Dear Peter,
Many thanks for responding to my tweets about your recent
article in the NATE magazine in which you offered your thoughts on
@Team_English1 and subsequently allowing the article itself to be shared free
of copyright.
As you’ve made it clear you’re not yet fully conversant in the
social mores of Twitter, I’ve decided to write to you in a traditional form
you’ll hopefully feel more at home with: the letter. I’d draw your attention to
the fact that, on your advice to “Try quoting some other parts [of your
article]”, I’ve done exactly that.
So why, given that many of us would agree with some of your
critiques, have members of Team English been left “howling” (to use your
preferred verb)? Well, for a start, there was a failure to complete basic fact
checking – such as the names of the teachers you had directly referred to. Although
I am tempted to retain the monikers you’ve rechristened “Nikki Noopuddles” and
“X Curtis” with purely for my own amusement, this feels demonstrative of a
wider failure to engage with the real people at the heart of your piece. (It’s
Carlin and Chris in case you were wondering.)
You characterise English teachers who ask for help and
support as “weak” or unsuited to the job of teaching stating, “limited
professional or academic confidence may reflect the nature of recruitment”. You
then go on to assert that “Many of the Team English pleas for assistance
indicate some very basic teacher needs and anxieties, and a lack of autonomous
confidence in subject knowledge and pedagogy that might make some wince.” My
first reaction was ‘thank God you weren’t my NQT mentor’. Or Head of English.
Or, colleague, for that matter.
How can we develop as a profession if any admittance of a
lack of confidence or even anxiety are met with a physical shudder? Surely, the
role of a Subject Association is to share subject-specific expertise and
pedagogy, not to look down its nose at teachers who are actively seeking it
out? The idea that any teacher should have “autonomous confidence” in every
aspect of their subject knowledge and practice throughout their career is a
damaging one, in my opinion, that stifles professional development and
dialogue.
Such elitist attitudes pull up the drawbridge to high
quality professional development at a time when our profession needs it the
most. When I hear statements like the one you made in a tweet that “My
background is in a more academically robust community of speciality
enthusiasts” I want to say ‘Good-o for you’. If academic rigour in subject
expertise is confined to a niche community within teaching how on earth are we
going to improve the teaching available to every child in every school?
As a side note, the news that I am not considered a
‘speciality enthusiast’ will come as news to my long-suffering husband. You’d
also better warn the publishers of Mark Roberts and Chris Curtis they’re not
considered ‘academically rigorous’ – and ResearchEd of the same about Rebecca
Foster and Sarah Barker, for that matter.
In your article you criticise the “formulaic approach” being
shared by members of TE but this implication of a homogenous ‘Team English
pedagogy’ belies the 18,000 individual contexts, ideas, and perspectives that
make up this online community. Be assured that there are many heated disagreements
about aspects of practice.
Similarly, your comments about the variable quality of
resources and advice on offer demonstrate a lack of understanding of the nature
of the online world. Of course the
resources are of variable quality: it’s a mark of the wonderful, diverse nature
of the Team English demographic. It’s also one of the reasons LitDrive has tentatively
introduced a star rating system. But I passionately believe that judgement-free,
peer-to-peer sharing is vital if we are going to stimulate dialogue about what
constitutes that very quality we are seeking. The moment we metaphorically
close our classroom doors through fear of judgement it is immensely hard to
prize them open again.
So, why did we not all swoon at your ‘compliments’ or, as
you have continually argued, the “favourable publicity” for Team English? Well,
because they were buried alongside sweeping accusations such as “There is very
little in all this to suggest a wider or deeper concern with English as a
humane discipline with substantial roots and flourishing fruits”. Whilst
beautifully figurative, I find this quite simply insulting. One glance at the
programme for the 2018 National Conference would see that this is not the case,
with sessions exploring curriculum, grammar, rhyme, ‘building a culture of
academic tenacity’, authorial purpose, and values and diversity.
You suggested by tweet that it would be “Better to direct
outrage against those who undermine or damage the values I think we share.” The
values I share with Team English are a belief in open sharing, support, and
professional challenge. Whilst I cannot – and must not – infer intention from
your article alone, the snobbery, denigrating tone, and lack of dialogue with
those you have written about to me do not reflect these values. I’d also
suggest that the characterisation of female teachers as ‘howling’ with “sensitivities”
has more than a whiff of misogyny to it.
My desire in writing this letter is not to further division;
I really do care about the future of NATE. There is very clearly a space for a
professional association with a “coherent, regulated editorial function” which
you rightly state Team English does not have as a group of disparate
individuals. However, in order to function effectively I do believe NATE needs
to reflect on how – in 2018 and beyond – it can best engage with the community
of teachers it supposedly represents.
You state “subject associations are able to speak to other
agencies on behalf of English”. Well, no, I’m sorry, they can’t when they no
longer have the trust, ear, or financial support of English teachers. For
example, I am curious as to how many main scale classroom practitioners from
state schools have the luxury of attending the annual NATE conference. Just one
day this year cost £200. It’s probably worth pointing out that a day at the
Team English National Conference cost a tenner.
I hope that a more productive relationship between NATE and
Team English can emerge over the coming academic year. Another offer has been
made for NATE to be represented at the Team English National Conference and I
for one will still be making a beeline to any stand or sessions you may choose
to run.
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Spalding
English teacher