I don’t like to get involved in arguments or debates online. It just happens from time to time.
This is one of those times.
Hugh Dellar, former Celta tutor, teacher, teacher trainer, coursebook writer, and presenter, recently wrote an impassioned and typically strident critique of Celta and courses of its ilk in the aftermath of what many are seeing as a seminal plenary talk by Silvana Richardson at IATEFL 2016 on the topic of native speaker vs. non-native speaker bias in our profession.
Hugh basically puts forward a case against Celta, and calls for its replacement with something better.
I have nothing against the idea of establishing better qualifications and standards for our profession, but this will only succeed when the argumentation is sound, and so I feel compelled to respond to Hugh’s key arguments.
As I make my living working on short introductory training courses like Celta, it isn’t surprising that I may defend them against criticism. Before you let such ad hominem thoughts discount the rest of what I have to say, let me assure you that I will be careful to present evidence and give ground as I go along.
I hope to show that while they are superficially persuasive, Hugh’s arguments in his latest post frequently lack either logic or evidence or both.
Despite this, I will end up agreeing with some of what he says and present an (arguably) more strident conclusion of my own.
If you haven’t read Hugh’s post yet, stop here and go and do that now. It’s worth it. I’ll wait for you.