High School Environmental Forum

Tips for Teachers

CI's eForum Highlights  •  Past Forums 

Tips on POVs & TQs

Point Of View (POV)

Thoughtful Questions (TQ)

As you investigate the Forum web site you'll notice that we used quite a few links to various agencies, organizations, studies, and articles.  We used these links because they provide either: objective science alone, policy positions based on good science, solid explanatory material, or illustrate examples of effective or ineffective decision making.  It doesn't mean the Potomac Highlands Watershed School advocates for a certain viewpoint, or necessarily supports their position on conservation or natural ecosystem restoration.  We include most because they do not let their personal wishes and biases obscure objective fact.  That is how all viable policy should be developed.  While we encourage students to be passionate about their POVs they must conform to objective reality.

Many students will be drawn to non-scientific, but commonly accepted “urban” legends, such as "pollution isn't a problem because it all gets diluted down stream;" and "nature always has a way of sort itself out."   Encourage students to be sure of their facts before they post their POVs.  In the TQ process students should be encouraged in the wonderful process of peer review, and should not be in the least shy in challenging the factual basis or logic in other stakeholder group’s work. 

In the TQ process it is not enough for students to be dismissive of others saying things like: "Perhaps next time you should look more into what you are typing, words don't mean anything unless you can back them up."  In writing both the POV and TQ just stating something, or challenging someone based on a belief, doesn't cut it.  In the POVs students need to support their position with facts.  And likewise in the TQs phase students need to challenge with facts. 

Some things students must consider:

1. Cost to reach the desired result;  

2. Cost of failing to reach the desired result (financial, social, health, economic, etc.);

3. Ask the question – will this really work?

4. How does their stakeholder group's position impact another's?

5. Would incremental change reach the ultimate goal, or is dramatic change needed to satisfy their POV.

Consensus

Final Consensus Plans that balance the needs of all stakeholder groups are negotiated in each classroom and posted to the web.  It is a challenge keeping students on track.  They should remain advocates for own stakeholder group at the same time they work as willing participants in a process that produces a plan that serves all of society.  Just as POVs must always be based on the facts, the class consensus must also be based in objective reality.  Students must balance economic, cultural, emotional, and intellectual considerations and produce a just policy.  There are many methods teachers can use to facilitate the consensus process, and we welcome teachers and others to send their suggestion to us at Cacapon Institute.  We suggest:  The Fishbowl;  Post A POV; and The Big Election.

Forming effective policy through a democratic process is hard stuff, but it is the stuff of their adult life.  Citizens who do not understand the stakeholder and consensus process will be handicapped in debate.  We refer you to this quote from Ted William's "Living with Wolves:"

". . . the Minnesota DNR created a "roundtable" in 1998. It worked about as well as King Arthur's. Thirty-three citizens representing every conceivable interest, notion, and superstition about wolves--from ranchers to trappers to deer hunters to environmentalists to animal-rights zealots--were instructed to hatch a plan for managing the state's wolves, a plan that would placate everyone and at the same time convince the federal government that wolves could be safely delisted. All members of the roundtable had to be in favor of the plan; one "nay" and it would be scuttled. The legislature would then ratify the plan, and the DNR would live by it. 

     The roundtable process was doomed from the start. The representative of HOWL (Help Our Wolves Live) successfully intimidated the other members into not even discussing hunting or trapping by the public. At the 59th minute of the 11th hour, all hands agreed to a plan that would do nothing to slow wolf expansion into farm country but would at least allow people to shoot wolves caught in the act of attacking their pets or livestock. All roundtable members promised to stand by the plan, including the HOWL representative, although she burst into tears and claimed she'd been bullied into signing. At least the animal-rights people kept their word. The cattlemen, on the other hand, quickly reneged, and unsuccessfully pushed their own bill, which would have cut the current wolf population in half. " Link

Fish Bowl Technique

Students are arranged in a circle and selected representatives of stakeholder groups are put forward into a smaller inner circle - the fishbowl.  The inner circle debates the issues, while the outer circle must remain silent!

The teacher, as facilitator, must ensure the wellbeing and openness of all participants.  Those on the outside must not be allowed to react or disrupt the discussion of the inner circle.  Those in the inner circle should have clear rules for discussion including respectful tones, no interrupting others, and limited time for speaking.  Suggested steps for the Fishbowl:

1. Representative student identify their group and their point of view (1-2 minutes for each student); 

2. Representatives reflects if and how others POVs impact their community.  What would be good for them, what would be harmful.  Is there any position put forward that is totally unacceptable to the stakeholders they represent? (5-10 minutes).

3. The Fishbowl reflects on what positions stakeholder share, and where there is conflict.  (5-10 minutes)

4. Fishbowl reviews discussion for misperceptions, overlooked potential, lessons learned.  (5-10 minutes)

5. Fishbowl develops consensus piece:  Begin with the shared POVs then recognize conflicts and seek acceptable solutions.  Are all stakeholders being satisfied or compensated?  Could there be another solution that is less harmful to any group but still reach the goal?  Finally, is the solution practical and acceptable to all.  (If the Fishbowl can not reach decision the representative must return to their respective stakeholder group and seek new direction until a final solution is reached.)

Post a POV!

In this discussion method student stakeholder groups use post-it notes (or similar cards) to focus thinking.  After making their POVs statement on the web and reflecting on the TQs of the Forum students are encourage to think beyond their own stakeholder group.  What are the broader social, economic, and political issues at stake.  Then:

1. Each student stakeholder group writes, on separate post-in notes, their two or three main issues.  After everyone is done, the notes are gathered together on one board.

2. Under the direction of the entire class the "main issues" are grouped into three columns:  those in agreement, those in disagreement (this is sometimes called the parking lot), and those that aren't either.

3. Setting the disagreement, or parking lot, issues aside, confirm as a class that everyone clearly understands the issues of "agreement".  Now look at the "unclear": Are these really important to a particular stakeholder group?  Why?  Are they necessary to reach the desire environmental goal?  Is the stakeholder group willing to remove or modify a position?  As post-its are modified they move to the "agreement" column (or if they can't be resolved they go to the parking lot).

4. Finally focus on the "parking lot".  Is there any issue that will never make it out?  What will happen to the stakeholder group if their issue is rejected?  Will the stakeholders compromise, can the class accept an amendment to the "disagreeable" position?  What would be the impact on the "disagreeable" stakeholder if "everyone" forced their agenda?  Does society have the right, or the means, to over rule a stakeholder group?  What is "society" overbearing reason to force their own consensus even though a stakeholder group would be harmed?  What will happen to society if that stakeholder group withholds their resources or withdraws completely?  Why can't the issue be left on the "parking lot" indefinitely? 

The Big Election

Its a big election year and the environment is important to voters.  Now that the class has investigated the issue, formed stakeholder groups, and held debate its time to come to consensus and make decisions.  Get students to focus on the key issue facing the people of the class.  This exercise can be formatted to take up a minimum of class time with students building their environmental platforms outside of class.  In the Big Election process:

1. Each stakeholder group puts forward a candidate (or groups can ban together to back mutually acceptable candidates). 

2. Candidates, supported by their stakeholders, address the class one at a time to present the solution they have come up with.  Successful candidates will clearly state their supporters stake in the environmental issue, address other stakeholders concerns, and propose the most viable solution with the least burden for everyone.  Students vote and run off elections are held to determine the top two or three candidates.

3. The leading candidates are presented to the class and each makes a brief address clarifying their position, or modifying their position to strengthen their solution.  The class is given an opportunity to question the candidates.

4. After a period of reevaluation and reflection the remaining candidates, working with their constituents, put forward a final consensus position.  The "winning" solution is carried by the majority vote of the class.

After the final election the class should reflect.  Is there any stakeholders who have been disenfranchised by the process?  Why couldn't their issues be addressed?  What is the cost to the greater society if that this group withdraws their financial or material wealth?