What makes a good foreign language teacher?

Make up your own list of qualities that make a good foreign language teacher and compare it with the one given in the article.

I can identify the following signs of a good English teacher:
1. Education. Diplomas and certificates that confirm knowledge of the language. If the teacher has a pedagogical education, this may be an advantage, since the teacher will feel the peculiarities of your perception better and will be able to find an approach to you, regardless of personal sympathies.
2. Honesty and professionalism. Don't be afraid to say that you don't know something. You can turn to the dictionary together for this word.
3. Engagement. In addition to knowledge of the language, it is important that the teacher is interested in what he is doing.
4. Creativity. The teacher should have the ability to adapt to the situation, adapt the material, tasks, come up with an interesting game.
5. Patience. At times, students can get angry: problems with behavior in the classroom, poor or slow perception of the material, absent-mindedness and lack of attention in the classroom. Don't worry. All people are different and learn in different ways. Whatever happens in the lesson, you need to remain calm and be patient.
6. Organization and punctuality. The English teacher should always be organized, ready for the lesson, be on the spot at the appointed time.
7. Striving for development. The language and its teaching methods do not stand still, so constant development is really an important part of the teaching profession.
I also agree with the criteria that are specified in the article. All this together will make the teacher a professional in his field.

3. 
   Read the following text for obtaining its main idea:
   

Quite properly, one may argue, the emphasis in society today is falling upon the need to individualize. The danger that the individ­ual may become lost in the crowd has led in turn to the questioning of the very basis of authority by students, and in some cases by Au­thority itself.
It is for this reason, among others, that schools constantly need to examine the relationships that exist between teachers and pu­pils, indeed within the school as a whole, and ask some, or all, the following questions: is it possible in today's climate of opinion to continue operating on an athoritarian basis? Can discipline be maintained in a situation where there is little day-to-day social com­merce between students and teachers, and where relationships are based not upon mutual trust and understanding, but upon a "Do as I say and argue afterwards" approach? How much effort are we making to understand the pressure under which children are op­erating (or failing to operate)? What, come to think of it, do we mean by discipline, anyway? How far is it possible to open lines of communication in such a way as to admit the possibility of children being outspokenly and fiercely critical of what is happening in their own school?
Primarily, however, the concern must be with the child and the way or ways in which any child lives and moves within the school.
There is little point in teachers believing that an expressed desire to help, to guide and to advise will be accepted at its face value by today's child. The teacher has to prove himself through a period of apprenticeship, during which time he will be assessed by the children themselves. If, during this time, he reveals a genuine, as opposed to an expressed interest, he will eventually be accepted in both a tuto­rial and perhaps a counselling role.
I admit to a personal doubt as to whether any teacher will be ac­cepted in a counselling role if he has not at some time or other joined regularly in some activity involving prolonged contact with children in a social setting. Once a child has committed his trust there is a further need to create situations where, if necessary, the teacher may make himself available to 'children in a private capacity, as a friend, when he may be talked to alone and in confidence.
But the pressures on teachers today are considerable, especially since their sphere of operations has increased to include the individ­ual welfare of all children in form or tutor groups. Unfortunately it is hard to see how tutors can become tutors in the real sense of the word unless they are prepared to become deeply involved (though not so involved as to be unable to be dispassionate and clear-sighted) in the interest and preoccupations of the children. To fill the position sat­isfactorily implies a desire to know the child's background and his family history, and it implies also a respect for the child as he is, and not as we would like him to be.
5. Answer the following questions:

1. 
   Why does the need to individualize become so urgent in our society in its present stage of development? What is your idea of the basic requirement of our educational system: "The child is not an object but a subject of education" ?
   

The modern school is losing its historical role — obtaining a minimum of general education and culture in order to concentrate on the role of an exclusively social elevator. The school should contribute to the individual success of the student. Individualization of the educational process is a way of organizing education that provides each student with the rights and opportunities to form their own educational goals and objectives, an individual educational program.
If we consider a child as a subject of education, then students independently formulate motives and stimuli, react to educational influences (positively, neutrally or negatively).

2. 
   Do you think we can say that the "climate of opinion" has been created in our country? What does it mean? In what way does it af­ fect the atmosphere in school and the teacher-student relationship?
   

3. 
   What does the author of the article mean by "operating on an authoritarian basis" ? Is this manner still characteristic of modern schools in our country?
   

The teacher considers his students to be objects of influence, and not equal partners in activities. The teacher separates himself both from the teaching staff and from each child individually.
His main methods of influencing the trainees are teaching, ordering, such a teacher always controls the performance of his tasks independently and quite rigidly, and not always correctly enough. Nowadays, this is still evident in some schools. Most often, teachers of Soviet schools resort to such methods. Sometimes such methods are effective and extreme in some situations.

4. 
   What are the pressures under which children nowadays are operating? Are the schoolchildren of today different in anyway from what you used to be at school?
   

Now the authority of teachers is very undermined. Today, many people say that modern children are very different from the previous ones. It is believed that today's schoolchildren are more arrogant and they are not interested in anything except gadgets. I think you can find a common language with any class. In some cases it's quite simple, and in some cases it takes a lot of effort. But in principle, everything is possible, there would be a desire on the part of the teacher. Then gradually a response will appear, maybe weak at first or only from a few people, but it will appear.

5. 
   What personal qualities of a teacher can help him to pass "a period of apprenticeship" with his pupils successfully?
   

6. 
   How can you create situations where you can be available to children as a friend? What do you think of teachers who, for exam­ ple, invite students to their places for a get-together?
   

7. 
   Do you agree with the author's recommendation to respect the child as he is, and not as we would like him to be? Does it not con­ tradict the basic idea of educating the child?
   

8. 
   It is clear that the pressures on teachers very often prevent them from becoming a tutor in the real sense of the word. Do you see any practical ways of improving the situation?