Humanising Language Teaching
Year 5; Issue 2; March 03

Breaking the Chains of Planning

Interview with Penelope Williams, UK, written up and edited by Miles George who co-trained with her.

( Editorial comment: Penelope works as a primary school teacher, a prison counsellor and a teacher-trainer. In this interview she compares a counselling situation with parallel situations in language teaching)

FEELING CONSTRAINED BY CONTENT? HOW ONE TRAINER FINDS FREEDOM IN THE MOST REGULATED OF SOCIETIES…….PRISON

Working as a Trainer and Therapist within the Humanistic framework I describe, in this interview with Mario Rinvolucri, how taking a radical approach to the material we use in groups can reap enormous benefits. Using the example of a therapeutic course that I designed and facilitated within a maximum security British prison I discuss the core realities that all groups share - central truths that can be drawn upon by all types of trainers, facilitators and animators to add dynamism, immediacy and new perspectives to their work.

Mario: When you were working in the prison, you told me about this very interesting incident which I thought was relevant to teaching. Could you set the scene for us?

Penelope: Okay. I was running rehabilitation courses within the context of a high-security prison at that time - preliminary courses to help people coming off drugs. I interviewed all the members for those courses. They were either thinking about, or just coming off drugs. I already knew many of them because I'd worked for three years in the prison. In this particular course there were six participants.

The initial task of the group was quite simply each person saying where they were 'at'. In terms of therapy, the major content of the course was people knowing where they were, getting clear about that and clear about where they'd like to go from there. It's about meeting real needs. It's how I work with whatever type of group I'm running – going from first principles and asking: What do people really need here? And, as importantly: What is really needed here in general.

Mario: I believe there was a problem on this particular first meeting.

“…One of the members of the group came with a previous agenda…”

Penelope: There was a massive problem. One of the members of the group came with a previous agenda. The way he presented himself in the group was edgy – talking too fast, darting looks all over the place. When it came to introducing themselves and I said "Ben, where are you at?" he said, "Well, can I be honest about it?".

He said he had a grudge against me and the way my team had handled him in the past because he'd been refused a medical detox'. I'd assessed him with other ex-addicts working as peer-counsellors and as a combined decision we'd decided, “No, you're not suitable.” Just having a medical detox isn't going to get someone off - keep someone off drugs - if they're not ready.

He'd felt we'd completely wrongly assessed him. He'd been in desperate need and went through massive pain – had sealed himself off and done his withdrawal without any assistance, which can be very painful. It had been for him. Consequently he came to the group with very negative feelings and that became evident fairly quickly.

“…I had to make a decision, with the group in mind: Was it okay for him to take group time for this?…”

At that point I had to make a decision, with the group in mind: Was it okay for him to take group time for this? My recollection is that I checked out with him whether it was best dealt with privately or in the group. He'd said briefly what it was, and it was clear that there were major issues that needed looking at. He didn't feel that just telling me about the problem was enough for us to deal with it properly. He'd said, “No, nothing to be done privately anymore”. In fact, he didn't know if anything was to be done at all. He'd just come along that morning to say “ This is all crap and I'm having no part in it”.

So I made a decision to abandon what would have normally happened in that session, with agreement from the rest of the group, and give the time to him. That felt like a very risky thing to do. They didn't know each other - they'd only just introduced themselves by name and briefly described where they were 'at'. This is a therapeutic group inside prison and insecurity tends to run high - it can be a pretty tough world and you're asking for a level of honesty and vulnerability beyond anything some of these guys have ever experienced.

I knew that to do that in the group was dangerous - I'd have to do certain things the whole time. I'd have to constantly work very hard at the group's inter-relating – making sure people were included, checking out how they were feeling, where they were coming from etc.

I checked out the attitude in the group at that point saying: “X has got a problem. How do we feel about this? Are we up for this? This group is about dealing with real problems. We're either going to sort it out, or it's going to live on in the room.” My point was that this might not be what the course was about on paper, but this was about the reality of life. It's the same stuff - everything in life, everything is to do with drugs when you're trying to get clean so this issue was relevant here.

“…I think when something from outside comes up in a group you need to establish a tacit agreement to look at it as a group…”

I think when something from outside comes up, you need to establish a tacit agreement to look at it as a group. You also need to establish that if anybody feels, at any time, that it isn't relevant, they can say so. As a first group it was more important than anything else that I expect the participants, as well as myself, to have a level of integrity, honesty and congruence. It was crucial that I 'stand' to that in some way - that whatever I did was openly seen to be practising what I preach: people are humanly flexible and we're interested in what really goes on for them, interested in finding real paths to get through it.

We reached some sort of agreement and he presented his case.

He described his view of what had happened, and I facilitated exploring the details of that whilst bringing in the rest of the group. We looked at what was going on - I stayed aware of timing and checked out that we'd got over-view on what had happened. Checking out, in other words, how other people related to it, and within it- doing little bits to relate what we were looking at into the overall context of the course.

In doing this, Ben went from attacking a system he was excluded from to involving himself in a process he was prepared to risk investing in.

At the end of the group I asked people how they were doing. I explained that we hadn't done what was intended and asked how they felt about that. We looked at how they may not have felt secure enough – they'd jumped into the deep end of a pool when they thought they were just coming paddling!

“… That was my motive - to show that really dealing with things was possible…”

Their reaction as a group was really positive – there was an incredible life in the group because it had been real stuff. We weren't doing something just to be seen to be doing something - there's a perception that a lot of that sort of thing goes on in prison - we were dealing with what the real issues were. That was my motive - to show that really dealing with things was possible - to establish that space and share its benefits - and to actually deal with those things. It won me immense support from them as a group - that I had constantly related the whole thing to what their needs were, what I knew their needs were likely to be, to the general needs of people in that situation.

I asked Ben where he was 'at' and what he felt had happened. He explained very clearly that he had really felt like sabotaging the group before it started because he'd been so badly let down. He didn't feel like that afterwards – he thought the course would be great.

I got him to ask the other members of the group how they felt at the end. It's very risky to disclose so much and I didn't want him to be in the exposed place of walking out of there not knowing what effect he had had. After a group like that you can see that the facilitator is fine, but not know how the other participants are doing. So I asked him to do a sort of 'comfort circle' – using the group to feed back how it had been, how he had been. The feedback was very good. One member of the group who'd been very introverted and withdrawn, who, in the course of the group, I'd checked out just a couple of times, was very positive. At that point with a new group it's really hard to tell whether people are just quiet or what. His reaction was that it had been really good, worthwhile, and, “different to what normally happens in this place”. He was very pleased. Most people had a real gusto about their enthusiasm for what had happened.

Mario: So by taking this risky decision you got that group going with a great head of steam. Did that carry through?

Penelope: Really, an amazing head of steam! For the rest of the meetings it was an exceptional group. It really set the standard for many groups to come. When everybody realised that what would happen in there would be real stuff people were really enthusiastic.

Mario: This was in the extreme situation of a high-security prison, and your contract was a therapy contract. Some of the readers of HLT may well think " that's got nothing to do with us, we don't deal with people like that – we're teachers." What would you say to them?

Penelope: I think that what you meet in starting any new group is always the same. As an animator or facilitator or teacher, it's always a matter of balancing the course syllabus - what people have ostensibly come to learn - with getting the group and its individuals real enough to take that in. That's important – it's creating a vessel that can hold learning. I believe that to risk valuing the vessel as that which makes having the content possible, is the same sort of risk I take in all teaching. It's a matter of having faith in people's ability to know and do what they really need.

In this case I knew that the group had certain motivational points it had to embrace as part of the process of getting off drugs. I'd designed the course myself and had run it often, so I knew those sorts of things. Now if you were in an EFL/ESOL situation, you would have certain points that you knew were important, one of the points would of course be establishing the group, but the other points will normally be quite clear cut things: How people relate to the subject matter is always a major one: whether they like the language or not and how they get on with where they have difficulties.

If somebody brings a difficulty, that's a gift – that is how somebody is confronting a real difficulty.

Mario: So you are advocating a kind of flexibility of approach where you actually receive what's coming out of the group and then do something active with it.

“…That is always a mirror of the person relating to language, the person relating to learning, or whatever …”

Penelope: Yes, I'm advocating that. But, more than that, what I'm advocating is a deep down respect, on a humanistic level. If somebody in a group is bringing up something of such force, then what they're bringing up is always about the human being- the person – relating to things in general. That is always a mirror of the person relating to language, the person relating to learning. The microcosm always reflects the macrocosm. As a skilled animator, that is where the links can be drawn. If it's really out of context then it might not be worth the risk. But if you make a decision that there is something pertinent to what you're dealing with, then you can make a contract in some way that whilst meeting the individual and their needs, the needs of the group are met as well.

In essence, you are prepared to throw everything up in the air and let it land quite differently from what you had planned believing in the people, having faith in their inherent drive to find what they really need. It can feel like an enormous risk, but then the rewards can be enormous too.

Mario: Yes. Thank you. The interesting thing about what you're advocating is that it makes lesson planning seem a little bit strange!

Penelope: I agree …….(laughter)

... Facing these challenges is the reality of what we do as teachers. What empowers me to face them is having an awareness of the bigger picture…

What do we really need? What do we really want your students, for example, to take from learning English? Do you want them to learn good English? Or do you want something much more? Do you want them, in fact, to thrive, as whole, well-rounded individuals, interested in diversity and difference, interested in the worlds a new language opens up? Interested in life itself? To get there I work with my participants from the starting-point of: What do people need? What is needed in the world? In Primary Teacher Training, for example, I would be asking of myself and the group: What do we need as teachers? What do the children need? The most important part of my role as facilitator is to ground what I teach in the answers to these questions.

This approach to running groups works equally well for me as trainer, teacher or therapist. People know, or at least can know, what they need – it's the joy and skill of facilitating to create and sustain an environment where that awareness or the quest for that awareness can live. To create that environment, the individual needs to be valued. This valuing is at the heart of getting them to relate to themselves, to others and to the world.

What I'm talking about is the reality we face as teachers. How do you teach English to a little boy whose parents are divorcing, whose life is chaotic, who feels no-one cares? Facing these challenges is the reality of what we do as teachers. What empowers me to face them is having an awareness of the bigger picture. Learning English might 'save' that little boy with the knowledge that the world is bigger – that there are other ways of saying things, seeing things, of being, in fact.The challenge is to intertwine this awareness with valuing, with people mattering and of him, his individual situation, mattering too. What are the real needs of someone in prison? Ben came to a group to sabotage it. What he wanted was to be seen and to have his anger heard. I accepted that I was fallible – that his anger and pain were appropriate, righteous even. He found I could do that, was willing to face that. What he felt and needed mattered. The same was true for all of us. By addressing Ben's needs in a way that was relevant to the course and its other participants I wasn't just dealing with a problem, I was working through a major part of the course I was running. I was demonstrating that people could be fallible and not only 'get over that', but actually grow because of that. In all my various roles I have found this happening time and time again – working beyond my plan brings me back more firmly than ever to the true meaning of what I'm trying to facilitate, animate or train.