Critique of Team Meetings . . . Forums for Democratic Decision-Making

Critique of Team Meetings . . . Forums for Democratic Decision-Making
By Suzanne S. McCotter

Thesis: McCotter and her teaching partner, were “committed to building a community in which everyone had a voice” (p. 105). They used tools such as team meetings, integrated curriculum, group processing and literature groups to establish a democratic classroom.

Main Points/Concepts:

- McCotter gives a brief history of her background, admits to being a white, middle-class woman of privilege, took many courses in race relations, yet did “not believe that I had gained a deep understanding of racism” (p. 104).
- Transition to new school, new teaching partner (Sara), new grade
- Principal committed to democracy as “a practice and as a goal” (p. 105)
- Invited parents, students and community to share opinions in summer meetings, developed “common values . . . a mission statement, and decision-making process that involved staff, parents, and children” and that met the unique needs of the school (p. 105)
- McCotter and Sara knew that they needed to learn about each other, created common goals and philosophy, and worked together to plan their team (rotational 45-50 students)
- Team meetings: help to “meet goals of building a community and upholding our democratic ideals of including student voices in all aspects of our team” (p. 106)
- used “to gain student input and feedback on curriculum, to discuss relevant social issues and organize daily business or community news” (p. 106)
- Committees are created to follow-up and meet regarding team meeting suggestions or issues
- Students see Team Meetings as a productive place to bring up issues important to them
- Democratizing Group Processing: Students can’t choose what is taught, but can have a voice in the method and assessment.
- Devote early weeks of the school year to teaching students how to work in groups
- “group processing” helps groups “recognize the problems that can keep them from getting their task done and set a goal to avoid it”(p. 109)
- group composition is integral, “kids do better when they have some choice” (p. 110), create groups based on interest, set criteria, ask students whom they work well with and don’t work well with
- sometimes group work doesn’t work, go individual for awhile, but it is a lifelong priority

Critique:
This article has some powerful suggested teaching practises that are certainly worth trying. I have seen it in practise. My oldest daughter had a teacher last year who lead a very democratic classroom. This teacher has a natural ability to encorporate democracy into every facet of her classroom and frequently used the approaches mentioned in this article, namely, class meetings, literature groups, group processes and more. As a result, I saw amazing growth in my daughter and the classroom dynamics were amazing. Peer interactions improved, self confidence boosted, respect infiltrated and social responsibility blossomed. It was amazing to see in practice and made me want to apply these practises to my classroom.
What is omitted from the article is a reminder as to the amount of time required to make all of these practises successful. McCotter stated that she, her teaching partner, special education teacher and gifted teacher “joined our team daily for language arts.” (p. 114) I wish! This is simply not the norm, nor to be expected in a B.C. classroom. Literature circles quite often have to be facilitated by one classroom teacher.
Team meetings are an excellent communication tool, yet this reading alludes to the fact that committees were formed after team meetings to continue the process. Again, time, teacher or adult involvement and/or sponsors are required in B.C.
I like the fact that McCotter recognized that a democratic classroom means “leaving behind a lot of the comfortable routines and standard decisions that help teachers feel in control . . . The key is making a philosophical commitment to sharing power with kids . . .” (p. 116). It is apparent that McCotter teaches and practices in a way that some recognized as being “post-modernist deconstruction”(Platt, 2001, p. 1). McCotter also seems to teach in a moralistic way: one that believes in a classroom that recognizes the individual student, interactions between students and social group interactions (Boyd & Arnold, 2000, p. 1). Not all readers of this article may be familiar with post-modernist, moralistic or democratic methods of teaching, but McCotter certainly has given teachers with some examples of how to start making their classroom a democratic one.

Critical Reflection Questions:

Can these teaching approaches be used in a secondary school setting where you only have students for 60-90 minutes?
What can a teacher do if the same students are forming the post-team-meeting committees?