knows that I'm not an English teacher- by law, my visa doesn't allow me to teach English AET-style- and when I held a meeting with the teachers from the seven elementary schools last September, it was the teacher from Miyanohara who argued most strongly that the schools didn't want 'just English'. I get the impression that this Deputy Head can't be bothered to think about what would actually benefit the children- the single word 'English' is like some sort of mantra. If we do English, we're international. Well, let's leave aside for a minute all the countries of the world where English isn't the first language; even if the children manage to learn English to a reasonable extent (which, as the teacher from Miyanohara himself commented, is close to impossible in elementary schools unless the Japanese teachers make efforts to integrate it into the whole curriculum), how does this make them 'international'? The simple answer is that it doesn't- in fact, if anything, I think it might have the opposite effect. First of all, it reinforces the mistaken belief that Japanese people have to learn English to communicate with non-Japanese. They don't- for example, nobody ever uses English with me. Admittedly non-Japanese Japanese speakers are relatively few, but that doesn't mean that only Japanese people can ever master Japanese. Then, second of all, English-at-all-costs reinforces the concept that only English is worth bothering about. Well, what about French? Or Chinese, for that matter? 'If it's not English it doesn't matter' is an extraordinarily blinkered view, not to mention self contradictory. The teachers are determined to 'do' English so that their schools look 'international', yet to justify this they use an argument- the argument about the importance of English- which is patently at odds with the concept of internationalisation. Fair enough, English is possibly the most useful first foreign language to learn, but the schools are really interested in internationalisation, and if they see the key to this internationalisation as foreign language instruction (a stance which personally I think is flawed), then they should incorporate other languages into their curriculum. And finally, in elementary schools, where the children don't know enough Japanese and enough about Japan to learn a foreign language properly or to comprehend the concept of internationalisation fully, the simple fact is that there are better things to do with the limited time available than trying to force English down the children's throats. Indeed, I think that in trying to get the children to speak English when they don't yet have full command of Japanese, you run the very great risk of turning them against English for ever. I know from my own school visits that the most effective use of the time I have, looking to the future, is to ensure that the children become used to foreign culture, foreign countries, and foreign people- that they lose the gaijin mentality. If this is successful, then when they start learning English in Junior High School, they will be used to the idea of foreign cultures and mixing with non-Japanese, and accordingly they won't be burdened (at least, not to the same extent) with the 'what's the point of English' attitude that seems to be so common among JHS students who aren't used to mixing with non-Japanese or to international communication and exchange. So, if this is the case- if it really is the case that introducing foreign cultures is more beneficial than simply introducing English (or for that matter any foreign language)- why do some of the schools refuse to recognise it? I think there are several reasons, only one of which is the 'if we do English we're international' blinkeredness. I think that for many teachers, and many schools, the whole concept of internationalisation is still an unknown quantity, and the only thing that springs to mind is English, especially if the teachers have had contact with AETs (who are, after all, English teachers). If they thought about the problem, they might well realise that English doesn't on its own, or in its own right, equal internationalisation; but this lack of thought is the third reason why so many schools only consider English, and not 'international understanding'. There really does seem to be a lack of willingness to explore what can be done, to push the boundaries; instead, so many schools go for the easy option, the option requiring the least effort involved in thought and in preparation. When schools are willing to embrace 'international understanding' (which does not, of course, preclude English) the results can be excellent; but such schools are, still, the exception rather than the norm.

I think the good luck bells I bought in Dazaifu on Sunday are working. I got rather an interesting email this afternoon about health insurance and pensions here in Japan. There are going to be quite a few changes from April, and, as far as I can see at least, I should be quite a bit better off. Anyway, the gist of the email is as follows: In accordance with the change in the welfare law, most working Japanese (and me!) will pay 30% instead of 20% of the costs of a doctor's visit, but offset against this, the monthly national health insurance premium will drop slightly (for me, apparently, from 13600 to 13120 yen). In addition, the monthly pension payments I have to make will also drop (for me, it seems, from 27760 to 21728 yen- a significant amount in my favour). There is a further change, too, connected to the refund of this pension money on leaving Japan. The system until now has been that one month's salary can be claimed for each year worked, up to three years' worth. However, the new system dictates that 1 year entitles you to 0.8 months' salary, 2 years to 1.6 months', and 3 years to 2.4 months', which at first glance would seem to result in my losing out. However, it appears that payments made before April 1, 2003 (for me, all of the money that will be refunded) will be counted at a rate of 1.3, which means that (if I can calculate properly) I'll be getting 104% of my monthly salary for the three years I can claim, rather than 100% as would have been the case up until now. Of course, there's always the chance that I've done the calculations wrongly, but at the minute I really think I stand to gain from these new rules.

Pick of the Photos Another Pick of the Photos from Glover Garden in Nagasaki. The statue of the lady in kimono is supposed to be Cho-cho-san, 'Madame Butterfly' in the Puccini opera of the same name. She stands with her son, pointing towards the sea waiting for Captain Pinkerton to return.