The deliberation I was a part of was called “Mind Over Matter: Mental Health at Penn State.” It took place on Friday, February 28th from 5-6:30. The other deliberation I attended was called “Hello, Ni Hao, Namaskaar: How do we approach language barriers in American public schools” and took place on March 3rd from 8-9:30.
In my deliberation group, I was part of team overview. I believe there was 23 people at our debate over all and for the most part it went really well. Something I think my deliberation group and the one I attended did well was creating a solid information base. Along with both issue guides having information on each approach, many people brought their own experiences into the discussion. Many people in our deliberation mentioned their good or bad experiences with CAPS and used that to support their opinions on how CAPS should change, or how other mental health services would impact students. In the other deliberation. Almost everyone that talked mentioned what their high school did in terms of teaching language and said whether or not they thought it was effective.
Something I think the deliberation about language in schools did better than my deliberation group was focusing more on the values of each approach rather than the logistics of it (prioritizing key values at stake). In the language group’s issue guide, they did not outline specific solutions, instead they had had broader approaches like having federal regulations that require schools to teach language at a certain age, or letting each school system decide how to deal with language on their own. People tended to talk more about how much they value learning a second or third language rather than question how everything would be funded.
Our group made specific solutions to the mental health problem, like privatizing CAPS, or creating graduate student therapy sessions. This resulted in our deliberation to turn to the logistics of each approach at some points rather than the values, specifically the discussion about privatizing CAPS. Many people questioned exactly how we would do that and what would happen to people that can’t afford it when really the discussion should have been more directed to if we value better mental health care even if it means a higher cost.
Another thing I think my group did really well was weighing the pros, cons, and trade-offs of each approach we discuss. We had one person from each approach focus on just the positives of each approach, and the other focus on just the negatives. This allowed us to clearly see both sides of an approach versus getting caught up on one side.
This is something that I did not see in the other deliberation I attended. In their deliberation guide they had the advantages and disadvantages listed but the discussion did not always focus on both sides. For example, when the topic came up about requiring kids to take a language at an early age, most people agreed and explained why or talked about their experience but no one said much about why we shouldn’t force kids to take a language early. Only one person mentioned was that not all schools have funding and she did not believe it would be beneficial to her town. Other than that, most of the other discussions were all for increasing language learning in schools.
Something I think neither groups really focused on was including everyone in the room. Since both deliberations had a large turn out I think it would have been very hard to make sure everyone spoke. However, I did not think either group adequately distributed speaking opportunities by calling on people who hadn’t spoken yet. They always called on the people that raised their hands, which in both cases was mostly the same group of people.
While not everyone in each deliberation talked, I think the people that did were very respectful of others opinions and ideas and if they did not agree, they said so politely and explained the reasoning for their side. They were respecting other participants. I think moderators from my group also did a good job with ensuring mutual comprehension. Many deliberators asked participants for clarification. This is an especially important thing to do during discussions about sensitive topics like mental health to make sure everyone feels comfortable and no one is offended.
Overall, I think both deliberations went really well and certain values were agreed upon at the end of the each discussion. For example, in the mental health discussion, it was clear that people value the quality of help they are receiving. In the language discussion people valued the skills learning another language teaches you, like being able to understand other cultures.
I like the way you organized this post. I was in the same group and when reading this I could easily place myself back in that room due to the details included.
Having attended both of these events, I completely agree. It seemed like the language group did not facilitate quite as much, and a lot of the commentary ended up being personal anecdotes regarding what they did in their high school.
I think having a solid information base is critical and allows for deliberation to have better success. I think the way our group set up the deliberation was clear and thus easy to follow. I also agree with the speaking part – often, few people in large groups do most of the speaking.
I had a similar experience with a deliberation that did not weigh the pros and cons well at all. They didn’t really organize them and didn’t bring them up much throughout the discussion.