There is a concept among Friends (Quakers) that is called consensus decision making. I'm not a Friend myself, however the idea that a group would come to consensus before making a decision is one that resonates with me. The key to their type of consensus decision making is that they believe that their authority to make a decision comes from being a community in submission and relationship with a loving and caring God. It's a radical and politically unpopular viewpoint, that a community would be centered on such an idea, yet I've seen it in action and it has been a productive experience.
Blogging is a great way to 'hear' the viewpoints of so many stakeholders. Location and credentials are no longer barriers. Students, teachers and the community can all interact, respond, and argue to develop a group concensus- If a group concensus is valuable. We need to listen to all stakeholders, so that everyone understands and can support decisions of the whole.
Listening to the perspective of everyone, particularly perspectives of teachers can lead to a deeper understanding of the issues and work towards lasting, real change. This blog is a great start to begin the listening process.
Thinking of collaborative thinking, perhaps what we need at this conference are more opportunities for this. For instance, one approach is through focus groups. Certainly the sessions provide opportunities for individuals to make connections but if we believe that groups can make a difference then we need a formal approach to this. How would one accomplish this? Individuals could submit topics for focus groups just as they would for a paper. Someone would be assigned to take the suggestions for topics and organizes those into coherent focus groups. Then during the conference, times would be set aside when there would be no sessions but everyone would attend their focus group of choice. One of the originators of the focus group could chair the group discussion. The discussion could address collaborative projects as well as differences in theory and practice.
I wonder whether it would be beneficial to have an annual "Town Hall" at SITE where one issue would be debated and would culminate in a statement that represents the organization's position on something. For instance, if "The Digital Divide" became the 2007 Town Hall focus, could we converse in blogs, at Town Hall meetings, elsewhere, and by the end of the conference issue a press release? I don't know. What do you think? Janet
5 Comments:
There is a concept among Friends (Quakers) that is called consensus decision making. I'm not a Friend myself, however the idea that a group would come to consensus before making a decision is one that resonates with me. The key to their type of consensus decision making is that they believe that their authority to make a decision comes from being a community in submission and relationship with a loving and caring God. It's a radical and politically unpopular viewpoint, that a community would be centered on such an idea, yet I've seen it in action and it has been a productive experience.
Blogging is a great way to 'hear' the viewpoints of so many stakeholders. Location and credentials are no longer barriers. Students, teachers and the community can all interact, respond, and argue to develop a group concensus- If a group concensus is valuable. We need to listen to all stakeholders, so that everyone understands and can support decisions of the whole.
Listening to the perspective of everyone, particularly perspectives of teachers can lead to a deeper understanding of the issues and work towards lasting, real change. This blog is a great start to begin the listening process.
Thinking of collaborative thinking, perhaps what we need at this conference are more opportunities for this. For instance, one approach is through focus groups. Certainly the sessions provide opportunities for individuals to make connections but if we believe that groups can make a difference then we need a formal approach to this. How would one accomplish this? Individuals could submit topics for focus groups just as they would for a paper. Someone would be assigned to take the suggestions for topics and organizes those into coherent focus groups. Then during the conference, times would be set aside when there would be no sessions but everyone would attend their focus group of choice. One of the originators of the focus group could chair the group discussion. The discussion could address collaborative projects as well as differences in theory and practice.
I wonder whether it would be beneficial to have an annual "Town Hall" at SITE where one issue would be debated and would culminate in a statement that represents the organization's position on something. For instance, if "The Digital Divide" became the 2007 Town Hall focus, could we converse in blogs, at Town Hall meetings, elsewhere, and by the end of the conference issue a press release? I don't know. What do you think?
Janet
Post a Comment
<< Home