The Tikkun Project
Lesson
6
How Should We Decide?
Concept
Different decision-making processes trade off speed, inclusion, and durability differently and choosing a process is itself a decision worth making thoughtfully, not by default.
Focus Question
How should our class make decisions about what kind of change we want to make and how best to accomplish it — should we strive for consensus, use simple majority, or something else?
Knowledge & Understanding Goals
Social Studies, People and Environments Strand B — The Role of Government and Responsible Citizenship, Grade 5: Evaluate different processes for group decision-making and their impact on outcomes and participants.
Language, Strand B (Oral and Non-Verbal Communication), Grade 5: Participate constructively in group discussion and consensus-building, using strategies to ensure all voices are heard.
Thinking & Learning Skills
ATL — Social Skills: Participating in and comparing two different group decision-making processes firsthand.
ATL — Thinking Skills: Evaluating a process (not just an outcome) against explicit criteria.
Learner Profile: Balanced, Communicators.
Context
This lesson has a real, live stake: the class is getting close to choosing its action plan, and needs a decision-making process for that choice and for decisions along the way once the plan is underway. Rather than discuss consensus vs. majority rule in the abstract, students experience both directly on a small real decision, then apply what they learn to Lesson 5's Haudenosaunee and Sanhedrin examples (revisited here for their decision-making process, not their titles or roles), before the class formally adopts a decision-making approach for the rest of the unit. This lesson also includes a scheduled Election Watch check-in.
Lesson Outline
POSING THE REAL QUESTION
Explain that the class is getting close to choosing its action plan, and will need to decide together — more than once, since decisions will keep coming up as the plan develops. Ask: how should we make decisions as a class? What options do we have?
EXPERIENCING TWO PROCESSES FIRSTHAND
Split the class into two halves, each given the same small, real decision to make (e.g., choosing between two options for an upcoming class activity). One half decides by simple majority vote; the other half must reach full consensus — continuing discussion until every person can genuinely live with the choice, not just until a majority is satisfied. Time both groups. Afterward, each half reports: how long did it take? Did everyone feel heard? Does the group trust the outcome? Would the outcome have been different under the other process?
CONNECTING TO SYSTEMS WE'VE ALREADY STUDIED
Revisit the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the Sanhedrin from Lesson 5 — this time focused on process rather than titles: the Confederacy's requirement of consensus across nations before a major decision is made, versus the Sanhedrin's structured debate followed by a majority vote among the 71 judges. Ask: which of our two class experiences (majority vote / consensus) does each system more closely resemble? What tradeoff is each system accepting by choosing that process?
BUILDING CRITERIA FOR A GOOD DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
As a class, generate criteria for evaluating a decision-making process itself, separate from whether we happen to like a particular outcome: how quickly can a decision be reached; are minority voices genuinely heard, not just outvoted; how durable is the outcome — do people still support it later; is the process viewed as fair by the people who didn't get their first choice.
DECIDING HOW WE'LL DECIDE
Using those criteria, the class chooses (and this choice should itself use a thoughtful process, not a snap vote) how it will make decisions about its action plan going forward — this might be simple majority for small logistical choices and consensus for the final choice of issue and action, or some other combination. Write this up as a short class decision-making charter to refer back to.
ELECTION WATCH CHECK-IN
Return to the Election Watch log from Lesson 4. Ask: has anything in the log changed how you'd rank the systems we've been comparing? Add any new entries.
Notes for Teaching and Evaluation
Live split decision-making experiment: experiencing majority vote and consensus firsthand, on a real (if small) stake, teaches the speed/inclusion tradeoff in a way an abstract discussion can't — students feel the frustration of a rushed majority vote or the friction of consensus-building rather than just hearing about it secondhand.
Deliberately reusing the Haudenosaunee and Sanhedrin examples from Lesson 5 — now through a different lens (process, not structure) — reinforces that the same case can answer different questions depending on what you're looking for in it.