The dreaded “crit”

I hate the term “crit” by the way. Somehow it seems to diminish what was (or should be) an important episode in my teacher training. But it's difficult to avoid when everyone else is using it.

Anyway, I had my crit last week. It went pretty well and I was happy with the feedback I got. Just a few general comments about the process....

• a single visit to a single class is hardly representative of what a typical lesson with that teacher is like. I made no attempt to bribe or threaten my S3 class into co-operating for my crit (the lesson went much like most of my recent sessions with them) but they were clearly “playing the game” with a visitor in the class. I had forewarned them there would be a visitor who was there “to inspect the quality of teaching in the school” but no more than that. However, for the most part they were collaborating in the success of the lesson. I appreciate there are time/budget/resource constraints on tutor visits but the “single visit with three weeks' notice” approach is guaranteed to produce skewed results – and therefore not produce the most useful feedback to the student.

• Speaking of feedback with tongue in cheek... if there aren't any areas of development specifically mentioned on my feedback form, does that mean I'm perfect already? And if there are no areas for development, how can my performance be only “satisfactory”? When I used to appraise performance in a commercial setting I would *always* cite at least one area where someone could improve, even if their overall performance was terrific. Not very motivational not to, in my opinion.

• My soon-to-be erstwhile colleagues in the maths department were incredibly supportive in the run up to the crit. They offered more help and advice than I could possibly absorb in such a short time. Thanks loads!