The Aggressive Uses of Irony

Strange as it may seem, my life is based on a true story
Ashleigh Brilliant
A good novel tells us the truth about its hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author
G. K. Chesterton

Fiona crucified herself yesterday. OK, she got a bit of help with banging in the nails and standing up the cross, but I don't know - perhaps it was necessary, perhaps not. I just hope that after the crucifixion comes the resurrection.

I was very late for the meeting: I'd promised some science curriculum material, then put off getting it down on paper

the lure of a new CD-ROM drive and some music software

until very late, so I was flat out putting the finishing touches to it and printing it out, and of course both the printer and photocopier malfunctioned, just 'cos it was urgent. As I walked into the room, there was an uncomfortable silence, and Fiona continued in the vein in which she'd (apparently) been speaking:

"I know that there've been problems in the operation of the team, and some people have been uncomfortable with what's been going on. I've been going through some personal problems, which I don't want to go into now, and I've been driving myself too hard with work to really work on some of these things. I've asked Andrew, who I really respect as an educator, to come down after recess and act as a mediator so we can work through some of these issues. I'm trying to understand my own professional practice as a team leader, and I've been writing about this as part of my masters study. This is the first time I've been a team leader, and I'm still learning, and I know I haven't done a very good job, but..."

People wait. Normally in such a situation, someone would rush to reassure the speaker, but no-one does - later, they're much more open toward Fiona, but right now there's some real anger. Alyx finally speaks "You see, that's really part of the problem. We all know there are some problems, but to use us as part of your masters study, and then invite Andrew to come in without talking to us about it - that..." she pauses, "...that really sucks."

"I never intended to mention anyone's name in writing up the report - it's just looking at the development of my role as a team leader." Fiona defends herself hurriedly, but perhaps she's missed Alyx's point. Tanya speaks up: "I think it needs to be discussed inside the team: we need to solve it as a team, not have someone from admin come in to solve it for us. And we'd need Robyn to be here."

Comments and discussion ensue, and the consensus seems to be that yes, the team isn't working well and needs to address some issues, but this morning provides too little notice, an external moderator would be a handicap, and Robyn does need to be present.

One of the problems is really outside the team's ability to address: most team leaders have a small teaching load within their team. This allows them to have some connection with the students, to relieve their teachers for planning time, and to interact with the teachers in a teaching, rather than an administrative, capacity. Fiona initially had that time with the team, but the school administration decided that her expertise as a mathematics specialist could be better used elsewhere in the school, and took her out of the team for her teaching time.

It seems that there's been a perception (Fiona challenges its reality, but is - correctly in my view - reminded that if a perception exists then it needs to be addressed) that Fiona has tended to carry issues and problems to the administrative staff too quickly, rather than searching for solutions within the team. Tanya felt that she had been made to feel like a naughty student for talking during the planning meeting, which had incensed her, and Etta - while generally affirming that the team was working quite well - felt that Fiona had tended to set the agenda for team meetings without consultation, and that the creative planning of the group had to some extent been stifled in administrivia. The group noted that Fiona had tried honestly - and been partially successful - to reduce this component and speed up the meetings.

Some members of the group had spoken against Fiona behind her back, and these comments had got back to her by circuitous paths. Everyone acknowledged that although that was easy to do it was unprofessional, and resolved to be more open and direct in dealings within the team.

The group also acknowledged that there are issues of personal style and temperament to be overcome and dealt with: Fiona has a much more rigid, no-nonsense, mathematician's style, while the predominance of language specialists in the team has led to the desire for a more intellectual but emotional, caring and casual form of discourse within the team. This may be the toughest issue to deal with: the tendency of 'birds of a feather to flock together', forming a 'language mafia' within the team. I feel quite strongly that it's unfair for Fiona to carry the can entirely for the problems in the team - although it may be politically expedient for her to appear to do so until someone else raises the issues - because the other members of the team have given up too easily and have not made the necessary effort to build bridges across the divides of personal style and professional practice within the team.

This is a very diverse group, ranging widely in age, classroom experience, intellectual commitments, out of school lifestyle, family background, artistic and musical tastes and a myriad of other things. Etta's approach is different from those of some others, as is Fiona's. Alyx is bright and a great teacher, Carolyn is a little insecure in teaching cross-curricularly, Tanya is open and caring, Robyn is sparkling and irreverent. They are individuals, but need to work together as a cohesive team: creative solutions will be necessary, and so will compromise on the part of everyone, not only Fiona.

The decision is made to postpone the discussion until the following Monday, and to devote the whole team planning time to it. I diffidently suggest

my role is still not totally clear to me - perhaps that will need discussion too?

that it will be more productive to discuss how the team can operate better: to concentrate on the positives of how to improve, rather than to put Fiona in the stocks and throw rotten eggs at her for a morning. That might be satisfying to people who've felt offended, but it won't provide us with a way forward.

As I walk away from the meeting, I'm thinking about three things: what, from my perspective, has gone wrong (and right) with Cowan Team, some possible approaches to solving the problems, and my own role: to what extent, and in what ways, should I contribute to the team in general and the meeting on Monday in particular?

I suspect that there are two reasons for the current inter-personal discomfort in Cowan Team: firstly, the great differences of personal style and approach between team members, and the fact that it was possible for a 'clique' of similarly minded teachers to form within the team. Secondly, Fiona's insecurity in a leadership role, which she attempted to assuage by conducting the meetings very much as business meetings. The crucial first few meetings were taken up with administrivia, boring and alienating the teachers. In hindsight, it would have been far better to use some 'team-building' activities, and to jump straight into some heavy-duty curriculum planning activities. These would have built cohesion in the early stages, and developed a respect for one another's skills and abilities. The other material could have been soft-pedalled and introduced later. I suspect it was these first few meetings that set the tone that has led to the current situation. Feeling like a bit of an outsider and suffering personal problems as well, having her role changed and being taken out of the team for her teaching - all of these must have made Fiona's life very difficult, and many of these things were beyond her control.

Hanging Fiona out to dry on Monday wouldn't be a way forward: she's already acknowledged her 'sins', such as they may be: it's time for others to acknowledge their share in the situation, but much more importantly, for the team, collaboratively, without outside interference, to try to find ways forward. I believe the crucial step is 'putting our cards on the table' - we really need to explore one another's personal styles, ideas and commitments, in such a way that we are able to negotiate new understandings, and a new professional relationship between team members. This will involve compromises from everyone: we will need to adapt our styles a little, and to be tolerant of the styles of others. Caring will be a crucial component.

And that brings me to my own role. Should I talk about Nel Noddings' model of 'care', or will that simply be seen as irrelevant theoretical waffle - or worse, an attempt to use the authority of academia to put my views across? And do I have a right to speak up anyway? Am I a stakeholder, or a part-stakeholder? Has my presence actually exacerbated the problem? Probably - what can I do about that? I want to be a member of the team, but that depends both on my constructing myself as one, and the group members admitting me. By this time, were the group functioning well, I would be much surer of my role, but with little consensus on anything, there seems to be no consensus on that.

Stay tuned for Monday's report.

There's enough irony floating around here at the moment to cure anaemia - or to make you weep. The school newsletter went home this week with a message from the principal, passed on from the Education Department, about violence in schools.

Oh, not teacher violence toward students: something that at least a sixth of the students know is going on in this school, apparently unaddressed. This was a strongly worded message saying that violence toward teachers by students would under no circumstances be tolerated.

How did the parents and friends of the slapped students in Andrea's class take this message? I didn't meet or talk with them, but empathy is really all that's needed, isn't it? How would you feel?

There was a School Development day last Friday. In the jargon of the Department, this means the students don't go to school, but the teachers do, in order to make collaborative progress on the issues facing the school. I wrote down my reactions in my journal:

We had a staff meeting today, intended to "address some key problems within the school". So why were the two most pressing problems in the school - at least from my perspective in Cowan - not on the agenda?

The first of these problems: the violent teacher. Of course, she's right there in the meeting, and it would be embarrassing, and there are processes, and... But it all seems a little shallow to be working out better processes for passing around Curriculum Consultants' timetables when someone in the school is slapping students! Maybe this embarrassment, combined with our obsession with due process, is what stops us from stopping other types of child abusers - why aren't we making it crystal clear to her, as teachers and human beings, that she's respected but her behaviour is intolerable? And why do the procedures make it impossible to just get her the hell out of there?!

The second problem: the discord in Cowan Team. The focus of the meeting is on improving communication, but it doesn't do a thing to address the communication breakdown that's disabling a sixth of the school.

Fiona thought all the problems had been addressed in the Thursday meeting. There was no meeting on Monday.

The Cowan Team planning meeting was running beautifully: everyone was involved and on task, and the creative flow was energising and exciting. We - the seven Cowan teachers, Fiona and I - were collaboratively planning the student activities for next term's integrated learning module. It's called 'Our Heritage', and focusses on the history and society of this State, and more specifically our area, since the Second World War. It will include the Aboriginal heritage of the region before white settlement too, and will also look at the heritage of the many students who have come here from other countries, including Vietnam, Hong Kong, Rumania and Poland. We're designing activities that will integrate skills and ideas from science, maths, technology, language, the arts, health and studies of society and environment (what used to be called 'social studies').

Technology ideas really had the group fired up, with Alyx and Robyn suggesting creative projects linked to the history of the State, like wooden toys and cottage crafts. These would nicely integrate the historical, social and technological emphases of the module, and the teachers really felt that it would catch the students' interest - it certainly caught the teachers'.

The next planning meeting, a week later, started out the same way: people were energised and ready to be creative. Our guest for the morning was Ellen Carver, the Curriculum Consultant for the Technology learning area. As she lectured to the group of teachers about the projects that had been chosen by the technology team for our students, the teachers sank into silence, fidgeting and staring at their hands.

"OK, all the students will be making the steel dustpan in the first 7 weeks of the term. We'll give you the plans and instructions and you can go over it with them. I also want you to get the students to do these three technology assessment tasks in class..." she pauses to hand out thick wads of paper to everyone in the room. "They need to be done in the next week and a half, and I want you to mark them and hand the marks to me before the third week of term."

The shocked silence from the teachers deepens. The timetable is already too full - where will they find the two hours or more to have the students do these tasks on such short notice? And where will they find the time and energy to mark all this extra work? And what happened to the exciting activities we'd planned for our students?

"But we'd planned all these other activities that tie in with what we're teaching..." Fiona begins, somewhat plaintively.

"I think you'll acknowledge that we're the ones with technology experience. We know the skills the students need to develop, and we've planned these activities very carefully, within the budget we have," Ellen says. "If you want to do anything else with the students, you'll have to finance it yourselves and do it outside technology time. You won't be able to use the resources in the technology area either - they'll be in use by other classes. Are there any more questions?" Stunned silence reigns. "Good, then I'll be going. I'll expect those marks in my pigeonhole by Friday the Twelfth then..." She gives us a sunny smile, not returned, and packs up her bag of papers and breezes out.

We probably should have challenged her agenda - refused to do her work until she negotiated on ours, or tackled her on her assertion that she, not we, knew what our students needed. I think we were just too shocked and demoralised even to raise our voices: the whole tone of her presentation had robbed us of the willingness to engage, because it was so clear that she was unwilling to engage with us.

This meeting just seemed to contravene so many of the values and commitments that the school was intended to carry out - no negotiation, no collaborative planning, no curricular integration, no empowerment of teachers, no relevance to students' perceived needs... What the hell happened? How did we get rolled like this?

Next Page (Trusting Tony)