Recently I listened to individuals debate an issue that I was not passionate about. That gave me the privilege to sit back and consider both sides with little personal investment. My initial thoughts were, why the fuss, but as I listened more, I heard the rationale for why people were so invested in this debate, the reasons they were advocating for one side or another. In the end, I thought, this debate is good. On both sides there is a will to do better, and on both sides there's a need to slow down the decision making to give time for all the important issues to be discussed. There's a greater chance of error with rushing ahead than with taking time to make a good decision rather than a rushed, flawed decision.
Today at PLC I'll ask my colleagues if it's worth it to engage in a debate about a schedule revision for 2019-2020. The revision is based on some small, gnawing issues related to how we use time at fifth grade. I think that we might be able to tweak the schedule in a way that buys us better time for good learning in fifth grade. I'm willing to work towards change, but I believe this change has to come from all of us, not just one. So if my colleagues decide they want to go forward with this, then I'll work with them in a systematic way to lobby for this change.
The privilege to be able to sit back and listen to a debate that you're not wholly invested in, gives you the insight, experience, and open mind to better tackle problems that you do want to solve. This is a good thing.
