SCENE SIX
PARENT PAT’S CROSS EXAMINATION …. IS PRINCIPAL LIPSERVICE AN OBSTRUCTOR OF HIGH-INVOLVMENT COLLABORATION OR A PROTECTOR OF PROFESSIONALS’ RIGHTS TO LEAD?
JUDGE
(TO DEFENSE LAWYER)
My ruling on Parent Pat’s testimony about the teacher’s opinion of the Special Education program in Dr. Lipservice’s school is that she was merely relaying what that teacher had said. However, the court does point out that the teacher’s opinion was certainly just an opinion. That opinion may or may not have validity.
Plaintiff Lawyer, please proceed.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
As Chair of the team, can you recount what happened after the teacher made his point and the community member responded?
PARENT PAT
Well, we certainly moved off data analysis. I wasn’t sure what to do frankly. One of the other members, Teacher Tom I recall, suggested that we discuss how we could be sure we could all trust each other in making any sort of decisions about how the school was doing.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
Thank you. Your Honor no more questions.
JUDGE
Defense Lawyer, you may cross-examine.
DEFENSE LAWYER
Thank you, your Honor. Let’s take each point that my colleague has asked you to testify to, one at a time. Let’s work from this last issue first. You say that the group began a discussion about how they could or could not trust each other in being effective?
PARENT PAT
Yes.
DEFENSE LAWYER
You seem surprised that the issue of trust became an issue.
PARENT PAT
I was taken aback. Thinking about it though, I am glad that the matter was raised. It is pretty hard to get anything done if folks are looking over their shoulders.
DEFENSE LAWYER
And my client, Dr. Lipservice, how did he contribute to this conversation?
PARENT PAT
I believe he said, “I can understand how my teacher would feel uncomfortable sharing opinions with parents and other non-educators.”
DEFENSE LAWYER
Did you take this to mean that he didn’t trust the non-educators?
PARENT PAT
Actually, I did. Other teacher members and parents objected to what he said.
DEFENSE LAWYER
Did he clarify what he meant?
PARENT PAT
Yes he did. He said something to the effect that the non-educators were not in the position to understand all the operations of his school and that it would be time consuming to even try. He also said that he was worried that some of the parents had their own agendas rather than that of the school and could not be trusted to contribute properly.
DEFENSE LAWYER
Did you feel that he was directing that at anyone in particular?
PARENT PAT
You’re looking at that anyone in particular. I never made a secret of that fact that I was displeased with a lot of things at the school and about some things that had happened to my own children. While I never had a hatchet out for Dr. Lipservice or his staff, I certainly wanted to contribute to changing a few things in the school.
DEFENSE LAWYER
Let’s take another point for analysis. You say that Dr. Lipservice offered an optimistic review of the school’s academic achievement from the data he presented.
PARENT PAT
Yes he did.
DEFENSE LAWYER
On all counts?
PARENT PAT
Well, he acknowledged that the school’s special education and English Language Learners students were lagging. He said that there were many reasons for this that didn’t necessarily show up on data spreadsheets and that the school staff recognized that additional strategies were necessary. But he added that they were moving forward too.
DEFENSE LAWYER
Very well. And what I take to be your last point in your testimony. You said that it is difficult for a school improvement group to reach consensus.
PARENT PAT
It certainly is!
DEFENSE LAWYER
And I believe you also said that the principal appeared open to compromise, for example, when he went along with the idea to have a subcommittee examine student performance data.
PARENT PAT
Yes, I said that.
DEFENSE LAWYER
Thank you. No more questions for this witness your Honor.
JUDGE
Witness may step down. Plaintiff lawyer, your next witness.
PLAINTIFF LAWYER
Your Honor, we call Teacher Tom to the stand.
….
This scenario attempts to capture the complexity of at least two dimensions associated with effective group operation in a High-Involvement setting. Again, one is the issue of TRUST, per Lencioni and emblematic of the KNOWLEDGE variable in the model. It was probably pretty healthy for the group to examine the extent to which the individual stakeholders did trust each other. That the principal, in a sense, pointed out the potential elephant in the room about individuals with their own crusades is certainly a big elephant in many a meeting room!
Again, within the KNOWLEDGE variable, the principal calls to question the group’s skill base and points to deficits both in the group’s training and in the principal’s transparency.
As for the matter of consensus, again a part of the KNOWLEDGE variable, did the group know how to process a matter to consensus? Was the principal or indeed any other shared planning team member a potential saboteur?
~Richard Bernato, Ed.D.