The rise and fall of camelot: designing, implementing, and dismantling  (Page 11/16)

Throughout the 2009-10 academic year we attempted to openly address team norms. In one meeting we worked for several hours to create both a definition and a process for reaching consensus in order to develop a way to resolve our differences. We began dealing with several issues related to the teaching of the core leadership courses, attempting to use this new consensus process. Based on numerous discussions during the design process and early implementation, and on my experiences co-teaching EDL 601 with FME, I had made several assumptions not shared by the full team (see Table 2). We seemed to reach some consensus on these issues; however, what we had agreed on did not become uniformly practiced at any point in time. Differences in implementation led to significant friction, with DH1 and I on one side, FMC3 on the other, and FMC2 and FMD in the middle.

Table 2

My Assumptions, Group Consensus, Divergent Practices

Admissions also became a source of disagreement and, again, the most disagreement seemed to pit DH1 and I against FMC3. The faculty had decided that cohorts would be capped at 22. This number was within the high end of both research recommendations on cohort size (for example, Brook&Oliver, 2003) and what we found to be a manageable number in online classes. We would begin two new cohorts (44 people) each fall and spring. We were receiving many more applications than would fit into the two by 22 model. DH1 and I wanted to hold firmly to the 44-person cap by becoming more selective in our admissions process. FMC3 believed that we should not be the ones to limit applicants’ aspirations and that we should admit everyone. He advocated that the dedicated students would make it through the program and those that were not capable would drop out, but that we could not make predictions based on our admission criteria. We debated these issues during each admission cycle without any real resolution. Admission cycles (in November, April, and July) became increasingly contentious and divisive. During our April admissions, FMC3, as program coordinator, “made a command decision” to admit a student whose GRE score was less than half of our requirement. Admissions had always been done collaboratively and this departure from our norms led to a harsh public confrontation between FMC3 and I. My trust in him had been broken and I suspect the same was true for FMC3. While we patched things up on the surface, neither of us really worked to repair the deeper discord.

Interlude – drinking from the grail

With the numerous challenges occurring in year two, and continuing into years three and four, it is all too easy to forget or leave out the truly significant experiences and accomplishments of the faculty and the program. The following paragraphs offer a summary of the “magic” we experienced as we “drank from the grail” that was the creation and implementation of this program. The magic stemmed from our ability to actually build something that was idealistic and achieved the dreams and visions that we had laid out, from the faculty bonding resulting from intense collaboration, the remarkable degree to which we became colleagues with the participants in our program, and the overwhelming evidence that what we were doing really made a difference in the lives of participants and of those they worked with and taught.