My original complaint. Written whilst everything was still fresh in my mind.
An official complaint about a concerted and coordinated verbal assault on the integrity, character and professional competence of Russell Crew-Gee
To be read in conjunction with my first memo to Ken ....................
This document supplements my first one which was written during the early hours of the morning following the incident, when I was highly emotional. It is written in order to define more precisely the complaint I am making. The complaint is that Hugh Dellar and Andy Wakely went far beyond the normal bounds of argument and debate and attempted to destroy my credibility as a teacher. I would go so far as to say that their actions were not just personal comment since they could easily be classed as slander since it can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt that their attacks have no basis in truth and were malicious in intent.
This assault took place in a public meeting chaired by Ken ................. The other two members of the meeting were Caroline ............. and David ............... Two of these people are managers, which makes the attack even more worrying. Other than Ken .............. all the other people had observed Language Laboratory sessions conducted by myself. The session consists of students listening to a two line dialogue on a particular grammar point or functional aspect of language, where the student’s role is to record the second line of the dialogue and listen for their mistakes and analyse the grammatical structures to speed up the retention of good grammar habits. After hopefully succeeding in correcting their mistakes and understanding both sentences using techniques which I guide them on, they then have to write down both sentences from memory. This is a simplification of a much more complex interaction that takes place during this session.
Ken .............. has admitted that as chair he should have intervened. I have also complained about the subject area of the meeting which Ken has also accepted should probably not have been presented in quite this way.
During the meeting everyone was given an opportunity to state their views and as everyone spoke there was silence and courtesy shown with no interruptions. However when it came for my turn to give my views I had more or less only just commenced my arguments when I was interrupted because I made a statement which Hugh and Andy did not approve of. This was just the first of constant interruptions, which made it almost impossible for me to reach a conclusion, which would have qualified everything I was attempting to say. I hold the chairman somewhat responsible for this since he ought to have intervened at an early stage.
1. I believe that the first interruption came when I made a statement about how, in the Language Laboratory, when given the opportunity to listen intensively by themselves students had great difficulty in understanding the contracted forms of grammar words when spoken in a sentence context. I was challenged about this statement. This came as a surprise to me since I have never, in any discussions with other members of staff, been given any negative feedback. I felt as if I had been accused of lying. In defense, I related this to what I felt had been shown in one of the observation sessions, in particular, a student in Andy’s class who could not understand ‘does the’ in the sentence “Why does the sun always go in when I’m sunbathing”. It could be argued that at this point I was inviting an interruption however I did not expect to hear from Andy that this was a totally wrong assessment of the problem the student was having. I pointed out that I had actually asked Andy to come and join me with the student. He denied this and said that he had originally been with the student and had called me. I.had lied again apparently. I do not really care who called who, I have my recollection and it does not matter who called who first, because in his own words Andy said that he had called me, because it was my class and he did not want to interfere, and left me to deal with it. So if we accept this version Andy called me and he went back to the teacher console, the student then explained to me her problem. She was having a problem understanding “d’z the”. This is what the student told me, nobody can tell me what the student said to me when I was alone with her and they have no right to challenge my integrity in this manner. I definitely called Andy over from the teacher’s console because one of my aims during the observations was to show people the problems students had understanding the myriad of contracted forms that occur with the use of grammar words. I have to say the challenging of the precise order of events shocked me. I can explain further however I do not think it necessary at this stage. I believe however it is important to establish truth since the crux of my complaint is the distortion of the truth that has taken place at all stages of the attack. Hugh also joined in to say that it was impossible for an intermediate student not to understand ‘does the’ it was a vocabulary problem. Since he was not present he cannot possible know what the student’s problem was. It is true, that some teachers may find this hard to accept, however it is a problem which occurs on a day to day basis, the total lack of understanding of many grammar forms in a sentence context because of the pronunciation change that occurs. Why I ask myself do Andy and Hugh refuse to accept my personal experience? Why are they in denial of a truth that other teachers readily accept? Do they think it might be a reflection on their teaching? It certainly is not my intention to make any comment on their teaching. As far as I am aware they are highly motivated and dedicated teachers. I do not expect everybody to be aware of this as a problem. It really only shows itself so clearly as a problem, in a language laboratory and this was the point that I was going on to make. I was unable to do so because there was a total rejection of the possibility of it being a problem. The major problem of the denial of what I had said was also their contemptuous rejection. I found the manner of their denial was extremely threatening since I knew that a distortion of truth had been used to support their argument. No one else present could be aware of this. I at no time made a single reference to them and their integrity as teachers other than to defend the statements I had made and which had been challenged by them. I know what the student said in front of Andy, in my presence; that she had a problem with the sound after ‘Why’. She mentioned other problems she was having also. However the initial and biggest problem she had was the ‘Does the’. The second problem was ‘sun’. She had the pronunciation correct but she thought it was ‘son’. She also had a pronunciation problem with ‘sunbathing’, hearing a ‘d’ sound for the ‘b’. This is a complete analysis of all the problems she had. Ask Andy if he can describe her problems in such depth since he is so sure he knows what her problems were.
As already stated, I have mentioned the problem of contracted grammar forms to other teachers at various times and have had a positive agreement. I myself have tremendous problems understanding French grammar forms when spoken quickly in a real life situation. My wife who is Croatian and all our Croatian friends say they also have problems comprehending grammar forms. Everyday of my life for the 13 years I have been teaching Language Laboratory here at the University I have seen what students write and students themselves have told me. With regard to the student mentioned I enclose two documents in the students own handwriting which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that her first problem regarding that particular sentence was ”d’z the”. The impression both Hugh and Andy were trying to create was that I was incapable of understanding a student’s problem and by doing so they were challenging my professional competence.
2. From that moment on I was under attack and almost every statement I made was challenged. I do not recall exactly what order it all happened, it just seemed to me that any statement I made was either wrong or insulting them as teachers. While in the process of stating some teaching maxims both of them almost with one voice it seemed to me, interrupted me in mid sentence to say “You don’t need to tell us that we are teacher you know”. The other three people present in the meeting did not, as far as I am aware, make any comment, it was only Hugh and Andy, who felt as if I was being patronizing. I believe this happened when I was answering a question posed to me by David and I was talking directly to him. It was not in my head whatsoever that I was talking to him, or anyone else as if they were not aware of what I was talking about. I was stating a maxim of teaching, which I was using to then illustrate the point I was going to make. Stating the obvious to qualify something else. Is this such a crime that they should jump in so vehemently? I assured them that what was their perception was not my intention. It still served to break up my train of thought and disrupt the point I was making. Again it was the manner of the attack, contempt, for they were in fact agreeing with what I said but were objecting to Russell Crew-Gee saying it.
3. At another point in my attempt to explain the advantages of a language laboratory, it got round again to Andy’s class and he attacked me very directly and my competence as a teacher by saying that his students had come to him after the class to ask him what ‘the sun goes in’ meant. It was at this point that I really felt that something was going on that had nothing to do with discussing the pros and cons of a language laboratory. This was get Russell Crew-Gee by fair means or foul. I will never in my life forget that moment because I looked down at the floor and was silent for about 20 to 30 seconds. I was controlling my temper because I knew something Andy Wakely was not aware of and I needed to take control of my feelings. I got up from my chair and went to the board and picked up a pen. Before writing anything I turned round, because I felt that I needed to tell everyone how I felt at that moment. My voice was quivering with emotion when I said that I felt extremely threatened by what was going on. I then slowly drew a sun and a cloud on the board and explained that after the coffee break I had taught them, ‘the sun goes in, the sun is out’ with the graphics I had drawn on the board. I have taught this drill, hundreds of times, it’s second nature for me to know the problems that the students will encounter. I was the person who was being patronized throughout the whole of this meeting. Having finished I then posed the question ”Please tell me how the students did not know what ‘the sun goes in’ meant”. I made no other comment that could be construed as a personal attack on him and I believe I did not make a single personal attack during the meeting, I at all times stated my points and stood by them. He had to admit that something was not quite right. Furthermore I would like to point out that he was working in Wells street that day and my class is in Regent’s street, is he really saying the students sought him out to ask him this question? They certainly have no problem asking me in the classroom clarification of anything they do not understand, so I can not see why they should go to him. I made no mention of this in the meeting. This was a direct attack on me personally and my professional ability to teach. A direct attempt, in public, to give those present the idea that I am incompetent as a teacher. Whilst I successfully showed that I had done my job as a teacher I do not feel that this type of behaviour is something that should be tolerated. I sincerely hope that the University is not going to foster an atmosphere of bullying by colleagues. On this point alone, Andrew Wakely should be disciplined and be asked to apologise, since to make an allegation of this nature in public without substantial proof to backup the statement that a teacher has been negiligent in their teaching practice, is behavior which in no way can be excused.
4. At one point I said that the language laboratory was mainly a revision session. The moment I said it Hugh jumped with a big “ah ha” and looked round quickly at everybody. The sort of action that means ”got him this time everybody”. He continued by saying, “teaching ‘so that’ is not revision for my class”. This is nitpicking of the highest order. Firstly, I was going on to say that I tell students that the exercises I do in the language laboratory are mainly a revision of the main English grammar structures, however there will be times when there may be an unfamiliar grammar forms and also some unknown vocabulary. Giving students the unknown reflects the reality of life and it also gives me the opportunity to help them with learning techniques to overcome such problems. Secondly, the vocabulary, ‘so’ and ‘that’ is not unknown to them and the enclosed photocopy shows that the concept of giving a reason with ‘that’ has also been covered. I had also previously done work on giving advice with a reason. So since he had not bothered to ask me a single question during his observation I would like to know how he could be so sure that he was correct. Thirdly, how does he know what I might have taught them? Another attack with no evidence to support it and plenty to disprove it. Another attempt to prove my incompetence as a teacher in a public forum.
5. He then went on to volunteer his opinion about the technique of getting students to listen again and again to a particular pronunciation problem that students are having when trying to understand something. He said that this was demeaning to a student, implying that my teaching was a demeaning process to students. I asked him if any students had said anything to him and he said “no”. It was just his impression. Excuse me!! He has the right to say this in a public forum without any evidence to back up his statement yet again. This is not a discussion on the merits or otherwise of the language laboratory, this is a direct attack on me and my character as a human being. It is also attacking my ability to judge to what extent I can push any one individual student to discover the meaning of a sound which I feel they could/should/might be able to find. I have a very precise learning technique, which most students fully appreciate and find useful in the learning environment of the language laboratory. An attack on my professional ability built up over many years of experience by somebody who admits he has hardly any experience of language laboratory teaching and comes in to observe a lesson for three-quarters an hour and is suddenly an expert on language laboratory teaching techniques.
6. He also stated that in some way I was able to brainwash students into accepting my ideas. This is a preposterous concept. Our students are all highly intelligent human beings who have minds of their own and are quite happy to disagree with points I make. Furthermore this is implying that in some way I try to apply undue pressure on them. I find this highly offensive. The reality is that whenever I ask students if a statement I make about learning is true I encourage them to disagree. The reason I do this is to make sure that what I am doing with them is valid from their perspective. Even on techniques that I know students should be using in order to get the best results in a language laboratory I will allow students to go their own way. Since Hugh Dellar did not ask me a single question about what I did, I fail to see how he can make this statement
7. Again while directing an answer to David, I was challenged when I made the statement that ‘Understanding and hearing your mistakes is a means of measuring learning’.
One, if someone wants to interrupt they could at least wait until I have finished making my point.
Two to throw your head back in the air and make a loud animal noise is the most contemptuous response a human being can make.
Three to continue to confirm the contempt by saying this is complete rubbish is designed to kill any discussion on the matter.
Two and three were Hugh’s method of challenging the above statement. Completely killing the answer I was giving to David. David’s question was in fact the only reasoned question asked throughout the whole time I was attempting to present my case. It was asking for clarification of points I had made and was the form that one would expect in mature and reasoned debate. The antics of the playground ought not to prevail in a business discussion. They certainly do not know me well enough to use such direct and confrontational techniques of communication.
These were the most important challenges made, to what I feel, are perfectly valid truthful statements and false statements made about my competence and professionalism as a teacher.
The main point of my complaint is that the points raised by me;
a. Are not sufficiently controversial or even controversial to warrant the challenges made. If any thing they are being controversial by challenging them.
b. Are challenges, which cannot be supported by any evidence.
c. Are attacks, which I personally, because I have information available only to me, felt were of a highly personal nature deliberately carried out to discredit me and my professional competence in front of my line managers.
d. Are based on the distortion of reality.
e. Were not the result of any argumentative style on my side since I had the floor and it was I who was being constantly interrupted and finding myself having to defend a position which was perfectly reasonable.
The process I was involved in was an attempt to show that Russell Crew-Gee is a teacher who is not up to speed on modern teaching methods and is someone who will not listen to reason, incompetent, demeaning to students and therefore not fit to be a teacher at the University of Westminister.
All of which is totally false, the evidence I have produced shows quite clearly that I am up-to-date in the eyes of the students, secondly that it is not me who is incapable of listening to reason since all the statements I have made about teaching are in no way unreasonable and I have the total confidence of the majority of students. This meeting was not instigated because of a mass of complaints by students about my teaching methods in the language laboratory and any complaints that may have been made, have at no time been clarified in a manner that would identify a precise problem or notifoied to me.
I found the whole experience highly offensive. It was the worst experience I have ever had in 27 years of teaching.
As already stated, I had to tell the meeting, at the point where Andrew challenged me on point 3 above, that I felt personally threatened by what was happening. So this is not a complaint based on reflection it was the feeling of the moment and at the end of the meeting I expressed my concern again to Ken personally.
I would like to know, how two mature professional teachers who admit to not having had much language laboratory experience, cannot ask a single question about the process, or any problems students might have technically, linguistically and personally. To show no interest whatsoever in the experience of a fellow professional in something they know very little about since they had had no previous knowledge about my personal approach to language laboratory teaching or the technical setup of the Language laboratory. Then having done that proceed to tear the reputation of that teacher to bits in public. For that matter, I would like to know why management can listen to them so intently after this three-quarter of an hour experience they had in observing my lesson and then allow a person with years of experience to be torn apart and not give them the opportunity to present their case with the same degree of interest and quiet attention.
Ken has to bear some responsibility for this because it was not the right forum in which to be asking the questions he asked. The subject of the meeting was supposed to be ‘Feedback’. I have to say I was very dubious about this but felt that with a willingness on the part of the other teachers perhaps to recognize how the language laboratory session can compliment the general classroom teaching sessions and be positive in working in a team environment, they would see the benefits. However after Andy’s visit I was worried and I expressed this worry to a colleague, no mention of Andy, just to say that there was to be a group feedback session, and that persons remark was “Sounds like a Witchhunt”. Sadly that is what happened. In fact there should have been individual debriefing sessions.
How would I like to see this resolved?
1. I would like to receive an honest and sincere apology from Hugh and Andy.
2. I would like them to read all the evidence and not find excuses to deny the truth of what they are reading and the evidence of students themselves.
3. To be asked if, when having read all the evidence, they can honestly say that Russell Crew-Gee is a teacher who does not have the confidence of his students and does not know what he is doing and hopefully say “No,” and that maybe he is someone who is worth listening to on occasion.
4. To accept that there are many different ways to teach. To accept that there are things that can be done in a language laboratory that cannot be done in the classroom, not because I say so but because that is the reality. In the future it will also become necessary to accept that there will be things that one can do in a Multi Media center that cannot be done in the general classroom.
5. That although they may think that their approaches are the best, they need to learn to respect other people’s approaches and not criticize anything that does not fit into their perspective of teaching for maybe it is the acceptance of certain teaching dogmas that are distorting their view of reality. Their attitude is the same mind set that is classed as racism, and bigotry in other contexts.
6. From management I would like to know, that my experience and knowledge is given the respect it deserves and that any discussion on the future of the language laboratory is done in consultation with me before any plans, strategies etc. are presented to a wider audience and that people are fully briefed on the subject of a meeting. ( I do not feel that this is a major issue however I do feel that it needs to be addressed.)
I respect their ideas, I have seen in the teacher development sessions what they have to say and on occasion although I have seen the merit of some of the things they have suggested I would also argue that there is an alternative view which is also valid. e.g. they give handouts to students, of language that has occurred naturally in a lesson. Great idea, however I would not do this since I prefer to encourage the students to write things down themselves. I mention this as an illustration of how there can be two ways of doing things. Both pedagogically sound. However the thing that really makes teaching work is the individual teacher and how they interact using their own techniques with the students. I may be stating the obvious, however it is not to sound patronizing, it is to qualify what I am hoping to achieve as an outcome from this unfortunate affair, because I have the strongest feeling that the underlying cause of this attack is their lack of respect for me as a teacher and my ideas about teaching.
Ken said that it was good to have argument, and that I gave as good as I got. Not true, this was not a discussion/debate/argument on the philosophies of teaching, it was a highly personalized attack on me. I know the difference. I did not give as good as I got, for I was on all points, only standing my ground and defending a position. If I had given as good as I had got they would not have left the meeting still laughing in contempt and making derogatory statements. Any personal attack by me would have been on the lines of little children using playground tricks to ridicule. At no time did they use the mature form of social interruption (Could I come in here/Excuse me may I ask question/Sorry to interrupt can you.....etc.) On each and every occasion it was an emphatic direct attack on a statement I had made. At one point they actual accused me of being argumentative or words to that effect (playing to the audience) and I pointed out to them that it was they who had actual start that particular line of argument. Are they the only ones allowed to make statements and defend them without being called argumentative?
I have talked to Caroline ............... and whilst she said that they believed what they were saying, she also said that it got too personal and should not be left as it is. Whether she meant I also was too personal in my defense or not I do not know, however she is saying they to were too personal also and it was two against one throughout this.
In conclusion I would like to say that I intend to take this as far as it needs to go to see that fairness, justice and reason are applied.
Attached to this document are the following documents.
1. The student's work and comments, who is the subject of point 1.
2. The results of a survey given to all students during the week I was observed, in all cases except class 5 this was given on the same day as the observation.
3. Further documents from different classes showing the problems the students have in understanding grammar words in context.
4. A photocopy from Innovations showing a contracted form of ‘so that’ being used to introduce a reason.
6 I feel that it is relevant to include photocopies of cards and their contents that I have received from students, in order to show that my beliefs and ideas on teaching have a beneficial effect and Hugh and Andy should take note of what students have to say and respect those comments. These comments are 1998 to 2000. A selection, there are many more. Not yesterday’s man, up-to-date and still turning students on.
A list of documentary evidence to support almost every statement I have made and to show the attitude of these two members of staff towards their colleagues. Can they produce any documentary evidence to support any of their arguments or is it just a biased personal opinion based on acceptance of theoretical ideas that do not necessarily apply in practice? Maybe too much theory and not enough reality is blinding them to the truth. However this is no excuse for their highly personal attack underlined by a personal prejudice that interferes with their professionalism towards not only me but other members of staff also. I am not the only person who feels that their interpersonal skills leave a lot to be desired. Their total lack of sensitivity to what they were doing can only mean that this was a deliberately (whether consciously or sub-consciously) vicious attempt to discredit a senior lecturer in front of management.
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS COMPLAINT ARE PUBLISHED ON THE STORY PAGE, THE STUDENT'S OWN EVIDENCE. PEOPLE WHO ARE FREQUENTLY FORGOTTEN IN THE DISCUSSION ON OUR ABILITY TO LEARN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE.
