Introduction

The JET (Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme) commenced in Japan in 1987, bringing with it 813 native speakers of English to teach alongside Japanese Teachers of English (JTEs). The program, managed by the Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) (an organization created by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture [Monbusho], the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) recruits foreign Coordinators for International Relations (CIRs) and Sports Exchange Advisors (SEAs) and Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs) who are then employed throughout Japan. Assistant English Teachers (AETs) are a subset of the ALT group, comprising 90% of CLAIR’s annual participants (Council of Local Authorities for International Relations [CLAIR], 2000, p. 7). These AETs are placed in educational centres around Japan to provide native speaker input into English classes at junior and senior high schools. At present, ten participating countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) are the source of AETs, with just under 5500 AETs working throughout Japan in the 2000-2001 school year (CLAIR, 2000, p. 7).

The program was initiated with the specific aim of helping to internationalize Japanese students through the classroom, and helping to build the language skills of both students and JTEs (Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture [Monbusho], 1994, p. 6). In particular, Monbusho wanted teachers of English to shift from the grammar-translation approaches popular in Japanese schools to a more communicative-based methodology, with the AETs’ native-speaker abilities being utilized to achieve this aim. This resolve has been further strengthened with the current Monbusho Course of Study (Monbusho, 1994, p. 98-115) which directs English to be taught in a far more communicative style than ever before. This has placed pressure on JTEs to make appropriate changes to their methodology and enlist the support of the AETs within the school system.

These innovations have challenged all those involved. Rather than operating as instructors working in isolation in the classroom, JTEs have found themselves having to change teaching practices, putting the language they teach into everyday use in negotiation with the AETs, and approaching English in different ways for the benefit of their students. Whilst these changes were part of Monbusho’s overall strategy to improve the teaching and language skills of JTEs (Monbusho, 1994, p. 6), the native speakers have caused many JTEs to be concerned about their roles and competence as teachers, with tensions and pressures emerging between the two groups (Goldberg, 1995, p. 11).

These problems may be due to the fact that the JET Programme was introduced with only a minimum of preparation for both JTEs and AETs. At the outset, many AETs found themselves placed at schools or boards of education, yet the teachers and administrative staff were unaware of ways in which to utilize the newly-arrived assistants (Egginton, 1997). In numerous cases, AETs found themselves sitting in staff rooms without work to do, perhaps brought into the occasional class to read out list of words in the role of ‘human tape recorder’ (Egginton, 1997).

However, as the JET Programme has developed, changes have taken place in an attempt to meet the needs of JTEs and AETs. Far more assistance and support is available to them, especially in the form of seminars, workshops and conferences (Monbusho, 1994, pp. 10-13). For JTEs and AETs, these regularly scheduled offerings explore areas such as insights into teaching methods and techniques, presentations of collective classroom experiences and ideas, and discussions on the value of team teaching.

With the JET Programme entering its thirteenth year, AETs have become recognized staff members of many schools and boards of education. In general, there has been a growing acceptance of an English native speaker in the school system, and JTEs are more likely to enlist the aid of the AET in their classes than when the program and the concept of team teaching was in its initial stages (Pattimore & Kobayashi, 1999; Egginton, 1997, p. 315). Additionally, AETs and JTEs have begun to develop a better grasp of the practicalities of team teaching. Their attendance at conferences and workshops, and their combined experiences in the program has meant that there is now a far larger collection of data on the team teaching experience at Japanese public schools that can be drawn upon.

Still, this does not mean that the process of integrating native speaker AETs into the teaching practice of the majority of JTEs has been accomplished flawlessly. AETs still privately express the same concerns and frustrations about their position and the effectiveness of their team teaching partners as was the case in late 1980s. In addition, whilst training and support is offered, it does not always reach the range and depth required to optimize English teaching and the JTE-AET professional relationship. This paper sets out to show that far more professional development needs to be offered to these teachers to achieve the goals set by Monbusho.

Difficulties of implementation

Lack of training

JTEs

In terms of pre-service education, JTEs receive scant training in TESL skills (Lamie, 2000; Yonesaka, 1999; Browne & Wada, 1998; LoCastro, 1996, p. 42, Gillis-Furutaka, 1994, pp. 35-38). For the vast majority of prospective teachers, there is no study concerning the various approaches to teaching, and for the few who do learn about such techniques, there is little chance to see them in practice, or put them into effect during the two weeks they spend on school placements (Lamie, 2000; Yonesaka, 1999; Browne and Wada, 1998). This limited training does not touch on the subject of team teaching with a native speaker of English, even though most JTEs will have access to AETs in their new schools. Yonesaka states that at universities “the required coursework [of prospective JTEs] is under constant revision” (1999, p. 9), but these revisions appear to be addressing topics other than English teaching (1999,
p. 9). Therefore, most graduating JTEs are barely prepared for the experience of teaching English, much less the demands of team teaching and communicative language teaching as encouraged by Monbusho.

After instatement at schools, JTEs receive minimal in-service opportunities, but are expected to keep up to date with new teaching approaches, and meet the guidelines set down by Monbusho. Lamie (1999, p. 65) notes that a major overseas program for JTEs has had less than 100 trainees in the past ten years, and suggests a need for more extensive in-service training opportunities both in and outside of Japan. In her opinion, professional development sessions “are necessary to change teachers’ attitudes, beliefs and classroom practice, and to enable them to deliver the revised curriculum effectively” (Lamie, 1999, p. 64). Fanselow (1994) encourages a kind of ‘reverse-JET Programme’ to alter the current system of teaching English in Japan which would involve sending “at least 10% of JTEs to English-speaking countries each year for professional preparation and English study” (1994, p. 214). Smith (1994), although not as zealous as Fanselow, fully encourages extensive support in information and assistance regarding team teaching and TESL methodology through in-service training programs for both JTEs and AETs (p. 88).

However, there seems to be a distinct reluctance by Monbusho to extend in-service training opportunities. In response to the call for training for JTLs’ training to be “…further emphasized and improved” (Monbusho, 1999, p. 3), Monbusho answered that the pool of 60,000 JTEs across Japan is too large to manage. Instead, JTEs should take advantage of existing seminars and workshops, take it upon themselves to form self-help groups and draw on published materials (p. 3). Monbusho’s solution seems to be to leave the majority of the decision regarding in-service training to local government, and to administrators and individuals at the school level.

However, it is clear that further developments need to occur to help the JTEs move towards the communicative style of teaching that Monbusho wishes to see used in the classroom. In any respect, it can be claimed that JTEs require systematic preparation and a forum to explore ways in which to produce graduates from junior and senior high schools who are competent communicators in English. The only way this will occur is with extended exposure to different teaching approaches and an opportunity to learn and practice such techniques.

AETs

When recruited, AETs must meet certain requirements such as country of origin, language ability and age (CLAIR, 1999, p. 16-17), but they need not have a background in teaching or education. In fact, it has been suggested that people without experience are preferred (Goldberg, 1995), Monbusho abandoning programs in which trained teachers were brought to Japan (the Monbusho English Fellows and British English Teachers schemes) in favour of the current system (Monbusho, 1994, p. 7). Still, in the JET Programme, whilst some training is offered, Monbusho actually states that the process of planning, delivering, and assessing the classes will provide the majority of development opportunities for JTEs and AETs (Monbusho, 1994, p. 17). However, this view assumes that both parties will have the ability to start and maintain this process with a minimum of official guidance.

Outside Monbusho these deficiencies have been recognized, and calls have been made for AETS to have stronger pedagogical foundations. Wada and Cominos (1994, p. 4-5) discuss this in detail, as does Gillis-Furutaka (1994, p. 39-41) and Fanselow (1994, p. 214), all suggesting the need for experienced or qualified AETs. However, CLAIR and Monbusho appear to be resolute in their choice hiring untrained individuals for the JET Programme, to whom they then offer rudimentary grounding in teaching methodology and team teaching strategies after they arrive in Japan (Monbusho, 1994, p. 10-13).

AETs also see the advantage of in-service training throughout their time in the program. Freeman (1997, p. 318) writes that the JET Programme is challenged by “the fact that most ALTs have little or no teacher training”, and while stating that “ALTs do not need to be teacher trained”, she goes on to write that “they need to be given the tools and the know-how to be effective in second language, team taught classes.” (1997, p. 318). Although conferences are provided for both AETs and JTEs, most of the sessions involve the participants themselves sharing their experience and knowledge. Whilst it cannot be denied that the sharing aspect of these conferences is valuable, many sessions are merely a repetition of previously imparted knowledge (Gillis-Furutaka, 1994, p. 33) and some AETs desire input by trained professionals (Luoni, 1997, p. 318).

Nevertheless, AETs realize that their training is only part of the issue. Although they feel they are sometimes, “still used as human tapes recorders or baby sitters with entertaining games” (Egginton, 1997, p. 315), or simply ignored at their workplaces, they realize that their co-teachers require training, too:

one way to overcome many of the hesitations of the Japanese English teachers is to provide more programs locally as well and internationally and expose them to other forms of teaching. Although the JET Program is attempting this, it is not enough. (Kinjo, 1997, p. 309)

AETs, therefore, see the benefit of Japanese teachers receiving a chance to acquire a greater understanding of the variety of teaching approaches that can be employed. In turn, they realize that, as AETs, they will be put to better use if the JTEs have a greater understanding of teaching methodologies.

In short, the success of team teaching in the JET Programme will be enhanced by professional development and training, and professional, academic support for JTEs and AETs. While it is not suggested that the JET Programme will fail without these foundations, denying this assistance seems likely to result in the program being less than effective, and perhaps never revealing its actual potential to the participants in the teaching web (JTEs, AETs, students, school administration, families of the students and Japanese society as a whole).

Institutional Conflicts

A number of writers have also questioned the apparently conflicting signals Monbusho is sending out to teachers. Gorsuch (1999) argues that whilst Monbusho stresses the need for a more communicative classroom, the textbooks that the ministry authorises do not make allowances for compatible approaches, a claim also found in Browne and Wada (1998) and Knight (1995). Browne and Wada (1998) have also found that the JTEs’ in their survey indicated that their number one pressure on their teaching style was “to teach the contents of the textbook” (p. 105). As a result, in order to achieve Monbusho’s expectations as stated in their guidelines (Monbusho, 1994, pp. 98-115), JTEs and AETs have to spend considerable time adapting the texts and creating materials and activities. It could be expected that teachers would see this mismatch as a conflict in goals.

Similar concerns are extended to testing, where Monbusho also seems to be transmitting mixed messages to JTEs and AETs. Murphey (1999) notes that “Monbusho tells high school teachers to teach oral communication, and yet their entrance exams do not reflect this change. Teachers are caught in the midst of confusing messages” (p. 39). Monbusho’s guidelines express a need for communication in the classroom, but create exams that test a very different area of language. Murphey claims Monbusho is using “the rhetoric of values without acting upon them” which may lead to teachers engaging in “schizophrenic activities” (p. 39). Browne and Wada (1998) have found that a highly rated pressure on the teaching styles of JTEs was “to prepare students for the entrance examination” (p. 104), which suggests that teachers would be more likely to teach towards the content of the exam rather than endanger the success of the students by focusing on communicative approaches. One could argue that the content of entrance examinations could be addressed through communicative approaches in the classroom (see Law, 1994), but it is to be expected that teachers would draw on traditional teaching methods to ensure that students pass the exams.

It is not suggested here that Monbusho is consciously working against the success of its communicative goals, but these incongruities imply that an overall policy to link aims and the practical aspects of teaching is not yet in place. It is perhaps this lack of an overall policy which best explains why present training and in-service training for JTEs does not take into account communicative approaches and team teaching.

Sendai’s program

In Sendai City, the capital of Japan’s northern Tohoku region, a plan has emerged to address some of the problems associated with some of the shortcomings of the existing program. Progress is being made by offering substantial support and training opportunities to the AETs and JTEs employed by the Sendai Board of Education.

Sendai is an ‘officially designated’ city (operating independently of the provincial government) with a population of just over 1 million. Its Board of Education administers 70 public junior and senior high schools in which there are in excess of 35,000 students, along with 2250 academic staff, of whom 260 are JTEs. The schools range in size from a semi-rural junior high with a population of just 18 students and 13 teachers, to an inner-suburban junior high with 50 educators and an enrolment of over 950.

The city has an exceptionally proactive attitude towards the JET Programme and English education within its schools. Starting with just one AET in 1988, Sendai has since achieved its goal in 1996 of providing each high school with a full time native speaker. In the same year, the city established the International Education Group (IEG) in the Board of Education’s Shidouka (Guidance and Supervisory Division) with the aim of assisting the local AETs. The IEG initially comprised two Japanese teacher’s counsellors along with an AET Advisor (a former AET concerned with the assistants’ salary, housing, health, and general well-being). Later in 1996, a qualified TESOL professional was recruited as Chief Advisor to conduct lectures, seminars, and workshops for all teachers and to mentor AETs. Currently, the IEG stands at 4 members.

Whilst Sendai receives the majority of its AETs directly from CLAIR, the city also has its own private hire system, the ‘Hello World Plan’. Under this scheme, Sendai is able to recruit a minimum of 10 AETs per year to make up for any shortfall of teachers supplied by CLAIR. The salary, working conditions and general benefits provided to successful applicants match those of the JET Programme, and in regards to training, meetings, support and access to teaching materials, recruits are treated the same as JET Programme AETs. This system allows Sendai to partially regulate the quality and standards of AETs working for the Board of Education.

Benefits for AETs

After arrival in Sendai, new AETs receive a full week’s orientation, providing them with an overview of ESL/EFL techniques, along with cultural and survival tips for working and living in Japan. In addition to the IEG staff, currently employed AETs participate in the orientation, contributing their insights and experiences. The new AETs are issued teaching materials and Sendai-produced handbooks, and are invited to the twice-monthly seminars held at the local Education Center.

As stated earlier, AETs on the JET Programme usually do not have prior teacher training or teaching experience. For them, having the opportunity to learn about teaching is imperative in making their experience on the program successful. Surveys by Scholefield (1996) and Pattimore (1999) have shown JTEs desire for greater training of the AETs they work with, and Sendai’s professional development program works towards meeting some of these suggestions. In addition, the development the AETs receive also has a follow-on effect in that the result of their training can be witnessed by and drawn upon by their team teaching partners. Although not as effective as if the JTEs themselves attended the training, the ‘osmotic’ effect the JTEs receive may be value to them. Sendai AETs have noted that their JTEs have expressed interest in the content of seminars AETs have attended, the JTEs having asking for teaching ideas and suggestions offered and generated in the workshops.

It is also felt that the AETs receive an extra incentive by being a member of an education program that fosters development its employees. The hope is that by treating AETs as professionals and providing opportunities for training, a higher teaching standard will be engendered. It also demonstrates that the Board of Education is supportive of them in wishing to enhance their teaching skills while they are in Sendai’s employment. It is also hoped that Sendai’s approach will instil a sense of obligation and professional pride to the AET position, even if the participants not intending to stay beyond their initial contract of 12 months or have no further plans for teaching beyond the JET Programme.

Professional Development for AETs and JTEs

The Chief Advisor is responsible for designing and conducting Sendai’s in-service seminars, which are open to JTEs and AETs. These two-hour sessions usually take place on weekday afternoons in the city’s Education Center. Usually, classes are usually limited to 30 people, but when there has been a greater demand for particular sessions, extra seminars have also been run. These classes cover a range of topics such as the history of ELT methodologies and techniques, using music as a teaching tool, and developing professional relationships. The sessions are delivered in consideration of the JTEs’ English level and development in both their language and teaching skills.

The materials used in the classes are selected in consideration of the language level of the JTEs. Extracts from Teach English (Doff, 1988), which is designed for non-native speakers of English, are frequently used, and other teacher training texts are summarised and simplified where necessary. Longer and more complex extracts are sent to JTEs in advance and there are extra handouts for those attending the sessions to take home with them. There are also many opportunities for JTEs to develop their communication skills in the form of discussions, planning and activities with the participating AETs. In short, the seminars give the chance for AETs and JTEs to develop their knowledge of teaching theory and practice, as well as assisting the development of JTEs’ language proficiency.

It is also felt that professional development is enhanced by the IEG through school visits. Whilst these occasions can be stressful for those being observed, a concerted effort has been made to make these experiences less of a traditional ‘inspection’ and more of a learning experience for the teachers concerned. School visits are a regular part of the Guidance and Supervisory Division’s duties, but the Sendai IEG has engendered a change in attitude towards these visits throughout the school system. Observations of classes now occur throughout the year with the decision to make visits involving negotiations between the IEG, AETs, JTEs, and the school administration. These visits are usually at the request of AETs and JTEs who see the value of having a class viewed and critiqued. So, rather than a ‘policing’ activity, these observations are presented as a way to develop the team teaching partners’ skills. In a number of cases, JTEs who were observed (but who had not previously attended the city-run seminars on offer) decided that participation in workshops would contribute to their abilities as a teacher and have begun attending on a regular basis. In addition, AETs have also noted changes in their partners’ approaches after these observations.

Sendai’s problems

Even with such a substantial program in place, there are still problems in the system. The first Chief Advisor was appointed primarily to develop the AETs’ teaching knowledge and skills. However, it was considered that, no matter how well the AETs were trained, substantial improvements in the quality of team teaching could not occur until local JTEs were fully involved in the process. The twice-monthly seminars that are conducted by the current Chief Advisor are now chiefly aimed at the JTEs, with AETs brought in as assistants.

However, attracting JTEs to the seminars has been a major challenge for the programme. At most seminars, no more than 10 (out of a possible 260) JTEs are present, and some of the possible reasons behind the low attendance shall be explored here. Firstly, many teachers are highly committed to their jobs. A Japanese junior high school teacher’s official working hours are usually between 8.15AM and 5PM Monday to Friday (with a half day on every second Saturday), but the majority of teachers are also involved in other duties (coaching sporting teams, running school clubs, counseling students) that keep them at the school as late as 10PM. School vacations also see many teachers running club and sporting activities on the school premises.

Considering these pressures, finding or negotiating time to go to the seminars (starting at 3PM on weekday afternoons), is often difficult for teachers. Whilst the availability of in-service training for JTEs is not innovative, the concept of a Japanese Board of Education offering a regularly scheduled in-service training program that teachers can choose to participate in is a relatively new idea. The elective nature of this training program means that teachers have to go through the process of seeking permission from their school’s administration to attend. However, for a teacher to choose to leave school and attend an in-service session may be viewed as being an avoidance of responsibility, a perception that a teacher would not wish to give to his or her fellow staff. Therefore, it can be particularly awkward for teachers to absent themselves from the workplace, even for a teaching development seminar when other members of the staff are at still at work.

An additional factor in the poor attendance of JTEs may be the attitude of senior teachers and administrators. Even though Monbusho is outwardly supportive of teacher development, senior elements with schools are not always supportive of the JET Programme, and do not encourage the growth of their staff’s teaching skills or developments in the JTE/AET teaching relationship. Some individuals are actually concerned that JTEs are already in favored position over other teachers by (a) having AETs to work with them in and outside of class and (b) being given a greater opportunity for educational advancement through seminars. The acceptance of in-service training programs is slowly altering, but, as LoCastro (1996, p. 43) states, “individuals find resistance at their places of employment to their participation in outside, in-service training activities.” Even though the training provided by the Sendai IEG can be considered ‘outside’ the programs listed by LoCastro (p. 42) (sessions conducted by JALT, the British Council and publishers), Sendai’s teacher development is still elective, and not prescribed. As a result, in Sendai schools there is a degree resistance similar to that detailed by LoCastro.

Yet another cause of low attendance could possibly be attributed to JTEs’ concerns about their level of English. Evaluations by JTEs collected after the local annual Mid Year Block conferences (organised by the local prefectural Board of Education) usually find the respondents commenting on their difficulty in following the presentations (in English) given by AETs. As with the Mid Year Block conference, Sendai’s seminars are conducted in English, and although consideration is given to their proficiency during the sessions’ preparation and delivery, informal feedback from attendees has indicated that the topics covered sometimes require language beyond their experience. Therefore, even though they are teachers of English, a number of JTEs have indicated their hesitance to attend sessions that may cover technical aspects of teaching.

JTEs could well also be intimidated by the native speaker skills of the AETs who attend the sessions. The AETs enjoy participating in the seminars, but they sometimes forget the language abilities of the JTEs, and start discussing issues in a manner akin to that in western higher education classrooms. Their enthusiasm is very engaging, but a number of Sendai JTEs who have taken part in seminars have admitted their hesitance in attending subsequent sessions because of the speed and complexity of English that the AETs sometimes use.

For some JTEs, negative experiences at previous in-service training sessions may have coloured their views about professional development on offer. Results compiled by Browne and Wada (1998) suggest that JTEs feel mandatory training is not of a particularly high quality. It could be concluded that some teachers may transfer this perception to other sessions offered by a Board of Education. They may be under the impression that the seminars on offer in Sendai may be equally poor, irrelevant and disinteresting.

Finally, there are also JTEs who simply have no interest in improving either their English or teaching skills. Many individuals are in English teaching positions to which they have grown accustomed, and for many there is no incentive to go beyond what they are doing at present. They feel that they can continue to teach English successfully without having to attend seminars and workshops. It has been noted earlier that Monbusho-approved materials and standardized tests based around the materials do not thoroughly test the communicative skills of the students (Gorsuch, 1999; Murphey, 1999). As a result, JTEs sometimes feel that enhancing their skills or initiating new approaches does not prove any more rewarding for their students than the current methods being employed.

Solutions

In general, there needs to be a greater support and encouragement for in-service training for JTEs and AETs in Japan. This support must come from all levels, from the Monbusho down to the schools themselves. As seen earlier in this paper, these calls have come from a variety of sources, but Monbusho response to date has been less than encouraging. The lack of any initiative or innovation with regards to these matters would seem to indicate that Monbusho still seems to believe that improvement can occur within its restricted program, without the intervention or introduction of any further systems of training and professional development.

One way to encourage JTEs would be to offer more seminars to help develop their communicative English skills. Improved language skills would have an impact on their knowledge of and confidence in using English, something Li (1998) recommends for local teachers of English in his study of the introduction of communicative language teaching in South Korea. Not only would it give JTEs greater access to and understanding of English teaching materials and resources, this development would also assist in the professional and personal relationships that they have with AETs. However, such language classes would most likely face the same attendance problems as those concerning the in-service training program.

Another issue concerns the cultural appropriacy of what is being offered for JTEs, their students and Japan. Monbusho, in setting its sights on communicative approaches in the classroom, is aiming to utilize a methodology that may not be suitable for the teaching culture of Japan. Pennycook (1994) writes of the inappropriacy of CLT in a number of educational and cultural contexts (pp. 170-173), and such may be the case in Japan as well. Whilst Monbusho is unlikely to back-pedal on its decision concerning the use of communicative approaches, providing avenues for in-service training can open JTEs’ minds to methods that can complement the cultural background they share with their students. However, without the forum for dialogue, movements towards more culturally-appropriate approaches may not occur, and this may restrict advances in English teaching development.

Opportunities for discussion will perhaps draw on (and further develop) Japanese experts in the area of language teaching. Encouraging JTEs to enhance their skills through professional development may encourage them to become authorities in their own right, or at least reassure them that their collective experience in education is valuable. It is also felt that it will be Japanese teachers of English who will also have a greater chance to influence and change the existing educational infrastructure, something which Gillis-Furutaka (1994, pp. 33, 40) echoes.

One change delivered in Sendai has been the offering of seminars intended for JTEs only, a scheme instituted to cater to those Japanese teachers who may have been intimidated by the presence of AETs at the regular seminars. These JTE-only seminars have continued to be delivered in English, and it is possible that the absence of AETs on these occasions has lead to more JTEs attending. Feeling less anxious by AET discussions may have been a factor in the JTEs’ interest. However, although there has been interest in these seminars (with slightly over 10 JTEs attending on each occasion), the attendance rates have not dramatically increased. A further step would be to conduct these sessions in Japanese. This has not occurred as yet, although at the JTE-only seminars there is Japanese language support from one of the IEG’s Japanese teachers’ counsellors.

A further plan under consideration is to offer seminars at times when JTEs might better be able to attend. One possibility is to conduct seminars after school finishes, perhaps at 7PM in the centrally-located Board of Education offices. Further options are to conduct intensive weekend sessions or intensive, multiple day workshops at times when schools are closed. However, as times at which schools are completely free of students in Japan are not that frequent, scheduling such sessions will be complicated.

Requests have even come to the IEG from JTEs to direct school principals to compel teachers to attend the seminars. This would mean attendance at the seminars could be anything but of the JTEs’ own volition, removing any stigma associated with leaving school early. Still, such a process may result in disinterested JTEs being forced to attend the seminars, and this may have adverse effect on the atmosphere in the workshops. Browne and Wada (1998) have explored this issue through a survey conducted with teachers in Chiba prefecture, and the replies to their survey showed that negative attitudes towards official seminars possibly due to them being mandatory (1998, p. 105). Therefore, a system where administration determines attendance may result in overall resistance to the program.

It is hoped that a greater degree of feedback from JTEs could be collected. Suggestions and responses are often requested from teachers in Sendai, but their reactions are not always forthcoming. As a result, it is difficult to assess what changes the JTEs would like to see in the current program. A more active investigation of their ideas is required to thoroughly discover what format they would like professional development to take.

Conclusions

After 13 years, the JET Programme and its emphasis on team teaching continues to be supported and expanded by the Japanese government. Approval for the program comes from JTE participants themselves, Pattimore and Kobayashi (1999) finding the JTEs’ they surveyed in Ibaraki prefecture strongly defending the program, and a replication of the study Sendai found JTEs expressing similar rates of approval for the AET system and team teaching. However, to justify its existence and the vast expenditure of time, money and resources, the educational authorities need to go beyond present offerings of training and in-service training for JTEs and AETs. Such a move seems likely to make classes for students far more efficient and worthwhile.

Concern about English teaching in Japanese schools is constantly being raised in all circles, with the English-language press in Japan regularly detailing government and academic reports concerning this issue. A recent report stated that an advisory panel will be set up by the Ministry of Education “to discuss specific measures for the overhaul of English- teaching at schools and universities” (“Ministry set to review English teaching,” 1999). The Education Minister, Hirofumi Nakasone, “decided to set up the advisory panel to overhaul current teaching practices, in the belief that they are to blame for the lack of English-speaking proficiency.” It was also stated that there would be a call for “new entrance examinations to be set up by high schools and universities, focusing mainly on students’ ability to communicate in English.” Therefore, it is reassuring that concerns are being expressed about some of the matters raised in this paper. However, it would be more gratifying to see some of these issues be dealt in a practical manner rather than them simply being studied, discussed and reported upon.

It is this writer’s hope that there will be national support to put these changes into place. This support could be made manifest in the form of adequate teacher training and compulsory professional development. For English teaching and the JET Programme to blossom into a truly effective system that offers Japanese students practical and valuable English education, further infrastructure needs to be introduced to streamline the working processes for the AETs and JTEs. Whilst Sendai’s program is not without its problems, it does provide a model for Monbusho and other board of educations to reflect on and adapt.

References

Browne, C. M., & Wada, M. (1998). Current issues in high school English teaching in Japan: An exploratory survey. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 11 (1), 97-112.

Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR). (1999, April). 1999-2000 Host Institution Manual. Tokyo: Author.

Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR). (2000, May). 2000 JET Programme Administrators’ Meeting Material (CLAIR Publication). Tokyo: Author.

Doff, A. (1988). Teach English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Egginton, A. (1997). Looking forward. In The JET Programme: Ten years and beyond (p. 315). Tokyo: Ministry of Home Affairs.

Fanselow, J. F. (1994). JET as an exercise in program analysis. In M. Wada, & A. Cominos (Eds.) Studies in team teaching (pp. 201-216). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

Freeman, D. (1997). The impressions of JET participants and persons related to the JET Programme. In The JET Programme: Ten years and beyond (p. 318). Tokyo: Ministry of Home Affairs.

Gillis-Furutaka, A. (1994). Pedagogical preparation for JET Programme teachers. In M. Wada, & A. Cominos (Eds.) Studies in team teaching (pp. 29-41). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

Goldberg, M. (1995). Interview talk on ‘The JET Programme and the present situation of English language education in Japan’. The New English Classroom 313, 10-13.

Gorsuch, G. J. (1999). Monbusho approved textbooks in Japanese high school EFL classes: An aid or a hindrance to educational policy innovations? The Language Teacher, 23 (10), 5-15.

Kinjo, T. (1997). Memories of JET. In The JET Programme: Ten years and beyond
(p. 309). Tokyo: Ministry of Home Affairs.

Knight, G. (1995). Oral communication: one year on. The Language Teacher, 19 (7),
20-25.

Lamie, J. ~~(1999). In-service training with Japanese teachers. In A. Barfield, R. Betts, J. Cunningham, N. Dunn, H. Katsura, K, Kobayashi, N. Padden, N. Parry, & M. Watanabe (Eds.),~~ ~~On JALT98: Focus on the classroom: Interpretations~~ ~~(pp. 64-69). Tokyo: Japanese Association for Language Teaching.~~(2000). Teachers of English in Japan: Professional development and training at the crossroads. JALT Journal, 22 (1), 27-45.

Law, G. (1994). College entrance exams and team teaching in high school English classrooms. In M. Wada, & A. Cominos (Eds.) Studies in team teaching (pp. 90-102). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

Li, D. (1998). ‘It's always more difficult than you plan and imagine’: Teachers' perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 677-703.

LoCastro, V (1996). English language education in Japan. In H. Coleman, (Ed.). Society and the language classroom (pp. 40-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Luoni, S. (1997). A reflection of three years in Japan. In The JET Programme: Ten years and beyond (p. 317). Tokyo: Ministry of Home Affairs.

Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (Monbusho). (1994). Handbook for team-teaching. Tokyo: Gyosei Corporation.

Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (Monbusho). (1999). Typical questions raised by ALTs and sample answers (Monbusho Publication). Tokyo: Author.

Ministry of Home Affairs. (1997, March) The JET Programme: Ten years and beyond (1997). Tokyo: Author.

Ministry set to review school English teaching. (1999, December 31). Daily Yomiuri, p. 1.

Murphey, T. (1999). For human dignity and aligning values with activity.
The Language Teacher, 23 (10), 39, 45.

Pattimore, R., & Kobayashi, K. (1999, October). JTE attitudes towards team teaching. Paper presented at the JALT 25^th Annual International Conference on Language Teaching/Learning & Educational Materials Expo, Gunma, Japan.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as a second language. Harlow: Longman.

Scholefield, W. F. (1996). What do JTEs really want?. JALT Journal. 18 (1), 7-25.

Smith, R. C. (1994). Contents and activities in team teaching. In M. Wada, & A. Cominos (Eds.), Studies in team teaching (pp. 72-89). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

Wada, M., & Cominos, A. (Eds.) (1994). Studies in team teaching. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

Yonesaka, S. (1999). The pre-service training of Japanese teachers of English.
The Language Teacher, 23 (11), 9-15.

Abstract