Tribal Councils: Our protocol for deliberative discussions

One of the hallmarks of our program here at the Depot has been our emphasis on student-student interaction and collaboration, but this can be challenging. Many teens are insecure and self-conscious and so focused on peer approval that it is hard for them to open themselves to criticism and judgement. But our goal is to develop a culture where they feel free and confident to take those risks and where they have the necessary skills to engage in productive and genuine conversations. We also want to create a democratic environment where students are genuinely involved in decision-making at the school.

That's why we have Tribal Councils. In Tribal Councils, students are presented with an issue or problem and then follow a protocol for deliberative discussion and consensus building. Past issues we have discussed have included out CHIPS incentive system and Project Block, and today we used the protocol to discuss our cell phone policy.

We started last week with a jigsaw-style look at an article about the impact of cell phones and screen time on mental health. Then this morning we started our deliberative discussion. Here's the protocol:

1. Write down your ideas, with reasons or evidence (5 min)
2. Go around your table. Each person shares his/her idea, with reasons/evidence. (5 min)
3. Go around again, responding to your table mates and/or revising your idea in response to their ideas. (5 min)
4. Go around again, responding to your table mates and/or revising your idea in response to their ideas.  (5 min)
5. Repeat until your table has a plan that everyone at the table agrees on.  (5 min)
6. We repeat the same process for the whole room:
1. Each table shares out.  (5 min)
2. Each table discusses other tables ideas, responding and revising.  (5 min)
3. Then we go around the room again.  (5 min)

The goal of the process is that every student has a voice and that eventually we (hopefully) come to some consensus. It generally works pretty well. Today, we did not finish step 6, but we gathered some interesting (and varied) ideas. A couple of tables focused on enforcement and punishment while another focused on incentive and reward, for example. Our goal is to continue the discussion so that we can develop a plan. My hope is that they will settle on doing some "phone-free-days," but we'll see.

In any case, it gets them all talking to each other, and because they know that we always implement at least part of what they come up with, I hope they feel empowered. And I hope they are building the skills they need to make their families, workplaces and communities more collaborative and democratic.

Genes are just apps our cells run

Been thinking through ways to make DNA and genetics understandable to my high school biology students.

Simple is important, and oversimplification is often necessary.

Thursday, we move into genetic engineering and the pros and cons of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), a controversial topic these days, with all the calls for labelling GMO foods, protesting against Monsanto, etc.

And I've been listening to Made To Stick, by Chip and Dan Heath, and their S.U.C.C.E.S.S. check-list for making ideas stick--make them:

Simple
Unexpected
Concrete
Credible
Emotional
Stories

With technical concepts like the way that "information" in DNA is used to make proteins in your cells which then are used for all sorts of things in your body, and eventually create traits like eye color and who knows what else. It's hard to make a SUCCESSful message.

I wasn't able to hit all 6 criteria on the Heath brother's check-list, but here's what I came up with:

Genes are the apps our cells run.

I like it, but will they? We'll see.

It has lots of cool extensions: genetic engineering--making Glo Fish with jellyfish genes or making corn that can survive Round-Up herbicide--is just like downloading a new app into the cells of teh the fish or plants.

And just imagine what sorts of "apps" we might download into our own cells in the future?

Crucial conversations

Here's the claim: Any time you find yourself stuck in some area of performance or improvement that's important to you, what is keeping you stuck is very often one or two crucial conversations that you're not holding or not holding well.

-Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler, Crucial Conversations

I'm pretty sure this is a crux issue for me, and I'm pretty sure this will be a life-changing book, right up there with Drive.

My goal: One-a-day. One potentially emotional, high-stakes conversation that I don't particularly want to have per day--with a student, colleague, family member.

Not that I intend to force it, but if I interpret it a bit loosely, I doubt I'll have much trouble coming up with convos I need to have--like that conversation with a student about how his lab partner seemed distressed after the lab.

And I'm looking forward to honing my crucial conversational skills. After all, it's one thing to have a difficult conversation, and another to do it well--to make it a positive thing rather than a negative thing.

So maybe I'm broadening their concept a bit, but that's OK. More skilful communication, at the point and place and time where it's needed is the key.